Manning is far more heroic than any other serving member of the Military-Industrial-Surveillance Complex.
Shoot, this "war" isn't even declared so I'm unsure how he could even be accused of aiding an undeclared enemy.
Shoot, this "war" isn't even declared so I'm unsure how he could even be accused of aiding an undeclared enemy.
To broadly estimate the heroism of every other serving member in any singular statement is foolhardy, at best.
There are lots of good people doing good, heroic, insanely patriotic, admirable, and honorable things in that Military-Industrial-Surveillance Complex you describe.
Don't let the mistakes and abuses of the top give you some feeling that the system and everyone in it is corrupt. That system is literally putting themselves in front of bullets right now to defend your right to have such misguided ideas. What are you doing today?
Careful there chief. I'm not sitting in a swank control room in Vegas killing innocent men and women via drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
No one is putting themselves in front of bullets for my rights. They're putting themselves in front of bullets for their own reasons, but not for me.
As someone with a brother and several close friends in the military, this attitude is disheartening. You are free to believe that the leadership or even large swaths of the military is corrupt, but you cannot honestly state that no one is putting themselves in front of bullets for your rights. I have personally met several who repeatedly face bullets and IEDs because of their belief that they are protecting the rights and safety of civilians back home. You may believe their actions are naive or misguided, but that doesn't mean that they are all mindless drones motivated by purely selfish reasons.
As I said, no one is standing in front of bullets for my rights. I'll stand in front of bullets for my own rights thank you, when the time actually arrives that my rights are threatened.
That said, it stands to reason that the reason why your liberty isn't imminently in peril is because someone is already signed up and out there defending it.
To restate everything in broad terms: there's lots of people out in the world that don't like us. Your liberty is always in peril.
Do you want a totally anarchistic society, perhaps? I, for one, don't.
I'm not saying America should have no armed forces, of course, but don't you think they're a little excessive?
I'd like to see you try. You might just end up with a deeper appreciation for the Second Amendment.
Do I think the military forces have grown to an excessive level? Yes.
I am former military, as an aside, and once found the notion of not having an Army pretty silly, but the notion has grown on me slightly.
('family', because everyone is uneasy when a loved one is away on duty)
And without someone willing to put themselves on the front lines where the bullets fly, (to use a tired cliche) we'd easily be speaking German right now.
To take the stance that 'they're putting themselves in front of bullets for their own reasons, but not for me' is incredibly selfish and myopic.
Your other option is to try living in a country with a ragtag militia and government with an organized-crime-level-of-corruption. Let me know how that works.
And 'swank control room in Vegas'? You watch too many movies. :)
No, it is the result of a critical (and perhaps cynical) examination of and conclusion about the motives for the initiation and continuance of the war(s) our military is involved in.
>Your other option is to try living in a country with a ragtag militia and government with an organized-crime-level-of-corruption. Let me know how that works.
That's a ridiculously false dichotomy.
On other things, no, definitely not. These are the actions that I consider heroic defense of our freedoms.
A fine thing. Deserving of respect, in most cases.
>to defend your right to have such misguided ideas.
That is tripe, and it is wasted on me. It is so well worn, and despite that I remain unaware of any imminent threats to my personal freedom other than from the Military-Industrial-Surveillance (and also Prisons and Police) Complex.
As someone who identifies as fairly libertarian, I'll give you that.
But it stands, to some degree, some aspects of the Military Operations of this country are necessary - and even supremely honorable in nature - in order for this country to exist as have whatever degree of freedoms we (still?) have.
Going above and beyond is part of duty. I'd like to see more of it. Nothing will change until then.
> What are you doing today?
Working to pay taxes so the salaries of public employees and military personnel can be paid.
http://www.cmohs.org/recent-recipients.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Victoria_Cross_recipie...
He joined the military, saw that his organization was acting in a manner that was morally reprehensible and then did something about it. Of course, the same system replied in a manner that's just as morally reprehensible as Manning demonstrated.
The danger of rationalizing evil through the old truisms of "Patriotism, Security, Etc" is that it can corrupt those that rationalize it instead of saying, "This has to stop."
It seems most bullets actually end up in the guts of unarmed foreign civilians.
It's a fact that the military-industrial complex exists to protect the military-industrial complex. Our nation's independence was sold to moneyed interests in the last century.
> government with an organized-crime-level-of-corruption.
We're getting there, military or not.
You should have seen what the government was like with patronage appointments, or under Harding. The corruption was literally institutionalized.
No it's not.
Hopefully, we'll stop using it as a magical synonym for "I like this person".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...
Rachel Maddown recently came out with a book on this, called "Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/books/review/drift-by-rach...
Nevermind, of course, that the World Trade Center was owned by the joint port authorities of the States of NY and NJ, not the "Nation".
The answer to your first question can be illuminated a bit by considering a different question: Why do seagoing nations use Naval assets (instead of a coast guard auxiliary) to interdict and defeat pirates on the high seas?
I'm just trying to make a point about warlike actions without formal declarations, in any case.
But I don't even have qualms comparing international waters to Afghanistan, because you have to consider that if a given piece of land is completely ungoverned, does it belong to a specific nation at all?
If you say that the lands in Afghanistan from which AQ organized their terrorism was effectively governed by the Taliban and not a failed state, then it's even easier legally, as you have an actual causus belli for military action in response.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_a...
If an Englishman became a pirate on the high seas and was killed by a Spanish warship, would Spain have been at war with England?
> Until then the people have spoken by ballot.
Are you so sure of that?