Volunteering for military service

I had this long post- and I deleted it- I left this here to remind myself how stupid I am for trying to reply to spot.

[spot]

The thread can stand as it is then. I've raised an unanswerable point showing up the bankruptcy of any ethical stance in the current Western occupation of Afghanistan. We have no right to be there, no reason to be there and while we're there the good people of Afghanistan are entirely justified in attempting to eject us.

By all means explain why the Western position differs from that of the earlier Russian position if you'd rather. I don't think you can but at least I've invited discussion.

Do 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?

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by spot

I don't make jabs or personal attacks at any ForumGarden member.

[spot]

It had never once occurred to me that anyone might take personally an accusation of moral inadequacy in the matter of volunteering for service in Western armed forces, Accountable. I can see that the point makes you uncomfortable. You did it, you doubtless profited from it, now you can wear it. Perhaps at the same time you can explain to me why the Afghans are wrong in defending their homeland against foreign invaders, given that the same people were right to do it against the Russians in the 1980s. You applauded their bravery and tenacity then, applaud it now: the cases are comparable.

[Hamster]

Originally Posted by spot

It had never once occurred to me that anyone might take personally an accusation of moral inadequacy in the matter of volunteering for service in Western armed forces, Accountable.

Then you must be a little detached from reality Spot. You have insulted member's morals, their lifetime of service and their bravery. Not to mention the never ending mental effects of being under such stress for such a long time.

Strange how you changed it from morally bankrupt to "moral inadequacy". There is a huge difference.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Hamster

Then you must be a little detached from reality Spot. You have insulted member's morals, their lifetime of service and their bravery. Not to mention the never ending mental effects of being under such stress for such a long time.

Strange how you changed it from morally bankrupt to "moral inadequacy". There is a huge difference.

Let's start from basics. Where's the bravery?

Western armies, since the end of conscription, have killed armed civil militias at about a ratio of 40 homeland defenders to one Western armed combatant and I note that no Western armed combatant has ever defended his own homeland in all that time, they're invariably the attacker fighting on foreign soil. Which side is brave, the Western armed combatant or the far less well armed, far less well defended, completely lacking armour and air cover, civil militia? And yet they keep defending their homelands and winning. These armed militias won in Vietnam at the same huge loss ratio, for example. Who's currently President of Nicaragua, one of Oliver North's Contra killers or the leader of the Sandanistas, Daniel Ortega? I could go on.

Which side displays more bravery, given the consequences of defending against foreign occupation?

When's the list time a Western fighter pilot was brought down by an aerial opponent in a dogfight? When's the list time a Western bomber pilot even saw any of the villages he demolished, much less anyone firing back? I can't believe you're calling these people brave. Even taxi drivers back home are more at risk of injury or death than a volunteer in a Western armed force.

[Hamster]

Originally Posted by spot

Let's start from basics. Where's the bravery?

Western armies, since the end of conscription, have killed armed civil militias at about a ratio of 40 homeland defenders to one Western armed combatant and I note that no Western armed combatant has ever defended his own homeland in all that time, they're invariably the attacker fighting on foreign soil. Which side is brave, the Western armed combatant or the far less well armed, far less well defended, completely lacking armour and air cover, civil militia? And yet they keep defending their homelands and winning. These armed militias won in Vietnam at the same huge loss ratio, for example. Who's currently President of Nicaragua, one of Oliver North's Contra killers or the leader of the Sandanistas, Daniel Ortega? I could go on.

Which side displays more bravery, given the consequences of defending against foreign occupation?

When's the list time a Western fighter pilot was brought down by an aerial opponent in a dogfight? When's the list time a Western bomber pilot even saw any of the villages he demolished, much less anyone firing back? I can't believe you're calling these people brave. Even taxi drivers back home are more at risk of injury or death than a volunteer in a Western armed force.

Why does only one side have to be brave? Why does only one side "win" on that front? Why is it a petty battle of who is braver? Does that really matter? I think anyone that risks their lives are brave.

I think you have a very colourful view of what life is like when serving. Regardless of the reasons for being there our troops do risk their lives and often.

If it is so easy to do and requires no bravery and success is so assured why aren't people standing in line waiting to sign up in this country?

[spot]

Originally Posted by Hamster

If it is so easy to do and requires no bravery and success is so assured why aren't people standing in line waiting to sign up in this country?

Because so few people trust their political masters to use the armed forces for legal and moral purposes, and not without cause given the precedents.

There's a concept of a just war. Defending one's homeland from foreign invasion is a just cause for fighting. Invading someone else's territory most certainly isn't.

Success isn't assured, by the way. Quite the contrary. When last did an invading Western armed force succeed in imposing a pro-Western administration anywhere?

Originally Posted by spot

The thread can stand as it is then. I've raised an unanswerable point showing up the bankruptcy of any ethical stance in the current Western occupation of Afghanistan. We have no right to be there, no reason to be there and while we're there the good people of Afghanistan are entirely justified in attempting to eject us.

By all means explain why the Western position differs from that of the earlier Russian position if you'd rather. I don't think you can but at least I've invited discussion.

Do 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?

Spot, I say this sincerely, you have not earned the status that desereves a reply IMHO. To me this is nothign more than your typical provocation to insight and bully.

If I thought for one second you really would like to discuss this issue I'd reply, and reply in a civil manner as used to. but oh so many times I have been burned trying to discuss things with you, such as this.

Assuming that no one can answer you or your question is unanswerable is foolish at best. As for me, it isnt that I cant answer, or don't have an opinion, it's that I won't answer you.

[Hamster]

Originally Posted by spot

Because so few people trust their political masters to use the armed forces for legal and moral purposes, and not without cause given the precedents.

There's a concept of a just war. Defending one's homeland from foreign invasion is a just cause for fighting. Invading someone else's territory most certainly isn't.

Success isn't assured, by the way. Quite the contrary. When last did an invading Western armed force succeed in imposing a pro-Western administration anywhere?

How can you possibly know what percentage people trust the administrations? Do you have figures? A source?

Is there anywhere you could sign up for the "military that only defends and does not attack"?

I agree with you in that invading someone else's territory isn't always a just cause but you sem to assume that these "invasions" have the motive of imposing Western culture and rule. Do you see Bush as someone who was bent on World Domination?