Rafael Caetano wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp>:
> > Rafael Caetano wrote:
> > > Well, then they're really stupid, sorry.
> >
> > Insult the people who serve if you like, I will not.
> > I will insult their leaders.
>
> The leaders wreak havoc only so far as "the people who serve" follow
> their orders.

Do not expect a mutiny or coup soon.

> If you think these people are morally exempt because
> they're following orders, well...

No.

> > > [reservists]
> > > If they enlisted voluntarily in the Army, even if it was
> > > 20 years ago, then they asked for it, no?
> >
> > No, they did not ask to go to Iraq, leaving behind jobs
> > and families for a year or more, and they certainly did
> > not ask to be disabled or die.
>
> You have a strange view on what means to join the Army...

Ask a recruiter what they have to offer. I know. They wanted me to be all
I could be, aim high, be one of the few, the proud, or enjoy "job
opportunities, skill training, money for college and travel in today's
high-tech Navy". War in the Mideast or against the former Soviet Union on
the nuclear battlefield during my time, was never, ever mentioned.

> but I give up on this.
>
> > I don't believe the average 18 year old is thinking about
> > what can happen 20 years in the future or consequences of
> > their actions. It's why young people do stupid things.
>
> Agreed. They usually don't think about the consequences. But they
> should.
>
> > [Note: joining the military is not stupid.]
>
> I respect your opinion (in Mencken's sense).
>
> > We don't have compulsory service, and currently no draft.
> >
> > I am waiting to see what will happen if recruitment
> > numbers fall as low as some people think they might,
> > and the US is unable to maintain their presence
> > in the Middle East with an all "volunteer" forces
>
> Then I hope they would finally get their asses out of Middle East. But
> I suspect that you disagree, so let's pass that... so, supposing that
> US stays, and they can't get help from other countries. In that case,
> do you support the draft?

What other way is there, if the military does not give up and they don't
have the numbers, when allies and the UN are unwilling? Praying for peace
like Japanese?

> > And if you are not one of those who support eliminating
> > the draft or compulsory service,
>
> Oh, but I do. I thought I had made it clear, sorry.
>
> > then you are one of those who approve of the system, even
> > if it means you being torn from your family, being shipped
> > overseas, and dying, no?
>
> No, I don't approve of that, Eric. That's why I said "I feel sorry
> only if they are draftees".
>
> (...)
> > No, it shows morale is very poor. You do not want
> > 100,000 people with poor morale and guns. You could get
> > a Vietnam.
>
> So what? That's what is bound to happen when a country invades every
> "rogue" country in the world.

It's not the soldiers' fault their government and voters are stupid.

> > You could also get some inhumane behavior.
>
> ??

Some is already happening.

> [snip]
> > > You can't claim you just want a job, and you don't know
> > > or care for the consequences.
> >
> > For many, such as some members of minorities, military
> > service is the BEST opportunity for training and jobs.
>
> Sure, but you could say the same of some mafia jobs.

The US military is not the mafia.

> Now, I suppose we agree that mafia jobs are immoral.

Not all of them. Nowadays, mafia members are business people. Japanese
mafia are heavily into legitimate businesses, though such as stock
ownership and loans.

> The problem is, I also think that the Army is often immoral.

Oh. Well yes.

> The Iraqi war is unjust, for instance.
> Apparently we disagree on this premise,

It is clear we do not disagree about Iraq.

If the US military is not going to be a real global police force, doing
such as freeing North Korea to save tens of millions of oppressed people
and millions of starving peasants, they should stay at home where they
are safer and appreciated. If such as Europeans, Japanese or Iraqis want
to bitch about the presence or actions of the US military, they can take
care of their own damned selves and never again ask for aid of any kind.
How quickly they forget.

> so it's useless to discuss it further.
>
> (...)
> > And if they are deployed to some war zone, I would expect
> > them to do their duty and fulfill
> > their responsibilities.
> >
> > And I would still feel sorry for them.
>
> I see what you mean.

Good. Because that is what I mean.

Bryce seems to think I want the US military to be a welfare system for
people who can't do any better. It is not, and should not be. And if US
service personnel could be as well informed and qualified as cc claims
European service personnel are, that would be a most welcome change.

But they are not mentally retarded or stupid.

> So let me give another example to make my position clear. Suppose
> someone decides to become a fireman. He should be aware that he may
> have to put his own life in danger many times in the future. Obviously
> he can't claim afterwards, "Oh, but I didn't know it would be
> dangerous".

No, but in light of such as the WTC attacks and aftermath, they can make
the valid claim that they did not know it would be THAT dangerous, just
like ignorant young service personnel who never grew up with war the way
my ancestors lived with war.

> Even so, I would feel sorry if he died while working. Why?
> Because his job is to save lives.

Note firefighters can quit if they regret their decision, and I do not
believe firefighters would be treated like criminals for going AWOL.

> Now, do you really think that a soldier is like a fireman?

In the sense that they represent a kind of insurance like I said, yes.

> Do you believe that the wars (or conflicts, call it what you like) that
> US
> has fought were all in the defense of the American citizens?

No. Why do you think I would believe so?