Military service

[geekpocket]

Not everything the Army does is a "hopeless cause". I can understand frustration and anger if you were drafted and forced to fight in a war that was started for shady economic deals or some other less than honorable notion. but i find it hard to believe that you wouldn't help to defend your country against those that attack it.

was going after the Taliban a hopeless cause? Is freeing the people of Iraq hopeless? I would do some serious thinking about why you wouldn't defend your country.

and after all that thinking, if you decide you still would rather run to another country than defend yours, why not just leave now? if you're willing to enjoy the benefits of others who defend our country, but not be willing to accept a modicum of responsibility and help out yourself, i'd call you a coward. not that you are afraid to fight, or that im disrespecting your freedom of choice and thought, but that you don't have the personal integrity to not take what you don't deserve. there are many freedoms in America that we enjoy; we have those because people have been willing to sacrifice and fight for them. So if you don't want to fight for our country, but you still want the benefits of living in our country, i say get the fuck out of my country.

 

[welsh]

Well Geekpockets- the question for me really comes down to the difference between "what I am willing to die for" and "what I am willing to kill for."

If you were to ask me, for instance, would have I have been willing to fight to defend the US, yes. Kill, yes. As you pointed out, this is my home and I am willing to defend it.

Would I be willing to kill someone to support the US in protecting a tyrant in power, no. Has that happened? Yes. Would I kill someone because my country tells me it's in the national interest? Not particularly, no. I think I would want to know who really is benefitting from a policy or not.

 

[geekpocket]

I understand there are different reasons for each war or military action. I'm not saying I agree with all that we've done with our military in the past, and happening now. The Army and America are institutions made up of people, so the people in charge that make decisions will not always make good, ethical or moral, decisions. That is bound to happen, no matter how much we would wish it otherwise.

I wouldn't agree with using the military to protect a tyrant either. But what i personally believe and what i'm willing to do are two seperate things. While im in the Army, I have a responsibility to myself and my country to uphold the oath that i swore. for me to decide not to fight in this war, or sham out of deploying to another war, shows that i dont have any integrity, and my word is meaningless.

im looking at two seperate scenarios. one is our country is attacked and you refuse to fight to defend it. the other is where our country is attacking someone for questionable reasons. refusing to fight to protect a tyrant is not un-honorable, as long as you haven't already made a committment to fight in the armed forces.

 

[welsh]

Geekpockets- on this I agree but not without some reservations.

The idea that you can should fight to defend your homeland I think raises some issues. What if your government is a tyrant? What if your ruler came to power through immoral or unethical means?

It's interesting that the German army during the second world war would often deploy its forces in units were the men generally came from the same home town. This would make the men fight harder and be more loyal to each other. This put peer pressure on soldiers to fight, if not to defend the state but to defend their homes. We could arguably say something similar occurred in the US during the civil war, where many Southerners fought to defend their homes rather than fight to protect slavery. Is the person who fights to protect their home, but also or by extension a tyrannical regime, unethical?

I also agree with you that the idea of "conscientious objection" from soliders in a voluntary military seems ridiculas. Ok, so you don't abandon your rights to citizenship when you put on the uniform (although, in practice, you do to some extent) one joins the military with the idea that you will fight for your country and that you have made a choice that you will serve the national interest. To suddenly change your mind right before war seems to be a cop out. You should have known the risks before you went in.

But in that sense, I also have to say I disagree with the army's recruitment of kids out of highschool. You can be 17 when you sign up for the military- at least give a kid the right to be an adult when he makes s decision that can get him killed.

But this idea, that you are sworn to an oath, is problematic for another reason. By being a volunteer you have taken it upon yourself to choose a career that puts you in harms way. This is unlike a person who goes to war because of a threat to his country. You are, in a sense, becoming the executive arm of the state. But having chosen a career many can look upon your service as a voluntary contract. Even in the case of a draft, the soldiers have been forced into fighting. The difference might be that the state might be more willing to place you in harms way because you have already contracted for that obligation. This is especially true of the marines, who tend to get deployed in many difficult situations.

I seriously considered it many times, and probably would have gone- either Army ROTC or Navy JAG but fate (a car accident in the first and a failed delivery of a contract in the second) kept me out. In both circumstances I looked at it more as a career than out of a sense of duty or obligation.

But the idea of national interest or defending your country probably drops out in real life and things become a lot more localized. Of the guys who went to Vietnam, some might have gone out of a sense of duty or a sense that communism was a real fear. But in the end I think most fought because they were in a unit and didn't want to shirk their responsiblity to the others.

 

[Montez]

I'm not sure which poll option to pick - I'd only fight if the country itself was under attack or being invaded. I'd personally never go to another country to fight when it has nothing directly to do with defending the US, especially after hearing about how fucked over my dad and other Vietnam vets were. So I guess I'd be a draft dodger if it came down to another war like that, but not in defense of the country.

 

[DarkCorp]

People initially enlist for a variety of reasons.

Hoever, in the battlefield, the only important thing is kill or be killed.

 

[geekpocket]

welse wrote

What if your government is a tyrant?

you bring up a good point. If the government that is making you fight is "evil", aka Nazi Germany, then not only are you not obliged to fight in its Army, but you should do what you can to work against that government. You do not owe your loyalty to an evil empire. I'd guess that most of the German foot soldiers didn't know all about the Nazi atrocities that were going on, and fought because their government asked them to, and to not lose the respect of the men from their hometown. Therefore one needs to be informed of the reasons why a country is going to war, and what other actions their government is responsible for. It's not an easy task, I admit, but one that is neccessary.

This is all based on some universal concepts of Good and Evil. In order to determine whether or not a country or government is evil, then good/evil must be quantifiable in some realistic way. This is probably the hardest part, because what is good for some people, given the situation, may be unthinkable for others. It's all subjective, which is the problem.

 

[Pipboy2000]

People initially enlist for a variety of reasons.

Indeed, half of the people I know that are in the army only went in so they could get a college scholarship.

 

[DarkCorp]

welse wrote

What if your government is a tyrant?

you bring up a good point. If the government that is making you fight is "evil", aka Nazi Germany, then not only are you not obliged to fight in its Army, but you should do what you can to work against that government. You do not owe your loyalty to an evil empire. I'd guess that most of the German foot soldiers didn't know all about the Nazi atrocities that were going on, and fought because their government asked them to, and to not lose the respect of the men from their hometown. Therefore one needs to be informed of the reasons why a country is going to war, and what other actions their government is responsible for. It's not an easy task, I admit, but one that is neccessary.

This is all based on some universal concepts of Good and Evil. In order to determine whether or not a country or government is evil, then good/evil must be quantifiable in some realistic way. This is probably the hardest part, because what is good for some people, given the situation, may be unthinkable for others. It's all subjective, which is the problem.

Many of you still do not understand the beasic concept behind it all. The german people didn't care if its government was evil or not. I mean Jesus Christ nobody did anything to stop the SA and SS during Kristalnacht. The whole point is everyone wants their country to be strong. Hitler brought wealth, territory, and national pride back to germany. Instead of having nothing to eat, the people all had jobs, had food to eat, could buy their family gifts, etc. They were a world superpower that nobdy really wanted to fuck with.

As I said in another post, do we even know why the government does the shady shit it does? We supported Noriega because we needed a non communist in control of the Panama canal. Could you imagine what would have happened if the soviets had control of it? Sure Noriega was a bad guy, but in order to make america safe, people have to suffer. America annexed Hawaii, a downright invasion. But if we didn't have a staging point to break through fortress europe, would we have won WW2? Better yet, what if the Japanese or Nazi's got control of Hawaii? Or what about S. America? Would you prefer to hide in an isolationistic shell until we have a super sized Cuba? That fact of the matter is that would be tough as fighting the Nazis with the entire european continent and the vast oil fields of the Soviet Union under their control. The best defense is making sure your opponent has no offense.

All these americans go and complain yet they don't want to wait in mile long gas lines due to other countries holding america hostage with oil? Would female americans protest american intervention if non-intervention meant they could be forced to wear burkhas and they could be killed for saying the devil ain't real?

The world isn't made of sugar plums and fairies. We live in a world where every country is constantly vying for a bigger piece of the pie. Not only are enemies, but even allies try to send spies in eachothers territory to maintain the status quo. If a country thats is number one doesn't stay on the ball, then a new country will be number one.

 

[OnTheBounce]

It's interesting that the German army during the second world war would often deploy its forces in units were the men generally came from the same home town. This would make the men fight harder and be more loyal to each other. This put peer pressure on soldiers to fight, if not to defend the state but to defend their homes.

Yes, absolutely correct, Welsh. Even in the very chaotic conditions of '45 the German high command made every effort to pull units back into the regions that they originated in, too. The thinking being that regardless of any bitterness that a soldier might have regarding what by that time was a the valkyrie ride of Nazi foreign policy, a soldier would be fighting for his home rather than any ethereal notion of statehood or the German people as a whole. (It made regimental reunions after the war a bit easier as well. ) This system went as far as providing replacements from the same region.

America annexed Hawaii, a downright invasion. But if we didn't have a staging point to break through fortress europe, would we have won WW2? Better yet, what if the Japanese or Nazi's got control of Hawaii?

In what way was the annexation of Hawaii connected w/"Fortress Europe"? Hawaii was annexed by the US in 1898. Let's take a look at how the relevant players were disposed at that time.

• The Great War was still 16 years away, not to mention the 20+ year ceasefire between it and the World War.
  
• Hitler was all of 9 years old, and by all reports wasn't much of a statesman at that point.
  
• The Japanese were in the process of modernizing, but hadn't yet smashed the Russian Navy at Tsushima Straight ('05, Feb), which put them on the map as a naval power. (They were still regarded as a 2nd or 3rd rate land power after the Russo-Japanese War of '04-5, though.)
  
• The great earthquake of '23 which leveled Tokyo and actually played a key role in the rise of militarism was still a quarter century away.

I'm really curious about this one, DC. Please, enlighten myself as well as any other curious parties.

(BTW, this is to say nothing of the geographical factors involved in arguing that Hawaii's annexation had to do w/preempting Nazi aggression...)

OTB

 

[DarkCorp]

Well as far as I know, american bombers really didn't have enough range to fly from the U.S. to targets in airbases. Hmm, as far as I remember, aircraft carriers couldn't carry the heavier bombers america had including the stratofortress and the superfortress. So what would be the best way for our bombers to get to airbases in europe, oh yeah, a convenient resupply depot at Hawaii. Also, did you ever think of why we had such a large naval fleet at Hawaii than here at the states? Hmm, I wonder how the hell we managed to get control of the pacific if we didn't have a convenient base of operations between europe and america? Are you understanding my position now, I was talking about logistics here.


I was never talking about pre-empting Nazi aggression, that was the responsibility of the european allies such as the british, the french. However, my point was that Hawaii is a key base of operations. Its strategic location is invaluable. If the United States had not annexed it, then either the Soviets or the Nazis would have.

PS: In the thread Blind Americanism, Welsh seems to have undertsood my statement of why countries would either support dictators or annex other states in regard to nation security issues.

 

[Fromage]

You clearly have europe and japan mixed up severely. I suggest you employ a map.

 

[Wooz]

DarkCorp wrote:

However, my point was that Hawaii is a key base of operations. Its strategic location is invaluable. If the United States had not annexed it, then either the Soviets or the Nazis would have.

Are you and Paladin Solo related?

Hawaii, hypothetically, could only have been "annexed" by the Japanese during WW2, as the Nazis' field of operations, in what comes to naval warfare, were the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
The Soviets were allied with the US, and in the first stages of the conflict, when they were allied with Hitler, they didn't undertake any kind of operation in the Pacific, their military effort was focused on East Europe.

 

[DarkCorp]

Yes I stand corrected. I seemed to have gotten Japan and Europe mixed up a bit. Nonetheless, Hawaii is still an important base for the United States, either WW2 against the japanese or possibly the cold war with the soviets. It still provides a valid argument for its annexation.

PS: Brainfarts suck.

 

[geekpocket]

So Pipboy, still not willing to fight for your country?

 

[Mohrg]

I'll only fight if I get to kill innocent dogs and ducks

Nuff said

Mohrg

 

[Mr. Gabo]

returning to the original post

down here, military service is a must when you get 18 (by law) but if you're studying you may show papers, so you're free until next year, then again you go with the papers (which certifies you're in the university), and get it delayed

that for 5 years, then you go to the "untrained reserve"

if there's war, we all young people are "politely asked" to join up (AKA move your ass now!)

 

[Wooz]

Out of topic, again.

DarkCorp wrote:

Hawaii is still an important base for the United States, either WW2 against the japanese or possibly the cold war with the soviets. It still provides a valid argument for its annexation.

PS: Brainfarts suck.

Actually, the Cold war was called "cold" because there was no full-scale war between the US and the USSR. Anyways, the only empire that tried to invade the other empire's allies was the US and it's failure in the pigs bay, which lead to the rocket crisis in 1962.

Besides, Hawaii is a heluva lot away from everything and couldn't be as easily invaded.
Besides, an ICBM would do the trick better than invading an island in the middle of nowhere to gain a strategic base for WW2-style warfare.

However, I agree that it is a strategic vantage point for conventional weaponry.
So is the Klondike River.

but in order to make america safe, people have to suffer.

At best, people from other countries and far away, that have absolutely nothing to do with America. Long live American Supremationism. Sieeeeeg!

HEEEIIILLLL!

 

[geekpocket]

wooz69 wrote

Long live American Supremationism.

you're finally starting to get the idea wooz.

 

[Pipboy2000]

So Pipboy, still not willing to fight for your country?

I'd fight for it if people where in my front lawn trying to blow up my driveway....


I mean no disrespect to you though, it's your choice if you want to be in the army and serve for our country, and I recognize that as a huge displayment of valor and courage. Kodos to you.