Why Haven't You Enlisted?

Why I have not enlisted?

a) I abhor, detest & loathe guns. Gimme a knife or a bow and arrow, I'm good to go. But I start shaking at the sight of guns. I understand why they were made, and I'm fine if others want to have and shoot them -- not me. (Therefore, I'd never make it thru basic, unless there was a gun-free version! )

Besides that, I think guns are the cowardly. If we're gonna duke it out, then let's fight person-to-person. If I'm going to hunt, I'm going to make it a sport, and give the creature a fighting chance.

b) I tried to enlist while in high skool, but they refused me because I had severe migraines.

c) The more I study philosophy, the more I value morals and principles. I cannot willingly submit to orders when I have no reason -- meaning, I see no purpose behind ending someone's life without a damn good reason.

d) I've never attempted to maliciously and aggressively attack someone, and I get very nervous when around physical violence in general. I don't like it, don't see a point to it, and try very hard to stay away from it.

e) My father spent years trying to order me around, and it failed miserably. So why would I willingly sign up for that?

f) I do not have pride in my country because I do not see its actions as worthy of being respected. If we were truly worried about freedom and democracy, we'd be working on those ideas here at home, rather than throwing our weight around in other countries. If we were worried about the environment, we'd be working towards solutions -- and not worried about the slash in profits. If we were worried about humanity, we'd stop paying farmers to not grow crops and make sure every person had food, shelter and clothing. This country may be the best humanity has so far, and I'll agree with that. However, that's not saying that it is the best it could be, nor is it working towards being the best it could be.

This country exhibits no great culture. We have great ideas, which we readily proclaim and hold on high, but degrade with materialism and consumerism. I cannot respect that.

"Do what you say, or say what you do." pfft.

g) I was not raised with the idea of being automatically 'in debt' to the country simply because my parents chose to have intercourse here and give birth to me here. I am grateful for the education it has provided me -- institutional (which I will willingly pay back my student loans), and social (providing great examples of how *not* to act towards other people). But I see no reason to forfeit my life for this country.

My grandfather, uncles and cousin (maybe others that I don't know about) served in various branches of the military. But, for the most part, they never tell their tales.. beyond the horrors of basic training. I know that my grandfather fought in WWII, but I know nothing beyond that fact. Military service has always been played down in my family.


Maybe my views are a product of a different generation -- individual over society. A generation who grew up with everything at their fingertips. Immediate gratification has warped my perspective on my self and my relation to the human race -- I have to learn to be patient, and understand that things (goals, change, etc.) take time. (I'm going to be 25 shortly, and am just now realizing this.)

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Diseria]

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Diseria]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Why haven't you enlisted?

Why haven't you enlisted in the cause of liberty?

Because If I were to enlist I would automatically be guilty of treason and subject to the death penalty as defined by the laws of the United States of America. And, I neither want to be a traitor, nor do I opt to recieve the death penalty, which would be legal after I enlisted.

Anyone who enlists in the military today is immediately subject to being branded a Traitor and is also guilty of Treason automatically.

Both Treason and being a traitor carry the penalty of death.

Link/Source:
usmilitary.about.com...

The United States Air Force’s Oath of Enlistment:

I, ___________________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

But, the american government disregarded Articles one and ten of the constitution when they chose the fashion in which we went to war with terrorists, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The integrity of the Constitution of the United States has not been upheld for over 5 years now, and America's administration and congress have disregarded many constitutional laws. So, obviously all military members who swore or affirmed the above oath, are currently in grieve violation of their oaths, unless they defend the constitution of the united states against domestic enemies, to include the government which disregarded many portions of the constitution.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Why haven't you enlisted?

Why haven't you enlisted in the cause of liberty?

Because, right after my oath of enlistment I would have to do one of the following:

1) Wage war upon the domestic government which has brought discredit upon the constitution which i have sworn to defend. And, since it is the people who determine who their representatives in the government are, and have chosen not to change the course, I would have to defend the constitution against the American people as well, or I would be guilty of Treason, and subject to the death penalty.

2) Ignore the actions and behaviors of the government of the United States of America and ignore my oath of enlistment, and just follow the "orders" of those whom have been appointed over me. In which case my actions and behaviors would be a direct violation of my oath of enlistment and I would be guilty of Treason, and subject to the death penalty.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Why haven't you enlisted?

Why haven't you enlisted in the cause of liberty?

Because if I did enlist I would have to abide by my oath of enlistment, and any choice that exists for me after that does not seem favorable. If I were to abide by the oath, would the government still pay me my salary if I were to follow my oath of enlistment and wage war upon the domestic enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America?

Why haven't you enlisted in the cause of liberty?

I think liberty is AWOL, and america is on the verge of being a failed experiment.

Perhaps you disagree.
But either:
1) the oath of enlistment changes
2) the constitution changes
3) the actions and behaviors of the government changes (to include the self serving intentions of the voters)

Or the future shall demonstrate that America's brand of democracy ($$$$) shall be a failed attempt at a concepts called "Liberty", "Justice", and "Freedom".

This is why I would consider not enlisting, ...... , with my soul torn between a God I trust, and the forfieting of the american ethical and moral highground, which we have surrendered to the almighty $.

Forgive me for not being "politically correct", but I feel I have too much integrity to tell lies as easily as "politically correct" people do.


[edit on 24-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

Forgive me for not being "politically correct", but I feel I have too much integrity to tell lies as easily as "politically correct" people do.

OH HO!!!!

Your PLENTY Politically Correct......

100%, Pure ACLU Correct

Semper

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Because If I were to enlist I would automatically be guilty of treason and subject to the death penalty as defined by the laws of the United States of America.

Oh, brother!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Because If I were to enlist I would automatically be guilty of treason and subject to the death penalty as defined by the laws of the United States of America.

Oh, brother!

I gather you do not agree with my logic? You most certainly have that right, and you most certainly have earned the right to do so. I can not argue that whatsoever.

I just have 3 questions for you to either ask yourself, or share your stance on here openly. I thank you in advance either way, and appreciate your time as well.

1) In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and civilian law, isn't treason punishable by death?

2) Are the actions and behaviors of the government of the USA in good faith compliant with the constitution?

3) Are military members currently in compliance with the oath of enlistment?


Again, respectfully thank you for your pondering, and response to these questions, whether thought out in your own mind, or shared in open forum.

I'm content with either, and i thank you for the content of this thread material.

thanks,
john

I believe that the answer to all your questions are yes.

Serving one's country honorably does not make one a traitor by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of what your professors may say in class.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I believe that the answer to all your questions are yes.

I thank you for your thoughts on this, and i do value them.

I humbly dissagree somewhat as i personally believe that the answers to #2 and #3 could be "no", or at the least in some gray area.

Serving one's country honorably does not make one a traitor by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of what your professors may say in class.

I do not adopt my opinion from a classroom proffesor.

My viewpoint derives from personal experience, and my brother's first hand account of his boss's (SecDef) point of view regarding the same 3 questions.

Again, I appreciate this thread and the validity of the views expressed here. I infinitly appreciate the opportunity to hear/read other peoples viewpoints and share my own.

I truly like the subject matter of this thread,
thanks,
john

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I believe that the answer to all your questions are yes.

Serving one's country honorably does not make one a traitor by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of what your professors may say in class.

well, today i was talking vietnam vets at the vet center today

one of them said how christmas time always reminded him of the day he became a traitor
by following his orders honorably

there is no way to serve yourself honorably in the army
because there is nothing honorable about being willing to KILL for a cause
sure, wanting to DIE for a cause, that is honor

killing for your country isn't honorable unless there is a threat of imminent invasion (ie, someone was invading canada or mexico, and we knew they were going to go through the united states next)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

there is no way to serve yourself honorably in the army
because there is nothing honorable about being willing to KILL for a cause
sure, wanting to DIE for a cause, that is honor

Yeah, surrender is always preferable to protecting your way of life.

I'd like to meet that "vet."

What a joke.

Is there no excuse too weasely (of or relating to a weasel).

Main Entry: 1wea·sel
Pronunciation: 'wE-z&l
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural weasels
Etymology: Middle English wesele, from Old English weosule; akin to Old High German wisula weasel

1 or plural weasel : any of various small slender active carnivorous mammals (genus Mustela of the family Mustelidae, the weasel family) that are able to prey on animals (as rabbits) larger than themselves, are mostly brown with white or yellowish underparts, and in northern forms turn white in winter -- compare ERMINE 1a

2 : a light self-propelled tracked vehicle built either for traveling over snow, ice, or sand or as an amphibious vehicle

3 : a sneaky, untrustworthy, or insincere person

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Yeah, surrender is always preferable to protecting your way of life.

I'd like to meet that "vet."

What a joke.

Is there no excuse too weasely (of or relating to a weasel).

well, you could meet him if you want
anyway
you ignored my entire part on how defense of a nation from an imminent threat was acceptable

secondly, you're making light of a man that i'd consider a friend and confidant
he's seen combat in 2 wars

calling him weasely, he is nothing more than the type of person you call a hero when they do nothing more than take the pain and follow the path of those that would lead mere children into the same situations

so, mindless, blindly obediant lap-dog soldier = hero

soldier who thinks for himself and speaks out against conflict = A WEASEL

you are a hypocrite

I was actually refering to you, but I'd probably say the same thing to the vet, if he held to that position.

I'm nobody's lap dog, by the way, and I'm no hero.

I do have a spine, however.

Bad policy does not equal treason.
The war in Iraq in and of itself is not a treasonous affair, and therefore there is no treason on the part of our servicemen.

America did have a legitimate interest in doing something about Saddam, not one necessarily best served through war but one that indeed could be served in that manner to some degree, albeit probably at greater costs than other options.

Now that we're in such a mess there, we have an even greater interest in the fight, in that we have a responsibility to extricate ourselves from this mess with minimal further harm either to ourselves or to the Iraqi people.

There are arguments to be made in regard to the war powers act of 1973, the possibility that the executive branch has pursued interests beyond those of America's at a detriment to both America and Iraq, etc.

None of these arguments affect the status of our troops. I am not aware of any principle in international law requiring soldiers to make moral judgements about complex issues affecting jus ad bellum: the justice of a declaration of war. International legal precedent holds troops primarily responisble for making the simpler judgements of jus en bellum: the humane conduct of war as established by international law, which includes such things as not using chemical weapons, not pillaging, not murdering prisoners, etc, and furthermore responsibility can arguably be interpreted as varying by a person's position within the military, as can be observed in the selection of officers for trial at Nuremburg.

Let us suppose that a case went all the way to the SCOTUS and it was found that the executive branch started this war by deception, and willfully operated the entire thing in such a way as to gain maximum profit for contractors with utter disregard for any legitimate interest which the sovereignty of the United States might possibly justify.

Is a soldier then guilty of treason for being lied to? America is not always right. Government is not always perfect. Leaders are not always honest. But a man who risks his life in the belief that he is protecting his neighbors and to the best of his knowledge and ability does so in a manner compliant with the law is never a criminal.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I do have a spine, however.

Here we have the author's premise...40 pages of assuring one man that he does indeed have a backbone.

Wrong way around, Shok - Grady is asking why so few people have backbones nowadays. Trust me, watching the crowds since I've been on leave is a bit of an alien experience for me, even as a half-formed soldier. Civvies are all so...greedy. Selfish? I don't know, that lack that bit of politeness that I've always encountered from every branch and person in the military. It's always looking out for number one in civvieland.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
Wrong way around, Shok - Grady is asking why so few people have backbones nowadays. Trust me, watching the crowds since I've been on leave is a bit of an alien experience for me, even as a half-formed soldier. Civvies are all so...greedy. Selfish? I don't know, that lack that bit of politeness that I've always encountered from every branch and person in the military. It's always looking out for number one in civvieland.

No...he was originally asking "why haven't you enlisted?" Instead, it has turned into him "telling" people why they should enlist, using himself as a prime example of the great military man...not that I am saying there is anything wrong with enlisting or serving in the military. But he is the one saying there is something wrong with NOT enlisting or serving in the military. Which goes against the (seemingly) original purpose of this thread. Instead of respectfully listening to other's views, he simply retorts with a comment on what kind of men they are...quite childish, and indicative of this thread's true purpose--a self-administered ego stroke.

Looks like you've got a similar issue. "Civvies" are "greedy", "selfish", etc etc. Sorry, but what gives you the right to say so...have you been to war? Is there something that makes a person selfish or greedy simply for not joining an all-volunteer military? If you guys have such a problem with our nation's policy on an all volunteer military, then you can go ahead and write your congressmen, telling them you support legislation for mandatory service...that's about as much as you can do, like it or not. Pointing fingers and calling names is not going to help anything.

All the great men I have known who served in the military have been very modest about their service, and would never say such things. To say that military men are better than civilians is a great blanket statement, lacking any fact or truth. It's also a nice indicator of the type of person who said it...

[edit on 26-12-2006 by Shoktek]

Originally posted by Shoktek
No...he was originally asking "why haven't you enlisted?" Instead, it has turned into him "telling" people why they should enlist, using himself as a prime example of the great military man...not that I am saying there is anything wrong with enlisting or serving in the military. But he is the one saying there is something wrong with NOT enlisting or serving in the military. Which goes against the (seemingly) original purpose of this thread. Instead of respectfully listening to other's views, he simply retorts with a comment on what kind of men they are...quite childish, and indicative of this thread's true purpose--a self-administered ego stroke.

From what I've seen, he has been a bit aggressive about his question. It's not that he's saying that he's better, it's more of a query as to what makes people not enlist, especially when they clearly have the will and the way to make excellent soldiers. Of course, over the course of this thread people have attacked the military for any number of reasons, stating consistently (hell, on this page) that soldiers are the babykilling scum of the earth, traitors, etc.

Looks like you've got a similar issue. "Civvies" are "greedy", "selfish", etc etc. Sorry, but what gives you the right to say so...have you been to war? Is there something that makes a person selfish or greedy simply for not joining an all-volunteer military? If you guys have such a problem with our nation's policy on an all volunteery military, then you can go ahead and write your congressmen, telling them you support legislation for mandatory service...that's about as much as you can do, like it or not. Pointing fingers and calling names is not going to help anything.

Firstly, I don't have a congressman. Secondly, as I have said, I was merely observing the people below in the Eaton's Center. In the military, if you see someone with pimp collar, or their tags out, of carrying a ton of crap, you look out for them. You hold doors, you point out what's wrong and ask if you can help. You just don't see that in civvieland, or at least I haven't, not once since I've been back.

All the great men I have known who served in the military have been very modest about their service, and would never say such things. To say that military men are better than civilians is a great blanket statement, lacking any fact or truth. It's also a nice indicator of the type of person who said it...

What can I say? Proud to be here, proud to serve. I'm not saying I'm a better person, but at least I'm more than willing to step up to the challenge of bettering myself. It's the small things that you see...or don't...that really make the distinction. Brotherhood?

Christ Jesus, my rangemaster told me to avoid exactly these kinds of conversations. It's almost impossible to describe what it's like to be in, how it changes you. Civvies just shake their heads and shrug.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
From what I've seen, he has been a bit aggressive about his question. It's not that he's saying that he's better, it's more of a query as to what makes people not enlist, especially when they clearly have the will and the way to make excellent soldiers. Of course, over the course of this thread people have attacked the military for any number of reasons, stating consistently (hell, on this page) that soldiers are the babykilling scum of the earth, traitors, etc.

People list perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting, or not being able to, join the military. He then responds with either a direct insult, or some kind of implication that they are less than men, or lacking fortitude/courage/backbone/what have you. Regardless of the fact that we live in a country where military service is completely optional, and that there are plenty of civilian jobs that are occupied by people who are just as great as those in the military, doing things that are just as beneficial and selfless.

Firstly, I don't have a congressman. Secondly, as I have said, I was merely observing the people below in the Eaton's Center. In the military, if you see someone with pimp collar, or their tags out, of carrying a ton of crap, you look out for them. You hold doors, you point out what's wrong and ask if you can help. You just don't see that in civvieland, or at least I haven't, not once since I've been back.

Ok, so you're in the canadian army? Have you done anything more worthy of recognition than a local cop or border patrolman? How does your career choice make you a better person than someone else?

If you haven't seen normal everyday people helping each other out, or know non-military people who would help yourself or others out, simply because they can or want to, then that's pretty sad...I think most people at least know someone who has their back, or have encountered people even on a daily basis who have common courtesy, manners, and a decent set of morals...all without having served in the military. Maybe you need to get out more.

What can I say? Proud to be here, proud to serve. I'm not saying I'm a better person, but at least I'm more than willing to step up to the challenge of bettering myself. It's the small things that you see...or don't...that really make the distinction. Brotherhood?

Christ Jesus, my rangemaster told me to avoid exactly these kinds of conversations. It's almost impossible to describe what it's like to be in, how it changes you. Civvies just shake their heads and shrug.

Yea, ok...your quote from earlier clearly implied that civilians are not as good as those in the military. Military meaning you. You didn't come out and say "I'm Better than you!", but you might as well have. I just think its quite interesting how your choice of career automatically entitles you to that pulpit where you can talk down to the rest of us...actions be damned.

There's certainly nothing wrong with coming out and having conversations about what you like/dislike in the service, what you do, how the experience is, etc. But the very first thing you said is about civilians being "selfish" and "greedy". I think that's proof enough of my point, and the real reason why maybe you should avoid "these kinds of conversations" in the future. You can't seem to discuss yourself or your "service" without flaunting it, as well as trying to belittle others in the process...just an observation, going by what you've said.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by Shoktek]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Bad policy does not equal treason.
The war in Iraq in and of itself is not a treasonous affair, and therefore there is no treason on the part of our servicemen.

Perhaps my point was misunderstood. Although I did enjoy reading and thinking about many of the points you brought up.

I'm not saying "Bad policy" equals treason. I am saying that the definition of treason, coupled with the total disregard or ignoring of the constitution and the oath that service members make does equal treason.

1) Service members swear/affirm to defend and uphold the constitution. It is there first and formost responsibility as service members. It is the purpose and reason for our way of life.

2) Policy makers have not been following the "spirit" of the constitution in their policy making procedures.

3) Service members who do not defend and uphold the constitution against such practices are doing things that easily fit the definition of treason.

This was the point i was trying to make.

All one needs to do to make the same conclusion is:

1) Look the oath of enlistment.
2) Look at the constitution.
3) Look at governmental policies.
4) Look at the definitions of and subcategories of treason.

If it is your personal belief that there is no conflict in those four, then perhaps your interpretation is different from others. This does not neccesarily mean you are wrong, perhaps it just means that the reason for some people believing so should probably be addressed more effectivley. But, given the facts concering the 4 above mentioned references, it is something difficult for me to see.

Originally posted by Shoktek
No...he was originally asking "why haven't you enlisted?" Instead, it has turned into him "telling" people why they should enlist, using himself as a prime example of the great military man.... But he is the one saying there is something wrong with NOT enlisting or serving in the military.

Care to provide some examples of these allegations?

I don't require validation.

I don't think you've been following the thread.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Care to provide some examples of these allegations?

I don't require validation.

I don't think you've been following the thread.

I've been following the thread, because I was hoping for some interesting discussions between both sides...unfortunately, it has been more bashing than real back and forth discussions (bashing on both sides).

I'm not going to hunt through 40 pages for examples, but anyone who really has been reading the thread knows what I'm talking about...including you. All I would like to see is a little bit more openness in how you receive others ideas and reasons for not wanting to join up...instead of just seeming to force your own beliefs on others, simply because you say so.

If you would like to write about how mandatory military service will improve our society, then I would be glad to read it. But am sick of the "I have backbone" quips and other responses that don't make for a good discussion.