Army reservist since 1989. Not hardcore, to be sure (no kamikaze bagpipers in my unit) but I’ve never regretted my enlistment.
And it’s HOO-ah!
Can anyone become a kamikaze bagpiper? That sounds kinda cool.
Sure. First step is mastering the battle cry:
If it’s not Scottish, it’s CRAAAAAAAAAAP!
Then pipe Amazing Grace as loud as possible.
And if these were the only two situations experienced by troops, then it would make sense. People commit suicide in college, too. Does that make college a terrible environment?
I give you Rule for Courts-Martial 916. You most certainly can wind up in front of a court martial for obeying illegal orders, and trainees in basic are apprised of this. I can’t agree to disagree with you on this. The facts state otherwise.
Look harder. And don’t just count the events; weigh them. WWII might have only been one war, but it was a fight for civilization itself. American servicemen have conducted themselves honorably all over the globe.
Which brings me to this:
and
Well, I’m not going to argue with you that Iraq is a hateful war, although I certainly never defended either the invasion or misconduct. You seem hell-bent on blaming the military for all of America’s mistakes and yet ignoring the good it has done. Case in point: Your country of origin (Apologies for the snide remarks about your spelling and grammar, by the way; it had not occured to me that English was not your native language.). What stopped the Russian nukes from entering Cuba? The military. Would you have preferred we had just stepped aside and done nothing?
You dismiss mutinies far too lightly. They are not calls to peace. Many mutinies involve slaughter. Alexander’s certainly did. And his world was different than ours. Far different. Back then, it was expand or die, and if Alexander hadn’t set out to conquer new lands, those lands would certainly have conquered his. Indeed, Alexander came of age in a time of war; at 16, he had to rule Macedonia while his father fought against the Byzantine empire. Hardly fair to judge him against our standards, don’t you think?
Not when you compare it to the terrible loss of life that followed. It is a very nice story, I’ll admit, but when you scratch the surface, there’s nothing underneath.
What does this have to do with anything?
I’m sorry, Imaginal, but your opinion is groundless. Half of it seems to be made up of half-baked pacifism and wishful thinking. The rest is a hodge-podge of ignorance about life in the U.S. military and blaming the military for all the mistakes and misfortunes throughout civilization. I’ll say it again: I’m not saying that America hasn’t stumbled. To lay that entirely at the military’s feet, however is not only unfair, it is bad history.
And you can thank the United States military and the sacrifice of its members for that freedom (in addition to the wiser of this country’s leaders in the past). If you want to feel terrified, well, I suppose that’s your decision. But you should consider actually learning about an institution before you start ranting against it.
Well, there’s a rigorous training program.
Heh. I was in VF-211 in San Diego from 85 to 89. We were on the Kitty Hawk. I don’t regret the six years I spent in the Navy at all.
Alright, I’ll elaborate on the later example. The friend’s battle buddy’s fiance had just been murdered. The officer in charge denied her permission to attend his funeral. The next day, she commited suicide. Her death was report as an “accident”. I think that suicides at universites are more honestly reported and that suicides in the military may not be.
Do I blame the military exclusively for her death? No. Do I think it was a heartless thing to do? Absolutely.
Ok, counter examples. Two conscientious objectors who made an appeal to military law not to go back into Iraq. They both had their days in military court, and it didn’ turn out well, though it could have been worse.
http://www.freecamilo.org/articles.htm
http://www.bendermandefense.org/
Caveat: Both sites advocate the defendant’s cases, not the military’s.
[/QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
Look harder. And don’t just count the events; weigh them. WWII might have only been one war, but it was a fight for civilization itself. American servicemen have conducted themselves honorably all over the globe.
[/QUOTE]
Alright, I’ll weigh them. In WWII, the people, civilians, of the U.S. said “sweet suffering crap, we’re in this for all the marbles!” and pulled out all the stops. People volunteered in numbers never before seen, and which have not been seen since. I tend not to view the U.S. involvement in WWII as a Military victory, but a cultural victory. That is, of course, IMHO. Since nearly everyone was either ecnomicaly supporting the military, or particpating in it, we’re talking about a fundamentally different organization than a self-selecting minorty which choses to enlist at a time of relative peace and prosperity.
WWII was the second time America fought a war that was legitimately for self defense, the first being the war of 1812, and the shape and nature of the Military at the time was very different from the contemporary Military.
I did admit, earlier, that a war, or military action can be rationalized, even nessecary, and not be “Just” or “Right”. “Right” is peaceful and equitable for all people. Yes, I would have prefered that we had done nothing, since we came close to escalating ther situation into a neuclear war, but this is one situation where saber rattling took no lives, and quite possible saved billions. It’s possible that things may have turned out alright without the missles. I sincirely doubt Castro would have fired the missles, assuming he would have had any measure of control over the situation, and even if the USSr had missles in Cuba, firing them would have precipitated a M.A.D. scenario.
p.s. Don’t worry about the dig on spelling and grammar. I ought to have been running this through Word. Pride goeth before the spell checker.
Judge him by our standards? Alright, I can see where you are comming from on this point. Clearly the ancients lived at a time when the accepted morals and ethics were different from those we enjoy. Odysseous, the hero, at the end of the Odyssey does what? Hang and kill his slave girls, for having been violated in his absence. They were damaged property, not people whose rights needed to be considered. Yes, he’s a fictional character, but he depicts the concept of Greek heroism, and many ideal virtues.
Over time, the morality and ethics we cherish has changed. Most would say that they have changed for the better. In this country we, in general and in principal at least, assert that women should have equal rights before the law as men, that slavery, except where it is punishment for a crime (look up chain gangs some time), is wrong, and that everyone has the freedom to practice whatever religion tickles their fancy.
I don’t think that it diverges too far into moral elitism to condem the Spanish Inquisition as intolerant and abhorant. Likewise, I don’t think looking at Alexander’s insistance on being given the same deferance as gods, and trying to conquer the world in a critical light is a mistake. His own historian, Callisthenies, was put to death on questionable charges after questioning Alexander’s assumptions of persian “divine right of kings” trappings, and demands that he be adored. Yes, later European monarchs, and Monarchs the world over did the same thing, but millions of people have died trying to put a stop to those ideas, and I doubt we’re worse off for it.
Every generations tend to look back on the past with a sense of disdain for their quaint ways, and barbarous deeds. Consequently, we should at least entertain the possibility that some of the things we are currently doing will be viewed in the same light.
An event can be monumentous and still be neglected or forgotten. Gregor Mendel’s work on genetics, which has revolutionized the world, went unnoticed for decades. I put it forward as an example where the soldiers woke up, smelled the mustard gas, and chose to be reasonable people. It may simply be hoping, but I think that’ll mean something more than a historical footnote someday.
I would have to say that here, you are putting words in my mouth. I never assigned all the blame for the world’s ills on a single source, let along the Military. I don’t think you have any basis to just brush off the points I’m bringing up as half-baked pascifism and wishful thinking. Just because I haven’t made an appeal to relgious principals, like Christian Peace Churches, or ahimsah, doesn’t make it half baked. I’m citing historical events, in context, so I don’t see how that is “bad history”. I have seen the same facts as you, and arrivied at sometimes differing conclusions.
[/QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
And you can thank the United States military and the sacrifice of its members for that freedom (in addition to the wiser of this country’s leaders in the past). If you want to feel terrified, well, I suppose that’s your decision. But you should consider actually learning about an institution before you start ranting against it.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what books, conversations, and forums like this are for. That’s why I’m here. I didn’t form an opinion in total ignorance, but there’s always more to learn.
What attack? Are you denying that you would make a poor soldier? Whatever you physical condition, you certainly don’t have the attitude that would make a good soldier. I don’t see how that’s an insult. Soldiering isn’t for everyone.
What I am painting with a broad brush is the type of person who, as my civilian ass understands it, would likely not enjoy a military lifestyle. My sense is that the military does not take kindly to whiny little bitch-asses with special needs. You either learn to do things the Army way or you’re in a world of hurt.
Regardless of your political views, it’s plainly obvious that many people do enjoy military service - the physical challenge, the comeraderie, the service. But I can also see hoe it might be unbearable for others.
Woody Allen: I’ve been classified as 4P. In case of war, I’m a hostage.
Dylan Moran: I’m not a fighter, I’m a bleeder. If someone were to attack me, the best I could hope for is to drown them in my own blood.
The slave girls who were executed were those (12 out of 50) who had shown disrespect to Penelope and Euryclea while willingly consorting with the suitors, not being violated by them. It is both harsh and fiction, but you do your argument no good by misrepresenting it.
Put aside for a moment all the negativity… Poysyn makes an excellent point. What other company or organization would take a 17 or 18 year old, feed, clothe, house and train them, give them health care and provide excellent benefits for family and dependents (health care, free base housing or generous housing allowances, etc.)
The military offers all sorts of support in every aspect of life. I’ve just recently been introduced to military life through my boyfriend, and all the frills the AF offers are amazing. There’s an entire squadron just dedicated to “services” - activities, leisure, etc. The base has awesome parks, an excellent gym, discounted shopping, library, movie theater, bowling alley, skating rink, nice pool, all sorts of recreation and entertainment… So, again, where else could a fresh high school grad, who cannot afford college, or someone with a family and no education or job experience, get all this, plus the opportunity for education and advancement (plus great retirement benefits, etc)?? You could NEVER find this in the private sector.
The person who said the military doesn’t care about it’s people should spend some time on a base or with someone in the military and see how good they have it. Yes there are downsides, but for my boyfriend and many of his coworkers, it has been a godsend. Yes it’s a lot of hard work too, but you reap a lot more from the military then you do in the private sector.
A big drawback to a military career might be that the compensation peaks early but low. After twenty years in, your salary won’t make you rich by any means, whereas twenty years on civvy street working your way up the ladder (if you’re smart or lucky) might get you a salary several times higher. Using a military hitch for optimal personal gain typically has two strategies:
[ul][li]Do the minimal hitch necessary to pay for college, or[/li][li]Do the 20-year hitch for the pension, and in the later part of your career, use your seniority to rack up as many technical courses and marketable skills as possible.[/ul][/li]
Either way, position yourself for gainful civilian employment as soon as you leave the service. This angle isn’t particularly patriotic, of course, but there’s no reason not to maximize economic opportunity.
A friend’s fiance? Perhaps the commanding officer was a tad concerned about members of his or her unit deploying as required?
Care to post a cite? During all my years in the military, suicides were reported as suicides. (A short aside: suicide does not cause the surviving dependents to lose any benefits.)
And how, exactly, do you come to that conclusion?
See above.
Perhaps you should try “knowing what you’re talking about.” It’s a nifty idea and here’s what it would lead to, instead of what I just quoted from you above:
Those individuals petitioned for a change in their status in the military to Conscientious Objectors. The first one, in the freecamilo link, was not tried for being a conscientious objector. He was tried for desertion. Since he deserted, it was a fairly foregone conclusion that he was headed for prison. Since he only got one year in prison, that did turn out very well for him.
The case in the bendermandefense link also turned out very well for the accused. He was acquitted of desertion; however, he was convicted of Missing Movement. He only got 15 months in prison.
Not a military victory? Perhaps you could explain how militarily conquering the enemy was not a victory.
tomndebb, I had thought there was some euphamism involved, but I stand corrected.
No, my freind’s battle buddy’s fiance was killed. Let’s call the freind Alice, her battle buddy was Jill. Jill’s fance was killed. More clear?’
No I have no cite to post, because I got that information word of mouth. Take it as you will. It’s an anecdote.
[QUOTE=Monty]
Perhaps you should try “knowing what you’re talking about.” It’s a nifty idea and here’s what it would lead to, instead of what I just quoted from you above:
Those individuals petitioned for a change in their status in the military to Conscientious Objectors. The first one, in the freecamilo link, was not tried for being a conscientious objector. He was tried for desertion. Since he deserted, it was a fairly foregone conclusion that he was headed for prison. Since he only got one year in prison, that did turn out very well for him.
The case in the bendermandefense link also turned out very well for the accused. He was acquitted of desertion; however, he was convicted of Missing Movement. He only got 15 months in prison.
[/QUOTE[
They attempted to register the as C.O.'s, the military didn’t accept that. Mind toning down the personal invectives? I’m not reporting on their situations, I’m using them as examples. Wanna debte their situations? New thread.
I’d be glad to. When everyone and their kid brother in an entire nation takes up he fight, that is not the same thing as a very small, self selecting minorty taking up the fight. It’s a horse of a different color. Comparing the WWII military, which either included or was wholeheartedly supported by the entire population, to the modern military is comparing two very unlike things.
We do not owe victory to a handful of generals, and a core of hard boiled roughnecks, we owe that victory to an entire generation of people.
**ImaginalDisc **
Was the US military evil when it fought to hold the Union together and finally ending slavery?
Do you get to set the criteria for when it was the military that did good or all Americans?
How about Korea? Do you think the South Koreans are unhappy that we went over and sacrificed to keep them free? Of course this wasn’t purely altruistic but I think it is yet another case of the military doing good for humanity.
If we are not prepared to fight for freedom, we will lose it.
Jim
Ah, so now the light dawns! You see, reporting what actually happened works. What they did, in fact, was petition to be considerd as C.O. The military, following the required procedure, determined that their case was not deserving of it. That really has no bearing on what they were punished for. They weren’t–as you more than implied, which btw is dishonest–punished for their status as C.O’s.
What personal invective? Be specific, be honest.
You tossed them up, you deal with the fallout. Got it?
jrfranchi,
Yes, I think that fighting to keep the union together was most definately evil. So is slavery. Slavery was not the only issue in the American Civil War. There was the also the issue of state’s rights, which had been unsettled since inclusion of the ninth and tenth ammendments. The Civil War laid that issue to rest with the fourteenth amendment. Neither side was really right there. The South foguht a war to perpetuate a way of life that depended on slavery, and incidentally hurt the South’s economy as well, and the North fought to deny the South the freedom to chose their own form of government. They wanted to leave the nation, and form their own. That’s very much like what the American revoltion was about. By the reasoning you seem to suggest, if the South was the black hat in the American Civil War, then it follows that the colonies were the Black Hats in the American revolution (remebe that slavery was a vital part of the colonies), and I think that’s oversimplification, at best.
It’s my opinion, if you’ve turned over a rock and found a perfect moral guidline to wipe away all confusion, subjectivity and doubt in discourse, history and politics, I encourage you to share it. Meanwhile, get to have an opinion, and so do you.
Earlier I said that sometime people do the wrong thing for the right reasons. America’s involvement in South Korea is an example of doing the right thing, for the wrong reasons.
As for fighting for freedom, there are times when it’s necessary, but if I were to believe everything I’m told, those occasions are incessant. Not every provocation is a threat to liberty. It is a soldier’s duty to fight every war they are commanded to. It is a citizens privilage to take up arm and defend liberty when they percieve it has been threatened.
King Leonidas’s 300 died defening liberty at Thermopylae. They were soldiers who had been trained from early childhood warfare, and they were arguably the best soldiers at the time. However, 6000 Thespian citizen-soliders also held the pass along side them, and willingly died to defend the liberty of their home city-state, and by extension, all the Hellenic people. The Spartans did what they were told. The Thespians chose to sacrifice their lives for others. I respect both groups equally. I do not respect the spartans more for having been professional soldiers.
when liberty is genuinely in jeopordy, I think that a well regulated milita can percieve and address that issue.
Or you could make a valid point: in the United States, the code of law under which the military operates, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is one passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. One could also note that said code of law also provides for appeals, the final appeal being heard by…you guessed it!..the Supreme Court of the United States.
Thank you, that’s a very good point. I don’t think it’s a very good system of justice that soldiers endure, IMHO.