Volunteering for military service

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:23 am

Don't forget that spot's a person who claims to love and admire America, and holds ill feelings only for the Bush administration. :yh_eyebro :yh_loser

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:11 am

Accountable;1152227 wrote: Don't forget that spot's a person who claims to love and admire America, and holds ill feelings only for the Bush administration. :yh_eyebro :yh_loser

You didn't ask why I'd think it. I'm thinking it because no Americans on the site are engaging with my question instead of parroting world supremacy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:09 pm

spot;1085790 wrote: I don't make jabs or personal attacks at any ForumGarden member.

spot;1152164 wrote: Jester's a Christian literal-extremist with the most bigoted self-justifying interpretation of world events I've seen in my life ...

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:15 am

Accountable;1152419 wrote:

You think it's not true??

Jester's the guy who seriously wants every Islamic fundamentalist in the world dead.

It's mirror-war. He looks at his enemy not realizing he's looking into a mirror. He sees reflected all the certainty and animosity he holds for them and assumes the picture he's invented is accurate. They want to come over here and change our ways and either turn us into copies of themselves or kill us all: what he's seeing is his view of how paternalist superior America should deal with the Middle East and he assumes they obviously have to feel the same in return. Having projected his own bigotry onto "The Enemy" he then reacts by wanting them all dead.

Is that not a fair description of Jester's position? I think it is.

As for his representing American opinion, nobody from the US is contradicting his obscene fantasies. How else am I to interpret that silence?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:27 am

spot;724452 wrote: Jester has forgotten more about real life than I ever knew to start with, he's one of the few people on the Internet that I deeply respect and listen to intently. Nothing he writes is ill-considered or abusive, it's a matter of great joy to see him here....

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:31 am

One does one's best to mend bridges. That was a pretty good try, I thought.

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:53 am

Jester;1152972 wrote: :rolleyes: sad attempt spot- get a life.

Every word's accurate.

gaiusjulii · Post by **gaiusjulii** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:00 pm

Spot am i correct in thinking that you think western armies should pack up all there equipment and just leave all nations around the world? regardless of what they happen to be doing.

Would you consider a soldier that joined up during the Balkans conflict to stop genocide, but are still in the military and are now following orders fighting in Afghanistan/Iraq morally corrupt or paid killers?

Also many of the soldiers who are fighting did join up during peace time which was only 8 years ago... lets not forget you join up for ten to fifteen years many soldiers who may not agree with the war are held in by contract as they do have enough cash to buy themselves out. I myself was one of those who wanted to join up for a career, I remember saying to my friend it would be great to earn money and travel the world I naively thought the most fighting I would do was on the streets of northern ireland with the odd check point scrap. My feeling is you should not just see the uniform as that of a killers and tar them all with the same brush. I would no more do this with the police officers at the G20 march and call them all protest beating thugs than I would call all soldiers paid killers.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:26 pm

gaiusjulii;1179747 wrote: Spot am i correct in thinking that you think western armies should pack up all there equipment and just leave all nations around the world? regardless of what they happen to be doing.

Would you consider a soldier that joined up during the Balkans conflict to stop genocide, but are still in the military and are now following orders fighting in Afghanistan/Iraq morally corrupt or paid killers?

Also many of the soldiers who are fighting did join up during peace time which was only 8 years ago... lets not forget you join up for ten to fifteen years many soldiers who may not agree with the war are held in by contract as they do have enough cash to buy themselves out. I myself was one of those who wanted to join up for a career, I remember saying to my friend it would be great to earn money and travel the world I naively thought the most fighting I would do was on the streets of northern ireland with the odd check point scrap. My feeling is you should not just see the uniform as that of a killers and tar them all with the same brush. I would no more do this with the police officers at the G20 march and call them all protest beating thugs than I would call all soldiers paid killers. Hi there gaiusjulii..... Spot is away for a short while so don't think he's being rude if he does not reply straight away to your post.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:07 pm

First, let me say that I agree with Spot's comparison of today's conflict in Afghanistan and the Russian's earlier. As for volunteering for military service, there are many reasons why young men in the US would volunteer irrespective of a draft being in effect or not. For me during the Korean War it was to get benefits, college tuition for four years and two more available from the state of California. Low interest home loans for Korean Vets, 3.5 % Cal Vet Loan from the state for a home loan, a five point preference on Civil Service Exams. I was not concerned with the political aspects of that war or the justification for our involvement, I joined for selfish reasons and in that sense, one could say that I was used by the politicians. Also, there was a draft and I did not want to get drafted, but that was not my main reason for enlisting.

During the Vietnam War and today, there are bonuses that are paid and benefits to be had, and many young men will enlist for those benefits and not to serve some ideological cause, and their are some with a pathological wish to do physical harm where the same action as a civilian could put them in jail.

With the capability of the US to bomb a country back to the stone age (if they aren't already there), I have never understood our preemptive involvement in trying to foster our moral, legal and philosophical ideals on another country.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, Japanese were viewed by most English and American military as having inferior soldiers, after all, how could they see well with those damn squint eyes, and the way in which these QUAINT

little people were portrayed is laughable today. That was a long time ago, but my point is that this country of ours has never really taken the time or made the effort to know and understand other cultures, and has woefully under estimated their capabilities.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:34 am

food for thought

Robert Fisk - The Age of the Warrior | Link TV

Post by **spot** » Sat May 02, 2009 1:56 am

It would be difficult to construct a more odd set of questions than these but I'll give it a go.

gaiusjulii wrote: Spot am i correct in thinking that you think western armies should pack up all there equipment and just leave all nations around the world? regardless of what they happen to be doing.

I've never given the question a moment's thought so strictly the answer to "am i correct in thinking that you think" can only be no but let's work on it. Firstly, why Western? Why would I distinguish Western from any other armed forces? Secondly, substituting "armed forces" for "armies", they're not autonomous. They make few decisions regarding strategic deployment, they have political masters. So I'm left with "should armed forces be deployed outside their own national territory and if they're abroad should they be ordered to drop everything and return home immediately" - is that close enough?

There are treaty obligations. Most countries are agreed that if they internationally declare that an ongoing genocide exists, for example, then internationally they will promptly deploy their combined forces to bring it to an end, arrest all those responsible and bring them to trial. There are national treaties of defence whereby an attack, existing or immediately imminent, by another country on one member nation is treated as an an attack on all the signatories of that treaty. It involves deployment of armed forces abroad despite there being no existing or immediately imminent attack on the country deploying them. I'm fine with responding to treaty obligations at the request of the country under attack or the population against which genocide is being waged. In both cases it's equivalent to lending the party under attack additional forces with which to respond. So long as there's a just cause for the response by the party under attack then the additional forces are fine.

Would you consider a soldier that joined up during the Balkans conflict to stop genocide, but are still in the military and are now following orders fighting in Afghanistan/Iraq morally corrupt or paid killers?Are we still talking Western armed forces here? Yes? Then do you think such a mythic creature exists? Nobody would have got through basic training in the time between the US and UK announcing it would intervene militarily in Bosnia and the complete occupation of the country by Western forces. Just as nobody would have got through basic training in time to fight in the Falklands after the Argentine invasion.

If a volunteer joins up to respond to a specific immediate concern then that's what he should sign up to. Is he given such an option? No. All he can do is sign up, he can't limit his subsequent involvement wherever his government decides to use his talents. All the volunteer can do is look at past history, as far back as is relevant, and decide whether his government is honorable in its use of the forces who have promised obedience. Does he have any good reason to think past flaws are buried and that his government is trustworthy?

You claim that "many of the soldiers who are fighting did join up during peace time which was only 8 years ago" and "lets not forget you join up for ten to fifteen years". You're discussing the UK armed forces here? Then it's quite simply untrue. From the end of World War Two until today there's never been any significant period of peacetime when there's not been significant killing of foreigners by Western armed forces. Sometimes criminal fronts like the Contras have done the filthier work but in general the statement refers to the armed forces directly.

You want to reject the description "paid killer" for these volunteers. Certainly in times of conscription it's not applicable, neither to the conscripts who have no choice nor to the volunteers who sign up alongside them to give their support to those with no choice. The question is whether members of an all-volunteer armed force with a history of foreign deployment for intended national gain rather than for any just response against a legally recognized imminent or actual attack are recklessly promising to obey orders to kill. The likelihood is that what's been done will be repeated. People who signed up after Gulf 1 had overwhelming evidence of what their armed forces were likely to be called on to do. The enforcement of sanctions between Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 was lethal in its own right.

Potential members of the armed forces would do well to look at the national neglect of veterans before promising to kill in exchange for pay, training, fun and adventure. The scrap heap is huge.

joey2000 · Post by **joey2000** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:25 pm

spot;1150783 wrote: Comments like "You are all such brave men and women, and I do honor you all" call for a measure of balance. Is it the general mood of the thread that those holding the most powerful weaponry, with the best intelligence, the most money, the armoured vehicles and most of all the air cover, are such brave men and women? In contrast with what's effectively an armed civil militia against whom they're sent? I don't see it myself.

What I've asked in the past is whether we regard the people who saw off the Russians during the 1980s in Afghanistan as brave patriots or religious fanatics. Because they're exactly the same people who are fighting back against mile-high bombers and A10 tankbusters at the moment in the same place and they're doing exactly the same today as they were doing in the 1980s. Was Reagan right? Were they brave heroes? Or were the Russians the brave forces trying to bring civilization and justice to a backward tyrannical part of the world?

Why is there a double standard in coming to an answer?

How can anyone volunteer to join a military which is being used by politicians for such unjust ends?I bring forward a reply from reddog:My reaction to that post is

Nobody in today's military volunteered during a time of conscription. Those who did in the past were standing alongside people who had no choice but to serve. That excuse no longer exists.

Everyone currently serving volunteered into an armed service which deploys abroad to fight. Nobody can pretend to be surprised to find themselves either fighting abroad or supporting troops who are fighting abroad.Absolving these volunteers on the basis that they haven't chosen to fight abroad misses the point. The point is that they've made themselves available to the politicians to deploy the armed services abroad to fight. Without that availability it wouldn't be a political option. The responsibility for fighting abroad lies ultimately with each volunteer, not with the politicians. The one defence not allowed any longer is "I was only following orders", that was destroyed by American, French, British and Russian lawyers whom I thank unreservedly.To neither know nor give a tinker's damn what the russians did in Afghanistan, for someone who served during the Vietnam liberation war, is both sickening and enlightening at the same time. And, given the current fighting in Afghanistan, shameful. I asked why there's a double standard and that's a large part of the answer - unforgivable deliberate ignorance.The people in the military haven't chosen an honorable profession in the slightest, they're paid killers who choose to work for criminals for personal benefit. To correct Accountable I don't regard them as evil, merely as morally bankrupt. And no, I've not deleted his post, a forum software upgrade renamed threads, that's why his link's broken. I helped him rebuild the "sha" taglist too though I vehemently deny being anti-American.

What a laughably ignorant and idiotic post. Can you tie your shoes and chew gum at the same time? Or tie your shoes regardless, for that matter?

:rolleyes:

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:42 am

joey2000;1265403 wrote: What a laughably ignorant and idiotic post. Can you tie your shoes and chew gum at the same time? Or tie your shoes regardless, for that matter?

:rolleyes:

Laughably ignorant and idiotic in which specific sentence, Joey?

By all means criticize the post, that's what it's there for. At the moment I have no idea at all whether you're saying it's factually inaccurate in some regard, or whether you accept that it's factually accurate but misguided, or whether some bits are right but others wrong.

Is it your opinion that there might be some members of the armed forces of the US or UK who share no responsibility for the deaths of innocent civilians abroad, for example? Or who aren't making their living at the expense of that suffering? Or that there's a cat in hell's chance that the Western current military campaigns in the Middle East might end in a state which could be described by them as "victory"? If it is, you might like to say why you think it, what you base your opinion on.

joey2000 · Post by **joey2000** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:27 am

spot;1265447 wrote: Laughably ignorant and idiotic in which specific sentence, Joey?

By all means criticize the post, that's what it's there for. At the moment I have no idea at all whether you're saying it's factually inaccurate in some regard, or whether you accept that it's factually accurate but misguided, or whether some bits are right but others wrong.

Is it your opinion that there might be some members of the armed forces of the US or UK who share no responsibility for the deaths of innocent civilians abroad, for example? Or who aren't making their living at the expense of that suffering? Or that there's a cat in hell's chance that the Western current military campaigns in the Middle East might end in a state which could be described by them as "victory"? If it is, you might like to say why you think it, what you base your opinion on.

First off, pardon the initial harshness. I logically assumed you were a troll/attention whore. Now it would appear you may be legit in your beliefs, so although I think what I'm about to say equates to saying "water is wet," I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Also everyone pardon any duplication, I haven't read through the whole thread:

Comments like "You are all such brave men and women, and I do honor you all" call for a measure of balance. Is it the general mood of the thread that those holding the most powerful weaponry, with the best intelligence, the most money, the armoured vehicles and most of all the air cover, are such brave men and women? Having the best weapons/intel/etc hardly equates to your safety being guaranteed and so hardly precludes bravery when going into combat where people can and still are getting seriously hurt or killed on a regular basis. At its core, bravery basically equates to facing danger even though you could have chosen a safer route. Most if not all of those in combat - certainly those on the "U.S. side" - do that every time.

In other words: yes, they are brave.

In contrast with what's effectively an armed civil militia against whom they're sent? I don't see it myself. Perhaps because you know little about combat over there. Being a "civil militia" as you call it or having "smaller" weapons/etc doesn't matter given the type of combat we're engaged in - IEDs and the like are very cheap and easy to make (and hide). Basically we are playing on their battlefield and fighting them on their terms, which is in their favor, and no small part of why successes are small and slow.

How can anyone volunteer to join a military which is being used by politicians for such unjust ends?Believe it or not, the leaders don't consult the soldiers when planning and finalizing their strategies. ie the soldiers don't know what the "ends" will be, ultimately.

The people in the military haven't chosen an honorable profession in the slightest, they're paid killers who choose to work for criminals for personal benefit. To correct Accountable I don't regard them as evil, merely as morally bankrupt. This is by far the most asinine part of the post - and the why is hardly needed, as anyone capable of conscious thought can see it. You frankly tossed any credibility out the window on the topic with such statements.

I close with this as I'm reminded how pathetic and nauseating it is that some (thankfully a small minority) just can't grasp it.

IT IS THE SOLDIER

It is the Soldier, not the minister

Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter

Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet

Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer

Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer

Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician

Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,

Who serves beneath the flag,

And whose coffin is draped by the flag,

Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:36 pm

spot;1182670 wrote:

You want to reject the description "paid killer" for these volunteers. Certainly in times of conscription it's not applicable, neither to the conscripts who have no choice nor to the volunteers who sign up alongside them to give their support to those with no choice. The question is whether members of an all-volunteer armed force with a history of foreign deployment for intended national gain rather than for any just response against a legally recognized imminent or actual attack are recklessly promising to obey orders to kill.

The flaw that I see in your logic, Spot is that you wrongly assume that every war the US has fought was for "national gain." That might even be true, but if the "gain" was our independence for Britain, or the defense of the planet from a genocidal maniac like Hitler, why is that necessarily a bad thing?

Personally, I joined because my father taught me to love my country and I had to agree with him. I had seen a lot of the world, and honestly, I never saw any country or system I liked better. America might have her faults, but at least we drag them out into the light and debate them. At least we are constantly self-communing, self-analyzing, and always trying to better ourselves.

I found that I was willing to give my most prized possession, my life, to see that that system continued.

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:23 pm

It always impresses me that Americans have to go back as far as World War Two to find a war which they can claim they fought for something other than national gain. Is there a reason for this?

I'll make a proper reply to Joey later, this one's rather shorter and easier to post.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:36 pm

spot;1265662 wrote: It always impresses me that Americans have to go back as far as World War Two to find a war which they can claim they fought for something other than national gain. Is there a reason for this?

I'll make a proper reply to Joey later, this one's rather shorter and easier to post.

probably because that's where they served....dah.

claim they fought?

They fought for their country just like my dad and mom did in the Canadian Navy.

amen.

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:47 pm

Odie;1265878 wrote: claim they fought?"claim they fought for something other than national gain", Odie. What possible benefit do you get from chopping what I wrote down to something meaningless. Of course Americans fought in World War Two.

If you're going to join in, how about answering what I asked instead of implying I suggested something I didn't? It's a reasonable question. World War Two ended over sixty years ago and yet in these questions about the honour of serving in the armed forces Americans always go back to that time of conscription, ignoring the decades since. Nobody in the current armed services of either the US or the UK was ever conscripted. It's a whole new ball game, volunteering for armed services which have nothing to do with national defence and are continually deployed abroad killing foreigners who pose no threat to the Fatherland.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:06 pm

If my, or any military I'd find reasonable to join, aloud for a branch of the military to remain strictly an emphasis of defense then I'd personally disagree that joining said military was immoral(Some may say amoral but the word doesn't exist).

Having said that, I find joining a military with the intent to not question whom it is you'd be fighting is immoral Plain and Simple

I don't, however, place full blame on those that enter(Being drafted into an immoral army I find to have absolutely no leniency for, so naturally I will not justify their means, but I'll accept the fact I've never been faced with what would have to be an unparalleled decision) into any military during peacetime. I don't like the idea of accepting the fact no one needs a military during an apparent peace time in the least. The Germans proved that only 70 years ago. But people voluntarily joining the military can only be as unethical as the lack of possibility to go to war with an immoral army. I don't blame people finding the military to be their only true ability to be successful in life, not in the least.

If blame were to be placed would be those that make the decisions to engage in an immoral war and those that choose to not question what it is they're fighting for.

If I were drafted personally I would make damn certain what it was I were fighting for and the least of my knowledge would be met with the utmost contempt. It's what makes me a true Human

joey2000 · Post by **joey2000** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:09 pm

spot;1265883 wrote: armed services which have nothing to do with national defence and are continually deployed abroad killing foreigners who pose no threat to the Fatherland.
Aw a Nazi reference. How cute.

No threat? Look up 9/11 and get back to us. Or any of a wide variety of other terrorist attacks in recent times.

On 2d thought, don't bother; I'm done w/your pointless posts. You're clearly big into intellectual dishonesty if not outright trolling, which is about as childish and tedious (and just plain lame) as it gets.

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:11 pm

K.Snyder;1265888 wrote: I don't like the idea of accepting the fact no one needs a military during an apparent peace time in the least. The Germans proved that only 70 years ago.The US has a strategic nuclear deterrent of such vast proportions that it needs nothing else to guarantee its borders against military assault by any nation. No air force, no standing army, no marines and no navy. The nuclear deterrent is absolutely all that's required and it obviously works.

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:17 pm

joey2000;1265891 wrote: No threat? Look up 9/11 and get back to us. Or any of a wide variety of other terrorist attacks in recent times.They're illegal acts which should have been prosecuted by the police, they have nothing at all to do with invading foreign countries. By all means defend the Homeland (an equally Nazi reference, by the by, but this time not mine) within your own national borders in whatever way you see fit, if you feel the need to use armed troops to that end then use armed troops. More adequate policing would be far more effective. Maintaining your air defences in readiness for interceptions would help too.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:24 pm

spot;1265893 wrote: The US has a strategic nuclear deterrent of such vast proportions that it needs nothing else to guarantee its borders against military assault by any nation. No air force, no standing army, no marines and no navy. The nuclear deterrent is absolutely all that's required and it obviously works.

Any moral military wouldn't sacrifice millions of people to deter an immoral army when they can achieve the same end result by other means.

There's never been a nuclear war so no one knows how an army strictly consisting of buttons like an average video game would unfold. It would not only be illogical but stupid to attempt it.

A mass land invasion and the US instantly becomes a hostage situation that would make John McClane vomit!

I've yet to be convinced that a nuclear stockpile would be an effective deterrent to invasion.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:32 pm

joey2000;1265891 wrote: Aw a Nazi reference. How cute.

No threat? Look up 9/11 and get back to us. Or any of a wide variety of other terrorist attacks in recent times.

On 2d thought, don't bother; I'm done w/your pointless posts. You're clearly big into intellectual dishonesty if not outright trolling, which is about as childish and tedious (and just plain lame) as it gets.

With all due respect it was the commercial pigs that aloud our homeland to be attacked. I will agree, however, that the US government should have taken better steps to insure those commercial pigs stayed on top of their own airline security.

Attacking the homeland is to merely strengthen public resentment. Who exactly to resent for the 9/11 attacks is the question and should always be the question in a definitively logical manner.

It's how you get "Hero" from United Airlines Flight 93.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:09 pm

spot;1265662 wrote: It always impresses me that Americans have to go back as far as World War Two to find a war which they can claim they fought for something other than national gain. Is there a reason for this?

I'll make a proper reply to Joey later, this one's rather shorter and easier to post.

Spot... Get real... The Americans were not Involved in our mess in WW2, they were dragged in by nothing short of a Terrorist attack on Pearl Harbour by Japan. Then, they were left with little option.

National Gain?... So what was the National gain In Vietnam, Somalia or Korea then?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:12 pm

spot;1265894 wrote: They're illegal acts which should have been prosecuted by the police, they have nothing at all to do with invading foreign countries. By all means defend the Homeland (an equally Nazi reference, by the by, but this time not mine) within your own national borders in whatever way you see fit, if you feel the need to use armed troops to that end then use armed troops. More adequate policing would be far more effective. Maintaining your air defences in readiness for interceptions would help too.
Try looking at your former Prime Minister who is possibly about to face war crime charges. In the event of 9/11 It was un-precedented... what did you expect Bush to do about It?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:59 pm

spot;1265883 wrote: "claim they fought for something other than national gain", Odie. What possible benefit do you get from chopping what I wrote down to something meaningless. Of course Americans fought in World War Two.

If you're going to join in, how about answering what I asked instead of implying I suggested something I didn't? It's a reasonable question. World War Two ended over sixty years ago and yet in these questions about the honour of serving in the armed forces Americans always go back to that time of conscription, ignoring the decades since. Nobody in the current armed services of either the US or the UK was ever conscripted. It's a whole new ball game, volunteering for armed services which have nothing to do with national defence and are continually deployed abroad killing foreigners who pose no threat to the Fatherland.

'It always impresses me that Americans have to go back as far as World War Two to find a war which they can claim they fought for something other than national gain. Is there a reason for this?'

your words, not mine.

what does it matter what war anyone served in?

All of them around the world served their time no matter which war it was.

which war do you want to discuss?

Afghanistan?......did anyone here serve or is still serving?

let's talk about it then.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:40 am

Odie;1265938 wrote: 'It always impresses me that Americans have to go back as far as World War Two to find a war which they can claim they fought for something other than national gain. Is there a reason for this?'

your words, not mine.

what does it matter what war anyone served in?

All of them around the world served their time no matter which war it was.

which war do you want to discuss?

Afghanistan?......did anyone here serve or is still serving?

let's talk about it then.

Of course it matters what war anyone served in. There is a massive difference in defending your country against invasion by another country and a country that invades another that is no possible threat to it.

One is a legal and reasonable use of force whereas the other is a war crime.

OK Afghanistan.

After an illegal terrorist attack by a bunch of Saudis the US gave the government of Afghanistan less than three weeks to capture and hand over said bunch of Saudis, over whom they had no control, on the grounds that they happened to be hiding in a part of that country that was inaccessable and unpoliced.

When, quite reasonably, that government were unable to hand them over after three weeks (given that we have still not managed to capture them in eight years using the full resources of the UK and US armed forces, three weeks was an impossibility) we attacked the entire country to deliberately topple their government and destroy their infrastructure as well as trying to find the Saudis (not that we're looking too hard any more).

By what right?

If a bunch of Chechen rebels bombed Red Square and then faded into invisibility somewhere in the US, would Russia have the right to invade because it took longer than three weeks to find where they were hiding?

If not then why not?

What threat did the government of Afghanistan pose to the US?

Once you've answered those questions we'll go on to the consequences of the invasion and have a look at the damage it has done to the world in general and the US in particular.

Or maybe you'd prefer to try Iraq next?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:50 am

oscar;1265922 wrote: Spot... Get real... The Americans were not Involved in our mess in WW2, they were dragged in by nothing short of a Terrorist attack on Pearl Harbour by Japan. Then, they were left with little option.

National Gain?... So what was the National gain In Vietnam, Somalia or Korea then?

When a small group carry out an unprovoked attack for political gain it's a terrorist attack. When a nation state does it it's called a pre-emptive strike, or pre-emptive war. It's a policy now officially adopted by the United States.

See Bush doctrine

Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of former United States president George W. Bush. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[1]

Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

The tragedy of vietnam is that it was a war that need not have started and was fought to prop up a right wing unelected government against the very people the US had supported against the french. America gained nothing from it-at least wars for economic gain make some kind of sense. The korean war was a war of aggression North Korea started it. It's a real question as to whether ANY nation state has the right to interfere in another's affairs. In the old days it was called imperialism, it's still the same but nowadays governments can't be quite so blatant and have to persuade their citizens to go along with it. It takes a while for the citizens in a democracy to get riled up enough to stop it. British forces were at war at the same time it's just nobody was really aware of what was going on and many still aren't. Vietnam was the first war where it wasn't out of sight out of mind. The present conflicts are the same. Governments can't pretend it's not happening or that everything is under control.

Talking about the past doesn't really help as the issues at the time were murky.

Now it's Afghanistan. what's the point? The same mistakes are being made as in vietnam-if you destroy a village you don't win hearts and minds you antagonise the relatives of those innocents who died. They're propping up a puppet corrupt government that no one elected, as soon as the west leaves the Taliban will take over again, followed by a civil war as they start fighting each other.

I don't actually agree with spot on this one. people join the military for many reasons and fight as a unit for many reasons, loyalty and a sense of duty being very real ones. Politicians have cynically used that for centuries for their own ends. Follow the money and you usually find out the real reasons. Rather than denigrate the troops save your ire for the politicians.

I don't know about the states but here more and more people turn out at military funerals, I think if a politician turned up at wooton bassett he would be lynched or at least face a very hostile environment. At my wife's school her second year (14 year olds) class ASKED for two minutes silence on the 11th of november because it was armistice day. That is something that has never happened before. The thing is some of them have older brothers in the army or have friends who are or know someone somewhere who is involved so it's very real to them. Two former pupils have been killed recently and one or two of the local schools have had similar experiences. A new generation is being politicised by warfare and this one talks to people all around the world. Interesting times.

We don't share this warrior cult that seems to be prevalent in the states. On armistice day we remember the fallen but is also to remember the futility of it all.

posted by K snyder

I've yet to be convinced that a nuclear stockpile would be an effective deterrent to invasion.

It's probably prevented another third world war in the fifties and possibly the sixties. Interestingly enough both the french and british wanted independent nuclear deterrents as they were by no means convinced the american would get involved in another European war, if russia attacked we wanted to be able to use them to stop them. MAD makes sense in an insane world. Whether they are still necessary at the levels they are is a moot point. Glad Bush is gone, he seemed to want war.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:53 am

Bryn Mawr;1265952 wrote: Of course it matters what war anyone served in. There is a massive difference in defending your country against invasion by another country and a country that invades another that is no possible threat to it.

One is a legal and reasonable use of force whereas the other is a war crime.

OK Afghanistan.

After an illegal terrorist attack by a bunch of Saudis the US gave the government of Afghanistan less than three weeks to capture and hand over said bunch of Saudis, over whom they had no control, on the grounds that they happened to be hiding in a part of that country that was inaccessable and unpoliced.

When, quite reasonably, that government were unable to hand them over after three weeks (given that we have still not managed to capture them in eight years using the full resources of the UK and US armed forces, three weeks was an impossibility) we attacked the entire country to deliberately topple their government and destroy their infrastructure as well as trying to find the Saudis (not that we're looking too hard any more).

By what right?

If a bunch of Chechen rebels bombed Red Square and then faded into invisibility somewhere in the US, would Russia have the right to invade because it took longer than three weeks to find where they were hiding?

If not then why not?

What threat did the government of Afghanistan pose to the US?

Once you've answered those questions we'll go on to the consequences of the invasion and have a look at the damage it has done to the world in general and the US in particular.

Or maybe you'd prefer to try Iraq next?

I know damn well it matters which war they served in, Spot is just wondering why its only WW2 that people talk about here, why, because they served in it.

-That was the war of wars, I don't think people stop and realize just how many millions lost their lives becasue of the Germans.

A estimated 70 million died in that war, only 7 million were Germans.

Afghanistan has no proper government, they're thieves, rapists and murderers, what did you expect the US to do? Thousands were being slaughtered and still are.

end of.

joey2000 · Post by **joey2000** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:06 am

I'd just like to ask/suggest that this now rather lengthy (but interesting) sidetrack be started up in its own thread - ?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:19 am

joey2000;1266006 wrote: I'd just like to ask/suggest that this now rather lengthy (but interesting) sidetrack be started up in its own thread - ?

Why? It'll end up being just another "bash America" thread like this one.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:24 am

joey2000;1266006 wrote: I'd just like to ask/suggest that this now rather lengthy (but interesting) sidetrack be started up in its own thread - ?

your new here Joey, a lot of threads go off track and its completely normal as we get into other topics that we enjoy discussing.

I'm done now explaining why my dad and mom were in WW2, serving in the Canadian Navy, as that was not even acknowledged.

:(

My mother was a nurse...no one here has any idea of what she saw and went through everyday to encourage the wounded and the ones she knew wouldn't survive.

I must scan some of her pictures of the soldiers who were injured.

and I'm done with such idiotic questions.:rolleyes:

and I do not bash the US, they are my neighbors.

by all means, talk about volunteering for military service.

what did you volunteer for? or do you know someone who did?

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:45 am

oscar;1265922 wrote: Spot... Get real... The Americans were not Involved in our mess in WW2, they were dragged in by nothing short of a Terrorist attack on Pearl Harbour by Japan. Then, they were left with little option.

National Gain?... So what was the National gain In Vietnam, Somalia or Korea then?

It's interesting to see you refer to Pearl Habor as a terrorist attack, given that it involved a declaration of war by a sovereign state. That expands the definition of terrorist to new levels.

The national gain In Vietnam and Korea was the attempted destruction of socialist values and the imposition by force of capitalist governance. In the long run the actual consequence was the locking in of socialist values in those counties for generations. In the case of Somalia you're looking at a six-month intervention by a relatively trivial number number of troops - 25,000 - again propping up local capitalist warlords but triggered in this case by simple revenge at the failure of US covert intervention during the previous year.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:49 am

oscar;1265923 wrote: Try looking at your former Prime Minister who is possibly about to face war crime charges.You live on a different planet, oscar. Give me a reference or two to this extraordinary assertion. By whom? In what court?

oscar wrote: In the event of 9/11 It was un-precedented... what did you expect Bush to do about It?Beforehand? Enable his law enforcement systems to prevent it. Afterwards? Enable his law enforcement systems to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators, and enable his law enforcement systems to arrest and prosecute the sections of US Intelligence which allowed it to happen.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:52 am

Odie;1265938 wrote: 'It always impresses me that Americans have to go back as far as World War Two to find a war which they can claim they fought for something other than national gain. Is there a reason for this?'

your words, not mine.

what does it matter what war anyone served in?Because the wars since World War Two have been wars of aggression fought for national gain, which is why Americans invariably go back as far as World War Two to say they don't fight wars for national gain but for principle.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:56 am

Odie;1266002 wrote: I know damn well it matters which war they served in, Spot is just wondering why its only WW2 that people talk about here, why, because they served in it.

There's not one single member of FG who served in World War Two, Odie. Randall did, but he's never talked about it here and he's not posted for a long long while now. Nobody who brings up World War Two on FG as a demonstration that Americans fight wars for principle actually served in it, the youngest person to have fought in WW2 is at least 80 now. I'm sure you recognize that. I'm just puzzled why you wrote what you did, since you know it's completely untrue.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:46 am

joey2000;1265470 wrote: Being a "civil militia" as you call it or having "smaller" weapons/etc doesn't matter given the type of combat we're engaged in - IEDs and the like are very cheap and easy to make (and hide). Basically we are playing on their battlefield and fighting them on their terms, which is in their favor, and no small part of why successes are small and slow.

I'd like to stand back slightly because at the moment I can see a problem. When militias in their own country fighting against foreign armies are discussed there's invariably a selectivity, a bias, based on which side is "us". Americans discussing the Minutemen ejecting the British from the States have the Minutemen as the heroes, for example. Americans regard the Contras in Nicaragua as patriotic heroes - Freedom Fighters - because they were bankrolled and armed by the Reagan Administration. The Cuban rebels in Florida get the same degree of support in their attempted overthrow of Fidel Castro's government in Cuba. Discussing the Mujahideen against the Russians in the 1980s it's the same bias, which leads to problems when those identical local militias are now doing the same thing for the same reason to the Western occupying forces of the current decade.

So. I don't think I've ever asked anyone to read a brief article before but I'll give it a try, with apologies for the attempted imposition. I'd be grateful if you looked through The Cairo Gang and give me a sense of which side you think was in the right, the British Intelligence assassination squad or the IRA's Intelligence Department under Michael Collins in arranging and carrying out their murders. It's an event which neither of us are incensed by, we might be able to discuss our reactions without bias on either hand.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:38 pm

Odie;1266002 wrote: I know damn well it matters which war they served in, Spot is just wondering why its only WW2 that people talk about here, why, because they served in it.

-That was the war of wars, I don't think people stop and realize just how many millions lost their lives becasue of the Germans.

A estimated 70 million died in that war, only 7 million were Germans.

Afghanistan has no proper government, they're thieves, rapists and murderers, what did you expect the US to do? Thousands were being slaughtered and still are.

end of.

The talk about WWII because it's the last one they can justify fighting in - just as you are trying to justify war by saying how bad the Germans were.

How do you justify the invasion of Afghanistan? Because they don't behave like you do?

Who slaughtered the thousands? Certainly not the Afghans so why invade them?

Who continues to slaughter thousands? Last I saw it was the Coalition forces - those fighting to defend their homes and families are the ones dying in their thousands!

END OF!

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:46 pm

On a different note, I just read yesterday that twice as many French civilians were killed (38,000 I believe) in the first 24 hours of the Normandy Invasion as American Troops. I'm not making judgment, just finding it of interest. Given the fact that we bombed the hell out of the beaches and surrounding area to try and destroy the German bunkers, civilians were bound to be killed or injured.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:36 pm

Lon;1266227 wrote: On a different note, I just read yesterday that twice as many French civilians were killed (38,000 I believe) in the first 24 hours of the Normandy Invasion as American Troops. I'm not making judgment, just finding it of interest. Given the fact that we bombed the hell out of the beaches and surrounding area to try and destroy the German bunkers, civilians were bound to be killed or injured.

That's a startlingly high figure, double what's given for example at "D-Day deaths and casualties" on channel4.com - Time Team - D-Day for the entire campaign total. Where does it come from?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:29 pm

spot;1266271 wrote: That's a startlingly high figure, double what's given for example at "D-Day deaths and casualties" on channel4.com - Time Team - D-Day for the entire campaign total. Where does it come from?

Seemed high to me as well------I'll try to find the article and who wrote it.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:52 pm

I could not find the piece that I referred to in my initial post and further searches show some really varying figures for the French civilian deaths as well as allied deaths. This one seems more reasonable, but still hard to believe-----------15 to 20,000 French civilian deaths-----end of article

---questions and answers.Frequently Asked Questions for D-Day and the Battle of Normandy

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:26 pm

Lon;1266293 wrote: I could not find the piece that I referred to in my initial post and further searches show some really varying figures for the French civilian deaths as well as allied deaths. This one seems more reasonable, but still hard to believe-----------15 to 20,000 French civilian deaths-----end of article

---questions and answers.Frequently Asked Questions for D-Day and the Battle of Normandy

That's fair enough. The article says "The Battle of Normandy is the name given to the fighting in Normandy between D-Day and the end of August 1944" and the figure is for the battle, not the landings. Most, I suggest, are the result of the push through the villages, towns and cities held and fought for by the Axis powers on the days and weeks subsequent to the landings.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:32 am

spot;1266044 wrote: I'd like to stand back slightly because at the moment I can see a problem. When militias in their own country fighting against foreign armies are discussed there's invariably a selectivity, a bias, based on which side is "us". Americans discussing the Minutemen ejecting the British from the States have the Minutemen as the heroes, for example. Americans regard the Contras in Nicaragua as patriotic heroes - Freedom Fighters - because they were bankrolled and armed by the Reagan Administration. The Cuban rebels in Florida get the same degree of support in their attempted overthrow of Fidel Castro's government in Cuba. Discussing the Mujahideen against the Russians in the 1980s it's the same bias, which leads to problems when those identical local militias are now doing the same thing for the same reason to the Western occupying forces of the current decade.

So. I don't think I've ever asked anyone to read a brief article before but I'll give it a try, with apologies for the attempted imposition. I'd be grateful if you looked through The Cairo Gang and give me a sense of which side you think was in the right, the British Intelligence assassination squad or the IRA's Intelligence Department under Michael Collins in arranging and carrying out their murders. It's an event which neither of us are incensed by, we might be able to discuss our reactions without bias on either hand.

Thanks for suggesting the link, I've never read about Bloody Sunday before and it was a pretty good overview.

If I've got it right, the British sent in a gang to formulate a hit list but, before they got it completed or planned out, the IRA finished their hit list against the hit listers and got to them first. Sadly it didn't end there and the British ended up getting overexcited and shot a bunch of football fans in frustration. (aside-football here means soccer to me, yes?)

There is no side better than the other in the specific events. If I read back further, and avoided watching the film Michael Collins, I might be able to formulate an opinion on the greater picture of what was going on at the time.

I'm thinking this might take the thread away from the focus on who signs up for the military unless the focus is to consider whether the Cairo Gang and the IRA members themselves had individual morality for having joined the plot. On the surface I read it as two sides both believing their culture was in serious danger and need of defense. I think that's where some differences are arising in the discussion here. There is an assumption on your part, spot, that individuals are capable of seeing through propaganda. That simply isn't true, in general. People live in a state of vulnerability and are quite easily manipulated by the media, their peers, anyone in a position of authority. It's not flattering but true.

I don't claim immunity. There are a number of times that I find myself in hindsight wondering how the hell I got so caught up in a lie. I like to think I shake myself free of the hypnotism quickly but I don't avoid the initial wooing nearly as often as I'd like.

It only takes a short time of fascination or hypnosis to join the army and then find oneself in the middle of all the bs.