Finally got to see some pictures of my brother in uniform at boot camp. MLIProud
-
Please wait a moment while your submission is processed...
Submit your own FML
-
Poll
Loading ...
Loading ...Finally got to see some pictures of my brother in uniform at boot camp. MLIProud
Patriotic Tiger 3:42 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink |
+ 1776
anonymous 4:23 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink |
how old is he? soldiers are so sexy!
anon 4:33 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink |
no, they’re mindless fascist pigs who blindly murder in the name of their governments
Anonymous 4:41 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink
troll harder
No scar 4:56 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink
Doesn’t mean that they can’t be sexy. I have plenty of friends gaga over young Stalin.
I disagree with most policies of the US Army, including the existence of the US Army, and possibly the existence of the US, but I wouldn’t say that US soldiers are mindless, nor pigs (othering and dehumanisation are ridiculous regardless of the ones at whom who they’re directed). Even Tim Wise understands this, and he can be othering as:
“But effectiveness isn’t what matters to them. What matters to them is raging against the machine for the sake of rage itself. Their message is simple: everything sucks, the earth is doomed, all cops are brutal, all soldiers are baby-killers, all people who work for corporations are evil, blah, blah, blah, right on down the line. It’s as if much of the left has become co-dependent with despondency, addicted to its own isolation, and enamored of its moral purity and unwillingness to work with mere liberals. In the name of ideological asceticism, they spurn the hard work of movement building and inspiring others to join the struggle, snicker at those foolish enough to not understand or appreciate their superior philosophical constructs, and then act shocked when their movements and groups accomplish exactly nothing. But honestly, who wants to join a movement filled with people who look down on you as a sucker?”
chief illiniwek 5:07 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink
“I disagree with… the existence of the US Army, and possibly the existence of the US”
Wtf are you, Ahmadinejad?
Anonymous 5:13 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink
“Wtf are you, Ahmadinejad?”
No, just a pseudo intellectual tool.
No scar 5:25 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink
Look, I’m English, OK? I admit it, we try to pretend we don’t care about it, but we’re still bitter over our breakup. And if we can’t have you… no-one can.
SovietSexiness 9:40 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink
Wait, are there people NOT crazy about young Stalin?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/Stalin_1902.jpg
Young Stalin 10:38 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink
That’s too funny.
11 1:24 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
The U.S. not existing is not equivalent to American people not existing, you know. Just the legal(ish) entity of the state not existing wouldn’t be too bad
@11 1:57 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
Hm, it’s people like you that make me happy that we have an army.
aikon 1:58 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
legal-ish? what does that mean? and what government would replace our current one?
11 11:33 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
Difficult questions. I say legal-ish in the sense that the legitimacy of the state is quite questionable. The state is just the legal embodiment of a nation. However, most states are illegitimate in the sense that they shackle a proportion of their population that does not wish to be associated with the state (even if it does with the nation), by strictly quashing secession. I don’t mean this, btw, in the Tea Party sense of it – those guys are hypocrites, and I’d much rather be dead in a ditch than associated with them. So, anyway, yes, states are strange because we never receive the option to a) choose which state we live in and b) choose whether we wish to be represented by a state at all. I personally believe that humans are quite capable of interacting with each other peacefully without need for the intermediate “state,” though this is, obviously, a controversial opinion. I would merely note that we do legally treat all states, regardless of whether their citizens like them, as equal: so Saudi Arabia and Iran are, legally, equivalent to the US and France. Also, the state can be taken over, for example, in a coup, by military dictators, and still be recognized as such internationally, which is again problematic.
For a more articulate discussion of the distinction between a nation and a state, please read the archetypal work by Randolph Bourne (you haven’t heard of him, most likely, because he died really young):
http://bigeye.com/warstate.htm
You’d still need a government, of course, but you can have government that just solves the collective action problem without also setting up the divisive structure of the state that demands our fealty over our responsibility to others. How would you do this practically? That would be a dissertation.
@@11: I’m glad you’re happy that we have an army. Because if you weren’t, than you’d have to admit the facts that it hires the poor to do the bidding of the rich; that the amount that is spent on the military, globally, in one year, could educate all the children in the world alive today; and that while just war is, I agree, entirely possible, that doesn’t change the fact that war is madness; I don’t think people would want to kill other people unless incited by their states.
For an interesting (albeit incomplete) discussion of the opportunity cost of war, I refer you to Mr. Kristof:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/opinion/29kristof.html?ref=nicholasdkristof
Violent non-state actor 3:11 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
“I don’t think people would want to kill other people unless incited by their states”
How do you explain this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_non-state_actor
11 5:10 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
“Violent non-state actor (VNSA) refers to any organization that uses illegal violence (i.e. force not officially approved of by the state) to reach its goals, thereby contesting the monopoly on violence of the state.”
Contesting the monopoly on violence of the state. Of course you need violence to counter it. For examples, terrorists will generally target specific countries’ people and wealth; they don’t have anything specific against the average civilian except that he represents, and is thus supposedly complicit with the actions of, that specific state. Sometimes people also, obviously, go after their own states, but here I meant war when I said violence.
Obviously, since nobody has seen a stateless world, I can’t claim any authority when speculating about what it would be like
I don't have any real answers 6:30 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
“War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means”
-Karl Von Clausewitz
I agree that the formation of polities has caused most wars, but not every war is a result of national politics. If you listen to Osama Bin Laden, you will realize that his Jihad is not specifically against the US or Britain, but against non-Muslims and the west in general. Although Al-Queda has targeted US goverment structures ( the Pentagon and various embassies), it has also attacked explicitly non-goverment targets ( Turkish synagogues, and World Trade Centers). These latter attacks can be interpeted as attacks against Judaism and usury/ other “western” business practices, respectively. In short, its an ideological war instead of a classical war between states.
11 9:19 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
True enough. But, yes, a good chunk were due to politics. As in, I guess politics and statehood is one of the things that divides us, along with religion and other ideologies, etc.
No scar 5:28 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink |
I’m not a fan of Ahmadinejad, chief, though kudos for spelling his name correctly.
If I’m a tool, at least I’m useful, dear Anon.