Fighting a war for your country it's just not another job

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The fighters are enlisted people that knew the risks of joining a military machine. They are paid and are basically mercenaries but proud of our country.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wanna say "proud of their job", which is fine. Otherwise we are talking about Professional Patriotism.

IMO, it is possible and also consistent
- to be a patriot and not be a volunteer for Iraq
- not to be a patriot and to be a volunteer for Iraq

Note please that "not being a patriot" is not the same thing as "being a traitor"! It's just someone who does not place patriotism so high on the hierarchy of preferences/ideology.

BUT IT IS NOT CONSISTENT TO BE A SUPPORTER OF THE WAR AND OTHERWISE ABLE TO SERVE AND NOT TO VOLUNTEER FOR IRAQ!

[ QUOTE ]
We are not fighting a war with [a] country that has attacked us or been a threat to our survival.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. In other words, there was no Clear And Present Danger.

As Zbignew Brzezinsky was warning before the invasion, in such cases where time is not of the essence getting a consensus among the allies was more important, militarily and diplomatically.

[ QUOTE ]
We are at war with Iraq for two reasons. They had weapons of mass destruction poised to be used against us. Unfortunately we cant find them for a good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
They never existed. Can't get a better reason than that! At any price. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
And that the president's father was possibly targeted by Saddam after attacking him after giving [Saddam] the go ahead to move into Kuwait.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the bad attributes of a Monarchy was precisely that sort of personal grudge where the new King would go to war because the Blutonians have slighted his father or something.

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
If your country is at war, you think the war is a just and a necessary one, they need volunteers and you have the physical capabilities to do it. Why in the world you are not ready to go? Why you keep making excuses? Why you want some others to fight for you? IT IS YOUR COUNTRY, and your country needs you. Some of your fellow citizens in the military have had to overstay in Iraq, far from their families, because there's not enough people. I'm sure they'll appreciate your contribution. Why do they have to sacrifice? There are not enough patriots in the states?

Why you compare your country at war with joining the red cross, joining the police, joining the firefighters, going to an humanitarian mission? Why? Do you really think it's the same? Your country at war is the same as fighting a fire in the neighbohood?

I'm asking these questions to the young members in the forum, the old (30 or more) chickenhawks, are already too dehumanized, they don't care about any people in the world outside the States, their concepts of justice, fairness, virtue and else are just for Americans; they are so used to these "wars" and "interventions"; for them the military is just another job done for some fellow citizens to keep their way of life.

But what about you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, you are about as stupid as a bag of hair.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
we are at war with iraq for two reasons. they had weapons of mass destruction poised to be used against us. unfortunately we cant find them for a good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, a very good reason.

Mack

[mackthefork]

This seems like a trick question but what the hell.

My answer is because if I'm going to get killed I'd like to be in a position to manage the risks in the context of my conscience. So if someones kids are in a burning house I can go in, and if Tony wants to knock 50c off a barrel of oil, I can stay the hell away. If you join the military you lose the right to make these important decisions for yourself, I'm not prepared to be sacrificed by some molly-coddled ex public school boy, officer type.

I wouldn't want to be in a position where I had to shoot a man I had no quarrel with either. If he raped my sister or tried to steal my car, then fair enough I fire away, if he is in another army, that potentially isn't a volunteer army, the mind boggles. I'm sure there is some way of reconciling yourself to this, but I wouldn't know what it is.

Mack

[Arnfinn Madsen]

The American military functions as the branch of the American society doing the dirty work. If it would be obligatory, it would mean citizens would be forced to conduct activities contrary to American civilized values. Now, it is voluntarily to take part in the abuses conducted. For many, it is comfortable to keep it that way.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
The American military functions as the branch of the American society doing the dirty work. If it would be obligatory, it would mean citizens would be forced to conduct activities contrary to American civilized values. Now, it is voluntarily to take part in the abuses conducted. For many, it is comfortable to keep it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

......as it was 'comfortable' for citizens of Rome, who had grown used to the many benefits of their standing, to allow their military to become one of mostly foreign mercenaries and conscripts.

Is there anything to be learned fron this?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
......as it was 'comfortable' for citizens of Rome, who had grown used to the many benefits of their standing, to allow their military to become one of mostly foreign mercenaries and conscripts.

Is there anything to be learned fron this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be imperialist like the Romans were? There's a lesson you won't take though, I guess.

Mack

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
......as it was 'comfortable' for citizens of Rome, who had grown used to the many benefits of their standing, to allow their military to become one of mostly foreign mercenaries and conscripts.

Is there anything to be learned fron this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be imperialist like the Romans were? There's a lesson you won't take though, I guess.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Mack,

If you're implying that my own personal point of view is one of supporting imperialism, you couldn't be further from the truth.

What I AM implying by my previous post is that it is EXACTLY that imperialistic political mindset, in conjunction with the 'farming out' of one's military forces to enforce that view, that was the beginning of the long slide down the slippery slope for the Roman Empire.

I chose this analogy because I see many similarities between post-WWII US foreign policy and that of ancient Rome.

To be more specific: When the general citizenry of a country appear to be unwilling to support the political policy of that country by putting their own arses on the line to do so, then one has to wonder if that policy is not flawed based upon the lack of MEANINFUL support.

Just to be clear, as it appears that you may have an impression of my point of view that may not be accurate:

I do NOT support our attacking of Iraq. I did NOT support it when it was being debated, and have maintained that position. I did NOT, and still do NOT buy into all of the 'stock pablum rationales' for doing so.

I believe that 9/11 was used by our administration as an emotional rationale and justification for doing so, and that the current administration has skillfully manipulated the general population into supporting these actions with a very well crafted propaganda campaign surounding the word 'patriotism' that essentially confuses the issues for many, with the results being "if you're not for us, you're against us" mentality.

I do not believe that the 'pre-emptive justification" for the US attacking Iraq holds any water, and feel that history will show that to be true.

I personaly abhorr this type of manipulation, but see it a a central core ingredient being used througout history by countries that are insistent on maintaining a balance of power that is in their favor.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Mack,

If you're implying that my own personal point of view is one of supporting imperialism, you couldn't be further from the truth.

What I AM implying by my previous post is that it is EXACTLY that imperialistic political mindset, in conjunction with the 'farming out' of one's military forces to enforce that view, that was the beginning of the long slide down the slippery slope for the Roman Empire.

I chose this analogy because I see many similarities between post-WWII US foreign policy and that of ancient Rome.

To be more specific: When the general citizenry of a country appear to be unwilling to support the political policy of that country by putting their own arses on the line to do so, then one has to wonder if that policy is not flawed based upon the lack of MEANINFUL support.

Just to be clear, as it appears that you may have an impression of my point of view that may not be accurate:

I do NOT support our attacking of Iraq. I did NOT support it when it was being debated, and have maintained that position. I did NOT, and still do NOT buy into all of the 'stock pablum rationales' for doing so.

I believe that 9/11 was used by our administration as an emotional rationale and justification for doing so, and that the current administration has skillfully manipulated the general population into supporting these actions with a very well crafted propaganda campaign surounding the word 'patriotism' that essentially confuses the issues for many, with the results being "if you're not for us, you're against us" mentality.

I do not believe that the 'pre-emptive justification" for the US attacking Iraq holds any water, and feel that history will show that to be true.

I personaly abhorr this type of manipulation, but see it a a central core ingredient being used througout history by countries that are insistent on maintaining a balance of power that is in their favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally misunderstood what you were trying to say then, in that case I apologise.

Mack

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mack,

If you're implying that my own personal point of view is one of supporting imperialism, you couldn't be further from the truth.

What I AM implying by my previous post is that it is EXACTLY that imperialistic political mindset, in conjunction with the 'farming out' of one's military forces to enforce that view, that was the beginning of the long slide down the slippery slope for the Roman Empire.

I chose this analogy because I see many similarities between post-WWII US foreign policy and that of ancient Rome.

To be more specific: When the general citizenry of a country appear to be unwilling to support the political policy of that country by putting their own arses on the line to do so, then one has to wonder if that policy is not flawed based upon the lack of MEANINFUL support.

Just to be clear, as it appears that you may have an impression of my point of view that may not be accurate:

I do NOT support our attacking of Iraq. I did NOT support it when it was being debated, and have maintained that position. I did NOT, and still do NOT buy into all of the 'stock pablum rationales' for doing so.

I believe that 9/11 was used by our administration as an emotional rationale and justification for doing so, and that the current administration has skillfully manipulated the general population into supporting these actions with a very well crafted propaganda campaign surounding the word 'patriotism' that essentially confuses the issues for many, with the results being "if you're not for us, you're against us" mentality.

I do not believe that the 'pre-emptive justification" for the US attacking Iraq holds any water, and feel that history will show that to be true.

I personaly abhorr this type of manipulation, but see it a a central core ingredient being used througout history by countries that are insistent on maintaining a balance of power that is in their favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally misunderstood what you were trying to say then, in that case I apologise.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]


...np, Mack.

I understand that my posts can sometimes be a bit cryptic. I plead 'guilty' to that offense and would add that I often do this in an effort to generate further discussion on a particualr topic.

I believe that legimitate exchanges of points of view are an essential ingredient in the learning process for all of us.