Obviously, I'm not going to change your opinion of the military, and you're not going to sway mine. So let's just call this sparring.

> But the concept
>>of a profession who's basic
>>purpose is to kill other
>>men when instructed, I find
>>questionable, to say the least.
>should you not shoot to kill
>that enemy when faced with
>him, he WILL kil you

That is obvious. But that has nothing to do with what I said. If you find it normal that ANYONE, ANYWHERE in the WORLD should have a job, the main purpose of which is to kill other people, well, more power to you.


>
>
>>No, but neither will they kill
>>anybody. In fact, generally they
>>enhance life.
>>
>don't you see that the military
>IS here to enhance your
>life? yours in particular? should
>you be trapped in another
>country, say, Iraq, or Iran,
>somne corn fed kid from
>Nebraska willget theorder to come
>in there, and escort you
>out...
>

actually, he won't cos I'm not American. But that is irrelevant. A problem here is that you're idolising the US army and not considering the army and soldiers from a more general view-point.
If you put me in a position where I need to be saved, then of course I will be happy to be saved. That doesn't mean I will start loving the soldierin profession. But I will love the individuals responsible for saving me.

>>That is one part of the
>>historical building of my freedom.
>>However, the army certainly did
>>not fight to end the
>>legality of slavery in the
>>French Caribbean colonies. Plus, on
>>a day-to-day basis, the police
>>assures my safety and freedom.
>
>tangent 1: had our ancestors in
>Africa been more protective and
>less civil (aka peace minded)
>there would have been no
>slavery, because we would not
>have stood for it

Had the Europeans not had powerful armies, maybe they could have set up peaceful trade arrangements. If you're going to re-write history, at least attempt to make it peaceful. I think this shows that you believe more in war than in peace (it's a common belief).

>>
>>Oh, so that's what Tianemen Square
>>was about?
>
>yes, that is exactly what Tianamen
>Square was about...a group of
>civilians wanted freedom to expressthemselves
>and a totalitarian government against
>the people was not having
>it...

So it was politicians holding those guns and driving the tanks? I thought they were soldiers. In that case, how was the army protecting freedom of speech? They weren't, they were following orders. Freedom of speech doesn't exist there, why? Because the government won't allow it. Is the army unhappy about that situation? I doubt it. What soldier is going to fight for free speech in China? The unarmed motivated civilian.


>in America you can do
>what you want to, scream,
>holler, rant and rave, burn
>the flag on the WHite
>House lawn if you want
>too...

No thanks to the Army

>go try any of the
>above in China, tell me
>the results, thats if your
>fingers work after they pull
>your nails out...

nails pulled out by the army, your defenders of free speech.

>I'm not too
>
>>sure armies insure peace.
>
>no disrespect but this is nonsense...Armies
>do insure peace, just as
>bodyguard insures his client doesn't
>become the victim of harm...c'mon
>now!
>

No, armies insure that there will continue to be instability, tension and war. It sounds silly, but it's true: without armies there wouldn't be war. As I told you before, true peace is insured by dialogue.

>>How does that sit with your
>>"burn anything public to the
>>ground sentiment?"
>>
>dont take my remarks out of
>context, i said that if
>the choice was to be
>made, i would sacrifice a
>public place before any private
>prorperty
>

this is absurd. Since you insist on using family-related examples, would you prefer that your son's (public) school burn down before any of your private property is damaged?

>should they be given the chance,
>i KNOW there are examples...when
>your lets say mother is
>murdered, by some psychopathic bastards
>like the Manson family, and
>you go berzerk and murder
>every last one of the
>those responsible...would a jury convict?
>

I should hope so. Not that I'd want to go to jail, but you can't have people going on vendettas. I'm no expert, but isn't that a great factor in crime in ghettos? And do you think that is positive?

>
>>It might be honorable, but I
>>believe that there are far
>>more honorable professions. Shit, how
>>many hours do hospital interns
>>work? How many teachers end
>>up with nervous breakdowns? They
>>might not have guns pointed
>>at them, but I still
>>find them more honorable (as
>>a profession, there are assholes
>>everywhere), far more honorable than
>>being a soldier.
>>
>do they run the risk of
>DEATH?

I see that this is your end-all and be-all. Okay, miners run great risks, many have died over a long period of time. Fuck it, the risk of death doesn't make it more honorable. The basic thing is that you're out to kill other people, and I view that as unacceptable (and I'm not just talking about the US army).

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")