Thread: Are soldiers really serving their country?

Originally Posted by angrynadya

The US has a strong tradition of civilian control, although the military gives advice. When a war is initiated, it is done by civilians and not the military, sometimes for political rather than strategic reasons. The intent has nothing to do with defending the country.

You're not addressing anything I said. Get on the right conversation.

Originally Posted by angrynadya

And I don't see what individual reasons and characteristics have to do with the country known as the United States of America. While defending individual characteristics and interpersonal relations as applying to the entire country as a whole, you might as well say the military defends a relationship between a man and woman and the right to drink alcohol. That is not the whole known as the national interest or individual rights as implied by the phrase "serving the country."

So what you're saying is you don't know what an individual's pursuit of a better life has to do with America. OK.

Originally Posted by angrynadya

And when you think about it, the whole defending your friend is contrary to the corporate interests and the characteristics of the US military. As Samuel Huntington put it, all militaries are collectivist organizations that sacrifice the individual to serve the whole.

And when you actually think about it, that again has nothing to do with what I said.

Originally Posted by greatamerican128

Here's a motto I oftentimes see thrown around in relation to veterans: "Thank you for serving your country!"

Don't get me wrong, I fully support every soldier and if I had my way, no soldier would die. Still, there is a question that I think needs to be addressed here which is important when anyone cheerfully recites the above phrase: Do soldiers really fight for their country, or for their government?

When one looks at wars throughout history, I simply cannot understand how anyone can blanket every US soldier as serving their country. Vietnam, the Korean War, Iraq, Central American conflicts, and a variety of other military struggles were mostly fought for government interests that had nothing to do with protecting people. Afghanistan made some sense as retribution perhaps, still, it wasn't self-defense.

If it is easier for those who are Americans like myself, think about foreign troops and how often they are serving their nations. Were Russian soldiers who invaded Georgia really serving the Russian people? Of course not, it was purely governmental interest at work.

Here, then, is my question for political forum; and I'm especially interested to hear the perspectives of those involved in the military or who have been in the past: how often do soldiers really fight for their country?

Our government is what keeps this country going. It may be our government who votes on the war but yet our government is meant to uphold the safety and beliefs our country was founded upon. Every soldier is fighting for our country. Our soldiers fight to save lives. They should be thanked. Not considered "tools of diplomacy". They are people just like us. Our government decides whether or not we should fight and if our soldiers are called upon then they step up to the plate. Instead of questioning who they fight for why not give them a break and take a turn at the plate. Each soldier has a reason they are in the armed forces but at the end of the day they fight for the U.S. not for the government.

Difficult subject. Soldiers are serving themselves first and foremost. I believe that the institution of the military is good thing in that it allows people in a difficult situation to change their circumstances. That being said, the institution has been hijacked by nitwits intent on world domination, bullying or some other degeneration that results in a negative connotation to those actually in the military.

Originally Posted by dudeman

Difficult subject. Soldiers are serving themselves first and foremost. I believe that the institution of the military is good thing in that it allows people in a difficult situation to change their circumstances. That being said, the institution has been hijacked by nitwits intent on world domination, bullying or some other degeneration that results in a negative connotation to those actually in the military.

I believe you don't know the first thing about the military. Leave your elitist attitude behind. The "average" soldier is better educated and from a better socio-economic background than the "average" American.

Originally Posted by dudeman

Difficult subject. Soldiers are serving themselves first and foremost. I believe that the institution of the military is good thing in that it allows people in a difficult situation to change their circumstances. That being said, the institution has been hijacked by nitwits intent on world domination, bullying or some other degeneration that results in a negative connotation to those actually in the military.

Based on your experience? I doubt you have ever sniffed service and have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what you're talking about. Nitwits? OK, "dudeman," you try to figure it out:

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

I believe you don't know the first thing about the military. Leave your elitist attitude behind. The "average" soldier is better educated and from a better socio-economic background than the "average" American.

It's what they talk about behind the barista bar at Starbucks.

Originally Posted by Up On the Governor

Based on your experience? I doubt you have ever sniffed service and have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what you're talking about. Nitwits? OK, "dudeman," you try to figure it out:


.

Heck, even I'm confused.
How do you see over the panels to land the thing or get forward outside visual references.

I don't see a makeup mirror in your Eagle, how do you gals cope?

Kind of bad form to call someone out for not knowing a sophisticated fighter/strike aircraft's cockpit array.
I can't field strip an M4 carbine blindfolded, should someone call me out on that?

Off topic, for Gov.
I'm used to a panel organized around instruments needed for IFR flight. Your panel with MPDs, UFC and HUD would take some getting used to.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

Heck, even I'm confused.

No co-pilot. I know, craaaazy.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

How do you see over the panels to land the thing or get forward outside visual references.

You're giving too much credit to its size. It's tiny and even someone my size and smaller can see over the nose fine (with a booster seat of course). No, you cannot see directly in front of you, but you're supposed to be looking down the runway when you land...

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

I don't see a makeup mirror in your Eagle, how do you gals cope?

I'm naturally gifted.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

Kind of bad form to call someone out for not knowing a sophisticated fighter/strike aircraft's cockpit array.
I can't field strip an M4 carbine blindfolded, should someone call me out on that?

The dudeman said we're nitwits. Being much smarter than us military folk, he should be able to figure it out just by looking at it. And no one expects pilots to know anything about guns, so we're cool.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

Off topic, for Gov.
I'm used to a panel organized around instruments needed for IFR flight. Your panel with MPDs, UFC and HUD would take some getting used to.

The MPDs definitely took some getting used to. I flew blocks with dials for a little while. If I'm not mistaken, the more up-to-date -130s have MPDs and a HUD, correct?

Originally Posted by Up On the Governor

The MPDs definitely took some getting used to. I flew blocks with dials for a little while. If I'm not mistaken, the more up-to-date -130s have MPDs and a HUD, correct?

The C-130 avionics upgrade to glass displays was cancelled for alot of the older H2-H3 models; J models, have HUDs and glass cockpits, the whole nine.
Hence, all I know are steam gauge round dials.

In civilian flying, I've flown a few glass cockpits, but 95% of my logged hours are in analog panels.

I'm truly a dinosaur in that respect.

Here's a study guide for dudeman's ground school on the F-15E functionality.
Tell him there will be a pop-quiz.

http://www.cockpits.nl/F15Edescr.html

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

The C-130 avionics upgrade to glass displays was cancelled for alot of the older H2-H3 models; J models, have HUDs and glass cockpits, the whole nine.
Hence, all I know are steam gauge round dials.

In civilian flying, I've flown a few glass cockpits, but 95% of my logged hours are in analog panels.

I'm truly a dinosaur in that respect.

SR22? I hear it's a boner to fly. I believe it's all glass. I've not logged much civilian flying on the side, but I've been going up with the Mr. lately. It's hilarious that he can't figure out how to taxi and brake. He'll hit the right brake harder and we'll end up perpendicular. Of course I have to fix everything.