Fighting for MY Freedoms?

[sambino510]

I have no doubt that some kids of various congressmen have served, but thats a dozen or so kids of over 500 Congressmen. Not to belittle their sacrifice, but I would argue it's still pretty disproportionate, at least for the UPPER class.

But sure, I would not argue that there are a ton, if not most, middle class men serving in the military. I appreciate the fact you attached some statistics. My main argument is that the very rich seldom seem to go, not so much that the very poor always go. But that's another story. My main point is that the entire military system is a bad idea, not that the wrong people are going and that if the right people went I wouldn't have a problem with it.

We have a volunteer military. I wouldn't have it any other way. but if you do the math (Which I saw a few years ago and can't find today) The congress kids as a group actually surpassed any other group you could come up with in percentage of those who served....

I knew rich and poor throughout my career, You never really had any clue other than the way some of them acted..... I went to give a re-enlistment talk to one young man (Part of the job) And found he had 3 paychecks thrown in his desk drawer. I chewed his ass out for the possible risk of theft and he showed me his check book with a $50,000 Balance. Seems his Dad deposited a couple grand a month into his account. his dad owns a Hotel on Miami beach. Military service in his family was traditional....

Of course I also had kids who were raised dirt poor. But the fact remains that most of the Military comes from most of the people. The middle.....

we can look at statistics and we can look at the situations behind the statistics...

here is from the introduction to your link...

"Today’s recruiting environment is excellent. For the last three years, the services have
experienced extraordinary recruiting success. Probably the most prominent factor has
been the persistently high unemployment rate, particularly for youth. The
unemployment rate for 16- to-19-year-olds has been about 25 percent for the last three
years, while the rate for young adults (20- to-24-year-olds) has been about 15 percent.Given the scarcity of civilian job opportunities and a somewhat reduced requirement
for enlisted accessions, the quality of accessions (in terms of educational backgrounds
and ability test scores) increased in each of the past three years. In fact, FY11 accessions
reflect the highest quality of any year since the All-Volunteer Force began in 1973.

As the economy improves, however, it will be difficult to sustain this high quality.
Youth influencers have not been as likely to recommend military service as they were in
the 1980s and 1990s. Increasing numbers of bright young Americans are going to
college immediately after completing high school. Some commentators expect
budgetary problems to create pressures to stop increasing or even to reduce military
pay."

i think that says a lot.

A solid point. Whatever statistics may show, there are always underlying reasons behind the statistics that must be taken into account. Once again, as I stated in the original post, the motivation behind joining the military is far too complex to be nailed down to one perspective. There are plenty of soldiers that come from all sorts of backgrounds, but I think this is a less-important point compared to the broader implications of war and the military system. I think it's true though that, barring other circumstances like tradition or just a general interest in the military, poor economic situations and isolation from other job opportunities could definitely push people towards the military. Not necessarily the only factor though.

 

[sambino510]

Truth is that over a dozen kids of congressmen or Senators have served in the military during this War on Terror.

And according to the below source the majority of troops come from middle income families. I would post the graph but it's inserted in a document i cannot copy.
It appears that the majority come from homes that make between 37,000 and 77,000 per year with the 50,000+ the highest.

Look at chart B-41

http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/ACCESSION POLICY/PopRep2011/summary/Summary.pdf

I have no doubt that some kids of various congressmen have served, but thats a dozen or so kids of over 500 Congressmen. Not to belittle their sacrifice, but I would argue it's still pretty disproportionate, at least for the UPPER class.

But sure, I would not argue that there are a ton, if not most, middle class men serving in the military. I appreciate the fact you attached some statistics. My main argument is that the very rich seldom seem to go, not so much that the very poor always go. But that's another story. My main point is that the entire military system is a bad idea, not that the wrong people are going and that if the right people went I wouldn't have a problem with it.

We have a volunteer military. I wouldn't have it any other way. but if you do the math (Which I saw a few years ago and can't find today) The congress kids as a group actually surpassed any other group you could come up with in percentage of those who served....

I knew rich and poor throughout my career, You never really had any clue other than the way some of them acted..... I went to give a re-enlistment talk to one young man (Part of the job) And found he had 3 paychecks thrown in his desk drawer. I chewed his ass out for the possible risk of theft and he showed me his check book with a $50,000 Balance. Seems his Dad deposited a couple grand a month into his account. his dad owns a Hotel on Miami beach. Military service in his family was traditional....

Of course I also had kids who were raised dirt poor. But the fact remains that most of the Military comes from most of the people. The middle.....

Agreed. Once again I'm not familiar with much of the statistics, but I also would think it's pretty easy to say, statistically that MOST of the military comes from MOST of the people. That is, they have the most chance of going to the military if they're the largest portion of society. But sure, things like tradition or other reasons certainly have to be taken into account, and that's why it's far too difficult to make blanket statements regarding soldier motivation. I'd still be curious to know how many soldiers are concerned or familiar with the politics of the conflicts they partake in versus how many are simply trying to learn particular ideals, have no other options in life, or are just doing it or their families. What were your experiences with this like if you don't mind my asking? Or did people simply not talk about it?

 

[Survivalist]

Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.

In the last 100 years, what wars would you have supported, that you would have joined in the fight if you were able to at the time?

In the same light, as an imaginary president before the US became actively involved in each war you support, would you have given aid and support say to the Soviets in WW2 or the British in WW1?

In the last 100 years, I would have probably only supported World War II, as Hitler was hell-bent on world domination and, for the most part, had the means to accomplish his goals. That being said, I doubt I would have joined the war-effort to fight personally (notwithstanding the draft), as I'm personally a pacifist and would sooner die than kill, that's just the way I am.

As for your question about support, I regret to say I'm a bit of an isolationist. I think revolutions like the Syrian War or Afghanistan or whatnot must be fought by the people themselves. People would then reply to me that they don't have the means, and thus the U.S. has to fight for them, but I would argue that any people with enough motivation, unity, dedication can overcome a superior force. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have supported certain countries down the line, but I would certainly be hesitant to do so. The examples you mentioned for instance, at least the Russians, would probably be a country I would support in a conflict, but that would primarily be as a proxy war to fight against Hitler, not necessarily because I like the Russians or think they're a bunch of great guys. Today, however, I feel we have no place supporting, say, the Syrian rebels, as it's a conflict we don't fully understand. World War I was a completely overblown, European conflict that had no winner or loser in my opinion, it was complete destruction and destabilization of the region that effected decades to come. Thus, whether the U.S. fought or didn't fight, I think the outcome would have been just as consequential.

Good answers. I don't agree with much of it though.

I try to hold all countries to the same standard--especially their leaders.

Because the end product of WW2 was that it made the world safe for communism, I would not have been so buddy-buddy with the commie psychopath Stalin as FDR was. I would have given not a nickel in aid to the monster at any time.

On a moral basis, I see that Stalin was far worse than Hitler prior to 1941. Also, based on territories grabbed by each prior to that time, Stalin comes out far worse.

 

[sambino510]

In the last 100 years, what wars would you have supported, that you would have joined in the fight if you were able to at the time?

In the same light, as an imaginary president before the US became actively involved in each war you support, would you have given aid and support say to the Soviets in WW2 or the British in WW1?

In the last 100 years, I would have probably only supported World War II, as Hitler was hell-bent on world domination and, for the most part, had the means to accomplish his goals. That being said, I doubt I would have joined the war-effort to fight personally (notwithstanding the draft), as I'm personally a pacifist and would sooner die than kill, that's just the way I am.

As for your question about support, I regret to say I'm a bit of an isolationist. I think revolutions like the Syrian War or Afghanistan or whatnot must be fought by the people themselves. People would then reply to me that they don't have the means, and thus the U.S. has to fight for them, but I would argue that any people with enough motivation, unity, dedication can overcome a superior force. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have supported certain countries down the line, but I would certainly be hesitant to do so. The examples you mentioned for instance, at least the Russians, would probably be a country I would support in a conflict, but that would primarily be as a proxy war to fight against Hitler, not necessarily because I like the Russians or think they're a bunch of great guys. Today, however, I feel we have no place supporting, say, the Syrian rebels, as it's a conflict we don't fully understand. World War I was a completely overblown, European conflict that had no winner or loser in my opinion, it was complete destruction and destabilization of the region that effected decades to come. Thus, whether the U.S. fought or didn't fight, I think the outcome would have been just as consequential.

Good answers. I don't agree with much of it though.

I try to hold all countries to the same standard--especially their leaders.

Because the end product of WW2 was that it made the world safe for communism, I would not have been so buddy-buddy with the commie psychopath Stalin as FDR was. I would have given not a nickel in aid to the monster at any time.

On a moral basis, I see that Stalin was far worse than Hitler prior to 1941. Also, based on territories grabbed by each prior to that time, Stalin comes out far worse.

True on all points. To be fair, I was simply trying to present myself as someone that wasn't COMPLETELY against aid to other countries that were suffering against an invasion like the Nazi one. Also, my reasoning that I would fight Hitler THROUGH supporting Stalin was purely a hypothetical reason that I think a president like FDR would use, not necessarily my own personal view. I don't have any particular love for Stalin or the Russian army, as you're right that statistically Stalin was just as bad. That being said, I don't think Communism was the main consequence of World War II, Communism isn't the reason I wouldn't support Stalin, and I don't think Communism itself is a particularly evil ideology. It's simply been hijacked by a number of other ruthless regimes throughout the century and then presented as true Communism, when it is nothing of the sort.

You're right though, every leader must be held to the same standard, which is a good lesson for the U.S.'s current foreign policy, advocating democracy in some countries while allowing human rights violations in many of our allies' countries, simply based on U.S. interest at the particular time. In countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, or Morocco, all currently still monarchies, we simply don't want to rock the boat and mess up our relationship by arguing for more liberties for their citizens. In Iran, on the other hand, we have no problem criticizing their Islamic theocracy, because we're on bad terms with them anyways and can use their supposed human rights violations to paint them as monsters. Anyways, just a side point, but lessons from World War II and earlier definitely apply to today.

Do you disagree with any other points made? Just out of curiosity. I understand most of what I write is pretty subjective and just based on my own personal world view.

 

[SFC Ollie]

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill


Nuff said............

 

[9thIDdoc]

I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally.

Then you don't understand a damn thing.

If you want to critique me and correct me, explain why I "don't understand a damn thing". In that particular statement, I simply meant that my particular views are that killing, no matter what the reason, is wrong, and that I regret that the lives of these soldiers are being wasted needlessly. That does not necessarily mean that there are not soldiers who would claim they are fighting for me, and power to them. All of this is my personal opinion though, so I don't see how I could not understand something that I'm not claiming I know all the answers to.

I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally.

Say it all you like but-if you are American-your statement is simply untrue. Your money in the form of taxes collected by your elected government pays the soldier's paycheck and all equipment and expenses. And your elected government determines if, when, where, how, and why warfare takes place. You may not enjoy it but-if you think you have a right to share in the rights and freedoms of American citizens-you must also share in the moral responsibility of what it takes to maintain them. That's not optional. I may not like the President and I may not have voted for him but that doesn't change the fact that he currently holds that position. Freedom isn't free.

I simply meant that my particular views are that killing, no matter what the reason, is wrong, and that I regret that the lives of these soldiers are being wasted needlessly

How long do you think this Country would last without a military ready to kill on an instant's notice and able to do their job well? If the lives of soldiers are being wasted needlessly do you deny your part of the responsibility for that as well? I think you need to make an effort to deal with reality. The world is what it is; not we would like it to be.

 

[SFC Ollie]

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

 

[Natalie]

Natalie, not everyone in the military is "poor" and have no other choices. It's insulting and degrading to think that of our military.

i didn't say every1 i said the 1s dieing

i herd a lot of storys about what happens in iraq and the story never had a part where a general kick open a door and lead the charge in to a house may be I herd wrong but i don't think so

not evey1 is smart enough to go to colege or has enough money I think may be 3 guys I went to school with didn't join cos they had money to go to more school

an nonthing i said means i don't like r military i love them but there needs to be more of options for them like me my choise was be a waitress or a stripper thx some choice

and thx for whoeva neg rep me for having a diff opinon hate freedom of speach i guess

It's important that YOU stay in school. That way you will learn how to communicate with others. Concentrate on subjects like spelling and grammar. Otherwise you are quite correct, your choices are between being a stripper or a waitress. IF you don't want to be limited to stripping or waitressing you will have to become worth more. If your friends are anything like yourself, it is sad that they made decisions in their lives that led them to few options. Some of those decisions are to be uneducated children that grow up into uneducated adults.

school is over for me and colege is not an option what good would school do me ne way???

worth more? thats intresting cos i thot ppl where worth sumthing just cos they ppl geuss im wrong

wat desison do u think they make??? were to be born? how rich daddy will be??? not alot of desion to make there

 

[Unkotare]

I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally.

Then you don't understand a damn thing.

If you want to critique me and correct me, explain why I "don't understand a damn thing". In that particular statement, I simply meant that my particular views are that killing, no matter what the reason, is wrong, and that I regret that the lives of these soldiers are being wasted needlessly. That does not necessarily mean that there are not soldiers who would claim they are fighting for me, and power to them. All of this is my personal opinion though, so I don't see how I could not understand something that I'm not claiming I know all the answers to.

I don't teach for free, but it seems that a reasonably intelligent adult wouldn't need this spelled out for him anyway.

 

[Unkotare]

i didn't say every1 i said the 1s dieing

i herd a lot of storys about what happens in iraq and the story never had a part where a general kick open a door and lead the charge in to a house may be I herd wrong but i don't think so

not evey1 is smart enough to go to colege or has enough money I think may be 3 guys I went to school with didn't join cos they had money to go to more school

an nonthing i said means i don't like r military i love them but there needs to be more of options for them like me my choise was be a waitress or a stripper thx some choice

and thx for whoeva neg rep me for having a diff opinon hate freedom of speach i guess

It's important that YOU stay in school. That way you will learn how to communicate with others. Concentrate on subjects like spelling and grammar. Otherwise you are quite correct, your choices are between being a stripper or a waitress. IF you don't want to be limited to stripping or waitressing you will have to become worth more. If your friends are anything like yourself, it is sad that they made decisions in their lives that led them to few options. Some of those decisions are to be uneducated children that grow up into uneducated adults.

school is over for me and colege is not an option what good would school do me ne way???

worth more? thats intresting cos i thot ppl where worth sumthing just cos they ppl geuss im wrong

wat desison do u think they make??? were to be born? how rich daddy will be??? not alot of desion to make there

From the way you write, it seems that school was over for you sometime before the 3rd Grade.

 

[sambino510]

Then you don't understand a damn thing.

If you want to critique me and correct me, explain why I "don't understand a damn thing". In that particular statement, I simply meant that my particular views are that killing, no matter what the reason, is wrong, and that I regret that the lives of these soldiers are being wasted needlessly. That does not necessarily mean that there are not soldiers who would claim they are fighting for me, and power to them. All of this is my personal opinion though, so I don't see how I could not understand something that I'm not claiming I know all the answers to.

I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally.

Say it all you like but-if you are American-your statement is simply untrue. Your money in the form of taxes collected by your elected government pays the soldier's paycheck and all equipment and expenses. And your elected government determines if, when, where, how, and why warfare takes place. You may not enjoy it but-if you think you have a right to share in the rights and freedoms of American citizens-you must also share in the moral responsibility of what it takes to maintain them. That's not optional. I may not like the President and I may not have voted for him but that doesn't change the fact that he currently holds that position. Freedom isn't free.

I simply meant that my particular views are that killing, no matter what the reason, is wrong, and that I regret that the lives of these soldiers are being wasted needlessly

How long do you think this Country would last without a military ready to kill on an instant's notice and able to do their job well? If the lives of soldiers are being wasted needlessly do you deny your part of the responsibility for that as well? I think you need to make an effort to deal with reality. The world is what it is; not we would like it to be.

A couple good points, though I assure you I'm aware of my and other citizens' role in funding the military, I'm not so naive as to not realize that. Also, in my original post I stated that Iraqis or Afghan citizens dying is doing nothing protect my freedom (in my opinion), so I don't agree with whatever moral responsibility I have to support our military. Just because I'm an American, i still reserve a right to disagree with not only the allocation of our military forces, but also their usage period. Even if I am to say that I have certain fundamental responsibilities as an American, my responsibility as a human being of this Earth trumps my role as an American. If I feel America is doing something seriously wrong in our foreign policy, I'm going to say something about it.

In terms of your second statement, the U.S. government is too focused on the fact that people want to kill us and not enough on WHY they want to kill us. Surely, we will always have enemies, just like any individual or any other country. That being said, it seems to that we often fight our enemies because they want to kill us, and our enemies often want to kill us because we fight them. Sooner or later someone will have to be the bigger person and stop the never-ending violence, and if we are all to assume that America is the bastion of liberty and freedom, I see no reason why it can't be us. There are plenty of countries in this world who have survived quite some time without a major military and without going to war. Why are we so special?

How am I responsible for the soldiers needlessly dying? I'm not saying I'm not, like for instance once again my taxes do go towards funding their missions. I was just curious if you had any other reasons behind that.

 

[sambino510]

It's important that YOU stay in school. That way you will learn how to communicate with others. Concentrate on subjects like spelling and grammar. Otherwise you are quite correct, your choices are between being a stripper or a waitress. IF you don't want to be limited to stripping or waitressing you will have to become worth more. If your friends are anything like yourself, it is sad that they made decisions in their lives that led them to few options. Some of those decisions are to be uneducated children that grow up into uneducated adults.

school is over for me and colege is not an option what good would school do me ne way???

worth more? thats intresting cos i thot ppl where worth sumthing just cos they ppl geuss im wrong

wat desison do u think they make??? were to be born? how rich daddy will be??? not alot of desion to make there

From the way you write, it seems that school was over for you sometime before the 3rd Grade.

It seems to me like you and others are getting far too worked up over this person's typing, and are not paying enough attention to the substance of her writing. Obviously it's just opinion, but if you want to critique her, focus on the writing and not her spelling. It really, really does not matter, especially not on this website. One-sentence zingers do nothing to aid in this educational debate about the military and other issues.

 

[sambino510]

Then you don't understand a damn thing.

If you want to critique me and correct me, explain why I "don't understand a damn thing". In that particular statement, I simply meant that my particular views are that killing, no matter what the reason, is wrong, and that I regret that the lives of these soldiers are being wasted needlessly. That does not necessarily mean that there are not soldiers who would claim they are fighting for me, and power to them. All of this is my personal opinion though, so I don't see how I could not understand something that I'm not claiming I know all the answers to.

I don't teach for free, but it seems that a reasonably intelligent adult wouldn't need this spelled out for him anyway.

I don't see what use there is in denying me a simple request. All I wanted was for you to explain your critique of my writing, whether or not you think I'm an "intelligent adult" is irrelevant. Assume I'm an idiot child for all I care, I just wanted some feedback.

 

[sambino510]

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill


Nuff said............

A good quote. Personally I think just as honorable as being willing to fight for something is being willing to die for something. I, and I would assume many other pacifists and people who don't believe in killing are certainly willing to die. I don't think it's "miserable" for someone to be willing to face death without fighting back, and I think the fact that a person being willing to die shows they're completely selfless, and not interested in self-preservation. As for the last part of the quote, I can't stop the military from fighting, but I feel free enough (whatever credit you want to give to them for that freedom) and don't necessarily consider them "better men" than myself simply because they fight and I do not. One day, war will have to stop, and with the great strides our world has made in the past century, I think that time could come fairly soon with the right people in charge and the right dedication to non-violent protest and peace.

 

[Mushroom]

Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.

Oh how I always love when somebody starts a thread that they claim is "not intended to disrespect Veterans", then turns around and does exactly that.

And maybe you should consider that many of those that are the "best and brightest" of your generation are maybe that way because they made the choice to place their country and others in front of themselves. Think about it.

July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.

Actually, Veteran's Day is the day set aside to honor Veterans. Memorial Day is set aside to remember those who have fallen. And Independence Day is to celebrate all of America, including those that serve. The military normally takes part, because normally it is our job (or that of a Veteran) to carry the flag which represents our country, which we have all served for.

And Huey Helicopters? I don't think I have seen one of those flying over that was military in over 20 years.

As I thought deeper about this whole question, I decided to take the war in Afghanistan as an example. Originally, this war was started in order to take revenge against Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden. This particular, early part of the mission was maybe fighting for "me", or most of the "me"'s who wanted to fight back after a direct attack on our soil. Nonetheless, now we are in a deep, complicated process of nation-building, with little to no way out. So are the American soldiers firing at young Afghan Taliban soldiers, or accidentally blowing up a few children here and there actually fighting for MY personal freedom? MY liberty? I'm not so sure.

No, it was not about "revenge", it was about eliminating AQ as a threat. Period. By the time he was killed, AQ had largely become impotent and fractured because the infrastructure of the organization had been destroyed. Even though OBL was still in hiding, the organization he had spent years created was dead and gone, and in it's place a fractured in-cohesive batch of groups calling themselves "al-Qaeda XXXX" had appeared. ANd he was increasingly frustrated because they pretty much ignored him and did whatever they wanted to do.

As for "Nation Building", I think that is something we should have been doing 20 years ago. I long have believed that the biggest disgrace that we did to Afghanistan was after helping them throw out the Soviets, we did absolutely nothing to help them rebuild their destroyed nation. We should have moved in and helped them put things back in order instead of allowing them to fall into a decade of civil war.

So then who are our soldiers fighting and dying for? The Afghan people?

And that is perfectly fine with me to be honest.

Unlike some people, I have extreme sympathy for people who through only the accident of where (and who) they were born, have to suffer cruelty at the hands of others. Be it the Afghans, the Kurds, the Bosnians, even those in Darfur. And I find it rather disgusting that people can simply shrug and say "It's not my problem", and willingly ignore such issues simply because they are "Not Americans".

If you do not feel it is our place to be there, then feel free to not join the military. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to force you to join.

Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.

OK, now we get to the real meat of the issue. And this just screams the fact that you do not understand squat about the military.

This "politics of their actual mission" is pure bilgewater. Plain and simple, nothing else but. While I am on the high-side of being "politically aware", I am also strongly non-partisan. This is because I strongly believe that it is against the very idea of the military in our nation to be "Political" (at least while they are in uniform).

And this belief against partisanship for me is very neutral. Want to turn me against somebody in a debate? Let them refer to the past president as "Junior", or even the current one as "Hussein". I may or may not agree with whoever the President is, or their beliefs and policies. But if you disagree, at least have the decency to be respectful.

And those in the military do not just "obey orders". In fact, there is absolutely no punishment for refusing to obey an order (and you can in fact get a Court Martial for obeying the wrong one).

And in closing, consider this:

You in a later post stated that the only war in the last century you could have supported was WWII. And then you went on about Hitler. Why is that? Myself, the real enemy in that war was always Japan. And not because of Pearl Harbor, but the Philippines. They invaded and occupied an American Territory, killing countless American Civilians, turning the women into prostitutes for their Army. That was the real reason for me being involved in WWII.

And I guess you had no problem with South Korea being invaded by North Korea.

Or Kuwait being conquered by Iraq.

Or in trying to end a bloody civil war in former Yugoslavia, where the Muslims were being slaughtered.

Or in trying to end an invasion and civi war in Lebanon.

Or in trying to end a civil war in SOmalia.

And I can go on and on. Myself, I find apathy towards others simply because they are not "Americans" rather disgusting. I care about all people, not just those who happen to have born or moved to this country.

 

[Natalie]

It's important that YOU stay in school. That way you will learn how to communicate with others. Concentrate on subjects like spelling and grammar. Otherwise you are quite correct, your choices are between being a stripper or a waitress. IF you don't want to be limited to stripping or waitressing you will have to become worth more. If your friends are anything like yourself, it is sad that they made decisions in their lives that led them to few options. Some of those decisions are to be uneducated children that grow up into uneducated adults.

school is over for me and colege is not an option what good would school do me ne way???

worth more? thats intresting cos i thot ppl where worth sumthing just cos they ppl geuss im wrong

wat desison do u think they make??? were to be born? how rich daddy will be??? not alot of desion to make there

From the way you write, it seems that school was over for you sometime before the 3rd Grade.

a presonal attack insteed of rly respond to me whats wrong no ansers???

if u rly wanna know mostly i post on my brakes at work so i dont have alot of time to make good spelling an i am not good at it ne way so why bother?

 

[Unkotare]

school is over for me and colege is not an option what good would school do me ne way???

worth more? thats intresting cos i thot ppl where worth sumthing just cos they ppl geuss im wrong

wat desison do u think they make??? were to be born? how rich daddy will be??? not alot of desion to make there

From the way you write, it seems that school was over for you sometime before the 3rd Grade.

It seems to me like you and others are getting far too worked up over this person's typing, and are not paying enough attention to the substance of her writing. Obviously it's just opinion, but if you want to critique her, focus on the writing and not her spelling. It really, really does not matter, especially not on this website. One-sentence zingers do nothing to aid in this educational debate about the military and other issues.

It really does matter. And now we've found something else you don't understand.

 

[Unkotare]

school is over for me and colege is not an option what good would school do me ne way???

worth more? thats intresting cos i thot ppl where worth sumthing just cos they ppl geuss im wrong

wat desison do u think they make??? were to be born? how rich daddy will be??? not alot of desion to make there

From the way you write, it seems that school was over for you sometime before the 3rd Grade.

a presonal attack insteed of rly respond to me whats wrong no ansers???

if u rly wanna know mostly i post on my brakes at work so i dont have alot of time to make good spelling an i am not good at it ne way so why bother?

Is English your native language?

 

[Unkotare]

I think the fact that a person being willing to die shows they're completely selfless, and not interested in self-preservation..

Anyone "not interested in self-preservation" is committing an act of violence against humanity itself.

 

[sambino510]

Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.

Oh how I always love when somebody starts a thread that they claim is "not intended to disrespect Veterans", then turns around and does exactly that.

And maybe you should consider that many of those that are the "best and brightest" of your generation are maybe that way because they made the choice to place their country and others in front of themselves. Think about it.

July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.

Actually, Veteran's Day is the day set aside to honor Veterans. Memorial Day is set aside to remember those who have fallen. And Independence Day is to celebrate all of America, including those that serve. The military normally takes part, because normally it is our job (or that of a Veteran) to carry the flag which represents our country, which we have all served for.

And Huey Helicopters? I don't think I have seen one of those flying over that was military in over 20 years.



No, it was not about "revenge", it was about eliminating AQ as a threat. Period. By the time he was killed, AQ had largely become impotent and fractured because the infrastructure of the organization had been destroyed. Even though OBL was still in hiding, the organization he had spent years created was dead and gone, and in it's place a fractured in-cohesive batch of groups calling themselves "al-Qaeda XXXX" had appeared. ANd he was increasingly frustrated because they pretty much ignored him and did whatever they wanted to do.

As for "Nation Building", I think that is something we should have been doing 20 years ago. I long have believed that the biggest disgrace that we did to Afghanistan was after helping them throw out the Soviets, we did absolutely nothing to help them rebuild their destroyed nation. We should have moved in and helped them put things back in order instead of allowing them to fall into a decade of civil war.

So then who are our soldiers fighting and dying for? The Afghan people?

And that is perfectly fine with me to be honest.

Unlike some people, I have extreme sympathy for people who through only the accident of where (and who) they were born, have to suffer cruelty at the hands of others. Be it the Afghans, the Kurds, the Bosnians, even those in Darfur. And I find it rather disgusting that people can simply shrug and say "It's not my problem", and willingly ignore such issues simply because they are "Not Americans".

If you do not feel it is our place to be there, then feel free to not join the military. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to force you to join.

Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.

OK, now we get to the real meat of the issue. And this just screams the fact that you do not understand squat about the military.

This "politics of their actual mission" is pure bilgewater. Plain and simple, nothing else but. While I am on the high-side of being "politically aware", I am also strongly non-partisan. This is because I strongly believe that it is against the very idea of the military in our nation to be "Political" (at least while they are in uniform).

And this belief against partisanship for me is very neutral. Want to turn me against somebody in a debate? Let them refer to the past president as "Junior", or even the current one as "Hussein". I may or may not agree with whoever the President is, or their beliefs and policies. But if you disagree, at least have the decency to be respectful.

And those in the military do not just "obey orders". In fact, there is absolutely no punishment for refusing to obey an order (and you can in fact get a Court Martial for obeying the wrong one).

And in closing, consider this:

You in a later post stated that the only war in the last century you could have supported was WWII. And then you went on about Hitler. Why is that? Myself, the real enemy in that war was always Japan. And not because of Pearl Harbor, but the Philippines. They invaded and occupied an American Territory, killing countless American Civilians, turning the women into prostitutes for their Army. That was the real reason for me being involved in WWII.

And I guess you had no problem with South Korea being invaded by North Korea.

Or Kuwait being conquered by Iraq.

Or in trying to end a bloody civil war in former Yugoslavia, where the Muslims were being slaughtered.

Or in trying to end an invasion and civi war in Lebanon.

Or in trying to end a civil war in SOmalia.

And I can go on and on. Myself, I find apathy towards others simply because they are not "Americans" rather disgusting. I care about all people, not just those who happen to have born or moved to this country.

First off, thank you for your well thought out post. Let me see if I can perhaps explain my personal views a little bit better, as it's always hard to fully present my opinions in an online post.

In my statement about the soldiers "obeying orders", I was simply stating what has always been presented to me as fact, and perhaps it was a bit stereotypical, so I apologize. I'm no military expert, and don't necessarily plan on being one.

You can be political without being partisan; that statement was not at all related to Democrats and Republicans. By "politics" I mean WORLD politics. That is, do soldiers take into account or understand the history of the nation they are in, the reasons the war is taking place, the different parties involved (such as Sunni and Shia Muslims, different organizations, etc.). The wars we fight today are far different than ones like World War II. We are trying to connect with the people, and I think for the soldiers to understand a lot of their culture, their language, or their history could go a long way. Once again, I don't know how much training average soldiers get in this, it just seems like a good idea. We have to fight a psychological and ideological battle with our enemies just as much as a physical one (if we are to fight them at all).

I don't know if you were referring to me as disrespectful in terms of name-calling, but I'm fairly certain I didn't call any presidents any names, nor anyone posting on this site.

My statements about WWII were completely on the fly, and fail to present the full picture of my personal views. Hitler was surely a bad person; few would deny this. I don't think he was any less dangerous than Japan. Very few would deny too that the Japanese empire was a great danger to the world. However, for someone who says we should not only defend Americans in the world, but also Somalians, Yugoslavians, and so on, it surprises me that you would say Japan's biggest crime was invading an American territory. They invaded dozens of other islands in the Pacific, not to mention the entire country of China. Are we to say that only the invasion of the Phillipines and Hawaii were the tipping point? I'm not sure if this is your view, and it probably isn't, it's just a thought. Either way, I would argue that, objectively, the U.S. government at that time mainly decided to go to war because of Pearl Harbor.

But about the Philippines, it was us who took that territory from the Spanish in the Spanish-American War in the first place at the end of the 19th century. Sure, we claimed we were liberating them from Spanish colonization, but we certainly weren't so nice to them either. Also, the Philippines were actually granted independence in 1934, in the Tydings-Mcduffie Act. It just wasn't made official until much later because the agreement stated it wouldn't go into effect for ten years. So, in principle at least, I'd say they were more-or-less an independent nation, at least so much in that Filipinos were from 1934 on not considered American nationals, and they had self government.

I promise you with all my heart, my opinion that we shouldn't get involved in other peoples' conflicts around the world has nothing to do with the fact they are not Americans. I struggle all the time when people ask me whether I support U.S. involvement in ending these conflicts around the world. In fact, I see no problem with involvement, to a degree, but I do not condone military action because I once again do not believe in killing as an effective cure for our world's problems. The conflicts you have listed are atrocities to be sure, but if we respond with violence then it will only lead to more violence down the line. War is a band-aid, not a vaccine.