The mentality of a soldier - Page 4

If only the world were so simple..
*cringes*
I think this is one of those things that it's so easy to sit back and criticize someone else and what they do, because you don't have to go out there and do it yourself.

It's not like these people had a choice to go to war with IRAQ in specific - keep that in mind, all of you. They just signed up and it's funny how now, the Armed Forces are having a hell of a time trying to enlist more people because everyone is so against this goddamn war -

Reason why everyone's freaking about the draft now!

Please God, I'm sure if everyone got drafted and forced to fight that war all of you against the troops would find someway of criticizing that, too. "Oh well, they should have all revolted or something." And then I'd get really irritated because that's just going really far beyond the scope of reality.

--
On a lighter note: Hey now I watched Elephant Man and I cried, he didn't look all that bad anyway but I suppose with the society involved, everything looks worse than it really is.

Kern,

What American politics doesn't affect people in america and the world. If we are acting as global police, then our politics affect everyone. People who fix problems are people who are worried about the outcomes of situations, worrying happens.

Astarte and others talking about the troops, it is American policy not to give leeway to enemies because they were following orders, the same must apply. In the military it is your legal right to disobey a direct order if it is obviously illegal, but you better be damn sure you have proof and witnesses. The problem comes with the overall order's legallity, A president's war order per se'. The information needed to determine legality of such an order is not accessible to many in government let alone common citizens.

It has been determined that we have commited many illegal acts in various wars and conflicts, from soldier conduct to invasion practices, arms deals, and even intentionally assassinating or inciting coups of democratically elected governing officials whose policies do not meet our liking.

I personally don't blame troops for anything but their own crimes. As for the governments role and crimes, well for some reason people seem to think that they shouldn't be questioned, and that they can't possibly be abusing power, and the information needed to know one way or the other, well I don't even know where to look, it certainly isn't on the internet, at least not in a form you can be sure of its credibility.

Blindly defending the government is dangerous and stupid, and its not how it was intended by our founders. There are supposed to be checks and balances for reasons. The idea of national security has completely taken the people out of government. National security is important but its abuses are rediculous, most information regarding America commiting illegal acts is protected, documents that are released are often missing multitudes of pages and the rest are half blacked out. We have information on very important issues being locked away, not unlike the vatican, sealed till a later date years down the road when they are allowed to be declassified, and most likely filtered even more.

There is a freedom of information act that is very important, but it does not apply to matters considered to be of national security. Its one thing to protect someone who is innocent, but to use such power to hide illegal acts is wrong.

Is it really that difficult for you people to understand what it's like to truly "give yourself" to a cause? The majority of soldiers would die not JUST for the country itself, but the people in it. They feel that they are protecting people and saving lives, and whether you believe that or think it's true, it is very true to them. Everyone needs something to fight for, to give themselves over for. Everyday I try to do my best to make everyone else's lives around me as pleasent as possible.

So please people, get out of your close-minded bubble that "all they are really doing is killing babies" or"they aren't fighting for anyone, just a hopeless cause" because to THEM, they are truly fitghting for what they believe is the greater good to mankind.

It takes more balls to oppose the "coolness" and patriotic need to support soldiers and the war (which is apparently the majority of the US) than to go out and kill babies.

And no, it would be illogical to criticize soldiers who were drafted. It's all about a reasonable belief system.

Most soldiers don't oppose the war, as per my information thus far. Of course this is due to the propaganda and the patriotism that is probably being shoved down their throats.

But I have yet to find anyone who can logically argue the folliwng premises and conclusion:

1. The country is no longer democratic, with freely flowing information and leaders voted in by the people based on adequate information.

2. The country is no longer following the same constitution it once did, in regards to civil rights, seperating religion from law, and the concept of being a first strike nation.

3. The leaders no longer act on behalf of the rest of the country, but for a smaller more precise group.

Conclusion: Being a tool for a country that is no longer led and controlled by the people, is in no way like any previous honorable wars, nor is any patriotism well founded in support of this administration. You are basically, a hired thug, doing bad things for the sake of following a government that forced itself into office, exactly like Nazi soldiers.

quote:

---

Is it really that difficult for you people to understand what it's like to truly "give yourself" to a cause? The majority of soldiers would die not JUST for the country itself, but the people in it. They feel that they are protecting people and saving lives, and whether you believe that or think it's true,
it is very true to them.

---

Old marine corp saying ground into recuits,'yours is not to reason why yours is to do or die.' that a lot of other propaganda to fill body, mind & soul with lust for blood against the enemy.

quote:

---

In the military it is your legal right to disobey a direct order if it is obviously illegal, but you better be damn sure you have proof and witnesses.

---

ya, right the sarge with hash marks running half way down his sleeves tell you to jump, what do you do? Sure as hell to ask how high , you best jump. So to an extent dawg is right, having signed away your life, you have little choices left to you. Except that the driving force isn't about the country or the people, its about your outfit . . . part of the trainning that too is the reality of who & where you are in the middle ground between two sides, they call the front.

quote:

---

It has been determined that we have commited many illegal acts in various wars and conflicts, from soldier conduct to invasion practices, arms deals, and even intentionally assassinating or inciting coups

---

Strange isn't it, all these things are exactly the things [propaganda] we had drill into our heads & the atrocities of Nam, they were the same as in the movies we were shown depicting the enemies activities. Gee, do you think their may be some correlation?

quote:

---

But I have yet to find anyone who can logically argue the folliwng premises and conclusion:

---

Post W.W. 2 stress syndrome, people fear of war was so great that they couldn't live in peace but were driven by the need to war.
Only when they have destroyed any possible conflicting people [nations] would they feel secure.
A real paradox, they became the everything, they had fought so hard against?

"Is it really that difficult for you people to understand what it's like to truly "give yourself" to a cause?"

Does it matter to you if that cause is possibly wrong, or hurtful to yourself and or others?

A cause is supposedly what we are fighting to begin with, a cause supposedly not right or good, terrorism, well, this cause is being fought with more terrorism, if you are not familiar with military tactics, they are terrifying, and many are actually terrorist tactics, guerilla warfare, deception and trickery, all the unhonorable things we are supposed to be fighting against. Our special force units are the most highly trained terrorists alive, our CIA is beyond comprehension in terms of their tactics and practices, unless of course you comprehend those tactics as terrorism. We fight with terrorists all the time as well, and them we go after them too, when do we go after ourselves, never according to the stop bitching about our government mentality.

More balls? Do you know what happens to a deserter from a battle field in a war? He might be lucky and go to prison.

We aren't fighting against a strategical warfare technique as you keep describing. We are fighting against people who we believe are a threat to other human beings and would kill others without reasonable justification. In other words, we are trying to kill them before they kill us or someone else.

Right, that's the ticket, not. That's a weak statement given all the history to this situation. Its not like Osama sprang from nowhere, we knew who he was and we've even worked with him, justify that. Oh we've made mistakes, your damn right, and we haven't paid for one of em, other than in the casualties of countless citizens in our country and across the world. Iraq wasn't killing people before we invaded, justify it. Oh but they gassed people in the past, yep, and we helped them, but we're not to blame for anything right?

"1. The country is no longer democratic, with freely flowing information and leaders voted in by the people based on adequate information. "
The people decide who is elected, that is democracy. Now of course I would much prefer political ads to be limited and independent of cash, BUT an impefect democracy is still a democracy. I really these "blame the media" arguments, Cons and Libs BOTH use it for God's sake!

"2. The country is no longer following the same constitution it once did, in regards to civil rights, seperating religion from law, and the concept of being a first strike nation. "
I see nowhere written that premptive strikes are unconstitutional.

"3. The leaders no longer act on behalf of the rest of the country, but for a smaller more precise group. "
Congratulations! You've discovered politics!

I mean, I'd rather have Kerry in power. But to ramble about things which were problems before took office or to claim Bush's policies are unconstitutional is just Liberal bitterness at having lost.

Except invading countries that weren't even threatening us, and never were, and wasn't threatening anyone else at the time either, compared to others who openly were threatening us, and openly claimed to have such feared WMD's that we weren't even worried about Saddam having at one point, ya know, like the point when we helped supply them.

As always DT, you do nothing more than attempt to contradict others' statements without providing any counter-proposals yourself.

A democracy is a democracy, and you are incorrect to assume that you can determine whether this democracy is "enough" of a democracy to call it a democracy. If it isn't, everyone in the world has the right to believe that it isn't. Which you have agreed upon, so stop arguing about semantics. As time progresses, it becomes less and less of a democracy as the media becomes more and more played and less and less factual. Hence, my point still stands, it is not a democracy. Stop arguing just to be an antagonist. It's immature.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution states that the president must go to congress before declaring war on another country. Bush never did this. In October 2002 congress voted and gave Bush the power to independantly declare war on another country (due to 9/11), which is against the US constitution.

"3. The leaders no longer act on behalf of the rest of the country, but for a smaller more precise group. "
Congratulations! You've discovered politics!"

My point wasn't to explain politics, you sarcastic dolt. It was to explain to to you (which you obviously missed) the illegitimacy of calling this a democracy.

Well, well.
I was right, as usual. *grins*

Even the DICTIONARY has divivded democracy into several meanings, this is the one that I am using to argue that the US is not a democracy in quite a few senses of the word:

pure democracy
Function: noun
: democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives

We have reps. Like Decius said, Bush can wage a war by evading Congress and get away with it. Those are flaws in the system and further my point that this may be called a democracy, but is anything but. Hell, we're barely a republic.

Still want to argue with me? Read what the federal government has to say about ITSELF : Government type: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition [see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Govt]

You can claim we've got "strong democratic traditions", so can Fidel Castro because he's in power and can say whatever the hell he feels like. We're not a democracy. Our race is not capable of maintaining it, much like the fantasy idea of communism.

So I agree with Decius.
Basically, as our human nature proceeds to allow more corruption and chaos to prevail, which it always will, democracy and it's pursuit by any country will fade. There was no real democracy to begin with, anyway. We're a federal republic, we were when Jefferson proposed the first draft of the constitution.

I have to disagree with you, Decius.
IN the beginning this country's democracy was only for the wealthy (those who owned property) not the people in general. The illusion of democracy (dominated by weathy) still remains today, not democracy itself (self-rule of the people). The implication being that the masses are incapable of ruling themselves therefore are ruled by the afluent.

"As always DT, you do nothing more than attempt to contradict others' statements without providing any counter-proposals yourself."
Excuse me? I have proposed that the army not politicize. I have proposed that an army that gets involved in coups is not healthy for democracy.

An apolitical army governed by decency and honour. An army's opinion on "democracy" is bound to be faulty, its not their job to think about that.

"As time progresses, it becomes less and less of a democracy as the media becomes more and more played and less and less factual. Hence, my point still stands, it is not a democracy. Stop arguing just to be an antagonist. It's immature."
You claim its not a democracy. However, there has been no change in our political in the last 30 years and here you are, and just because the nation DEMOCRATICALLY elected the guy you hate you console yourself with pretending it was a lie.

"Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution states that the president must go to congress before declaring war on another country. Bush never did this. In October 2002 congress voted and gave Bush the power to independantly declare war on another country (due to 9/11), which is against the US constitution."
Congress gave Bush authority to declare war, they deferred that right to him. That's perfectly constitutional as he only declared war with Congress's aproval.

"My point wasn't to explain politics, you sarcastic dolt. It was to explain to to you (which you obviously missed) the illegitimacy of calling this a democracy."
You are incredibly naive and misguided if you think democracies in Europe rule for "everyone". As friggin ALWAYS democratically elected governments rule for the 51% that are going to vote them in. If you don't like it, well invent a better system and get back to me.

Compare the US democracy with other versions and then you might have legit argument.