I can think of nothing more eloquent then this:
Never ring the bell.
No songs needed today. :)
Saturday 30 August 2014
To Change the World
As we go through life we will be faced with many decisions and paths to take. Today it seems like so many have lost their way, making choices that only hurt themselves and others. In a world beset by the evils of ISIL, the misguided pride of men like Vladimir Putin, and the greed of financial titans, perhaps we could use a little reminder of what it really takes to make this world a better place.
I can think of nothing more eloquent then this:
Never ring the bell.
No songs needed today. :)
I can think of nothing more eloquent then this:
Never ring the bell.
No songs needed today. :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Did someone say "songs"? :)
Can't tell if these are real Iraqi Special Operations Forces ... but they sound terribly chirpy.
Am I allowed to confess I didn't find that commencement speech very inspiring? :)
After labouring through the first six or seven minutes I fast forwarded a minute at a time to see when he would get to the interesting bit. I get the "you can change the world" and "never give up" messages. All the Navy Seal machismo was a bit lost on me though. You can change the world without starring in your own version of "Under Siege" :) :) :)
That singer is very good, so if he is special forces he could always find a second career. :)
Looks like a GOI promo video.
All the Navy Seal machismo was a bit lost on me though. You can change the world without starring in your own version of "Under Siege" :) :) :)
Well of course you can, Petes. But underlying the Navy Seal machismo were some very wise words. They just happened to be delivered by an American military general. Yes, granted, that may be a turn off for some people, but this is a man who has risen far in his chosen field and by that token may be someone to listen to.
We may not all have tasks to perform in life such as Navy Seal training, but most of us will hit some choppy water now and again. Unlike you, I found his words inspiring and a bit of a comfort to know I am not alone in that.
P.S.
Perhaps you would like to put up something that inspires you. :)))
Nice speach and all. But if you were to really think about how one soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan who avoided an IED and saved his 10 fellow troopers; and how many people that saved when you consider their friends, family and offspring....
...well... you might also consider the waste a misguided (or aptly guided) bomb from 30.000 feet aimed at a wedding instead of a terrorist gathering.
100 people dead and their friends, family and offspring would amount to 10 times the number of people just like in the "glorious" movie we saw.
But that kind of waste of human life is usually just glossed over as "collateral damage".
How come 100 pakistanis are merely collateral damage while even one yank is a tragedy? Especially since the fight is brought to the pakistanis from the USA?
How would you yanks feel if a foreign nation, way superior to yours in military terms, was to kill, kill, kill in your country and then cry great big tears when one of their own got shot by one of yours?
"Especially since the fight is brought to the pakistanis from the USA?"
Given the Pakistani ISI's long support of the Taliban and other jihadi elements (not even including the still suspicious long-term residency of Osama bin Laden within spitting distance of their most elite military academy), I'll be inclined to deny your assertion regarding who brought the fight to whom.
How would you yanks feel if a foreign nation, way superior to yours in military terms, was to kill, kill, kill in your country and then cry great big tears when one of their own got shot by one of yours?
Well, that did happen, just over 200 years ago.
Marcus, I understand that for many people this speech may look like rah rah cheerleading for a military that has hurt innocent people. What I was trying to get at though is that many of the lessons this man learned in his career can be carried over to other aspects of life. Non-military aspects.
you might also consider the waste a misguided (or aptly guided) bomb from 30.000 feet aimed at a wedding instead of a terrorist gathering.
Of course it is. But then, intentionally aiming at a wedding is not an accurate portrayal of events. Unlike the intentional aiming of an aircraft at buildings with civilians inside.
And of course a misguided weapon results in the waste of human life. I just wish people were as quick to condemn those who have forced us onto a path that leads to that kind of incident.
Lee: "I'll be inclined to deny your assertion regarding who brought the fight to whom."
Really?
Give me then an estimation of Pakistani attacks on US soil versus US attacks on Pakistani soil over the last 10 years. 10 years is just my "limit", feel free to add or subtract 5 years in any direction if that suits your cause.
Why not make that challenge Global by the way? List US bombings abroad versus foreign enities bombing in the US homeland. Go for it Lee. Tell us about all them bombs from Libya that hit all over the US, for instance.
Lee: "I'll be inclined to deny your assertion regarding who brought the fight to whom."
Really?
Give me then an estimation of Pakistani attacks on US soil versus US attacks on Pakistani soil over the last 10 years. 10 years is just my "limit", feel free to add or subtract 5 years in any direction if that suits your cause.
Why not make that challenge Global by the way? List US bombings abroad versus foreign enities bombing in the US homeland. Go for it Lee. Tell us about all them bombs from Libya that hit all over the US, for instance.
"…Pakistani attacks on US soil versus US attacks on Pakistani soil…"
Hardly the proper metric, and you know better than to suggest that it is. Your choice of criteria would suggest that the al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole was an attack on the gulf state of Yemen rather than an attack against the United States. We all know better than that. You know better than that.
USS cole? What about the USS Liberty?
What has that to do with Pakistan?
Nothing. I confused a few things there.
But I'd still say the attack on the Cole can't very well be blamed on Pakistan as a nation nor its government.
Devil Horn el cornuto signs
I invoked the Cole merely as an example of the failure of your criteria. More specifically, as far as Pakistan goes: When we were trying to stabilize and democratize Afghanistan, Pakistan was giving aid and comfort, support and assistance, safe haven and intelligence, arms and ammunition, to the Taliban and allied jihadi and terrorist forces attacking American military and American civilian NGOs and American efforts and interests in Afghanistan. This was war by proxy; it was, at a minimum, Pakistan joining in a war against Americans. More realistically; it is Pakistan's chosen method of making war against Americans and against the American efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.
Just for whatever it's worth: The first "a" in Pakistan was originally intended to designate the ‘Afghans’, who declined the invitation. The founders of the state that is now Pakistan had hoped to incorporate what is now Afghanistan (or most of it) into the new Muslim nation they were creating. They seem to have not yet given up on the hope that they can control the region, if not officially incorporate it.
Devil
Huh!
Maybe if you're trying to rope the sucker
Lee: "Just for whatever it's worth: The first "a" in Pakistan was originally intended to designate the ‘Afghans’, who declined the invitation."
I had never heard about that ever. Not that I'm calling it false but do you have a source for that? I assumed it'd be an easy Google away but found nada.
Lee: "The founders of the state that is now Pakistan had hoped to incorporate what is now Afghanistan (or most of it) into the new Muslim nation they were creating. They seem to have not yet given up on the hope that they can control the region, if not officially incorporate it."
The Afghans will likely still have a very different opinion. Can't really see them bowing down to the Punjabis that rule Pakistan. Certainly not the Pashtuns and probably not the rest of 'em either. They strike me as a rather feisty bunch when it comes to foreign dominion over them.
Wiki say:
"The name Pakistan literally means ‘Land of the Pure’ in Urdu and
Persian [neither of which are in use in Pakistan]. It was coined
in 1933 as Pakstan by Choudhry Rahmat Ali, a Pakistan Movement
activist, who published it in his pamphlet Now or Never, using it as an
acronym ("thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN")
referring to the names of the five northern regions of the British Raj:
Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afgania
Province), Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan".
The letter i was incorporated to ease pronunciation and form the
linguistically correct and meaningful name."
(emphasis in original)
Afghania wasn't Afghanistan though. It was the NWFP. That is part of Pakistan today (though renamed).
It was also otherwise known as Pashtunistan. The Pashtun are the single largest ethnic group in modern day Afghanistan, probably as many there as in Pakistan itself. And the Pakis haven't given up on controlling the region just yet.
Nor, by the way, have they given up on taking Kashmir, who also declined the invitation. They have effective control over about half of that already. (India occupied most of the rest.)
You beat me to it. Was just about to mention Kashmir. Took a colleague out to dinner a while back and witnessed an interesting exchange between the Hindu Indian-American colleague and Muslim Kashmiri restaurateur. They didn't hit it off.
Kashmir was supposed to be the ‘k’ in Pakistan.
Post a Comment