Why Haven't You Enlisted?

Originally posted by Apollyon
what I said was (and perhaps I wasn't clear so I apologize) "The nature of man is to kill socialisation and aculturation keeps this in check with out social pressure man wouls return to being a killer" to paraphrase myself.

Well, I'd like to think we've evolved beyond "Cave man figures out he can kill, so he does." We're not cavemen anymore, and it's not just because society trains us not to be. It's because we have evolved, mentally. A long time ago, someone eventually thought, "Hey, killing is wrong!" The first person to think this came up with it all by himself/herself.
You can't have one without the other. People = society and society = people. It's not a separate entity. Sure, anyone can be taught how to kill, but there will always be people who can't and/or won't do it. There is a distinct difference between the two types of people. I'd have to be very angry, personally, to kill someone. There's no way in hell I'd kill just for the sake of killing, nor would I kill for the gov. or the military.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Damned]

But in a democracy or republic YOU are the government and if you kill are you not killing for your own self intrest? Besides not everyone is suited for military service or combat....you could serve your country better perhaps by teaching English to an immigrant.

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Apollyon
what I said was (and perhaps I wasn't clear so I apologize) "The nature of man is to kill socialisation and aculturation keeps this in check with out social pressure man wouls return to being a killer" to paraphrase myself.

Well, I'd like to think we've evolved beyond "Cave man figures out he can kill, so he does." We're not cavemen anymore, and it's not just because society trains us not to be. It's because we have evolved, mentally. A long time ago, someone eventually thought, "Hey, killing is wrong!" The first person to think this came up with it all by himself/herself.
You can't have one without the other. People = society and society = people. It's not a separate entity. Sure, anyone can be taught how to kill, but there will always be people who can't and/or won't do it. There is a distinct difference between the two types of people. I'd have to be very angry, personally, to kill someone. There's no way in hell I'd kill just for the sake of killing, nor would I kill for the gov. or the military.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Apollyon
To quote that Coen brothers classic "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" "That don't make no sense!"

Originally posted by fledgling666

Originally posted by wraith30

Originally posted by Apollyon
Not all killing is is chasing and melee with prey. Look at preditors like the ant lion or trapdoor spider or even the tarantula hawk, they are all killers but not in the way you would describe .

We as beings are cappable of killing, there is no doubt there. but it is inaccurate to say that we have evolved to kill the ability is not indicitave of our evolution, if anything it would be in spite of evolution.

Wraith

like that

Which would subsiquently be quoting Homers The Oddesy.

Which part is confusing you? The fact that Biologicly we evolved away from being alble to cause physical damage and thus we developed a mindset to create the tools that evolution denied us, therefor becomming more effective at causing damage inspite of natural evolution?

Or the fact that I am using large words and therefor confusing your Astriliopithicus sized brain?

I'll say this in small words.. Nature changed us over time. That change took away natural weapons. That change is called "Evolution", even though the changes that nature made in us too away our natural weapons, we made weapons for ourselfs. Because we are very selfish people we get mad and hurt others with these tools. Nature did not make us bad and hurt other people. We did that to ourselfs because over time we reward people for hurting other people. Nature did not do this, we did this.

wraith

Originally posted by Apollyon
But in a democracy or republic YOU are the government and if you kill are you not killing for your own self intrest? Besides not everyone is suited for military service or combat....you could serve your country better perhaps by teaching English to an immigrant.
[edit on 14-10-2004 by Damned]

Ahhh but we are a democratic republic, therefor we pick people to be the government for us and tell them what we want them to say. They do not have to do as we say. Therefor we are not the government. We just hope that they will act in our place.

Unfortunatly, Becasue we do give this power to others it is common for that individual to abuse the power given to him and then to use others to go fight in personal wars for no reason other than vendetta. Not that our president would every do somethign as childish as that...

Wraith

While I contemplated not dignifying this with a response I thought it would be therapeutic to vent rather than contain it all.

Everyman that serves his country is to some degree a hero, not just the military but guy in the forest service who fights forest fires and the guy in the GAO who stands up against fraud and waste.

In WWII there were many noble and heroic GERMAN, ITALIAN and JAPANESE soldiers heroism is not limited to the victors nor is villainy limited to the defeated.

Some of the VC were heroic to fight the Americans at impossible odds.

Soldiers simply aren't paid to fight mercenaries are paid to fight, during some wars the soldiery was paid little or nothing and some time barely fed and equipped (the CSA during the US Civil War would be an example of this). These men, soldiers fought for many things love of country, belief in purpose etc. This is what it means to be a soldier ...you fight for (or against) something with greater purpose than love of money or desire to kill. Alvin York arguable one of the greatest soldiers in US history was raised a pacifist but believed the allies cause so important that he set those beliefs aside to do what he thought was the higher moral cause.

To say soldiers follow you imply they follow blindly this is far from the truth soldiers follow and lead because of what they believe in sometimes its is as simple as they believe in each other and the desire that they all survive. A soldier is not politic he doesn't create the policy of a nation, he does that in his role as a citizen through the electoral process or if need be revolution. The obedience of a soldier is not created by breaking him in basic a broken man will run under pressure but by reforging him in new image.

Such criticism from your third party observations is simply sad and usually but not always leveled by one who aspired to wear the uniform but was found wanting.

Originally posted by Jakomo

Blah blah blah.

Every soldier is a hero? Wha? Only Americans or every country's?

In WWII, were German soldiers heroes for doing what they were told?

In Vietnam, were the VC's heroes for defending their country and putting their lives on the line?


Soldiers are paid to fight and die, and that's what they do. Some are heroes, some are murderers.

I don't look up to military folk, sorry to say. Sure it's a fine thing to say that you're defending your country, but especially in the USA, that's a total lie. Defend your country by getting killed in the Middle East.

Soldiers FOLLOW orders from those above them. They are expected to do so unquestioningly, and this is done by breaking their wills through basic training and through constant stress. Some heroes.

My father fought in Korea, my grandfather fought in WWI (!), NEITHER of them looked back on their service without grief and regret mingled with pride.

what confused me was the seeming non sequitor of his responce. You can put the dictionary away now. Oh, and if I wanted to quote Homer I would have quoted Homer when I wish to quote the Coens I quote the Coens.

Without a sign, his sword the brave man draws, and asks no omen, but his country's cause. Homer

Originally posted by wraith30

Originally posted by Apollyon
To quote that Coen brothers classic "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" "That don't make no sense!"

Originally posted by fledgling666

Originally posted by wraith30

Originally posted by Apollyon
Not all killing is is chasing and melee with prey. Look at preditors like the ant lion or trapdoor spider or even the tarantula hawk, they are all killers but not in the way you would describe .

We as beings are cappable of killing, there is no doubt there. but it is inaccurate to say that we have evolved to kill the ability is not indicitave of our evolution, if anything it would be in spite of evolution.

Wraith

like that

Which would subsiquently be quoting Homers The Oddesy.

Which part is confusing you? The fact that Biologicly we evolved away from being alble to cause physical damage and thus we developed a mindset to create the tools that evolution denied us, therefor becomming more effective at causing damage inspite of natural evolution?

Or the fact that I am using large words and therefor confusing your Astriliopithicus sized brain?

I'll say this in small words.. Nature changed us over time. That change took away natural weapons. That change is called "Evolution", even though the changes that nature made in us too away our natural weapons, we made weapons for ourselfs. Because we are very selfish people we get mad and hurt others with these tools. Nature did not make us bad and hurt other people. We did that to ourselfs because over time we reward people for hurting other people. Nature did not do this, we did this.

wraith

Originally posted by Apollyon
what confused me was the seeming non sequitor of his responce. You can put the dictionary away now. Oh, and if I wanted to quote Homer I would have quoted Homer when I wish to quote the Coens I quote the Coens.

Without a sign, his sword the brave man draws, and asks no omen, but his country's cause. Homer

wraith

Hqhaaha if I was using a dictionary I would actulay be able to spell most things correctly. (Yes I know my spelling sucks.. bite me everyone)


In war, truth is the first casualty.
'Aeschylus

I must admit some of this is getting a bit ethereal for me. I don't mind it but sometimes "my head hurts" trying to get around it

What follows is long, perhaps convuluted, and at somepoint maybe rambling. But its my attempt to explain me.my views.nobody elses.

For me, at a personal level. It boils down to what you beleive, not what some politician or talking head on the telly tells me I should be doing something for.

I joined the Reserves because I beleived it was the right thing to do, and I beleived that whilst I might not make a good full time soldier in peace time, it was in my interests to be better prepared than most in the times when it was less than peaceful (dont you love undeclared wars).

I decided before that I could and would kill if I had to or was put in the position to need to.

It came down to it, that if I believed enough to join, could find (my own) justifiable reasons to be sent somewhere, then it boiled down to this.

do it to save my own life or let the other guy (or woman or kid) beat me to the trigger ( or sadly detonator switch),

or let them kill one or more of my mates.

The former you would have to be very brave and idealistic man, the later would be an unforgivable and total betrayal of the closest personal trust between a group of individuals.

More recently the issue of troops killing civilians on the presumption of circumstantial threat, not the case proof of it. Personally given the evidence, I would rather be charged imprisoned, and alive, than expected to allow myself to be blown up after issuing warnings, including firing over someones head. I know some people don't and they deserve all they get.

And I would rather go to jail (and pray I didnt have an "accident") than destroy anything or kill and terrorise someone purely and for no other reason than retribution. That said I understand in the real world that the people that are being fought don't sit out in the desert and not always in the mountains but fight and work out of and amongst mostly innocent people in the towns and suburbs. And that to ignore them would be to give them a tactical advantage to kill you that no one could afford. Innocent people die in crossfires. Professional troops ambushed by irregulars in close quarters often only have a hope by use of immediate and prolific volumes of fire. Only Judge Dredd has smart ammo so smart it can tell the difference between the innocent and a gunman. The difference is the professional soldier doesnt seek to start a firefight in a market street, a terrorist does. One worries and begs forgiveness, and the other doesnt give a rats....he just sees a negative photo op.


I joined the Australian ARes in 1987. Many of our regular cadre staff and reserve NCOs and Officers were Vietnam veterans. We had one, two three tour vets, a few nashos who made it a career, a couple of majors who started off as recruits. We even had a naturalised US ex-pat who had been in the USMC. You would sit down and talk with these guys if you had any brains or real interest beyond a paycheck. I did. It made me more balanced.

One, if you voluntarily join the military, full time or otherwise, you are hard pressed to argue if you are called upon to fufill the LAWFUL requirements of the job description. You have no case if you do so when your national forces are engaged in an actual war.

Two, most televised political reasoning for going to war is BS. Some politicians may be influenced by general concerns but most of the time if they do send the forces off to war, it will be because they have played the dollars and influence game and found something in it for them or the nation. It may be a question of national safety but it is hardly a question of national survival. Even if the first two are a consideration it often comes down to a matter of is it to the benefit of the National Economic profit or Political Influence.

Personally , if I can find truth in the first two, then I am comfortable ignoring the last as the primary motivation of my government. I'll go. I have only my conviction that if faced with a war soley based on the last I WOULD HAVE the courage of my conviction to do cell time.

For example, today. I do not like Bush. I think he dishonors and abuses the image of the men and women who serve in US uniform, and those of America's allies with his lies and half truths. I did not beleive there was real evidence of WMDs in Iraq before the war, and that the only terrorists Saddam would have in Iraq would be his, not AQ, and on a tight leash. He has tried to suppress the bad news and puff up the good beyond the point of trying to justifiably protect morale. The US position is difficult while it emphasises the political over the military imperitive, but it is not lost. While the USAs losses are tragic but incomparable to most wars, Bush has even tried to suppress images of the fallen being honoured, the injured recognised.....A basic right in any past war fought by a democracy.

That said, I supported the war in Iraq because Saddam was an incalcuable (sic) bastard who deserved to be removed if only to give his people freedom from his terror, and our damned decade old embargos and campaigns of pin prick attacks. If it had happened in my time I would have gone.

Why not before, or against some other despot? Because by itself, without the USA or the international community, my country is not strong enough to pick its own fights. We have to wait until the USA decides for the "wrong" reasons to do the "right" thing before we take action. I have come to expect little more from democratically elected politicians, populist or otherwise.

In hindsight, given what has happened, I admit we should probably left Iraq alone. Saddam was a murdering bastard, but he kept uncontrolled terrorism off the street and from making the country a launching base for it to go elsewhere. And the armed special interest groups who are determined to rule by the gun seem to be coming out of the woodwork now that a less than impressive bastard has taken over.
I hate to admit it but Iraq is proving to be a country that needed a competent bastard to hold it together. Like Tito in Yugoslavia, or Stalin in the USSR.

The thought makes me choke, but maybe we should have even made our peace with him back in 1993-94 and bankrolled the reconstruction back then...(corruption not withstanding)....and the proviso he stay away from the outside world and nasty toys.

But why do I still support the war now....Ours on Terror, in Afghanistan and Iraq? Because as much as I think we grabbed a bucket of petrol and poured it on a fire by attacking Iraq, it makes no sense to run away now.

What will it achieve? Will the war end tomorrow? Will terrorism decline to pre 9/11 levels? Will a interim or elected Iraqi and Afghani government be given a chance to survive and prove itself in the face of a minority armed insurgency controlled by Madhist or AQ sympathisers? Will they rest on thier laurels. Can we be certain it wouldnt create a wider explosion of support for thier chosen methods? Can we remove all western influence (including NGOs and groups such as Amnesty) from thier declared zones of interest? Will a nuclear armed Israel accept being abandoned and go quietly into the night? Will the Spanish give Southern Spain back to the decendants of it's North African conquerors? Will the UN standby while Indonesia reabsorbs independent East Timor? Will the French cave in and lift a domestic ban on religious clothing and symbols in state funded secular churches? Will we all continue to be expected to pay ransoms to secure one release that fund more deliberate and targetted atrocities?
And where does this forms of manipulation end? What are its final zones of interest?

I like America, even though I find myself more frequently disliking some of its leaders, policies and attitudes. But I much prefer its brand global dominance and arrogrance to what the likes of AQ, JI and the Madhists are offering me.

So I (personally) support my government while it takes the same view (even if for different reasons) and continues to play a part in the war.

what we did two, five, twenty, fifty, two hundred, five hundred years ago doesnt matter. That we are not always white knights or the good guys in white stettsons don't matter. I don't beleive might makes right or that the underdog is always the hero. It doesnt matter. We are in a war, and we fight it hard to the best of our ability without blowing up the planet until the other guy is so pummelled, we do not have to worry he might knife us when we help him back up, at least for the next 50-100 years. Never mind winners and losers. There are none. Only survivors...the scruffs and the better dressed.

We live in the here and the now. For many years we have had these groups doing what they liked and the relative cost to them was small because we rationalised it into something acceptable ..like a cost of doing business. They blow up a restraunt or an office, and we drop a few bombs on thier hometown HQ. They kidnap a westerner, we pay a ransom. They execute one, one of thier leaders would find Semtex in his gas tank.
Most everyone else would keep dreaming about a holiday to Bali or Aspen, and worry about paying the gas bill.

They changed that on 9/11 and threw the old concept of "doing business"
Now our leaders rightly or wrongly has decided the cost of doing business is total dominance. Bringing the war home I think was AQ's idea. They didnt expect the USA to take it to heart in the 21st century.

We now have this war caused buy idiots on both sides, but the fact is it is no less real or threatening to Jo Average or easy for us to turn our backs on. Iv'e heard a lot of people saying the war should be ended now, and finding people or past circumstance to blame for it, but I'm yet to hear a practical way (although many ideas have been offerred) that we can end this without getting the backs of our heads caved in in the process.

FDR was good at homespun domestic comparisions for explaining things to Americans like Lend Lease in WW2. he favoured comparisons to loaning a neighbour a garden hose to fight a fire or a tractor to plow a field.

Here's my poor attempt at a 21st century version

Its kinda like having a barbeque. Your there with your family and freinds, and all of a sudden a crazed gunman arrives and starts gunning down everyone.

Now you know he's been the victim of abuse by your grandfather, or an older brother, and your on his side on the issue, and would even testify for him.

But does it mean he has a right to start killing everyone in sight and that you stand by to wait your turn. Or hope that a police negotiator will eventually talk him around?

After all, he's the victim right?

I apologise in advance. My thought processes are more organised than thier delivery I am afraid.

Thanks

[edit on 14-10-2004 by craigandrew]

This topic should be changed and rightfully so!!!!!!!!!!

I will not quote anymore (Do to the fact I have no points and may be docked for quoting) . . .Anywho, I STILL believe Humans will evolve, 'course many on the outside dis~agree.


How dare anyone ask anyone why they have not enlisted!

Humans, can only withstand Humans, for so long, on the path that Humans are going.

There is no Cosmic law that requires any to enlist, this is called evolution.

Imagine . . .

. . .Peace

[edit on 14-10-2004 by alienasia]

O!

'Should be changed to. . . Why Haven't You Evolved?

Apollyon:

These men, soldiers fought for many things love of country, belief in purpose etc. This is what it means to be a soldier ...you fight for (or against) something with greater purpose than love of money or desire to kill.

Haha, good one. Is that why so many Yale and Harvard grads are in the Army? Why so many kids of rich backgrounds pack the military? Look at the racial and social makeup of your own Armed Forces and get back to me. This is not just true in the USA but in most developed nations with armies and no draft.

To say soldiers follow you imply they follow blindly this is far from the truth soldiers follow and lead because of what they believe in sometimes its is as simple as they believe in each other and the desire that they all survive. A soldier is not politic he doesn't create the policy of a nation, he does that in his role as a citizen through the electoral process or if need be revolution. The obedience of a soldier is not created by breaking him in basic a broken man will run under pressure but by reforging him in new image.

? Have you ever been in the Army? They have to "break you down to build you up". A soldier is traditionally a drone. Here's your mission, get it done, follow orders, don't ask questions. If you are disobedient you will either be courtmartialed or shot.

People who glamorize the army either haven't been in it or have some anger issues.


A doctor is more of a hero to me than any soldier. Both are just doing their jobs, one is saving lives, the other is taking them.

THE ONLY EXCEPTION I can really make is WWII, where it really WAS a war against an evil empire. Where soldiers really WERE saving the world.

Such criticism from your third party observations is simply sad and usually but not always leveled by one who aspired to wear the uniform but was found wanting.

Whatever. I never aspired to wear the uniform, and could totally join the army if I wanted, I'm in great shape, and always have been. I didn't want to because I don't think it's the highest calling to join your country's army. If you love you country, be active socially and politically instead of joining the Armed Forces.






[edit on 15-10-2004 by Jakomo]

Originally posted by Jakomo
People who glamorize the army either haven't been in it or have some anger issues.

[...]

I never aspired to wear the uniform, and could totally join the army if I wanted, I'm in great shape, and always have been.

For someone who has never been in the army, you sure seem to know a lot about it and those who would defend national service. The army can get you in shape. The one thing they can't do is issue you a backbone.

[edit on 04/10/15 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Jakomo
People who glamorize the army either haven't been in it or have some anger issues.

[...]

I never aspired to wear the uniform, and could totally join the army if I wanted, I'm in great shape, and always have been.

For someone who has never been in the army, you sure seem to know a lot about it and those who would defend national service. The army can get you in shape. The one thing they can't do is issue you a backbone.

[edit on 04/10/15 by GradyPhilpott]

Grady, I agree with you that Jacco is misinformed about those who enter the military.. I know a great deal of people who did very well in the military, who's lives were turned arround by it's structur. Granted it does have people with anger issues as you will find anywhere.

However do not insiuate that it is neccessary to join the military in order to have a bakbone.

Wraith

GradyPhilpott:

For someone who has never been in the army, you sure seem to know a lot about it and those who would defend national service. The army can get you in shape. The one thing they can't do is issue you a backbone.

Why yes, believe it or not, I can know a lot about the Army without having to join. There are people who have been there.

As for your backbone comment, um, whatever. You again stoop to silly personal attacks when you don't even know anything about me, so keep it up if it makes you feel smart. And heroic.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
For someone who has never been in the army, you sure seem to know a lot about it and those who would defend national service. The army can get you in shape. The one thing they can't do is issue you a backbone.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Why yes, believe it or not, I can know a lot about the Army without having to join. There are people who have been there.

Ya know, I've never worked at WalMart, but I know a lot about what it would be like to be employed there. I've never been a cop, fireman, lawyer, etc., but I do know quite a bit about their jobs, what they do, and how they're trained. Just because I've never been in the Army, doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. It's not as if it's some big secret. I know lots of people who have been in the services, most of whom will admit that it's generally full of dimwits that could f*ck up a wet dream. Don't consider yourself so privileged.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
For someone who has never been in the army, you sure seem to know a lot about it and those who would defend national service. The army can get you in shape. The one thing they can't do is issue you a backbone.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Why yes, believe it or not, I can know a lot about the Army without having to join. There are people who have been there.

Ya know, I've never worked at WalMart, but I know a lot about what it would be like to be employed there. I've never been a cop, fireman, lawyer, etc., but I do know quite a bit about their jobs, what they do, and how they're trained. Just because I've never been in the Army, doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. It's not as if it's some big secret. I know lots of people who have been in the services, most of whom will admit that it's generally full of dimwits that could f*ck up a wet dream.

Don't consider yourself so privileged.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Damned]

I was the first student in my JrROTC in my Hichschool ever to be requested to not take the calss again because of insuboridination.

does that count?

wraith


They aslo had a problem with my blue mowhawk....

Why you may ask was I in the JrROTC... it's all about the boots.. If there is one thing the military... specialy the Marines did right.. is the uniforms.. best boots arround.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by wraith30]

Originally posted by wraith30
However do not insiuate that it is neccessary to join the military in order to have a bakbone.

Actually this is what I said and I stand by it.

The one thing they [the army] can't do is issue you a backbone.

Originally posted by Jakomo

People who glamorize the army either haven't been in it or have some anger issues.

Why yes, believe it or not, I can know a lot about the Army without having to join. There are people who have been there.

Those those who speak positively about the military either haven't been in or have anger issues and you, having never been in the military, can speak negatively with authority about the military.

You are quite extraordinary.

[edit on 04/10/15 by GradyPhilpott]

This administration hasn't done # for us except send our young people off to die...we still don't know the true reason for this war, but we can all guess it's just to help for a reelection and make some profits by stealing oil as well.

There is no "cause" to stand up for, unless you enjoy being cannon fodder for George Bush. I will join when our nation is truely in danger. Currently we are invading another country for no reason. Many Americans have died for an unknown reason. This is simply unacceptable. You call yourself patriotic, and say that you support the troops. If you really did, you would demand justification for people to die in this war.

Would you feel fine if one of your children went off to Iraq and died? Would you really feel that it was for the good of our country and the world? I think we all know the answer. And we've all seen this internet commando talk many times over, you're no different or more unique than anyone else who has tried to glorify war and combat in a place where your identity is hidden. Hell, if you like war so much, re-enlist. We all know they're desperate for anyone to wear a uniform and shoot at iraqis. The military doesn't give a damn about you or anyone else.

Serving the bush administration in its conquest to loot, plunder, and generally bully the world around doesn't equate to an honorable position in my view. I would be ashamed to say that I fought in that war, knowing perfectly well what was really going on over there. And the military is designed to strip people of their character, turning you into a programmed killing machine that always obeys orders. I'd rather keep my self respect and my life by refusing to join until I am really needed.

.
Being gay and way too old I believe i am exempt from military service.

I remember growing up and watching the vietnam war everynight on TV news.
I wondered if i would be drafted after i graduated from High School.
Nixon did e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y end the war a couple of years before i graduated.

When i was young i probably would have gone if called upon. I probably would have been totally unsuited for it, but would have been very obedient.

With age and cynicism you would be very hard pressed to get me to willingly risk or give my life for some supposed cause of this nation.

Frankly the leadership then, since and now is basically stupid.
We didn't and don't have correct intelligence.
It's insane. We have killed 20,000 Iraqis, 1000 Americans, created devastation and destruction.
And for what?
NO WMDs.
NO connection to Al-Qaeda
NO connection to 911

We are creating a new generation of terrorists that blame the US for the terrible conditions of their lives.
We have created a sanctuary for terrorists in Fallujah.
We are LOSING control in Iraq. NOT gaining it

If I have to risk/give my life to something let it be for something that recognises me as a gay human being, led by people with ideals and vision that only ask that extreme price based on need or desperation.

I will never willingly support or fight for STUPIDITY
.