war help: War/the army Is it a boys passage to manhood ? - Help.com

No.

It’s only ONE of the mythological manliness rites …

See: http://artofmanliness.com/2010/02/21/…

Being a real man is having the courage to make yourself vulnerable to achieve a lasting agreement of mutual value with the people and organizations that affect you and the ones you love. It’s not about eradicating opposition by force or subordinating yourself to the direction of others so they can achieve their goals by force.

True power is adaptable and flexible.

I haven’t agreed with the way our military has been used in all cases, but this fact stands irrefutable: if you don’t have a strong military, anything you have can and will be taken away from you.

I can’t quite remember if it was the Roman, Greek, or some other ancient army that had a custom wherein until a soldier got his whiskers.. he was, well, look up ‘goatse’. Talk about rights of.. uhmmm.. ‘passage’.

joining the U.S. army is a great way to become…

a tool of oppression for the super rich and powerful

I served in the US Army and I never oppressed anyone . . . and never allowed any kind of exploitation while I was in charge.

In the real world, there are few cases when things are just black and white. We needed to go into Afghanistan because that country was harboring the world’s worst mass murderer since Adolf Hitler. We probably did not need to go into Iraq, at least not then . . . but Saddam Hussein was also a mass murderer who would have eventually tried to develop a nuclear weapon.

Funny thing . . . all the abuses perpetrated by soldiers against civilians were reported by soldiers to higher authorities.

I can also promise everyone this: the generation that thinks it doesn’t need a military is the generation that will end up in chains.

chev.jame wrote:
I served in the US Army and I never oppressed anyone . . . and never allowed any kind of exploitation while I was in charge.

In the real world, there are few cases when things are just black and white. We needed to go into Afghanistan because that country was harboring the world’s worst mass murderer since Adolf Hitler. We probably did not need to go into Iraq, at least not then . . . but Saddam Hussein was also a mass murderer who would have eventually tried to develop a nuclear weapon.

Iran.

Yep, Iran is working on a nuclear weapon big time.

Things were very tense at times during the “Cold War.” But the Soviets were at least coldly rational. The Iranian leadership is crazy as bedbugs. As soon as they get a nuclear weapon, they will use it on Israel in a bid to force the return of the fabled “Ninth Imam,” a kind of messiah for Shiite Muslims in Iran. In other words, they will start WWIII!

Should we invade? No. Should we help the Iranian people overthrow the theocratic nutballs who are ruling them? Yes.

chev.jame wrote:
I served in the US Army and I never oppressed anyone . . . and never allowed any kind of exploitation while I was in charge.

In the real world, there are few cases when things are just black and white. We needed to go into Afghanistan because that country was harboring the world’s worst mass murderer since Adolf Hitler. We probably did not need to go into Iraq, at least not then . . . but Saddam Hussein was also a mass murderer who would have eventually tried to develop a nuclear weapon.

you misunderstand. I do not confuse the actions of soldiers with political will imposed upon them by their country.

I seriously doubt the reason for the iraq war was to remove hussein. he clearly wasn’t a serious threat.

chev.jame wrote:
Funny thing . . . all the abuses perpetrated by soldiers against civilians were reported by soldiers to higher authorities.

how else do you expect the abuses to come to light? and what happens to those brave few? they get screwed over. see bradley manning. you think the 0.01% is going to lie down and let a common soldier ruin everything?

While there were some bad things going on, Bradley Manning allegedly took it upon himself to reveal information that could have damaged alliances and threatened lives. It was not his “call” to release that information. Was a lot of crap going on? Yes. Was it up to Bradley Manning to leak classified information indiscriminately to the world? No.

In the case of the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, it was soldiers who brought these matters to the attention of the higher-ups. It was their sworn duty to do so . . . all violations of the “law of war” must be reported. I know. I taught the “law of war” to hundreds of soldiers and ROTC cadets.

When Lt. Calley perpetrated a massacre at My Lai in Vietnam, it was a soldier who reported the incident to an Army chaplain, who reported it to the higher headquarters.

But how many times have Taliban soldiers or al Qaida operatives been held to a standard of civilized conduct? Never. When was the last time the Taliban or al Qaida or the Russians or the Chinese ever prosecuted one of their soldiers for violating the law of war? Deafening silence!

I was in Kuwait. I saw the devastation wrought by Saddam’s soldiers. Saddam had his eye on Saudi Arabia as his next conquest. He really had to go. I would have done it differently than Bush, but Saddam was a threat to peace and stability in the region.

And I’ve been to Afghanistan and seen what the Taliban do to innocent men, women and children. We may have rotten military contractors, but the Taliban are far worse. And they gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden, the greatest mass murderer of the 21st century.

American soldiers do their best to follow the law of war. That Navy seal sniper who just came out with a book details how he had to radio military lawyers for permission to take out Taliban soldiers! If he didn’t get the permission, the Taliban soldier walked. Yes, there have been a few violations, but those have been dealt with. And, again–the enemy has no civilized standards by which he fights. For the Taliban and al Qaida, anything goes.

Imagine if there were no military between us and al Qaida and the Taliban. We already had a taste of what al Qaida wants to do to us. We cannot think of them as confined to the Middle East–both organizations are capable of reaching out to strike the moment we let down our guard.

But yes . . . each and every soldier is instructed that he or she has a duty to refuse illegal or immoral orders, and to report any commander or leader who tries to get soldiers to violate the law of war. I’ve seen it in action. And it works.

Big Willy! wrote:

chev.jame wrote:
I served in the US Army and I never oppressed anyone . . . and never allowed any kind of exploitation while I was in charge.

In the real world, there are few cases when things are just black and white. We needed to go into Afghanistan because that country was harboring the world’s worst mass murderer since Adolf Hitler. We probably did not need to go into Iraq, at least not then . . . but Saddam Hussein was also a mass murderer who would have eventually tried to develop a nuclear weapon.

Iran.

http://www.military.com/news/article/…

I absolutely agree . . . we are not justified in attacking Iran.

At least not yet!

chev.jame wrote:
The Iranian leadership is crazy as bedbugs. As soon as they get a nuclear weapon, they will use it on Israel in a bid to force the return of the fabled “Ninth Imam,” a kind of messiah for Shiite Muslims in Iran. In other words, they will start WWIII!

LOL you got some facts wrong!

First of all, use of nuclear weapons is strictly against Shia doctrines. If you don’t believe me, send an email to any “marja taqleed”. Two of the best known are Sayyid Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani and Seyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran. There are a few others, and there are also Shia who do not follow “taqleed”, but these two scholars provide religious guidance to the majority of Shia people.

Second, it’s the twelfth Imam, not the ninth.

And third, starting a war would do the opposite of bringing back the twelfth Imam.

Mariam, the Iranian government shot dead its own citizens engaging in peaceful protests. When they killed a protester, the gov’t sent the family a bill for the bullets! These people couldn’t care less about any religious injunction against killing. President Ahmadinejad has denied that the holocaust ever occurred (a recurrent theme in the Middle East) and has vowed to wipe Israel off the map.

The earlier news articles I read referred to the “ninth imam,” but I defer to your knowledge of Islam.

Again, however, the present leaders of Iran would be no more deterred by Shia doctrine or Sharia law in committing mass murder than the Catholic Church was deterred by Jesus’ teachings in burning people at the stake.

I will concede that politicians rarely pay any attention to religious or moral rules. Most of them feel that they are above rules. However, you can’t claim religious authority while violating the religion, not and have any sensible people believe you. I would hope that there are enough sensible people in Iran to deter such nonsense, but I’ve never been there so I can’t say for sure. In the United States there are still a few sensible people, so I assume the will be at least a vocal minority everywhere in the world.

As for Ahmadinejad’s statements, take them with a grain of salt. Just like the US president, he doesn’t have much real power. He likes to say things that get the media wound up, plus much is altered in translation. I don’t speak Farsi, but I have known people who do and they say he isn’t always saying what the English media reports.

The real kicker is that Ahmadinejad is Jewish. Both of his parents were Jewish. They “converted” some years ago–reports say they did so to avoid persecution of Jews in a Muslim country.

A little known . . . but a very real fact!

I’ve known a number of Iranians. They are good people, by and large. I had a good Iranian friend in graduate school. Many people left Iran when the Ayatollah Khomeini returned.

My Iranian friend in graduate school, fled at that time with his family. He also told me about Savak, the secret police under the shah. The Savak were bad, but not as bad as the present regime.

The CIA did meddle in Iran’s internal affairs–unfortunately.

chev.jame wrote:
The real kicker is that Ahmadinejad is Jewish. Both of his parents were Jewish. They “converted” some years ago–reports say they did so to avoid persecution of Jews in a Muslim country.

A little known . . . but a very real fact!

Really? Cool. I did not know that. I’m going to look that up. But Jews are not currently persecuted in Iran, so if he genuinely believed in Judaism, he could practice openly, so it is probable that he is genuinely Muslim or has decided that his religion doesn’t matter but his political career does. Either way, I wouldn’t call him Jewish if he doesn’t believe in it, so it becomes just interesting trivia.

chev.jame wrote:
Both of his parents were Jewish.

Preliminary research contradicts this statement. Perhaps you can provide references?

This is rather off-topic, though.

Might be more appropriate to return to the topic, with apologies for the diversion.

Read it in the Toronto Star. And I believe that his ethnic background is why he is trying to come off as such a hard-a$$ in the eyes of the theocratic government.

Here’s some links:

http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/112001/

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles…

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/n…

^And other sites say that these claims are false and offer proof. The world may never know.

As for the original question, taking responsibility for his actions and the actions of others is the transition from boyhood to manhood. This can happen in the military, especially during times of war, but it isn’t the only way to grow up, and there are people in the military, even during times of war, who do not grow up.