Bradley Manning sentenced

[iHeart1]

If you pay taxes you have a right to say something, I'm not taking that away from you. My point is that you should find a better way to articulate your views instead of beating your chest about "I don't pay them to do this and that" as if you have put in such a significant amount of money through taxes or that you had more than a fractional inkling of clout with such a decision. It's arrogant and not a good way to get people to listen to what you have to say. That's all I was implying. My first reaction to that post of yours was, "Pffft, who does this dude think he is? Not even worth listening to." I decided to try and look past my own reactions and take time to address it, but your commentary and the strong sense of righteousness you think you have isn't making the discussion very smooth (neither is my directness).

We put so much money into our military to keep it ahead of everyone else's and be capable of protecting national interests while operating around the world. There are so many things involved with military funding that have nothing to do with Manning that to imply we shouldn't be spending as much money solely because of the Manning situation and things that were done in the military 'covering it up' is pretty far fetched. It's not a good way of arguing against military spending at all and is an extremely limited way to think about things or make a decision on.

You realize the military isn't obligated to tell the civilian population anything right? You get a cherry picked version of the war from politicians, not the military. Unless it falls into the right hands of people who see a strategic advantage to releasing information or under law you're allowed to know about, you're not going to know anything. Your qualm is with the wrong people, the military is doing what the military is supposed to do.

 

[PsycholPsychic]

Not aimed at Grasshopper so much, but I hear people say this sort of thing about a lot of stuff they don't like the government doing. Taxes aren't a choice. You don't get to choose to pay them or not (legally anyway) and you don't have a say in how they are spent. You have a say in what government you want to elect, but you don't have any control over how the treasury spends their money. I never understood this idea that because the taxes come from you you get to pick and choose how they're spent. You don't. The whole point is to force people to give money towards things they otherwise wouldn't pay for.

 

[sunshine_x08]

I was going to get around to that in a few posts but since you brought it up

I used to think I should have a say with where my tax money goes but along the way I lost that train of thought because it's really a futile argument. You have no option in paying taxes. Hell, I got paid with tax money while I was in the military and the tax money I was paid got taxed. Taxed taxes.

The real sad thing is the only option you have to try and get things the way you want them to be is to vote people into office. Too bad it's more of an illusion of choice than anything and you're pretty much going to get the same thing in this point in time regardless.

 

[housecat]

Maybe its because I don't pay taxes now but I'm kinda cool with the idea. I mean the military and wars are quite a divisive part of tax spending, but I've heard plenty of people say they don't see why they should pay for schools when they don't have kids, or hospitals since they go private. Or how many people wouldn't see the point in helping fund various science projects going on now?

No one likes giving up money, but I don't think not getting a say in where taxes are spent is a bad thing. As for the politics...well the only thing you can say with absolute certainty is people being defeatist about it definitely aren't going to see a change.

 

[Rivergirl100]

our disconnect seems to be about the letter of the law verses morality. i understand the manning sentence was totally legal and about right for the crimes that manning was tried for. the difference is that i think we should look at the morality of something first, and the legality second.

I don't think we should fund the military less just because of what manning released. i could write a ten page essay about why i think we should fund the military less. the documents manning released just reinforce that viewpoint.

 

[Guero]

i'm not saying that to mean i should get a say in how my taxes are spent. i mentioned taxes because i think the government often looses track of who they really work for. and thats the american citizens.

 

[MrsGCTheBabyBee]

Kind of hard to make a judgment on morality when there are so many conflicting views, hence the legality of it on a generally accepted morality being so important (which is way different in the military from the civilian pop.).

I still don't think not wanting to fund the military because of actions the military does that you do not agree with makes sense. It's politicians you should turn your anger to, they're the ones who make such a large military necessary ('necessary' is up for debate, of course)

 

[isassy16]

You do get a say in how your taxes are spent. They call them 'elections'.

 

[JstaSKaQ]

When you have the political apathy problems most countries have its hard to see why they should really care. I imagine me and you probably have different outlooks on just how much the government should listen to their citizens too

 

[mercedz30]

How has that been working out for you? Serious question, not trying to be an ass.

 

[NaomiW]

ero, i suggest we drop this debate of ours. i think we both understand each other and disagree on a level that probably wont change. i'd hate to see this go down an unfriendly road.

as for politicians, i'm very disappointed. right now most of them are cowards too afraid to be controversial. if any politician wanted to take significant funding from the military they would be eaten alive and called "soft on terror".

 

[magnet]

Not well, but that's democracy. It's the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.

 

[BrownsFan]

It's only bad when you don't remove monetary incentives from the system. Both our governments used to have more legal barriers to protect against political corruption and as a result our older governments were more representative to the will of the voters.

 

[Ihave10toes]

Please don't confuse my directness as having malice towards you and your opinions. I generally stay away from discussions involving in depth conversation about some of the topics discussed in this thread because I have a hard time with them personally due to some of my experiences. I chose to jump into it because I feel it's important for me to be able to articulate myself towards the kinds of viewpoints you have (which are shared by many) for my own benefits both social and personal.

I think if you tried to understand me a little better you would realize I'm not as much against what you're saying entirely but have more of a problem with how you're reaching your conclusions and the information surrounding the circumstance that I do not believe you're fully understanding in order for you to consider. I believe understanding the full scope of the situation and the things involved with them are extremely important and that the common emotional reaction using morality as a banner of righteous opinion does more damage than good a lot of times.

Please understand I am not addressing you as a person entirely and everything I am saying is addressing your ideals on the issue and how I believe you came to them. I rather like you as a poster on MAP Grass Hopper and we can certainly agree to disagree. However I think it's important for us to understand each other. Regardless of the social stigmas that surrounds a lot of the issues we're discussing I would hope that you and anyone else, regardless of views, would feel free to voice them.

While I may think some of those views are wrong I will certainly give my reasoning for why and not leave it at the common, knee jerk response of "You just hate America!" or "You're soft on terrorism!" I have quite a bit of disdain towards those kinds of knee jerk reactions, same as I have for the condemning ones as neither offer reasoning and experience in an attempt to understand where the other person is coming from.

I certainly will not force you to continue any kind of conversation with me, but please know I'm not attacking your personally or developing any feelings of malice towards you about the topics being discussed.

 

[tender_heart]

that's why i think we've reached the end of our discussion. things haven't turned bitter yet and thats the way i like it.

i believe i understand you and i believe you understand me. i know i'm an idealist but i believe that idealism is something to be striven for.

just one more question, do you believe that manning should have released these documents? in her position, what would you have done?

 

[IloveyouKevinJonasttt]

I think it would of been better if he left the military then did this, and done an edward snowden. You can call snowden a coward but.. 35 years or being called a coward. Ill take being called a coward.

Raz

 

[jambi0n]

i think snowden did exactly the right thing. the government doesnt like wistle blowers. sound the alarm and dissapear.

 

[davey]

I dont agree with what Snowden did basically because it makes the life of security agencies a lot harder and in the bigger picture I think they do a "good job".

But I think his method was the right one. Bradley Manning should of got the hell out of dodge, he was never going to get away with what he did.

Raz

 

[Nayeli]

I believe Manning was naive, extremely confused about his own life (which doesn't help in the rational thinking department), and in complete violation of his oath and obligations as a person serving in the military. It also seems like he didn't even attempt to run it up the chain of coofftopicnd and for all we know his superiors may not have even been aware of the situation. At his rank and experience level he should have attempted to run it up the chain of coofftopicnd and be a serious pain in the arse about it. Something on the national awareness level may not have taken place, but the military fixes itself on the inside a lot more than people know.

What would I have done? Nothing. Why? Because it really doesn't bother me in the slightest to be honest, not given the context. I wouldn't expect anything different from an invading force on U.S. soil either. My aversion would be towards war itself because of the things I find acceptable during war. It's like getting into a legit fight with somebody for me. I avoid them at all costs because I know what I would try to do and I accept what somebody would try to do to me if they really wanted to harm me. While I don't like the potential end result, that's the reality of it, so it's best to try to avoid getting in that situation in the first place. Unfortunately Manning decided to be what we call an "individual" (negative terminology in the military) in a situation way above his head and experience. It was a dumb move for Manning personally and for the military collectively.

 

[MOHIT]

to me the military mindset where an individual is not a good thing is just a perverse concept. i guess i'm just an idealistic civilian at heart.