'I Just Can't Stand By': American Veterans Join the Fight in Ukraine

[reACTIONary]

Source: New York Times, No Paywall

‘I Just Can’t Stand By’: American Veterans Join the Fight in Ukraine

“Sanctions can help, but sanctions can’t help right now, and people need help right now,” said the former Marine, who lives in Tampa Bay, Fla., and like other veterans interviewed for this article asked that only his first name be used for security reasons. “I can help right now.”

All across the United States, small groups of military veterans are gathering, planning and getting passports in order. After years of serving in smoldering occupations, trying to spread democracy in places that had only a tepid interest in it, many are hungry for what they see as a righteous fight to defend freedom against an autocratic aggressor with a conventional and target-rich army.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/us/american-veterans-volunteer-ukraine-russia.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DODm4fiPkORIGF9l3MbqNlIsU-wzmBTdladaEoQOF00uJSJQlwSBOho52J3Y4YOD40oMSzQmYyldrrbIwPzAXLPCO_Ofstg_q2pQ6HOzy9RvDc03J2JgxjvcBicVm13SAClbOWG-QlxoN63P8lUpF7QjYHYzKY_KW9U2UIM9SMZxvd7AA9SrsZDWmVxYjAnupGJAZCClvGT2d943I-7L5fOtAUOqX-J30waZa0wOVRWiEzctDfV9BmTJPUlr5qrbfLtRWKrcK3zP0zH69f16jWQPvthI0gX2YQh6tj-YgAEg&smid=url-share

[COL Mustard]

1. I have read that the Russians

Won't regard foreign fighters as enemy combatants. Meaning if you go there and are captured, you're likely to be killed.

[samsingh]

14. killing American vets might bring the US into the war

[Texin]

26. No, I don't think so. They're going of their own volition, not on the U.S., orders

as part of a U.S. military presence. The U.S. doesn't want to engage Russia because of the near term threat of a (clearly) devolving dictator using nuclear weapons, even of a short-range tactical ltype.

[gab13by13]

2. Then Ukraine should give them dual citizenships.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. As we should give citizenship to those who join our military.

But we don't.

We need to get our own house in order.

[Blues Heron]

3. Trying to spread democracy lol

Yeah we droned the shit out of civilian wedding parties cuz we were spreading democracy. The gray lady propaganda just doesn't ever stop. Capture the oil fields in the name of democracy- does anybody believe this shite?

[wnylib]

4. And yet, sometimes, as in Ukraine, it really is true.

Ditto WWII. Not just saving democracy, but civilization itself.

[Blues Heron]

6. Is it really civilized to vaporize a city? Not really, but it did end the war

Sorry, two cities

[wnylib]

8. Totally agree about the bombing of Japanese cities.

Should have hit Japanese military sites instead.

OTOH, there was the liberation of Paris, and later the concentration camps where there was nothing remotely civilized. Nazi Germany was crushed.

[Smackdown2019]

10. Wrong answer

In July 1945, entire Japan island was of itself a military target. Why? Every man, woman and children were ordered and most were trained to defend their ground. Therefore, the A-bomb was warranted!

[intheflow]

16. Nukes are never warranted.

They could have done the same damage with conventional weapons and not had the added curse of nuclear fallout, corresponding cancer rates, and contaminated water supplies.

But of course, I think all bombing is unwarranted. I'd rather live in a world of expert assassins who get their one target and leave the civilians alone.

[Tommymac]

21. No. Bombing was not working that way at all in Japan in 1945.

The leaders were not going to give up until they were dead.

It was touch and go even after the A-Bombs were dropped - a large percentage of the Japanese War Party STILL wanted to continue the war. Only the Emperor was able to reach out directly to the Japanese People to stop it - the War party tried to kill HIM.

Sorry, the A bombs were needed at that time. Or would you rather have seen millions of Americans and Japanese die, more treasure wasted on war materials, and the War drag on until 1946/7?

History justifies the use of those weapons. It was a one time thing. And without the MAD doctrine of deterrence they would have been used again and again.

People die in WAR. Solution is to get rid of WAR.

[wnylib]

37. I believe that we used the A bomb on Japan because

1) it was a new weapon and the military and president wanted to test the effects on a large, cross section of people;
2) revenge for Pearl Harbor; and
3) it ended the war faster.

Bombing military targets would have ended the war faster, too, but without a cross section of people to test the A bomb on. The Japanese started the war with an attack on a military target. We ended it with a vengeful step higher on the psychological shock factor.

[Tommymac]

42. Not going to disagree anymore, Read the history of the times.

The Japanese people were ready to fight to the death if the Emperor asked them too.

Conventional bombing would not have finished the war - only boots on the ground can do that.

No one wanted to use the A bomb. Truman was haunted by his decision the rest of his life, but he felt he made the right call and saved MILLIONS of lives.

Those people were more determined then the suicide bombers of today - Japanese Culture in the early to mid 2oth Century was a Culture of Death - they revered it.

Again, please don't take my word - read. I did. Dozens upon dozens of histories from both sides. For 50 years. And my conclusion is that dropping the bombs was necessary and saved lives.

I am a pragmatic pacifist. I don't believe WAR is needed 95% of the time. Why I have studied it so much in my life.

And if we had invaded, I would not be here - my father, a front line Marine Recon NCO, would not have made it out alive.

Have a nice day - my last retort in this thread.

[Doc Sportello]

44. Totally wrong on two out of three

Truman didn't want to "test the weapon on a large cross section of people". That is disgusting to claim without proof. Some in the military like LeMay may have wanted that but it wasn't a prevailing sentiment. Most generals don't make strategic decisions based on their bloodthirsty natures, despite what you may believe.

Your second point is almost as ridiculous. Pearl Harbor was already four years in the rearview and LeMay had bombed the shit out of Japan already, including horrific firebombing.

Yes they did want to end the war faster, which was the more humane thing to do. I notice you don't respond to factual historical challenges, such as your provably false claim that bombing military targets would have done the same thing. Go back and read my earlier reply. It provides a link to what happened at the highest levels after the bombs were dropped. If left up to the generals, most would have been fine to see Japan annihilated in order to save face. They came very close to rescinding the emperor's decision of surrender. Also, you seem to be fine with a million American casualties that the generals said would happen with an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

Your take is based more on emotion than facts, history or strategy against an opponent that was ruled by militarists and a cult of one man at the top. Read the Rape of Nanking if you want to find out how Japan treated civilians in the countries they invaded.

Most of us don't war of any kind, including those in the military. And we certainly don't want to use nuclear weapons. I was involved in many protests against Vietnam and opposed most of the military actions America has taken in the recent years. But looking back at the decisions that were made about using the bomb, they are justifiable for several reasons, despite the awful human toll.

[wnylib]

45. Don't ascribe false thoughts or feelings to me

without having a clue to what my thoughts are regarding being "satisfied with the deaths of millions of Americans." My father served in the US Navy in the Pacific in WWII. My brother was a career Navy man who served two years in Vietnam. He had some views about top brass and politicians and how they make decisions, as well as on profiteering of private businesses.

I grew up with the explanations about why we bombed two civilian cities in Japan to end the war, and the tenacity of Japanese fighters. I heard it in school and from adults outside of school. I was skeptical then and am more so now.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs

[Doc Sportello]

46. I asked several questions, none of which you answered

Would you be ok with a million U.S. casualties? Didn't answer, instead making a false claim about what I said. It's called deflection, and won't work. You still can't respond to historical facts, including what is factually known about the end of the war in the Pacific. So your "opinion" about such won't hold water.

[wnylib]

35. Wrong answer in your opinion, not mine.

[Blues Heron]

15. No argument here, they had to be stopped.

Just like Putin right now.

[wnylib]

38. Are you advocating a nuke strike on Moscow?

[Blues Heron]

40. Did we nuke the Nazis? thats what we were talking about I thought

You said Paris, concentration camps, they needed to be stopped I said yes agree. We did it without nukes right?

[wnylib]

41. Huh? Initially, I was talking about

the fact that WWII actually was a war to preserve democracy, in response to the earlier post that the claim to preserve democracy is bogus. Many times, that is a bogus claim to justify war. But my point is that sometimes the claim is not bogus.

Then several posters got off on a tangent about the A bombs dropped on Japan. And that was followed by your post which, in the context of the discussion about Japan sounded to me like a justification for using nukes. So perhaps I mistook your post as support for using nukes?

[Blues Heron]

43. Sorry, I was advocating against them being used on cities

goes to show, threads can bounce around a lot!

[Doc Sportello]

19. Wouldn't have worked

Even after the bombs were dropped, high level Japanese officers almost stopped the official surrender.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japans-surrender-part-i

Of course the U.S. could have invaded and had a million casualties, if you think that would have been more humane.

[wnylib]

39. See my #37.

[Gore1FL]

22. In this case, I believe they are, in actuality, defending it, not spreading it.

I think defense works.

[Blues Heron]

31. Absolutely.

[Comfortably_Numb]

5. Calling all those cosplay warrior oaf creepers and proud Bois.

Go to Kyiv instead of Walmart.

[Gore1FL]

25. They'd be signing up with Russia, I suspect. nt

[Comfortably_Numb]

27. Dammit. I didn't think that far. You win.

[sop]

7. It's a perfect fit.

Guys who probably joined the Marines to "blow shit up" can go to Ukraine and put their war-fighting skills to good use against a "target rich army." Better they water the tree of liberty over there than here.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

11. This sort of thing happened during the Spanish Civil War, before WW2

Has it happened since? This seems unusual.

[Sapient Donkey]

29. People have been going to Ukraine since this started in 2014

For both sides of the conflict. Also in the Middle East there were a number of people who fought with the Kurds. Then there are groups like ISIS that always attracted foreign fighters.

[Blues Heron]

32. Saw a movie about an American who joined the fight in Libya

War is always attractive to a certain mindset

[ewagner]

12. Thought about the AVG in China prior to WWII

They were also known as "The Flying Tigers"

[Lonestarblue]

13. Some of those ex-military are likely to be pilots who can fly more modern planes.

And help train Ukrainian pilots. Get the planes to Ukraine ASAP.

[RussBLib]

17. I read where Zelensky said that the border....

between Poland and Ukraine is basically no more, which could mean, come on in, mercenaries, and lend us a hand.

[Hotler]

18. I wonder how many from the hate militias here that talk all tough about taking

back this country are on their way over? Still want to play army??

[Rebl2]

24. Zero I

would guess

[Desert_Leslie]

20. VolunteerForUkraine.org

I visited the VolunteerForUkraine.org website mentioned in this NY Times article.

Easy process -- you donate your frequent flyer miles -- they use it to purchase airline tickets for American volunteers heading to Ukraine.

[58Sunliner]

23. Bless you sir.

[IronLionZion]

28. They might encounter fellow Americans fighting on the Russian side

there have been US veterans supporting the rebels in the east for years.

[BComplex]

36. Eric Prince's buddies come to mind.

I'm certain he's on russia's side in this. He's trump's buddy.

[Traildogbob]

30. I hope

We have this kind of patriotic bravery from former service members when trump, Fox and Bannon and GQP militias, start a war here to destroy our own democracy. What they (trumpets) want is exactly what Putin wants, right fucking here in broad daylight. I mean, when they progress the war with massive killing. It’s already started. All those Karen’s and fat bubba’s being interviewed non stop about the hell scape they live in screaming, war is coming, bring on the civil war, will run like hell after first shots fired.
But, bravo to all the brave folks world wide willing to go to Ukraine to put an end to the mad dog.

[GoCubsGo]

33. That could help with some of the equipment issues they're having.

The Ukraine army doesn't have enough people who know how to operate some of the sophisticated equipment the US is sending them. Surely, at least some of these guys do, and could train them. Hopefully, some of them are pilots, too. That way, we can send more planes... Supplying a mercenary army is one way for the US to help without actually becoming directly involved.

[orangecrush]

34. Righteous mercenaries

Hell has frozen over.

Which reminds me, where is Erik Prince and whatever his band of thugs is calling itself these days?

Let me guess - on the russian side.