4 ms·
I am a well educated individual. I did not have to work very hard at all for a well paying job after college from a respected company. I have skill sets that ar
by hayst4ck 3y ago
I am a well educated individual. I did not have to work very hard at all for a well paying job after college from a respected company. I have skill sets that are absolutely in demand, particularly in areas the military would like.
When China re-colonized Hong Kong I gave strong thought to joining the military. When Russia invaded Ukraine, I similarly felt called to join the military, if not to fight for Ukraine, to prepare to fight for Taiwan.
The reason I won't join the military is because America does not support Rule of Law.
We invaded a country under false pretenses and invaded another country because we could. The aftermath of Vietnam inundated popular culture and media with a clear message: America fucked up. The people I looked up to, Anthony Bourdain for example, hated people like Kissinger, and imparted that hatred to me. Bourdain showed America's military legacy in Asia. I heard about Haliburton profiteering. I heard about the military industrial complex. I heard about Lejune water, and burn pits, and trouble with Tricare. Military bases that pump cancer into the ground when there is a fire. People like Jon Stewart showed nightly how bad faith American journalism and politicians are. He interviewed the deputy secretary of defense who was aghast that someone might try to ask for accountability. Historians, like Timothy Snyder (Yale professor specializing in eastern european history) are saying that America is headed into very very dark times and writing guides on how to combat tyranny.
Even today, America is actively supporting a genocidal regime in Israel, spitting in the face of a rules based international order. Rules for your enemies, but not your friends is not Rule of Law, it is exactly the opposite.
I grew up understanding that America was evil and that the American military was a tool for evil.
So when I listen to people like Anothony Blinken get on stage and talk about Rule of Law, that's exciting. But then I see them ignore Rule of Law for our allies. When I listen to General Milley talk about Trump, and General Mattis talk about Trump, I get excited. These are clearly educated individuals who understand fascism and want to do the right thing, but then they resign rather than fight or walk to church showing support for someone evil.
I do not ever want to have to treat American Soil like a "battle space" because Americans want racial justice.
If you want professionals to join the military, you have to support Rule of Law. You have to take care of political corruption at home.
If you want professionals to join the military, you have to get rid of Stock Trading Nancy pelosi for openly supporting conflicts of interests. You have to put Trump in the slammer for literally trying to end constitutional rule, something military officers took an oath they are not living up to to do. You have to tax billionaires so the government is for the people and not for the people with billions. You have to end private funding of candidates for elections, which major American colleges (Harvard and Yale) say directly results in a government that looks more like plutocracy than democracy.
Most of all, most of all, you have to convince professionals that the military is a place they can change the world for the better, rather than a place where you kill brown people to make sure the "spice" flows and billionaires pockets are lined.
- MiguelX413 3y agoBeautifully well-put.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago> When China re-colonized Hong Kong I gave strong thought to joining the military. In 1997?
- hayst4ck 3y agoIn 2019 when China fully claimed legal supremacy over Hong Kong, not only in violation of international law, but in violation of the wishes of the people of Hong Kong themselves. China used colonial policies such as forced immigration (requiring Hong Kong to accept Chinese settlers), forced public expenditure for the benefit of the colonizer (bridge), linguistic domination (via forced changes to education), political pre-selection (Chinese approval of candidates), violent put down of dissent, rewriting history in school books, etc. Equivocation and appeals to history to justify domination of a people who do not wish to be dominated are standard tactics. "Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood," "We are all kievan rus, we are one people." "Ukrainian identity is artificially created by the west." China asserted itself as the authority in Hong Kong with force over a people who largely saw themselves as distinct from mainland China. China then used policies of oppression, assimilation, and settling in an attempt to destroy hong kong self rule and ultimately the idea of Hong Kong-ness (in favor of chinese-ness) against the wishes of indigenous residents. To me, that is colonialism.
- libomi6052 3y ago[dead]
- themacguffinman 3y agoI wonder if 20th century Britain and America were up to your political standards when they fought in WW2. Back when the British king was Emperor of India and America had just finished retreating from occupying South American countries because they lost money for the United Fruit Company. I think Nancy Pelosi was still trading stocks in Congress when the Kosovo genocide was ended by NATO. When the US attacked Cuba for foreign encroachment and supported Israel in its revanchist genocides, what Rule of Law were they following when it supported Ukraine against Russia doing the same thing? Seems pretty blatantly hypocritical to me. That was one of many historical opportunities for professionals to see the US' many contradictions and domestic problems and abandon the US military. By these political standards, professionals should have abandoned US military capability back in 2014 when the latest outrageous hypocrisy was laid bare so it wouldn't have the power to be used as a tool for evil in 2022 and beyond. Well, chop chop, America, better solve this quickly. I guess I don't really doubt that you have good or patriotic intentions, I've seen comments like this often enough that I think it's some kind of Ralph Nader-esque "if you want to effect change, attack your friends not your enemies" strategy which doesn't strike me as particularly effective when there's any real stakes involved.