Bradley Manning, Nobel Peace Prize?

[Foxlike Mulder]

I did not know this but Bradley Manning, the US soldier who sent most of the controversial and inflammatory information to Wikileaks has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Manning faces not only life in prison if convicted in his current court martial case, but he could also be executed under current law. How's that for a statement on the US reputation around the world? The government locks the guy up and will possibly kill him, all while being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (posthumously?)? How about the irony from the Commander in Chief, who won the same award in 2009?

There is no question that what Bradley Manning did endangered lives. But one must ask, when facing a Catch-22, what's harder, turning on some of your brothers in arms, or trying to end the war perpetrated by the "good guy" patriarch (and thereby saving more lives in the longrun)? I know most people choose the former, but there is a growing movement, even amongst the military to end all this war-mongering. There was a sizable rally in Washington DC three days ago with active military participating in support of Ron Paul, who is quite vocal in his commitment to end all this military action. Ron Paul also has more campaign contributions from active duty military then all other candidates (including President Obama) combined.

[Moon]

Manning deserves prison time for his acts of treason, not a medal. As a veteran who also helps out his brother and sister soldiers when I can, I find Manning to be a repulsive human being for what he did.

[Pons Asinorum]

Yeah, I'm not seeing it either Fox:

Mr. Manning took an oath and then broke it (allegedly).

He did nothing to shorten the war (factually).

He tried to make it more dangerous for our troops and in whatever successes he may have had, he may have prevented some of them from returning home, forever (sadly).

If his broken oath is ever linked to the death or maiming of even a single US troop, the death penalty is not only warranted, it is a moral necessity.


--


In recent times, the Nobel peace prize has been given to an anti-Semite (Mr. Carter), a terrorist (Mr. Arafat), and an anti-climate propagandist (Mr. Gore) -- dishonorable men all. Manning will fit right-in.

Nobel Peace Prize Jury Under Investigation

[Foxlike Mulder]

The Manning/Nobel Prize scenario is not a simple black and white issue. I also see it as symbolic of a very big problem for this country. I agree that Manning's actions put lives in danger. I would not do what he did. I also believe he should not get a Nobel Peace Prize for his actions. However, I understand the reasoning behind his endeavors. What I see is a response to a bully that when backed up against the wall with no weapon available, that person will do whatever is necessary in order to escape or survive. Manning’s actions were an overly drastic response to a problem that does need immediate attention. I am suggesting that while Manning's actions were wrong, there are other wrongs in play here that also need our focus.

Whether Manning is awarded the prize or not is not my primary point. I do not have an opinion about the prize(s) in general, but I do know that many around the world hold the prizes in high regard, especially the Peace Prize. My focal point is the deepening concern many have around the world with regard to our aggressive military force in the Middle East. To me this is less about the prize and more about the statement that the world wants us to stop pushing our weight around.

Behind these cushy walls of America, we are fed words and images which are carefully framed to help shape our opinion on world matters. The ubiquitous 24/7 media coverage is supplemented with "popular opinion" and a biased yet subtly manipulative educational system which gives us a poor perspective of how this nation truly acts and how it is perceived around the rest of the world. The Manning situation (to me) exemplifies this problem. As an aside, my 8th grade daughter told me this afternoon they just watched a movie about terrorism in America. Huh??? I am looking into that one.

We can't go steam rolling into country after country in the name of "liberation against tyranny" when we are regarded as fascists, not saviors (see recent comments by Ron Paul). In fact, we see little of the aftermath because we're already onto the next thing (Syria and Iran). But take a look at Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan (to name a few)...it's all a mess. We incited (or at least encouraged) regime change and in 3 of those 4 named countries, we left in chaos with no leader in place. And to boot, we urinate on dead people and burn their holiest of texts...not what I call actions of the men in white hats. It's ugly and the world sees it, unfortunately, we have blinders on.

Ultimately, even with what I write above, we are not the only "bad guy". There are other forces of negativity which compound the problem(s), but we are nowhere near being part of the solution. Until our duplicitous motives are exposed for what they are, we'll continue along the destructive path we're on. Not until the true spirit of this nation rises will we see the men in white hats again. I believe Manning's actions were in the spirit of standing up against what is wrong in this country, it's just his actions were plain wrong.

[Moon]

Those men go overseas and spend several months together. The eat, sleep, sh!t and shower together. They are closer than most brothers ever are. Those who have never served in the military will never understand the bond of brotherhood it creates.

Manning broke this bond and is not to be given a medal for it. I don't even want him executed as it would waste a bullet. Why not let his former military comrades spend a day with him instead.

You don't need to say alleged with this case as he has admitted it. He also cried to the media claiming he is not being treated nicely. He has no sympathy from me for his actions.

Go to a parent who has lost their child overseas to the war. Go tell them what a hero Manning is. I am thinking you are going to need running shoes.

[Foxlike Mulder]

Those men go overseas and spend several months together. The eat, sleep, sh!t and shower together. They are closer than most brothers ever are. Those who have never served in the military will never understand the bond of brotherhood it creates.

Manning broke this bond and is not to be given a medal for it. I don't even want him executed as it would waste a bullet. Why not let his former military comrades spend a day with him instead.

You don't need to say alleged with this case as he has admitted it. He also cried to the media claiming he is not being treated nicely. He has no sympathy from me for his actions.

Go to a parent who has lost their child overseas to the war. Go tell them what a hero Manning is. I am thinking you are going to need running shoes.

I believe you missed my point. I also never called Manning a hero, nor implied he was. In fact, I said he was wrong. I'd like to direct conversation toward what I feel is the greater issue at hand.

[Pons Asinorum]

Not until the true spirit of this nation rises will we see the men in white hats again.

There are no white hats, Fox, never have been; only grey and dark.

Not until the true spirit of this nation rises will we see the men in white hats again. I believe Manning's actions were in the spirit of standing up against what is wrong in this country, it's just his actions were plain wrong.

We are most definitely going to disagree here Fox (I still think you are pretty cool though ).

Mr. Manning took an oath, then he broke it. In my most humble opinion, a man that gives his most sacred Word of Honor (raises his right hand and voluntarily gives his oath in ceremony and in the presence of others giving the same Oath) and then breaks it has no spirit, no cause, and no reason to live (it's a philosophy thingy for me).

IMO, I do not think he did anything noble (symbolic or otherwise), and if that was his intent, then his actions failed miserably.

He could have written a book, run for congress, become a teacher (three of my fellow veterans whom I know personally did exactly that: they all became history teachers), become a peace activist, work hard and become a general officer -- all kinds of ways he could have used his knowledge and experience in order to do whatever good it is you are giving him credit for. He choose to break his oath.

In short, I only see him as a bad guy doing a bad thing and not as a bad guy doing a good thing, nor do I see a symbolic gesture that somehow relates to addressing all the flaws of our nation.

(For the record Fox, I think on my best day, you are way smarter than me. Maybe I cannot see the forest for the tree -- no way can I see beyond Manning breaking his Oath, I'm just not built that way -- but regarding your larger point, I think even here, Manning is getting way to much credit.)

[Foxlike Mulder]

Not until the true spirit of this nation rises will we see the men in white hats again.

There are no white hats, Fox, never have been; only grey and dark.

Not until the true spirit of this nation rises will we see the men in white hats again. I believe Manning's actions were in the spirit of standing up against what is wrong in this country, it's just his actions were plain wrong.

We are most definitely going to disagree here Fox (I still think you are pretty cool though ).

Mr. Manning took an oath, then he broke it. In my most humble opinion, a man that gives his most sacred Word of Honor (raises his right hand and voluntarily gives his oath in ceremony and in the presence of others giving the same Oath) and then breaks it has no spirit, no cause, and no reason to live (it's a philosophy thingy for me).

IMO, I do not think he did anything noble (symbolic or otherwise), and if that was his intent, then his actions failed miserably.

He could have written a book, run for congress, become a teacher (three of my fellow veterans whom I know personally did exactly that: they all became history teachers), become a peace activist, work hard and become a general officer -- all kinds of ways he could have used his knowledge and experience in order to do whatever good it is you are giving him credit for. He choose to break his oath.

In short, I only see him as a bad guy doing a bad thing and not as a bad guy doing a good thing, nor do I see a symbolic gesture that somehow relates to addressing all the flaws of our nation.

(For the record Fox, I think on my best day, you are way smarter than me. Maybe I cannot see the forest for the tree -- no way can I see beyond Manning breaking his Oath, I'm just not built that way -- but regarding your larger point, I think even here, Manning is getting way to much credit.)

Pons you're cool in my book too. Thanks. But I don't agree whatsoever about the smarts!

You hit the nail on the head with the forest/tree bit though...I really think it's a perspective issue. Both you and Mercury are focused on Manning and I'm not. He's only a reference point. I lived out of the country for 5 years (and visited 30+ other countries) and in that time, I was able to expand my perspective on nations and people in general. With this issue, people in this country are solely focused on the act Manning committed. Yes, it's bad! (Agreed, no credit to Manning.) But that's not it, not by a long shot. I believe The Powers That Be are happy for you to set your sights on the betrayal, and not what's being exposed...which are all the lies hidden in the weeds. In addition, they don't want us to pay attention to the other explanations, the other viewpoints which expose that duplicity I spoke of above. Again, we’ve all been conditioned, trained, brainwashed, whatever you want to call it, to react with blind patriotism. To me, this is an artificial human response. The ideals of patriotism are extremely subjective and not part of human instinct. To touch upon a previous conversation in another thread, I have asked, where does all this lead, or evolve? It makes no sense to me that if we humans are evolving, that we are going to be tied to the boundaries of nations. Another thought on patriotism and following through on orders (and oath): I am assuming you’re familiar with A Few Good Men? In the end, aren’t we left with the ideal that maybe there is a need to think for oneself and to ultimately do the right human thing, not what you are ordered to do? Another (juxtaposed) moral imperative? Please don’t tie this to Manning and his actions, but to the concept there may be more than one wrong in a situation, especially with the case I speak of. That is, the American government is hiding secrets and dangerous agendas that are transparent to people outside this country, but not inside the walls because of our highly conditioned, patriotic reference point.

[Pons Asinorum]

Both you and Mercury are focused on Manning and I'm not.

Uh, well you did create and name your post: Bradley Manning, Nobel Peace Prize? .

I believe The Powers That Be are happy for you to set your sights on the betrayal, and not what's being exposed...which are all the lies hidden in the weeds. In addition, they don't want us to pay attention to the other explanations, the other viewpoints which expose that duplicity I spoke of above.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe they have put one over you?

Since we are getting all paranoid, consider that a PFC would have access to hundreds of thousand of secrets (a PFC is the third lowest rank from the bottom in the military).

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but it would not be wise to use such a timepiece in our daily lives. That there are hidden agendas in the government is no secret; quite frankly, those secrets are increasingly becoming overt, long before he broke his Oath.

The ideals of patriotism are extremely subjective and not part of human instinct.

Ever root for a football team, join a forum, fight for a family member, have a block party, join a movement (like AAT), put up a fence, put on a Ford bumper sticker on your car, cheer for your high school, support a political party, defend your friends...

Territorialism is a natural instinct, especially for social mammals. That it manifests itself in patriotism for an intelligent species is in accord with our ability to live together in vast numbers and groups.

Patriotism is a term used to describe that aspect of our nature when speaking about nations. It is neither good nor bad (just like guns).

--

Fox, perhaps there is too much emphasis on what others say about us. There is no perfect nation, including and especially those that are our biggest critics.

We are not perfect (shocker), our enemies will curse us (double shocker), our friends will sometimes join in that refrain (what, not the French), but more come to our shores than any other.

Strange is it not, that the poorest of the poor and most oppressed of the oppressed come to our shores, even as their "betters" mock our mistakes, laugh at our admissions, and rail against our "hidden agendas".

Guess they did not get the memo.

We can't go steam rolling into country after country in the name of "liberation against tyranny" when we are regarded as fascists, not saviors (see recent comments by Ron Paul). In fact, we see little of the aftermath because we're already onto the next thing (Syria and Iran). But take a look at Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan (to name a few)...it's all a mess. We incited (or at least encouraged) regime change and in 3 of those 4 named countries, we left in chaos with no leader in place. And to boot, we urinate on dead people and burn their holiest of texts...not what I call actions of the men in white hats. It's ugly and the world sees it, unfortunately, we have blinders on.

It is called war, and there are no such things as white hats. (Re what a few exhausted men in the field did: note they did not kill a single human being, but rather committed symbolic acts of barbarity. Now note what the enemy has done in return -- they have slaughtered human beings, they have committed actual acts of barbarity.)

Another (juxtaposed) moral imperative? Please don’t tie this to Manning and his actions, but to the concept there may be more than one wrong in a situation, especially with the case I speak of. That is, the American government is hiding secrets and dangerous agendas that are transparent to people outside this country, but not inside the walls because of our highly conditioned, patriotic reference point.

Of course there is more than a single wrong here, but where I disagree is that IMO the agendas are transparent, period. I think they are only hidden to the foolish and many abroad have been played (especially those yelling the most that they "know" things). This is exactly the Enemy I speak of (and note their use of ignorance as a weapon) , but respectfully, I do on think you get it Fox (my bad, as my writing skills have fallen well short of the mark).

My try:

We will always be despised by our Enemy, there is absolutism ZERO possibility of peace. They will never say good things about us, they will never embrace us as friends or even acknowledge us as benign strangers. They will always oppose us.

Why, becasue we think:

• stonning women for adultery is wrong
• kids should be allowed to fly kites
• girls should be taught how to read
• men should be allowed to shave, if they so desire

Our Enemy disagrees and since both ways of life are mutually exclusive, we are in a fight for our survival.

(Oh, the Enemy I speak if is quite internal and external).

That is the nature of the world and so many of our countrymen have not clue one. We are so spoiled and protected, we are so wealthy and prosperous -- we have no clue as to the true nature of hunger and power (the relationships of poverty, collectivism, hopelessness and peasantry).

The United States is not an inevitable entity -- that we even manged to form a genuine constitutional government; that we were able to federalize power rather than centralize it; that a human being was recognized as having Rights and then codifying those Rights into the heart of our laws; that a Civil War was fought not to keep slavery, but to reject it -- these things should not have had a chance of succeeding, yet here we are: and more people still come to our shores in numbers that no other nation on Earth can come close.

Neither are we invincible (as shown above).


We are not the problem, rather we are fighting the problem -- and we have no choice. The problem will not stay away from our b0rders (you are a smart man Fox, you are knowledgeable and you know about WWII. Those lessons were hard-earned and are still valid today, even more so).

Fighting sucks, but we will either fight or perish, there is no middle ground. If we choose to equivocate, then we lose for certain. Then the lights will go out for a long, long time. Then we will know the true nature of hunger and power again, and I'm betting that we will not like it.

--

Human history is long and dark; I think you know this to be true Fox. It is occasionally punctuated by the bright flames of rare enlightened civilizations, but they never last. As they are extinguished by the Enemy (internal and external), all they can do is send a spark or two forward into the future, in the belief that maybe Hope will be reborn anew.

Today, we fight that same Enemy for the exact same reasons (today, they are winning, as their biggest weapon is ignorance and they have wielded it quiet skillfully, here and abroad).

If we perish, maybe we can send some of our best ideals into the future, to seed a new enlighten civilization.

If we succeed, maybe the world will light-up, as the last remnants of darkness recede into shadow.

[Moon]

Giving classified papers out to be leaked which can cause severe danger to men and women in uniform is wrong. It does not matter how one feels about wars in general, but about the safety of our troops.

I know many veterans who have served in combat and are for peace. They are some of the most anti-war people you would ever meet. But they would agree that these actions are not good at all.

The Title of the thread says it all in my book.

(Yes, this is a hot button issue for me!)

[Foxlike Mulder]

Pons and Mercury, I wish I could have replied a little sooner, but we had friends staying with us this weekend, plus a snowstorm, so I have been tied up. I even missed the Greys episode…and still haven’t seen it! I should state this before anything: I really appreciate the feedback and exchanges I get from the both of you, and many others here, especially in the Political blog. I haven’t had this much fun on the internet since I started working in the business back in 1995.

Pons, you have presented your side with conviction and eloquence; your conclusion is also quite poetic. You’re a tough act to follow! I will respond to some of the comments below, but at this point, I think it’s clear we have fairly dramatic differences on this topic.

Uh, well you did create and name your post: Bradley Manning, Nobel Peace Prize?

I did. In the title is a question mark at the end. This was meant to provoke debate, which I believe was successful. I concede failure in my title choice as it placed too much emphasis on Manning when I had intended a broader scope of discussion. In my three previous posts, including the first, I state that Manning was not my focal point (emphatically in the second and third posts). I was more interested in the growing world opinion about our country’s hypocritical foreign policy and military agenda. To me, the Nobel Peace Prize nomination is simply symbolic of that concern.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe they have put one over you?

I hope my comment (above) was not taken as a condescending one; it was not intended to be so. As for considering the possibility of who is pulling what wool over whose eyes? Well, I can’t possibly say I know the truth. All I can do is absorb as much information on any one subject, including both subjective and objective viewpoints, from media sources within and outside the US, and then form an opinion. An opinion can be an informed one or not; in the end, it is just one of many probably carrying no greater weight than the next (unless you’re published!). I will state though, I have nothing to gain, nor will I glean any good feeling from forming such a negative opinion about our country. I will also state I was not always on this side. I spent many years listening to the other side from friends and colleagues in our NATO alliance countries (UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Canada, and others…please remember, I lived and worked in all of these places), and I finally started to see things a little differently.

Ever root for a football team, join a forum, fight for a family member, have a block party, join a movement (like AAT), put up a fence, put on a Ford bumper sticker on your car, cheer for your high school, support a political party, defend your friends...

Territorialism is a natural instinct, especially for social mammals. That it manifests itself in patriotism for an intelligent species is in accord with our ability to live together in vast numbers and groups.

Patriotism is a term used to describe that aspect of our nature when speaking about nations. It is neither good nor bad (just like guns).

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no, no, yes, no, yes…Territorialism is natural. Patriotism, IMO, is a gross manifestation of that instinct; and IMO, learned behavior. We definitely don’t need Patriotism in order to live together, especially peacefully. The fact we live in vast numbers is a challenge, but intelligent people can be manage this without Patriotism. An underlying thought here: I have been a big Washington Redskin fan (along with the Patriots) for most of my life. When Dan Snyder took over as owner of the Redskins, I began to feel less attached to the team due to his style, attitude and the fact he sued season ticket holders because they gave up their tickets and turned in their seat licenses during the recession. My loyalty to the Redskins still exists, but as long as Snyder is owner, I do not feel the same toward the team. My allegiance comes with a set of beliefs that either draws me closer or pushes me away. Patriotism in this case, IMO, not only attempts to override those instinctive beliefs, it instils a primary set used as a compass by which all other beliefs are formed and judged.

Fox, perhaps there is too much emphasis on what others say about us. There is no perfect nation, including and especially those that are our biggest critics.

We are not perfect (shocker), our enemies will curse us (double shocker), our friends will sometimes join in that refrain (what, not the French), but more come to our shores than any other.

Strange is it not, that the poorest of the poor and most oppressed of the oppressed come to our shores, even as their "betters" mock our mistakes, laugh at our admissions, and rail against our "hidden agendas".

Guess they did not get the memo.

I am not sure I agree with the take here. First, I am not focused on opinions from our enemies (assuming this means the obvious); I do pay attention to what people in those aforementioned NATO countries say, as well as the Chinese and Russians. We should all pay attention to what they say lately, not because they’re right, but because it will help us understand why we’re so close to war. In terms of immigration, yes, we do get a lot of poor, uneducated people still coming to our shores…they get the memo that America is the land of riches. And in their case, it probably is, as we will give them a menial job that no other American wants to perform. It also pays far more than what they could earn at home. Their needs fit ours, which is why I believe we have not moved to a more aggressive immigration policy. It’s easy to see the shininess of America. It takes more effort to uncover the rust, broken pipes and black mold lurking in the basement. I will come back to this, but yes, this is a great country and it’s hard to speak of the weaknesses when there are still many good parts to be proud of.

It is called war, and there are no such things as white hats. (Re what a few exhausted men in the field did: note they did not kill a single human being, but rather committed symbolic acts of barbarity.

Not true. Here are just a few examples (below). Both US military and private US operations (Blackwater) have been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, and not just the accidental ones by drone bombings. There are many accounts online that describe in brutal detail the barbaric nature of our soldiers in this on-going war to stop terrorism and tyranny. War is awful yes, but knowing that men are pushed to the edge (and over) in these situations, shouldn’t we learn for these mistakes (Vietnam) and take corrective action? Maybe even address the shouts to end the war? At this point, many (if not most) people in Afghanistan, Iraq, et al won’t remember the freedom efforts, but instead, they will never forget the American atrocities inflicted upon them in their backyards.
I firmly believe these wars in the Middle East are unnecessary. We are programmed to live in fear of the potential threat from these terrorist groups, and as such, we accept “by whatever means necessary” in order to be safe. I’d rather close our border to all immigration (say 50 years) than to fight another day of war. And again, I ask, is this all in the name of protection, or is there a beast (the military industrial complex) that needs to eat?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=24460
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUG-SEUVNTQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0QYoGyn ... re=related

Of course there is more than a single wrong here, but where I disagree is that IMO the agendas are transparent, period. I think they are only hidden to the foolish and many abroad have been played (especially those yelling the most that they "know" things). This is exactly the Enemy I speak of (and note their use of ignorance as a weapon) , but respectfully, I do on think you get it Fox (my bad, as my writing skills have fallen well short of the mark).

I try not to claim I know anything. However, I do research quite a bit, and often from multiple sources, including ones with virtually no agenda, except that of peace. I can certainly ascertain when a viewpoint is manipulative or whether it’s core message emanates from an objective reference point. I also understand all too well there is no black and white, but many shades of grey in between. However, my best response is not in deciphering words from friend or foe, whoever they may be, but in the exposure of actions from our government, which are clearly duplicitous (at least maybe to some).

We will always be despised by our Enemy, there is absolutism ZERO possibility of peace. They will never say good things about us, they will never embrace us as friends or even acknowledge us as benign strangers. They will always oppose us.

Agreed, but not just for our reasons. As noted above, we have done onto them more than enough to wage war for generations. Another side note: My sister lived in Amman and Ankara for a total of 8 years. She witnessed first-hand how women were treated; yet, she came away from her experience living in the Middle East not with patriotism but with sympathy for the Palestinians and others who have been maligned in our culture for generations. There seems to be another side of the story.

Our Enemy disagrees and since both ways of life are mutually exclusive, we are in a fight for our survival.

I would like to offer we can live in peace separately (on relative opposite sides of the earth).

We are not the problem, rather we are fighting the problem -- and we have no choice.

Fighting sucks, but we will either fight or perish, there is no middle ground. If we choose to equivocate, then we lose for certain. Then the lights will go out for a long, long time. Then we will know the true nature of hunger and power again, and I'm betting that we will not like it.

I do think there are not only choices, but better ones. Just one: remove all troops systematically over the next 6 months. Close all immigration for the next 20 years, then re-evaluate. Don’t allow anyone in the country who even remotely looks like a terrorist threat, and yes, “profile” these people. It’s politically insensitive but it’s a start, and better than what we’re doing. And less people die.

Human history is long and dark; I think you know this to be true Fox. It is occasionally punctuated by the bright flames of rare enlightened civilizations, but they never last. As they are extinguished by the Enemy (internal and external), all they can do is send a spark or two forward into the future, in the belief that maybe Hope will be reborn anew.

Today, we fight that same Enemy for the exact same reasons (today, they are winning, as their biggest weapon is ignorance and they have wielded it quiet skillfully, here and abroad).

If we perish, maybe we can send some of our best ideals into the future, to seed a new enlighten civilization.

If we succeed, maybe the world will light-up, as the last remnants of darkness recede into shadow.

Again, well put.

There is an enemy that uses ignorance as a weapon, but I am not sure if we agree on who exactly that enemy is. And I am not stating that the enemy is our government. I do believe however, there is representation for that enemy within our government and that is why we see the hypocrisy. We need to fight the enemy within, and return the country to the people.

Giving classified papers out to be leaked which can cause severe danger to men and women in uniform is wrong. It does not matter how one feels about wars in general, but about the safety of our troops.

I know many veterans who have served in combat and are for peace. They are some of the most anti-war people you would ever meet. But they would agree that these actions are not good at all.

The Title of the thread says it all in my book.

(Yes, this is a hot button issue for me!)

Mercury, yes, I clearly see this as a hot topic for you; there have been a couple recently. In the year or so I have had exchanges with you, I have recognized there are some issues which you stand firm on, and some that over time, you come to realize there are other pieces to the puzzle. I hope you can review my posts again and understand this is not about Manning, but about a larger issue. There is substantial weight in all of these posts which indicate another focal point which I hope you’ll examine. In either case, I mean no disrespect to your military experience as I know this is tremendously important to you. I admire your conviction too and hope we can continue these lively debates.

[Pons Asinorum]

Interesting Fox (and I have learned to expect nothing less from you), but I think we are in considerable disagreement. We are also, all over the map .

What follows is, of course, IMHO only.

Re War:
The reasons for war are not the same as the causes for war. The causes for war are not the same as fighting a war.

Re atrocities:
Not murdering human beings (ie, urinating on dead bodies, or burning books) is not the same as murdering human beings (there is no parity).

Re Patriotism:
Patriotism is neither good nor bad, but it can be used for good or bad (a good analogy is a loaded pistol).

Re fighting a war:
No such thing as white hats in a war, only imperfect men made of clay asked to do something almost impossible and often presented with situations that have no "right" decision (this is something I would not expect most to understand, so I will not belabor it further).

Re immigration:
As a practical matter, preventing immigration rather than fight war will prevent neither, but you probably know that, so examining your larger, theoretical point:

People come here for different reasons, but for sure, most come here to make money, which begs the question: why -- why could they not do the same thing in their home countries(?), especially given how "horrible" the US is.

The question is rhetorical, becasue we both already know why (you are a smart guy Fox, so go to the core, fundamental reason). You may also want to research where the colloquialism making money came from. It is a fascinating and utterly illuminating piece of history.

Preventing immigration is not the same as security, which is not the same as peace.

Re a perfect place:
No such thing as utopia/paradise on the Earth and no human societal construct is going to change that -- from tyrannical to anarchical and everything in between -- but we can find an optimal position and for those that seek such a place, we have formed such a country (if we can keep it -- apologies to B. Franklin ).

Re the Enemy:
Maybe the most we disagree on is the nature of the Enemy, as you suggest.

I see an Enemy that is multifaceted with only a few genuine axes, among which are those that seek to empower the banks and corporations over our lives as a means to restore centralized power.

In other words, I do not see the banks and corporations as the enemy, rather I see them as levers used by the Enemy to force people to cede more control over their own lives, families, children -- to increasingly erode the codification of our Rights in the Constitution and return to the old world order (aka: the new world order).

Re something that really disturbs me and maybe you can help me correct my misunderstanding:

Both US military and private US operations (Blackwater) have been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, and not just the accidental ones by drone bombings.

The US military has not murdered thousand of civilians and any implication to the contrary is my own misunderstanding regarding your statement, is that correct?

[Foxlike Mulder]

Interesting Fox (and I have learned to expect nothing less from you), but I think we are in considerable disagreement. We are also, all over the map .

Yes, all over the place...this kind of discussion is best done over a meal or coffee...by the way, fixing the world is hard work!

Re the Enemy:
Maybe the most we disagree on is the nature of the Enemy, as you suggest.

I see an Enemy that is multifaceted with only a few genuine axes, among which are those that seek to empower the banks and corporations over our lives as a means to restore centralized power.

In other words, I do not see the banks and corporations as the enemy, rather I see them as levers used by the Enemy to force people to cede more control over their own lives, families, children -- to increasingly erode the codification of our Rights in the Constitution and return to the old world order (aka: the new world order).

Hmmm, maybe we're both missing something, because this is what I think. I'd love to dig deeper here, but not in this thread...I'm very curious to hear more on your thoughts as some of your previous posts have greater clarity to me now.

Re something that really disturbs me and maybe you can help me correct my misunderstanding:

Both US military and private US operations (Blackwater) have been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, and not just the accidental ones by drone bombings.

The US military has not murdered thousand of civilians and any implication to the contrary is my own misunderstanding regarding your statement, is that correct?

I edited this post to add in more information on civilian deaths.

I have seen several sources which implicate the US in thousands of civilian deaths, yes. I have also seen several testimonial accounts online from soldiers who have committed crimes. Here are some sources below. The drone bombings are a big source of this problem. Take it FWIW, I do have some interesting military connections and not that I'm exposed to a bunch (or any) classified info, but with informal conversations, from two different people, I have been told that drone operations have lots of mistakes. That one aside, there are still other deaths attributed to soldiers gone mad; which is not unlike what happened in Vietnam. I think it's a combination of error, carelessness and even in some instances plain malice (Blackwater is a good example). In the end, it doesn't matter to most of the civilian population as they see death and Americans as synonymous.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/r ... leases/12/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-04/a ... 11/3811850

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/a ... lian-casua

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/busi ... index.html

[Moon]

There is a reality outside of the USA very few here are aware of. They get all of their information from opinionated fringe sites that do not really analyze what is going on or the history behind it. The main reason is because it is complicated. We are so used to 30 second soundbites to explain everything going on that we zap the channels when someone actually decides to answer a question.

We have people running for the highest office of the land just throwing red meat to their constituents and giving one minute answers to complex problems. There is no debates anymore, just name calling. If a candidate actually spent a good 15 minutes discussing a complex issue, he or she would never make it in today's world of politics.

The Middle East is one of the most complex issues we have going on. It is not that simple to just go to war or drop a nuke on them. The ones who say it are doing so to get a quick vote.

We have no understanding of their thought processes and the levels of poverty there. We only see some ads with late Pernell Roberts telling us to give money so we don't have to look at them again.

Military life is also complex and there are a few bad elements in it like all of society. We condemn an entire peoples for the acts of a few.

We are lucky to live in the USA. One is considered living in poverty if they don't have a microwave oven or a fridge. In many other areas, they don't have clean water to drink or barely get a cup of rice a day.

Yes, I am very passionate about many things. I am passionate about the military because I did serve in it and met many good people.

[Foxlike Mulder]

Military life is also complex and there are a few bad elements in it like all of society. We condemn an entire peoples for the acts of a few.

We are lucky to live in the USA. One is considered living in poverty if they don't have a microwave oven or a fridge. In many other areas, they don't have clean water to drink or barely get a cup of rice a day.

Yes, I am very passionate about many things. I am passionate about the military because I did serve in it and met many good people.

As individuals, the people who make up the US armed forces (especially the non-officers) are everyday heros who deserve far better than what they get. There are a few bad apples in every facet of life; unfortunately, when under the microscpope which happens in war, these bad apples are exposed and the reaction is magnified. Ultimately, my beef is not with individuals in the military, it is with the policy makers and the intelligence community that use the rank and file as pawns in their never-ending board game. And I believe it's possible that game has an even deeper layer of manipulators (players) we have yet to clearly identify.

[Pons Asinorum]

Whew, much better Fox. For a moment I thought you were lost.

The sources of your sources (what I call an echo chamber) are of course hardly objective. They have a vested interest in their agenda and are not concerned with verification via empirical evidence.

It is not worthy of one who disagrees with the war and truly seeks peace. Such has nothing to do with those who sent our troops or those who predicated the underlying causes of war; nor does it even try to account for the countless innocent who were tortured, brutalized and murdered under a tyrant's "peace."

That echo chamber has another agenda obviously.

--

Our politicians sent our Sons and Daughters to war (and almost as soon as they put on their uniforms and turned to face the enemy, about half of the politicians changed their minds and stabbed them in the back).

Some of our uniformed people will make mistakes, and some will have mistakes thrust upon them.

Some of them will feel guilty and angry. And always twisted organizations will be seeking such out with false promises of redemption and fictitious objectives that are nothing more than camouflage to assist in the legitimization of the echo chamber.

Hate the war, think it was wrong, then direct it to the politicians who sent them there rather than join with their Judas kisses and twisted honor and obvious echo chambers. They have nothing of value to offer. Concepts such as Honor, Wisdom and Peace are beyond their comprehension, their skill-set, and their capabilities, respectively.

To blame our military is beyond unworthy (here we agree).

--

There is a reality outside of the USA very few here are aware of. They get all of their information from opinionated fringe sites that do not really analyze what is going on or the history behind it. The main reason is because it is complicated. We are so used to 30 second soundbites to explain everything going on that we zap the channels when someone actually decides to answer a question.

We have people running for the highest office of the land just throwing red meat to their constituents and giving one minute answers to complex problems. There is no debates anymore, just name calling. If a candidate actually spent a good 15 minutes discussing a complex issue, he or she would never make it in today's world of politics.

The Middle East is one of the most complex issues we have going on. It is not that simple to just go to war or drop a nuke on them.

It is interesting to me that Mercury and I disagree on just about anything political (but I still think he is cool beans ), yet here, we are of one mind.

Well said Mercury. You nailed it.

[Moon]

What we need is a real and honest debate about economics, foreign affairs and social issues. We need to have all people from all sides come to the table and explain how their sides sees things and what they think the weaknesses are. This can be tough as many see their views as perfect and not to be changed.

We all have differences of how the economy and other factors need to be fixed. But if we get a good roundtable discussion out explaining these views and looking at alternatives, we might just solve a problem or two.

[Foxlike Mulder]

Whew, much better Fox. For a moment I thought you were lost.

Ha Not lost, just driving hard to make a point!

The sources of your sources (what I call an echo chamber) are of course hardly objective. They have a vested interest in their agenda and are not concerned with verification via empirical evidence.

Who is objective? Or better yet, who doesn't have an agenda? I don't know a lot about accounting and statistics, but I do know enough about numbers to spin something my way. Anyone with an agenda knows this too...they all spin the numbers. Somewhere in the mess are facts which are meaningful, we just have to find them.

Mercury, the Presidential candidate I support has taken your approach, IMO, but has been stonewalled at every turn. In the end, I have little faith in the system today as it is driven by the corporate/special interests. If there is any one thing we can do to start fixing things, it would be taking all corporate/special interest donations out of the elections process. This should also include limits on personal donations as well ($500). Campaigns need money to run advertising, the more advertising (especially negative advertising) the better the results it seems. So how about no more ads? Let's just meet the candidates through a pre-determined number of public speaking engagements and debating opportunities. Ads are spin...no more ads! This wont fix a lot, but at least the politicians won't be bought anymore and they'll answer to us. I believe most would agree to this.

As for my other key topics for debate: 1) End the Federal Reserve, 2) Withdraw from the Middle East and 3) Funding Investments in Technology Research & Development and Public Works Projects.

Edit: Seems there is a Presidential candidate who sees things differently...

http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-manning-wikileaks-308/