Re: Why is US installing ABM system?


"La N" <nilita2004NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mhuei.4675$tB5.3155@xxxxxxxxxxx

"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jVoei.6027$xk5.421@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ncnh735nc5f3qt0n6gj6gsfumm2icn6gbh@xxxxxxxxxx
"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:
:Besides, Ahmadinejad is rational. Arguably as rational as Bush.
:

Sorry, Arved, but anyone who believes the preceding isn't rational.

Last I checked, Fred, Ahmadinejad hasn't had thousands of his troops
killed in an idiotic war. If you seriously think Bush and his ass buddies
were rational in deciding to attack Iraq, maybe *you* need the drugs.


One thing the world has to understand, Arv, is that the Americans are very
vengeful. And in their vengeance they don't care who gets hurt or even if
they're shooting straight or at the right target ....

And, speaking of troops, now the majority of them don't believe this is
the "right" war - i.e. don't believe in Bush's mission - but they serve
honourably as is their wont and work at the pleasure of a civilian
leadership.


Apropo to this, a US servicemen yesterday posted this on us.military.army, a
group which is barely readable anymore, but occasionally one finds a gem. I
was in tears after reading this.

A poster posed the question: "How does it feel to kill?", and this was a
soldier's answer:

<hendersonj2004@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1182373903.485197.27740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 20, 12:44 pm, Millhaven <millha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Do you get a rush? Do you get a feeling of satisfaction? Do you feel
sadness or regret? Or do you just do it out of a sense of duty but try
not to think about it? Do you worry gawd might not take your side and
send you to hell? I am curious about these things. Thanks.

Millhaven, I am an infantry veteran of the US Army. I will answer
your questions truthfully. I speak only for myself, everybody reacts
differently.

Do you get a rush? No. You don't get a "rush" when you kill an enemy.
You might get a rush out of the circumstances, though. It isn't the
"killing" that would give you the rush, it is the mission accomplishment
of hitting a target. When they are close enough to be real people, it
isn't a "rush" in infantry combat to kill, but often it is a rush just be
be in combat. That does not mean combat is fun - far from it - but it is
exciting. Firefights, while awful, are exciting. And until you see the
results, they are even fun. Newbies (new soldiers in their first
firefight) usually think so. Veterans, on the other hand, usually don't.

Do you get a feeling of satisfaction? Honestly, sometimes yes. When
somebody is trying very hard to kill you and your buddies, and you
kill them instead, yes, you can get a feeling of satisfaction. Does
that make me a "monster?" It is easy to conclude I am a monster, but
only if you ignore human nature and the sad fact that human beings
have been fighting and killing each other for millenia. If you are
safe and secure enough to think only "monsters" kill other people,
good. I hope you don't have to change your opinion - because it is a
monstrous thing to learn that almost all people are capable of
killing, and even deriving satisfaction from it in certain
circumstances, such as when you defeat a very skilled enemy.

Do you feel sadness or regret? That depends on the circumstances.
Genuine "bad guys" killed? No regret. None. They were bad, they did
not surrender, they deserve death, they got it, no regrets. Draftees
with no control over where they go and who they fight? Sadness and
regret may occur. Many who fought the Iraqi army wished the enemy
would give up rather than force their own destruction at our hands.
They were combatants, but they were not "bad guys" and we preferred
they surrender rather than force us to kill them in order to
accomplish our missions. I don't lose sleep over them, though. I
don't feel guilty about fighting and defeating them, I do not feel
guilty over killing in combat. I do regret that it happened, but I
feel no guilt over doing my duty in combat.

Or do you just do it out of a sense of duty but try not to think about
it? The "or" in this questions reveals that you think soldiers in the
US military would engage in combat for reasons other than duty. They
would not. They do not. Duty is why the Army exists. The Army
exists only to protect the Constitution, period. Wars on terror, or
against communism or fascism or the confederacy - doesn't matter. The
reason for soldiers fighting is always the same in every conflict:
because the People ordered it. Whether the People were right or wrong
to issue those orders is the People's business, not the Army's. The
Army will obey and do its duty regardless of who the enemy is or where
it is sent to fight. The People are the boss, not the Army. Only
Congress can authorize military force. The People elect Congress.
The Army has no say - nor should it ever have any say. The Army does
not invade without authorization from Congress, and will not refuse to
invade when Congress authorizes it and the president orders it. The
Army is only a servant of the People, with no say in what the People
decide. That is how it must be in a self-governed nation.

Infantry is the tip of the spear, but that spear is held by the US
people. The People decide when and where soldiers fight, and we go
where we are sent and fight whom we are told. That does not make us
robots or unthinking killing machines, it makes us loyal to a self-
governed republic where the People are in charge. The People can and
do make mistakes (they sure as hell did in giving Bush permission to
invade Iraq) but soldiers don't get a veto over the will of the
people. If you don't want soldiers killing, don't order us to do it.
When soldiers are given authority for war the rules change, and
innocents will die. That is why it should be a last resort, and only
used when the principles of a "just war" are met (google "just war
doctrine" for the rules of moral versus immoral warfare). We do
everything in the US Army out of a sense of duty - everything. Do we
try not to think about killing? Depends, but it is irrelevant. We do
not make the individual choice to fight, the People make the combined
collective choice to send some of their fellow citizens to fight, and
we go because we have a duty to obey and defend government of the
people, by the people, and for the people - even when the people don't
seem to give a damn, as in the decision to invade Iraq, something most
of the senior leadership of the US Army thought a stupid thing to do.
The US Army is a servant of the people and does not make policy, it
follows the policy chosen by the People through their elected
representatives in Congress.

Does this sound like I am attempting to avoid blame for what my
trigger-finger has done? Yes. And I am right to do so, I am not MORE
responsible for the decision to go to war merely because I went to
war. The Army only has the power to do what the People order it to do
- it only has the weapons the People give it, it only has the soldiers
the People send it, it only has the missions the People assign to it.
The People govern, not the Army, and I remain willing to obey the will
of the People, even when I think they are wrong (as I think the People
were wrong about invading Iraq).

Do you worry gawd might not take your side and send you to hell? I am
a Christian. Christ does not take sides in war. Am I worried about
hell? No, Christians believe they are forgiven for their sins. Do I
believe my time in the Army was a sin? No, I do not. Fighting in a
lawful war, one that you did not have the responsibility or authority
to start or stop, is not a sin. Killing in a lawful war is not a
sin. The invasion of Iraq was lawful under US law, and the US
military follows US law, thus the war in Iraq was lawful. Was it
right? No, I don't think it was. I think it was a terrible mistake,
and I said so before we invaded. But that decision is for the People,
and soldiers don't take an oath to obey the People "if I agree with
the People." They take an oath to obey the will of the People,
period, agreement irrelevant. THe People are sovereign, not the ARmy
and not the individual.

I am curious about these things. Thanks.

You are welcome.



Very very nice thoughtful post. Quite rare on uma anymore. Thank you for
the read.

- nilita



.

Relevant Pages

  • Military to Talk to Troops About Battlefield Killing
    ... Military to Talk to Troops About Battlefield Killing ... Army Confronts Guilt After Combat ... this year on how to counsel soldiers on the morality of war. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: NBC: Sign Tallying Military Deaths Upsets Army
    ... Some Soldiers Trying to Get Out of Army ... back to the war or refused to serve. ... be a conscientious objector - which he filed after he went on the lam - ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • US Army in Iraq is Plum Worn Out
    ... US Army in Iraq is Plum Worn Out ... Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men ... When the soldiers talk like this there is resignation. ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Fred nails it again -- Fred on General McChrystal
    ... help the Afghans, as soon as we finished killing most of them. ... people?s war. ... The soldiers want Afghans to live the same way. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Bush Surge Working - US Soldiers at War to Serve Shorter Tours Starting This Summer
    ... WASHINGTON - Soldiers heading to war this summer are likely to see their tours shortened from 15 months to 12 months, even if troop cuts in Iraq are suspended in July as expected, the Army's top general said Tuesday. ... George Casey said that while his forces are strained by nearly seven years at war, the Army can maintain 15 combat brigades in battle for at least a couple of months after July while military commanders assess the situation in Iraq. ...
    (alt.politics)