Would You Lose a Leg for Afghanistan?

[sacase]

Simple question and I know we have a lot of ex military in here, who obviously would, because they signed up.

Just curious how important Afghanistan is to everybody personally.

I would gladly lose a leg in the service of my country. Being a soldier means you don't have the luxury to decide if you mission is defined specificlly enough to your standards and what the metrics for success are. It means serving your country uncondictionally and standing with your brothers. There is a reason why the Marines say: Unit, Corp, God and Country. Same thing applies to all military memebers.

[Destino]

Bottomline: It is the same thing as asking

"Would you lose your life for your country." Sadly, so far I see that the majority on this board are not willing to.

"for your country" in the minds of most people means "in defense of your country". Lately however it's come to mean "because leaders have decided to fight a war over there". That is the disconnect.

[Midnight Judges]

I don't understand what the problem with my question is.

We are at war in Afghanistan. In war, you have a chance to be seriously injured.

That injury could be losing a leg. Do you believe in what we are doing in there, enough to give up your own leg, win or lose.

I see what you are getting at, and it's an interesting question. I think it could be refined a bit because our troops are not guaranteed to lose anything, although they risk serious injury, mental trauma, and death. To be more accurate, you could divide the number of troops who have been deployed there over the last 8 years by the number of serious casualties. Also add risk for death. Those would be your risk factors.

IMO, that is not a bad measurement for whether or not a person should agree with a war. If it's not worth me sacrificing, it is not worth it period. The lives of our men and women in the military ought to be valued at a 1/1 ratio with everyone else.

[twa]

"for your country" in the minds of most people means "in defense of your country". Lately however it's come to mean "because leaders have decided to fight a war over there". That is the disconnect.

Lately?

When was the last war in defense of your country?

I kinda like them being over there rather than here myself.

[nonniey]

"for your country" in the minds of most people means "in defense of your country". Lately however it's come to mean "because leaders have decided to fight a war over there". That is the disconnect.

Yes, that is the disconnect. But there is and has to be a level of trust involved in leaders using military personnel. You cannot pick and choose which wars you agree with and claim you'd risk your life for your country.

[Koolblue13]

Yes, that is the disconnect. But there is and has to be a level of trust involved in leaders using military personnel. You cannot pick and choose which wars you agree with and claim you'd risk your life for your country.

I joined up when we first went to Iraq. I would have lost a leg to protect them.

Now, in hindsight, I would have liked to of have my leg back.

I would never join right now, because I think the US being in the ME at all is bull**** and not what our military is for.

[skinfan133]

I said yes, but let me clarify: I would gladly loose my leg in combat in order to capture or kill that son of a ***** bin laden.

I'm skeptical of the President's aim, since there really isn't any other than defeating the Taliban, which is fine and dandy as long as we get Osama too. I would do my duty is what I'm trying to say here.

[Midnight Judges]

I kinda like them being over there rather than here myself.

I never bought into that argument-particularly regarding Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. If we took all the resources we are using on Iraq and used them specifically for homeland security/border protection coupled with the war in Afghanistan, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate how we would be in any more danger.

Also, it's kind of messed up to claim killing 100,000 civilian Iraqis justifies us possibly preventing another (unlikely) 3000 person terrorist attack.

[twa]

I never bought into that argument-particularly regarding Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. If we took all the resources we are using on Iraq and used them specifically for homeland security/border protection coupled with the war in Afghanistan, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate how we would be in any more danger.

Also, it's kind of messed up to claim killing 100,000 civilian Iraqis justifies us possibly preventing another (unlikely) 3000 person terrorist attack.

Picking and choosing which war ya support is a losing game once the vote is done.

What is really messed up is those civilian deaths went down with the start of the war:silly:

Have a war and save some lives

[Destino]

Lately?

When was the last war in defense of your country?

I kinda like them being over there rather than here myself.

Vietnam was the one that broke the trust relationship between citizen and government. I'd call that lately as far as history is concerned. It's also the war that made it to American homes via TV screens and destroyed the romanticized notions of what war was like.

I agree with them being over there but I'd like to see a lot less eagerness to go to war. We don't value the lives of troops as much as we should IMO. I'll put it to you this way; if we had a war tax, let's say something like 5% on all income, that kicked in when our troops were at war... you think people would widely support us being in Afghanistan right now? Don't you think 5% should matter less than the lives of soldiers?

[Midnight Judges]

Picking and choosing which war ya support is a losing game once the vote is done.

What is really messed up is those civilian deaths went down with the start of the war:silly:

Have a war and save some lives

That is unlikely to be true.

Burnham said that the estimate of Iraq's pre-invasion death rate -- 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people -- found in both of the Hopkins surveys was roughly the same estimate used by the CIA and the U.S. Census Bureau. He said he believes that attests to the accuracy of his team's results.

According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_2.html

[twa]

Des apply your tax idea to the stimulus,health reform or any proposed program.

Why limit yourself to war?

If we truly valued the lives of our soldiers we would not put so restrictive ROE on them when we do send them to war.

Unleashing the hounds of war would do more to restrict their frequency of use than a friggin tax.

[Thiebear]

I'm sure the many that fought against their brethren from the south thought the war was insane.

As with every war. We sign up and take the oath.

Then follow it.

If i signed up FOR a specific war, i'd get out when its over, other than that, you do what your told, when your told and you go all out. The rest is just fluff.

The military in the last 19 years has shown military victories faster than ever before that shocked the middle east.

It was the politics upon completion that boggs down the process and causes the loss of limb.

[Koolblue13]

Des apply your tax idea to the stimulus,health reform or any proposed program.

Why limit yourself to war?

If we truly valued the lives of our soldiers we would not put so restrictive ROE on them when we do send them to war.

Unleashing the hounds of war would do more to restrict their frequency of use than a friggin tax.

I agree with both of your ideas.

[Perky72]

Yes, that is the disconnect. But there is and has to be a level of trust involved in leaders using military personnel. You cannot pick and choose which wars you agree with and claim you'd risk your life for your country.

Sure you can. There's nothing noble about blind trust, or bad wars. After you join the military you do have to fight to your best no matter what assignment, but the decision to join at all is dependent on the necessity or moral value for many people. I'd have joined/willingly gone for WWII, would have headed to Canada as an AWOL for Vietnam, for two examples. And had been perfectly willing to risk my life for my country in both cases. "For" meaning in defense of its security, not merely on behalf of.

Flip it around, to a young man in late 80's Iraq. The country has started a war with Iran, has committed war crimes on the Kurds and many others, and is saber-rattling with others. Is he supposed to just trust his country's leadership and join (or not flee) the military? If he doesn't does it necessarily mean he wouldn't risk his life for his country, if it was the target of a belligerant invasion rather than being the belligerant?

[twa]

That is unlikely to be true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_2.html

Depends on who is guessing since we have no definitive numbers

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

the 5.5 per seems to be wrong

Daponte (who has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000. According to quite comprehensive data collected by the United Nations, Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per 1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but clearly they went up. Whatever they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000.

but enough of the rabbit chasing;)

[Dan T.]

I would answer this question with a quote from General George Patton, who said "No **** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb **** die for his country."

Somehow that seems the right sideways answer to your hypothetical question.

[Destino]

Des apply your tax idea to the stimulus,health reform or any proposed program.

Health reform is paid for by the people. You have to buy your own health care. SS is paid for by everyone as well as is medicare.

War is one of the costliest things the government can do but no one ever has to join the effort with their cash. My instinct tells me they wouldn't allow any wars at all that weren't a direct threat if they did.