Volunteering for military service

[spot]

Okay, I got "off topic" thrown at me in So Who is, was or will be in the military. Here it's on topic.

Comments like "You are all such brave men and women, and I do honor you all" call for a measure of balance. Is it the general mood of the thread that those holding the most powerful weaponry, with the best intelligence, the most money, the armoured vehicles and most of all the air cover, are such brave men and women? In contrast with what's effectively an armed civil militia against whom they're sent? I don't see it myself.

What I've asked in the past is whether 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?

How can anyone volunteer to join a military which is being used by politicians for such unjust ends?

I bring forward a reply from reddog:

Originally Posted by reddog

Spot,
I'm new to the forum and dont know what else you have asked in the past. I cant answer why all who volunteer do. I volunteered in the early 60s to keep from being drafted for Viet Nam. I still went to Nam and a few other places. Of Course we haven't had the draft for many years now. This war is being controlled by politicians. They have controlled ALL wars in our history as a country.
First of all, people who are in the Military dont make policy. The politicians that ALL Americans who vote elect these policy making politicians. (Both Democrats and Republicans) The job of the military is to carry out and enforce those policies. We didn't get to select the policies that we wanted to support. We supported All.
I dont know and dont give a tinkers damn what the russians did in Afghanistan. They were carrying out their politicians policy, If I remember correctly, we were in the middle of a "Cold War" with them and they were our enemy. So I guess it would depend on who you are enemies with at the time who the "Good Guys" are.
The people in the military have chosen an honerable profession. God Bless them

My reaction to that post is

• Nobody in today's military volunteered during a time of conscription. Those who did in the past were standing alongside people who had no choice but to serve. That excuse no longer exists.
• Everyone currently serving volunteered into an armed service which deploys abroad to fight. Nobody can pretend to be surprised to find themselves either fighting abroad or supporting troops who are fighting abroad.
• Absolving these volunteers on the basis that they haven't chosen to fight abroad misses the point. The point is that they've made themselves available to the politicians to deploy the armed services abroad to fight. Without that availability it wouldn't be a political option. The responsibility for fighting abroad lies ultimately with each volunteer, not with the politicians. The one defence not allowed any longer is "I was only following orders", that was destroyed by American, French, British and Russian lawyers whom I thank unreservedly.
• To neither know nor give a tinker's damn what the russians did in Afghanistan, for someone who served during the Vietnam liberation war, is both sickening and enlightening at the same time. And, given the current fighting in Afghanistan, shameful. I asked why there's a double standard and that's a large part of the answer - unforgivable deliberate ignorance.

The people in the military haven't chosen an honorable profession in the slightest, they're paid killers who choose to work for criminals for personal benefit. To correct Accountable I don't regard them as evil, merely as morally bankrupt. And no, I've not deleted his post, a forum software upgrade renamed threads, that's why his link's broken. I helped him rebuild the "sha" taglist too though I vehemently deny being anti-American.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by spot

To correct Accountable I don't regard them as evil, merely as morally bankrupt.

You're not correcting me, you're altering what you've posted time and again.

Originally Posted by spot

And no, I've not deleted his post, a forum software upgrade renamed threads, that's why his link's broken.

It wasn't my post that was deleted; it was yours. Perhaps you can find it if it wasn't deleted, because I've tried.

Originally Posted by spot

I helped him rebuild the "sha" taglist too though I vehemently deny being anti-American.

Thus saith one side of your mouth.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Accountable

It wasn't my post that was deleted; it was yours. Perhaps you can find it if it wasn't deleted, because I've tried.

Yes, you're right, it was my post. I don't have access to the discussion in the Mod forum which is why I'm relying solely on memory. Both Tombstone and the moderators had a major search the first time it was mentioned and it's definitely not there, there's a hole in the database at that point. We don't know why and I'm sure we reported all this to you when you raised it. For some reason you prefer to regard the post's loss as deliberate censorship on my part rather than a glitch in the system. I don't like the glitch theory any more than you do but I have no reason to think the post was deliberately deleted by anyone.

Why is there a double standard in comparing the expulsion of the Russian armed forces from Afghanistan with the expulsion of Western armed forces? Do you dispute it's the same people doing the expelling, for example?

[spot]

Originally Posted by Accountable

Thus saith one side of your mouth.

You know, the problem is that you insist on making this personal instead of responding to my points. I'm not anti-American any more than Desmond Tutu is anti-American. I offer, as the finest discussion yet on "Anti-Americanism", his essay earlier this month on the false perception of worldwide anti-American sentiment. Desmond Tutu is Archbishop of Cape Town and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. I can find nothing in his essay that contradicts what I've been explicitly writing on ForumGarden for years about "Anti-Americanism". Here's an extract:

During the previous administration's term, I'd been asked to suggest one unilateral magnanimous gesture or action that the incoming US president might make to counteract anti-Americanism abroad. I said that while there were clearly pockets of anti-Americanism around the world, this was definitely not a global phenomenon nor was it directed towards the American people.

What I certainly could attest to was substantial resentment and indeed hostile opposition to the policies of a particular US administration.

I contended, as I do now, that the two are quite distinct and separate.

An elucidating example dates back to the years of the anti-apartheid struggle. The Reagan White House was firmly opposed to applying sanctions against the South African apartheid regime, preferring what it described as "constructive engagement". Many of us were incensed by this policy and opposed it with every fibre of our being.

I probably dismayed many people when on one occasion I was told of the latest Reagan rejection of our call for US sanctions against Pretoria. I retorted, out of deep exasperation, "The West can go to hell!" I was then Bishop of Johannesburg, and some thought it was decidedly un-episcopal language.

I was very angry toward the Reagan administration, but that did not make me anti-American. And that is the point, anger and resentment toward the policies of a particular administration do not necessarily translate into anti-American sentiment.

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Viewpoint: A word of caution to Obama

Stop thinking that if you could only successfully bully me you'd invalidate my points. Address what I've said or sit back and leave a general assumption that my points are unanswerable. If you're going to try, though, do stick to what I write instead of what you mistakenly think I believe.

[Kindle]

Originally Posted by spot

..............The people in the military haven't chosen an honorable profession in the slightest, they're paid killers who choose to work for criminals for personal benefit........... .

I was taken aback by 'your opinion'.

Thankfully 'this opinon of yours' is in a minority.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Kindle

I was taken aback by 'your opinion'.

Thankfully 'this opinon of yours' is in a minority.

That they're paid is indisputable. That's not a matter of opinion one way or the other.

That they kill is indisputable. That's not a matter of opinion one way or the other.

That they choose to do this is indisputable, they're not conscripts, they volunteered. That's not a matter of opinion one way or the other.

Quite a few even boast about doing it for personal benefit - they get put through college, they get their education, they get job qualifications, they're trained in areas which allow them to get civilian jobs after their discharge. It's the major selling point of recruiting sergeants going round slum schools enticing school-leavers to sign up. That's not a matter of opinion one way or the other.

What's left?

Oh... whether they work for criminals. That, I agree, only time will tell. If the key members of the Bush White House finally go to their graves without appearing in a US court to answer charges of treason then maybe it's an inaccurate word. They definitely can't be summoned to the International War Crimes tribunal because the US deliberately didn't sign up to it. I think you'll find that few of them travel abroad from now on though. If they land in England there'll be a queue of people applying for magistrate orders to have them arrested for torture under UK law, the way we did with Pinochet.

Oh - final point: my view's not a minority view. What I say here is what most of the world thinks.

[Clodhopper]

laugh. Now it's my turn to take the thread off-topic.

I think old Tutu puts it very well.

The basic situation is that the USA is a place where principle and ideals are very strong in the fundamental make-up of the place: "Send us your poor and your huddled masses and they can live the American Dream", to paraphrase 200 years of US history. It resonates still.

And then you get the GW years. It is hard to articulate my total contempt for this man and his administration. I cannot think of one foreign policy success in his time (there may have been some, but I don't know of them) and during his time in office the current financial disaster was created.

To call the man a moron is to insult the retarded, and he was VOTED IN to run a place as vast and complex as the USA. Look at the way he failed to deal with something as widely predicted as the flooding of New Orleans, failed to grasp the existence of climate change, allowed the sub-prime fiasco, and deceived his allies into war. I despise the cretin.

If the world is going to hell in a handbasket, a lot of it is the fault of one idiot:

G.W.Bush.

I don't pity the fool, I want to rack the bastard.

So a good many people, myself included, have this immense affection for the USA and all she stands for, and simultaneously, total contempt for the way she has behaved internationally for the last decade or two.

[Kindle]

Originally Posted by spot

That they're paid is indisputable. That's not a matter of opinion one way or the other.

That they kill is indisputable. That's not a matter of opinion one way or the other.

That they choose to do this is indisputable, they're not conscripts, they volunteered. That's not a matter of opinion one way or the other.

Quite a few even boast about doing it for personal benefit - they get put through college, they get their education, they get job qualifications, they're trained in areas which allow them to get civilian jobs after their discharge. It's the major selling point of recruiting sergeants going round slum schools enticing school-leavers to sign up. That's not a matter of opinion one way or the other.

What's left?

Oh... whether they work for criminals. That, I agree, only time will tell. If the key members of the Bush White House finally go to their graves without appearing in court to answer charges of treason then maybe it's an inaccurate word. They definitely can't be summoned to the International War Crimes tribunal because the US deliberately didn't sign up to it. I think you'll find that few of them travel abroad from now on though. If they land in England there'll be a queue of people applying for magistrate orders to have them arrested for torture under UK law, the way we did with Pinochet.

Morning Spot.

Interesting how you've presented facts but then end with your interpretation of them. I'm going to have to emulate this tactic, as it takes the focus off the stated final conclusion.

I'm learning so much from you. You're becoming my hero.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Kindle

Interesting how you've presented facts but then end with your interpretation of them

Do you know, getting you to agree with all but the last paragraph isn't bad for a start.

[Kindle]

Originally Posted by spot

Do you know, getting you to agree with all but the last paragraph isn't bad for a start.

I agree.

I am always open to new thoughts, especially when they are so foreign to mine.