NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.couragetoresist.org/mambo/


1st woman to resist

My name is Katherine Jashinski. I am a SPC in the Texas Army National Guard. I was born in Milwaukee, WI and I am 22 years old. When I graduated high school I moved to Austin, TX to attend college. At age 19 I enlisted in the Guard as a cook because I wanted to experience military life. When I enlisted I believed that killing was immoral, but also that war was an inevitable part of life and therefore, an exception to the rule.
http://www.couragetoresist.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=2




Why is Jimmy Massey, an antiwar Marine, under attack?

This question almost answers itself, doesn’t it? Former Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey, a 12-year veteran who became an outspoken opponent of the war, recently faced a vicious attack in the mainstream and rightwing media. He was called a liar and a fraud, and his eyewitness accounts of U.S. Marines killing Iraqi civilians were called into question. This coordinated media assault caused confusion even among some opponents of the war. by Gerry Condon.
This question almost answers itself, doesn’t it?
http://www.couragetoresist.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=2

Why is Jimmy Massey, an antiwar Marine, under attack?

This question almost answers itself, doesn’t it? Former Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey, a 12-year veteran who became an outspoken opponent of the war, recently faced a vicious attack in the mainstream and rightwing media. He was called a liar and a fraud, and his eyewitness accounts of U.S. Marines killing Iraqi civilians were called into question. This coordinated media assault caused confusion even among some opponents of the war. by Gerry Condon.
This question almost answers itself, doesn’t it?
http://www.couragetoresist.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=2

Why is Jimmy Massey "under attack"? Because he lied about and defamed the Marines he served w/. I won't say "fellow Marines" because he doesn't deserve that title.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004073.htm


In a lengthy telephone interview with The Associated Press, Massey repeated his claim that his unit _ and he personally _ fired on the demonstrators. He said four were killed. He said his original estimate of 10 was inaccurate.

But reporters and a photographer who were embedded with the 3/7 say there is no evidence such a shooting happened _ indeed, no evidence that the Marines confronted any demonstrators so early in the war.

"There was certainly no organized protesting, no `Go home,' anything like that," said Ravi Nessman, an AP reporter who knew Massey while he was embedded with Weapons Company. "When (the Marines) were driving into central Baghdad, they were cheered."


The Associated Press quoted Massey five times between May 2004 and October 2005 _ four times directly, and once citing a CBC report in which Massey said his unit had committed "cold-blooded, calculated murder."

In each case, Massey alleged his platoon had killed innocent civilians or committed atrocities against Iraqis. Two of the five stories included Marine Corps denials of Massey's allegations.

"Clearly our stories should have included the firsthand observations of our own embedded reporter," said AP Managing Editor Mike Silverman.



As for the first one, I always love "conciencious objectors" who only state that when they're about to be deployed.

Translation: " I'm not getting the free college ride anymore so I'm going to try and bail. "

I love it how the masters of war ruling class thinks nothing of the
rest of us but as a bunch of toys to throw around the globe
whenever they feel the need to scratch an itch.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/31049.htm

ANTI-WAR LIARS & THOSE WHO LOVE 'EM


November 10, 2005 -- It's easy to see why Jimmy Massey be came an instant darling of the liberal news media: With his personal testimony that he and his fellow Marines, acting under direct orders, committed war crimes, he was the Iraq war's iteration of Jane Fonda and John Kerry.

And equally truthful.

Scores of media outlets rushed his claims into print, under such headlines as: "I killed innocent people for our government." He was a featured guest on National Public Radio, and college officials fell all over themselves in the stampede to invite him as a guest speaker.

Pretty soon, he'd published a book, "Kill, Kill, Kill," which was released in — surprise, surprise — France. And he became a star attraction on Cindy Sheehan's national self-pity parade.

Sure, the Pentagon insisted his allegations had been probed and discredited. But no one paid any attention to that.

Not until last weekend, when the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that its own investigation showed conclusively that Massey, plain and simple, is a liar.

As the paper's Ron Harris reported: "Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated — according to his fellow Marines, Massey's own admissions and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey's unit."



Even though his story "changed repeatedly" on each retelling, no one else in the mainstream media had shown any interest in looking any deeper into Massey's claim that his battalion consisted of "psychopathic killers" who on one "unforgettable" occasion filled a tractor-trailer with the bodies of scores of Iraqi civilians.

Indeed, even his own supposed crime — shooting a 6-year-old child in the head — turns out to be a fantasy. Confronted by Harris, he claimed "that's what my unit did" — but couldn't provide details. Nor could he name even a single Marine to corroborate any of his stories.

Massey, significantly, was discharged after suffering a nervous breakdown. In other words, he was what's known as a Section Eight — that is, crazy.

Both Harris and Michelle Malkin, whose column appears on the preceding page, asked several of the media outlets that had hyped Massey's claim for a reaction.

(Typical was Rex Smith, editor of the Albany Times-Union, who said "it would have been much better if we had the other side." No kidding.)

These supposed news outlets published Massey's claims without even trying to verify them — or, in some cases, without even getting a pro forma response from the Pentagon.

During Vietnam, the news media promoted a similar showcase of the anti-war Left called "Winter Soldier," which also featured first-person allegations of U.S. war crimes. Eventually, it came out that the claims were a total fraud.






Still want to defend him?

I love it how the masters of war ruling class thinks nothing of the
rest of us but as a bunch of toys to throw around the globe
whenever they feel the need to scratch an itch.

So no response that would actually support these liars?

Gotcha.

Meh, the whole debate calls the US military into disrepute. If you don't know whom to believe, you don't believe any of them.

I love it how the masters of war ruling class thinks nothing of the
rest of us but as a bunch of toys to throw around the globe
whenever they feel the need to scratch an itch.
When you volunteer for the military you accept the fact that the government might decide that you need to go to a foreign country and fight. If you don't like it, don't join up. So I guess what I'm trying to say is this; Quit your whining.

When you volunteer for the military you accept the fact that the government might decide that you need to go to a foreign country and fight. If you don't like it, don't join up. So I guess what I'm trying to say is this; Quit your whining.
:) yep.

When you volunteer for the military you accept the fact that the government might decide that you need to go to a foreign country and fight. If you don't like it, don't join up. So I guess what I'm trying to say is this; Quit your whining.

Yep one must do their duty

When you volunteer for the military you accept the fact that the government might decide that you need to go to a foreign country and fight. If you don't like it, don't join up. So I guess what I'm trying to say is this; Quit your whining.
In principle, yes.

But remember that there are lines which you don't cross even under orders. The Wehrmacht found that out the hard way.
I'm not saying the US has crossed that line (although some individuals may have), I'm just saying that you need to be wary of too quick an attempt to bring these people into disrepute.
Joining the military does not mean you need to turn of your brain (although sometimes I think the US Military actually encourages this, cuz I hear politics are absolutely not allowed to be discussed by officers...)

In principle, yes.

But remember that there are lines which you don't cross even under orders. The Wehrmacht found that out the hard way.
I'm not saying the US has crossed that line (although some individuals may have), I'm just saying that you need to be wary of too quick an attempt to bring these people into disrepute.
Joining the military does not mean you need to turn of your brain (although sometimes I think the US Military actually encourages this, cuz I hear politics are absolutely not allowed to be discussed by officers...)

Had they been issued illegal orders, there might be a point.

However:

Defendant #1: The classic line of " I was going to college then I claim "objector" when it comes time to get deployed and the free ride is over.

Defendant #2: The modern "Winter Soldier". Has been outed by numerous sources as blatantly lieing about the "atrocities" he and the Marines he served w/ committed.

(Typical was Rex Smith, editor of the Albany Times-Union, who said "it would have been much better if we had the other side." No kidding.)

These supposed news outlets published Massey's claims without even trying to verify them — or, in some cases, without even getting a pro forma response from the Pentagon.


Faulty intel, false claims made by some one who is either crazy, had an agenda, or both. Good job he's not running the country thats all I can say

Had they been issued illegal orders, there might be a point
....
Defendant #2: The modern "Winter Soldier". Has been outed by numerous sources as blatantly lieing about the "atrocities" he and the Marines he served w/ committed.
That's where you investigate things. Once the investigation is done, you can leave it be.

Apparently that's been done here, so you can calm down, that guy can calm down, and we can go back to business.

And finally, maybe the US Military needs some improved training methods (http://www.eng.bmvg.de/C1256F1200608B1B/CurrentBaseLink/W2686BZR884INFOEN).

http://www.couragetoresist.org/mambo/


1st woman to resist

My name is Katherine Jashinski. I am a SPC in the Texas Army National Guard. I was born in Milwaukee, WI and I am 22 years old. When I graduated high school I moved to Austin, TX to attend college. At age 19 I enlisted in the Guard as a cook because I wanted to experience military life. When I enlisted I believed that killing was immoral, but also that war was an inevitable part of life and therefore, an exception to the rule.
http://www.couragetoresist.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=2




Why is Jimmy Massey, an antiwar Marine, under attack?

This question almost answers itself, doesn’t it? Former Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey, a 12-year veteran who became an outspoken opponent of the war, recently faced a vicious attack in the mainstream and rightwing media. He was called a liar and a fraud, and his eyewitness accounts of U.S. Marines killing Iraqi civilians were called into question. This coordinated media assault caused confusion even among some opponents of the war. by Gerry Condon.
This question almost answers itself, doesn’t it?
http://www.couragetoresist.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=2

Traitors.

Traitors.

Hang them from the gallows with Cindy Sheehan and burn their corpses right?

Bushevik. :rolleyes:

Traitors.
As Mussolini so eloquently put it:
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

I love it how the masters of war ruling class thinks nothing of the
rest of us but as a bunch of toys to throw around the globe
whenever they feel the need to scratch an itch.
[ Throws Duffasburg around like a toy, battering his head against the wall in a vain attempt to knock some sense into it. ]

There. Thought I'd prove yer point, lil man. Happy now? :D

sometimes I think the US Military actually encourages this, cuz I hear politics are absolutely not allowed to be discussed by officers...
Total bullshit, unless you're referring to officers not being allowed to discuss politics in front of their own men. That's just not a very wise thing to do under any circumstances.

When you volunteer for the military you accept the fact that the government might decide that you need to go to a foreign country and fight. If you don't like it, don't join up. So I guess what I'm trying to say is this; Quit your whining.

You do accept that the government may send you into war, but with the implicit understanding that it will be a necessary war fought for the greater good of the nation, not one rushed into on false intelligence by a lying commander-in-chief.

And I'm tired of this bullshit that if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. Especially when the administration doesn't even give the troops what they need to to their job.

You do accept that the government may send you into war, but with the implicit understanding that it will be a necessary war fought for the greater good of the nation, not one rushed into on false intelligence by a lying commander-in-chief.
You are absolutely incorrect, on every level.

Total bullshit, unless you're referring to officers not being allowed to discuss politics in front of their own men. That's just not a very wise thing to do under any circumstances.
I meant in particular that soldiers don't get political training or education. They learn how to shoot a gun...but they don't learn why they should shoot it.
And IMHO that can lead to people shooting their guns at the wrong time, in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons.

I'm obviously somewhat biased, but I think the German Army's principle of the "citizen in uniform", in which a person is turned into a rounded individual and citizen of a democratic society, as well as part of a parliamentary army, is a better system to deal with modern requirements, when everything a soldier does is a political issue.

Firstly, the US Army and Marines are now being trained to operate as police, as well as a military fighting force. The training isn't very widespread, but it's started, so that's a good thing. (It's also why the government calls up National Guard units more often than sending in the regulars: Guardsmen are often cops in their 'real' lives, and many Guardsmen are MPs on top of that.)

Secondly, if you join the military thinking you're there to protect people, you shouldn't have joined the military! If you want to protect people, join a PD or an FD. Then you get to protect people. The military is that which enforces the foreign policy of the government. Specifically, that of the President. They do not answer to Congress, they do not answer to the American people. If you think otherwise, you're delussional. Or the propaganda is working. Either way, you didn't think as hard as you should have.

As for the first one, I always love "conciencious objectors" who only state that when they're about to be deployed.

Translation: " I'm not getting the free college ride anymore so I'm going to try and bail. "
Translation: you want to punish the poor. And you want to keep on punishing them. Though you'll venerate them if they get killed someplace nasty. Nice one, Scrooge. Nice one.

Nice time of year to air your umm, "values". Really sweet of you.

I meant in particular that soldiers don't get political training or education. They learn how to shoot a gun...but they don't learn why they should shoot it.
And IMHO that can lead to people shooting their guns at the wrong time, in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons.

I'm obviously somewhat biased, but I think the German Army's principle of the "citizen in uniform", in which a person is turned into a rounded individual and citizen of a democratic society, as well as part of a parliamentary army, is a better system to deal with modern requirements, when everything a soldier does is a political issue.

The problem with political training is that as soon as you did it, the Left, the Right, or both would scream that our soldiers are being politically indoctrinated and brain-washed. When an American thinks of political training for a military, they instantly think Soviet commisar and Waffen SS. You can't sell something like that in the US because of those images.

The problem with political training is that as soon as you did it, the Left, the Right, or both would scream that our soldiers are being politically indoctrinated and brain-washed. When an American thinks of political training for a military, they instantly think Soviet commisar and Waffen SS. You can't sell something like that in the US because of those images.
Exactly.

...You can't sell something like that in the US because of those images.
Read the link and tell me what you think.
http://www.eng.bmvg.de/C1256F1200608B1B/CurrentBaseLink/W2686BZR884INFOEN

Read the link and tell me what you think.
http://www.eng.bmvg.de/C1256F1200608B1B/CurrentBaseLink/W2686BZR884INFOEN

I never said it was a bad idea, I only said that you couldn't sell it. Recall, if you will, that Americans, like most Westerners, are sold on images, not facts. Unless you could invent a name that wouldn't conjure up images of re-education camps for it, it won't fly.

Perhaps, if we had universal masculine conscription like Germany, we might be better able to sell that. It would, in fact, probably come with the territory. But trying to sell conscription to the American public would result in political seppuku.

If you don't know whom to believe, you don't believe any of them.

Never do :)

I never said it was a bad idea, I only said that you couldn't sell it. Recall, if you will, that Americans, like most Westerners, are sold on images, not facts. Unless you could invent a name that wouldn't conjure up images of re-education camps for it, it won't fly.
I guess you're right...but nonetheless, it would be something to push. It may not be politically convenient, but it might save the lives of many people if it can make the US Soldier more of a positive symbol, rather than the decidedly negative image it has everywhere outside the States.

Ahem...

"The greatest dishonor a samurai is capable of is the betrayal of his clan and lord. The most disgraceful of these warriors would not have done so out of fear; nor anger, nor jealousy, nor malice, nor greed.
A samurai's spirit rots and splitners when he finds, aside from duty, another reason to live."
-Lord Taki, Minamoto 1472(?)

Take it for what it is and remember; "e messengarno no e imortante." ^_^

Ahem...

"The greatest dishonor a samurai is capable of is the betrayal of his clan and lord. The most disgraceful of these warriors would not have done so out of fear; nor anger, nor jealousy, nor malice, nor greed.
A samurai's spirit rots and splitners when he finds, aside from duty, another reason to live."
-Lord Taki, Minamoto 1472(?)

Take it for what it is and remember; "e messengarno no e imortante." ^_^

The brutal irony: less than a hundred years later, no one cared about what he thought!

The brutal irony: less than a hundred years later, no one cared about what he thought!

How do you know? Were you a retainer for the Minamoto's in a past life? Considering his thoughts reached all the way to Yamamoto of the Nabeshima clan some two hundred years later, it seems like his ideas were remembered.

Oh, and if you were a retainer for the Minamoto's; humble apologies from a former Takeda serf. ^_^

:rolleyes: Gods, I just can't take this feudal Japanese stuff.

How do you know? Were you a retainer for the Minamoto's in a past life? Considering his thoughts reached all the way to Yamamoto of the Nabeshima clan some two hundred years later, it seems like his ideas were remembered.

Oh, and if you were a retainer for the Minamoto's; humble apologies from a former Takeda serf. ^_^

Because the Onin War was over and the Sengoku Jidai begun. Peasants became samurai, samurai became peasants. No one cared, nor had time for such thoughts as to what the meaning of being a samurai was. It was a century and a quarter before things settled down enough for the people of Japan to care.

My only comment is about conscientious objectors....

If you have a problem with fighting or war, DON'T JOIN THE FUCKIN' MILITARY. Simple as that. I'm a buddhist and a pacifist, so I'm not going to join the military. I have NO pity for people who have to -- oh noes! -- FIGHT after joining the army, or navy, or air force, or marines. Sure, you can refuse to fight, but if youre standing in a trench with a rifle, the guy in the other trench isn't gonna walk over and ask if you're a 'consci-fuckin-entious objector', he's gonna shoot you.

The moral: DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FIGHT.

My only comment is about conscientious objectors....

If you have a problem with fighting or war, DON'T JOIN THE FUCKIN' MILITARY. Simple as that. I'm a buddhist and a pacifist, so I'm not going to join the military. I have NO pity for people who have to -- oh noes! -- FIGHT after joining the army, or navy, or air force, or marines.

you're not a very consistent buddhist or pacifist then, are you? were you born a pacifist or did you become one at some point?

Absolutely. You voluntarily give up many rights when you join up; Free Speech, Free Association, Freedom to Travel, among others, and including the freedom to refuse to fight.

This is why I have always and will always oppose all forms of conscription. To relinquish your rights of your own free will in order to serve your country is laudable; to have them stripped from you by government fiat is criminal.

Couragetoresist.org is nothing less than a call to mutiny. And mutiny, along with cowardice in the face of the enemy, are death penalty offences under the UCMJ.

As they should be.

Edit: Why should a Pacifist object, necessarily, to someone ELSE fighting? Not all of them are militant about it.

The Battle of Nagashino in 1575 provides us with a moving example. The Takeda army had been crushed by the combined forces of Oda Nobunaga and Tokugawa Ieyasu and now faced complete annihilation, with no less then ten thousand men already dead. The venerable Takeda general Baba Nobufusa had somehow survived the morning's slaughter and now led the remains of his command in a doomed rear guard action.

Nobufusa rushed a man to [Takeda] Katsuyori to say, "Sir, leave this place at once. I beg you. I will stay here and die." He stayed on with eighty horsemen and lost all of them. He climbed a hill and, seeing that Katsuyori was now far away, shouted loudly to the enemy, "I am Baba, Governor of Mino. Kill me if you can and win a big reward!" Enemies gave him multiple stabs, and he died.

The death of Nobufusa is given added poignancy by the knowledge that he and the other old Takeda generals had urged Katsuyori not to attack the allied army the night before. When Katsuyori ignored their advice, Baba and his colleagues dutifully led their men from the front and were killed almost to a man.

So, in response, the Sengoku Period was a time when the ideals of the samurai code of Bushido were held dearly.

But remember that there are lines which you don't cross even under orders. The Wehrmacht found that out the hard way.

Wrong.

The Wehrmacht were the fighting army and by all turns and purposes abided by, honoured and kept the Conventions. The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe guarded the POW camps fairly, sternly and within the laws of war.

The SS and Gestapo were the ones committing atrocities.

The SS carried out the Holocaust.

The Waffen SS carried out the murders of prisoners of war. The Gestapo committed atrocities.

The Wehrmacht did not.The SS, Waffen SS, SonderKommandos, Totenkopf death squads and other branches of the SS were the butchers.

The SS and others were not and never were part of, controlled by or under the command of the Wehrmacht.They answered to Himmler, not the General Staff.

Get your facts straight.

Wrong.
Who told you all that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht#War_crimes
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/wehrmacht.htm
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=22564917013611

It's true that the SS etc were worse, but what you're claiming is ridiculous and that comes from someone who's got family members who fought in Stalingrad as part of the Wehrmacht.

Neu Leonstein is quite correct. Many units of the Wehrmacht did violate the laws of war very badly, and many also comitted atrocities against civilians.

On the other hand, many did not. Equally, several Waffen SS units have no reason to feel shame at their conduct, and fought as honourable soldiers.

All Germans of the time share a corporate responsibility for what was done in their name. But only a limited number can truly be said to have ACTED criminally. For most, the sin was in inaction.

In principle, yes.

No in Principle about it.

But remember that there are lines which you don't cross even under orders. The Wehrmacht found that out the hard way.

All orders must comply with the UCMJ. If they don't, then you are obligated not to follow it.

I'm not saying the US has crossed that line (although some individuals may have), I'm just saying that you need to be wary of too quick an attempt to bring these people into disrepute.

If they are spreading lies then I will call them into disrepute and a disgrace to the uniform

Joining the military does not mean you need to turn of your brain (although sometimes I think the US Military actually encourages this, cuz I hear politics are absolutely not allowed to be discussed by officers...)

This has got to be the most rediculous statement I've heard out of you. The US military does not to turn off their brains.

As to discussing politics, that goes across the board. Why? The President is there Commander-in-Chief. You talk disrespectfully about him, you are G-O-N-E GONE! Doesn't mean it isn't happening, it just isn't in public.

Translation: you want to punish the poor. And you want to keep on punishing them. Though you'll venerate them if they get killed someplace nasty. Nice one, Scrooge. Nice one.

Nice time of year to air your umm, "values". Really sweet of you.

Dobbsworld, if ya sign up in the military in college and get called up, you have no choice but to go! Dot. Period. End of story.

The problem with political training is that as soon as you did it, the Left, the Right, or both would scream that our soldiers are being politically indoctrinated and brain-washed. When an American thinks of political training for a military, they instantly think Soviet commisar and Waffen SS. You can't sell something like that in the US because of those images.

We have a winner here!

*hands New Rafnaland a cookie*

Absolutely. You voluntarily give up many rights when you join up; Free Speech, Free Association, Freedom to Travel, among others, and including the freedom to refuse to fight.

Uhhh! What do you mean by giving up Free Association and freedom to Travel? My dad is in the service and we travel alot that was not based on orders. So i'll call your BS here. As to Freedom of Speech, its only limited if you are in uniform and not out of it. Get your facts straight.

This is why I have always and will always oppose all forms of conscription.

No conscription going on here. Move along.

To relinquish your rights of your own free will in order to serve your country is laudable; to have them stripped from you by government fiat is criminal.

Go back and read my first comment.

Couragetoresist.org is nothing less than a call to mutiny. And mutiny, along with cowardice in the face of the enemy, are death penalty offences under the UCMJ.

It used to be that way. Don't know if it still is or not.

As they should be.

Agreed.

Edit: Why should a Pacifist object, necessarily, to someone ELSE fighting? Not all of them are militant about it.

They're pacifists. They don't believe in war no matter what!

Your father may be able to travel, but his movements are still restricted by his need to report for duty at whichever times he must do so. Now, you may argue that this is also true of people who work at other jobs, but this is not the case; a worker can always say "take this job and shove it", a capability denied a soldier. Therefore, he does not have freedom to travel as he wishes, though he certainly enjoys a lesser version of that freedom which can be revoked at any time.

Likewise, whether he is within or out of uniform, he is subject to orders and to military discipline. I can tell my boss to f**k off; if your father does the same, he'll wind up in the stockade, on charges of insubordination. Ergo, no free speech.

They're pacifists. They don't believe in war no matter what!

Not entirely true. Both Buddhists and Quakers have served with distinction in medical corps and support roles. Their religion prohibits them from taking life, but not necessarilly from supporting what they see as a just cause.

Your father may be able to travel, but his movements are still restricted by his need to report for duty at whichever times he must do so.

He has so much time to report if he's called up so no, there really isn't any travel restrictions. Sorry Dodoecapod.

Now, you may argue that this is also true of people who work at other jobs, but this is not the case; a worker can always say "take this job and shove it", a capability denied a soldier.

Actually, that's not necessarily true either. my mother did that but she also put in 6 years too. You can still do that but with stipulations.

Therefore, he does not have freedom to travel as he wishes, though he certainly enjoys a lesser version of that freedom which can be revoked at any time.

No you are wrong. He has full freedom to travel. We can go anywhere we want. If he is called up, he doesn't have to necessarily report to his home base. There are military bases everywhere dude.

Likewise, whether he is within or out of uniform, he is subject to orders and to military discipline. I can tell my boss to f**k off; if your father does the same, he'll wind up in the stockade, on charges of insubordination. Ergo, no free speech.

Ahh! someone who knows almost nothing about the service. When he is out of uniform, he can attend political rallies and support whatever candidate he wants without fear of reprisals. Just like he can say what he wants when he is out of uniform. In Uniform, you have a point but you don't when he isn't in uniform. There is a difference.

Not entirely true. Both Buddhists and Quakers have served with distinction in medical corps and support roles. Their religion prohibits them from taking life, but not necessarilly from supporting what they see as a just cause.

ok, I'll grant u half a point :D

Why should a Pacifist object, necessarily, to someone ELSE fighting? Not all of them are militant about it.

if another person decides to become a pacifist, a consistent pacifist should support them against those that would force them to fight.

Translation: you want to punish the poor. And you want to keep on punishing them. Though you'll venerate them if they get killed someplace nasty. Nice one, Scrooge. Nice one.

Nice time of year to air your umm, "values". Really sweet of you.

Oh, what a load of crap. So you support people abandoning their contractual obligations that they VOLUNTARILY signed up for when it's no longer "convienent"? Is that one of your "values"?

She bailed when she was going to be deployed and the free ride was ending. The same thing happened in the 1st Gulf War. At least most of them were honest enough to admit they only signed on for the benefits.

I wonder if her pals that encouraged her to do this also told her she would have to pay back all the money she got?

.."There was certainly no organized protesting, no `Go home,' anything like that," said Ravi Nessman, an AP reporter who knew Massey while he was embedded with Weapons Company. "When (the Marines) were driving into central Baghdad, they were cheered."..Basically its Ravi Nessman word against Jimmy Massey Word...

this is about the Iraq War...
Who should I trust more?
Which one is lying?
Why could they be lying?
What Bias can they have?

Basically its Ravi Nessmann word against Jimmy Massey Word...

this is about the Iraq War...Who should I trust more?
Which one has more bias?

If you read the article and the NY post article, its Massey's entire unit along w/ 5 other reporters and other individuals vs. Massey.

Unless you think this is some sort of media conspiracy.

While I understand these soldiers objections to going to Iraq, its what they signed up for. They do their jobs, unless an implicitly illegal action is asked of them, and shouldn't complain when they get sent. Especially when their MOS is cook, truck driver(Though they do face alot of danger, tbh), or blackhawk mechanic.

I think calling these people traitors or liars is way too extreme. If you don't want to believe the marine, don't. I'm holding judgement either way. However, for those who call out against the war, they should be allowed to. It shouldn't be the individual soldiers job to control morale, it should be the government's, and the best way to do that is not to get in a way which most people don't want to be in(and wouldn't have been in originally, if they had known the information was faulty).

I can't stand how partisan people get. Not just democrat and republican, democrat and libertarian, green and republican, etc. Just on single issues. It seems that anyone who wants to last on these forums, has to be extreme. Does have to be praise them, or shoot them? Can't we respect their opinions, whatever they are? As long as they are doing their jobs, I don't see a problem.

We should drag their families to their town square and brand them heretics, impose fines on them, make them outcasts and make their lives a living hell.

Translation: you want to punish the poor. And you want to keep on punishing them. Though you'll venerate them if they get killed someplace nasty. Nice one, Scrooge. Nice one.

Nice time of year to air your umm, "values". Really sweet of you.
That is so full of.......... that's the.............

I can't even think of words to describe it. How the hell are we punishing the poor by requiring they do their job in order to get paid? :headbang:

That is so full of.......... that's the.............

I can't even think of words to describe it. How the hell are we punishing the poor by requiring they do their job in order to get paid? :headbang:

We're punishing them by not throwing free money at them so they can sit around all day watching TV, having babies, and getting drunk.

Cause ya' see, she was FORCED into the military by jack-booted thugs under the direct orders of W. because he hates poor people and wants to see them all killed by drowning or IED's.













The sarcasm should be obvious.

We're punishing them by not throwing free money at them so they can sit around all day watching TV, having babies, and getting drunk.

Cause ya' see, she was FORCED into the military by jack-booted thugs under the direct orders of W. because he hates poor people and wants to see them all killed by drowning or IED's.













The sarcasm should be obvious.
:D

Total bullshit, unless you're referring to officers not being allowed to discuss politics in front of their own men. That's just not a very wise thing to do under any circumstances.
I don't know. I shared an office with my XO last year, and that is pretty much all we talked about. He was a little rabid far-right wing for my taste.

I don't know. I shared an office with my XO last year, and that is pretty much all we talked about. He was a little rabid far-right wing for my taste.
There's a big difference between a couple officers talking politics, whatever their ranks, and officers preaching politics to the men.

I think the comment that started all this was really aimed at the idea that officers are not permitted to gripe about conditions to someone outside their chains of command, e.g. the embedded reporters, national news services, etc.

http://www.couragetoresist.org/mambo/


1st woman to resist

My name is Katherine Jashinski. I am a SPC in the Texas Army National Guard. I was born in Milwaukee, WI and I am 22 years old. When I graduated high school I moved to Austin, TX to attend college. At age 19 I enlisted in the Guard as a cook because I wanted to experience military life. When I enlisted I believed that killing was immoral, but also that war was an inevitable part of life and therefore, an exception to the rule.
http://www.couragetoresist.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=2




Why is Jimmy Massey, an antiwar Marine, under attack?

This question almost answers itself, doesn’t it? Former Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey, a 12-year veteran who became an outspoken opponent of the war, recently faced a vicious attack in the mainstream and rightwing media. He was called a liar and a fraud, and his eyewitness accounts of U.S. Marines killing Iraqi civilians were called into question. This coordinated media assault caused confusion even among some opponents of the war. by Gerry Condon.
This question almost answers itself, doesn’t it?
http://www.couragetoresist.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=2

Hmmm, let me think here. Oh I know, it might be because the misbegotten fuck is a liar and a fraud.

No you are wrong. He has full freedom to travel. We can go anywhere we want. If he is called up, he doesn't have to necessarily report to his home base. There are military bases everywhere dude.

True, and I'll easily grant that the restriction he has are not generally onerous. But those restrictions still exist, and can be imposed fully at any time; I was locked down for three months at one point, totally unable to go anywhere off base (a political situation of the nation I was in at the time).
Your father, like almost all soldiers these days, is granted a lot of freedom in his private life. But those are granted privileges for a soldier, NOT rights, and can be withdrawn at any time


Ahh! someone who knows almost nothing about the service.

Does eight years in the USMC count?

When he is out of uniform, he can attend political rallies and support whatever candidate he wants without fear of reprisals. Just like he can say what he wants when he is out of uniform. In Uniform, you have a point but you don't when he isn't in uniform. There is a difference.

Yes, there is. But in or out of uniform your father may NOT:

- Criticize his superiors in public.

- Advocate mutiny.

- Be insubordinate to a superior officer.

or any of a variety of other things. Again, he is granted certain privileges as a modern soldier; but these are not rights, and can be withdrawn.

Thankfully, both your father and I served in civilized and caring military organizations, which actually did their best to make the experience of being in the military a positive one. But make no mistake - when joining any military force, you do give up certain rights, or at the least have them severely curtailed.

Oh, what a load of crap. So you support people abandoning their contractual obligations that they VOLUNTARILY signed up for when it's no longer "convienent"? Is that one of your "values"?

She bailed when she was going to be deployed and the free ride was ending. The same thing happened in the 1st Gulf War. At least most of them were honest enough to admit they only signed on for the benefits.

I wonder if her pals that encouraged her to do this also told her she would have to pay back all the money she got?
I'll just refer you to this totally unrelated post, which through the vagaries of discourse, is a completely related response, shall I?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10147027&postcount=32

Maybe you and Vetalia could get together and enjoy your Christmases at other people's expense. While looking down your noses at those without hope.

Hope you like the coal Father Christmas leaves in your stocking this year.

We're punishing them by not throwing free money at them so they can sit around all day watching TV, having babies, and getting drunk.

Cause ya' see, she was FORCED into the military by jack-booted thugs under the direct orders of W. because he hates poor people and wants to see them all killed by drowning or IED's.













The sarcasm should be obvious.

LOL!!!!

That would be dobbsworld's way of thinking! Luckily, most of the real world knows that his way of thinking is flat out wrong.

LOL!!!!

That would be dobbsworld's way of thinking! Luckily, most of the real world knows that his way of thinking is flat out wrong.
Ahh, shall I regale NS with my take on your thought processes (or distinct lack thereof), Cornfed?

True, and I'll easily grant that the restriction he has are not generally onerous. But those restrictions still exist, and can be imposed fully at any time; I was locked down for three months at one point, totally unable to go anywhere off base (a political situation of the nation I was in at the time).

Big difference between a lockdown in a hostile nation and traveling around the nation with your family.

Your father, like almost all soldiers these days, is granted a lot of freedom in his private life. But those are granted privileges for a soldier, NOT rights, and can be withdrawn at any time

I suggest you go back and re-read what a right and a privelege is. Its a privilege to wear the uniform of the United States. Its our right to be free to do what we want.

Does eight years in the USMC count?

Some! I've been around it 23 years.

Yes, there is. But in or out of uniform your father may NOT:

- Criticize his superiors in public.

- Advocate mutiny.

- Be insubordinate to a superior officer.

I seem to remember the military violating number 1 almost on a daily basis (on base no less) when Clinton was in office. My father griped about Clinton constently as did many other personel I know out of uniform.

or any of a variety of other things. Again, he is granted certain privileges as a modern soldier; but these are not rights, and can be withdrawn.

Actually, no they can't. If they did that then they'll get NO ONE to sign up. Withdrawing those privileges will be very bad for recruitment.

Thankfully, both your father and I served in civilized and caring military organizations, which actually did their best to make the experience of being in the military a positive one.

Caring? The pay is rediculoius :D

But make no mistake - when joining any military force, you do give up certain rights, or at the least have them severely curtailed.

curtailed is the right word.

Ahh, shall I regale NS with my take on your thought processes (or distinct lack thereof), Cornfed?

I don't care dumbsworld. I know that these 2 losers (and that is what they are) are mad that they have been or was going to be, shipped off to war. Well boo hoo. There getting no sympathy from me. If they didn't want to go off to war then they shouldn't have signed up.

They signed up and now they should have their sorry asses shipped off to the front lines.

I don't care dumbsworld. I know that these 2 losers (and that is what they are) are mad that they have been or was going to be, shipped off to war. Well boo hoo. There getting no sympathy from me. If they didn't want to go off to war then they shouldn't have signed up.

They signed up and now they should have their sorry asses shipped off to the front lines.
That's the one thing I always marvel at, Corny - your utter cold-bloodedness. I suppose each and every person who signs up should have their sorry asses shipped off to the front lines, right? I mean, all things being equal, it's only fair - right?

After all, they were dumb enough to sign on in the first place, right? Serves 'em right. Teach them a valuable life lesson: if anybody ever uses the word "opportunity", start running. And don't look back. Valuable, that is, assuming they live to rue the day they ever listened to a recruitment swot.

That's the one thing I always marvel at, Corny - your utter cold-bloodedness. I suppose each and every person who signs up should have their sorry asses shipped off to the front lines, right? I mean, all things being equal, it's only fair - right?

If they sign up and their unit gets deployed damn straight they should go. Welcome to life in the military. You sign up and when called upon to go somewhere, you go without complaint.

After all, they were dumb enough to sign on in the first place, right?

I wouldn't call them dumb. I'll call them heroes if they sign up and defend their country.

Serves 'em right. Teach them a valuable life lesson: if anybody ever uses the word "opportunity", start running.

So do you want people to serve in the military or not?

And don't look back. Valuable, that is, assuming they live to rue the day they ever listened to a recruitment swot.

Is this a rant to tell people not to go into the service?

If they didn't want to go off to war then they shouldn't have signed up.
How dare anyone criticise then that recruiters actively look for kids, go to schools and therefore talk to people who do not know what their future may hold, who do not fully comprehend the decision they make (especially considering the kind of things they talk about for recruitment purposes - pretty sure shape charges aren't included) and who basically sign their life away.

Fact of the matter is this: If you want people to be fully committed to the things required of them by the military, you need to make them aware of these things beforehand.
I have witnessed recruitment by the Australian Army here, and I don't think the two'd be too different. There was talk about money, about opportunity, about the spare time one would still have, about the education and skills one would get and so on.
I don't think the word "war" was mentioned once.

That's the one thing I always marvel at, Corny - your utter cold-bloodedness. I suppose each and every person who signs up should have their sorry asses shipped off to the front lines, right? I mean, all things being equal, it's only fair - right?

After all, they were dumb enough to sign on in the first place, right? Serves 'em right. Teach them a valuable life lesson: if anybody ever uses the word "opportunity", start running. And don't look back. Valuable, that is, assuming they live to rue the day they ever listened to a recruitment swot.

Yeah, okay, you're a genius. I'm in the National Guard. And frankly, I'm quite eager to go to Iraq. Should be shipping out this summer. But wait, since I joined the military that makes me a "sorry ass" and makes me "dumb enough" to sign on in the first place. Yeah, sure serves me right to defend America while jackasses like yourself get to sit at home and rip us to pieces because we do what we do.

How dare anyone criticise then that recruiters actively look for kids, go to schools and therefore talk to people who do not know what their future may hold, who do not fully comprehend the decision they make (especially considering the kind of things they talk about for recruitment purposes - pretty sure shape charges aren't included) and who basically sign their life away.

Recruiters are required to tell you that you could go off to war. That's law.

Fact of the matter is this: If you want people to be fully committed to the things required of them by the military, you need to make them aware of these things beforehand.

By law, they are required to tell you that you could get shipped off to war.

I have witnessed recruitment by the Australian Army here, and I don't think the two'd be too different. There was talk about money, about opportunity, about the spare time one would still have, about the education and skills one would get and so on.
I don't think the word "war" was mentioned once.

They talk about training here too but they also tell you that you could get shipped off to war. Our recruiters do tell you.

Yeah, okay, you're a genius. I'm in the National Guard. And frankly, I'm quite eager to go to Iraq. Should be shipping out this summer. But wait, since I joined the military that makes me a "sorry ass" and makes me "dumb enough" to sign on in the first place. Yeah, sure serves me right to defend America while jackasses like yourself get to sit at home and rip us to pieces because we do what we do.

*applauds*

Well said Sniper Country. Be careful over there and thank you for serving our nation :)

Yeah, sure serves me right to defend America while jackasses like yourself get to sit at home and rip us to pieces because we do what we do.
Sarcasm can be complex sometimes...

But to be honest, are you expecting special treatment? Should anyone consider you any more worthy because you signed up?
There was a thread a while ago about whether we should respect soldiers anymore than anyone else. The consensus was that the answer is "no". Being in the military is not a card blanche.

EDIT: If I joined the military, would that make me a better person? Would anyone respect me more?

How dare anyone criticise then that recruiters actively look for kids, go to schools and therefore talk to people who do not know what their future may hold, who do not fully comprehend the decision they make (especially considering the kind of things they talk about for recruitment purposes - pretty sure shape charges aren't included) and who basically sign their life away.

Fact of the matter is this: If you want people to be fully committed to the things required of them by the military, you need to make them aware of these things beforehand.
I have witnessed recruitment by the Australian Army here, and I don't think the two'd be too different. There was talk about money, about opportunity, about the spare time one would still have, about the education and skills one would get and so on.
I don't think the word "war" was mentioned once.

I was told I'd probably be shipped to either Iraq or Afghanistan within a year after I got back from AIT.

Sarcasm can be complex sometimes...

But to be honest, are you expecting special treatment? Should anyone consider you any more worthy because you signed up?
There was a thread a while ago about whether we should respect soldiers anymore than anyone else. The consensus was that the answer is "no". Being in the military is not a card blanche.

EDIT: If I joined the military, would that make me a better person? Would anyone respect me more?

I don't expect to be treated any differently. Ask any soldier if he/she expects that. However, I don't expect to be treated like trash either.

I don't expect to be treated any differently. Ask any soldier if he/she expects that. However, I don't expect to be treated like trash either.

This is most definitely 100% correct.

They talk about training here too but they also tell you that you could get shipped off to war. Our recruiters do tell you.
I guess it's a little different then. Nonetheless, it's a matter of presentation, and how you say it.
Without having been to one of these talks, I can't really tell, so I won't try.

Nonetheless, I'd like to know the reason why a young person would go to the army, despite having been told that he/she will go off to war, if they clearly don't want to fight.
And don't tell me it's because they are traitors, because people aren't like that. Something must not have been made clear enough to them.

I guess it's a little different then. Nonetheless, it's a matter of presentation, and how you say it.
Without having been to one of these talks, I can't really tell, so I won't try.

Nonetheless, I'd like to know the reason why a young person would go to the army, despite having been told that he/she will go off to war, if they clearly don't want to fight.
And don't tell me it's because they are traitors, because people aren't like that. Something must not have been made clear enough to them.

They tell u you could go off to war. I bet you 3-1 that most of them think that they won't get shipped off to war.

I don't expect to be treated any differently. Ask any soldier if he/she expects that. However, I don't expect to be treated like trash either.
Well, you'll meet all types in your life.

Soldiers can make mistakes, and they can follow orders that they really shouldn't have followed. So much is clear, and being a soldier does not exempt a person from criticism.

Nonetheless, in this particular post, Dobbsworld was being sarcastic because of the disdain he felt Corny was showing towards these people.

I guess it's a little different then. Nonetheless, it's a matter of presentation, and how you say it.
Without having been to one of these talks, I can't really tell, so I won't try.

Nonetheless, I'd like to know the reason why a young person would go to the army, despite having been told that he/she will go off to war, if they clearly don't want to fight.
And don't tell me it's because they are traitors, because people aren't like that. Something must not have been made clear enough to them.

Because many who sign up for the military think war is nothing. They think it's just like a big video game, and get "it won't really happen to me" syndrome. Then you get to basic training, where the Drill Sergeants rip into you and tell you that within 30 days after BCT, you'll be in Iraq. They show you pictures of what war really looks like. They tell you stories of how when they were in Iraq, a little boy ran up to give his buddy a hug, and there was an IED strapped to his chest, and killed both of them. They tell you about women who place grenades under their babies and go blow up a checkpoint with their child like that. Then it suddenly hits: "This ain't no joke." My BCT Platoon started out with 63 people. We ended up with just over 40. But, still, some still don't think it can happen to them. Then when it finally does, they say, "Screw this, I didn't sign up for this crap." And then you get this bullcrap "courage to resist". Treason, I say.

Well, you'll meet all types in your life.

Soldiers can make mistakes, and they can follow orders that they really shouldn't have followed. So much is clear, and being a soldier does not exempt a person from criticism.

Nonetheless, in this particular post, Dobbsworld was being sarcastic because of the disdain he felt Corny was showing towards these people.

I do have disdain for people who decide not to follow through on their duties as personel in the military.

They tell you stories of how when they were in Iraq, a little boy ran up to give his buddy a hug, and there was an IED strapped to his chest, and killed both of them. They tell you about women who place grenades under their babies and go blow up a checkpoint with their child like that.
:eek:
What?! They tell you shit like that?

No wonder civilians get shot at for no reason other than soldiers starting to panic. Jesus H. Motherf*cking Christ.

:eek:
What?! They tell you shit like that?

No wonder civilians get shot at for no reason other than soldiers starting to panic. Jesus H. Motherf*cking Christ.

Sad part is, he is mostly right in what he says.

:eek:
What?! They tell you shit like that?

No wonder civilians get shot at for no reason other than soldiers starting to panic. Jesus H. Motherf*cking Christ.

What? You think they send you over there saying, "Don't worry, you'll have a few drinks, ride in a couple of convoys, and come home. No harm, no fowl." Yeah right. That's just the first day of Basic.

Is this a rant to tell people not to go into the service?
I dunno, I hate pigeon-holing everything. Maybe this is, though:

Recruitment is just a way to get your bona fide homicidal lunatics, your roided-out super-patriots, and your terminal suckers - po' buckin' white folk and disenfranchised blacks, two cornerstones of the now more-or-less-permanent American underclass - all ducks in a row. The lunatics will join hoping to kill, kill, kill for peace (or for whatever reason they're giving, I was just listening to the Fugs so it was easy to type the lyrics as I went - sorry) while the super-patriots are probably channeling 14th-century samurai and contemplating their swords when not rabidly defending the very concept of hierarchical structures and rigid adherence to regulation. So how do you get the last group? Simple, really:

Hoodwink 'em. Sell 'em vapourware. Now-you-see-it, now-you-don't, all according to the laws of diminishing returns. Three-card Monte with your life unwittingly at stake. Use the golden word, 'opportunity' and you'll get your fishes hooked. Let 'em think this might be their ticket out of the lower-class environment they're coming of age in - and then?

Ship their sorry asses to the front lines. If they die, I'll cry every November 11th for them. If they don't - well, so long as they don't start questioning a rigid adherence to hierarchical structures, maybe they can get some of the perqs the recruitment hucksters mentioned. But one word against the war (whatever war it is, really) and back to the front with those whingeing ninnies!

Gods, what am I doing in this feckless continuum, anyway?

I dunno, I hate pigeon-holing everything. Maybe this is, though:

Recruitment is just a way to get your bona fide homicidal lunatics, your roided-out super-patriots, and your terminal suckers - po' buckin' white folk and disenfranchised blacks, two cornerstones of the now more-or-less-permanent American underclass - all ducks in a row.

This better be sarcasm because now you just insulted the entire US military as well as both of my parents, 2 cousins, and a brother-in-law. This so full of hogwash, I won't btother to tell you why its wrong.

*snip*

Ohhh cut your sarcasm.

Gods, what am I doing in this feckless continuum, anyway?

because I have a habit of provoking you into making a fool out of yourself?

Sad part is, he is mostly right in what he says.
Okay then...find me the case of Iraqi women using their babies as bombs to kill Americans. I could find only one case of a 13 year old male suicide bomber, and that was not confirmed.

Fact of the matter is that the profile is young men, and a few young women. Not mothers, not little kids, not cars full of women going shopping.
They are actively pushing a culture of paranoia. How do you expect to have good relations with the population if the soldiers think the population is out to get them?

What? You think they send you over there saying, "Don't worry, you'll have a few drinks, ride in a couple of convoys, and come home. No harm, no fowl." Yeah right. That's just the first day of Basic.
AFAIK, the majority of US Soldiers killed get killed by roadside bombs and shape charges. Not suicide bombings.
Making people triggerhappy and constantly scared for their lives is not going to save anyone, and it certainly won't help the reconstruction effort.

This better be sarcasm because now you just insulted the entire US military as well as both of my parents, 2 cousins, and a brother-in-law. This so full of hogwash, I won't btother to tell you why its wrong.



Ohhh cut your sarcasm.



because I have a habit of provoking you into making a fool out of yourself?
Which is it, Cornbelt?

Which is it, Cornbelt?

Your so smart, you figure it out dumbsworld.

AFAIK, the majority of US Soldiers killed get killed by roadside bombs and shape charges. Not suicide bombings.
Making people triggerhappy and constantly scared for their lives is not going to save anyone, and it certainly won't help the reconstruction effort.

You have to be scared for your life over there. Because the moment you get complacent about it over there, something does happen, and you're in a sling. And as for suicide bombings, they don't happen as much because of the tight security we now have around checkpoints, where most suicide bombings take place against our troops. VBIEDs too, for that matter.

Why do people care what a former marine has to say anyway? Shouldn’t the intelligence and opinions of someone who is willing to carry out acts of violence for our current government be called into question immediately?

You have to be scared for your life over there.
I disagree. Being scared and pumped full of adrenaline does not make for a good, rational decisionmaker, especially in times of crisis.

Because the moment you get complacent about it over there, something does happen, and you're in a sling.
As we saw, something can happen either way. Roadside bombs kill you whether you're complacent or not.

IMHO, the most important thing for a soldier is to stay calm and professional. That is of course often impossible, but training should still be tailored to turn recruits into people who can do that.
Telling people what are essentially horrorstories will not do that. You should not be sent there thinking that Iraqi women and children might be your enemies. You should be sent there thinking that you are there to help these people.
There is a problem with the way some US servicemen have behaved both in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I would be surprised if one of the problems wouldn't be this mindset of confusing your friends with your enemies.

Why do people care what a former marine has to say anyway? Shouldn’t the intelligence and opinions of someone who is willing to carry out acts of violence for our current government be called into question immediately?

Why when they are doing their duty legally?

Why when they are doing their duty legally?
Something being legal doesn’t mean it isn’t reprehensible or just plain stupid.

Something being legal doesn’t mean it isn’t reprehensible or just plain stupid.

So why do you want to call them to account for doing something that is 100% perfectly legal?

So why do you want to call them to account for doing something that is 100% perfectly legal?
Because a sucker deal is 100% perfectly stupid?

I disagree. Being scared and pumped full of adrenaline does not make for a good, rational decisionmaker, especially in times of crisis.


As we saw, something can happen either way. Roadside bombs kill you whether you're complacent or not.

IMHO, the most important thing for a soldier is to stay calm and professional. That is of course often impossible, but training should still be tailored to turn recruits into people who can do that.
Telling people what are essentially horrorstories will not do that. You should not be sent there thinking that Iraqi women and children might be your enemies. You should be sent there thinking that you are there to help these people.
There is a problem with the way some US servicemen have behaved both in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I would be surprised if one of the problems wouldn't be this mindset of confusing your friends with your enemies.

That the vast majority of serviceman are very professional and handle themselves with that in mind. The training that I and millions of others went through prepare one for all types of situations. Just because real bullets start flying doesn't mean that our soldiers get scared and can't make a rational decision. It is the exact opposite. In fact the calmness is almost sureal. You are taught to keep focus on what you are doing. Training comes instinctively. Truly you do not have time to think about to much other than watching your ass and that of your fellow soldiers.

Because a sucker deal is 100% perfectly stupid?

Since when serving your nation a sucker deal when they tell you that you could ship off to war?

Gods, what am I doing in this feckless continuum, anyway?

Dragging down the Intelligence/Maturity level.

If they sign up and their unit gets deployed damn straight they should go. Welcome to life in the military. You sign up and when called upon to go somewhere, you go without complaint.

I wouldn't call them dumb. I'll call them heroes if they sign up and defend their country.

So do you want people to serve in the military or not?

Is this a rant to tell people not to go into the service?
*CanuckHeaven trips into thread, remembers the litany of excuses Cornfed has used for NOT signing up to serve HIS country, shakes head at the hypocrisy spewing forth from THE Patriot, and exits thread. :eek:

*CanuckHeaven trips into thread, remembers the litany of excuses Cornfed has used for NOT signing up to serve HIS country, shakes head at the hypocrisy spewing forth from THE Patriot, and exits thread. :eek:

*shakes head at CH for having nothing constructive to say whatsoever*

*CanuckHeaven trips into thread, remembers the litany of excuses Cornfed has used for NOT signing up to serve HIS country, shakes head at the hypocrisy spewing forth from THE Patriot, and exits thread. :eek:Oh yeah...

The first reason was something about ...

after further review... I do not like my choice of words...

Oh yeah...

The first reason was something about his Dad serving already.. So he said he cant Serve... When someone Proved it was a Lie.. He changed the excuse to Medical reasons..

Was that him? or Do I have the Wrong Chicken-Hawk here??? There is so many of them..

And it is for medical reasons. You do no that regs change right? The info was TWENTY DAMN YEARS OLD!!!!! Sometimes, that type of info WILL BE BAD! Geez and I already apologized for that and admitted I was wrong.

However, I do have legit medical reasons why I cannot serve in the military.