Why does everyone think people join the military because they need money?
Sometimes people just want to blow shit up.
A good perspective, too. I just sold a truck to the base commander here. Maybe I should ask him what his perspective is? He's promised to take me on a tour of the base when they start their training in the spring.
"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States{{, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees)}} and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
How can one "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." and also "obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Though I guess putting "So help me God" in there kind of nullifies it all for an Atheist. Is this like the Boy Scouts where you can't join if you're an Atheist?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Why does everyone think people join the military because they need money?
Sometimes people just want to blow shit up.
In the US Army, Sappers are combat engineers who advance with the front-line infantry, and they have fought in every war in American history. The designation is earned as an additional proficiency.
To be a sapper, a Soldier must complete the Sapper Leader Course which is operated by the U.S. Engineer Officer Basic Course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The Sapper Leader Course is a 28-day course designed to train joint-service leaders in small unit tactics, leadership skills, and tactics required to perform as part of a combined arms team. The course is open to enlisted Soldiers in the grades of E-4 (in the Army, specialist) and above, cadets, and officers O-3 (Army, captain) and below. Students can come from any combat or combat support branch of the service, but priority is given to engineering, cavalry, and infantry soldiers. [1]. The course is in two Phases.
Phase I lasts 14 days and covers general subjects including medical, navigation, demolitions, air and water operations, mountaineering, and land mines and weapons used by enemy forces. Phase II is the remaining 14 days. It covers basic patrolling techniques and battle drills that emphasize leadership. The subjects include urban operations, breaching, patrol organization and movement, and reconnaissance, raid and ambush tactics. It concludes with a three-day situation training exercise, and five-day field training exercise. These missions are a 60/40 mix of engineer and infantry missions.
Leadership is emphasized throughout the SLC. During the course leader roles are rotated regularly and each student is evaluated at least twice on leadership. The results of the Sapper Leader Course are soldiers who are hardened combat engineers who are qualified to fight and lead on today’s battlefields
Yeah blowing shit up is fun, but like anything, repetition turns it into another job.
I read a lot, and every once in a while I come across something that changes my perspective in life. If you haven't heard of Joshua Key, he was a soldier in Iraq that deserted to Canada during his two week vacation. He recently did an interview for MacLean's magazine, and they included an excerpt from his book. After reading this, I ran out and bought the book. If I was American and had supported the war, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night after reading it. Now that I'm done reading it, I keep it on my nightstand so every night before I go to bed, I'm reminded how fortunate I am not to live in a country that has been invaded. Terrible things are being done with your tax dollars. Please, read the article, and I hope you are motivated to make a difference.
Ya know, I can write a really dark sordid tale on the sandwich I consumed for lunch today. If I put enough time into it, embellished the truth a bit and set the story in a dark creepy place (like my studio apartment) then I too could probably impress some people.
Context my friends, context. I'm not saying this guy didn't see this stuff, it's his descriptions and analysis that seduce people.
You could get the same story from one of his buddies who was there, in a completely different manner.
Ya know, I can write a really dark sordid tale on the sandwich I consumed for lunch today. If I put enough time into it, embellished the truth a bit and set the story in a dark creepy place (like my studio apartment) then I too could probably impress some people.
Context my friends, context. I'm not saying this guy didn't see this stuff, it's his descriptions and analysis that seduce people.
You could get the same story from one of his buddies who was there, in a completely different manner.
" A sick realization lodged like a cancer in my gut. It grew and festered, and troubled me more with every passing day. We, the Americans, had become the terrorists in Iraq."
" A sick realization lodged like a cancer in my gut. It grew and festered, and troubled me more with every passing day. We, the Americans, had become the terrorists in Iraq."
This is a simple manner of someone who voluntarily signed up to serve his country and fled when things became unstable. This should not be commended or glorified, he should be in jail right along side anyone who commits war crimes.
390th Fighter Squadron
Wild Boars
'When things became unstable'? That's a clever way of managing to sum up an entire persons experience of the Iraq war, and of dismissing his every argument, rather than discussing and/or disputing the subject.
That's interesting and all, but I'm wondering what you think when you read accounts from other soldiers that are positive, who believe in what they are doing, and who are proud of their country and their mission?
Do you put as much stock in what they have to say? Or do you just believe the first-hand accounts that support your preconceived notion?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se. Just wondering.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
That's interesting and all, but I'm wondering what you think when you read accounts from other soldiers that are positive, who believe in what they are doing, and who are proud of their country and their mission?
Do you put as much stock in what they have to say? Or do you just believe the first-hand accounts that support your preconceived notion?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se. Just wondering.
Actually, I'm not totally against war. I wish it didn't have to happen, but I understand that it is necessary and I have a lot of respect for men (edit: and women) in the Armed Forces. However, if what the author of this book describes is true, on even a fraction of the accounts, then something has to be done to ensure that there is some accountability on both sides.
That's interesting and all, but I'm wondering what you think when you read accounts from other soldiers that are positive, who believe in what they are doing, and who are proud of their country and their mission?
Do you put as much stock in what they have to say? Or do you just believe the first-hand accounts that support your preconceived notion?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se. Just wondering.
Do you commend a rapist for making his victim comfortable and having a smile on his face any more than you commend the rapist who yells, spits on and slaps his victim?
It doesn't matter how rosey SOME of the soldiers may be painting the situation (very few are), or the little things that are being done that are good (saving a kitten in a tree :rolleyes: ). The fact is that this was a wrong invasion, it is a wrong occupation, people are being tortured and killed for no reason and the US has created a maelstrom of hate and slaughter.
I'm sorry, but even an ounce of these monstrosities outweigh a mountain of 'positive and proud' soldiers. :rolleyes: But maybe that's just me and my 'morals'.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Do you commend a rapist for making his victim comfortable and having a smile on his face any more than you commend the rapist who yells, spits on and slaps his victim?
It doesn't matter how rosey SOME of the soldiers may be painting the situation (very few are), or the little things that are being done that are good (saving a kitten in a tree :rolleyes: ). The fact is that this was a wrong invasion, it is a wrong occupation, people are being tortured and killed for no reason and the US has created a maelstrom of hate and slaughter.
I'm sorry, but even an ounce of these monstrosities outweigh a mountain of 'positive and proud' soldiers. :rolleyes: But maybe that's just me and my 'morals'.
all points well taken.
I'm still not sure why one soldier's opinion of the situation is any more or less valid than another. They are over there. We are not. All we know is what we read and see on TV.
Maybe the ones who are proud are completely deluded and brainwashed. Maybe they are just believing what they want to believe, what allows them to sleep at night. I am willing to concede that point.
And maybe the soldier who wrote the book in question isn't a conscientious objector. Maybe he's just a coward. Maybe he just wants to sell books.
We all have our agendas, is the point I'm trying to make. I believe in using accounts from both sides of the divide to paint a more accurate picture of what might be going on.
I'm not flaming you, or the original poster. I'm just saying is all.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I'm still not sure why one soldier's opinion of the situation is any more or less valid than another. They are over there. We are not. All we know is what we read and see on TV.
Maybe the ones who are proud are completely deluded and brainwashed. Maybe they are just believing what they want to believe, what allows them to sleep at night. I am willing to concede that point.
And maybe the soldier who wrote the book in question isn't a conscientious objector. Maybe he's just a coward. Maybe he just wants to sell books.
We all have our agendas, is the point I'm trying to make. I believe in using accounts from both sides of the divide to paint a more accurate picture of what might be going on.
I'm not flaming you, or the original poster. I'm just saying is all.
Points taken as well and agreed. You never do know, and I don't know the background of this guy, my comments were meant as a whole, and not for or against any certain individuals.
It is expected, almost seemingly mandatory for a nations' people to believe they are in the right when it comes to international conflict. This is not new. Even aggressor nations, who are obviously aggressors and wrong, throughout history, have with alarming consistency had the support of its people. What is the cause for this? Why does it continue to this day, with our access to information?
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Comments
Sometimes people just want to blow shit up.
A good perspective, too. I just sold a truck to the base commander here. Maybe I should ask him what his perspective is? He's promised to take me on a tour of the base when they start their training in the spring.
How can one "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." and also "obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Though I guess putting "So help me God" in there kind of nullifies it all for an Atheist. Is this like the Boy Scouts where you can't join if you're an Atheist?
In the US Army, Sappers are combat engineers who advance with the front-line infantry, and they have fought in every war in American history. The designation is earned as an additional proficiency.
To be a sapper, a Soldier must complete the Sapper Leader Course which is operated by the U.S. Engineer Officer Basic Course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The Sapper Leader Course is a 28-day course designed to train joint-service leaders in small unit tactics, leadership skills, and tactics required to perform as part of a combined arms team. The course is open to enlisted Soldiers in the grades of E-4 (in the Army, specialist) and above, cadets, and officers O-3 (Army, captain) and below. Students can come from any combat or combat support branch of the service, but priority is given to engineering, cavalry, and infantry soldiers. [1]. The course is in two Phases.
Phase I lasts 14 days and covers general subjects including medical, navigation, demolitions, air and water operations, mountaineering, and land mines and weapons used by enemy forces. Phase II is the remaining 14 days. It covers basic patrolling techniques and battle drills that emphasize leadership. The subjects include urban operations, breaching, patrol organization and movement, and reconnaissance, raid and ambush tactics. It concludes with a three-day situation training exercise, and five-day field training exercise. These missions are a 60/40 mix of engineer and infantry missions.
Leadership is emphasized throughout the SLC. During the course leader roles are rotated regularly and each student is evaluated at least twice on leadership. The results of the Sapper Leader Course are soldiers who are hardened combat engineers who are qualified to fight and lead on today’s battlefields
Yeah blowing shit up is fun, but like anything, repetition turns it into another job.
Ya know, I can write a really dark sordid tale on the sandwich I consumed for lunch today. If I put enough time into it, embellished the truth a bit and set the story in a dark creepy place (like my studio apartment) then I too could probably impress some people.
Context my friends, context. I'm not saying this guy didn't see this stuff, it's his descriptions and analysis that seduce people.
You could get the same story from one of his buddies who was there, in a completely different manner.
You can't really dress up a turd.
Are you implying I ate a piece of shit for lunch?
Cause today it was turkey.
:rolleyes:
Eddie was drafted. Havent you heard man?
'When things became unstable'? That's a clever way of managing to sum up an entire persons experience of the Iraq war, and of dismissing his every argument, rather than discussing and/or disputing the subject.
True!
Do you put as much stock in what they have to say? Or do you just believe the first-hand accounts that support your preconceived notion?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se. Just wondering.
for the least they could possibly do
Actually, I'm not totally against war. I wish it didn't have to happen, but I understand that it is necessary and I have a lot of respect for men (edit: and women) in the Armed Forces. However, if what the author of this book describes is true, on even a fraction of the accounts, then something has to be done to ensure that there is some accountability on both sides.
Do you commend a rapist for making his victim comfortable and having a smile on his face any more than you commend the rapist who yells, spits on and slaps his victim?
It doesn't matter how rosey SOME of the soldiers may be painting the situation (very few are), or the little things that are being done that are good (saving a kitten in a tree :rolleyes: ). The fact is that this was a wrong invasion, it is a wrong occupation, people are being tortured and killed for no reason and the US has created a maelstrom of hate and slaughter.
I'm sorry, but even an ounce of these monstrosities outweigh a mountain of 'positive and proud' soldiers. :rolleyes: But maybe that's just me and my 'morals'.
nowadays hits you when you're young
all points well taken.
I'm still not sure why one soldier's opinion of the situation is any more or less valid than another. They are over there. We are not. All we know is what we read and see on TV.
Maybe the ones who are proud are completely deluded and brainwashed. Maybe they are just believing what they want to believe, what allows them to sleep at night. I am willing to concede that point.
And maybe the soldier who wrote the book in question isn't a conscientious objector. Maybe he's just a coward. Maybe he just wants to sell books.
We all have our agendas, is the point I'm trying to make. I believe in using accounts from both sides of the divide to paint a more accurate picture of what might be going on.
I'm not flaming you, or the original poster. I'm just saying is all.
for the least they could possibly do
Points taken as well and agreed. You never do know, and I don't know the background of this guy, my comments were meant as a whole, and not for or against any certain individuals.
It is expected, almost seemingly mandatory for a nations' people to believe they are in the right when it comes to international conflict. This is not new. Even aggressor nations, who are obviously aggressors and wrong, throughout history, have with alarming consistency had the support of its people. What is the cause for this? Why does it continue to this day, with our access to information?
nowadays hits you when you're young