Period of Compulsary Service to the Nation (Needed or Not)

Pepperoni, if you are afraid that "terrorists" will destroy the US and Western Europe, then I think you should join the military if you aren't already a member, and go fight your demons. You must have missed that WTC1, WTC2, Africa embassy, Spain and England events were the result of western troops being stationed in the Middle East. This small detail always escapes the attention of the war supporters, who like to confuse result with cause. Regarding the attack on the marines in Lebanon, do you think there is at least a small chance that the bombing wouldn't have occurred if they had not been in Lebanon? At least Ronald Reagan immediatly recognized the policy error and pulled out. The current administration doesn't have the intellect and integrity to follow his lead. I also think that characterizing the chlorine bombs in Iraq as WMD is disingenuous. These are small events that should not be equated with the use of theromnuclear weapons unless the intent is to deceive. It would be more accurate to characterize them as primative chemical weapons not quite up to the standard of those used in World War I. But I would suggest that you run out and buy a gasmask to beat the rush.

I completely agree that we are not invincible. Once you accept that, the next logical step in the progression toward understanding the world is to recognize that we can't conquer it or democratize the planet. That type of "liberation" philosophy is straight out of the old Soviet Union playbook, and we all know how well that turned out for them. Personally, I don't think that installing democratic institutions in the Middle East is worth the life of a single American soldier. If they want liberty, let them carry the fight. The only legitimate US military mission in the region was the hunt to destroy al Qaeda and kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, a mission which failed because of the distraction of the Iraq war. The US is perfectly capable of maintaining itself at a level of safety and security probably unknown to other nations throughout history, unless people choose to follow the dangerous and irresponsible course your type has proposed for it.

 

Why is it that war supports, ususally people that have been in the military at some point in their lives, are always so eager to see the world as US against THEM? Why do they spoil for war if there is a possiblity for peace? Why must conflict be their ultimate goal? You see it over and over again in these threads. A soldier fights but the goal is to fight for peace yet it seems that the conflict is the quest and is relished by those that espouse war so fervently. I realize that the vast majority of those folks that have been in the military have served in times of peace and have never been in a battle situation but I just can't see ever wanting to have to use their military training in times of war knowing how terrible war really is. It's not a matter of being a coward or being brave, it's the ugliness of war that should repulse us not the glory of the battle that should attract us. All to often, war and weapons are glorified and salivated over as if a permanent military state was the preference. I have to suspect the indoctrination young men get upon entering the military as the reason. We used to call it brain washing now we call it training. It must be pretty effective because it seems to outlast the hitch in the military duty by a far sight.

 

Many just call it "Anti-Indoctrination" putting it in understandable terms here. You know, the opposite subliminal message received from Hard Left leaning college/university instructors if you were to attend within the past 15 years or so. Those, who've participated in lively classroom discussions prior to that period missed these "ahem, intangibles" being offered now by the younger democratic professor, LOL...

The very same intangible message which when retold (by lesser students of philosophy) just doesn't sound as convincing...

 

dont typify us all like that...me, my sister, father, brother in law, grandfather, uncle, etc...have all been in the military...my sister was military police and her husband was in Gulf War I and somalia and they are not like this...in fact my sister and her husband are hoping their child does NOT go into the military and instead does something else like college, they dont want their child to be sent to fight a war like Iraq.

My father served in Korea and he is not like this, he was against Iraq (for afghanistan) and has a muslim daughter in law and certainly isnt an alarmist like this. He advised me NOT to go into the military and instead take another path...but I joined because I needed the money and wanted to. Probably because he lived through several large wars where we didnt have to change things and doesnt see the need now.

I honestly think some of these people are simply victims of fear and xenophobia instilled in them by certain media and events that shocked them. I served and I certainly dont think everyone should be forced to...I think it would be a sad state of afairs if we forced people to serve...much better to have an army of the willing.

 

Dru, thank-you for your service to your country. Seriously

Ben

 

I tend to agree but I also think these people are the way they are already in many cases. They learn this from xenophobic ultra nationalistic right wing family and friends and that was one reason they DID join. Many people serve and do not turn into this, I know. I think some of these people who ARE this way, might be THINKING miltary will create more like themselves because they fear america does not fit their rigid view of how america should be...I have seen this as the case but maybe those I hang with were able to serve without being brainwashed? They are able to put it in perspective.

They attempted to call up my sister and brother in law back for Iraq...He refused...he didnt have to go...they just wanted him to come back. He said hell no but dont so know if the government called a bunch would be like him...they served their terms, they moved on. Some would just jump at the chance though to reactivate.

 

you to...I tend to think serving means much more when you did it willingly because you wanted to. I honestly think military service is good. It teaches one personal responsibility (or it should), discipline, gets you in shape, you earn money for college, You make real friends, its a badge of pride and honor, You travel and see new places. I guess now it might be a little different as now it means for most you go to Iraq as well. But all the same...its good.

 

I wasn't saying that everybody from a military background felt this way or that those not from a military background never support wars. I have consistantly tried in these threads to not paint everyone with a broad stroke but still, you know the type of individual I am referring to just the same.
All I was getting at was the "lust" for war and all things military by some people. It's just a strange concept to me and I invite your perspective on the subject if you can bring yourself to admit that it exists. I recognize the need for a military and dedicated soldiers to serve in that military, I just don't understand the draw.

 

FYI, I've never been to Iraq, retired/medically retired after 21 years, (1st Gulf War) Saudi, Afghanistan, and Pakistan were the only SW Asia AORs I ever deployed to. This Iraq thing (I'll be the first to agree with) was indeed a stretch as to the terror connection. Were/are there WMDs worthy of going after, I don't know for certain, but there are war-plans with Syria stamped all over them in military safes thru-out the nation.

 

I thought it through very well, in fact I was influenced by the works of the late robert heinlein in some respects. Its not a litmus test of Americanism, it is a method of seperating the wheat from the chaff. Givers vs. Takers

 

You are either unfamilar with the meaning of the phrase "litmus test" or you think the analogy "seperating the wheat form the chaff" means something other than it's common usage; To seperate the wanted from the unwanted.
Givers vs Takers is a relative assertion and an absolute value judgement. No one outside of the thought police could possibly support the idea of citizens as either givers or takers exclusively. This isn't the old Soviet Union we're talking about where your only value is what you can contribute to the state. Have you ever even read any Orwell? You might want to add it to your reading list...once you have a reading list that is.

 

You are dead wrong, as I voted "no" on the subject.