Why Haven't You Enlisted?

I didn't sign up because:

I learned to read. (not spell it seems)

I am allergic to high energy lead (urainium).

I am not a flag waving, warmongering, right-wing elitist.

I actually like poeple in general.

I am partly Irish and they call us terrorists as soon as we take up arms.

I think.

This seems to cover most of my reasons, if I come up with more i'll share them ;p

I didn't say it had to be paid in blood just that it's paid...did get to the part about teaching a child to read?

If you truely are a pacifist then the no act of violence would be condoned even virtual violence, as this is a metaphor for real violence. I also think military based video games belittle the sacrifices of the real military.

Originally posted by heelstone

Originally posted by Apollyon
Something I've always despised is hypocrisy. I loathe the student who welcomes the government grant but wouldnt wear a uniform. I loathe the pacifist who is an expert in video games that glorify martial skill. If you are good enough to take Uncle's greenbacks you should pay the Uncle back.

Why should money be paid back with blood? Its just money.

I don't even understand your point of pacifists who enjoy violent video games. Its escapist entertainment. Not an endorsement of violence in the real world.

Originally posted by Apollyon
If you truely are a pacifist then the no act of violence would be condoned even virtual violence, as this is a metaphor for real violence. I also think military based video games belittle the sacrifices of the real military.

I was thinking this myself recently after seeing the game 'Medal of honor.' I thought about how the Normandy veterans might feel seeing their sacrifice recreated as a form of entertainment. But I do not agree with you about virtual violence. How can you say that pacifists should disagree when there is no moral implication. Do you feel there is, even though it isn't even real?

[edit on 13/10/2004 by earthtone]

First off excellent reply but you sort of missed my point, or perhaps I did not make it clearly enough. The point I was trying to make is this there are many in America that have the attitude of a spoiled teenager with wealthy parents who will complain loudly about their parents behind their back and while driving their car but are only too happy to accept money and privilege that they have not earned nor aren't grateful for. I understand full well that government exists to serve the people but is there no reciprocal responsibility, especially since in effect WE are the government aren't we responsible to each other ? I loathe that take without respect for what they been given and without gratitude. I would think it a greater return if somebody were to spend 4 years willingly teaching inner city kids to read than unwilling serving in the military, wouldn't you? The point is the return good citizenship is a dynamic between government and governed you can't always take you must also give.

The government is created to serve individuals, not the other way around. The individual's obligation to give to the government is limited to what the majority votes to make mandatory. Those of us who obey the law and pay our taxes have given back already. If the majority chooses to vote in a draft we would be obligated to "give back" more or to forsake the comforts which that giving would have afforded us (leave the country). That is why it is our duty as patriots to oppose the draft before it is implemented- to avoid being unpatriotic (by definition it would be unpatriotic to refuse a legally instituted draft because we would be obligated to disown our country. That is not morally wrong either, no more than refusing to make any purchase would be, but it would be unpatriotic.)

If you only wish to participate on the most minimal level I suppose this is true but if you take more then you should give more back.

I ask you to momentarily disown belief or disbelief in the above statement and simply answer a proposition of logic. (If you are unfamiliar with such propositions, the object is for you to show how the statement I make is illogical as I have phrased it, without respect to your personal beliefs.)
IF those who have never served in the military can make no moral judgment against military service, THEN those who have never stolen can make no moral judgment against thievery.

No I see where you are going with this but you slightly miss my point, I'm saying unless you have stolen you can't make a moral judgment against the thief not against theft as a concept, only the thief knows WHY he stole ( to feed his hunger kids or for the joy of stealing etc).

I have already addressed the fact that those who are discontent with this nations current policies are adding to this country in all of the ways required of citizens, and therefore not materially detracting. Perhaps by detracting you mean that we disagree openly and are a source of disharmony.
It is ironic that you demand that we leave for this reason after painting America's founders in such a glorious light, considering that the reasons for which you would have us leave are the very same for which are founding fathers were forced from their previous homes!
Furthermore, our founding fathers did not just sail away to unclaimed territory and set up shop in a new place. They took up arms against the British government and freed their land as well as themselves. By my reasoning they were right to do so, although by the view of a loyalist who might have wanted our founding fathers to "leave", they actually stole land they never could have occupied if not for the very government they broke away from! It could therefore be said that while I wish to work within the democratic process to achieve my ends, you are advocating that I should take up arms or otherwise act in an uncivil manner because of my dissent. Although this is unequivocally the logical end of your argument, you say that I am the one who lacks patriotism or American values. (I realize you failed to think it through and do not support it anymore, but without a doubt if you did continue to make your previous argument you could only be arguing for revolution.)

No, the point I'm trying to make and perhaps failing to is, disagree with the policies not the office or country. Instead of AMERICA SUCKS how about America is an great country who's current policies SUCK. It may seem like simple semantics but it is not. The zeitgeist seems to be one of trashing America and I'm sick of it especially from people who really don't mean to but are too lazy or to inarticulate to accurately express their dissatisfaction. Unless of course they think America does suck. Then they should leave as their dissatisfaction is with the concept of America as a whole and not with the current vagaries of the political climate, or occupant of the White House.

Am I a little clearer?

OK What we have here is a failure to communicate! WE ARE ALL IMMAGRANTS that was my point fleeing to America to escape what ever in the old world I'm sorry if you mistook anything I said.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by Apollyon
Something I've always despised is hypocrisy. Our nation (and I can only speak of Americans because I do not know the national character of other nations well enough to guess their motivations) was born of malcontents, adventures, dreamers, the pious and the profane, forced by faith or economic uncertainty or political grievance from every corner of the globe to collect here like condensation forced from a boiling kettle we have blended as best we could the colors and creeds from the corners of the globe and we are here. The last spot the last place to run.

When driven from there land of birth people have come here to be safe secure and free, this last spot. It has been the duty and the privilege a select few to defend and protect this last sacred spot. So if you are one of the ungrateful wretches who can choose to benefit from living here but can detract and denigrate this country LEAVE! Does this mean you must follow like sheep and obey blindly what the current occupant of the White House says? NO
You want to protest the war fine that is you right and responsibility but give back..spend some time at a VA hospital as a volunteer, teach a kid to read DO SOMETHING USEFUL
and quit sucking the life out this place.

It sounds like you harbour a great deal of anger toward immigrants, and aim your assault right at the chests of the very men and women whose deaths in Iraq at the start of the invasion embarrassed your government to rush a bill through granting posthumous citizenship with no additional benefits (whatever they may be) and such extention to their wives/husbands/children.

A quick and unscientific statistical calculation:
No of immigrants to U.S '96-'03= 9,700,000.
No of immigrants given citizenship '96-'03= 5,504,000.
No. of green card holders = 4,196,000

U.S citizens @ 2003= 293,000,000. - 4,196,000 = 288,804,000
Active armed forces per Sen. Issa= 1,400,000
2% green cards holders per Issa= 28,000
Total citizens in ActiveF= 1,372,000
percentage of total citizens in AF to total citizen pop= .48%
percentage of green card holders to GC immigrants= .67%.

I would say the green card holders are more than being patriotic. What would you say?

What a wonderful way that was by you to say thank you to those; malcontents, adventurers, dreamers, pious, profane, faith denied, economically deprived and politically grieved, moochers who actually volunteer as above.

The last safe spot? Really now.

references:
www.issa.house.gov...
uscis.gov...

I find your post repugnant and insulting you think yourself the better of those that served to give you the right to post your prattle? I have never dismissed as mindlessness a persons post before but I'm so offend by it I can and will not hold my tongue. Your flippant reply was neither clever nor charming. I am DOUBLY offended for being of Irish heritage and you demean the Irish veteran more. I suggest the next time you consider so inane a post you you ask the opinion of somebody who's wisdom exceeds yours.

Originally posted by Corinthas
I didn't sign up because:

I learned to read. (not spell it seems)

I am allergic to high energy lead (urainium).

I am not a flag waving, warmongering, right-wing elitist.

I actually like poeple in general.

I am partly Irish and they call us terrorists as soon as we take up arms.

I think.

This seems to cover most of my reasons, if I come up with more i'll share them ;p

I also served during Gulf War I. Did a total of 5 years, 3 as a Nuclear Weapons Tech, and 2 as an MP.

I thought about re-enlisting, but changed my mind at the last minute.

Would I enlist for the "war on Terror"? No way. A war of this type is for spec ops, and those trained to deal with terrorists. The average Joe is a battlefront soldier.

'Cause there is no need for 'me' to do such a thing. I believe and HOPE that man will evolve away from destruction and killing, some of us already have.

War is natural we are evolved to kill!

Originally posted by alienasia
'Cause there is no need for 'me' to do such a thing. I believe and HOPE that man will evolve away from destruction and killing, some of us already have.

A very interesting question Grady.

I would have to say that I didn't not sign up for a number of reasons first and formost is that I do not trust the president and I am not willing to follow without question a man who I feel has no honor. I also have an inherant tendancy to question authority and with that have a problem with killing somone just because somone else says he is the badguy.

For those who have commented that those who do not enlist because they are consiension objector or simply peace minded will make good fodder. I would say that those people who say the peace minded are cowards, or are unamerican have no real concept of freedom. Though I have no desire to join this country's military is not to say that I am inherantly a peacefull person. I will rip out someones throat if I must, but it will be on my terms and it will be my choise.

I will not join the military because I will not submit my will to a thoughtless leader.

Wraith

Originally posted by Apollyon
War is natural we are evolved to kill!

that's beautiful, man. you're a real humanist.
and there you have it. the military mentality at it's most honourable. go kick and door and shoot someone. it will make you feel better.

if you believe in evolution, you must believe that we(some of us, at least) are still evolving. good luck with that cranium, buddy.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by billybob]

Originally posted by wraith30
... I do not trust the president and I am not willing to follow without question a man who I feel has no honor.

Exactly! Honor is what's missing in politics, especially in our current government. Even the mafia has honor. Our current "leaders", of the most legal organized crime organization (the US gov.), have no clue what honor even means.

I would say that those people who say the peace minded are cowards, or are unamerican have no real concept of freedom.

I also agree with this. Those types of people just seem to be incapable of understanding peace, period. They are the ones who are causing all the problems in the world. Not only are they anti-peace, they're anti-live and let live.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by Damned]

We as humans are simple evolved to kill it is biology not sociology. Why must you be insulting when presented with simple facts?
Do you feel bigger and stronger when you insult others.
Or is that what passes for discousre in your house.

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Apollyon
War is natural we are evolved to kill!

that's beautiful, man. you're a real humanist.
and there you have it. the military mentality at it's most honourable. go kick and door and shoot someone. it will make you feel better.

if you believe in evolution, you must believe that we(some of us, at least) are still evolving. good luck with that cranium, buddy.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by billybob]

Originally posted by Apollyon
We as humans are simple evolved to kill it is biology not sociology. Why must you be insulting when presented with simple facts?
Do you feel bigger and stronger when you insult others.
Or is that what passes for discousre in your house.

Maybe some of us have evolved then. Some people don't feel a need to kill anyone or anything. Therefore, your biology theory doesn't hold up. Human men were also rapists originally. They went around and took women whenever they wanted. Does that mean we all have to go around raping women?

Originally posted by Apollyon
We as humans are simple evolved to kill it is biology not sociology. Why must you be insulting when presented with simple facts?
Do you feel bigger and stronger when you insult others.
Or is that what passes for discousre in your house.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by billybob]

Actualy no.. we are evolved to think not to kill. Our nails have become soft to allow for better manipulation of tools, our teeth have evolved for eating a wider range of food so that hunting and tearing live flesh is not the only option. Our eyes have changed from motion to a greater focus of color indicitive of a creature that builds and does not hunt for survival. We are bipedal which is not indicitive of speed for hunting but rather designed to allow for use of tools by freeing up our hands.

So, biologicly.. we are NOT evolved for killing. We are designed to solve problems, build, desing, create. Unfortunatly, psychologicly there are a number of people who's minds have not evolved with their bodys and then use the tools created to compensate for a lack of natrual weapons.

wraith

Originally posted by Apollyon
We as humans are simple evolved to kill it is biology not sociology. Why must you be insulting when presented with simple facts?
Do you feel bigger and stronger when you insult others.
Or is that what passes for discousre in your house.

do you feel bigger and stronger than somebody when your pumping them full of lead? nothing is more insulting than high speed lead poisoning.

so, are you an evolutionary biologist or anthropologist? what exactly is the organ we have evolved for killing? is it our projectile quills? our big sharp horns and giant fangs?

news flash! we have evolved with THINKING as our chief function. is it guns that build and heat our houses? is it bombs that grow food for us? is it mines that allow us to make collective decisions? did attila the hun make a watch or power generator for himself?

yes we have the hunting instinct. we evolved that to get FOOD, not political power. it is a perversion to murder another human.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by billybob]

Killing is killing, a deer, a pig, a human is all the same mechanically. Our steroscopic vision and erect posture facilitates our being killers. I've never felt the need to make my self feel stronger or better than somebody so kicking in a door and "pumping them full of lead " really isn't an issue. Killing is what we are about we kill our gods (Jesus), we kill to eat, we kill to oppress, we kill to free, we even kill to save souls. The history of the world is made by those that kill not by watch makers. You are sadly mistaken to think it is a perversion to kill, it is simply a reflection of our animal nature most animals will kill there own species if enviromental pressures are great. The sad part is we no longer recognise this or what are the current "pressures" religion politics etc. We cannot change the nature of man we can only seek to remove the external stimuli to kill.

Just a test ...can you name 10 killers



Can you name 10 watchmakers or power plant engineers ?



You seem awefully angry too you should more constructivly channel your agression...you should hunt.

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Apollyon
We as humans are simple evolved to kill it is biology not sociology. Why must you be insulting when presented with simple facts?
Do you feel bigger and stronger when you insult others.
Or is that what passes for discousre in your house.

do you feel bigger and stronger than somebody when your pumping them full of lead? nothing is more insulting than high speed lead poisoning.

so, are you an evolutionary biologist or anthropologist? what exactly is the organ we have evolved for killing? is it our projectile quills? our big sharp horns and giant fangs?

news flash! we have evolved with THINKING as our chief function. is it guns that build and heat our houses? is it bombs that grow food for us? is it mines that allow us to make collective decisions? did attila the hun make a watch or power generator for himself?

yes we have the hunting instinct. we evolved that to get FOOD, not political power. it is a perversion to murder another human.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by billybob]

That is a fuction of society not biology if there was a collapse to a neo stone age would not this happen again? If it could then we are still the rapists at heart only controlled and focused my the social mores around us.

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Apollyon
We as humans are simple evolved to kill it is biology not sociology. Why must you be insulting when presented with simple facts?
Do you feel bigger and stronger when you insult others.
Or is that what passes for discousre in your house.

Maybe some of us have evolved then. Some people don't feel a need to kill anyone or anything. Therefore, your biology theory doesn't hold up. Human men were also rapists originally. They went around and took women whenever they wanted. Does that mean we all have to go around raping women?

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 .

Originally posted by wraith30

Originally posted by Apollyon
We as humans are simple evolved to kill it is biology not sociology. Why must you be insulting when presented with simple facts?
Do you feel bigger and stronger when you insult others.
Or is that what passes for discousre in your house.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by billybob]

Actualy no.. we are evolved to think not to kill. Our nails have become soft to allow for better manipulation of tools, our teeth have evolved for eating a wider range of food so that hunting and tearing live flesh is not the only option. Our eyes have changed from motion to a greater focus of color indicitive of a creature that builds and does not hunt for survival. We are bipedal which is not indicitive of speed for hunting but rather designed to allow for use of tools by freeing up our hands.

So, biologicly.. we are NOT evolved for killing. We are designed to solve problems, build, desing, create. Unfortunatly, psychologicly there are a number of people who's minds have not evolved with their bodys and then use the tools created to compensate for a lack of natrual weapons.

wraith

Originally posted by Apollyon
That is a fuction of society not biology if there was a collapse to a neo stone age would not this happen again? If it could then we are still the rapists at heart only controlled and focused my the social mores around us.

I don't believe so. If it did happen, it would only be people like you doing the raping and killing. It's our minds that tell us it's wrong. Our minds have created society. Given free reign, I wouldn't abuse anyone any more than I normally do. It's just not in me. Killing and/or violating people is something more driven by anger, IMO, not biology. All kids in grade school were not bullies, constantly trying to hurt others. Only the angry kids do that. You have to have a serious hatred in order to do heinous things without feeling guilt. This is a major difference between people, IMO. Some are still primates, who can't figure out how to do anything except react on the most basic emotional level. Others think and respond accordingly. While you can teach people manners or rules, you really can't teach them true morals, IMO. Nobody ever had to tell me that killing is wrong. It's something I always knew for myself.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by Damned]