Something for you Younger Posters to Ponder

[John Dibble]

As far as enlisting goes, I'm considering joining the reserves or National Gaurd after I get out of college, but I'm not exactly sure I'm cut out for it, we'll see when the time comes. I'd definitely sign up if there was sufficient crisis(9/11 was a crisis, but we had the troops to retaliate, so I don't think then it would be needed), on the scale of a World War perhaps.

I'd also like to comment on the recruitment into the army - the slogan "An Army of One" really is a horrible slogan. I'm sure it does attract the really individualistic, adventurous types, but for some who might join it may not appeal - you aren't working as a team(which is the reality), but as an individual, the burden is on you and you alone. Even the Navy Seals and other special ops work in groups, relying on eachother for information and protection, and they would not be able to complete their objectives alone.

I always thought that the slogan was double edged.  Like "All for one and one for all".  "An Army of One" means that you are an individual, but at the same time, every individual in the Amry acts as one unit.  See what I mean?

I see what you mean, but still "An Army of One" seems to imply you'll be a one man army. One man armies are only viable in the movies. "All for one and one for all" indicates you get protection from the group, but you have to help protect the group - it implies working with your fellow enlisted men. I like the slogan "Be all you can be", because it doesn't imply that you're a one man army, but it does imply that you can improve yourself.

[Citizen James]

I have the highest respect for those who choose to wear the uniform, and the sacrifices they make.   They work with the implied promise that they will not be thrown into harms way without a credible and immenent threat to our nation or it's vital interests.   I cringe when I believe that that trust has been violated, as I believe it has been in Iraq.

I don't think I'd be able to do it - not just to go into harms way, but to take lives.   Yet in the imperfect world we live in, sometimes it is nessisary.   War is never good - it is at best a nessisary evil - and our troops are asked to do things which would make just about anyone cringe for the purpose of a greater good.   Yet at times it must be done, just as a doctor must sometimes destroy healthy tissue to remove a cancer.

Some are able to work through the seeming contrasts between the ideals of faith/society and the pragmatism of committing acts of violence to prevent worse ends.  Others carry their demons (minor or overwheliming or inbetween) for a long time - possibly until the end of their lives.  Contrary to movies and video games, it is no small thing to kill a man.   But sometimes there is little other choice.

There are other ways that I try to help out the world around me.  Small ways, but even small things add up eventually.   I donate blood regularly, I keep my first aid training current, I try to keep debate on the boards I frequent polite and courtious.

As to the war on terror - I think it is a mistake to try and think of it in WW2 standards.  Terrorsists do not field standing armies, they do not wear easily distinuishable uniforms to make themselves identifiable, and by and large they are not controled by any particualar nation.   Their asymetrical tactics use our overwhelming firepower against us.   When we use a chainsaw rather than a scalpel we alienate many of the moderates who might otherwise support us, and push those who simply dislike us into more violent grounds.  I'm not foolish enough to believe that civilian casualties are not inevitable, but the fewer there are, the less harm befalls our reputation.

In short, if we are looking to eliminate terrorists (as opposed to creating a war of peoples as is likely OBLs greatest desire), we need to understand how different this war is from past wars, and adjust our strategies accordingly.

[12th Doctor]

As far as enlisting goes, I'm considering joining the reserves or National Gaurd after I get out of college, but I'm not exactly sure I'm cut out for it, we'll see when the time comes. I'd definitely sign up if there was sufficient crisis(9/11 was a crisis, but we had the troops to retaliate, so I don't think then it would be needed), on the scale of a World War perhaps.

I'd also like to comment on the recruitment into the army - the slogan "An Army of One" really is a horrible slogan. I'm sure it does attract the really individualistic, adventurous types, but for some who might join it may not appeal - you aren't working as a team(which is the reality), but as an individual, the burden is on you and you alone. Even the Navy Seals and other special ops work in groups, relying on eachother for information and protection, and they would not be able to complete their objectives alone.

I always thought that the slogan was double edged.  Like "All for one and one for all".  "An Army of One" means that you are an individual, but at the same time, every individual in the Amry acts as one unit.  See what I mean?

I see what you mean, but still "An Army of One" seems to imply you'll be a one man army. One man armies are only viable in the movies. "All for one and one for all" indicates you get protection from the group, but you have to help protect the group - it implies working with your fellow enlisted men. I like the slogan "Be all you can be", because it doesn't imply that you're a one man army, but it does imply that you can improve yourself.

Not to belittle your argument because I do see your point, but I never thought I would hear a libertarian arguee against individuality.  

[The Duke]

I might serve someday, I dunno, prolly not.  If there was a WWIII, then yes.  

WW3 is currently going on.

StatesRights,

Only if you're a Republican. If you're a Democrat, we are currently engaged in the world's largest manhunt for an international criminal.

A World War involves most of the world. The US and a few allies invading Iraq and then occupying it for a year is not a World War. The operation in Afghanistan might have been considered one, if we had actually stayed there and finished the job we started. When we went in there, we had the support of many countries, when we went into Iraq, we didn't. And since we pretty much left Afghanistan after a year to go and invade another country, well, it shows we didn't take Afghanistan as seriously as we took Japan or Germany.  

In World War 2, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the public was not against the war, while right now, at least half of the public says we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Public support is not there.

Osama Bin Laden and Al-quida crashed those planes into the WTC, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Catching them should be our primary goal. It should not be iniating a bloodbath in Iraq.

Akno,

When we talk about WWIII, we don't just mean Iraq.  We mean the whole War on Terror.  Those of us who dexcribe the situation this way see the battlefield as including terror sponsoring states and terror appeasing states from Mt. Atlas in the west to the Hindu River in the east.  Throw Indonesia in, too.  The battlefield covers all of these states as well as defensive efforts in Europe and America.  We have seen terror attack on four continents (N. America, Europe, Africa, and Asia) that can be attributed to Islamists.  I'd say this war covers far more territory than WWI.

In WWII the majority was indeed behind the war.  Frankly, that says more about an inferior public in this war than an inferior cause.  That said, WWI was terribly unpopular in the US, nevertheless we went in and called it a World War.

Cathcing Osama does not fix anything.  He is a symptom.  Killing him will only create a chance for another to rise in his place.  Changing the fundamentals over there should be the goal.

[cwelsch]

It's low because we're rich.  Plenty of other options besides fighting and dying nowadays.

[John Dibble]

As far as enlisting goes, I'm considering joining the reserves or National Gaurd after I get out of college, but I'm not exactly sure I'm cut out for it, we'll see when the time comes. I'd definitely sign up if there was sufficient crisis(9/11 was a crisis, but we had the troops to retaliate, so I don't think then it would be needed), on the scale of a World War perhaps.

I'd also like to comment on the recruitment into the army - the slogan "An Army of One" really is a horrible slogan. I'm sure it does attract the really individualistic, adventurous types, but for some who might join it may not appeal - you aren't working as a team(which is the reality), but as an individual, the burden is on you and you alone. Even the Navy Seals and other special ops work in groups, relying on eachother for information and protection, and they would not be able to complete their objectives alone.

I always thought that the slogan was double edged.  Like "All for one and one for all".  "An Army of One" means that you are an individual, but at the same time, every individual in the Amry acts as one unit.  See what I mean?

I see what you mean, but still "An Army of One" seems to imply you'll be a one man army. One man armies are only viable in the movies. "All for one and one for all" indicates you get protection from the group, but you have to help protect the group - it implies working with your fellow enlisted men. I like the slogan "Be all you can be", because it doesn't imply that you're a one man army, but it does imply that you can improve yourself.

Not to belittle your argument because I do see your point, but I never thought I would hear a libertarian arguee against individuality.  

Not arguing against individuality. The soldiers are who they are and they have the right to continue being themselves, but certain situations require teamwork for the best outcome, and military operations definitely fit the bill. I'd rather our army be composed of people who want to improve themselves and are willing to work together rather than tough uber-individualists who can't get the job done because they refuse to work together.