[Dash Global]

@Cool

I dont necessarily think the US has a more responsibility to police the world. Well not solely or specifically.

I feel that PEOPLE in have a responsibly / should to help others in need.

Notice the US isnt in the above statement.

Like I said there should be an International Committee made for that sole purpose. Some like to think the UN is that committee but please dont fool yourself. They are a joke and pick and choose what they want to help / do, and thats if they decide to do ANYTHING.

Your wrong about the Middle East. It can be changed but ALOT and I mean ALOT of resources and time is needed to make that happen.

With the level of corruption and religious & ethnic agendas in the Middle East, makes it a daunting task that requires a highly thought out plan and time to undertake.

[Smitty]

Seems this topic went awry, but back to trying to help "cool" with his situation.
I'm with LostGringo on checking out the resources avail to you, but being careful.
If you can grind it out, I'd suggest doing so, but I'm not in your shoes.
I do know that if I were serving with you, I'd want you to just leave. No offense, but it would be best for you and the soldiers who serve with you if you left the service. So as I mentioned earlier, given there is a drawdown in the size of the force, you should start digging now and look at your options for voluntarily separating from the service...under the best conditions (i.e. least impact to your personal life) possible. Good luck and good on you for recognizing what's important to you. Just remember that although you may not agree with gov't foreign policy, the soliders you serve with are your brothers and sisters and you should look after them as long as you're in the uniform.

[Nacirema]

Hey Cool,

I served a 3 year Army contract. I am a Cav Scout.

I went to Iraq. I did some cool shit. I lost some friends.

I believe the US is making a mistake in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. I don't trust our politicians.

That is my backround.

As far as dying for something you don't believe in: Assuming you are not combat arms, I would stop worrying about getting hurt or killed, its pretty unlikely.

If I was in your shoes, I would: Finish my contract; do my best; learn as much as I could; enjoy serving with some awsome guys, make connections; go as many places as possible; see what leadership is all about; take advantage of any down time to read; volunteer for anything that seems cool, even if it may be hard; get out and get paid to go to school on the New GI Bill.

Thats more or less what I did.

If you already have a degree, then you can go to grad school. Or you can just get out and get a job. Or start an online business. Or whatever the hell you want to do.

You will be richer for the experience, if you embrace it. You will be poorer for the experience if you do not.

It really depends on you.

Either way, getting out early without an honorable discharge would probably be a stupid choice, but its your choice, just like it was your choice to sign up that contract.

[Hokie30]

(08-07-2011 09:25 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

You know what? STFU and do your time. You're "weesh" for even posting shit on the forum. Look at this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14435854

I'd give my soul to replace any of those that perished in that crash. You're a specific breed now that has heritage since 1775, before the country even became in existence. Freedom isn't free. My grandfathers fought in WWII and never bitched. Quit bitchin' and soldier on.

What will I do tonight? Raise a glass to the fallen in that helo and go to sleep w/ tears in my eyes. Sex excluded.

While it's sad what happened to those soldiers who died in the helo crash, especially since SF's are near irreplacable and the bravest of the brave, let's be honest, there's no f&*k!ng reason for that to have happened in the first place. 10,000+ soldiers dead in the last 10 years is too high of a cost to bare!!! I wish the past and current administration would have the guts to man up and withdraw from all overseas bases and conflicts (with the possible exception of S. Korea).

You guys mentioned the British and the Russian's invading Afghanistan and failing miserably which is what is currently happening in Afghanistan (killing Bin-Laden by US SFs was a major victory but not as major as if we ever eliminated the Taliban, which is impossible) but as a student of history let me remind you of a more recent event which was the conflict in Chechnya, the Chechen-Russian war of 1994-1995 and 1999-2001. Russian invaded one of the smallest "countries" in the world and still failed miserably loosing face albeit having 10x more forces than the Chechen Rebels and superior weaponry. Guess what, the Chechen's resisted the Russian occupation in some of the most remote areas in the world (Kavkaz mountains) and fought for their nationality first, religion second, and tribal/fmaily honor third. Even now, while the Russian's have instituted a puppet president over there (who tends to be quite similar to Karzai in his bravado talk yet little tangible action) the killings by rebels continue to happen on a daily basis, especially bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings. The press rarely mentions this anymore but the conflict is ongoing albeit Russia has withdrawn most essential forces. This has been happening for 9 years now since the office end of the war!!! This is what we can expect in Iraq/Afghanistan, this conflict will continue for at least a decade and in a way is a god-send for the US military-industrial complex providing a steady "source of income" and continuing to feed our defense contractors. Just wanted to mention this as history repeats itself and unfortunately too often we don't look at our past mistakes and don't learn from them. Be it Bush or Obama they are both heading in the wrong direction.

The good news though is that I do have a solution! If Aliblahba knew anything about US history (which you probably don't as you're brainwashed having mentioned that you served in the marines) you would know that one of the most successful policies in US history was the policy of isolationism practiced in the 1820's when James Monroe was president. He was famous for issuing the Monroe Doctrine which basically stated no interference in overseas affairs (unless attacked first) and also need for US sovereignty:
"The Monroe Doctrine asserted that the Americas were not to be further colonized by European countries but that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when many Latin American countries were on the verge of becoming independent from the Spanish Empire. The United States, reflecting concerns raised by Great Britain, ultimately hoped to avoid having any European power take over Spain's colonies."

I pray to God that we go back to those days and not have freakin' bases all over the world and be spending all the taxpayers money on wars and military-industrial complex and running an all-time high debt which will be felt by many generations to come.

[Nacirema]

(08-08-2011 09:21 PM)Hokie30 Wrote:  

If Aliblahba knew anything about US history (which you probably don't as you're brainwashed having mentioned that you served in the marines) you would know that one of the most successful policies in US history was the policy of isolationism practiced in the 1820's when James Monroe was president.

Even though I mostly agree with what you said, I must admit that it is complete news to me that time spent serving in the Marines was proven to have a negative correlation with knowledge of history.

Making statements like that, your studies obviously haven't taught you enough about the nature of the the United States military, or the people in it. Keep reading your books, maybe all of the answers to the test are in there.

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards."
— William Francis Butler

[Hokie30]

(08-08-2011 10:08 PM)Nacirema Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:21 PM)Hokie30 Wrote:  

If Aliblahba knew anything about US history (which you probably don't as you're brainwashed having mentioned that you served in the marines) you would know that one of the most successful policies in US history was the policy of isolationism practiced in the 1820's when James Monroe was president.

Even though I mostly agree with what you said, I must admit that it is complete news to me that time spent serving in the Marines was proven to have a negative correlation with knowledge of history.

Making statements like that, your studies obviously haven't taught you enough about the nature of the the United States military, or the people in it. Keep reading your books, maybe all of the answers to the test are in there.

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards."
— William Francis Butler

Nacirema, you don't back up your point at all. JUst so you don't think i'm only a book-worm let me tell you that I was recruited by both the Marines and Navy in HS and my dad was in the Air Force so I do know a bit more than an average person. I had good grades in college and was active in sports so wasn't ready to give up my college education at that time. After looking at pros/cons of military service decided against it but that's besides the point.

Marines or any military forces for that matter are required to take history classes as we all know however the lessons they learn are biased, very pro US lingo.
For example I doubt Marines would be told about the wrongs that the Bush administration committed in "selling" the Iraq war to the US public since they cannot criticize the President for his actions directly as he is the "commander in chief" afterall.
Also, do they get taught about the fact that early in the war the Taliban that we so hate and consider our enemies were actually trained and equipped by US. During the 80's US military provided stinger missiles and trainers to the Mujahaddeen who were fighting the Soviets...and 12 years later they ended up turning some of the same weapons and training against us. Were it not for CIA operatives in Afghanistan in the 80s and the training that was given to them half the Taliban commanders would know jack sh$t about how to fight an effective guerilla war.
Taking anothe example from recent history I wonder if the Marine's get taught about the Iran-Contra Affair? Perhaps Cool can talk about this since he is currently active duty and would know what they teach in the military nowadays but as I mentioned the trainers tend to emphasize the positive aspects of military history (just like any company would try to sell you on the positive aspects only of job ABC) and not the negative one's. I believe to see the full picture of the current wars one must consider both sides of history! Do not be "gung-ho" about the might of the US military like a grunt would be and do not blindly believe that we are protecting "democracy" and bringing "freedom" to whichever country we occupy. That might be true sometimes (as in WWII) but not now.

[Kona]

(08-06-2011 04:31 PM)cool Wrote:  

I avoid posting this on other forums because of replies from white knights and women like "man up and finish your commitment"

I wish you hadn't gotten it here.

Maybe somebody else wrote this and I missed it, but Mahalo for your service.

Every Veteran on this thread felt the same way you are feeling now at some point in their careers, whether they say it or not. My first job under what you call "permanent party" status took me through the Northern Sea Route. I'm Hawaiian. Off the ship I was surrounded by ice, and on it by rednecks bitching about Jeff Gordon. I had drawn a line on my leg and sterilized a sawzall blade, and was reading about the disability benefits I was getting ready to enjoy.

Had I sliced myself, I guarantee I wouldn't be living the life I love living today.

My career started pre-9/11, and once it hit I was moving. Afterwards, I never had time to second guess why I was there. I made hundreds of life long friends, saved every other paycheck, learned millions of wacky skills, and developed a confidence only extreme stress can give a man.

I also saw some horrible things. Holding a nineteen year old man's hand while he screams death is something lots of people can't and shouldn't handle. I didn't sleep for 3 weeks straight after we rolled up on LA right after Katrina. I took three bullets in three of the nastiest places on the planet. A lot of men weren't as lucky as me.

I bitched for a while after I left and was a little mad at the Navy, but that's separation anxiety, and readjustment to civilian life. I'm over it. I'm proud of everything I did, and every decision I made.

Regardless of my personal situation, or the politics behind the wars I fought in, the work I did, and the example I set saved men's lives. Nobody can take that from me. I would think at your age, Cool, should you wind up deployed you'd be a big help to a lot of the younger guys.

I wish myself, or somebody else could give you the answers but you have to decide for yourself what you want to do. You aren't in jail, and like the other brother posted, there are ways to get out, although difficult.

Here's the only advice I think I can give you:

If you're gonna stay, don't half ass it. Take advantage of every opportunity available to you. Hit all the AFRC resorts (If you can't get laid at Hale Koa Barefoot Bar somethings wrong with you), see as much of the world as you can, and learn as many things as possible. Later on, when you hear other soldiers talking like you are now, don't give them shit about it. Help them get through what you're going through now.

If you're gonna leave, don't half-ass it. Bring your disdain for military life and the politics behind what you do to your command's attention immediately. Keep fighting until your out. Make clearing out of the Army the most important thing you do in your career. It's gonna be tough. Eventually you'll find the officer that understands an attitude like yours gets men killed. When you hear other soldiers talking like you are now, and you believe their feelings are as strong as yours, help them out.

Good Luck!

(08-06-2011 04:31 PM)Hokie30 Wrote:  

Marines or any military forces for that matter are required to take history classes as we all know however the lessons they learn are biased, very pro US lingo.
For example I doubt Marines would be told about the wrongs that the Bush administration committed in "selling" the Iraq war to the US public since they cannot criticize the President for his actions directly as he is the "commander in chief" afterall.

A lot of Marines were busy fighting and dying in the wars you read about. They didn't have time for history lessons.

Your father needs a big Mahalo for his service. He also needs his ass beat for not teaching his son a damn thing about respect.

You don't know a bit more than the average person. I hate to break this to you, various branches of the Military tried to recruit every single male that went to high school in the USA at one time or another. There's nothing special about you.

Hokie30, thanks for telling us that Monroe wrote the Monroe Doctrine, and that you watched Charlie Wilson's War on TBS (TBS used to be called The Superstation, since you're a history buff) but please stop flapping your dicksuckers, telling people to read books about history that those very people took part in.

There's another thread where a guy told me to read some history and reminded me that Iraq was only supposed to take 6 to 8 weeks. Did he really want to tell me I wasted a year of my life? Could he, or you, stand outdoors for 10 minutes in Fallujah, let alone handle a firefight there?

Keep your jealousy to yourself, read your romance novels, and let the men talk.

Aloha!

[Excelsior]

(08-07-2011 08:42 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Bullshit, we brought a ruthless dictator to justice aka DEATH.

You realize this dude dropped chemical bombs over entire cities simply because of the peoples ethnic background?

Please dont try to state ur opinions as facts. Esp on such a sensitive matter.

Can you imagine Obama dropping bombs on Salt Lake City simply because he didnt like Mormons? There would be a fucking worldwide action taken to remove and bring Obama to justice.

This is:

A. Not why the United States went to war in Iraq.

B. Not rational justification for any major conflict.

As has been mentioned before, the world has been (and still is) filled with such dictators, some of whom the United States has supported and helped to install. The mere presence of a tyrannical regime does not constitute sound reasoning for conflict in a geo-political sense.

People have been in search for the more noble roots of this conflict for quite some time.
I doubt they will ever find them.

[Dash Global]

(08-09-2011 10:40 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 08:42 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Bullshit, we brought a ruthless dictator to justice aka DEATH.

You realize this dude dropped chemical bombs over entire cities simply because of the peoples ethnic background?

Please dont try to state ur opinions as facts. Esp on such a sensitive matter.

Can you imagine Obama dropping bombs on Salt Lake City simply because he didnt like Mormons? There would be a fucking worldwide action taken to remove and bring Obama to justice.

This is:

A. Not why the United States went to war in Iraq.

B. Not rational justification for any major conflict.

As has been mentioned before, the world has been (and still is) filled with such dictators, some of whom the United States has supported and helped to install. The mere presence of a tyrannical regime does not constitute sound reasoning for conflict in a geo-political sense.

People have been in search for the more noble roots of this conflict for quite some time.
I doubt they will ever find them.

Umm

1) I dont remb saying or claiming that was the reason we went to war. I only stated Sadam was a tyrant and was served justice for his crimes.

2) Ethnic Genocide isnt rational justification for war & retribution?!?!? WTF lol

You are making the same mistake the OP did. You are trying to state opinions as facts. It is SOLELY your opinion what constitutes war and what doesnt.

[Excelsior]

(08-09-2011 10:53 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Umm

1) I dont remb saying or claiming that was the reason we went to war. I only stated Sadam was a tyrant and was served justice for his crimes.

And I am saying that this is at best a tangential point. The mitigation of tyranny did not serve as the major catalyst for the initiation of the conflict and should therefore not be used to justify American entrance into it, nor should it justify the loss of lives.

Quote:

2) Ethnic Genocide isnt rational justification for war & retribution?!?!? WTF lol

No, it isn't. The United States has shown this time and time again by ignoring instances of genocide in:

1. Rwanda
2. The Congo
3. Sudan
4. Guatemala
5. Pakistan
6. Burundi
7. Cambodia
8. East Timor
9. Tibet
(All are easily googlable)

Dictators and other unjust regimes propped up historically by the United States include those of:

1. Hosni Mubarak
2. Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov (Turkmenistan)
3. Teodoro Obiang Nguema
4. Leaders of Apartheid South Africa(until the 80's)
5. The Trujillos
6. Manuel Noriega (CIA put him up and kept him there until late 80's)
7. Idriss Deby (Chad)
8. Suharto (Indonesia)

There are many more examples, again easily available via google.

In addition to these, the US is also responsible for:

1. The rise of the Mujahideen (armed them in order to prevent spread of Soviet influence-Bin Laden benefited from much of this aid)
2. Supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war (including the sale of dual-use chemical weapons that would come in handy during Saddam's later Kurdish genocide). America was largely responsible for maintaining his regime's stability during the 8-year conflict which, contrary to popular belief, was actually the first gulf war.

Bottomline: The United States does not follow an ethical foreign policy, and it never really has.

Quote:

You are making the same mistake the OP did. You are trying to state opinions as facts. It is SOLELY your opinion what constitutes war and what doesnt.

Opinion:

Quote:

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

What I have stated above does not qualify as an opinion.

1. We are not discussing "what constitutes war". We all know what a war is.
2. You made this statement earlier:
"Ethnic Genocide isnt rational justification for war & retribution?!?!? WTF lol"

As I said above, the answer is no, at least according to the United States government's record (both past and present). Many ethnic genocides have come and gone with little interference on the part of the United States, and some perpetrators of said genocides have been directly supported and propped up by American support (military and financial). The USA has also directly supported many perpetrators of significant human rights abuses (many are listed above). This can, and has, been proven, and at times acknowledged by Americans involved themselves.

All of this information supports my general claim, which is as follows: The United States does not consider ethnic genocide and tyranny (human rights abuses, violent suppression of political freedom, etc) to be rational justifications for "war and retribution", and it never really has. It has not historically followed an ethical foreign policy.

This is not an opinion as it does not rest on grounds insufficient to establish certainty. We know without a doubt(read: absolute certainty) that the United States has supported (and continues to support) many leaders and regimes around the world that are responsible for genocides and/or severe human rights abuses. Thus, to make a claim that it is rational from an American perspective to go to war (or justify such a conflict) in response to instances of genocide or tyranny is to establish a non sequitur.

I am not making a moral judgement. I have stated so far that the US essentially engages in actions that suit its interests, regardless of their morality. Geo-politics is an inherently amoral field, and this is ok with me. The US is not the first or only state/empire to engage in such a policy, and it will not be the last. That is simply how the world works.

To try and claim otherwise, however, is simply disingenuous and incongruent with reality. That I can take issue with.

[Nacirema]

(08-08-2011 10:34 PM)Hokie30 Wrote:  

Nacirema, you don't back up your point at all. JUst so you don't think i'm only a book-worm let me tell you that I was recruited by both the Marines and Navy in HS and my dad was in the Air Force so I do know a bit more than an average person. I had good grades in college and was active in sports so wasn't ready to give up my college education at that time. After looking at pros/cons of military service decided against it but that's besides the point.

Marines or any military forces for that matter are required to take history classes as we all know however the lessons they learn are biased, very pro US lingo.
For example I doubt Marines would be told about the wrongs that the Bush administration committed in "selling" the Iraq war to the US public since they cannot criticize the President for his actions directly as he is the "commander in chief" afterall.
Also, do they get taught about the fact that early in the war the Taliban that we so hate and consider our enemies were actually trained and equipped by US. During the 80's US military provided stinger missiles and trainers to the Mujahaddeen who were fighting the Soviets...and 12 years later they ended up turning some of the same weapons and training against us. Were it not for CIA operatives in Afghanistan in the 80s and the training that was given to them half the Taliban commanders would know jack sh$t about how to fight an effective guerilla war.
Taking anothe example from recent history I wonder if the Marine's get taught about the Iran-Contra Affair? Perhaps Cool can talk about this since he is currently active duty and would know what they teach in the military nowadays but as I mentioned the trainers tend to emphasize the positive aspects of military history (just like any company would try to sell you on the positive aspects only of job ABC) and not the negative one's. I believe to see the full picture of the current wars one must consider both sides of history! Do not be "gung-ho" about the might of the US military like a grunt would be and do not blindly believe that we are protecting "democracy" and bringing "freedom" to whichever country we occupy. That might be true sometimes (as in WWII) but not now.

I disagree with some of your premises.

1st: Everybody is biased in one way or another. That includes: You, me, the Taliban, starving children in Africa, Costa Rican hookers, Chinese finance nerds, professors, Soldiers busting caps in Falahat, Chinese basketball players, Panamanian chicks who cheat on their rich local boyfriends with me, Soldiers missing legs in Walter Reed, Hawaiian natives who served in the Navy, Williamsburg hipsters, the G Manifesto, Marines and Mexicans in Ciudad Juarez.

Who any of these people are doesn't invalidate any of their views. Yes, it informs their views, but doesn't invalidate.

Other things they say or do may invalidate their views, but not the simple fact of who they are.

We all have our own unique experiences.

2: You are speaking as though service members only have access the information that the military wants them to have. That is simply not the case.

Soldiers are allowed to read, they are allowed to use the internet, to take non-military classes, and they are allowed to converse with whoever the hell they want to, just as you are.

I do agree that US military involvement in SW Asia is counter-productive. My opinion doesn't take away the fact that service men who are doing their jobs there are fighting exceptionally violent people who hate everything that you stand for.

Just in case there is some confusion about "exceptionally violent".

When soldiers are in the middle east, they are given a variety of missions.

Sometimes these missions involve shooting back at people who shoot at them first.

Sometimes they involve protecting schools from bombers.

Sometimes they involve staying up for days on end without showers to help protect Shia religious pilgrims from al qaeda.

Sometimes they involve arresting Shia militia members who kidnapp Sunnis, accuse them of being al qaeda, ask for names and power drill their skulls until the the Sunnis just scream out the first person's name they can think of.

Sometimes they involve waiting quietly for hours on end, in the dark, with 2 other soldiers, in the middle of hostile territory, hoping that the enemy doesn't know where your position is.

There are many different missions that soldiers may be tasked with, and many possible actions that they may involve.

One mission that will never be given, or action that will never be condoned, is indiscriminate killing. Does it happen? Sometimes. And so does murder in the US. But murder is not the norm, and is generally punished, in either case.

When those soldiers come home to the United States, you may see them around your cities, in your institutions of higher learning, in your bars and at your work places. Some of them may have mental and physical scars, a minority may even do crazy shit. But the vast majority of them will continue on to live their lives, continue to contribute more value to the world than the average American and try their best to pursue happiness, just as anyone should.

If you took the average Islamic Extremist they are fighting, and let them have that same level of freedom in the United States, they would do otherwise.

My advice to Cool is still that he stays in and makes the best of it, but Cool is his own man.

[MiXX]

Nacirema you titi squeezing son of a gun!

You've been MIA! I'll be back in Cali next month dawg! I'll stop by and give that hairdresser girl (whom you asked me to translate she left her panties in your room) your regards.


Mixx

[Saladin]

Athlone is gonna be a great lawyer.
Great writing and argument skills.
Maybe you should start a freelance online writing company.
Think about it.

[Dash Global]

(08-09-2011 12:43 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

No, it isn't. The United States has shown this time and time again by ignoring instances of genocide in:

1. Rwanda
2. The Congo
3. Sudan
4. Guatemala
5. Pakistan
6. Burundi
7. Cambodia
8. East Timor
9. Tibet
(All are easily googlable)

I am stating that genocide is grounds for WAR and/or RETRIBUTION. Period. Anyone that tries to argue this is disillusionment and needs psychiatric help.

Dictators and other unjust regimes propped up historically by the United States include those of:

1. Hosni Mubarak
2. Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov (Turkmenistan)
3. Teodoro Obiang Nguema
4. Leaders of Apartheid South Africa(until the 80's)
5. The Trujillos
6. Manuel Noriega (CIA put him up and kept him there until late 80's)
7. Idriss Deby (Chad)
8. Suharto (Indonesia)

There are many more examples, again easily available via google.

In addition to these, the US is also responsible for:

1. The rise of the Mujahideen (armed them in order to prevent spread of Soviet influence-Bin Laden benefited from much of this aid)
2. Supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war (including the sale of dual-use chemical weapons that would come in handy during Saddam's later Kurdish genocide). America was largely responsible for maintaining his regime's stability during the 8-year conflict which, contrary to popular belief, was actually the first gulf war.

Bottomline: The United States does not follow an ethical foreign policy, and it never really has.

Quote:

You are making the same mistake the OP did. You are trying to state opinions as facts. It is SOLELY your opinion what constitutes war and what doesnt.

Opinion:

Quote:

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

What I have stated above does not qualify as an opinion.

1. We are not discussing "what constitutes war". We all know what a war is.
2. You made this statement earlier:
"Ethnic Genocide isnt rational justification for war & retribution?!?!? WTF lol"

As I said above, the answer is no, at least according to the United States government's record (both past and present). Many ethnic genocides have come and gone with little interference on the part of the United States, and some perpetrators of said genocides have been directly supported and propped up by American support (military and financial). The USA has also directly supported many perpetrators of significant human rights abuses (many are listed above). This can, and has, been proven, and at times acknowledged by Americans involved themselves.

All of this information supports my general claim, which is as follows: The United States does not consider ethnic genocide and tyranny (human rights abuses, violent suppression of political freedom, etc) to be rational justifications for "war and retribution", and it never really has. It has not historically followed an ethical foreign policy.

Here again as I stated numerous times in this post, im not referring to the US foreign policy. So this and half of your post is irrelevant to what I said.

This is not an opinion as it does not rest on grounds insufficient to establish certainty. We know without a doubt(read: absolute certainty) that the United States has supported (and continues to support) many leaders and regimes around the world that are responsible for genocides and/or severe human rights abuses. Thus, to make a claim that it is rational from an American perspective to go to war (or justify such a conflict) in response to instances of genocide or tyranny is to establish a non sequitur.

I am not making a moral judgement. I have stated so far that the US essentially engages in actions that suit its interests, regardless of their morality. Geo-politics is an inherently amoral field, and this is ok with me. The US is not the first or only state/empire to engage in such a policy, and it will not be the last. That is simply how the world works.

To try and claim otherwise, however, is simply disingenuous and incongruent with reality. That I can take issue with.

I never brought up what the US policy is. Wasnt referring to any one country. So 90% of your post is irrelevant to my statements....

The facts are still the facts.

1) Ethnic Genocide is grounds for war simply on justice and principle alone. Regardless of country. Unless your gonna try an argue that a person has the right to kill innocent people?!?!? Surely your not that stupid.....

2) Sadam was a tyrant and committed crimes against his people and other countries and was brought to justice.

3) You and the OP tried to pass off your opinions as facts. OP said the troops died for nothing. You tried to claim Sadams actions did not constitute war.

There needs to be an International Committee for the sole purpose of ensuring peace, justice, and freedom for everyone regardless of country, race, or social-economic background.

[Pilate]

My suggestion would be to actually get to the real Army before making any decisions.

[Excelsior]

(08-09-2011 01:36 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

I am stating that genocide is grounds for WAR and/or RETRIBUTION. Period.

And I am stating that the United States government does not agree with you and never has. Thus, when citing your particular views on this matter it would be wise of you not to link them to US government actions (i.e. The Iraq War, "Saddam was a terrible dictator", etc) or try to use them to justify said actions.

They should be kept entirely separate.

Quote:

Anyone that tries to argue this is disillusionment and needs psychiatric help.

1. I think you meant to use the term "delusional".
2. Realism is not a psychosis.

Quote:

Here again as I stated numerous times in this post, im not referring to the US foreign policy. So this and half of your post is irrelevant to what I said.

In this thread, you and others have been discussing the Iraq War, its justification ("Saddam was a brutal dictator") and its effects(i.e. were the military casualties worth it, "died for nothing", etc). We are also discussing the merits of an ethical foreign policy in this context.

Such a discussion is inexorably linked to the topic of US Foreign Policy (which is the dominant influence worldwide), and stems directly from it. It is entirely relevant.

Quote:

I never brought up what the US policy is. Wasnt referring to any one country. So 90% of your post is irrelevant to my statements....

The core of this topic relates to a discussion about the Iraq War and the US military (several of its veterans being participants in this thread) and is therefore inexorably linked to the realm of US Foreign policy. Your musings about the merits of an ethical foreign policy stem directly from a discussion about the Iraq War and the US military, in which the OP serves.

There is no relative discord here, especially when you also consider the fact that the United States is the world's dominant economic, military and political power, with there being no close second at the moment (not even China). Since America largely dictates the course of world geo-politics, any discussion of a global, international ethical foreign policy (which you have suggested with your statements about a "bi-national committee", and the like) would largely be dominated by American foreign policy and its influences.

In other words, when you mention an "international effort" and claim not to specifically be talking about the United States, but "people", you are in fact talking about the United States. This is a unipolar world, and America is at its geo-political center. There is no separating the United States from a topic like this-the world goes as the USA goes.

Quote:

The facts are still the facts.

I'd actually contend that the next point you are about to list is really more likely an example of opinion rather than fact.

Quote:

1) Ethnic Genocide is grounds for war simply on justice and principle alone.

"Justice and principle" do not guide geo-political conduct. All of the evidence points to the contrary.

Quote:

2) Sadam was a tyrant and committed crimes against his people and other countries and was brought to justice.

This is actually a fact, but it is geo-politically irrelevant.

Quote:

3) You and the OP tried to pass off your opinions as facts. OP said the troops died for nothing. You tried to claim Sadams actions did not constitute war.

I did not claim that Saddam's actions did not constitute war. I questioned the use of Saddam Hussein's actions as justification for war. Given the factual backing I have provided, this is not an opinion-the US does not follow an ethical foreign policy, and thus Saddam's actions should not necessarily be considered justification for war in and of themselves.

There is a very big difference between what I actually said and how you have re-written it.

Quote:

There needs to be an International Committee for the sole purpose of ensuring peace, justice, and freedom for everyone regardless of country, race, or social-economic background.

Such a committee would be useless. Moral concerns have no force in the realm of geo-politics, and any committee/organization dedicated to enforcing them will have no real influence. It will be a "feel good force" with little practical effectiveness, much like the current UN.

Even in the event of the rise of such a committee, you could expect American foreign policy (the most dominant global influence worldwide) to be the guiding light and, as we've discussed, American foreign policy (like those of nearly all other sovereign states) is amoral.

One more thing:

Quote:

Your wrong about the Middle East. It can be changed but ALOT and I mean ALOT of resources and time is needed to make that happen.

With the level of corruption and religious & ethnic agendas in the Middle East, makes it a daunting task that requires a highly thought out plan and time to undertake.

1. This is a very arrogant argument to make. You just finished suggesting the creation of a very tolerant international committee, one that promotes "freedom" regardless of where or who you are.

By that same token, people do have a right to live as they please and as their own cultures dictate without your forcing change with your "highly thought out" agenda designed to get them all to look like you. Your plan is inherently intolerant.

2. I see no evidence that other parts of the world can be turned into the West. Even today, many former colonies of European empires remain fundamentally different in a socio-cultural sense from their former overlords, and that is in spite of a very concerted economic and missionary effort to force change (an effort quite similar to the one you are proposing, one that involved highly thought out plans and the confrontation of native agendas).

3. I doubt that the West has the resources and/or strength needed to embark upon such a world-changing effort, and the motivation within the west for the maintenance of such an effort appears to be waning as well.

Your theories do not appear feasible.

[Dash Global]

Quote:

And I am stating that the United States government does not agree with you and never has. Thus, when citing your particular views on this matter it would be wise of you not to link them to US government actions (i.e. The Iraq War, "Saddam was a terrible dictator", etc) or try to use them to justify said actions.

They should be kept entirely separate.

Im not talking about nor refereeing to the US and its foreign policy. Im talking about right and wrong and justice. Has nothing to do with ANY country and its foreign policy.

Quote:

In this thread, you and others have been discussing the Iraq War, its justification ("Saddam was a brutal dictator") and its effects(i.e. were the military casualties worth it, "died for nothing", etc). We are also discussing the merits of an ethical foreign policy in this context.

Such a discussion is inexorably linked to the topic of US Foreign Policy (which is the dominant influence worldwide), and stems directly from it. It is entirely relevant.

It depends on the context & premise of someones statements. In my case, they had nothing to do with the US policy. I cant speak for the other posters though. You are making the jump and trying to link my statements with the US, and also saying I cant make claims separately from US policy. That is simply false, and is just some strange opinion of yours.

Quote:

The core of this topic relates to a discussion about the Iraq War and the US military (several of its veterans being participants in this thread) and is therefore inexorably linked to the realm of US Foreign policy. Your musings about the merits of an ethical foreign policy stem directly from a discussion about the Iraq War and the US military, in which the OP serves.

There is no relative discord here, especially when you also consider the fact that the United States is the world's dominant economic, military and political power, with there being no close second at the moment (not even China). Since America largely dictates the course of world geo-politics, any discussion of a global, international ethical foreign policy (which you have suggested with your statements about a "bi-national committee", and the like) would largely be dominated by American foreign policy and its influences.

In other words, when you mention an "international effort" and claim not to specifically be talking about the United States, but "people", you are in fact talking about the United States. This is a unipolar world, and America is at its geo-political center. There is no separating the United States from a topic like this-the world goes as the USA goes.

The core of this topic may very well be about the Iraq War, but that has no bearings on my statements alone. Im speaking hypothetically in a black and white sense of right and wrong, along with punishment & justice.

Quote:

"Justice and principle" do not guide geo-political conduct. All of the evidence points to the contrary.

So there is one be all end all geo-political conduct / guide? Even if that were true, which it aint, doesnt change the merit of my premise. Ethnic genocide is wrong. No one has the right to kill innocent people. So by principle ALONE this is grounds for retribution which can be dealt with in a number ways not solely war.

Quote:

This is actually a fact, but it is geo-politically irrelevant.

Once again, im not making all these assumptions as you are and jumping to sweeping generalizations. It wouldnt be geo-political irrelevant in a right and wrong sense. Not sure why you are trying to install some end all be all geo-political policy.

Quote:

I did not claim that Saddam's actions did not constitute war. I questioned the use of Saddam Hussein's actions as justification for war. Given the factual backing I have provided, this is not an opinion-the US does not follow an ethical foreign policy, and thus Saddam's actions should not necessarily be considered justification for war in and of themselves.

There is a very big difference between what I actually said and how you have re-written it.

You said and I quote "Not rational justification for any major conflict". This was in reference to my post about Sadam and ethnic genocide. Like I have said previously, my comment had nothing to do with WHY the US went to war. Simply that those actions merited war. Nothing more nothing less. I didnt re-write nothing sir.

Quote:

Such a committee would be useless. Moral concerns have no force in the realm of geo-politics, and any committee/organization dedicated to enforcing them will have no real influence. It will be a "feel good force" with little practical effectiveness, much like the current UN.

Even in the event of the rise of such a committee, you could expect American foreign policy (the most dominant global influence worldwide) to be the guiding light and, as we've discussed, American foreign policy (like those of nearly all other sovereign states) is amoral.

Here again this is your opinion. A stupid one at that. So let me get this straight. The committee learns about ethnic genocide being done in Africa. Deploys troops and removes dictator from said country stopping the ethnic cleansing. That is USELESS??!?!? I dont think soo.

Also you are making the assumption and jump that American policy WOULD guide / lead such a committee.

Im gonna assume you are CONFUSED on what type of committee im talking about. My committee has nothing to do with anyones foreign policy. It is all about right and wrong. Ensuring peoples freedom, and right to life. Everyone in this world should be entitled to freedom and life. Nothing to do with any geo-political agenda or foreign policy.

Quote:

1. This is a very arrogant argument to make. You just finished suggesting the creation of a very tolerant international committee, one that promotes "freedom" regardless of where or who you are.

By that same token, people do have a right to live as they please and as their own cultures dictate without your forcing change with your "highly thought out" agenda designed to get them all to look like you. Your plan is inherently intolerant.

2. I see no evidence that other parts of the world can be turned into the West. Even today, many former colonies of European empires remain fundamentally different in a socio-cultural sense from their former overlords, and that is in spite of a very concerted economic and missionary effort to force change (an effort quite similar to the one you are proposing, one that involved highly thought out plans and the confrontation of native agendas).

3. I doubt that the West has the resources and/or strength needed to embark upon such a world-changing effort, and the motivation within the west for the maintenance of such an effort appears to be waning as well.

Your theories do not appear feasible.

Here again I feel you are misinterpreting my statements. How does my theory not include freedom?

The plan / agenda im talking about is SOLELY for maintaining peace and order. Not controlling the people in any political or social context.

They could go back to a dictatorship, if they want. Only thing is the dictator would have to operate in a morally correct manner. IE no innocent killing of its people, no un-just oppression. Pretty much he needs to operate in the capacity that he was meant to operate per the people of said country.

My theory is more than feasible, and is the only solution at the moment to restoring peace and order in the Middle East.

Enjoying this debate. Stimulates my mind. Which is good being out of school and all for 2 years haha.

[Excelsior]

(08-09-2011 05:40 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

It depends on the context & premise of someones statements. In my case, they had nothing to do with the US policy. I cant speak for the other posters though. You are making the jump and trying to link my statements with the US, and also saying I cant make claims separately from US policy. That is simply false, and is just some strange opinion of yours.

I'm not going to keep playing semantics with you. Believe what you will.

Quote:

So there is one be all end all geo-political conduct / guide?

Point me to where I made this claim.

Quote:

It wouldnt be geo-political irrelevant in a right and wrong sense. Not sure why you are trying to install some end all be all geo-political policy.

I'm not installing anything, I am stating a matter of fact. Morality is not a geo-political guide. That is proven by history-states do what helps them gain an advantage, not necessarily what benefits others or what is moral and right. Incentives drive behavior.

Any casual scholar of history can make this determination.

Quote:

You said and I quote "Not rational justification for any major conflict".This was in reference to my post about Sadam and ethnic genocide.

More semantics I'm not playing.

Quote:

So let me get this straight. The committee learns about ethnic genocide being done in Africa. Deploys troops and removes dictator from said country stopping the ethnic cleansing. That is USELESS??!?!? I dont think soo.

The committee is useless because it would be unable to do any of that, not because it could.

Quote:

Also you are making the assumption and jump that American policy WOULD guide / lead such a committee.
Im gonna assume you are CONFUSED on what type of committee im talking about. My committee has nothing to do with anyones foreign policy. It is all about right and wrong. Ensuring peoples freedom, and right to life. Everyone in this world should be entitled to freedom and life. Nothing to do with any geo-political agenda or foreign policy.

In reality, you would be unable to separate amoral American geo-political concerns (and those of other nations) from the actions of your committee, which will have to deal with serious issues of sovereignty and military action. Your committee would also have no teeth (read: actual force necessary to get others to respect its wishes and authority). Such teeth would need to be granted by other sovereign nations, who will not grant it because your moral "committee" may very well get in the way of their interests (and there is nothing stopping them from ignoring you, much like they do the modern UN, which is a real-life model for your "committee").

America is the worlds lone superpower. We live in a unipolar world where what America says, goes. Your committee would not be able to get anything of significance done without American say-so, much less conduct these major invasions and violations of sovereignty around the world that you are planning. If they do not like what you are planning to do, they will simply eliminate you. US Navy, CIA, or proxy US-funded/trained ally, it won't matter-you'll be stopped.

Do you really think that the USA is going to let you throw your armed troops around wherever you like? For that matter, do you think Russia, China, Turkey or the UK(to use a few examples) will allow you to do whatever you want in their own backyards or in nations that are strategically important to them, with leaders/regimes that they may very well support for various reasons?

What on earth is stopping them from ignoring you and your special "committee" in favor of their own interests?

What you're talking about is some sort of real-life "Justice League", and that's just not realistic. It is a cartoon.

Quote:

Here again I feel you are misinterpreting my statements. How does my theory not include freedom?

You're trying to change people who have shown very little evidence that they really want to change and become just like you.
Hence, lack of freedom. You're just a paternalist who thinks he knows what is best for others who he insists cannot decide for themselves.

In other words, a fairly typical westerner.

Quote:

The plan / agenda im talking about is SOLELY for maintaining peace and order. Not controlling the people in any political or social context.

You said:

Quote:

It can be changed but ALOT and I mean ALOT of resources and time is needed to make that happen.

With the level of corruption and religious & ethnic agendas in the Middle East, makes it a daunting task that requires a highly thought out plan and time to undertake.

You want to force change. Who gives you the right to do that? What makes your ideas and "highly thought out" plans better than the ones they already have in place and have accepted?

What makes you think you know better than them?

Most importantly, what exactly would stop them from ignoring you and doing whatever they want? How are you going to make them respect your limits and wishes for their conduct?

Quote:

They could go back to a dictatorship, if they want. Only thing is the dictator would have to operate in a morally correct manner.

A manner which you will determine.

Right.

Quote:

IE no innocent killing of its people, no un-just oppression. Pretty much he needs to operate in the capacity that he was meant to operate per the people of said country.

I don't think they need your paternalism.

Quote:

My theory is more than feasible, and is the only solution at the moment to restoring peace and order in the Middle East.

Your theory is unworkable(not enough political will, cash or military strength to get it done) and exceedingly paternalistic.

[Dash Global]

Quote:

I'm not going to keep playing semantics with you. Believe what you will.

Trust me I will.

US policy has no barring on my statements of right & wrong. Killing innocent people in any country is wrong and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Quote:

Point me to where I made this claim.

Lets see I make a statement, then you tell me it is not right in what ever geo-political policy you are trying to refer to. You said and I quote "justice and principle do not guide geo-political conduct". Apparently there is some geo-political policy in which you feel actions must be bound to.....

Quote:

I'm not installing anything, I am stating a matter of fact. Morality is not a geo-political guide. That is proven by history-states do what helps them gain an advantage, not necessarily what benefits others or what is moral and right. Incentives drive behavior.

Any casual scholar of history can make this determination.

Says who? Who is it that determines what freedoms and liberties people are entitled too? Im not talking about "states" doing anything. Im talking about a bi-partisan International Committee with no political, religious, or social agendas. Simple as that. Everyone is entitled to freedom, liberty, and life. Bottom line.

Quote:

The committee is useless because it would be unable to do any of that, not because it could.

Enlighten me. Why would a committee be UNABLE to intervene in ethnic genocide taking place in Africa?

Quote:

In reality, you would be unable to separate amoral American geo-political concerns (and those of other nations) from the actions of your committee, which will have to deal with serious issues of sovereignty and military action. Your committee would also have no teeth (read: actual force necessary to get others to respect its wishes and authority). Such teeth would need to be granted by other sovereign nations, who will not grant it because your moral "committee" may very well get in the way of their interests (and there is nothing stopping them from ignoring you, much like they do the modern UN, which is a real-life model for your "committee").

Im sorry but that is incorrect. You can separate agendas from your actions. But since you are making the claim please tell me why you think this is. Is their some chip in everyone's mind that controls their thoughts and actions leaving you unable to make a non biased rational moral decision?!?!?

So a committee of the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, Canada, Israel, Jordan, Australia ect. wouldnt have the "teeth" to enforce freedom, liberty, and life? Im gonna have to call BS on that one.

As I already stated the UN is a joke and is an agenda based committee that deals with other issues out side of what im talking about. Not comparable. As my committee responds to all issues regarding freedom, liberty, and life. Not picking and choosing which issues to address based on its own personal agendas.

The USA would obviously be in said committee....

Quote:

You're trying to change people who have shown very little evidence that they really want to change and become just like you.
Hence, lack of freedom. You're just a paternalist who thinks he knows what is best for others who he insists cannot decide for themselves.

In other words, a fairly typical westerner.

What people in the world dont want freedom and the option of life and prosperity?

Lol has nothing to do with them being like me ie my personal religious or political views.

Quote:

You want to force change. Who gives you the right to do that? What makes your ideas and "highly thought out" plans better than the ones they already have in place and have accepted?

What makes you think you know better than them?

Most importantly, what exactly would stop them from ignoring you and doing whatever they want? How are you going to make them respect your limits and wishes for their conduct?

Nope. I want to ensure freedom and prosperity for all. If they are not afforded basic essential life liberties than yes I want to change / grant them that. The plan I was referring to had nothing to with changing the culture. Plan was solely in regards to restoring peace, freedom, and prosperity. Take Iraq for example. People didnt accept being ethnically cleansed. People didnt accept rape and theft from Sadams police and military. Its called OPPRESSION.

Quote:

A manner which you will determine.

Right.

The only thing I would determine is the peoples right to freedom and life. Which that itself is nothing I or anyone has determined. Everyone should be afforded that. We would only be making that a reality, as sadly in todays world not everyone has those basics rights and freedom.

Quote:

I don't think they need your paternalism.

The people in Iraq didnt "need" help to remove a brutal dictator? lol Sure

Quote:

Your theory is unworkable(not enough political will, cash or military strength to get it done) and exceedingly paternalistic.

Finally something we agree on, well partially lol. Sadly there isnt enough political will to get it done. There is certainly enough cash and military strength esp in numbers. But im not holding my breathe in such a committee being made. Which is a fucking shame.

[Dash Global]

@Athlone McGinnis

Its apparent we just have different views on life.

I believe that everyone should be afforded freedom, liberty, and prosperity. Bottom line.

Regardless of country, religious, and social-economic backgrounds.

I believe acts of crime and oppression should be punished. Period. Regardless of what country your head of.

In a sense justice for people that lack the means and resources.

We are fortunate here in the Western World. We dont have to worry about being killed because of our religion. We dont have to worry about our government coming to our house and rapping our mothers and daughters and beating our fathers.

[Excelsior]

(08-09-2011 07:22 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Says who? Who is it that determines what freedoms and liberties people are entitled too? Im not talking about "states" doing anything. Im talking about a bi-partisan International Committee with no political, religious, or social agendas.

Oh, so states are not going to be doing anything...

Quote:

So a committee of the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, Canada, Israel, Jordan, Australia ect. wouldnt have the "teeth" to enforce freedom, liberty, and life? Im gonna have to call BS on that one.

...but they also are going to be doing something. Right.

Your bi-partisan committee has about a nine listed parts(nations). That seems off somehow, but I'm sure the committee can deal with it.

You will get China, Russia and the US on the same committee, with the same interests in spite of their individual(and overlapping) desires to remain/become the world's dominant power.

Israel will forget about its tenuous position as a Jewish state in the Middle East and unite with nations like Jordan, which once tried to wipe them off the face of the Earth and to this day discriminates against Jews who show their faith in the country.

Russia will forget about the missile shield the US is trying to point at it along the Eastern European frontier.

Poland will let go of its historic distrust of Russia and Germany, nations that 70 years ago attempted genocide on its people and, in the case of Russia, very recently oppressed them and still threaten them today.

The USA will forget about the fact that it is by far the most dominant military power on Earth and cannot be forced to do much of anything, and agree to be a part of a committee with nations that it really does not need to listen to.

The US and Britain will ignore impending economic crises in their nations and devote hundreds of billions of dollars to the cause of "liberating" third worlders that none of their citizens really care about.

They'll all let go of their own self-interests and agendas (economic, political, etc) for "freedom, liberty and life" of those in depressed 3rd world nations they really don't care about.

You have no way to force them to do any of this, but that won't matter-they just will. They'll agree and get things done!

Quote:

The USA would obviously be in said committee....

And they've never been ethical before when it comes to foreign policy...but they will be now!

Superheroes united!

(08-09-2011 07:33 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

@Athlone McGinnis

Its apparent we just have different views on life.

That is correct.

I operate on the basis of reason and logic, useful here in the real world.

You live in a comic book.

That's a big gap to try and cross.

Good talk anyway.

[Nacirema]

Mixx, that was some funny shit. Good thing my Spanish got better when I was down there, now I can just tell them myself.

[Nacirema]

This debate between Athlone and Dash, is known in the field of international relations as a "realist vs. idealist" argument:

"Realism (or political realism) is a school of thought that explains international relations
in terms of power. The exercise of power by states toward
each other is sometimes called realpolitik, or just power politics. Realism has a long history,
and it dominated the study of IR in the United States during the Cold War.

Realism as we know it developed in reaction to a liberal tradition that realists called
idealism (of course, idealists themselves do not consider their approach unrealistic).
Idealism emphasizes international law, morality, and international organization, rather
than power alone, as key influences on international events. Idealists think that human nature
is basically good."

http://www.ablongman.com/samplechapter/0321088751.pdf

Both of you bring up some interesting points.

[Dash Global]

@ Athlone McGinnis

I never said that it was the most feasible thing to undertake.

Simply that it was in my opinion the best / only way you can insure freedom, liberty, and prosperity for all.

You seem to think countries are INCAPABLE of operating and making decisions without bias and agenda.

Its wishful thinking on my part, but hey I refuse to believe nothing can be done about all the atrocities in the world.

Cheers mate. Enjoyed the debate!

[Hokie30]

(08-09-2011 07:49 AM)Kona Wrote:  

(08-06-2011 04:31 PM)cool Wrote:  

I avoid posting this on other forums because of replies from white knights and women like "man up and finish your commitment"

I wish you hadn't gotten it here.

Maybe somebody else wrote this and I missed it, but Mahalo for your service.

Every Veteran on this thread felt the same way you are feeling now at some point in their careers, whether they say it or not. My first job under what you call "permanent party" status took me through the Northern Sea Route. I'm Hawaiian. Off the ship I was surrounded by ice, and on it by rednecks bitching about Jeff Gordon. I had drawn a line on my leg and sterilized a sawzall blade, and was reading about the disability benefits I was getting ready to enjoy.

Had I sliced myself, I guarantee I wouldn't be living the life I love living today.

My career started pre-9/11, and once it hit I was moving. Afterwards, I never had time to second guess why I was there. I made hundreds of life long friends, saved every other paycheck, learned millions of wacky skills, and developed a confidence only extreme stress can give a man.

I also saw some horrible things. Holding a nineteen year old man's hand while he screams death is something lots of people can't and shouldn't handle. I didn't sleep for 3 weeks straight after we rolled up on LA right after Katrina. I took three bullets in three of the nastiest places on the planet. A lot of men weren't as lucky as me.

I bitched for a while after I left and was a little mad at the Navy, but that's separation anxiety, and readjustment to civilian life. I'm over it. I'm proud of everything I did, and every decision I made.

Regardless of my personal situation, or the politics behind the wars I fought in, the work I did, and the example I set saved men's lives. Nobody can take that from me. I would think at your age, Cool, should you wind up deployed you'd be a big help to a lot of the younger guys.

I wish myself, or somebody else could give you the answers but you have to decide for yourself what you want to do. You aren't in jail, and like the other brother posted, there are ways to get out, although difficult.

Here's the only advice I think I can give you:

If you're gonna stay, don't half ass it. Take advantage of every opportunity available to you. Hit all the AFRC resorts (If you can't get laid at Hale Koa Barefoot Bar somethings wrong with you), see as much of the world as you can, and learn as many things as possible. Later on, when you hear other soldiers talking like you are now, don't give them shit about it. Help them get through what you're going through now.

If you're gonna leave, don't half-ass it. Bring your disdain for military life and the politics behind what you do to your command's attention immediately. Keep fighting until your out. Make clearing out of the Army the most important thing you do in your career. It's gonna be tough. Eventually you'll find the officer that understands an attitude like yours gets men killed. When you hear other soldiers talking like you are now, and you believe their feelings are as strong as yours, help them out.

Good Luck!

(08-06-2011 04:31 PM)Hokie30 Wrote:  

Marines or any military forces for that matter are required to take history classes as we all know however the lessons they learn are biased, very pro US lingo.
For example I doubt Marines would be told about the wrongs that the Bush administration committed in "selling" the Iraq war to the US public since they cannot criticize the President for his actions directly as he is the "commander in chief" afterall.

A lot of Marines were busy fighting and dying in the wars you read about. They didn't have time for history lessons.

Your father needs a big Mahalo for his service. He also needs his ass beat for not teaching his son a damn thing about respect.

You don't know a bit more than the average person. I hate to break this to you, various branches of the Military tried to recruit every single male that went to high school in the USA at one time or another. There's nothing special about you.

Hokie30, thanks for telling us that Monroe wrote the Monroe Doctrine, and that you watched Charlie Wilson's War on TBS (TBS used to be called The Superstation, since you're a history buff) but please stop flapping your dicksuckers, telling people to read books about history that those very people took part in.

There's another thread where a guy told me to read some history and reminded me that Iraq was only supposed to take 6 to 8 weeks. Did he really want to tell me I wasted a year of my life? Could he, or you, stand outdoors for 10 minutes in Fallujah, let alone handle a firefight there?

Keep your jealousy to yourself, read your romance novels, and let the men talk.

Aloha!

Kona, I think you should stick to surfing and avoid this military talk. History is fact and it repeats itself, that's my only point. Also, just because my father served in the military does not mean he respects it. Haven't you heard of the draft? Anyways, I am done arguing with guys like you as obviously you won't change my mind and I won't change yours.

Aloha!