I cannot wait for the day when homosexuality is punishable. I cannot wait for the day when religious preference leads to understanding rather than being outcasted.

Those days may happen soon, or they may not. But in order to arrive at that day, people will need to serve America in a military capacity. My family has been involved with the military at least since the civil war, and I’ve been proud of my service and my family’s. While it is disappointing that everyone can not serve, the fact of the matter is that someone has to serve. If I am the stopgap for that, the humanist that supports the changing policy, so be it.

From the better-late-than-never department, you’re right about the proximate cause, but wrong to ignore the ultimate cause.

Iraq demanded a valuable stretch of desert with oil deposits from Kuwait. After years of unsuccessful negotiations, Iraq invaded.

We wouldn’t have lifted a finger had oil not been at issue. The evidence for this assertion lies in the Balkans — 8 years before we recognize a genocide and act to stop it? — and Rwanda.

Thus, we went to war over oil.

I also seem to remember that Desert Storm started because Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwiat.

If you have money and no weapon and Joe Blow has a weapon but no money, who do you think is safer? Remember, robbery victims often get shot after turning over the dough [cf. Czechoslovakia, 1938-39 -- or Kuwait, 1990].

And Chakolate, there is indeed a moral responsibility on non-combatants as well. I served as a fire-fighter in Desert Storm, and consoled myself with the fact that I didn’t kill anyone. Then I started thinking, regs require fire trucks for air ops, so them B52s, why, I was helping them drop bombs. Knowing that I helped kill people over oil is one reason I didn’t re-up.

There are times when war is morally justifiable. Those times are very very rare.

I also think you do not understand how the military protects this country. Imagine a police force with no guns, tickets or ability to arrest. How effective would the police be? Same with the State Department. Words only go so far and violence is sadly a necessity sometimes. And without any deterent from attack, we would be open to any force that wanted to take over.

This is a valid point, IMO.

I find your last paragraph pretty offensive. It is made out of ignorance. I would suggest you look into what different types of jobs there are in the military. The vast majority of them have civilian counterparts, and very few are focused on killing. The military is an easy target, and many take a shot at it, yet forget or even praise other professions that do harm to people.

This seems to me a bit disingenuous, although I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean it that way. When you fix planes in the military, what are the planes used for? When you push paper in the military, what’s the ultimate goal?

I think the main job of any military should be intimidation – as in, don’t attack us, because we’ll fight back. But the ‘fight back’ part means killing, whether you’re the one to pull the trigger or fire the grenade or plant the landmine, or not. If you’re part of the chain that supports the gun/grenade/landmine, you do kill. As part of your job.

I’m deeply conflicted about that. I don’t think it’s unrealistic to hope for a world where no one needs to fight, and I hate the idea of wars, since most of them are completely unnecessary, and all are wasteful. But I also think it’s too unrealistic to say we don’t need a standing army, with all that implies.

Nevermind, it’s just me waffling again. Waffling seems to be my favorite sport.

Since there are vets etc. on this thread, I should point out that I understand that they think they’re keeping the US safe. It’s possible this is true, at least sometimes – that’s a very complex issue. I certainly don’t think the vast majority of people in the military like killing people or anything. However, you have to admit that the point of the military is to keep the US safe by killing people. The State Department, etc., are the ones who try to keep us safe by other means.

I don’t think the following orders unquestioningly bit is very arguable. Again I see how you could support it, for the sake of efficiency etc., but it’s antithetical to everything I stand for.

So I get upset when everyone, everyone, left, right, and center, always has to say that we support the troops. I don’t. I support them as people. I support their civil rights, I respect them as people, etc. But I certainly don’t support them as troops. I disagree with their choice of profession. They are hitmen. Hitmen for a good cause perhaps (sometimes, anyway), but hitmen nonetheless. How do they reconcile this ethically?

I think you might misunderstand what people do in the military. I served in a war zone twice and served in two branches. I was never asked to kill anyone, nor was it assumed that I needed to. Sure, I was asked to fix aircraft and set up communications, but never kill. Now there are certain jobs the military that do require you to kill, if you look you will find that they are in the minority.

I also think you do not understand how the military protects this country. Imagine a police force with no guns, tickets or ability to arrest. How effective would the police be? Same with the State Department. Words only go so far and violence is sadly a necessity sometimes. And without any deterent from attack, we would be open to any force that wanted to take over.

I find your last paragraph pretty offensive. It is made out of ignorance. I would suggest you look into what different types of jobs there are in the military. The vast majority of them have civilian counterparts, and very few are focused on killing. The military is an easy target, and many take a shot at it, yet forget or even praise other professions that do harm to people.

I won’t call you un-American, just ignorant on the military. I am glad that you can exercise your free speech though, even if it is used to slander the people that defended that right.

I don’t think the following orders unquestioningly bit is very arguable. Again I see how you could support it, for the sake of efficiency etc., but it’s antithetical to everything I stand for.

So I get upset when everyone, everyone, left, right, and center, always has to say that we support the troops. I don’t. I support them as people. I support their civil rights, I respect them as people, etc. But I certainly don’t support them as troops. I disagree with their choice of profession. They are hitmen. Hitmen for a good cause perhaps (sometimes, anyway), but hitmen nonetheless. How do they reconcile this ethically?

I’d certainly try to dissuade them, though. Less about the discrimination (although that’s bad) and more about the whole point of the military being to kill people and follow orders unquestioningly.