- 28 Jul 2003 05:25
#19750
"When do you ask yourself, 'Maybe everyone else isn't wrong for using the definitions of words; maybe I'm wrong for making up new definitions of words and then using them as crude slurs' -TiG
I have been doing a little searching trying to find relevant articles on issues conservatives generally believe in. Unfortunately I haven't found many that satisfy me so I figured what the heck I'll sum it up myself.
To my way of thinking there is never an excuse for letting the state of a given country's military forces slide. To me this is a form of negligence that should be beyond politics, or sarcosangt, if you will. It is an attitude with potentially disatrous results for the country and its citizens.
A strong military has many direct and indirect benefits, the indirect ones in particular seem to be lost on many who would play politics with the future livlihood of a given country.
The liberal (at least in America) response to spending as much money as possible on the military ranges between the idea that this is playing pork barrel politics with the given supporters local area to the belief that a strong and well supported military encourages its use and abuse.
I see these points as being both extremely naive and extremely dangerous. To begin with there is the unescapable fact that the future is unknown. Before 9/11 it was in vogue to think that guns and by extension the military were no longer necessary as we live in a wonderful world of posies and daiseys and we all get along and we've just become too civilized to need those awful reminders of our caveman days...
I haven't seen this argument crop up since then but surely it has been properly exposed as the true folly that it is. Simply owning a gun, or in this case say a tank or bomber hardly implies it will be necessary to use. I have never understood the idea that one tank is better than two, even if the general in charge says one tank will do the job! That might be so, but two is still better.
The second point is, to me, also quite foolish. On the contrary there is no substitute for being well prepared as we cannot ever fully anticipate what is too come. I read a thread in this very forum discussing the merits of the whole world banding together to attack the US. Now this is purely a discussion but surely points to an ominous, if unlikely scenario. I think any intelligent person realizes this is remote now, but what after another 50 years of such talk? What about in 50 years when countries like China have made significant strides in their military efforts? I can write a whole thread on what-ifs if someone doubts any one particular possibility. The stronger our military the better for preserving our freedom and heritage.
I have touched on some of the direct benefits, now what about the indirect? As liberals are so fond of pointing out the military costs $$$ to properly supply, operate, and organize. Where they tend to see a sucking pit of lost investment I only see poistive cash flow, jobs, and pride in our country.
How much is a military related civilian job worth? Well lets think about that. How much does the guy in the ball bearing factory make? Well that depends on the local union, of course (
) but usually factory workers in big cities pull in at least $20 an hour, and its not hard to double or triple that with seniority and specialization. Usually it doesn't take a college degree to work in a factory either so in many ways this supports those who potentially would fall towards the bottom of the job market. Therby empowering the potentially poor.
Hundreds of Industry's support the military as well, not just the weapons manufacturers. Clothing, electronics, even food related industry is fed to a fair extent by lucrative military contracts, contrary to the sinister motives anti-military folks attribute to it, this is quite a good thing for the economy. The whole MIC (Military Industrial Complex) thing is pure rubbish to me. That is to say it's allegedly sinister motives are rubbish.
You say they manipulate a given scenario to land an unnecessary contract? I say there are no unnecessary contracts when it comes to military spending. A dollar spent is returned 5 times over even in so-called unnecessary spending. Due to the great many impacts that dollar has on all levels of society. So the owner of the company makes more money? So the fuck what? Everybody under him makes more money too.
Would you rather dump money into the NEA? (National Endowment for the Arts) That truly is a waste of money and in fact encourages entitlement, oftentimes anti-Americanism, and controversial expressions of faith? I mean taxpayers paid some guy to make a sculpture of someone pissing on Jesus for goodness sakes. I don't care what your sensibilities are taxpayers have no business paying for that. He can make it if he wants but he needs to do it on his own time not ours. Not to mention that the money first spent is now gone just to support this guy while he smokes pot and lounges around trying to come up with other ways to be needlessly shocking. Now consider that the same money spent on an extra tank just fed the guys' families who built it for another couple days, gave the soldier who drives it more training, kept the foodmaker who fed the soldier in business, and made everybody more satisfied with their country. Now that's what I call investment!
Now what about the men and women who leave the service? Many of whom have no college degree and would be looking at flipping burgers or some other such menial job. Not anymore. Time served in the military is time spent learning real world job skills that very often translate into vast amounts of ca$h once they reach the civilian job market. How's that for job training? At the very least a lowly grunt learns to pour concrete which is a bust ass job but still pays fairly well concidering.
Now what about social benefits? A liberal might say "What social benefits? You're full of shit!" Well ok, but consider how many civilains harbor some resentment toward the military...No I dont have a figure, I mean generally. Now how many of those lack any useful understanding of what the military does, how it operates and why, and its proper function according to our constitution.
Now concider how many military or ex-military feel the same way. We all know its a totally different stroy. These men and woman learn the hard way how many shitholes there are in the world. They learn how lucky we are in America. They learn firsthand that our differences are petty squabbles compared to the real hardships faced by the majority of the people in the world. So they in turn are more loyal, more loving of our country and it's people, and are generally more responsinle citizens.
Before you critisize this with the Timothy McVeigh argument take note how many McVeighs there have been...I know, there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't get around the fact that military service teaches invaluable lessons about your fellow American, be he black, white or somewhere in between. So they recieve the ever popular "diversity training" right there on the job.
Well that is the basic summary of my thoughts on this. What are your opinions? I'm sure I left out many other indirect benefits as well as some direct ones, feel free to add any. Or if you still insist on being a voice of discontent then lets hear it.
To my way of thinking there is never an excuse for letting the state of a given country's military forces slide. To me this is a form of negligence that should be beyond politics, or sarcosangt, if you will. It is an attitude with potentially disatrous results for the country and its citizens.
A strong military has many direct and indirect benefits, the indirect ones in particular seem to be lost on many who would play politics with the future livlihood of a given country.
The liberal (at least in America) response to spending as much money as possible on the military ranges between the idea that this is playing pork barrel politics with the given supporters local area to the belief that a strong and well supported military encourages its use and abuse.
I see these points as being both extremely naive and extremely dangerous. To begin with there is the unescapable fact that the future is unknown. Before 9/11 it was in vogue to think that guns and by extension the military were no longer necessary as we live in a wonderful world of posies and daiseys and we all get along and we've just become too civilized to need those awful reminders of our caveman days...
I haven't seen this argument crop up since then but surely it has been properly exposed as the true folly that it is. Simply owning a gun, or in this case say a tank or bomber hardly implies it will be necessary to use. I have never understood the idea that one tank is better than two, even if the general in charge says one tank will do the job! That might be so, but two is still better.
The second point is, to me, also quite foolish. On the contrary there is no substitute for being well prepared as we cannot ever fully anticipate what is too come. I read a thread in this very forum discussing the merits of the whole world banding together to attack the US. Now this is purely a discussion but surely points to an ominous, if unlikely scenario. I think any intelligent person realizes this is remote now, but what after another 50 years of such talk? What about in 50 years when countries like China have made significant strides in their military efforts? I can write a whole thread on what-ifs if someone doubts any one particular possibility. The stronger our military the better for preserving our freedom and heritage.
I have touched on some of the direct benefits, now what about the indirect? As liberals are so fond of pointing out the military costs $$$ to properly supply, operate, and organize. Where they tend to see a sucking pit of lost investment I only see poistive cash flow, jobs, and pride in our country.
How much is a military related civilian job worth? Well lets think about that. How much does the guy in the ball bearing factory make? Well that depends on the local union, of course (
) but usually factory workers in big cities pull in at least $20 an hour, and its not hard to double or triple that with seniority and specialization. Usually it doesn't take a college degree to work in a factory either so in many ways this supports those who potentially would fall towards the bottom of the job market. Therby empowering the potentially poor.
Hundreds of Industry's support the military as well, not just the weapons manufacturers. Clothing, electronics, even food related industry is fed to a fair extent by lucrative military contracts, contrary to the sinister motives anti-military folks attribute to it, this is quite a good thing for the economy. The whole MIC (Military Industrial Complex) thing is pure rubbish to me. That is to say it's allegedly sinister motives are rubbish.
You say they manipulate a given scenario to land an unnecessary contract? I say there are no unnecessary contracts when it comes to military spending. A dollar spent is returned 5 times over even in so-called unnecessary spending. Due to the great many impacts that dollar has on all levels of society. So the owner of the company makes more money? So the fuck what? Everybody under him makes more money too.
Would you rather dump money into the NEA? (National Endowment for the Arts) That truly is a waste of money and in fact encourages entitlement, oftentimes anti-Americanism, and controversial expressions of faith? I mean taxpayers paid some guy to make a sculpture of someone pissing on Jesus for goodness sakes. I don't care what your sensibilities are taxpayers have no business paying for that. He can make it if he wants but he needs to do it on his own time not ours. Not to mention that the money first spent is now gone just to support this guy while he smokes pot and lounges around trying to come up with other ways to be needlessly shocking. Now consider that the same money spent on an extra tank just fed the guys' families who built it for another couple days, gave the soldier who drives it more training, kept the foodmaker who fed the soldier in business, and made everybody more satisfied with their country. Now that's what I call investment!
Now what about the men and women who leave the service? Many of whom have no college degree and would be looking at flipping burgers or some other such menial job. Not anymore. Time served in the military is time spent learning real world job skills that very often translate into vast amounts of ca$h once they reach the civilian job market. How's that for job training? At the very least a lowly grunt learns to pour concrete which is a bust ass job but still pays fairly well concidering.
Now what about social benefits? A liberal might say "What social benefits? You're full of shit!" Well ok, but consider how many civilains harbor some resentment toward the military...No I dont have a figure, I mean generally. Now how many of those lack any useful understanding of what the military does, how it operates and why, and its proper function according to our constitution.
Now concider how many military or ex-military feel the same way. We all know its a totally different stroy. These men and woman learn the hard way how many shitholes there are in the world. They learn how lucky we are in America. They learn firsthand that our differences are petty squabbles compared to the real hardships faced by the majority of the people in the world. So they in turn are more loyal, more loving of our country and it's people, and are generally more responsinle citizens.
Before you critisize this with the Timothy McVeigh argument take note how many McVeighs there have been...I know, there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't get around the fact that military service teaches invaluable lessons about your fellow American, be he black, white or somewhere in between. So they recieve the ever popular "diversity training" right there on the job.
Well that is the basic summary of my thoughts on this. What are your opinions? I'm sure I left out many other indirect benefits as well as some direct ones, feel free to add any. Or if you still insist on being a voice of discontent then lets hear it.
"When do you ask yourself, 'Maybe everyone else isn't wrong for using the definitions of words; maybe I'm wrong for making up new definitions of words and then using them as crude slurs' -TiG
- By FiveofSwords
- By Potemkin
- By Puffer Fish