Angering, but true
"They look at us like dimwits," he said. "I don't want to be looked at like that. ... I've once had a woman tell me, 'If there weren't people like you, there wouldn't be any wars.' That's angering." - Private Francis Archambault
It may be angering, but it's true. Without people like Pte Archambault, people who are willing to fight for what they believe in, people who are willing to defend others with their lives, there would be no wars.
There would only be massacres.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 12:51 p.m.
9 Comments:
And slavery, massive discrimination based on gender and religion and the total lack of any form of freedom and democracy.
But no wars.
This post is a pile of over simplifications piled on top of anecdotal tidbits teetering on a foundation of assumptions.
This blog wouldn't exist either, because there would be no internet, because it was created as military-funded project.
umm.. brett, no.
But that's a good story isn't it?
si vis pacem, para bellum.
"If you want peace, be prepared for war"
True back in the day for Publius, still true today.
and about the internet
umm.. Cameron no.
Brett you are correct.
" The Internet and Transmission Control Protocols were initially developed in 1973 by American computer scientist Vinton Cerf as part of a project sponsored by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and directed by American engineer Robert Kahn."
Last time I checked the US Department of Defense was still considered kinda "military"
The underlying transmission protocols were partially funded.. but the rest, everything that you use everyday? Not so much. So I'll cop to TCP/IP, I was wrong.
But the "internet" as you and I understand it? Not even a bit.
"After the ARPANET had been up and running for several years, ARPA looked for another agency to hand off the network to; ARPA's primary mission was funding cutting-edge research and development, not running a communications utility. Eventually, in July 1975, the network had been turned over to the Defense Communications Agency, also part of the Department of Defense. In 1983, the U.S. military portion of the ARPANET was broken off as a separate network, the MILNET."
and
"Since at this point in history most of the growth on the Internet was coming from non-military sources, it was decided that the Department of Defense would no longer fund registration services outside of the .mil TLD. In 1993 the U.S. National Science Foundation, after a competitive bidding process in 1992, created the InterNIC to manage the allocations of addresses and management of the address databases, and awarded the contract to three organizations. Registration Services would be provided by Network Solutions; Directory and Database Services would be provided by AT&T; and Information Services would be provided by General Atomics.[18]"
oh and
"By 1990, ARPANET had been overtaken and replaced by newer networking technologies and the project came to a close. In 1994, the NSFNet, now renamed ANSNET (Advanced Networks and Services) and allowing non-profit corporations access, lost its standing as the backbone of the Internet. Both government institutions and competing commercial providers created their own backbones and interconnections. Regional network access points (NAPs) became the primary interconnections between the many networks and the final commercial restrictions ended."
So basically, the original ARPANET was partially funded by military money. It's dead. So the "internet" in the way that anyone understands it is not military.
Finally, my original point is that the idiots who talked to this soldier are just that, idiots. Equally dopey are people who seem to think that every problem in the world can be solved with the application of force. To whit: "And slavery, massive discrimination based on gender and religion and the total lack of any form of freedom and democracy." soldiers, at the direct of civilian masters, certainly created conditions that allowed some of those things to be solved politically. But to pretend that soldiers solved them on their own is stupid.
And fred, can you name me a soldier who fired a shot in anger to support the suffragettes?
"And fred, can you name me a soldier who fired a shot in anger to support the suffragettes?"
too easy dude. . . .
I won't give EVERY name, because space is limited, but getting back to the crux of the original blogpost, the answer is right in front of you, if you have but eyes to see.
EVERY Canadian soldier who has served, is serving and will serve in Afghanistan is fighting for the rights of Afghanistan Suffragettes.
Right now, in real time, in front of your eyes, for all the world to see.
Funny how the tall forehead GCF that runs the NDP, the numerous women's rights organizations, the the UN multilateral crowd, the Human rights mobs don't support the mission because war is not the answer - when other women are involved. If it was them being brutalized, they'd be screaming for more military intervention.
Too easy.
Name one soldier who fired a shot in anger for the right of English, Canadian or American women to vote.
Just one.
You're over simplifying and it makes your argument weak and pathetic and too easy to pick apart.
And the soldiers you go on and on about supporting deserve better than that.
And your side tack into your favorite whipping boy... boring and off topic.
A nice attempt at getting me to talk about something other than your preposterous claim that everything we have is because of soldiers, but boring and off topic none the less.
Actually fred, upon further reflection, your whole line of reasoning seems to be the following:
Soldiers gave you freedom of speech so you should only use it to talk about those things cleared by soldiers or those who believe they speak for them.
Which would seem to be antithetical to the whole free speech thing that you believe soldiers and soldiers alone gave us.
Post a Comment
<< Home