Serving your Country today is not the same as Yesterday!

[trumad]

That is, in the Military....

I've read numeorus posts indicating that it is honorable to serve and protect your Country in the Military. Yes and no..MHOP

I use to think it was honorable when the service required protection of my Country against hostile enemies. BUT today with the preemptive nature of the current looney gang we have in D.C, I no longer think that. When you serve today you are serving a small group of Neo-Con business interests that have nothing to do with protecting this Country.

SO...is it honorable to serve the Neo-Cons??? I don't think so... You may think that you're serving the best interest of your Country but you're only fooling yourselves.....

That's why if they start the draft and the Neo-Con's still run the show when my kids are of draft age, I'm shipping them off to avoid it. I will not let my child die for Halliburton!

[Dead_Parrot]

1. Absolutely...

There's a world of difference between serving your country, and serving your government. Defending your country is honourable, as is defending the country of your allies: but to act for purely political reasons? I guess each case must be judged on it's own merits, but it's not in the same league. The only thing the poor sods in Iraq are defending the US from is a 20% hike in petrol prices... And what us Brits are doing is anybody's guess (we already pay through the nose for our fuel!)

[atreides1]

2. I Agree With You

Being a former soldier, I believe that it's the duty of a soldier to defend his or her country from attack. It is also honorable to assist an ally in time of need.

But to take part in an attack on a sovereign nation purely for the gain of an administration has no honor. And now with the current operations against the Iraqi resistance, the US has shown that it
hasn't learned any lessons from Vietnam, or from what happened to the Russians and British in Afghanistan.

The current tactics are the same that the IDF uses against the Palestinians, and we've seen how well that's worked. The taking of hostages, the physical beatings of prisoners, the destruction of the homes of the families of suspected guerilla fighters. These are the tactics of the Waffen SS at Lidice or the 2nd SS Das Reich at Oradour sur Glane. The only thing we haven't seen is the indiscriminate killing of civilians, yet.

But who can deny that the military on the ground hasn't intimidated the press, by firing on some and killing at least one camera man.
I have seen some of the old propaganda filmes that the Germans made
during WWII, they too always show the positive side. It wasn't unitl the war was won that the world saw what wasn't shown to the public.

Just like Bush and Co., along with their cronies in Congress, who keep saying that everything is just swell. All tyranical governments in the history of the world have done the same. THEY LIED.

[Q]

3. Looks like we started similar threads...

- But they're very important questions to ask. War is only 'noble' when it's in defense of country. What we're doing in Iraq has nothing to do with DEFENSE. It's an aggressive war fought in the name of American empire and greed.

[trumad]

4. Sorry Q... Dodn't mean to dupe your thread

but this draft thing is getting me all riled up... I've got a couple of boys under 10 and I'm hoping that the mad men don't take over this county for the next decade or so ....

[Q]

5. No problem...

...and I fully understand your concerns.

- Our country is doomed if it accepts the Bush* Doctrine of preemptive war. Especially if Bush* is allowed to invent reasons to attack and not be held accountable.

[dfong63]

6. guess what? most of yesterday's wars were also not defensive