Under what conditions would you fight for the USA?

"On the Rainy River" by Tim O'Brien (compiled in the book The Things They Carried) gives some interesting insights into the situation. I hope never to be faced with it.

To be honest, I probably wouldn't straight up flee to Canada. I would probably be at my country courthouse tracking down conscientious objector documents before you could say "Conscientious Objector"... which would probably be a long time, considering thats a hard one to spit out.

What if you were drafted and those conditions were not met? Would you be willing to do something like Civilian Public Service [Wikipedia entry] or be a corpsman as a conscientious objector?

That could be a possibility - but again, it would still come down to whether I believe the nation is proceeding in an ethical manner. As an example - if there were a draft today for Iraq, I would not. For Afghanistan, I would. I believe we were right in going to Afghanistan, but wrong in diverting our attention from Osama to Saddam.

So, you would have done nothing to stop Hitler until he invaded the US?

Okay, I will change my first condition to:

First, the war must be on United States soil or there must be a significant threat that the war will eventually come to United States soil.

Sorry, Pharaoh, If (or WHEN) a draft is implemented, they really aren't going to give a rat's ass if you have conditions to be met before you decide to go in or run away. And as far as declaring yourself a C.Objector, you can still serve stateside or in a non-combative capacity. When I was part of the draft lottery in the early 70's, they had this all worked out already. Run and renounce your citizenship, be branded a coward, or do your time. By the time I was drafted, I had already joined the Air Force- to me, the lesser evil.
Israel and other countries have had compulsory military service, long before we accepted women into service as infantry or as other than infirmary/nurses/operators.

Attacks on US soil? We're all in this, fighting side by side against hostile invaders, and its not a "do you wanna come with us?" party.

If our idiot government gets us into an intractable war at home, I'll be standing by your side; still a pacifist, but much wiser and with a vested interest in protecting our homeland- my adopted country.

I feel more strongly about it than I did when I was 'draft' age; nothing personal.

But that is the only remaining justification the administration uses for Iraq, "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here". By that definition there is a "significant threat that the war will eventually come to United States soil" already... Ok, Maybe only if you are Dick Cheney...

Pharaoh, I am curious, to take Vas's point further, would you fight Hitler if he never threatened US but engaged in the holocaust? Would you fight in the Congo?

So, you would have done nothing to stop Hitler until he invaded the US?

If you asked me? No. Sorry if I don't seem patriotic, but I will never volunteer for any war regardless of its location for any reason. I am not a warrior, I don't think that just because you were born in a specific place, you should be asked to fight for it if its ever invaded. When I would look into the eyes of Hitler's soldiers I wouldn't see Hitler and his regime--I'd see a number of men who were brainwashed into extreme racism, and carrying out actions that they thought were right. To me, I couldn't morally justify killing them for these reasons--they're just horribly misunderstanding social concepts.

I'd rather like to live my life for my own reasons than to get involved with national wars. I don't mind being called unpatriotic for in an extreme sense I'm not--I love America, it's my first nation, it's my only one so far--but I wouldn't mind living somewhere else. I'm just not a killer.

Don't call it being patriotic then. Call it being fair. I'm not advocating violence. But I question those who live lives of peace on the backs of others who protect that peace with violence. If you were a true pacifist, to the extent that you wouldn't even defend your own life or freedom, then you're fine. In fact, you might be morally above everyone else. But you are not an absolute pacifist. It's just that someone is doing the killing for you.

Andrew Domz--

So you wouldnt fight them under any circumstances? What about when they kicked down your door and began executing your family? I don't see how you could be so indifferent

Andrew Domz, would you fight to stop a holocaust? And if you didn't find because murder took place elsewhere, do you not become partially responsible for those who died?

We could simply ask citizens with high powered assault weapons to show up...

I wonder, how many people do you know that actually own assault rifles... enough to make a fighting force? Then there's the whole "training" thing. A ragtag bunch of "assault weapons" carrying citizens are probably more of a danger to themselves than the enemy. Indeed.

Scooter, I understand where your going with this, but I must say your whole premise is flawed. There is no "at your pleasure" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance. If called to serve by your country, it's your civic and yes, legal duty to do so. You can claim "conscientious objector" status and serve in a non-combat role, but it's still your duty as a American citizen to answer your country's call.

You already know that I'm a very vocal critic of the war in Iraq. And I believe the people of this country expressed their opinion Nov. 7^th. That's all we as citizens can and should do.

To my way of thinking, being a "fair weather patriot" is not an option....

That's not fair, Jim. If being a fairweather patriot means being critical of the way the government uses its military and refusing to fight when it would compromise my own moral sense, then I guess I'm a fairweather patriot.

Being critical of our government is not only a good thing, I consider it a "civic" duty to voice your opposition when you disagree...Refusing to fight is also honorable. In fact, if memory serves, a conscientious objector was once awarded the Medal of Honor. But you still have a duty to answer your country's call to arms whether you agree or not. During the Vietnam war, millions protested the war. But almost to a man they went when their number came up. I must admit that with two draft age sons, I do have mixed feelings about all this, but being old fashioned, honor and duty still weigh heavy in my mind. I don't personally know you, but from what I've read from you, I suspect your not a "fairweather" patriot. And I didn't mean that personally.

The thing is, ScooterDMan, you live off the people who do sacrifice for those "ideas" that you don't care to defend. This country exists because of people who fought for them. Like it or not, you are indebted to those people for all of your freedoms and quality of life.

The thing is, ScooterDMan, you live off the people who do sacrifice for those "ideas" that you don't care to defend. This country exists because of people who fought for them. Like it or not, you are indebted to those people for all of your freedoms and quality of life.

I am not Ryan, so I can't speak for him and I'm sure he'll offer his own response to this, but I have a few things I want to say.

In his case, he's a teacher, a profession that I think is just as valuble to our society as a soldier. In fact, I'd argue moreso, but that's a separate issue. Regardless, to suggest that he doesn't make contributions to society comparable to someone who knows how to shoot a gun is absurd.

Clearly when a country spends more than $400 billion on defense and a fractions of that on education, it has shown the world where its priorities lie. And in the last 40 years, that set of priorities has gotten us into at least two "wars" that we had no business in. Vietnam - and it looks like by the end of it, Iraq will be the same - ended it what could generously be called a draw for the United States. Thousands of people died for nothing.

Meanwhile, the government stubbornly refuses to pay teachers their worth. Perhaps by educating our population, we could avoid these conflicts? But an educated population isn't asl ikely to be scared into conformity or bullied into military service, so that is not an imperialistic, power-hungry government's perogative.

Not everyone who joins the military does it because they bleed American flags. Many do it because their country has left them no choice; cities are left underfunded and undeveloped, and all it leads to is crime or miltary service as means to get out.

I think these same heroes - the ones who go oversees and force "freedom" on people who clearly don't want what we call "freedom" - owe people like Ryan a big thank you as well. I mean, maybe you have no problem with a society full of uneducated idiots, but from all I have to judge him by, Ryan seems to take his job and responsibility very seriously. If I have children, I hope they are lucky enough to be guided by someone as intelligent, composed and passionate as Ryan seems to be. And I hope they don't get trapped into military service.

What good is your notion of "freedom" if all you do is use it as a means to tell people to shut up? And if "freedom" is being "defended" in unethical means, is it even worth it? When we go overseas and our idea of "liberating" is to pile up, mock and torment prisoners of war, how can we possibly be considered the good guys?

And if these people fighting are so revered, why are there - according to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans - more than 200,000 registered homeless vets in the United States? Is it my fault? Ryan's? Or is it the fault of a government that cons them, uses them, sucks them dry and spits them out as soon as their done? Now, there is a huge homelessness problem in this country as it is, so logic would only follow that there are going to be some homeless vets, but seeing as how you've established that these people are clearly better human beings than the rest of us, shouldn't you and I be giving our homes up to them? Shouldn't the government be intervening?

The answer is yes, the government should do something; but they can't because, for one thing, they don't care, and for another, they're much too busy generating another 200,000 to join them.

Adam, I agree with most of your points, but you're changing the subject. The question here is not whether a particular war is right or wrong, but whether if the country (and by country, I mean the people) decides a war is necessary, should everyone shoulder the risk and burden?

You're points about education vs military budget, for example, are right on. I used to work in early childhood education, and believe strongly that we should put much, much more emphasis on that.

In fact, all of your complaints should be addressed. Again, everyone has a tendency to blame the government, and forget the fact that we are the government. We, the people are to blame. Is the military-industrial complex too powerful? Absolutely. But we have it in our power to change that. Problem is, too many people tend to just look out for themselves. But things aren't going to change if the response is "well, then, I'm just going to look our for myself."

when a country spends more than $400 billion on defense

You misspelled "attack."

I just want to jump in on this and note that first, you can't just spit out defense spending without putting it into perspective, like as a percentage of GDP and where that ranks compared to other countries

Military budget of the United States (wikipedia)
The US's defence budget is almost half of the world's, its about 1500 USD per US citizen, versus the 90 USD per rest-of-the-world citizen... or versus 650 USD per UK citizen (2nd biggest spender).
Wikipedia says Education 's budget in the US is 69 billion, but I'm not sure if it refers to all public spending or only federal.

Thanks Vent

The $69 billion is the federal spending. All public funding - the federal budget, plus that of the 50 states - typically comes out to about $350-$400 billion, though at the moment I can't find figures from within the last five years. Maybe when I get home I can find it.

I don't think education is simply a state responsibility anymore than health care is. They are both things the federal government has a clear, undesputable interest in promoting.

Actually those numbers - which I'm justp ulling from memory - still seem kind of suspect. I'm definitely going to continue looking when I get home from work.

Four percent of the U.S.'s GDP is just a *little* bit more than, say, seven percent of Madagascar's. The same is true for pretty much that whole list. You can look at it as a percentage, or you can look at it as a dollar figure, and they can give you two different points of view. I don't think anything is proven by comparing the U.S. to Singapore, Brunei, Maldives or Djibouti. Some countries we are ahead of on that list are: Britain, France, Russia, Germany ... the list goes on.

And on education - federal spending doesn't have to mean standardizing. It can mean more schools with more teachers, so we don't HAVE to standardize everything. Hell, the federal government can GIVE the states the money to spend as the states see fit.

its not like the federal government just has money laying around to spend

Sure it does; we call it the defense budget. ;)

Trying to conflate Iraq and Nazi Germany is a loser's game. The Nazi program was one of world domination ("Heute die welt" anyone?), and we are part of the world. Germany had taken over the bulk of Europe, therefore, they were a credible threat. I believe I would have been willing to join in that fight with no moral qualms.

Iraq was completely contained. Saddam didn't even have control over two thirds of the country due to the no-fly zone. His one attempt to attack a US ally was put down with pathetic ease. Only a complete dupe would argue that he was a credible threat to the US or our allies.

jdmacor, you've got to see that the key difference between WWII and Iraq is that we actually liked the Europeans at the time. We wanted them to be nice and free. No one made comments like, those French will never be able to live with Democracy, or the Germans were better off under Hitler. People don't generally care about what is going on the middle east though. Europe counts as world domination because it is Europe and matters. A ten year war against Iran, and then invasion of Kuwait doesn't count as world domination because it is just the middle east.

The similarities are undeniable: similar personal security forces (Saddam's guard and Hitler's SS), genocide (Kurds and Jews), allies being threatened (Kuwait and England).

You have focused on surface similarities and have left out the key difference: credibility of threat. Perhaps you have forgotten what a pushover the Iraqi army was in the first Gulf War. Perhaps you have forgotten that we had Saddam penned up between two no-fly zones. Perhaps you have forgotten the economic sanctions that hobbled him. Please allow me to remind you.

If Hitler was in the same position as Saddam, I wouldn't have supported attacking Germany.

I think that people get caught up in debates or personal issues so much sometimes that they forget something very simple. Invading someone else's country is wrong, and when you do so, you will be shot at. Even if your bringing them something lovely like, say, Democracy.

I aree with you 100% on this.

But as I said elsewhere, we are confusing two distinct though interacting issues, the Iraq War vs. the general idea of mandatory military service. Using some of your own words, Really, you don't invade a country to bring it Democracy, it's impossible. As you said, I think that people get caught up in debates or personal issues so much sometimes that they forget something very simple. Freedom has to be earned, and defended. And that is we are in this together, for better or for worse. Our forefathers knew this, and those who fought in the Civil War and the two World Wars knew this.

There are certainly unjust or unwise wars, such as Vietnam and Iraq. Then we protest. We refuse to go. We go to jail. I have faith enough in the America to know that if a war were wrong, enough people would would refuse and it would force a healthy debate.

Another thing that confuses me about the leftists here who categorically dismiss war. What about all those calls for intervention in in the case of genocide? Darfur. Rwanda. Cambodia. The Holocaust. OK, in these cases, a volunteer only army is ok, but still, if you agree to send in troops, whether or not you wield a gun yourself, you are not a pacifist.

If someone invades here for the best reason in the world, you may count on the fact that I would be right out there shooting at them. For me, the first condition makes the second condition listed irrelevant.

Suppose the US was taken over by a dictator like Saddam, and the invasion was in response to US aggression against other countries. Which side would you fight on?

I'm not a pacifist, though I could see how reading my last post might lead you to think so. I am however, incredibly suspiscious of any attempt to initiate a war of aggression which is most certainly what this one is.

In the war's you mentioned, World War I, World War II, we were responding to a force which was swamping other nations. Two characteristics which both Iraq and Vietnam share is that we are sending troops into a place to seperate people's that have been living with each other for hundreds of year's, much like sending a cop into in to settle a domestic violence issue. Most police hate those calls more then any other. At least one I know says that there is no call so likely to erupt into violence again, and no problem so unlikely to be successfully resolved.

Understand me clearly. If a draft were instituted and I were of the age, I would obey. I might in some circumstances even vote for a draft. But I'm not going to vote for one to encourage the rich to feel a proper fear of war. (It might accomplish that, but it's not a good enough reason.)

My biggest reason for not supporting a draft has to do, frankly, with my total distrust of the government, with what would happen to these people drafted against their will. You mentioned, we protest, we refuse to go.

But that didn't really matter in this war did it? And the truth is, we were basically full of crap during the beginning of this war. I supported it for a few months myself, but after I changed my mind I noticed people were inclined to call me disloyal just for questioning the war effort in the most mild of ways.

My distrust goes beyond even the government. I don't trust the American people anymore. We managed to avoid having a healthy debate in this country for years.

My biggest reason for not supporting a draft has to do, frankly, with my total distrust of the government, with what would happen to these people drafted against their will. You mentioned, we protest, we refuse to go.

My point is that the more citizens distance themselves from government, the more that your distrust will be born out. If everyone were in the military for a couple of years (seems like everyone keeps forgetting I'm not talking about the Iraq War, but general peacetime mandatory service before there is a war), one, the populace would have a better understanding of the military and vice-versa. We would have a much greater influence.

As to your distrust of the American people, then we don't have much of a common ground on which to talk. I'll just caution you to not be elitist and self-righteous. People are like societies and societies are like people — both make mistakes, are subject to prejudices, are often driven by fear. I'd be surprised if you yourself were any different.

I really don't think I am elitist. I am certainly subject to prejudice and fear. Fortunately I don't wield the power to abuse that our government does.

As I've said, it's not impossible to convince me that a draft might be appropriate under some circumstances, or that we might need to go to war. But after the last few years, it would take a great deal more effort then it once did to convince me.

My point about elitism wasn't directed at the issue of the draft, but at I don't trust the American people anymore. People learn. Societies evolve. If there is a reason that a society fails to live up to some ideals, it is precisely because people are weak and decide to give up. And by give up, I mean giving up doing anything about it personally as well as giving up on other people.

And there is another point. It was the unpopularity of the draft more than anything that ended Vietnam. It is possible that compulsory military service would have made Bush's adventure impossible from the beginning as Senators and Representatives would be sending their own sons and daughters into harms way.

Even if the war had been started, which is entirely possible given the public hysteria at the time, it is almost certain that with the incompetent way it was prosecuted, Bush would have been a one term President. Everyone would know someone or be someone in danger of being sent to Fallujah with insufficient body armor, for example.

I'm really conflicted about this. I think some measure of mandatory national service is probably a good idea, but I have also reached the age where it is unlikely, although not impossible, that I would be called to serve. Then again, any issue that gets younger voters to turn out and learn to participate in the political process is a net good, so I welcome the debate.

Well I certainly haven't given up. If I had, I wouldn't be active in the local democratic party, and I probably wouldn't be talking here.

On a number of occasions in this thread, I've seen people ask questions, like:

So, you would have done nothing to stop Hitler until he invaded the US?

Or even more specific then that.

Here's a much better question. If somebody told you the holocaust was in the process of happening again, would you go to war, or find out if you were being lied to first?

Going to war isn't a decision that can be simply taken back later. The fact that we are having a healthy debate now doesnt bring 150,000 some people back to life, and it doesn't give Iraqi orphans their parents back.

And frankly, that is exactly what has happened. We were lied to about the reasons for this war, and we went out and did a lot of damage.

I consider my suspiscion a healthy and appropriate thing, a sign I'm getting wiser as I get older. If I were to be part of the jury in a murder trial, when I deliberated on whether or not to go to war I would only deliver a guilty verdict if I were really certain that the case had been made.

I only wish that they same degree of seriousness had been given to the decision to go to war with Iraq. Because that decision was far more important then the guilt or innocence of one man.

Lucid: we never should have gotten involved in WWI. It was a parochial war between colonial powers over how they were going to split up the rest of the world, and many of our current problems are fallout from its resolution. The war was nearly over when we got into it, and perhaps if the Central Powers had come out in a stronger position, the Treaty of Versailles wouldn't have been so punitive, and we wouldn't have ended up with WWII.

Lucid: we never should have gotten involved in WWI. It was a parochial war between colonial powers over how they were going to split up the rest of the world,

I'm not sure why your directing that question at me, I only brought it up World War I to reference how other people were making questions like, "would you have opposed getting involved in this war too?"

Asking that sort of question assumes a perfect hindsight view of what's going on in the world, and my point is that when you talk about going to war you should be talking about the things you know at the time, and you shouldn't assume that the government is telling the truth about it's position.

I didn't really talk about whether or not we should have been in World War I. Frankly I haven't studied that point in history enough to have an opinion. (We certainly belonged in World War II, in my opinion.)

Lucid: Not an attack, just a point of information.

I also would like to add, that I think there is virtually zero chance of a draft actually being instated, so this decision won't be forced upon us.

Why would we punish the US citizen population over someone else's actions?

It's not someone else's actions... :S

While I don't know exactly if I agree with such a strategy (feels a bit impulsive), I understand the need to urge US politicians to evaluate international involvement in a more conscious way... It has been a years of very active (and aggressive) involvement, that in my opinion has made the world less safer for everybody (with a few exceptions).
So maybe if the soldiers fighting the war are the neighbor's sons instead of some immigrant looking for a green card, politicians would care a little more, and specially people in general would be more careful in who they vote, and more conscious of their country's international agenda.

I am disappointed to see that out of the 11 respondents (at the time of my reading your article) to your poll, 73% would evade to avoid the draft.

Huh, imagine that. It might lead you to believe that a huge portion of the American people - you know, the ones doing the overtaking "liberating" - don't support Bush's aggression "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Nice that some of my code didn't work; there should be strikes through overtaking and "Bush's aggression." Way to kill the sarcasm, newsvine. It worked on preview.

I think that you being a teacher is great. Can't fault you in any fashion for that. But I keep going back to

I went out and got my passport shortly after the start of the war a few years ago. If we were ever attacked here on American soil, I'd keep that passport locked away in my dresser drawer, and you could count on me to fight back with you — I promise you that. If I were ever drafted to fight in an aggressive war overseas, however, you'd have to search every "warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse" before you'd find me.

But as others have expressed to similar threads elsewhere on Newsvine tonight, its late and I'm going to leave my comment and cut and run to bed. I doubt that I could offer anything else in the discussion thread.

A big problem in this discussion is everyone keeps mixing up their issues with the Iraq War with the general issue of mandatory military service. I'm for mandatory military service, but against the Iraq War. If I was ordered to go, I would either refuse to go and serve time, or go in the way that I describe below. If such a large number of citizens are against the war, then there would be a lot of people going to prison for refusal. Either way, you are fighting for what you believe in, as opposed to running and standing for nothing but yourself.

So what about fire fighters? Police officers? Factory workers? Farm workers? Doctors? Nurses? The subject is not whether you contribute to society, but whether there is something special about military service that it behooves most of the population to put in two years after high school. Or part-time in the reserves while in college.

Guido, we already do. It's call taxation spent on social welfare and the like. Maybe we don't have enough, but I don't want to change the subject. My point is, that unlike social service, national defense shouldn't be done by paid proxy, or at least entirely by paid proxy.

I think people are much more insulated from many things than they were in the past. For example, Americans eat a lot of meat but few have ever killed an animal. For democracy, this sort of distance I think this is not such a good thing. The press has a big role to play in this area, but it is only a partial solution.

Minority maybe, but good company none the less.... And don't sell draftees short. They gave a pretty good account of themselves in Vietnam.

Thanks Jim. I'm not trying to undersell the draftees at all. They deserve substantial credit for fighting and dieing in war that many of them did not believe in. Thats incredibly honorable.

Oh and Guido, if you want to make babies please...go right ahead, but considering the fact that the U.S. population is still growing at a healthy pace, I don't think you need to worry about trying to offset the losses in the war....

So you're saying those who are not willing to go to war when forced to should have their citizenship revoked? Because that's what Ghandi was fighting against. Actually it wasn't even that. They weren't citizens at all yet, and he was trying change that.

Also World Wars I and II are NOT the Iraq conflict.

I'm sure your point just went over my head.

Adam, like I said, I'm against the Iraq War. But I'm not arguing about the Iraq War here. I'm saying that if a military is necessary, then all citizens be share in the makeup of that military, and share in duty to defend the country. Gandhi understood this as a moral duty.

I don't really have the time right now to make my point well, so please understand that my thoughts below are crude and poorly stated.

Should someone not willing to defend the country under any circumstances have there citizenship revoked? First, as others have pointed out, there are options for conscientious objectors. For the rest, I'm not sure. There do need to be consequences. You still have your freedom, but you don't get it for free.

I'm against the Iraq War. But if I were drafted, I would go. I would go and do my best to make a bad situation worse. While there I would freely voice my opposition to the war with other soldiers. I would try to get myself assigned to something in-line with my values. If my commander ordered me to do something I felt was wrong, I would refuse to follow the order and report it. If I saw anything that the US military was doing as wrong, I would report it first up the chain of command, and if that failed, to a US journalist. If it meant incarceration, so bit it. If a lot of people conccured with me, there would be a lot of people going to prison. In essense, for the US to go to war, the people would have to be behind it.

All of the above rests on the premise that the US is a democracy, and that its citizens express themselves both through speech and votes. In other words, that we do not go to war at the whis of a dictator, but by the decision of the people. We should raise the hurdles for going to war, e.g. strengthening the war powers resolution and perhaps requiring a super-majority to approve deployment of the military into hostilities.

You forget, or didn't know, their "ragtag" insurgents are composed mainly of the remnants of a million man disbanded Iraqi army. That and terrorists trained at an Al Qaeda terrorist training camp. You cant seriously believe that we are fighting untrained civilians....can you? Hmmm.

What, no more "citizen soldier" saving the country? I agree that Iraq is a misbegotten mess we should have never engaged in.... Where is your "citizens save the country" rhetoric? It's not possible without training.... as in a draft.

Hear, hear.

Also

"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious," according to Oscar Wilde.

They wont get it until it does start happening, that's the sad thing.

Really? Please name one instance that the U.N. forces have been little more than moving, blue helmet wearing targets. The couldn't stop Macedonia/Bosnai/Herzegovina genocide. The couldn't stop Somalia. They can't stop Darfur/Chad tragedy.

..until that wolfs fangs are around their own neck.."its not my problem"..thankfully enough know better..
..Charlie is a nut,sad thing he has power...its a New York thing I guess..

...right....

selective memory can be a convenient alibi.

Are you trying to remember that Iraq was bihind 9/11? Because it wasn't.

Hope that helps.

bihind 9/11?

..dang Jimmy the company you keep is showing....but you da man...thanks..!!

While I'd love to argue some of your points, the main ones I disagree with are underappreciated and the resume thing. I dont know about you, but most people honor and respect our military with the utmost importance. I know things are a bit different out there in California.. but these people put themselves in danger to protect others rights to hate them, and that says a lot about their character than I can even begin to explain.

You're forgetting perhaps the most important sacrifices, JimmyP: service men and women give up certain constitutional freedoms when they join the military. Their freedom of speech is more limited, even when off duty and out of uniform. They can't just change their mind and quit as a civilian can their job. They are subject to military law (Uniform Code of Military Justice) as opposed to civilian law. I'm not an expert on this... Can someone in the military now or a veteran chime in?

vas; you are absolutely correct. Please see my post #30 below.
When you voluntarily join, you acknowledge that you allow many of your freedoms to be restricted in certain ways. This entire topic is actually pretty moot. since once you put on that uniform you accept all that comes with it. No standing around debating if you are going to excuse yourself from a particular conflict, activity, etc. that's a freedom enjoyed by non participants in the civilain world.

We are bound by the UCMJ, Armed conflict code of conduct. They govern in a more restrictive manner than any civilian law. And we are obligated to disobey any unlawful order, and question any order we may feel is unlawful. This is one of the reasons I completely reject the entire "I was just following orders" defence when someone does something against the UCMJ while serving in the military. The military is well trained on the UCMJ, and laws of armed conflict, they know when they are doing wrong.

All this being said I can honestly also tell you that after 22 years in the military, I have never experienced a more tolerant, giving, and supportive environment than that of the military. Bless those all that serve

I can speak for the fact that being in the military isn't necessarilly the resume booster the advertising and recruiters would like you to believe. While there are some intangible skills to be gained in the military most of what I learned, so far as labor skills, were not very easy to translate (near impossible) to the civilian world.

There isn't much call for missile system mechanics or people proficient with explosives.

That isn't to say neither job's skills can be used as a civilian. The electronic techinician skills garned from fixing missile systems is a decent foundation in PC repair - but only because of the troubleshooting skills. The actual technical knowledge isn't very useful as the computers I fixed on the missile systems were vastly different from a PC.

Demolitions is another skill that I could have used as a civilian - assuming I could get a job with a company that specialized in implosions, road construction, or perhaps some geology firms. However, at least for me, it was very hard to even find job listings that involve people with experience with C-4, TNT, and Det Cord. Maybe I didn't know where to look?

In the end I just went to college after getting out. My time in the Army helps when we have contracts with the government (I usually understand their jargon) and for providing some funny stories to loosen up the dinner table at meetings.

While there are some intangible skills to be gained in the military most of what I learned, so far as labor skills, were not very easy to translate (near impossible) to the civilian world.

But there is call for someone who will show up on time, do the work assigned without audibly complaining, and not demand a corner office, secretary, and seven weeks of paid time off just because they finished college. The attitude difference between hires with military backgrounds and recent grads makes the former far more desirable in many cases.

Former soldiers are far more ready for the real world even if, like you, they need to make a detour through college first. The Buffys and Jordans of the world are used to having the world handed to them on a silver platter, and Mumsy and Popsie fixing it when it isn't. I have actually had new hires parents come in to plead their children's cases in certain instances.

The Buffys and Jordans of the world are used to having the world handed to them on a silver platter, and Mumsy and Popsie fixing it when it isn't. I have actually had new hires parents come in to plead their children's cases in certain instances.

Just because you ask for something doesn't mean you aren't entitled to it.

I've never known keeping your mouth shut and tolerating an unfair situation to be an admirable trait.

But then, I'm sure when you were my age you walked five miles in the snow to get to school. Uphill both ways, even.

He didn't say anything about unfair. he was adressing the level of maturity, sense of responsibility, and positive work ethic between most people with a military background and those that run around for half their life being spoiled children with everything handed to them.

All AdipicAcid was pointing out was that, like like it or not, most people that have a military background tend to accept their responsibilities better and more realistically than spoiled children that have their mom running up and wiping their nose for more than half their life. I'm sure, as is AdipicAcid that there are many responsible, mature college graduates, but they are pretty few and far between. Even in the military there is a huge difference between a brand new officer fresh out of college that "knows" everything and the enlisted person that has practical experience and really does tend to have a more realistic approach and perspective. Obviously you has just as keen a perspective on military society as you think ApicidAcid has on the academic world.

Did go to college and enjoyed my higher education. The comments made are pretty straight forward, I never said anything in regard to anyone's intelligence. And as far as generalizations, well I would have thought that if you weren't one of those spoiled childrent that had everything handed to them, then the description doesn't apply to you. But, can I ask, did you work your way through college and pay for it yourself? did you own a vehicle while in college and pay for it yourself, including insurance and maintenance?. or was your education, living accomodations, vehicle, etc taken care of for you and you simply had to show up? If so, Cool. take advantage of the free ride while you could. If not, Cool. Never hurts to stand on your own and earn your way to accomplishing something.

Overall, how many 18 year olds do you know are in charge of, and responsible for multi-million dollar computer and network systems? how many 19 year olds to you know are repsponsible for multi-million dollars worth of hardware, equipment, etc. such as those in the military. . . that's the only distinction being made. the age and level of responsibility they assume quicker in the military, which tends to lead to a higher level of maturity that much sooner in their life.

Overall, how many 18 year olds do you know are in charge of, and responsible for multi-million dollar computer and network systems? how many 19 year olds to you know are repsponsible for multi-million dollars worth of hardware, equipment, etc. such as those in the military. . . that's the only distinction being made. the age and level of responsibility they assume quicker in the military, which tends to lead to a higher level of maturity that much sooner in their life.

First of all, I don't think "running heavy machinery" and "being more responsible than anyone who deosn't run heavy machinery" are even remotely close to anything I would call the same thing. I mean, it's great that some people can be trained to pull a lever at the right time, it sure puts them one rung above a few monkeys on the evolutionary chain, but it takes more than that to impress me. This is why I don't blanket every military member "impressive" or "unimpressive." I meet individual people and go from there. You may want to try it.

Also, I am what I'll generously call skeptical of your claim that there are 18- and 19-year-olds "in charge" of much more than tying their shoes. If a guy operating a tank is in charge of it, than I, as a copy editor, am in charge of the newspaper, simply because I'm the last one to see the final pages on a given night.

Furthermore, while I've never been a member of the military, I grew up in a family with a military father and have lived in three different cities with substantial military presence. And I'll say, I think I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a job that requires *less* responsibility. They are told exactly when to eat, sleep, wake up and do just about everything else. The entire ranking system in the military is based upon *not* making decisions and instead taking orders. Sounds like the exact opposite of responsibility to me. Discipline, maybe, but there are other ways to become disciplined. Like, say, working your way through college.

Then sir, you have a limited exposure to the military. I know many USAF Loadmasters and other technical oriented career fields that are occupied by individuals under the age of 21 that are responsible for multi-million dollars worth of equipment...never said anything about operating heavy equipment such as tanks, etc. as you posted above; big difference between operating equipment and being responsible for the equipment.

Nor do I dispute your comments about working your way through college, I believe I stated something similar.

And as far as generalizations go, can't help but notice your post is quite liberal with them as well as mine have been. guess we're on equal footing as far as perspective goes.

And as far as generalizations go, can't help but notice your post is quite liberal with them as well as mine have been. guess we're on equal footing as far as perspective goes.

Oh, OK, now I see the problem; you don't know what a generallization is. I'll pick one out from a previous post of yours as an example:

[AdipicAcid] was adressing the level of maturity, sense of responsibility, and positive work ethic between most people with a military background and those that run around for half their life being spoiled children with everything handed to them.

In one sentence you have broken the country (world?) into two groups: those who have served in the military, and those who "run around for half their life being spoiled children with everything handed to them." This, my friend, is a generalization. You don't know a damn thing about me, but I know I haven't served in the military, so I think this means I fall into the second group? I also know many people who have served in the military; so I can assume, based on your logic, that they are not spoiled, right?

Now, my post; I'd like you to point out the generalizations I make. There are three things I say that I think you could point to, and those are more likely just points flying over your head:

I mean, it's great that some people can be trained to pull a lever at the right time, it sure puts them one rung above a few monkeys on the evolutionary chain, but it takes more than that to impress me. This is why I don't blanket every military member "impressive" or "unimpressive." I meet individual people and go from there.

Now here, I didn't say everyone in the military is simply a lever-pulling monkey. I said, if your entire argument for why I should respect someone is because they can be trained to operate big, scary machines, I'm going to have to know a little bit more about them before I pass judgment.

Also, I am what I'll generously call skeptical of your claim that there are 18- and 19-year-olds "in charge" of much more than tying their shoes. If a guy operating a tank is in charge of it, than I, as a copy editor, am in charge of the newspaper, simply because I'm the last one to see the final pages on a given night.

Again, I'm not saying these are people capable of no more than tying their shoes; I'm saying you're going to have to provide me some solid evidence that there are 18- and 19-year-olds in the military making any kind of significant decisions, because that is what responsibility is. And frankly, even if you do, it's not like it changes my point or my mind; this is nothing more than a tangent. I can point you to random exceptions in other industries, 18- and 19-year-olds who play significant roles in their lines of work; it wouldn't make those fields any more honorable or character-building. It means those individual people took some initiative.

I think I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a job that requires *less* responsibility. They are told exactly when to eat, sleep, wake up and do just about everything else. The entire ranking system in the military is based upon *not* making decisions and instead taking orders. Sounds like the exact opposite of responsibility to me. Discipline, maybe, but there are other ways to become disciplined. Like, say, working your way through college.

I'm not sure what I could be generalizing here; there's only one U.S. military, so ... is it not based on doing exactly as you are told in every waking moment? Point me to multiple credible examples of people being rewarded for doing things their own way instead of exactly how they were told by their bosses, please. In fact, while our honorable, superhuman troops were over there torturing prisoners, I'm pretty sure the military's excuse was, they weren't following orders. But I might just have my military scandals mixed up.

never said anything negative about college, college graduates, etc. All that was ever noted was that, and the original poster of the comments specified, over all he as an employer and supervisor of employees, found that Generally people with military backgrounds tend to have a better sense of responsibility and maturity than those that were fresh out of college that fell into that category that didn't believe they had to work for anything.

I joined in the conversation and have since then been misquoted a number of times and edged toward personal attacks simply because some 24 year old college graduate didn't like the opinion. I have remained carefully from entering into personal insults because it serves no purpose, and I'm sure mature individuals can discuss things without becoming insulting, although I could be wrong.

So, now I think I'll simply go find my cup of coffee and move on. If someone wishes to continue until they feel they have "won" and continue to beat the dead horse some more...

And you will note in all the quotes you take in your previous post; not once is the word college included in them. Thank you for recognizing that.