1. Comment #392012 by Dhamma on June 29, 2009 at 3:38 am

I agree with him. The reason I'm an outspoken atheist is BECAUSE religion is dangerous. Had it been no more dangerous than knitting, I'd just laugh at it, but since people are being murdered every day in the name of religion - I fear it.

Other Comments by Dhamma

2. Comment #392024 by AshtonBlack on June 29, 2009 at 3:47 am

"No no, it's 'cos you HATE god... etc"

I am outspoken, now too, having had my consciousness raised by people like Sam, Dan, Hitch and the good professor.

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

3. Comment #392053 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2009 at 4:33 am

See "Religions are hobbies":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm

What I am really saying that this is how we SHOULD all treat religions in order to reduce conflict. My thesis is:

"I assert that by realising that religious practices (customs and rituals) are hobbies, we have the means to analyse where the boundaries of religions' roles should be, using existing well-understood examples that successfully allow lots of disparate communities to coexist.

"It is a model for coexistence that can't be criticised as totalitarian or untried or contrary to human rights."

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

4. Comment #392057 by keddaw on June 29, 2009 at 4:36 am

I was glad he mentioned nationalism. That is the one I want to go after especially as we get round to the London Olympics and people go crazy (or Murray, the Scot, wins Wimbledon for Britain).

Nationalism is institutionally more dangerous then religion in the west. When countries/populations start believing they are special or better than other countries then we all know where that road leads. And even if you don't reach that end point you still have less empathy for suffering in other countries than your own which has to be a bad thing.

Other Comments by keddaw

5. Comment #392083 by AfraidToDie on June 29, 2009 at 5:50 am

I watch Bill Mahr "religiously" :-) He is Darwin's chihuahua, relentless attack but funny. Besides, he is the only one I know in the US who really has a weekly show who openly attacks theists. Keddaw, I believe nationalism can be healthy in much the same way as having pride in any group can be healthy as long as you don't let it be the overriding factor in important decisions or to the detriment or injustance to other groups.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

6. Comment #392107 by alabasterocean on June 29, 2009 at 7:34 am

I never believed in the super natural - And I have a hard time understanding how any sane person can, even in a context where everyone else does believe in Gods. So I turn to history, psychology and evolution. It's doesn't help much - It just shows how poorly evolved we are to appreciate reality and how much ignorance we have to endure and overcome to reach the most humble advance - less death, torture, subjugation and disputes over magic doctrines towards more democracy, secularization and easy to understand humanism. It's just beyond me. Far beyond.

Other Comments by alabasterocean

7. Comment #392127 by KRKBAB on June 29, 2009 at 8:58 am

Comment #392083 by AfraidToDie - Well, the problem is that the benign moderates enable the extremists in nationalism, just like religion.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

8. Comment #392143 by bhoytony on June 29, 2009 at 10:22 am

I've never seen the sense in nationalism. You spout about how proud you are of the achievements of other people who have nothing to do with you except that they happen to be born within a few hundred or thousand miles of you.
As Doug Stanhope said about America (and it applies to all nations), "It's just some dirt with a line drawn around it".

Other Comments by bhoytony

9. Comment #392154 by zeroangel on June 29, 2009 at 11:08 am

There are some things to be said about nationalism. In so far as it's somewhat necessary for a nation to exist when surrounded by other nations with similar nationalism. In short, a country comprised of citizens with absolutely no allegiance to their home nation won't be a sovereign state for very long.

Nationalism will only become totally obsolete when there is a true one world government. If nationalism only means “pride in the accomplishments of others that happen to be from your nation” then it’s a tad silly. If it means "a desire to protect and defend the relatively just system set up in your nation by those other people," that’s different.

Other Comments by zeroangel

10. Comment #392164 by root2squared on June 29, 2009 at 11:57 am

8. Comment #392143 by bhoytony on June 29, 2009 at 10:22 am

I've never seen the sense in nationalism. You spout about how proud you are of the achievements of other people who have nothing to do with you except that they happen to be born within a few hundred or thousand miles of you.

Spot on. Nationalism seems to me to be a sort of a medium for vicarious achievements.

I have a hunch that if there were a study done of personal achievement vs nationalism among people, an inverse proportion would be found.

Other Comments by root2squared

11. Comment #392166 by zeroangel on June 29, 2009 at 12:15 pm

R2S:

I have a hunch that if there were a study done of personal achievement vs nationalism among people

Where do you figure high ranking or professional police / military / government officials would fall on that scale? Would they be anomalies?

Other Comments by zeroangel

12. Comment #392170 by Gregg Townsend on June 29, 2009 at 12:45 pm

9. Comment #392154 by zeroangel

April (or SWMBA or ‘The Missus’) and I were discussing nationalism this week end. She summed up her thoughts (that echo your post) as "Devotion to a piece of ground is stupid, defense of a system that provides human dignity and liberty is smart."

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

13. Comment #392173 by Gregg Townsend on June 29, 2009 at 12:49 pm

10. Comment #392164 by root2squared

R2S,

My spouse is a very successful, professional public administrator who can be quite patriotic at times.

Zero,

Those people you mention aren't nationalistic by default.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

14. Comment #392175 by zeroangel on June 29, 2009 at 12:55 pm

Gregg:

Hey man. I am not sure I get your meaning. I would say it's probably possible that some high ranking police / military / government officials aren't very patriotic and would be content to do the job they do for another country. However, I would say the vast majority are proud of doing it for their own country and wouldn't dream of working for another.

Did I misunderstand you? What do you mean they aren't “nationalistic by default?”

Other Comments by zeroangel

15. Comment #392179 by root2squared on June 29, 2009 at 1:10 pm

11. Comment #392166 by zeroangel

Where do you figure high ranking or professional police / military / government officials would fall on that scale? Would they be anomalies?

When I speak of nationalistic people I mean people who use phrases like "We are number 1", "We are the greatest nation on earth", "Proud to be ", and "We are the best".

So, to answer your question, I think that you would not find that kind of nationalism among the government and to a lesser extent, the police.

The military is a special case because it is based to a very large extent, if not completely, on patriotism, which can very quickly turn into nationalism. So I would treat the military as a special case.

I am not a very big fan of the military, though I'm sure there must be a lot of good people in there. Simple because of the way the system is in most places, it is mostly poor people brainwashed into sacrificing themselves for corrupt politicians.

Other Comments by root2squared

16. Comment #392180 by root2squared on June 29, 2009 at 1:11 pm

13. Comment #392173 by Gregg Townsend

My spouse is a very successful, professional public administrator who can be quite patriotic at times.

Well, no one's perfect ;)

But seriously, see what I mean my nationalism in my previous post.

Other Comments by root2squared

17. Comment #392182 by Gregg Townsend on June 29, 2009 at 1:30 pm

zeroangel,

I would say it's probably possible that some high ranking police / military / government officials aren't very patriotic and would be content to do the job they do for another country.

That's what I meant...with the added point that such people can be dedicated to the process as it relates to making a better society. Admittedly, an uncommon outlook.

R2S,

You get to be the one who informs she-who-must-be-adored that she’s not perfect. I prefer to perpetuate the myth.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

18. Comment #392183 by RightWingAtheist on June 29, 2009 at 1:31 pm

The lack of judgment about "Judgment Day" must be kind of like how we don't work on Labor Day.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

19. Comment #392198 by AfraidToDie on June 29, 2009 at 2:34 pm

root2squared: Nationalism seems to me to be a sort of a medium for vicarious achievements.

8. Comment #392143 by bhoytony: I've never seen the sense in nationalism. You spout about how proud you are of the achievements of other people who have nothing to do with you except that they happen to be born within a few hundred or thousand miles of you.

We may need psychologists to step into this, although I know what I feel without having to know why. I am proud of the achievements of my brothers, my children, my grandchildren, my race, my fellow countrymen, and the achievement of the human race. I also at times have shame for those same groups when they do things I disagree with. I fully understand those achievements usually have nothing to do with my own actions, but those are real feelings I only can suppress by degree. Are you saying you have no personal pride in any of those groups when they achieve great or near great feats? If so, I do not believe you. I am very proud of my country’s constitution and bill of rights, and our striving to achieve lofty goals even though we continually fall short. That line in the sand that defines the boundary of my country is very important because it delineates the ideals laid out in our constitution. If you look at all the other species on the planet, I think you should be proud of the achievements of the human race. There is a chance we could destroy our planet, but there is also a chance we might be the only species capable of recognizing our impact and correcting those actions. We (not me, I know) have acquired the intelligence to escape our own planet and possibly migrate to other planets. You do not have pride in those achievements, even if you haven’t contributed directly to them? I also have pride in each of the four horsemen who represent atheists, another group I associate myself with.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

20. Comment #392205 by Gregg Townsend on June 29, 2009 at 2:49 pm

AfriadToDie,

Outside of your immediate family or extended family once removed (where you presumably have some influence) I think your pride is misplaced and possibly dangerous. Am I grateful to live in the wake of the extraordinary people that created the founding documents you mention? You bet. Proud of them?..not so much. In what way can I claim responsibility for their accomplishments? To me, this is the essence of pride.

I'm suspicious of nationalism because the boundary between one country or another is invisible, arbitrary and likely to change. Call me Pollyanna, but I'd like all of us to think of ourselves as a single species, not different nationalities.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

21. Comment #392209 by zeroangel on June 29, 2009 at 3:04 pm

R2S:

Simple because of the way the system is in most places, it is mostly poor people brainwashed into sacrificing themselves for corrupt politicians.

I am not sure I like this characterization. Would you refer to low-wage earners as “poor people brainwashed to slave away for corrupt corporate overloads?” It is a massive simplification of the demographics of the military, the concept of civilian leadership and it’s not a bit too demeaning to the individual. It’s a form of classism that basically says, “poor people are stupid.”

Other Comments by zeroangel

22. Comment #392229 by root2squared on June 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm

19. Comment #392198 by AfraidToDie

I am proud of the achievements of my brothers, my children, my grandchildren

With you upto here, if you had anything to do with their achievements.

my race, my fellow countrymen, and the achievement of the human race.

Let's see. Your race. And also, the human race? Kind of redundant to mention your race if you are also proud of the human race. Maybe you could clarify the distinction? Would you have been less proud if you had been born into another race? If not, then it means you'd be equally proud whichever race you were born into? Isn't that redundant to say then? If yes, then do you think one race is better than the other?


As for fellow countrymen, you only have to pick one bad fellow countryman and one good non countryman and say whether this general statement of yours makes any sense whatsoever.

Are you saying you have no personal pride in any of those groups when they achieve great or near great feats? If so, I do not believe you.

Of ourse not. I may admire them, I may respect them, I take no pride in others' feats though. And what do you mean you don't believe me? What special privelege do you have into others' minds?

I am very proud of my country’s constitution and bill of rights, and our striving to achieve lofty goals even though we continually fall short.

I don't know which country you are talking about, but there is not a single nation as a whole that I admire.

I think you should be proud of the achievements of the human race.

Wow! I should be proud of the moon landings, of the theory of relativity, of the discovery of evolution. Great! Why? Because I was born into the same species of which someone did something admirable. High standards for pride indeed!

Other Comments by root2squared

23. Comment #392242 by root2squared on June 29, 2009 at 4:46 pm

21. Comment #392209 by zeroangel

For civilians, it is different, because you can always change jobs. Not so in the military.

It's not that poor people are stupid, it is that they are exploited, brainwashed, and used by the rich and powerful.

Because they are poor, they do not have a good chance at success in life. Obviously, the military is then attractive as a career option, especially if the military offers incentives and financial support. And once they are in, they don't have much of a choice but to fight in the battles for the people who control the military i.e corrupt politicians and rich people.

Other Comments by root2squared

24. Comment #392271 by zeroangel on June 29, 2009 at 6:10 pm

R2S:

It is true that you sign up for a certain period of time, but you can leave the military. It just takes a bit more effort then saying "I quit" (and for good reason, otherwise as soon as war broke out you wouldn’t have an army).

If you consider military training to be “brainwashing” then I doubt you have a clue what military training involves. What ”brainwashing” do you imagine goes on in military training? What about the exploitation charge? It’s not as though people are being told they are going to be a model and end up as a prostitute. Anyone with even half a brain realizes what they are signing up for. Who are the corrupt politicians and rich people you are talking about? In the US (and many other civilized nations) the President, a civilian elected leader, is the commander-in-chief of the military. Is President Obama exploiting the poor? Is he corrupt? How? By offering incentives to join the military and then asking them to do their jobs? How is that exploitation?

If you take full advantage of incentives to join (a payment in advance) and then decline to do your job, you are in the wrong, not your employer.

You may not realize it, but your comments exhibit a kind of passive contempt for our all-volunteer military. You are basically asserting that people are willingly subjecting themselves to exploitation and brainwashing. If that isn’t calling someone stupid, I don’t know what is.

For me, the military gave me the chance to travel (sometimes to unpleasant places, but not always), gave me an education, and made me a stronger, more confident person. It certainly did not make me a blind follower of authority, quite the opposite in fact, as our high-tech modern military encourages (demands even) independent thinking.

I am glad to be out now, the military is a single man's game, it's hard on families and I have massive respect for families that can make it work. However, I am glad I was in while I was single.

Other Comments by zeroangel

25. Comment #392280 by 201curzonst on June 29, 2009 at 6:30 pm

'No one says that non-knitters are inferior or should be killed or denied membership in your country club.'

You have never attended a meeting of my mother's knitting circle. But I love the description of religion as a 'particularly nasty' method of exclusion.

Other Comments by 201curzonst

26. Comment #392283 by root2squared on June 29, 2009 at 6:35 pm

24. Comment #392271 by zeroangel

It is true that you sign up for a certain period of time, but you can leave the military.

And then do what? You are not exactly trained for civilian jobs in the military. It is very hard. Add to that the stigma associated with leaving the military, and you can see why this is very very hard to do.

If you consider military training to be “brainwashing” then I doubt you have a clue what military training involves. What ”brainwashing” do you imagine goes on in military training?

Did I say all military training is brainwashing?
But one example is glorifying things like dying for your country, and that the country is more important than your loved ones.

Edit: Note also that I had said "It's not that poor people are stupid, it is that they are exploited, brainwashed, and used by the rich and powerful." I had not said in military training. I have no idea what nationalism/patriotism is instilled in th military, so I can't comment. But I'd be surprised if there were zero attempts at indoctrination.

What about the exploitation charge? It’s not as though people are being told they are going to be a model and end up as a prostitute. Anyone with even half a brain realizes what they are signing up for. Who are the rich and powerful you are talking about? In the US (and many other civilized nations) the President, a civilian elected leader, is the commander-in-chief of the military. Is President Obama exploiting the poor? How? By offering incentives to join the military and then asking them to do their jobs? How is that exploitation?

It is exploitation if you tell them they are signing up to defend the country and then you lie to them and use them as pawns for profits, power, and waging immoral and illegal wars.

Well, Obama's only just got in, though he seems to be following in Bush's footsteps. It's a bit early to say.

But Bush did do all of that. What the people who led the Iarq war did was sacrifice the poor people so that the rich people controlling oil companies and defence manufacturing companies could make a lot of money.

Why are so many soldiers from poor backgrounds? Why are minorities over-represented? Not ony that, you even have a private mercenary army making a whole lot more money than the average US soldier.

If you take full advantage of incentives to join (a payment in advance) and then decline to do your job, you are in the wrong, not your employer.

This is no longer valid if the employer lies to you.

You may not realize it, but your comments exhibit a kind of passive contempt for our all-volunteer military. You are basically asserting that people willing subject themselves to exploitation and brainwashing, if that isn’t calling someone stupid, I don’t know what is.

You are using an emotional argument here, not a rational one or are trying to erect a strawman. This is a very common tactic. Saying that someone who is critical of the military system is insulting the military people. It was used very effectively by the Bushies.

No. Of course, people don't willingly subject themselves to exploitation. As an example, take religion. Billions of people brainwashed and exploited. Are they all willing? Of course not. Sometimes, you just have a very low chance of escaping such a system, whether it is religion, or poverty and nationalism because of your circumstances.

Other Comments by root2squared

27. Comment #392284 by cerebate on June 29, 2009 at 6:37 pm

Comment #392271 by zeroangel

It certainly did not make me a blind follower of authority, quite the opposite in fact, as our high-tech modern military encourages (demands even) independent thinking.

I'm curious as to how true this statement is and to what extent it applies. I can see that you'd be encouraged to think independently in the small, say for e.g. if caught up in crossfire. I can't see you being encouraged to think independently in the sense of disobey a General's plan if you know better. is that a fair assessment?
To me an army (assuming the purpose of the army is "a desire to protect and defend the relatively just system set up in your nation by those other people") always causes a moral problem. How do you know when yours is the just cause and what can you do if it isn't?

Other Comments by cerebate

28. Comment #392289 by zeroangel on June 29, 2009 at 7:14 pm

R2S:

And then do what?

If you were smart and proactive, you took advantage of the incentives and got yourself a college education. If not, well, there’s always the original options you passed up for the military and its incentives (which you apparently passed on).

But one example is glorifying things like dying for your country, and that the country is more important than your loved ones.

“Family comes first” is a phrase often uttered by military leadership. Now, that’s not to say that they will allow you to pass on doing your job (being a soldier) to attend to your family. However, the ways in which the military goes out of its way to accommodate and help care for families goes far beyond what is typically expected of any employer. Furthermore, I really don’t think the “dying” part is as glorified as you think it is. This is just me talking (ex-military and all) but I think you might have gotten that idea from watching movies and TV and not actually being in the military or knowing anyone that died in combat.

It is exploitation if you tell them they are signing up to defend the country and then you lie to them and use them as pawns for profits, power, and waging immoral and illegal wars.

Yah, I am not touching this one. If we are going to get into the “Zeroangel: tell us how you are not a Nazi soldier” conversation (the other thread appears to be going in that direction) I’ll politely step aside and let you guys tear apart anyone that wears a uniform. Suffice it to say, anyone with half a brain also realizes that they might end up fighting a war that they don’t completely agree with. Standing on principle and upholding the laws and the ideals of elected, civilian leadership come into play there.

Why are so many soldiers from poor backgrounds? Why are minorities over-represented?

One could probably say the same about McDonalds corporation. Are they exploiting the poor? Minorities? Are they arguably immoral?

EDIT: WRT private mercanies. Consider 1) most of them are ex-military. 2) They lack all the benefits military has (retirement, education, etc.)

This is no longer valid if the employer lies to you.

See above.

You are using an emotional argument here

Fair enough. I still think it’s accurate though. You seem to be calling soldiers hapless victims. That doesn’t demonstrate a whole lot of respect for them, atheist, left-leaning or otherwise.

Religion is a poor analogy for military service. Religion claims a whole bunch of things that can’t be verified or delivered on. The military’s incentives are easily verified. In my case, the government has now extended education benefits for vets and they will pick up part of my tab for post-graduate work, even though I am no longer in!

cerebate:

No employee has full autonomy. If you are hired to make a better widget no one is going to let you keep your job if you build anything other than a widget. As far as knowing whether my cause is the just cause: well in general, if I am on the side that doesn’t saw off civilian's heads and willfully (indeed target) blow women and children up, I think I am, in general, on the "good" (whatever the hell that means in war) side of the issue.

Other Comments by zeroangel

29. Comment #392299 by root2squared on June 29, 2009 at 7:43 pm

28. Comment #392289 by zeroangel

You keep talking about only the military and what it does while I've been talking about it in the context of nationalism and corruption and crooks in the government manipulating it to achieve their goals.

To me, this is blindingly obvious, but since you don't see it as such, there's no point us debating this.

You seem to be calling soldiers hapless victims. That doesn’t demonstrate a whole lot of respect for them, atheist, left-leaning or otherwise.

I don't see how someone being a victim of anything in any way reduces their worth.

Other Comments by root2squared

30. Comment #392301 by zeroangel on June 29, 2009 at 7:55 pm

R2S:

corruption and crooks in the government manipulating it to achieve their goals.

Is that our problem? I don't see all politicians as corrupt crooks just by virtue of being politicians, rich, or powerful. Do you? I also do not see, "nationalism" as equal to "religious tribalism" as outlined previously.

I don't see how someone being a victim of anything in any way reduces their worth.

Just being a victim doesn't. Saying that they are a willing, hapless, unwitting, and perhaps even immoral (for being a part of a war you disagree with) victims does.

Other Comments by zeroangel

31. Comment #392302 by root2squared on June 29, 2009 at 8:04 pm

30. Comment #392301 by zeroangel

I don't see all politicians as corrupt crooks just by virtue of being politicians, rich, or powerful.

Neither do I.

Just being a victim doesn't. Saying that they are a willing, hapless, unwitting, and perhaps even immoral (for being a part of a war you disagree with) victims does.

Again, I did not say that. I expressly said they were not willing.

Sorry. You are either deliberately erecting strawmen or are not understanding what I'm saying and I have no wish to keep repeating myself.

Other Comments by root2squared

32. Comment #392303 by cerebate on June 29, 2009 at 8:20 pm

No employee has full autonomy. If you are hired to make a better widget no one is going to let you keep your job if you build anything other than a widget.

I'm not sure the employee analogy works. If your saying that soldiering is like any other job where your paid a salary and the jingoistic pride, honor and defending the people doesn't come into it, then alright. Is there no difference between a soldier and a body guard or a soldier and a policeman then?

As far as knowing whether my cause is the just cause: well in general, if I am on the side that doesn’t saw off civilian's heads and willfully (indeed target) blow women and children up, I think I am, in general, on the "good" (whatever the hell that means in war) side of the issue.

A weak argument(it relies on a fairly black and white case). Who do you believe is on the just side of say an Iran/Iraq war and would your argument still apply if say you were a member of the Iraqi army?

Other Comments by cerebate

33. Comment #392304 by zeroangel on June 29, 2009 at 8:21 pm

R2S:

I know what you are saying. You are trying to claim (for a variety of socio-economic, societal reasons) that someone that signs up for an all-volunteer military is somehow "unwilling." I just reject that claim. It especially falls flat when you have generally well-off and intelligent individuals that have other options, yet join the military. These people do exist. Are those people hapless victims? Are you only devaluing those people?

I might as well claim that you are unwillingly predisposed to your own viewpoints for a variety of factors that present in your own environment. Then again, I guess that really wouldn't be false since our mindsets really are the sum of our experiences on some level. We can end here if you want. Our premises are completely different. Anything else won't produce anything.

Cerebrate:

I would say “jingoistic pride,” isn’t a term I would use. Policeman vs. soldiers, well, actually, there is a great deal of similarities. This is especially true since you will find in many reserve and national guard units a disproportioned amount of people are both soldiers and policeman. You use the term, “jingoistic pride.” I use the phrase, “desire to protect and defend a relatively just system and the nation associated with it.”

I am not a member of the Iraqi army so I really don’t have the problem of answering that question for myself. If the US military regularly used nerve gas I might have seriously considered if I am on the right side of things. In any case, I don’t think I am the one making the black and white argument. After all, I am not saying (black and white) either nationalism or patriotism is either “good” or “bad.” I accept shades of grey.

Other Comments by zeroangel

34. Comment #392309 by Michael Gray on June 29, 2009 at 8:45 pm

The day that religion becomes just another interesting personal enthusiasm, like being a Yankees fan or having a hobby like knitting, that's the day I'll stop picking on it.

It'll take one more thing than that to make me stop 'picking on it'.

When these parasitic bastards cease receiving 'no questions asked' tax concessions purely because they call themselves a religion!

(I know that this tends to be somewhat of a hobby-horse** of mine, but it is my bit of 'consciousness raising'.
When the moral crime of legally sanctioned religious tax fraud appears in the list of complaints against religion, at least above evangelists 'being annoying on TV', my work will be at an end, and I shall dismount.)

________________
** Does that make me a Hobby-horseman of the Apocalypso?

Other Comments by Michael Gray

35. Comment #392310 by cerebate on June 29, 2009 at 8:49 pm

Comment #392304 by zeroangel

I would say “jingoistic pride,” isn’t a term I would use.

And yet , it is present in most armies including the American army.

If the US military regularly used nerve gas I might seriously consider if I am on the right side of things.

But the use of the atomic bomb gets a pass? Secondly you are mixing motivations with means. Doesn't motivation factor into it at all?

Other Comments by cerebate

36. Comment #392311 by zeroangel on June 29, 2009 at 8:54 pm

cerebate:

And yet , it is present in most armies including the American army.

So is religiosity. It doesn't mean it's a requirement or necessary for the military itself to function. It's more a reflection of the society the military serves then the military itself.

But the use of the atomic bomb gets a pass?

What? Long before my time bro.

Doesn't motivation factor into it at all?

Sure it does, but I fear this is going to go down the “Zeroangel: tell us how you are not a Nazi soldier” route as mentioned earlier. I'd rather not pursue that because it will get stupid fast. In any case, like I said above, upholding the law…etc.

Other Comments by zeroangel

37. Comment #392316 by cerebate on June 29, 2009 at 9:38 pm

Comment #392311 by zeroangel

So is religiosity

Unfortunately exactly like religiosity.

What? Long before my time bro.

I knew that was coming. My point is that the US is capable and can and will use nuclear weapons (as a matter of policy).

Zeroangel: tell us how you are not a Nazi soldier

More like how do you know your on the right side, because for most people , their side is the right one. Genuinely i like finding out the motivations of people who have been soldiers because I really cant identify with them.

Other Comments by cerebate

38. Comment #392329 by Roy_H on June 29, 2009 at 11:10 pm

And people accuse Richard of being searing and strident about religion?
To everyone in The UK, if you did not already know, "Religulous " is released on July 13th here. my copy is on order .

Other Comments by Roy_H

39. Comment #392390 by zeroangel on June 30, 2009 at 4:59 am

Cerebate:

Unfortunately exactly like religiosity.

Likely you will find in the southern states that the employees of McDonalds Corporation are, in general, possessed of religiosity and jingoism. As I said before, it’s a reflection on the society and not the organization in a general sense (military or otherwise). In fact, ”jingoism” does not necessarily a better soldier make. This is especially true when one is required to deal with a multi-national force.

My point is that the US is capable and can and will use nuclear weapons

Only in a MAD situation (former USSR vs. US) or perhaps when nuclear weapons have been used against the US (North Korea launches on California). In the latter case, it’s not even certain that the US will retaliate with nukes. In any case, it’s also not my problem. I was never in the Air Force or Navy and, as such, I would never had been one to get anywhere near any big, scary-looking, red buttons. In fact, I don’t even know if they do, in fact, use red buttons, or even buttons at all.

More like how do you know your on the right side, because for most people , their side is the right one.

Well, at some point you just have to look at the facts as you see them and decide where you stand. If you decide you support the particular war effort you won’t have any issues. If you decide otherwise then you generally have to look at it as you are supporting a relatively just system and upholding the law. I imagine a defense attorney that defends a person whom he knows to be guilty of a heinous crime must experience a similar process.

Genuinely i like finding out the motivations of people who have been soldiers because I really cant identify with them.

I can only speak for myself. There were a variety of factors, most had to do with a desire to protect and defend a relatively just system, (the patriotism or nationalism I speak of and not the jingoistic version of those words) the incentives for college, and perhaps a tiny bit of family tradition (not that service was encouraged, it just wasn’t spoken ill of). My reasons won’t be the same as anyone else’s reasons though. However, I think these are common enough reasons.

Other Comments by zeroangel

40. Comment #392485 by Klaatu barada nikto on June 30, 2009 at 1:35 pm

I am a weekly viewer of Real Time on HBO. I just realized how much more I prefer Bill Maher in print.

Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto

41. Comment #392556 by StudioLegionXIIII on June 30, 2009 at 6:07 pm

Thank you - Loved the video & your comments.

Other Comments by StudioLegionXIIII

42. Comment #392587 by cerebate on June 30, 2009 at 10:40 pm

Comment #392390 by zeroangel
Ok, I understand what you are saying. However I guess I disagree with you on patriotism , nationalism (even the non - jingoistic versions) because they almost always tend to be misused. Ive always found that religion and nationalism both are used to justify some of the worst evils committed.

The other thing is , my views will be colored by what I see (and will be close to root's) because of the stories we do know of why some people become soldiers in a poor country.

Other Comments by cerebate

43. Comment #392651 by Winderer on July 1, 2009 at 4:10 am

Re: #392390 by zeroangel

A woman walks into her bedroom and unexpectedly finds her husband naked in bed with another woman. Furious, she begins to leave and her husband stops her. "I can explain," he says. "After what I saw?" she spits back to him. "Wait a minute," he says indignantly, "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

That is where I am with zeroangel's attempt to tapdance in the mud.

Take his statement:
"In fact, ”jingoism” does not necessarily a better soldier make."
So why do militaries do it? It's a rhetorical question.

"Only in a MAD situation..."
Who should I believe, zeroangel or my l eyes? The US military has researched tactical nukes. And the response by zeroangel is an entire ducking of the moral issue of having used them.

The good news - yes, your eyes are correct in detecting that zeroangel's posts lend credence to his questioners.

Other Comments by Winderer

44. Comment #392676 by zeroangel on July 1, 2009 at 6:10 am

cerebate:

Fair enough. Have a nice day.

Winderer:

So now I am analogous to a lying, cheating spouse? Unbelievable. I don't know what "militaries" do. I know what the US military does. "Jingoism" is discouraged as it creates conflicts when dealing with a multi-national force, something the US does often. "Patriotism" is a different thing.

Furthermore, tactical nukes could be used in the second scenario I spoke about WRT nukes. The one you didn't quote; good job quote-mining.

Other Comments by zeroangel

45. Comment #392960 by Ignorant Amos on July 2, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Try the British Army for size....Irish,Welsh,Scots and English Regiments in the same army....and then the Regiments mixed with all four nations, with traditions and rivalry going back hundreds of years...some laugh!!

I don't see "LOYALTY" mentioned too much above.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

46. Comment #393088 by Aquaria on July 3, 2009 at 2:36 am

And then do what? You are not exactly trained for civilian jobs in the military.

Military experience can open doors to vets that are slammed shut (if not welded shut) to non-vets. For instance, the USAF trained people to work on civilian electronic test equipment. That career field was a guaranteed ticket to a high-paying job at companies like Hewlett-Packard (don't know if the AF still has this AFSC). Any pilot lucky enough to fly the C class aircraft were shoo-ins for the airlines. At the height of the 1990 recession, I was swimming in job offers at electronic firms, and I'd only worked on comm/nav/satcom equipment.

Hell, if nothing else, you can leave the military and walk into a job at the Postal Service, as long as you apply within 120 days after your separation date. Not the greatest job in the world, but it's certainly better than working at McDonald's or the Gap. And guess what? As a vet, they can't touch you at the USPS, unless you seriously mess up. If jobs are abolished and people transferred, vets aren't. They're near the end of the line for layoffs, too.

Add to that the stigma associated with leaving the military, and you can see why this is very very hard to do.

Whether or not there's a stigma depends on how you leave. There is no stigma if you leave for humanitarian reasons, like an ailing parent or child, and this is probably the most popular out used.

The point is, you don't have to do anything terribly drastic that will affect your future.

If your saying that soldiering is like any other job where your paid a salary and the jingoistic pride, honor and defending the people doesn't come into it, then alright. Is there no difference between a soldier and a body guard or a soldier and a policeman then?

For me, as an electronics tech during peacetime, yes, my day-to-day airmanship was very much like a regular job. I worked M-F, 8 hrs/day, 40 hrs/week, hour for lunch (and I got to eat cheap at the chow hall) in a cushy climate-controlled environment. Every now and then we had the inspection teams, so that would be 12 hour days, but that never lasted more than a week, and get this--I'd get compensated for the extra hours worked with time off. I might get shipped off for a few weeks or more to another base for some training on a new piece of equipment, and that was downright cushy. Go to school at noon, get out at 6, go home (or to the dorm).

And this is different from a regular job...how? Civilian companies have overtime, civilian companies have off-site training. Hell, some of them even require workers to wear uniforms and conform to dress/hair codes.

Other Comments by Aquaria