Jon Pizzo Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Why is it that today it seems that our nation is made up of so many Oprah-loving-boo boo-kissing-soccer-moms? I was reading the book Gates of Fire, by Stephen Pressfield, and realized that we might be a lot better off if American's were a little more...for wont of a better word: Tough. We enjoy all these freedoms but hate war. We let others go fight and die so that we can be free. In Sparta every male was willing to fight and if necessary die for the principles that his country held. It seems that we have grown a little too comfortable with our freedom, and now abuse it to the fullest extent, laboring under the delusion that it cannot be taken away by force if some dictator or foreign power attempted to. Let it be said that I am not an advocate of the draft in any way. I'm simply saying that I am sick of being surrounded by weak willed people. It would be a sad day if we were ever invaded without the protection of our armed forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Why is it that today it seems that our nation is made up of so many Oprah-loving-boo boo-kissing-soccer-moms? I was reading the book Gates of Fire, by Stephen Pressfield, and realized that we might be a lot better off if American's were a little more...for wont of a better word: Tough. We enjoy all these freedoms but hate war. We let others go fight and die so that we can be free. In Sparta every male was willing to fight and if necessary die for the principles that his country held. It seems that we have grown a little too comfortable with our freedom, and now abuse it to the fullest extent, laboring under the delusion that it cannot be taken away by force if some dictator or foreign power attempted to. Let it be said that I am not an advocate of the draft in any way. I'm simply saying that I am sick of being surrounded by weak willed people. It would be a sad day if we were ever invaded without the protection of our armed forces. The comforts and prosperity we enjoy are nowhere inscribed on Stone Tablets. What we have was dearly bought with labor, treasure and blood. What we have will be kept the same way. We are living in a tough neighborhood and we will be beat up and humbled if we are not tough enough to keep what we have. I agree with you wholeheartedly. We need to be leaner, meaner and more willing to kick ass. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 I wouldn't call it an excess of freedom, but a revocation of freedoms, to give privileges to others. I don't know about America, but here in Britain, the Welfare State, government regulation and handouts, have meant that people resent striving for more (because it just means getting taxed more), resent the lower class (who get the benefits of those taxes) and see freedom as more of a sham, a thing that means, 'Yes, you're free, but let's not do anything hasty'. It is one of the arguments against free public transportation/health-care/etc that by making it available to anyone and everyone, all the time, for no (direct) charge, abuse of the system and a disregard for the rules will follow. This is true of society in general really: treat people like pampered children, and they'll behave like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 I've noticed it too. American's, at least from where I'm at, seem to have trouble standing up for anything, even themselves. Or they make battles out of useless petty issues. I've noticed an apologetic strike amongst everyone too. Like this "Don't blame me! It's not my fault! I didn't know!" ... Well, go learn! Know! Do something about it already! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Why is it that today it seems that our nation is made up of so many Oprah-loving-boo boo-kissing-soccer-moms? I'm simply saying that I am sick of being surrounded by weak willed people. It would be a sad day if we were ever invaded without the protection of our armed forces. I like to refer to these Americans as spoiled brats. So spoiled by all this country has to offer yet so unwilling to work for it, much less die for it. I think many Americans, if not most, have a sense of entitlement. Wasn't 9/11 such a day? By the time our military was assembled, the attacks were over. On the other hand, a plane crashed in PA that was was full of Americans willing to fight for their freedoms, so I guess all hope is not dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 I like to refer to these Americans as spoiled brats. So spoiled by all this country has to offer yet so unwilling to work for it, much less die for it. I think many Americans, if not most, have a sense of entitlement. Wasn't 9/11 such a day? By the time our military was assembled, the attacks were over. On the other hand, a plane crashed in PA that was was full of Americans willing to fight for their freedoms, so I guess all hope is not dead. That's what I don't understand. There is so much oppurtunity, but people never take it. I don't take them sometimes too. But, I don't want it to be handed to me like some do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pizzo Posted October 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 Thanks everyone. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who sees things this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 I'm simply saying that I am sick of being surrounded by weak willed people. It would be a sad day if we were ever invaded without the protection of our armed forces. You said it, brother. Not just weak willed, but actively in contempt of the strength that secures their freedoms and actively working to undermine it. And they have no concept for what force means - for what it will do to them if and when it hits them. They'll be as surprised as the DTMB dude. It's a dangerous decadence - one known to the Greeks in the fall of their civilization, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 Why is it that today it seems that our nation is made up of so many Oprah-loving-boo boo-kissing-soccer-moms? I was reading the book Gates of Fire, by Stephen Pressfield, and realized that we might be a lot better off if American's were a little more...for wont of a better word: Tough. We enjoy all these freedoms but hate war. We let others go fight and die so that we can be free. In Sparta every male was willing to fight and if necessary die for the principles that his country held. It seems that we have grown a little too comfortable with our freedom, and now abuse it to the fullest extent, laboring under the delusion that it cannot be taken away by force if some dictator or foreign power attempted to. Let it be said that I am not an advocate of the draft in any way. I'm simply saying that I am sick of being surrounded by weak willed people. It would be a sad day if we were ever invaded without the protection of our armed forces. America is dominated by 3 types of people The people you just mentioned Alpha Male Footbal fans concerned only with " Pussy ", beer and sports. And the overly Religious. But, I do not like your example of a Spartan ethic, even if you say that you are anti-draft. I do not like this for a few reasons 1. Not every man is fit to fight for his Country's existence and for the freedoms he so enjoys. I used to want to hold a gun and go off to battle, and someday I might have to do that, but that is not the type of person I am. I am not fit for battle, nor is it my ultimate desire. Thanks to those that do though, of course 2. I would sooner rebel against Sparta than fight for it. Men were willing to die for their country, selflessly, because that is how they were raised. They were raised, just as many Religious children are raised, with an uncompromising love for something they might not understand. Sparta was still a slave society. And indeed that horrific scene of the dead babies at the beginning of " 300 " was very true of Spartan society. Perhaps I myself would have been thrown in that heap of " useless " children. 3. There should not even be a moral necessity that you fight for your country. Some countries may not be worth fighting for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 There is a big fat I right in the middle of spIne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 There is a big fat I right in the middle of spIne. That should be on one of those motivational posters you see in the office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 There is a big fat I right in the middle of spIne. What a fantastic antidote for "there is no I in team"!!! Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 What a fantastic antidote for "there is no I in team"!!! Thank you. Another useful response is that "there is no we, either. So let's just give up and go home." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pizzo Posted October 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 America is dominated by 3 types of people The people you just mentioned Alpha Male Footbal fans concerned only with " Pussy ", beer and sports. And the overly Religious. But, I do not like your example of a Spartan ethic, even if you say that you are anti-draft. I do not like this for a few reasons 1. Not every man is fit to fight for his Country's existence and for the freedoms he so enjoys. I used to want to hold a gun and go off to battle, and someday I might have to do that, but that is not the type of person I am. I am not fit for battle, nor is it my ultimate desire. Thanks to those that do though, of course 2. I would sooner rebel against Sparta than fight for it. Men were willing to die for their country, selflessly, because that is how they were raised. They were raised, just as many Religious children are raised, with an uncompromising love for something they might not understand. Sparta was still a slave society. And indeed that horrific scene of the dead babies at the beginning of " 300 " was very true of Spartan society. Perhaps I myself would have been thrown in that heap of " useless " children. 3. There should not even be a moral necessity that you fight for your country. Some countries may not be worth fighting for. I agree with you on those counts. As for the Spartan thing, I am not saying that anything about their society was moral. I'm simply using them as an example of what we lack here in America, which is the fearlessness to face any enemy that threatens us. I also never said every man should go fight for his country. You are correct in saying that not everyone is fit for it. However, I think it is wrong to tell those who want to that they are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 3. There should not even be a moral necessity that you fight for your country. Some countries may not be worth fighting for. One should not be fighting -for- a country or a state or a government. One should be fighting for himself, the family, his friends and the values he holds dear. One should be a warrior for very personal reasons. One should not kill for impersonal reasons. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 We might be a lot better off if American's were a little more...for wont of a better word: Tough. We enjoy all these freedoms but hate war. We let others go fight and die so that we can be free... laboring under the delusion that it cannot be taken away by force if some dictator or foreign power attempted to.I personally think Americans *are* tough, civilians included. I doubt there be many people unwilling to fight what they considered a necessary war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 I personally think Americans *are* tough, civilians included. I doubt there be many people unwilling to fight what they considered a necessary war. Even so, what are people willing to consider a necessary war? Back in 2001 I heard a lot of people say there was no need to take the war to Afghanistan, or who thought such a war was unwinnable or useless. But above that, what kind of war are people willing to fight? Granted not every war is a total war, but witness the altruistic rules of engagement current in Iraq. These days people are, by and large, willing to fight only a "just war." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Even so, what are people willing to consider a necessary war? Back in 2001 I heard a lot of people say there was no need to take the war to Afghanistan, or who thought such a war was unwinnable or useless. But above that, what kind of war are people willing to fight? Granted not every war is a total war, but witness the altruistic rules of engagement current in Iraq. These days people are, by and large, willing to fight only a "just war." Americans will seek revenge if sufficiently provoked. Look at what happened to Japan because of a dastardly attack which killed about 3000 Americans in Hawaii. A straight-line connected that attack on Pearl Harbor to the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They attacked our naval base in 1941 and we burned them to the ground in 1945. If the WTC attack were seen as a war like act by another nation we would have had the planes and missiles on the way in less than a week. Unfortunately it was characterized as a -criminal- act, rather than an act of war, since we believe (foolishly) that only nations can make war. Americans are fat, dumb and happy until sufficiently pissed off. Then we are Terrible Enemies to have. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 If the WTC attack were seen as a war like act by another nation we would have had the planes and missiles on the way in less than a week. Unfortunately it was characterized as a -criminal- act, rather than an act of war, since we believe (foolishly) that only nations can make war. It was an act of war by a nation. But those who saw it as an act of war, even if they dind't explicitly say it, considered it an act of war by the Afghan government, the Taliban. that's what I mean. We are willing to fight a foreign government or an army, but not a foreign people that supports that government, or something even worse (say the budding theocrats in Iraq). Americans are fat, dumb and happy until sufficiently pissed off. Then we are Terrible Enemies to have. I hope so. Becuase a second, worse attack could happen. So far I see three things acting to prevent it: 1) better preventive measures, 2) the stupidity and incompetence of the enemy and 3) the fact that most would-be terrorists preffer to fight us in Iraq. We may count on the first item. But it's not a good idea to bet the enemy will stay incompetent forever. Even if Iran is trying to get us into a war before they are ready for it (get a nuke and no one in the West will dare attack). When we win in Iraq, and I do believe we will, where will the Islamists go? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Iran? or maybe they'll try to attack America again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 It was an act of war by a nation. But those who saw it as an act of war, even if they dind't explicitly say it, considered it an act of war by the Afghan government, the Taliban. WTC was done by al Queda which consisted (at the time) mostly of Saudi Wahabites and a few Egyptians. There were no Afghans involved as far as any one knows. Al Queda is a non-governmental religious fanatic group (although it gets state assistance from time to time). Al Queda evolved from The Brotherhood, an Egyptian radical Muslim group, inspired by the words of Sayid Q'tub. Our error is failing to identify these non-Nationl groups as war-enemies and acting accordingly. We even have a Constitutional means of doing it. Congress could authorize a Letter of Marque designating this group as an enemy and authorizing the executive branch to take military action against it. It is not quite a declaration of War, but it has the same effect. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 One should not be fighting -for- a country or a state or a government. One should be fighting for himself, the family, his friends and the values he holds dear. One should be a warrior for very personal reasons. One should not kill for impersonal reasons. Bob Kolker What if I value the freedoms that I enjoy in my country? I am fighting for the existence of moral government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 What if I value the freedoms that I enjoy in my country? I am fighting for the existence of moral government. Ends and means. The end is your liberty. The means is defending the government that supports your liberty. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 WTC was done by al Queda which consisted (at the time) mostly of Saudi Wahabites and a few Egyptians. There were no Afghans involved as far as any one knows. But Al Qaeda was operating within Afghanistan, with the governments knowledge, assistance and support. That makes Afghanistan just as responsible. Given that the Taliban government was massively unpopular, and that the citizens could be counted on not to fight for them in a war, it made sense not to attack Afghanistan the way we did germany or Japan in WWII. But that won't be the case every time. Look at Iraq. Yes, we can go get the non-nation groups, and we should. But we also need to get their state acomplices Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 WTC was done by al Queda which consisted (at the time) mostly of Saudi Wahabites and a few Egyptians.And suicide bombs in Israel are not worn by Iranians of Syrians. Yet somehow I think Iran and Syria have some responsibility. Country of original is a trivial consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammi Posted November 4, 2007 Report Share Posted November 4, 2007 What a fantastic antidote for "there is no I in team"!!! Thank you. but there is an M and an E another good one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.