|Who should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize....||ClydeTri|
Oct 15, 2002 11:03 AM
|It should be awarded to the many millions of men and women in the US armed forces who have fought wars all over the world against agression and tyranny. CUrrently they are stationed and risking their lives in Bosnia, Kosov, Afganistan, and other countries so that people in those countries can leave with more freedom than they had in the past. They get paid peanuts and put their lives on the line daily. It was they who helped defeat Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, and many other despots. But, it will continue to be awarded to politicians in majority. Next year I nominate for the Peace Prize: The US Military.|
|Hoo boy ! wait till czardonic gets ahold ot YOU!!||Sintesi|
Oct 15, 2002 12:46 PM
|Where is my little gentleman?|
|re: Who should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize....||ClydeTri|
Oct 15, 2002 12:49 PM
|Sorry for the misspellings..fingers dont work anymore..meant to say, countries can LIVE with more freedom|
|The military is a tool of the government||ColnagoFE|
Oct 15, 2002 1:06 PM
|They go in where diplomacy and a peaceful solution fail. I'm sure theit efforts may contribute to peace somewhere down the road, but by definition they are a war machine--not a peace machine. Not knocking the neccessity of a good military to defend our freedomd or the deterrent to war that a good military provides, but gimme a break--peace price nominees? Can you see Patton accepting that award?|
Oct 15, 2002 1:18 PM
|The military follows orders. They keep the peace where that is what they are told to do. The wreak hellish desctuction when that is the order of the day. They are a tool. Surely, it is those that wield the tool who deserve the recognition (or notoriety) for the results of their commands. The US military deserves recognition for doing their job with courage and efficiency.|
|oh, your fallacy...||ClydeTri|
Oct 15, 2002 3:22 PM
|Yes, they do follow orders..but the military men/women who go to the location, such as Kosov, to KEEP THE PEACE, lay their life on the line, risking death every day, living in mud, eating crap for food. But no, the politicians sitting in this case, Washington DC, living in nice houses, driving Mercedes, eating at five star restaurants, deserve the recognition or notoriety you say. What a warped idea that is...|
|Politicians like Geore W ?||TREKY|
Oct 15, 2002 4:17 PM
|What you fail to understand is..||Sintesi|
Oct 16, 2002 5:39 AM
|my master loves the army and all their generals but hates their evil puppet masters who actually make them do naughty things to defenseless civilians. No peace prize for them but honor and recognition with a little tear in you eye when they march past on veterans day. Maybe a medal or two but no PEACE PRIZE!!!|
|Are you telling me a general is not a politician? (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Oct 16, 2002 5:48 AM
|OK, now I have to weigh-in....||sn69|
Oct 15, 2002 5:29 PM
|First, I am a member of the US military. I'm a pilot. I've made two six month deployments in support of the UN mandated sanctions against Iraq, and I have logged combat time. Interestingly, I have also spent a great deal of underway time in support of humanitarian missions, ranging from disaster relief to humanitarian support for the southern states of Mexico. I have flown civilian search and rescue missions, and I have seen the heartbrake of dead illegal aliens in the SW desert, clinging all of their worldly belonging to their chests in their death grips, having succombed to the elements and heartless, cruel Coyotes.
My political affiliations are inconsequential. I willingly follow the orders of any commander-in-chief. I believe that public service is morally right, whether it's in the military, in the Peace Corps, as a teacher (the most noble of all callings), as a cop (like my mother), as a fireman, as a Habitat for Humanity volunteer, or simply as a good, tolerant citizen of this nation. I revere the Constitution and all the potential it stands for with religious fervor, and I also resepct it's allowance for everyone's opinion, be it Republican, Democrat, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddist, Earth-firster, Klansman, Minuteman (the right wing extremist organization, not the former 80's band), Veterans for Peace, etc.... I believe that our greatest lawman was Oliver Wendell Holmes and I have the most sincere respect for his Marketplace of Ideas Theory. I also believe that Carter is our best ex-president. (OBTW, Clyde, he was a Naval Officer too.)
I believe that humans are essentially good, but they tend to behave strangley as cultures and societies. I believe that killing is wrong. That said, there are some--many in fact--humans who are bad. There is very little that seperates the sociopathic hatred that drives the likes of Bin Laden, Hitler, Pol Pot, Tim McViegh, this jack-ass in DC, Stalin, Pinochet, Amin, Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Saddam Hussein, etc. Also, realizing it's hypocritical, I am willing to kill people like these in order to preserve the common good of humanity. I'm willing to suffer the consequences of my soul and my god. Am I equally sociopathic? Perhaps, still, I don't want anyone's liberties curtailed. I would wage war on Al Qeda, yet in victory I wouldn't force them to give up Islam. To do so would violate the principles of the Constitution.
I agree with Czar, yet I also disagree with him. The military is a tool. It's a tool of any state government in the same sense that its diplomats are. The germain issue is that the military and warfare are used when diplomacy has failed. Their use as political foriegn policy tools speak to the general barbarism of humanity on a global scale. 10000 years of societal developement and we still kill in the name of God. Somehow, I find that far more obscene than warfare for the sake of economic or territorial gain...and I find that horrific too.
The US military--your military--is not populated by blood-thirsty Rambo wannabes. We are professionals who, for various reasons, have elected to follow this path. Some find it to be a calling, others a means to an eduction, others still an escape from poverty. We undergo rigorous training, live to very high standards, and receive little financial gain in return. The reasons and motivations are endless. The common thread that I've discovered in 11 years of commissioned service is family and an inherent sense of fairness and service. We believe in the promise of freedom, yet we fervently hope that freedom can be obtained by all without ever having to use our unique "services."
And therein lies another seeming contradiciton of reality, for when we are called to action--again, by your electorate--we do so with blinding, overwhelming violence. At the end of the equation, we blow shit up and kill people. How terrible--truly. Still, if a nation commits itself to armed conflict, th
|Truncated...sorry. Here's the rest.||sn69|
Oct 15, 2002 5:32 PM
|And therein lies another seeming contradiciton of reality, for when we are called to action--again, by your electorate--we do so with blinding, overwhelming violence. At the end of the equation, we blow shit up and kill people. How terrible--truly. Still, if a nation commits itself to armed conflict, then it is a moral imperative that that nation do so without hesistation, not only for the safety of its uniformed members, but also for the sake of the country it is fighting. Get on with it, win, get it done with, and be a victor with compassion and mercy. We've seen what happens when those last two traits are left out and vengance takes the day--his name was Adolf Hitler. We've also won poorly at times, and we've lost poorly as well, although Vietnam is doing well in spite of that.
As a nation, we have a jaded history of selective enlightenment. Slavery, the oppression of this land's native peoples, the Manzanar concentration camps of WWII, our bespotted record of often supporting oppressive regimes (like the Shah), etc can easily cast dispersions on our finer, more subtle qualities. Still, when all is said and done, we will not seek to end Islam, we will not seek to enslave their peoples. If they win, will they do the same? I doubt it.
The military does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but not because of our status as tools of the government. Our very existance is a contradiciton to peace. We might fight to achieve it and we might deploy to maintain it, but we do not seek to empower it. The Nobel association has admittedly made mistakes. Just ask the families of the slain Munich athletes what they felt when Arafat won the prize. Still--and, again, politics aside--I think that Jimmy Carter is a fine recipient. His work with Habitat for Humanity alone merits the award, IMHO (OBTW, we, the military, frequently support HfH). He has taken steps to attempt to use diplomacy to give rise to peace rather than having to rely on military action to force peace. He's a pretty good candidate in a dark year of human abuses against one another.
Finally, I'm also a big fan of steel and I like Shimano just fine. I think Litespeed makes a swell bike as does Giant. Still, I think that the OCRs and TCRs are ugly. I think that Coppi and Eddie are the greatest cyclists; I think that Lance is better than Lemond; I think that Dave Scott and Mark Allen are better all-around athletes than either of the other two Americans. Shaq is a porker. Johnny Utah was an ass. Ted Williams was cool, but the concept of a Ted-cicle kinda grosses me out. Tiger might be an athlete, but golf isn't a sport. Fixes rule. Hardtails rule. Surfer-chicks rule.
But I drive a Subaru--what the hell do I know?
|Great posts! Thanks. Give Campy a try next time nm||PdxMark|
Oct 15, 2002 10:08 PM
|nice post. nm||DougSloan|
Oct 16, 2002 6:14 AM
|You da man.||Sintesi|
Oct 16, 2002 6:45 AM
|I would change my allegiences but you fail do post often enough.|
Oct 16, 2002 8:14 AM
|You should know better than to pollute this board with a well-written, well-thought-out, deeply felt piece of political analysis like this. It's ... it's ... INTOLERABLE.|
|Well said. (nm)||czardonic|
Oct 16, 2002 9:18 AM
|What the freak?!||Matno|
Oct 16, 2002 1:16 PM
|This is a NON-CYCLING discussion board! What's with all the cycling opinions?! :^) Just kidding...
One thing I feel I should point out. You said "We might fight to achieve [peace] and we might deploy to maintain it, but we do not seek to empower it." Interestingly, "empowering peace" is exactly what the UN seeks to do. The very idea of UN peacekeeping missions using military force flies in the face of the UN Charter, because they are essentially forcing peace. (It also flies in the face of our Constitution to have US military fighting under the UN flag, but that's an issue for another thread...)