This Modern Age

President Reagan on Military

with 5 comments

There are some who’ve forgotten why we have a military.  Its not to promote war; it’s to be prepared for peace.

Advertisements

Written by thismodernage

June 25, 2008 at 5:23 am

Posted in War on Terror

Tagged with ,

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It sure doesn’t seem that way right now…

    Lewis Cash

    June 29, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  2. Lewis –

    The quote seems to hold true; even today. That’s why I posted it.

    I understand that you are a “peace rally” type, but I would like to hear your arguments for how the quote isn’t true today.

    Any thoughts?

    thismodernage

    June 30, 2008 at 12:34 am

  3. Well isn’t our rampant militarism a key reason the world’s opinion of us has gone from simpathy to hate/fear since 9/11? And doesn’t that hate/fear lead people to attack us (a la 9/11, or the insurgency in iraq). I understand a military is supposed to defend the citizenry and allow for peace at home, but couldn’t it also perpetuate war (especially abroad) at the same time?

    taddelay

    July 4, 2008 at 7:38 pm

  4. Hmm… rampant militarism seems to lean toward hyperbole. At times in human history there have been civilizations that ‘rampant militarism’ would apply to. Given that, it is difficult/impossible to draw comparisons between them and the United States.

    Is some odd perception of rampant militarism the driver for the world’s opinion of the United States? Maybe. For much of the last 70 years “the world” has had one problem or another with the United States. While relationships with allies is important, operating foreign policy as though the democratic opinion of the world mattered is a terrible idea.

    Your point to leading people to attack us ‘a la 9/11′ almost undoes your argument. The World Trade Center had been attacked before, as had our overseas’ embassies, peacekeepers and the USS Cole. Each time the same group was responsible and each time we responded more legally than militarily. The terrorists were open about reading our legal methods as weakness – and a green light for more extreme and frequent attacks. Further, for all of the fear/hate of us since 9/12/01, we haven’t suffered a single attack on our own soil. Even the harshest cynic should take pause at that.

    Next, the Iraq insurgency isn’t much of a domestic insurgency. Many of the men lining up to die at the hands of the United States military are swarming in from Syria and Iran – this is well documented. A stated goal of the Iraq War is to take the fight to the enemy, rather than letting them bring it to us. That is working.

    And to any degree that the purpose of the military is to allow for peace at home, historically it has been the strong arm of justice that has secured the peace with war mongering tyrants.

    Possibly, peace is greater than justice, but justice is required to obtain peace.

    And obviously military force can perpetuate war, but you don’t believe that is one sided, do you? Maybe it is those who wake up every morning with the purpose of destroying the infidels that are perpetuating war. How would you suggest we deal with them otherwise?

    thismodernage

    July 7, 2008 at 5:51 pm

  5. i only say rampant militarism because we have more bases in more countries, invade more countries, have operations going in more countries, and kill more people from other countries than any other nation on the planet. Not to mention that we have more weapons than any nation on the planet or in world history. That’s why i use the word ‘rampant.’ If the U.S. doesn’t qualify, what would? does anyone?

    –” operating foreign policy as though the democratic opinion of the world mattered is a terrible idea.”
    I understand the idea that we shouldn’t “ask permission to defend ourselves,” but i think we consistently fail to recognize that when you’re “defense” involves getting lured into invading multiple countries, in a war that will be characterized as a religious war by that part of the world, you’re invasion/defense will create new dangers. Violence always brews more enemies… it’s just a question of does it kill more enemies than it creates. To fail to recognize that “defense” can set more peril against you is to ignore the way that humans operate.

    Ron Paul was heavily criticised after a Republican debate because he made a non-kosher, all to obvious comment on human nature: on 9/11, they attacked us because we had been over there for years. Osama bin Laden is quote as saying they had to attack us because we backed israeli attacks against muslims in lebanon. – in essense, we supported a group that binLaden sees as terrorists.

    Sure, we could buy Bush’s lines about how they just “hate us” and “hate freedom”, but that not how people work. At the end of the day, they attacked us, because we attacked them, because they attacked us, because we attacked them, because…. etc.

    And sure we haven’t had another major attack at home yet (though surely we will), but let us not forget that it’s cost at least a million lives- whom God values every bit as much as our lives.

    Historians often talk about how Violence, in some way or another, always leads to more violence. Even the most decisive defeat in WWII would leave millions upon millions dead, as well as setting a precident to employ massive violence in the future.

    And if Justice is required to obtain peace, then should we also teach kids to always hit back when they are hit? Turning the cheek eliminates the chance for justice. We teach kids to forgive when they are young, but then excuse them killing each other when they are older. And of course, if we need justice to obtain peace, i would insist that eliminates Jesus’ mission to restore all things, since forgiveness is about letting go of the justice we deserve.

    –>”military force can perpetuate war, but you don’t believe that is one sided, do you? ”
    No, certainly not. It takes two sides to fight wars. That was my point- it’s our fault too, not just theirs. We both get blame.

    –>”How would you suggest we deal with them otherwise?”
    Who is we? The U.S. or Christians? Because my my real loyalty goes to no man or arbitrary line in the sand. Maybe forgiveness or turning the cheek is the way for christians to ‘deal with them’. Maybe forgiving and loving them even if it means getting hurt is our answer. Jesus didn’t leave a lot of room for killing people. But if “we” is the U.S., then i suppose we should kill ever last one of them until everyone that has a problem with that is afraid to even look at us the wrong way.

    It would be Pax Americana, via bombing, bloodshed, and backstabbing

    taddelay

    July 8, 2008 at 6:31 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: