Johnny Got His Gun

[KafirChobee]

Every night on CBS News, they have a presentation "American Heroes" that depicts the life (100 words or less) of one of our men (or women) that have parished in Iraq. If I hear, "They were doing what they wanted to be doing", one more time I will scream.

Mr. Roony (CBS 60 Minutes, and decorated WWII vet) put it eloguently last week. He said (in affect), "No man he knew died for his country, he died for the men around him. He perished young, and was loved --- and only wanted to go home. No man that died ever said he wanted to. If asked he might tell you he would rather be in Philadelphia - or just home. No one that died in a war was doing what they wanted to be doing. That's a lie. It's a pretty lie, but it is a lie."

The new propagandizing of our involvement in Iraq, is sad. There is no other term that fits it - it is sad. To believe that men are willingly going into a war to die is scary at best, and makes one wonder if they have expolsives under their "flack" jackets (armor).

$200Billion so far, 2,000 dead (soon), 15,000 wounded (many severely) - for oil. For a boy to show up his Daddy. For WMD, to find Nuclear devices, to .... what ever the catch word or phrase is today.

Point is, no one can speak for the dead. If you asked the dead whether they would rather be breathing than rotting in a grave, I think most might take a breath. If you asked most if what they died for had meaning - they might tell you it must have .... for someone, not necissarily them.

When men write home from a war they always attempt to be encouraging to their loved ones. Stiff upper lip and all that crap. I'm doing good, they keep me around the base camp mostly (when you are really deep in the sheep), nothing happens around here much (we only get mortared nightly - and an occassional rpg). GI's lie to their families. Why make them worry? GI's try to make it out that nothing can ever happen to them (We're all going to live forever - that death crap is for thems not in the know).

GI's use to tend downplay their role in the war and send their love. Today, it sounds like they are up playing up their involvement, applauding patriotism (one of the opieuts to the masses), and mostly going along with the game (their orders).

In 68' & 69, I was in the honor detail for 30-50 military burials. From rifleman, to Sgt of the honor guard. Only a couple ring in my mind. One was for a Marine - we were Army (but, the boy's Daddy asked for us). It may have been our best performance - and the boy that did taps even made our eyes whell in tears (he was a true artiste). After the cerimony we went to our bus and broke out the beer (not out of joy, just a small reward for a thankless job). The boys were hyped, they knew they'ld done well - without a hitch (almost). I was standing in the door of the bus when a voice said, "Sir?". I turned and saw the father of the boy we had just honored. I (literally) snatched to attention (reflex).
"Son." he said, "that was the best of 'em all."
"Sir?"
"Five sons", he answered, " that's the last, and this was the best damn ceremony of them all."
"Sir?"
Yeah, first boy got shot down in 64, second in 65, third in 66, forth in 68 ... and now my last one. Each one went over to avenge the previous one, and then ones, ... and wasn't a damn thing they would listen to. Last son didn't have to go, just wouldn't listen."
"Sir?"
"Well, I noticed one of your riflemen miss fired, don't worry no one else coulda noticed, and I was wondering if I could have that round?"
I looked over my shoulder and saw Carter reject a round, bend down and bring it forward. He place it in the gentleman's hand.
With that he said thank you, turned and walked away with one clenched fist. We no longer felt like celebrating our success. For some they just realised they had buried a son.

[Papewaio]

The true role of infantry is not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward.

...

[Voigtkampf]

I must admit, Kafir, that this was truly a touching story.

I have one question though, regarding the US troops in Iraq; are those men and women conscripted, forced to their military service over there or have they enlisted in army by their own free will? If I am not gravely mistaken, the latter should apply.

And if the latter applies, perhaps they should have found themselves a job with lesser risk factor, don’t you think? Enlist in army, ok, receive paychecks, ok, get yourself through college, ok; actually go to war, fight and kill and possibly die, not ok. You do not enlist in the army to look pretty in your parade uniform, you enlist and get paid because there is a strong possibility that you will have to wage war for your country. And die for your country.

As for Mr. Roony, I do not acknowledge no man’s wisdom to be ultimate, and hence do not acknowledge and take for granted his own opinion. There are and there have been men and women willing to fight and die for their country; among Americans less then among European people, Americans came overseas and haven’t seen Nazi tanks rolling down the streets and firing squads killing randomly people in Oklahoma or Philadelphia ; if they, had they would be more prepared to do so.

There are people that are ready and willing to die for their country, and the men that fight on their side; it is true that are very few that want to die, but there are many that are ready and willing to sacrifice their life.

Believe it or not, the tree of freedom requires the blood of both guilty and innocent, all the time. The way of things.

[Franconicus]

Is it a good thing if someone is willing to die for his country. I think it is very stupid. A good man can serve his country much better if he is alive.
To die for your country is not something special for noble armies. There were many soldiers in the Nazi army searching death. I think there are several reasons for that:
1) Propaganda: It made 14 years old boys attack soviet tanks with insufficient weapons.
2) Desperation: If you see thousands of bombers flying to your home and willing to kill civilists.
3) Fear: Sometimes you fear being taken prisoner more than being killed.
4) Die because your commrades do.
Did I forget something?
All in all, not very noble reasons to me.

[PanzerJaeger]

GI's use to tend downplay their role in the war and send their love. Today, it sounds like they are up playing up their involvement, applauding patriotism (one of the opieuts to the masses), and mostly going along with the game (their orders).

Maybe thats because they are patriots and believe in what America stands for. Just because you are engrossed in your own cynicism because you had to fight in a war you didnt believe in doesnt mean others are unable to have nobler ideals.

[sharrukin]

Is it a good thing if someone is willing to die for his country. I think it is very stupid. A good man can serve his country much better if he is alive.
To die for your country is not something special for noble armies. There were many soldiers in the Nazi army searching death. I think there are several reasons for that:
1) Propaganda: It made 14 years old boys attack soviet tanks with insufficient weapons.
2) Desperation: If you see thousands of bombers flying to your home and willing to kill civilists.
3) Fear: Sometimes you fear being taken prisoner more than being killed.
4) Die because your commrades do.
Did I forget something?
All in all, not very noble reasons to me.

Well if someone wasn't willing to risk their life and possibly lose it in the fight against the Nazi's, then how exactly do you think they were going to be stopped?

[bmolsson]

Well if someone wasn't willing to risk their life and possibly lose it in the fight against the Nazi's, then how exactly do you think they were going to be stopped?

I am sure the Nazi said the same thing to their soldiers when they went out to the front. It's rather circular to argue that you have to die for your country because somebody else is told to do the same thing.

War is there only because there are armies standing against each other. A democratic process doesn't require nations and in the end that is the solution. A global society with local autonomy.

[English assassin]

KC isn't saying don't go to war, although he may feel it and he would be entitled to. What he is saying is if you do think war is the answer, take that decision like a adult, understanding what it means, and that peoples sons and daughters borthers, sisters etc, will die. And that yes, they may be willing to take the risk but no they don't want to.

Honestly I sometimes think some people's thinking about what it all actually means in real flesh and blood hasn't got beyond Commando Comic and "Achtung, Der Tommies, Arrgh".

(Sorry, you won't have got those in the US and they sure won't have been popular in Germany, they were UK war comics for boys in the 70s. I guess you all had your equivalents.)

[doc_bean]

It's true, the media and especially videogames are empahising that war is 'cool' . But how many people really believe that ?

A lot of people in Iraq signed up before the war, they are probably all very willing to fight for their country, but quite a few are likely to feel that running around in the desert isn't exactly for the good of the country. It's not like Iraq ever attacked the US (silly conspiracy theories aside).

That said, I think quite a few people have signed up after the war started, there are quite a few people who are willing to die for their country in some god forsaken desert.

I don't understand them, but it's their choice.

[English assassin]

It's true, the media and especially videogames are empahising that war is 'cool' . But how many people really believe that ?

Sexually frustrated teenagers and that part of the republican party which does not have service experience of their own IMHO.

[t1master]

stirring the pot again kafir :)

[Redleg]

Every night on CBS News, they have a presentation "American Heroes" that depicts the life (100 words or less) of one of our men (or women) that have parished in Iraq. If I hear, "They were doing what they wanted to be doing", one more time I will scream.

Then get prepared to scream - because people are still enlisting to become soldiers and marines. Maybe at lower numbers but the enlistment is still happening. Its a volunteer force - so it means that the individual who enlisted just might "be doing what they wanted to be doing."

Mr. Roony (CBS 60 Minutes, and decorated WWII vet) put it eloguently last week. He said (in affect), "No man he knew died for his country, he died for the men around him. He perished young, and was loved --- and only wanted to go home. No man that died ever said he wanted to. If asked he might tell you he would rather be in Philadelphia - or just home. No one that died in a war was doing what they wanted to be doing. That's a lie. It's a pretty lie, but it is a lie."

And Mr. Roony would be correct with this statement. Men go to fight for their nation - but men die for those immediately around them. Just read any Congressional Medal of Honor award.

The new propagandizing of our involvement in Iraq, is sad. There is no other term that fits it - it is sad. To believe that men are willingly going into a war to die is scary at best, and makes one wonder if they have expolsives under their "flack" jackets (armor).

No man goes to war willing to die - that is a propagandizing of your own. Men go to war because they feel its necessary to protect their country.

$200Billion so far, 2,000 dead (soon), 15,000 wounded (many severely) - for oil. For a boy to show up his Daddy. For WMD, to find Nuclear devices, to .... what ever the catch word or phrase is today.

Propagandizing again Kafir. To say the war is about oil or for a boy to show up his daddy is nothing but propaganda.

Point is, no one can speak for the dead. If you asked the dead whether they would rather be breathing than rotting in a grave, I think most might take a breath. If you asked most if what they died for had meaning - they might tell you it must have .... for someone, not necissarily them.

Someday you will learn maybe to just make your point verus throwing a lot of rethoric and propaganda in you posts.

When men write home from a war they always attempt to be encouraging to their loved ones. Stiff upper lip and all that crap. I'm doing good, they keep me around the base camp mostly (when you are really deep in the sheep), nothing happens around here much (we only get mortared nightly - and an occassional rpg). GI's lie to their families. Why make them worry? GI's try to make it out that nothing can ever happen to them (We're all going to live forever - that death crap is for thems not in the know).

How true -

GI's use to tend downplay their role in the war and send their love. Today, it sounds like they are up playing up their involvement, applauding patriotism (one of the opieuts to the masses), and mostly going along with the game (their orders).

Again you decide to ruin your above true point with your own propaganda.

In 68' & 69, I was in the honor detail for 30-50 military burials. From rifleman, to Sgt of the honor guard. Only a couple ring in my mind. One was for a Marine - we were Army (but, the boy's Daddy asked for us). It may have been our best performance - and the boy that did taps even made our eyes whell in tears (he was a true artiste). After the cerimony we went to our bus and broke out the beer (not out of joy, just a small reward for a thankless job). The boys were hyped, they knew they'ld done well - without a hitch (almost). I was standing in the door of the bus when a voice said, "Sir?". I turned and saw the father of the boy we had just honored. I (literally) snatched to attention (reflex).
"Son." he said, "that was the best of 'em all."
"Sir?"
"Five sons", he answered, " that's the last, and this was the best damn ceremony of them all."
"Sir?"
Yeah, first boy got shot down in 64, second in 65, third in 66, forth in 68 ... and now my last one. Each one went over to avenge the previous one, and then ones, ... and wasn't a damn thing they would listen to. Last son didn't have to go, just wouldn't listen."
"Sir?"
"Well, I noticed one of your riflemen miss fired, don't worry no one else coulda noticed, and I was wondering if I could have that round?"
I looked over my shoulder and saw Carter reject a round, bend down and bring it forward. He place it in the gentleman's hand.
With that he said thank you, turned and walked away with one clenched fist. We no longer felt like celebrating our success. For some they just realised they had buried a son.

Sad story - but each son made his own choice did he not? The only one that might not have was the first.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sexually frustrated teenagers and that part of the republican party which does not have service experience of their own IMHO.

This coming from someone who is obviously a fountain of knowledge concerning the Republican party and being sexually frustrated.

[sharrukin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Well if someone wasn't willing to risk their life and possibly lose it in the fight against the Nazi's, then how exactly do you think they were going to be stopped?

I am sure the Nazi said the same thing to their soldiers when they went out to the front. It's rather circular to argue that you have to die for your country because somebody else is told to do the same thing.

The city fathers of Carthage might beg to differ with you, if their begging had them any good. It didn't.
There are predators in the world! Animals, men and nations. Non-violence simply breeds aggression in such predators and can only succeed against a moral opponent. Tribalism and territorialism are ancient animal and human instincts and to imagine that they will simply fade away is just wishful thinking. Put simply, we have a duty to defend others.

War is there only because there are armies standing against each other. A democratic process doesn't require nations and in the end that is the solution. A global society with local autonomy.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington

You are getting the cart before the horse. Armies exist to fight wars. Wars do not exist to fight armies. Without wars armies would cease to exist. Without armies wars would NOT cease to exist. If Poland had dissolved it's army in 1935 it would not have guaranteed peace. Czechoslovakia did this and it guaranteed nothing of the sort.

As for democracy "if you don't vote for me I am going to kill you". There ends your democracy unless you are willing to go to war in it's defence. Johnny better Get His Gun!

[Pindar]

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington

Good quote.

[KafirChobee]

I used the reference to the book, "Johnny Got His Gun" (by Dalton Trumbo) for this because I felt it was suiting.

The author was accused of being a Nazi sypathizer prior to WWII (book was banned in US during the war), and a Commie one after WWII (book was agained banned 'til 1964, or there abouts) - see somethings really do work both ways - for some. He was one of the men blacklisted by Ronny Reagans' testimony during the McCarthy Hearings. Even though he was a highly decorated hero of WWII (USA, of course). He still wrote screen plays and was one of the men referrenced in Woody Allen's spoof - The Front. He did the original "Moby Dick" (with Gregory Peck) and "20,000 Leagues beneath the Sea", both under pseudo-names.

Dalton, wrote the book in college after listening to some WWI vets and then hearing some politician talking about "our noble dead". It is, of course, an anti-war book that talks thru the main character's mind - as he can no longer communicate (having lost both arms, legs, and his face). It's an easy read, and many librarys still carry it - check it out.

For me, the most curious part is when he finally finds a means to communicate. The doctor asks him, "What do you want?" Think about it.

This Post was not about WWII, or even WWI, or Korea, or 'Nam - though there are similarities between 'Nam and Iraq [When they ask you why we died, tell them because our fathers' lied].

It was meant to be about realizing that sons. daughters, husbands, wives - loved ones are dying. Becoming the "noble dead", without a true purpose or a justified cause. Turning the purpose of our invassion from protecting our nation from WMD, to spreading democracy is bogus. Asking are the people of Iraq better off today than under Saddam is hyperbole and unrealistic. Are they? One must wonder, losing an average of 30-50 people a day to suicide bombers might make many long for Husseins rule - the good old bad days that they were.

Still, that is irrelevent. We are there and we are stuck there 'til it reaches some sort of conclusion.

Point is it seems only the parents, spouces, or relatives that agree with the war get any "air" time. Seems if one disagrees with the president's view or line of thought (oops no WMD, I meant to say "spreading democracy to the uncivilized world") - their views are masked. Ridiculed, even.
For someone to use the silented voices of this war's dead to propagandize the true meaning of this war - is wrong. To claim we must go forward sacrificing men (women) to justify the previous deaths, is a bit like continuing to smash one's finger with a hammer when the nail is on the other side of the room.
The war started to fight the terrorists, what it has done is promote them, create and justify their movement (jihad). It is a failure in reason, and it is only justifiable today because of the consequences that would probably ensue if we were to withdraw. Call it what it is. A fubar.
Our (all nations') military personell should be afforded all the respect and honor they normally would deserve. But, realize they are not there for some noble ideal - but, because they were lied to. And that lie grows, festers and is propagated by whitewashing the real reasons for our invasion. It wasn't WMD, we already know that was a lie. It wasn't to fight terrorism, we created the only terrorists in Iraq today - AlQuada wasn't there. So what was it initially that "forced" Bush43's hand to send in the troops? Oh, I know - Sadam was resistent about the investigators - no, that ain't it. Oh, well musta been pretty good since we went in with full congressional approval. The big lies work every time.

Further, about heroes.
There are a number of courtmartials in progress today of men refusing to return to Iraq or activeduty, because they don't buy into the changing reasons we are there. Some simply feel they've done enough - which the military and congress fervently disagrees with (We'll tell you when you've done enough - so our sons and daughters don't have to go). That is hypochracy at its best. Trashing heroes that did their duty, and now simply want to return to a normal life. These are the true heroes of this war - they can still think for themselves. God, knows we can't have them running around contaminating the zombies (j/k). Best make an "ax"ample of them to keep the rest inline.

btw, re-enlistments are down 60%. Enlistments are off 40%, and those completing their Reserve and NG duties are fleeing to their homes.

[Watchman]

Well, when it comes down to it, the US army is a "professional" one - or if you would rather put it that way, mercenary. They're people who get paid to go out an kill people on orders from their duly empowered superiors. That's what an army is; a society's means of organized violence. That it can be employed for other things (domestic disaster relief is a common one) does nothing to change its fundamental nature.

Not to sound cold-hearted, but I don't have all that much sympathy to spare for professional military casualties - especially from one as active as the US one (which has since WW2 fought something like one major conflict per decade plus many more smaller actions). You sign up in one by your own free will, and if you're not aware of the risks involved it's frankly a personal problem.

It's still sad when they die of course, especially for any friends and family left behind, but then they also did agree to go out and risk their lives in return of various economical benefits. That they may have had some higher motives is conjectural and irrelevant - some did, others didn't, all voluntarily "took the king's shilling" and marched off under the banners.

Conscript armies, which basically work by training every single adult male (and sometimes female too) a soldier and then keeping them on reserve after their active duty are a bit different. You're not really asked if you want to serve under arms to (supposedly at least) defend your country - you're legally obliged to do it. Obviously since the element of voluntary choice is considerably reduced the equation is different from the essentially mercenary-volunteer professional troops...


That aside, Iraq is a total mess. By this point it's really a little irrelevant why exactly the Americans went in there - what's relevant is that they didn't do it right, and are now stuck in something eerily reminiscent of France's Algerian escapade in the Sixties. Put bluntly, they're stuck fighting a bloody guerilla war and thus far have shown few signs of winning it any time soon, if ever, at least without resorting to measures that simply are not done by any nation wishing to call (and more to the point be called) civilized.
Whether there existed a "right" way to take over Iraq so as not to create a guerilla heaven on the side can be debated, but is a little irrelevant as the US certainly didn't do anything of the sort at the time anyway...

I don't claim to know the soldierly psyche very well, but what I do know of it suggests that on the average troops deeply dislike dying because some idiot higher up in the hierarchy messed up. Right now, American soldiers in Iraq are to a very large degree dying for that very reason, although it would also seem they do not think of it in those terms. If this is a good or bad thing is, again, debatable, and I for one have no set stance on that particular dilemma.

Good quote.

You know, Washington is known to have been what you might call a staunch decentralist; that makes said quote very politically biased and hence no better than any other political slogan...
Whether the basic point implied thereinis tenable has also been subject to lenghty and, unsurprisingly, unresolved arm-wrestling among scholars of Political Science; decentralisation vs centralization is one of the "eternal dilemmas" of the discipline.
(Sorry, I just happen to have an allergy about people treating the Founding Fathers and their ideas like some kinds of infallible divine revelations.)

[Samurai Waki]

Patton once said "The Object of War is not to die for your country; but to make the other bastard die for his."

I don't know much about Washington D.C. and Bureaucratics and what their real goals in this world is. I know that we might have been lied to about weapons of mass destruction, or that we went to give democracy to the Iraqis, maybe for oil... maybe not. We don't have the priviledge to know.
I find the remarks that American Soldiers are essentially mercenaries appalling. I have many good, and close friends who served (or are still serving) in the US Military, some want a better education out of it, others want more life expirience. But I know that none of them want to serve their country, to go to a war, and to die for it. They want to go to war to fight for it, and defend it. Not all them for sure, but the vast majority of them. My cousin is over in Iraq right now, at a little Fort between Baghdad and some other little Iraqi City called Fort McHenry. These are National Guard Soldiers stationed here, in the most volatile region in Iraq, they get mortared everyday, and 5 Soldiers out of the one battalion guarding it has been killed since January. They have disgusting toilets, their showers don't work, they get rotten food sent to them, and they serve 12-16 months instead of 6 months like the Regular Military. Why aren't the regular's there? why not the marines? While the main body of American troops over there are Full Time Regulars, They live in lax comfort for the most part in large bases. The men who wanted to defend their homes and family in American get stepped on by GWB and Donald Rumsfeld. This is the most disgusting thing America has ever done to our patriotic militia.

[Watchman]

Hey, I'm not privy to the exact organisation of American armed forces, although I do know there exists some kind of reservist system on the side of the professionals.

Still, if it's not of the "go to army or go to jail" (as it roughly works out here in Finland) variety but based on some sort of voluntary enlistement all those people have no complaint coming to me, thankyouverymuch. You sign up for it, you deal with it. If my little brother (who's serving his mandatory army time now) went and signed up for UN peacekeeping duty (which is "volunteers only") and then got killed by some gunman in Africa I would naturally grieve - he's family, after all - but I would also recognize that he knew what he was getting into and went anyway.
Not much of a comfort, that, but something to keep in mind.

[sharrukin]

You know, Washington is known to have been what you might call a staunch decentralist; that makes said quote very politically biased and hence no better than any other political slogan...
Whether the basic point implied thereinis tenable has also been subject to lenghty and, unsurprisingly, unresolved arm-wrestling among scholars of Political Science; decentralisation vs centralization is one of the "eternal dilemmas" of the discipline.
(Sorry, I just happen to have an allergy about people treating the Founding Fathers and their ideas like some kinds of infallible divine revelations.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson

War is there only because there are armies standing against each other. A democratic process doesn't require nations and in the end that is the solution. A global society with local autonomy.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington

The quote was in response to bmolsson suggesting that "A democratic process doesn't require nations". The point is that force exists in a state to make things possible, including democracy. Democracy IS NOT possible without a state or organization to enforce the rules. Force is required for democracy to exist.

Decentralization vs centralization has nothing to do with it. Governments are dangerous and can get out of control and this must be guarded against. That is at it's core what democracy is about. Being Canadian I carry no candle for the founding fathers of the American Republic but I do know wisdom when I hear it.

[Watchman]

I stand corrected, then. Sorry. It is getting rather late and my head's working a little sluggishly.

[sharrukin]

I stand corrected, then. Sorry. It is getting rather late and my head's working a little sluggishly.

No problem as I have done much the same myself.

[bmolsson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson

War is there only because there are armies standing against each other. A democratic process doesn't require nations and in the end that is the solution. A global society with local autonomy.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington

The quote was in response to bmolsson suggesting that "A democratic process doesn't require nations". The point is that force exists in a state to make things possible, including democracy. Democracy IS NOT possible without a state or organization to enforce the rules. Force is required for democracy to exist.

Decentralization vs centralization has nothing to do with it. Governments are dangerous and can get out of control and this must be guarded against. That is at it's core what democracy is about. Being Canadian I carry no candle for the founding fathers of the American Republic but I do know wisdom when I hear it.

To have a state doesn't require a nation. Patriotism and nationalism has nothing to do with a political system, it only classify people and place them in specified areas with guarded borders.

In the future political groupings and ethnic belongings will be dimished and found globally. It has already happened within certain groups. Law enforcement will go global. There are very little arguments, if any, for locally specific rulings and laws.

George Washington did base his statement on the way he built the Amercian revolution. With violence and terrorism of the existing central power. It is not valid in a modern society.

[Somebody Else]

The way I see it, people may well join up for all sorts of reasons, but I'd think them very strange if they viewed fighting, killing and being killed as a great thing.
Personally, I'm considering applying for a commisision once I finish university - not because of any deep-seated patriotism, but because I feel I could learn a lot from the army - organisation of manpower, self-discipline etc.
If I were required to go into combat - I would like to think that my main reason for being there would be to minimise the negative effects in any way I can - preventing my men from being injured, and likewise anyone unfortunate enough to be on the opposite side to me.
The way I see it, being in combat is one of the 'edges' of human civilisation, and if I can sway the balance of it the right way by being on that edge, I should.
You could say that though I don't feel much loyalty towards my country, I feel loyal to humanity - even if that sounds a little trite.

[KafirChobee]

Somebody! Read the fine print before you sign up! It is not a 4 or 6 year tour of duty any more - it is 'til the duration. Men that thought they had finished their required service have been recalled, forced to leave their employment, give up their homes (unprotected ny US law), and return to the servitued of the military. To be all they can be - so that others don't have to be.
One simply does not resign their commission in todays military.

I was 5 when my Dad was recalled for Korea. I remember it. I recall my brothers crying (3 and 2) when he was leaving, and my mother holding on to me for support. Me, I was stunned - at 5 one is never sure exactly what is going on, but they do realize when their world is about to change (I cried to, of course - when your mom does, you tend to also at that age).

Imagine what it must be like for some of the men and women serving (especially the Reservists and NGs') that had to give up positions they had "served their time for" at the office - only to be dragged back into the military to serve again. Because, they hadn't understood the "fine" print.

Never be curious enough about a subject (say war) to actually go beyond reading about it, or listening to those that experienced it.

Having grownup knowing that I was going to war - the entire 'nam era generation did, accepted it (we were all fatalists), simply knew. Only we thought (most of us) that we would only be sacrificed for the good of our nation, the world (HOPEFULLY), the betterment of mankind. oops - 56,000 on a wall is what we got (the oops generation).

What others have said here probably has more relevence than my own ramblings. Still, many hold true to the fact, that men can and do bend to the phraseology and patriotism of expounded by the powers that be, those that weld the ability to fabricate believable lies woven to extend their power over others. To make it unpatriotic to believe other than they wish people too.

It is a hard thing to accept that a loved one died for nothing, or for the philosophy, or profit of others. Took me 5 years, 'til 1969 to fully grasp the ideA that my buds had died for nothing but the wishes of corrupt dying old men. For the MIC (MilitaryIndustrialComplex). It is a hard reality to accept that people one loved were sacrificed for the profits of others - and nothing more. It is even more difficult to stop waving the (a) flag, proclaiming patriotism over individualism, or challenging the real intentions of those that created a war. Even harder to realize that one's patriotism is being used against them for the benefit of others - whom mouth the words we long to hear, but believe in nothing but profit (over the dying bodies of the true patriots).

Most accept that Hitler was a megallamaniac (etc, etc) that was intent on having his way with the world. He invaded nations and got away with it - up to Poland. Some like to point out that "appeasement" didn't work, then. Few ask why the allies of the time didn't simply kick Germany's butt when they had the chance. Simply, they recalled WWI, and wished to avoid it - as their predicessors were unable to do. It wasn't appeasement, it was a rational to continue peace. It simply did not work, when dealing with a madman. Sadam was not mad (Egomanianical, maybe), he simply didn't realize he was dealing with one.

What Bush43 did was create a situation that challenged the rest of the world to hate the USA, and for him to thumb his nose at them and say, "We ya'll don't need youse, we can do it alone." Upon being shown that the other 190+ nations might have a say in how the world politic is run, he then went on to the propagandizing method of blaming those that oppose him for all the worlds wrongs (no matter that 80% of the worlds population dislikes the US, or blames its corporations for their poverty). Cute idea though, blaming the poor for being poor? Classic.

Anyway. Somebody, I applaude you for wanting to serve. I warn you, that the rules (though unchanged) now all apply. It is a matter of enter at your own risk. Don't expect to sign up for 3 or 4 years and not serve 6 or 8, or 'til the duration of the end of hostilities. It's a new era in military slavery - one that previously never existed.

[Somebody Else]

KafirChobee - just one thing, I'm British. Speaking to some of my friends - who are involved (in the OTC and TAs), the impression I get is that a 3 or 4 year commission is possible. Also, I plan to spend part of my time at uni in the OTC, in order to verify that I am suited to it.

*Addendum*

If, towards the end of my service, I was asked to go to war, and I had the choice to leave, I would go - I would never betray the men I serve with - even if I were scared witless. That's just not done.

[Redleg]

Somebody! Read the fine print before you sign up! It is not a 4 or 6 year tour of duty any more - it is 'til the duration. Men that thought they had finished their required service have been recalled, forced to leave their employment, give up their homes (unprotected ny US law), and return to the servitued of the military. To be all they can be - so that others don't have to be.

Its always been the duration KafirChobee both my grandfathers spent over 3 years under arms fighting during WW2. Reservists and the National Guard are getting the short end of the stick - I would have to agree with you.

One simply does not resign their commission in todays military.

Wrong - I know several that have since 2002.

I was 5 when my Dad was recalled for Korea. I remember it. I recall my brothers crying (3 and 2) when he was leaving, and my mother holding on to me for support. Me, I was stunned - at 5 one is never sure exactly what is going on, but they do realize when their world is about to change (I cried to, of course - when your mom does, you tend to also at that age).

Yep happens - it happened during Vietnam also and its happening now.

Imagine what it must be like for some of the men and women serving (especially the Reservists and NGs') that had to give up positions they had "served their time for" at the office - only to be dragged back into the military to serve again. Because, they hadn't understood the "fine" print.

When I signed my initial contract I understood it was for 4 years active duty and 4 years Individual Ready Reserve. If you sign something you better darn well read the whole document.

Never be curious enough about a subject (say war) to actually go beyond reading about it, or listening to those that experienced it.

LOL - don't go swimming because the sharks might get you.

Having grownup knowing that I was going to war - the entire 'nam era generation did, accepted it (we were all fatalists), simply knew. Only we thought (most of us) that we would only be sacrificed for the good of our nation, the world (HOPEFULLY), the betterment of mankind. oops - 56,000 on a wall is what we got (the oops generation).

And it shows in how you post - not a problem - until you go from being informative to ranting.

What others have said here probably has more relevence than my own ramblings. Still, many hold true to the fact, that men can and do bend to the phraseology and patriotism of expounded by the powers that be, those that weld the ability to fabricate believable lies woven to extend their power over others. To make it unpatriotic to believe other than they wish people too.

The web of deciet is woven by both sides of the arguement. Like the fallacy that it is only about the oil.

It is a hard thing to accept that a loved one died for nothing, or for the philosophy, or profit of others. Took me 5 years, 'til 1969 to fully grasp the ideA that my buds had died for nothing but the wishes of corrupt dying old men. For the MIC (MilitaryIndustrialComplex). It is a hard reality to accept that people one loved were sacrificed for the profits of others - and nothing more. It is even more difficult to stop waving the (a) flag, proclaiming patriotism over individualism, or challenging the real intentions of those that created a war. Even harder to realize that one's patriotism is being used against them for the benefit of others - whom mouth the words we long to hear, but believe in nothing but profit (over the dying bodies of the true patriots).

And if I remember right - you work for the same Military Industrial COmplex - your arguement here is nothing short of hypocritical if my memory serves me correctly. Your making a profit in your personal life off the sweat and blood of the young men that go off to war.

Most accept that Hitler was a megallamaniac (etc, etc) that was intent on having his way with the world. He invaded nations and got away with it - up to Poland. Some like to point out that "appeasement" didn't work, then. Few ask why the allies of the time didn't simply kick Germany's butt when they had the chance. Simply, they recalled WWI, and wished to avoid it - as their predicessors were unable to do. It wasn't appeasement, it was a rational to continue peace. It simply did not work, when dealing with a madman. Sadam was not mad (Egomanianical, maybe), he simply didn't realize he was dealing with one.

If you think Saddam was not a madman - then you haven't read what he has done to his own people. Yea right he definately was Egomanical - but saying President Bush is mad - without painting Saddam in the same brush stroke is again hypocrtical.

What Bush43 did was create a situation that challenged the rest of the world to hate the USA, and for him to thumb his nose at them and say, "We ya'll don't need youse, we can do it alone." Upon being shown that the other 190+ nations might have a say in how the world politic is run, he then went on to the propagandizing method of blaming those that oppose him for all the worlds wrongs (no matter that 80% of the worlds population dislikes the US, or blames its corporations for their poverty). Cute idea though, blaming the poor for being poor? Classic.

Explain Kuwait in 1991 then their oh enlighten one. Explain the 10 years that my brother in arms had to fly mission over Iraq, that the 1st Cav Division rotated in and out of Kuwait during the 90's. Oh yes Bush created the situation all by himself.

Anyway. Somebody, I applaude you for wanting to serve. I warn you, that the rules (though unchanged) now all apply. It is a matter of enter at your own risk. Don't expect to sign up for 3 or 4 years and not serve 6 or 8, or 'til the duration of the end of hostilities. It's a new era in military slavery - one that previously never existed.

And your wrong again KafirCohee to the end of the duration of conflict has always existed - the only time it did not was Vietnam. And if I remember right Korea started out for the duration - but somewhere in the middle of the conflict they started out with a point rotation system. Funny thing is that the military kept on changing the required points for rotation based upon what was happening.

[Pindar]

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."


Good Quote

You know, Washington is known to have been what you might call a staunch decentralist...

Washington was a Federalist. The Federalist Party was the more 'centrist', more national in orientation, of the two political parties at the time.

The source does not change the impact of the quote.

[Watchman]

If Saddam was that bad, then pray explain why the nice and well-meaning US of A counted him among its allies for quite a while (about the whole Eighties, to be precise) when he was fighting the Iranian mullahs for them ?

Dunno about you, but where I'm from there's certain words applicable when you let an useful tyrant fight your enemies and only start criticizing his internal policies when he gets troublesome and you want to knock him off...
And they're not very flattering words, you know.

So much of that, please. The last I checked this thread wasn't about the collected foreign-affairs skeletons gathering dust in the United States' collective locker, or of Saddam's dubious management practices. (Side note: I fail to understand why someone would need to be mad to be a tyrant; cold-blooded sanity has always worked much better in that job.)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If Saddam was that bad, then pray explain why the nice and well-meaning US of A counted him among its allies for quite a while (about the whole Eighties, to be precise) when he was fighting the Iranian mullahs for them ?

Allies? Did you know the Israelis suppled the Iranians with arms in this war? Do you think Israel ever thought of Iran as an ally? Its called the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Truth is that we and the Israelis wanted both countries to fight eachother and leave us alone. Besides Russia and France were the ones who supplied Saddam with almost all his weapons.