BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 03:37 PM

////I do not support our troops and haven't since they ended the draft.////

So if they started the draft, you'd support the military again?

////They are not fighting for any of my causes although going in to the former yugoslavia to stop the bosnian genocide would have been a good idea had they not been ignoring all the other genocides of nonwhite people as they did it. Stopping the Rwandan massacres and chopping off of limbs would have been a good idea had we done it.////

So we're not going to look at economic benefits as well as winnability in regards to where we go? We're just going to march into any quagmire as long as the combatants aren't white??? Maybe you explained that wrong and would like to try again because that was a load of shit.

/////What we're doing in the middle east is a crime, and that comes from someone whose (pacifist and folk-singing) father was killed back in the 80's when terrorists were slaughtering americans wholesale overseas and nobody in the states seemed to notice or care. We thought the 80's were the decade of anti-american terrorism till it kept going in the 90's. 9-11 was the first here, sure, but hardly the first, and none of it justifies anything we've done in theoretical retaliation. Not In My Name. I don't want them serving and I thank those who keep out of it, not those who go in./////

Whom specifically are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 03:06 PM

I do not know if this appropraiate, but, my condolences, Megan L.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Megan L
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 03:00 PM

My Grandfather served in the Boer war and was killed in the first world war 14th september 1914

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 02:45 PM

Well posed, Ricky.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 02:40 PM

The essential problem, I think, is that serving one's country may be all very well - but it may also be quite the opposite. To take a simple situation, in a war there will be at least two sides and assuming only two sides the soldiers on each side may believe that they are serving their country. But their country may be right or it may be wrong, and the enlisted man has no choice about that.

Take the Boer war, for example, in which the UK invented (it is often said) the concentration camp. Were the British Army there heroes?

What about the troops of the USSR serving their country in Afghanistan? Were they heroes?

We take it on faith (and are probably right to do so) that allied forces were "heroes" in WW2 - but axis forces believed I imagine that they were fighting a just war - in the case of the Germans to lift the burden of an unjust peace (so they no doubt thought) imposed on them at the end of WW1.

If the current allied presence in Afghanistan is so virtuous why are "Taliban forces" so intent on laying down their lives?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 01:21 PM

I do not support our troops and haven't since they ended the draft. They are not fighting for any of my causes although going in to the former yugoslavia to stop the bosnian genocide would have been a good idea had they not been ignoring all the other genocides of nonwhite people as they did it. Stopping the Rwandan massacres and chopping off of limbs would have been a good idea had we done it. What we're doing in the middle east is a crime, and that comes from someone whose (pacifist and folk-singing) father was killed back in the 80's when terrorists were slaughtering americans wholesale overseas and nobody in the states seemed to notice or care. We thought the 80's were the decade of anti-american terrorism till it kept going in the 90's. 9-11 was the first here, sure, but hardly the first, and none of it justifies anything we've done in theoretical retaliation. Not In My Name. I don't want them serving and I thank those who keep out of it, not those who go in.
But back to the question, mercenaries who do what they are hired to do are always heroes to the people who hired them. Were the afghans to hire mercenaries to kill our guys those mercenaries would be heroes to the afghans when they succeed, and bad investments when they fail.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 12:27 PM

What GUEST 1664 is saying is that the military goes where the govt sends it and that govt is elected by the people. Even though the invasion of Iraq was unethical, the VAST majority of Americans believed it was the right thing to do at the time and only turned against it when it became painfully apparent that Bush had his head up his ass. But so did the people who elected him--twice.

If you don't like the missions that the military does DON'T send them there through the power of your vote. If you voted for Tony Blair--like it or not--YOU are part of the reason Britain went into Iraq alongside America. So think carefully before you vote in the next election. If you don't care what the military does, then fine. But if you're going to come on places like Mudcat and raise a fuss over the actions of our military in other countries, think first about you might have done (or not have done) that might have prevented it.

As for military personnel being made uncomfortable for refusing to obey an illegal order, I'd much rather have a clear conscience 20 years down the road than to hate myself for being too gutless to stand up for what I believe in. The guys who refused to participate in the My Lai massacre may not be regarded as heroes but they also don't wake up screaming and covered in sweat because they bayoneted babies and shot old ladies pleading for their lives. I think most of them can live with that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,GUEST 1664
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 11:40 AM

Tunesmith, yes I too belive that Afghanistan will unravel once the troops pull out, I don't think the Afghan security forces have the competency etc to maintain it.

But back when the invasion first happened, there was really high support for it here in the uk. The democratically elected government, elected by you and I, along with 30+ other countries decided to send troops there because they believed it was in the global interest.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, because we have a committment there, and we can't just deploy troops/withdraw troops on a whim, based on support for the mission on that particular day.

As for the Iraq war disaster - anarchy or authoritarianism, which is worse? Yes thousands upon thousands of civilians died because of the war and it is a huge tragedy. But so to is the hundreds of thousands of Kurdish civilians that died when Saddam gassed them with chemical weapons, not to mention the Iran/Iraq war where 500,000 people died.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Tunesmith
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 10:37 AM

Guest 1664:

Just watch Afghanistan unravel once we pull our troops out!
And, don't forget, it was your bosses ( backing those chaps in the hills!) who drove the Russians out. Why?

And, as for Iraq!
Well, the average person in Iraq is now definately worse off than under Saddam, AND, thousands upon thousands of civilians have died because of the war!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 10:28 AM

> You ARE responsible for knowing an illegal order from a legal one and you are required NOT to follow an illegal one.

At least in NATO countries and perhaps a few others. In Syria, for example, there are no "illegal" orders given against the other side. Anything goes. Nor are there illegal orders among guerrilla groups.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,GUEST 1664
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 10:10 AM

Well actually Tunesmith, there was a majority support for the mission in Afghanistan, and despite what the media has you believe, Afghan is a safer country today for your average civilian than it has been at any point during the last 20 years, especially during the years of Taliban rule.

There are extraordinary acts of bravery happening every day out there, which are saving lives of our soldiers and of civilians.


I am a serving front-line infantry soldier, and in half the posts on this thread you'd think we were the enemy!!
I joined up because I wanted to SERVE my COUNTRY - yes, some people still believe in 'service,' this old fashioned concept, rather than serving THEMSELVES, their own salary and their own pension pot.
Because I BELIEVE that you should be prepared to fight for what's right in the world, and sticking up for the little guy unable to defend himself.
And because I wanted to travel, see the world, and live outside my comfort zone.

"While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,
an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir",
when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys,
there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir",
when there's trouble in the wind."



As for being "murderers," well, we are sent out by the governments YOU elect!!! The government makes decisions to send forces on YOUR behalf, we act on YOUR behalf.
Unless high-level permission has been sought, WE CAN ONLY shoot if there is an imminent threat to LIFE (be that a civilian or soldier!!!)
I.e. the SAME right to self defence that you have as a civilian. We have no more rights than you.

Sierre Leonne, Kosovo - were the soldiers "murderers" there? Or did their presence and protection PREVENT huge loss of innocent life?



As for "giving up the right to think for yourself and having to follow orders."
Well that's just a load of rubbish. If you do act and shoot somebody, you best be dammned prepared to stand up for yourself and justify your actions if it comes to court (happens frequently.) Only yesterday did a soldier lose his career for punching a Taliban prisoner.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Tunesmith
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 09:24 AM

But for whom are soldiers fighting? Their Country? I don't think so!
I would say that - in the UK - the majority of the people would have voted against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan - if given the chance!
Let's get this straight! A lot (most?) of the time, soldiers fight for dodgy politicians, and for big business interests!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 08:41 AM

The issue of what is a legal and what is an illegal order can be very vexed - but a soldier who pauses to consider is unlikely to find military life kind to him. Volunteers for the military make a choice to join, knowing that they may be required to do things that conscience would oppose.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 08:22 AM

///I must admit that I find it hard to get inside of the heads of soldiers.////

They are often guys who think exactly like you but who either:

a. Didn't have the good luck to be able to avoid service.
b. Felt that they should do their time instead expecting someone else to do it.

///When you become a soldier, you give up the right to think for yourself,////

That's not true. You ARE responsible for knowing an illegal order from a legal one and you are required NOT to follow an illegal one.

////and must be prepared to kill on the orders of politicians from whom - in day-to-day life- you wouldn't even buy a used car.////

There's only one that gets any real say and that is the president. Who could have known what Bush was going to do when he got in office? And it was largely civilians who out him there--twice.

////But, then again, at 19 I did consider joining the army but by 25, I was an out-and-out pacifist.////

Nice luxury to have, isn't it? That's because others went willingly so you didn't have to. Try expressing that belief in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 07:36 AM

"When you become a soldier, you give up the right to think for yourself, and must be prepared to kill on the orders of politicians from whom - in day-to-day life- you wouldn't even buy a used car."

Tunesmith, loved the used car salesman equation!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 07:29 AM

Teribus, there you go again. You do this altogether too often--throw facts into discussions. It'll have to stop you know!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 07:10 AM

"Nothing cynical about my post or my feelings C.S."

Again, I fear you have misinterpreted my post.

I didn't state that *you* were legitimising present day conflicts with heroisms of the past. Nor did I blanket generalise as I've clarified previously.

As stated, as far as I'm concerned there is one good reason to go to war, and that is in self defense in the face of genuine aggression (not rhetoric) from another nation.

Soldiers serving in illegal wars or being used as imperial tools in oil grabbing missions are not, so far as I'm concerned heroes, but pawns. I believe their political masters think the same, Kissenger called soldiers "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy" I think the sooner we start challenging the propaganda that soldiers are all Heroes, the better, and particularly for those who might decide to sign up under the illusion that it is a grand and good thing to do.

I'm going to leave it there. As said I wanted to present an opposite perspective to that we are subjected to in the media. It's a simple debating strategy called dialectics to provoke discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Megan L
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 07:06 AM

Since the first of our ancient ancestors threw a stone at another person there have been warriors. Not always men as the story of Scáthach the great female warrior and teacher of warriors on the isle of Skye shows. There have probably also been people bleating in the background about them I guess this old world just hasnt seen anything new after all.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 06:50 AM

""I would also like to add Don, that I personally find the cynical use of genuine sacrifices and heroism of the past as some kind of legitimisation for present day military aggression and illegal wars, to be pretty offensive.""

Nothing cynical about my post or my feelings C.S. and I find that comment personally most insulting.

The point of my comment is that in the real world, soldiers who serve their countries cannot be categorised as mercenaries, nor as willing killers.

Your self righteous generalisations reveal a disconnect between your emotions and your logical reasoning.

By all means attack the political masters who are never themselves in the line of fire, but have some thought about the way you attack men who are not the initiators of the conflicts.

They are not the problem, but they are an important part of the solution.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 06:24 AM

"I must be honest and say that, while I feel very sad to see the coffins arrive from Afghanistan with those poor young lads killed in their prime, I'm only too aware that they were trained to kill, and that there are just as many dead Afghans (civilians mostly, and among them women and children) put into the ground over there."

Just to acquaint some here of what our "Heroes/Mercenaries" (depending upon POV) have achieved in Afghanistan:

Between April 1978 and October 2001 there was no military force or organisation specifically charged with protecting civilian life in Afghanistan. Throughout that 23 year period Afghans died at an average daily rate of 307 per day.

Between October 2001 and October 2006 US - Operation Enduring Freedom Forces and ISAF operated inside Afghanistan and they were charged with protecting the general population. Throughout this five year period the average daily death toll amongst Afghan civilians was reduced to 14 per day, three-quarters of that number being Afghans killed by Anti-Government Forces.

Between October 2006 and the present day with ISAF and ANSF protecting the general population the average daily death toll amongst Afghan civilians is 5 per day (Population of Afghanistan is over 30 million). 93% of all civilians killed in Afghanistan are killed by Anti-Government Forces - The Afghan Security Forces and ISAF work very hard to prevent that happening.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 05:40 AM

"If you're in a situation where you're told to fire on people then you fire on people. It's not a matter of agreement, it's a matter of doing your duty" Up to a point yes, but there is though surely always a moral line which should not be crossed. The defence I was only following orders does not always stand up. It can't be a universal get out clause for everything. Not that you're necessarily suggesting it is of course.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 10:43 PM

Brooks!

People can make E-3 upon graduating from boot camp. I made E-4 (3rd class petty officer) just for graduating from A school--that was 7 months after I entered boot camp. I can't imagine being dumb enough to get married as an E-3. That's like getting married when you sweep floors for a living. Kind of stupid and short-sighted. As an E-3 you have a place to live that you cannot be kicked out of. You know where your next meal is coming from.

You can live easily on that pay. I did. But, sure, you get married and that makes it a while lot harder but should the military pay for your stupid decisions?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 05:50 PM

Josepp, a PFC is the third level in the enlisted ranks. That is what E-3 means. It normally takes a year or more to reach that grade.

However, I assume that dialogue is not your interest, so I'm out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 04:23 PM

////Current compensation (pay and allowances) for a married Army PFC (E-3) at Ft. Drum, NY is about $3500 per month, before standard deductions, assuming that he or she chooses to live off-post in Killeen. Out of this, he pays for rent, transportation, food for himself and family, and so forth. This is within the income limits for a family of 3 to get food stamps in New York////

Brooks! Read what you just wrote. A "private". A "private". A private is the lowest ranking on the totem pole. Of course they don't make much money. But guess what?? If you're a private, you can actually get advanced in rank and make more money!!! It's been known to happen a time or two. Why, it even happened to me. I left boot camp an E-1 and left the Navy six years later an E-6!!! I was making some pretty good scratch by that time. If I stayed in. I could have left an E-8 or maybe an E-9!! Who knows--I could have struck for officer and left an O-3 or 4 like my chief did.

Basically, if you're the same rank coming out than when you went in, you're a loser. That shouldn't happen to anyone. Everybody moves up.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 04:10 PM

////"All soldiers – whilst they agree to murder and dominate on behalf of the oppressors – are mercenaries."////

What does that even mean?? Whilst they agree?? You mean they sign a contract that says, "I recognize you to be an oppressor and I agree to murder and dominate on your behalf for $5000 a month"?

You sign a contract agreeing to serve and follow their rules and regulations. You take an oath. Nothing about murdering and dominating. If you're in a situation where you're told to fire on people then you fire on people. It's not a matter of agreement, it's a matter of doing your duty. If you refuse to fire and one of them opens fire on you and kills your buddies--what do you say? You have to accept that your leaders have assessed the situation to the best of their ability and have made a decision that has to be successfully carried out or even worse things could happen. There's no agreement or non-agreement. You do your duty and you try to keep yourself and your buddies alive. It's not an easy situation to be in and it's not for you or anyone else to pass judgment on someone thrust into that situation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 04:10 PM

And I think I probably aught to reiterate, that while I recognise that my personal views may well be offensive to others here, my intention was not to offend, but to simply provoke discussion by presenting an opposite viewpoint to that being promoted by the "Heroes" campaign we are currently having incessantly drummed into us via the media.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 03:59 PM

I would also like to add Don, that I personally find the cynical use of genuine sacrifices and heroism of the past as some kind of legitimisation for present day military aggression and illegal wars, to be pretty offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 03:56 PM

////My old Dad was a very hard fellow. In his view all who fought in WW2 were laudable; the brave were heroes; all the rest were despicable cowards. The Fire Watch, Ambulance Drivers etc were usually too old or young to fight. Some were conscientious objectors, but he had no time for them. We had long arguments about it, but we never found any common ground!////

I'm more with your father as far as WW2 goes. There was no room for conscientious objectors there because you had some power-mongers working in collusion to engulf Europe, Asia and America is a war where it is victor takes all. A war like Vietnam was different. There wasn't the same urgency.

Also, I suspect that many of the conshies from WW2 never told anybody 20 years down the road that they were conshies. You can bet at least some, if not most, were telling people, "Oh, yeah, I was up there on the front lines fighting for my life!" Count on it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 03:51 PM

"It is a disgraceful insult to categorise such men as mercenaries wherever and whenever they serve."

No-one has done that here.
From the quoted piece linked to in the opening post:

"All soldiers – whilst they agree to murder and dominate on behalf of the oppressors – are mercenaries."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 03:45 PM

////If a person lives in military housing and eats in the mess, they are not eligible for these - they are not taken out of pay;////

WHAT isn't taken out? Taxes or money? If the former, you may be right, I never said where the money goes. I don't know, I don't care. But if you say money isn't taken out, you're full of shit. It IS taken out and it's taken out before the check is issued.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 03:33 PM

Well my two uncles, whom I never got to know because they didn't come back from D-Day, and my father, who was a total stranger walking into the house about a month before my fifth birthday, didn't even need to volunteer. They were Irish and could simply have gone home.

None of them volunteered because they were killers, and they certainly didn't join up for the seven shillings and sixpence a day that they were paid.

It is a disgraceful insult to categorise such men as mercenaries wherever and whenever they serve.

Without the sacrifice of such, you would all be under the thumb of whichever would be potentate happened not to share your squeamish natures.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 02:29 PM

As a minor tangent touching on propaganda glorifying war and it's participants (such as the UK's "Heroes" PR campaign mentioned in the first post) Eliza -and anyone else interested- might find this short essay on the Moro Crater Massacre by Mark Twain affecting. He very elegantly rips to pieces the newspaper reports glorifying the atrocity:

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/cr/moro.htm

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Tunesmith
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 02:07 PM

I must admit that I find it hard to get inside of the heads of soldiers.
When you become a soldier, you give up the right to think for yourself, and must be prepared to kill on the orders of politicians from whom - in day-to-day life- you wouldn't even buy a used car.
But, then again, at 19 I did consider joining the army but by 25, I was an out-and-out pacifist.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 02:05 PM

Exactly how I feel, CS. One has to defend one's land against invasion and attack. War brings with it many victims, in many guises. It's a terrible thing altogether, and I pray I don't live to see another one in which I'm closely affected.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 01:55 PM

Some really good points Eliza. As you may have gathered, I'm a pacifist myself, though not of the absolute kind (inasmuch as I believe in the right to appropriate degrees of self-defense) and as such I'm deeply cynical of the machinery of war, particularly the glorification of both of it and those who willingly participate in and perpetuate it. Yet I too would not wish to condemn the genuinely deeply impoverished, traumasised/brutalised and vulnerable for doing some terrible things. The kinds of mercenaries of which you speak, are arguably just as much victims of war themselves, as are those they harm.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 01:52 PM

Reread the farewell speech from Eisenhower.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 01:29 PM

Some of the 'mercenaries' in Rwanda were mere children, boys of ten or twelve, paid with drugs and fed now and then. They were forced (in the sense that they were terrified of the consequences if they refused) to chop off the hands or feet of women, children and babies with razor-sharp machetes. I'm quite sure that many 'mercenaries' in various African uprisings over the years have 'enlisted' solely to earn a few pennies to feed their families. As Little Hawk says, there are so many different categories of mercenaries, one cannot easily judge them. My old Dad was a very hard fellow. In his view all who fought in WW2 were laudable; the brave were heroes; all the rest were despicable cowards. The Fire Watch, Ambulance Drivers etc were usually too old or young to fight. Some were conscientious objectors, but he had no time for them. We had long arguments about it, but we never found any common ground!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 07:04 AM

Doctors take the hippocratic oath, a pledge to use their professional skills in order to preserve life.

I think it would take some considerable twisting of logic to equate them with those who do the precise opposite and pledge instead to use their professional skills go out and kill complete strangers if required by those who have hired them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Megan L
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 05:45 AM

Some of the bravest men in ww11 were pacifists they died manning ambulances and aid stations The first aid unit I belonged to Had a memorial in the front hall to all those who gave their life.

Looking at this purely in the term of jobs a soldier has the power of life and death everyday. Mind you so have surgeons and other medical staff does that make them also mercanaries

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 04:50 AM

I must be honest and say that, while I feel very sad to see the coffins arrive from Afghanistan with those poor young lads killed in their prime, I'm only too aware that they were trained to kill, and that there are just as many dead Afghans (civilians mostly, and among them women and children) put into the ground over there. If you go to War with a rifle in your hands, prepared to use it, then Death may and can come to you too. I only view as 'heroic' acts of courage under fire to save ones comrades, or things like bomb-disposal. My father would thump me if he could read this, he abhorred any kind of pacifism, as he fought in WW2, but we were all personally and nationally threatened back then. I'm not so sure about why exactly our troops are in Afghanistan. Terrorism isn't something that armed soldiers can address, it needs Intelligence and negociation. I bet I'll get some stick for this posting, but that's my view!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 09:37 PM

That ain't much coin fer riskin yer life, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 07:11 PM

OK, Josepp.

US military compensation has 2 primary components - pay and allowances. Pay, or salary if you prefer, is set on the basis of a serviceperson's rank and seniority, and is geographically uniform within these criteria. Pay is taxed, subject to Social Security and Medicare deductions, and is the figure upon which retirement is computed. Allowances vary geographically, and are not taxed or otherwise subject to deductions. There are a variety of them, but the two major ones are housing and subsistence. If a person lives in military housing and eats in the mess, they are not eligible for these - they are not taken out of pay; they are not entitled to this portion of compensation. Uniforms for enlisted people are issued without charge; there is a small (currently $26/month) uniform replacement allowance. Allowances often make up about 40% of total compensation, but are not figured into retirement. A 20-year retiree will generally get 50% of base pay, or 28% of total compensation.   

Current compensation (pay and allowances) for a married Army PFC (E-3) at Ft. Drum, NY is about $3500 per month, before standard deductions, assuming that he or she chooses to live off-post in Killeen. Out of this, he pays for rent, transportation, food for himself and family, and so forth. This is within the income limits for a family of 3 to get food stamps in New York

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 06:01 PM

////Josepp, your understanding of the US military pay system is sadly lacking. I would explain it, but that would require a major thread drift. ////

No, you obviously can't explain it or you would. Military personnel PAY for their food, room and board. It is taken out of your check before your check is even issued to you. We also had a Navy Relief Fund so guys who had an emergency and had to go home but had no money to travel with could go to Navy Relief and receive that money. And where did that money come from? Civilian taxpayers? No. Navy personnel. It wasn't mandatory to pay in but most guys did. I did. I never used it but I figured it was possible that I might.

////As far as being mercenaries is concerned, suffice to say that military pay, especially at the lower ranks, is so low that soldiers and their families often qualify for public assistance.////

That too is utter bullshit. I lived quite comfortably on a sailor's pay. I even lived in a flat off the ship even though I still paid for my military housing and my military meals (which I never ate unless I had duty). It's not true that military personnel are well-paid and get everything for free and it's not true that they are effectively impoverished. The truth is, we are paid adequately if we live within our means just like everybody else. When I was offered a reenlistment package back in 1986, it came with a $20,000 enlistment bonus for signing on 3 more years with $10,000 given to me up front as soon as I signed and the rest paid to me in installments in my paycheck. I turned it down and took my discharge instead. I had enough money. No money, my ass.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 05:56 PM

"As far as being mercenaries is concerned, suffice to say that military pay, especially at the lower ranks, is so low that soldiers and their families often qualify for public assistance."

It's the same in Canada, Art. I'm with Gnu: it's a disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 04:45 PM

Art... that is disgusting ans shameful.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 04:28 PM

Josepp, your understanding of the US military pay system is sadly lacking. I would explain it, but that would require a major thread drift.

As far as being mercenaries is concerned, suffice to say that military pay, especially at the lower ranks, is so low that soldiers and their families often qualify for public assistance.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 04:23 PM

Right, Ebbie. I was emphasizing to the max, just to be 100% absolutely certain sure and positive and with no doubt left in my mind whatsoever that Richard would get definitely and exactly what it was that I meant. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 04:07 PM

////Soldiers aren't particularly well paid, but they are fed clothed and housed somewhat.////

In the US military, you PAY for your food, your uniforms, and your housing. It is taken out of your check before you ever see it. It is NOT FREE. Nor is it optional for the enlisted ranks. Officers may elect not to pay automatically for military chow (IOW, they receive commuted rations or "comrats") but that means whenever they do go to the chow hall or the ward room for a meal, they must pay for it out of their pocket. It is not free. People get this idea that miltary personnel get freebies but that is not true. Same with medical and dental care--it's paid for by the military but not on a case-by-case basis. You're paying into it with every paycheck but don't have to pay for it when you actually use it--sort of like insurance or --dare I say it? Socialized medicine). The civilian world could learn a thing or two about how the military handles its own.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 03:23 PM

'...complete 100% totally ammoral mercenary...'

Redundancy and repeating oneself as well saying something over and over is over-kill, not to mention beating a dead horse, singing to the choir and carrying coals to Newcastle.

And the word is Amoral. :)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Megan L
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 01:41 PM

Hmm the dictionary i just picked up(YES paper and pages of type an amazing invention :) )described mercenary as venal one who works for money or other reward

I guess that would probably cover most of the working population these days. Does that also mean the more money you work for the more mercenary you are?