First of all I believe that we have a lot in common, you and I. That might include the belief that with all its shortcomings, this country is about as good as it gets on this planet as far as individual liberties and standard of living go.
Some places in this country, yes. Other places, not so much. But you're right: about the only place I've seriously thought about going if I get chased out of this country is Costa Rica. Technically, they have a socialist government; but pragmatically, it's a fair bit less intrusive than the so-called "republic" we have here. But realistically, I think I'll probably be in prison or dead long before I have a chance to get there.
Then there is a presumed mutual love of the outdoors (I derived this from your description of your location). Oh, and then there's the interest in firearms or at least politics as it applies to their possession by an individual. I'm new here so bear with me. You seem patriotic, if not supportive.
Yes, yes, and yes. If "America" is defined as the vision of individual liberty and responsibility collectively held by our founders, then I love America. If "America" is our current government, politicians, and body of law, then I hate, fear, and despise it. I tend to choose the former definition.
You have the nuts to post your picture and your e-mail address along with your opinions.
Ah--our first point of disagreement. That picture's not me--it's just a guy I wouldn't entirely mind looking like if I were his age. I don't know him, and he doesn't know me, although I do know that the two of us are diametrically opposed on a number of important issues. But I can be reached at that e-mail address.
So when I tell you that you can't pay a soldier enough to live the lifestyle we did, I expect you not to try to counter that by saying that soldiers don't have any problem with cashing their paychecks or benefiting from any other niceties they are afforded.
I don't begrudge soldiers their salary. I do think that the US military is far too big and powerful, and as such it acts as an irresistible temptation to politicians to engage in the sort of adventurism we've seen lately. I'm not completely sure that the military belongs in the hands of the government in the first place, but if it does, I'd like to see a very, very small force that couldn't possibly invade other countries without leaving our own dangerously unprotected. But I do believe that the laborer is worthy of his hire.
These troops indeed discharge their duties in a most professional manner. This does not make them professionals, however. Most of them do not make the military a career.
It also appears as though we disagree about the meaning of the word "professional." From where I sit, if you take money in exchange for doing something, then you're a professional somethinger, at least at that moment, regardless of what your career plans are.
The lifestyle is HARSH. I don't want to go into a lot of detail because I wouldn't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that I am for one instant complaining.
I understand about the harsh lifestyle. Is it your argument that the harsh lifestyle is what makes the public support crucial?
Ever see someone burn-in from 1250 feet in the air because his parachutes failed? Yeah, I know that's why Data Programmers are smarter than Soldiers are. Anyway we regroup and drive on. Sometimes we are even called upon to fight wars.
Mmm...a hot button of some sort? Sorry.
They willingly bear nearly any burden in the effort to keep what we as a nation hold most dearly from becoming a distant memory. That would be among other things, our individual liberties, our beloved family members, and our lifestyle as Americans. The troops are at a minimum deserving of our gratitude. Even one so callous as you to their contribution should be able to understand that without their daily sacrifice, America's business conglomeration would be unable to carry out its day-to-day operations.
Some fairly significant disagreements here. I hafta scram, so I can't answer with my usual loquacity.
First: should a worker be compensated according to the value
he places on his work, or according to the value those who pay him place on his work?
Second: American troops have been able to do little or nothing to prevent our individual liberties and American lifestyle from becoming a distant memory. To do that, they would need an invader to repulse. The traditional function of modern American troops is to be sent into other countries in order to make distant memories of
other people's individual liberties and former lifestyle.
Third: please explain what the adventurous, verging on imperialist, American foreign policy has to do with free-market business; I don't understand.
Gotta go; if I have some time I'll answer the rest of your post later.
Shalom,
Barak
