To serve or not to serve

[wizzard880]

I as many of you do not beleive in this war right now. But it has been a  dream of mine to join the marines and be able to serve my country, and now Bush and his admin has made it a much harder decision to make.  Even tho i do not believe in this war, i feel if we are there, i still would want to join. Not to support the war, but to support the troops that are there. 3 very close friends of mine, went to irack and were not lucky enough to come home, and each of them has now a widoed wife and one of them now has a fatherless kid. I beleive that by joining the marines, it would help bring some fellow americans who joined to fight for their country, not for oil, back home to their familys. But then there is the fact that if i join i could be killing innocent people, and figthing for something i dont beleive in. does anyone have any thougths on this subject?Oh and also id like to thank bush for being the moron that he is and starting a war, witch is making it extreamly hard for me to make my decision.

[David]

"3 very close friends of mine, went to irack and were not lucky enough to come home"

Is something you don't believe in worth dying for?

"But then there is the fact that if i join i could be killing innocent people"

'Nuff said.

I say.. Think it over.

[dizzing]

a very tough decision in very tough times, one i have pondered myself
to great extent.  honestly, however, we don't have a draft. 
our troops over there know the possible consequences - if you go to
war, you're already dead (i think that's from band of brothers, or a
bastardization of something from band of brothers).  you are a
killing machine first and foremost.  going over there may support
the troops who are currently there (who are already dead), but it will
certainly hurt the troops and families of troops of freedom fighters
(to put it unpopularly) fighting against our militaristic rule (it is,
despite the illusion of democracy - they don't get anywhere close to
the rights we as american citizens get).  the only way to avenge
death is to let it not have been in vein.  does that mean we need
to get over there and make sure our mission is accomplished? or does it
mean we need to let go of the idea of vengeance?  it's a very
personal decision, and unfortunately one that is extremely tough to
make.

well, i started this post trying to give some advice, but really it's
just a pointless rant.  sorry about that, but perhaps you have
some new things to think about.  i still have trouble with these
issues

[Sonthert]

I have been against this war since the US tried to buffalo the UN into supporting the attack. Watching people stampede to my side of the argument is great. I used to say something and people would berate me for my view. I was worried that the US military would lose credibility as a respectable profession if this war went off, like it was throughout the late seventies and almost all the way up to the nineties. It seems to be. I support the military. It is still important to have a strong, technologically advanced military to protect our country. When we spend the currency of our credibility instead of saving it, we are sending our troops over to fight for no honest reason. Men die; families suffer. The human cost is incalcuable. Noam Chomsky calls the United States, in his book 9-11, "The world's leading terrorist nation." Who bombs other countries? GB? Germany? France? Russia? China? Nope...only the United States. 9-11 was fairly clearly, according to Chomsky, and later Michael Moore, perpetrated by Saudi Arabia. Why are we attacking Afghanistan? Al Queda base? There's another two dozen scattered across the globe. Why are we attacking Iraq? No connection between Al Queda and Iraq until WE started operation Holy Desert Shield or The New Christian Misery or whatever its called this week. Now Al-Queda is growing stronger in Iraq. WMD? The UN said there weren't, the US weapons inspector said there weren't. The UN rejected America's plan to attack calling the intelligence info "unconvincing". Bush made this great rambling crock about how we weren't going to allow the UN to dictate our foreign policy and went in anyways. Every competent military advisor, even Powell, advised against it. Bush did it anyways. I'm sorry your friends have died. Death is a horrible waste. Imagine the people in Iraq who have no choice; but have lost their homes, their way of life, their arms, their legs, their faces, their children, their wives, their husbands, their parents, their own lives. They had no choice but to be run over by a superior adversary. You have a choice not to help run them over.

[dizzing]

aye, however, the united states is not the only country that bombs
other countries.  in fact, a lot of our allies bomb other
countries too. look at israel (a sensitive subject, to be sure).

plus, noam chomsky is a tool, although that's off the subject

[Sonthert]

You're correct, but nobody is close to the US in terms of per capita bombs dropped, buildings blown up, etc. So the appelation "The world's leading terrorist power" is still appropriate.
[quote name='dizzing']plus, noam chomsky is a tool, although that's off the subject [/quote]
ad hominem.
a. if he is a "tool" that doesn't necessarily eliminate credibility. His points must still must be reasonably addressed. He could beat his wife or have sex with llamas; it doesn't make him wrong.
b. It is inflammatory since the point cannot be proved either way, since Chomsky isn't going to admit it, if he is a tool, and the lack of evidence that he is a tool doesn't mean that he is not.
I think Chomsky has a lot of interesting things to say. He's a breath of fresh air from stale "elephant" stank.

[dizzing]

your mom is ad hominem.

[Sariél]

Tangiers, maybe if you use smaller words dizzing could respond better.

[dizzing]

very funny. i love how when i try and kid around people tell me to put
a wink at the end of my posts so they aren't misconstrued.  then i
put a wink, and people still think i'm being an idiot.

i guess i'll explain it.  i did in fact use an ad hominem attack
on noam chomsky.  tangiers pointed this out, so i then made an ad
hominem attack on tangiers.  i thought it was a nice and harmless
use of sarcasm.  i guess i was wrong.

sariel, i'm sorry if you were also just kidding around, but i just
don't want everyone to think i'm part of the 12 year old special ed
crowd.

[dizzing]

and sorry just now for the outburst... i'm just kinda stressed and in a bad mood.  time to smoke a hookah 

[wizzard880]

Are there any x military men and woman on this forum?

[[LB]]

[quote name='Sariél']Tangiers, maybe if you use smaller words dizzing could respond better.[/quote]

dizzing just needs to learn bigger words

[dizzing]

har har

[nakedandangry]

Im currently in the Army .. well, officer training corps.If youre considering the Marines, for the love of __insert favorite god here   do NOT talk with the Marine Recruiters. or any recruiters at all. They are some of the best people in the world at pressuring. im still iffy about the war.  up until very recently, i was heavily for it.  if CNN, MSNBC, etc. weren't so heavily focused on "shock media" and saying everything is bad bad bad, more people would probably be for it.  There are enough facts out there to make pretty much anyone in favor of this. But im not gonna open that can of worms.Bush has lied... quite a bit in the past few months.  Especially pertaining to his motives about the war.  He's switching his stance more than Kerry...Still, things there are ..mucked.. up right now thanks to us.  And it is our responsibility to fix it.  Soldiers there are doing 4x extended tours, just because so many people keep pushing anti-war agendas.  This whole thing should have been cleared up by now, and mostly everyone nice and happy, but people keep on pushing this anti-war BS.  They're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.If they try their hardest to make sure no one joins the military, the military will be understaffed with low moral and no support and soldiers will die.  Which makes these anti-war people scream even more about how war is bad.Im going over there as an economist expert, with (in a few years) a masters in economics and a BS in system dynamics.  There are very few people there right now that know what they're supposed to be doing, and hopefully I can help with that.  And hopefully someone can go home once I get there.Right now for a potential Marine, it all depends on what you want to do there.  Very few soldiers are actually there to specifically "kill people."  Innocent people are pretty much never hurt (well, now anyways) (and when they are, the media blows it completely out of proportion.)too much for me continue writing.  just research it a bit more , talk to people , find out what opportunities are out there.

[Sonthert]

Perhaps...this might help....I   c  o  u  l  d t  y  p  e   s  l  o  w  e  r. I'm sorry everybody missed it, Dizzing is incredibly intelligent. Just cause he forgets to add the appropriate smiley face and he is fairly misunderstood, he seems highly intelligent and moderately educated. I deplore the utilization of idioms derived from latin origins, but the necessitude of circumstances virtually demands wielding them. You wanna type rough? 'Bout my mama? I'll do the dozens with you!You have to be careful when moving heavy items...so wear a back brace when you go out with your mom tonight!I'm not saying your mother needs to lose weight, she just needs to stop eating bakery trucks. I'm not saying your mother is unattractive; all the cockroaches in the neighborhood are under your mother's sofa 'cause its so comfortable.I'm not trying to insult your mom; she's really a very sweet and warm, like bubble-gum stuck to your shoe.Your mother's not a ho, either, just cause the pimps in the neighborhood call her "mayo" because she's white and spreads so easy doesn't mean nothing.

[Sonthert]

That was incredibly juvenile...if I hadn't typed it myself, I would completely disavow any responsibility. That was directed towards dizzing...Sorry I missed the bulk of the conversation...I was takin' your mom out to the Dairy Queen for a trough of ice cream. Those actually were sincere compliments...and I hope you take them as such. Back to the serious part...

[Sonthert]

[quote name='nakedandangry']Im currently in the Army .. well, officer training corps.If youre considering the Marines, for the love of __insert favorite god here   do NOT talk with the Marine Recruiters. or any recruiters at all. They are some of the best people in the world at pressuring. im still iffy about the war.  up until very recently, i was heavily for it.  if CNN, MSNBC, etc. weren't so heavily focused on "shock media" and saying everything is bad bad bad, more people would probably be for it.  There are enough facts out there to make pretty much anyone in favor of this. But im not gonna open that can of worms.Bush has lied... quite a bit in the past few months.  Especially pertaining to his motives about the war.  He's switching his stance more than Kerry...Still, things there are ..mucked.. up right now thanks to us.  And it is our responsibility to fix it.  Soldiers there are doing 4x extended tours, just because so many people keep pushing anti-war agendas.  This whole thing should have been cleared up by now, and mostly everyone nice and happy, but people keep on pushing this anti-war BS.  They're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.If they try their hardest to make sure no one joins the military, the military will be understaffed with low moral and no support and soldiers will die.  Which makes these anti-war people scream even more about how war is bad.Im going over there as an economist expert, with (in a few years) a masters in economics and a BS in system dynamics.  There are very few people there right now that know what they're supposed to be doing, and hopefully I can help with that.  And hopefully someone can go home once I get there.Right now for a potential Marine, it all depends on what you want to do there.  Very few soldiers are actually there to specifically "kill people."  Innocent people are pretty much never hurt (well, now anyways) (and when they are, the media blows it completely out of proportion.)too much for me continue writing.  just research it a bit more , talk to people , find out what opportunities are out there.  [/quote]What are you trying to say, NakedandAngry?Are you in favor of the war or not? If you don't want to open up a can of worms, don'k kick it either...Bush KNEW there were no weapons of mass-destruction (Same as I did), and he went into Iraq anyways. So...Bush says there's WMDs in Iraq, 180 or so countries in the UN say there aren't, the trained UN weapons inspectors say they're aren't...and Bush  decides to disregard the better advice of leaders all over the world and attack Iraq anyways. He finds...nothing! Bush was wrong and the rest of the world was right.So one of three things is true:1. The US has the worst intelligence network in the whole world.2. Bush is physically, literally too dumb to make decisions for the US and her citizens.3. Bush has been lying about WMDs from the very beginning and has some reason to attack Iraq that isn't in the best interests of the US and her citizens (and then, needs to be covered up).If #1 is true, then we shouldn't be relying on intelligence data in the first place...so we wouldn't be at war, unless we go back to number 2 being true. I think Bush is not stupid. So number two is out. Since members of Bush's cabinet said, in early-mid 2001, that Iraq had no capability of making or even obtaining WMD and indeed didn't have any should indicate #3 is true. Why was Colin Powell on the news, in 2002, pointing out all these WMD production facilities and developments that don't exist? Lies? Couldn't be anything else...Here's a tip for the militarists of the world:"If you want support for war, we'll be behind you (the American People), but we'll bite you in the butt if you show that your war wasn't in the best interests of the people." So...Nakedandangry, you can take your new bosses my advice, no charge. Don't call it antiwar BS, you can call your war BS, don't call sense and reason BS.I agree with you, we need a strong military, we need to get good people in there. Its very important...blame the leaders  who  start stupid wars that aren't in the best interests of America. That turns people off to the military...the last time after  Vietnam lasted better than 15 years.The military is nowhere near the size that it was during WWII, Korea, or even Vietnam. We couldn't hold together a similarly sized country like S. Vietnam, how do we do it with significantly less people? We did OK with Kuwait, 'cause Kuwait is only about 600 square miles. The days of huge militaries that could cross entire countrysides are gone...airplanes, nuclear devices, and smart weapons have made them obsolete...you are applying 19th century logic to the 21st century.I am anti-Iraq war, but don't accuse me of being responsible for its failure...it was doomed to failure from the beginning. It shouldn’t be our responsibility to be in Iraq, to fix the mess in Iraq or for the military to even leave the US...except under the most dire of circumstances. If we'd have listened to the words of the UN and the rest of the world, there would be no mess to fix! George Bush insisted he was right and the useless politicians followed along behind. How do you think we look to the rest of the world? Ignorant? Violent? Arrogant? We were wrong and it blew up in our faces. I know...let me guess...you probably don't care what the rest of the world thinks.We don't need to stay and clean up our mess. Our continued involvement in Iraq represents a greater threat now than Iraq under Saddam Hussein ever did. How many times in world history has a country (often the US) insisted that a democratic government be established, only to find that it blew up in our face? We insisted that Germany be established as a republic, The Weimar Republic, which pretty universally is accepted as the catalyst that lead to the rise of Hitler. South Vietnam fell, after our influence left. Kampuchea, Rwanda and the Dutch, etc. No, we need to leave...now...I believe the phrase you incorrectly used was "economist expert" unless you are going to be telling your CO about how Keynes like syrup on his French Toast...the phrase you were looking for is and "economics expert".I love this country, I love the people of this country and I would go out and die for a good cause for this country. We are running down the same road as Persia, Greece, Rome, Spain and Nazi Germany. Anyone who ever passed a history class, or read "Catch-22" you should know what I'm talking about.I am sorry if my tone sounds sharp, but I found some of your comments directed towards "those" people as clearly insulting and derogatory. For the record: don't paint me with your paintbrush. You rely on innuendo and implication to deride people...Americans who feel strongly about opposing this war, who I personally disagree with on many points, have a right to their opinion. You belittling them is juvenile. Your entire post was based not on a single fact, but on statements that are abusive and polarized. You might feel OK about stereotyping people, but don't do it to me.I hope you will appreciate the spirit that this post was intended. God said "Thou shall not kill." He didn't qualify it "except under times of national emergency". I respect the soldiers and the officers of the US military. I salute you all. I don't salute the idiots that started a war that’s not in the best interests of America.

[nakedandangry]

First off, "those" people arent necessarily the anti-war people in general, its just the ones that go over the top to stop recruitment that annoy me most.as for the wmd's.  We found *expired* chemical and biological weapons, and registered facilities for them (that did exist) that have been used since after all of those were expired.  Saddam could not account for a good portion of ones that he claimed to have.Russia stepped forward, and gave proof that Iraq bought a large quantity of Uranium "under the table" .. most of that has yet to be found.There were little things like "racial genocide" within iraq.. Saddam has killed over 800,000 Iraqi citizens, most Kurds.  i guess thats "OK" with some people though?He repeatadly denied UN weapons inspectors access to many, many areas.  Even after punishment, he still did it.  Thats one thing not to be taken lightly.  If one country gets away with it, more will try.  The world does not need india, palestine, korea, china, etc deciding that they can f*ck off the UN nuclear proliferation agreements.Oh, and not to mention that that regime has specifically threatened us with WMD's, and that they have been linked to al queda many, many times over.So, best interest of America id say is a bit selfish.  *The World* should not have a genocidal maniac completly ignoring the UN, and developing weapon technology.Sorry, that getting rid of that, hasn't personally benefitted you or your country.So yes, i am pro-war, to be outright with it.  Some of the things about contracting were a little messed up, and with any war - yeah people died who shouldnt have.The government being set up there is not strictly democratic.  It's muslim based, and has the capability to change itself dynamically over time.  Some sort of order had to be put there - their current tyrannical monarchy wasnt working so well.  Maybe democracy isnt the best for them - but it will be good enough to let them settle down and figure out what is.So yes, we might look arrogant, violent, etc. now.  So what?  Only thing that matters about this is how it turns out.  20 years from now, Iraq is still in turmoil - i will take back every word i said.  But if theyre doing better than they were 5 years ago, ill still stand with this.  And don't forget how many countries bandwagon'ed onto the war with soldiers, how many other indirectly supported it, and how many had *strong* interest in developing FDI in Iraq because of this.  It leaves very few, most of which are pretty insignificant in a world view of power.and yeah, "economics expert".  slip of the fingers, no need to bad mouth Keynes !"South Vietnam fell, after our influence left. Kampuchea, Rwanda and the Dutch, etc. No, we need to leave...now..."Hey, I agree with you on the first part - and have to call the second part contradicting.If we leave now, Iraq WILL fall apart.  Our military is there right now to prevent that from happening again.  We are securing their largest natural resource, we are building up enough FDI so that they can stay strong regardless of what happens, and we are making sure that the government at least gets it feet on the ground.  These steps were all skipped during rwanda, etc.  "Thou shall not kill" - ok, so what is there to do when a genocide is happening? wait for God to end it himself? He seemed too preoccupied with his hookah to do anything..So, im sorry about how this war is not specifically in YOUR best interest and how it is not personally helping YOU or your neighbors or your other country mates.  And I wasn't in the best state of mind when i wrote that first entry, so things didn't come out as cleary as i wanted them to.  I was just trying to find the best way possible of saying "Hey, our soldiers need help - regardless of what CNN is spewing.  Personally, I am going to help in whatever way I can.  Up to you if you want to too." ...... but beer doesn't make saying that easy.  Especially without throwing in some opinionated, and maybe some offensive statements.

[Sonthert]

So, when Colin Powell and C. Rice (I won't try to spell it) flat out say "no WMD in Iraq" in early 2001, the UN weapons inspectors have a complete report of everything from biological and nuclear weapons showing when Iraq systematically dismantled and abandoned all WMD programs from 1992-1994 (largely). Moreover, G. W. Bush and R. Cheney have admitted in so many words that there were no WMDs, they made a mistake, you're trying to say we did find WMD? Nobody has found any WMD or any trace of active WMD. Nothing that could be used to injure anybody, unless you through the big, heavy can at them.I understand your point, but when India and Pakistan were/are developing nuclear weapons, we turn a blind eye, North Korea admits they've made 5+ of thedarn things and we don't do anything except pursue diplomatic solutions. Heck...we even gave nukes to Israel...not the smartest play on the field.When we suspect Iraq has them (which they don't/didn't in 2001) we go in like lemmings off of a cliff. The point is, as history has demonstrated repeatedly, about 2/3 of the time, when foreign powers interfere with the society and government of a weaker country, the government is unstable and reverts to its natural state. 1/3 of the time (I'm making these estimates up) a catastrophe occurs...lets play a game...I'll roll a six-sided die...if a 1,2,3 or 4 comes up nothing happens...if a 5 or a 6 comes up, you give me $20. Its the same game lose or break even. History is there to teach us what has worked, what can't work and our intervention in Iraq is just playing the same game history tells us is a losing game...so why are we playing it? You can keep playing the game as long as you want, but the risks keep increasing...Algeria-French Control 1956 (bloody rebellion)Vietnam-French Control 1962 (Protracted war)Kampuchea/Cambodia-French Control (Bloody revolution and authoritarian government)Burma-French Control (Unstable governmental authority culminating in a Junta-now called Myanmar)China-British Influence "opium war" (culminating in complete anti-1st world regime led by Mao)India-British Influence (Nothing notable)Japan-left largely to recover without foreign intervention after WWII, leading economic, technological and industrial power.Germany-Allied control, after WWI, established Weimar republic, ineffective and sparked the rise of facist dictator, A. Hitler. Power-vacuum left after Hitler's rule created the opportunity for the soviet union to take over numerous Eastern-European countries, creating "the Iron Curtain"Germany-Left to recover largely without foreign intervention, after WWII...Germany now a leading economic, political and industrial power. For the record, the UN does sanction interference when its warranted, there was this president named Clinton and there was this country called Bosnia...the UN approved it and a multi-national force went in with UN peacekeepers. In this case, the attrocities of Hussein seem to have stopped, in the eyes of the UN...so they see no reason to endorse our installation of a puppet government there. I don't agree with the UN's intervention in Bosnia, but I can see the reasoning going on. They were satisfied that nothing that was going on in Iraq required world-intervention...so whether or not UN weapons inspectors were denied entry makes no difference, the UN was satisfied that Iraq was adhering to the regulations the UN had set down for them.I would like you to show me any evidence that Iraq ever threatened the US...that is so much propaganda, I can't even believe it...moreover the suggestion that al queda is linked to Iraq before our invasion is even more preposterous...as I understand Arab politics, al queda being linked to a Baath party member like Hussein is about as reasonable as proposing the republican party has being harboring communists. They are diametrically opposed and do not get along...since our invasion, al queda's influence has mushroomed and reportedly  numerous Iraqii people have begun to join al queda...I wonder why? Go back to my last paragraph about foreign influences.If we leave now, Iraq will be allowed to develop a natural government that suits their country...yes there will be chaos...yes there will be discord...yes the results are questionable...they may even come out in a manner that doesn't benefit the US! (God forbid!) Iraq will not fall apart. You have no proof of that. Why is the US (or even you, specifically) suppose to determine whats in the best interests of the world? What makes us so morally right and superior? I think its far less arrogant to determine what's in our best interests and keep our interests inside our borders (and maybe a few neighbors, too).Iraq had a government...we overthrew it. If we had left well enough alone, we wouldn't have to address this question. If you're reasoning is right, how did the US survive a rag-tag revolt against the British? We didn't get a chance to get our feet on the ground...but we did fine.God is the reason all things happen? Right? I mean if there is a genocide, God meant for it to happen. You may not understand his reasoning, but who are you to question it? It is his commandment to man...if you decide to ignore it, you are defying God.I'm sorry, this war isn't in YOUR best interests, my best interests or humanity's best interests. Wars of this kind don't help anybody...they destroy ways of life and people's lives. It turns healthy men into cripples and children into orphans. I don't care how many...one is too many. You feel the joy of the giant trampling a small child's sand castle...imagine how some Iraqii man, it doesn't matter who, felt when he lost his wife and children in a bombing raid. Do you think he cried? Did he really need to lose them? Was it so important? I don't think so...if you can  imagine how you'd feel if you were him, you couldn't justify this war. Is it possible he could five years from now go to a US soldier and say:"my family's dead...but that's OK, we have a new government!" Or might he join al queda and try to exact vengeance on the people he sees as murdering his beloved wife and children? When we get a larger percentage of the world angry, it will be us, paying for that man's lost children with our lost children. Not a good game to play eh?I agree with what you were trying to say about some of these whiney liberal mucks trying to get people to stop joining the military, in retrospect. Some of them really are just a$$holes. I think the lesson that we learned many years ago we need to remember...freedom isn't a gift, its earned. you can't give somebody their freedom. Or easy come...easy go.I have a number of conservative friends and we bash it about quite a bit too...I never hold grudges...I hope you feel the same way...

[Sonthert]

I want to qualify that...There was considerable intervention, militarily, in post-WWII Germany...otherwise the Soviets would have taken that over, too. Same power vacuum...foreign powers invading...forcing their new subjects to do thing a certain way and then leaving...chaos. In the case of Iraq, you need a hostile, expansionistic neighbor to threaten a reciprocal take-over. Not likely in this case (I don't think).