4 ms·

Joining the military means giving up most of your civilian rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, in exchange for pay and training. Historically, this has ofte

Joining the military means giving up most of your civilian rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, in exchange for pay and training. Historically, this has often been a pretty good deal for those without other economic options. However, if you think the country's leaders are going to send you off to get killed in poorly thought-out and reckless adventures for dubious reasons, then giving up those rights starts looking less and less attractive. Given that's what happened in Afghanistan (which was somewhat justifiable, but could have been a six-month operation, rather than a 20-year one) and Iraq (completely unjustifiable, an epic disaster), it's not surprising that economic desperation is now the main motivator for military recruiting, nor is it surprising that applicants coming from that background aren't in the best mental or physical health. Step one in regaining trust would involve purging the government and military leadership of the architects of the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, although that seems unlikely at present - these are the same neocon ideologues who are vigorously opposing a negotiated settlement in eastern Ukraine while also pushing for military confrontation with China.

riffraff 4y ago
Do you believe the wars other than Iraq and Afghanistan were better? I mean sure, less Americans died but the gulf war reportedly caused 180k permanently disabled US soldiers, mostly PTSD I believe. And the Vietnam war was pretty notorious for being bad for the US. It seems to me every generation got a reckless and dubious war, tho the war on terror was insanely bad.
uxcolumbo 4y ago
What do you mean regarding Ukraine? Do you mean the US should have persuaded Ukraine to give up some of their land? I don’t fully understand what you mean with ‘negotiated settlement’. All I know is these ‘negotiating’ strategies don’t work with tyrannical regimes. Germany tried and failed. Trying to bring in China into the world economy also didn’t seem to make them give up their hunger to swallow Taiwan. The mindset of these dictators is different… see Bill Browder’s writings on this subject.
- uni_rule 4y ago
  He's taking the Kissinger approach with spheres of influence and allowing smaller nations to be held by "world powers" like poker chips to avoid M. A. D. situations, "you have your satellites and I have mine". Personally I think that mode of thinking and the context that birthed it are long dead but some people still subscribe to it 30 years after the Soviet Union imploded for... some reason I'm sure.
- hakfoo 4y ago
  I have to think that especially the China/Taiwan issue has quite a bit of historical baggage, because it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. Can we imagine such a scenario applied to a Western nation? Imagine if the US Civil War ended up with a "stub Confederacy"-- a few counties in Virginia still answering to Jefferson Davis. Or if one German state decided to carry on as the DDR after 1990. Now reinforce this by having major world powers declare an effectively limitless economic and military backstop to preserve this remnant-- pretty explicitly as a counter to the "victorious" nation's increasing power and importance. It would be a festering political issue for decades if not longer, no matter how many political and economic favours were splashed to "make up" for it.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. > it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. This is just propaganda to lay support for irredentism. The Chinese civil war ended long ago and this process is certainly not "internal" by any means. That is just made up to make the PRC's current push to annex the ROC more palatable. It's easier to sell it that way than explaining to the mainland populace the truth that its simply an unnecessary war of conquest.
    - hakfoo 4y ago
      > Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan. How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?"
caskstrength 4y ago
> the same neocon ideologues who are vigorously opposing a negotiated settlement in eastern Ukraine Please stop pushing absurd Russian propaganda talking points about US "preventing" Russia from signing peace agreement in Ukraine. If you are incapable of finding continuous statements of Russian officials that goals of "special military operation" remains the same (including "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine), then I can provide you with plenty of them. Also, you can verify on the map that Russian appetites in Ukraine are increased for much more than the east. And no, they said multiple times that they are not prepared to relinquish they claims on southern parts and of course Crimea.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  The actual prize in the conflict is access to the European energy market, economically speaking. It's about Russian pipeline gas vs. US LNG tanker gas, and it's about where the money spent on those fossil fuels will be deposited - London & New York banks, or Moscow? This is why the Saudi war on Yemen has been ignored. The reality is that if Putin had taken the deal offered in 2003 (Exxon buying >50% of Russian oil production) or had even signed onto petrodollar recycling, then the US media and Congress and the White House would be no more interested in a Russian land grab in eastern Ukraine (with the support of the Russian-speaking population) then in Yemen, they might even call it 'a justified intervention against neo-Nazi militias' or something like that. The solution for Europe is of course to take neither Russian nor US gas, but instead eliminate fossil fuel dependency by massive investment in renewable energy (which is possible if more difficult than many realize). I don't think that's a "Russian propaganda talking point" though, and the US propaganda machine doesn't want this outcome either.
  - macintux 4y ago
    If the Mexican army raped and bombed their way across Texas towards California, should we just shrug and point out those lands were taken under historically dubious circumstances and we should let them have the U.S. Southwest?
    - 4y ago
rascul 4y ago
> Joining the military means giving up most of your civilian rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, in exchange for pay and training. This isn't true. I didn't lose my rights when I was enlisted. There are more rules and responsibilities but the rights weren't removed.
- landemva 4y ago
  UCMJ does not have civilian protections of civilian courts (though it may questionable what really still exists there). No, you don't have the right of free speech in the military. Though apparently dresses are now ok.
  - rascul 4y ago
    How do you not have the right of free speech in the military? This does not match my experience. Edit: My experience in the military is of course not complete. It's very possible I'm missing something.
    - landemva 4y ago
      Even when on leave, a person can be reprimanded for publicly speaking against a commander order. Write a letter to a newspaper editor about a policy you find disagreeable, and get ready for a reprimand. And the courts aren't civilian.
      - rascul 4y ago
        I did note that there are more rules and responsibilities. I would be interested to see the article in the UCMJ or any court cases which cover your examples, though.

riffraff 4y ago

Do you believe the wars other than Iraq and Afghanistan were better? I mean sure, less Americans died but the gulf war reportedly caused 180k permanently disabled US soldiers, mostly PTSD I believe. And the Vietnam war was pretty notorious for being bad for the US. It seems to me every generation got a reckless and dubious war, tho the war on terror was insanely bad.

uxcolumbo 4y ago

What do you mean regarding Ukraine? Do you mean the US should have persuaded Ukraine to give up some of their land? I don’t fully understand what you mean with ‘negotiated settlement’. All I know is these ‘negotiating’ strategies don’t work with tyrannical regimes. Germany tried and failed. Trying to bring in China into the world economy also didn’t seem to make them give up their hunger to swallow Taiwan. The mindset of these dictators is different… see Bill Browder’s writings on this subject.

uni_rule 4y ago
He's taking the Kissinger approach with spheres of influence and allowing smaller nations to be held by "world powers" like poker chips to avoid M. A. D. situations, "you have your satellites and I have mine". Personally I think that mode of thinking and the context that birthed it are long dead but some people still subscribe to it 30 years after the Soviet Union imploded for... some reason I'm sure.
hakfoo 4y ago
I have to think that especially the China/Taiwan issue has quite a bit of historical baggage, because it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. Can we imagine such a scenario applied to a Western nation? Imagine if the US Civil War ended up with a "stub Confederacy"-- a few counties in Virginia still answering to Jefferson Davis. Or if one German state decided to carry on as the DDR after 1990. Now reinforce this by having major world powers declare an effectively limitless economic and military backstop to preserve this remnant-- pretty explicitly as a counter to the "victorious" nation's increasing power and importance. It would be a festering political issue for decades if not longer, no matter how many political and economic favours were splashed to "make up" for it.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. > it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. This is just propaganda to lay support for irredentism. The Chinese civil war ended long ago and this process is certainly not "internal" by any means. That is just made up to make the PRC's current push to annex the ROC more palatable. It's easier to sell it that way than explaining to the mainland populace the truth that its simply an unnecessary war of conquest.
  - hakfoo 4y ago
    > Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan. How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?"

caskstrength 4y ago

> the same neocon ideologues who are vigorously opposing a negotiated settlement in eastern Ukraine Please stop pushing absurd Russian propaganda talking points about US "preventing" Russia from signing peace agreement in Ukraine. If you are incapable of finding continuous statements of Russian officials that goals of "special military operation" remains the same (including "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine), then I can provide you with plenty of them. Also, you can verify on the map that Russian appetites in Ukraine are increased for much more than the east. And no, they said multiple times that they are not prepared to relinquish they claims on southern parts and of course Crimea.

photochemsyn 4y ago
The actual prize in the conflict is access to the European energy market, economically speaking. It's about Russian pipeline gas vs. US LNG tanker gas, and it's about where the money spent on those fossil fuels will be deposited - London & New York banks, or Moscow? This is why the Saudi war on Yemen has been ignored. The reality is that if Putin had taken the deal offered in 2003 (Exxon buying >50% of Russian oil production) or had even signed onto petrodollar recycling, then the US media and Congress and the White House would be no more interested in a Russian land grab in eastern Ukraine (with the support of the Russian-speaking population) then in Yemen, they might even call it 'a justified intervention against neo-Nazi militias' or something like that. The solution for Europe is of course to take neither Russian nor US gas, but instead eliminate fossil fuel dependency by massive investment in renewable energy (which is possible if more difficult than many realize). I don't think that's a "Russian propaganda talking point" though, and the US propaganda machine doesn't want this outcome either.
- macintux 4y ago
  If the Mexican army raped and bombed their way across Texas towards California, should we just shrug and point out those lands were taken under historically dubious circumstances and we should let them have the U.S. Southwest?
  - 4y ago

rascul 4y ago

> Joining the military means giving up most of your civilian rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, in exchange for pay and training. This isn't true. I didn't lose my rights when I was enlisted. There are more rules and responsibilities but the rights weren't removed.

landemva 4y ago
UCMJ does not have civilian protections of civilian courts (though it may questionable what really still exists there). No, you don't have the right of free speech in the military. Though apparently dresses are now ok.
- rascul 4y ago
  How do you not have the right of free speech in the military? This does not match my experience. Edit: My experience in the military is of course not complete. It's very possible I'm missing something.
  - landemva 4y ago
    Even when on leave, a person can be reprimanded for publicly speaking against a commander order. Write a letter to a newspaper editor about a policy you find disagreeable, and get ready for a reprimand. And the courts aren't civilian.
    - rascul 4y ago
      I did note that there are more rules and responsibilities. I would be interested to see the article in the UCMJ or any court cases which cover your examples, though.