No Citations Allowed: Memorial Day 2012

[sandwichwarrior]

Panookah's post in t_p_nonsense already summed up my general feelings toward the day but I want to get the community's take on a deeper question...

"Why are young men(and now women) willing to kill and die for flags?"

Discuss!

Comments

[a_new_machine]

A cynical part of me wants to view it as an economist would. Military service has high value in a lot of ways - job training, prestige, skills development, the GI Bill, etc. The risks are extremely high, but well-understood and surprisingly low, overall - certainly you're a lot more likely to be killed in service than you are in my job, but you're a fair bit less likely to be killed as an American serviceman in Iraq than you were, say, on the Western Front in 1917. It's a high-risk, high-reward proposition, and a lot of people are willing to take that up. The "fighting for the flag" thing, fighting for the ideals... that's subsumed in the "prestige" part of the value of the job, at least in part.

That said, I've known people who had no use for that sort of value - who had good careers, good families, wealthy parents and never the need to want for anything, who joined up and went to war, and consider it the best thing they've ever done. So I'm not sure the cynical part of me is right even a majority of the time.

[sandwichwarrior]

True but the recruitment of them into regular fighting forces is a bit more recent developement.

[harry_beast]

Women, who make up half of the voting public, share responsibility for the decisions of an elected government, including policy decisions related to the armed forces. Evidently, women were willing to allow restrictions on their gender's military service until very recently.

[meus_ovatio]

People die for all kinds of shit. Material things, ironically. The pursue self-destructive ends thus ensuring everything they work for can't be enjoyed by them when they do get it.

[lafinjack]

I disagree with the WTC attacks.

[chron_job]

> "Why are young men(and now women) willing to kill and die for flags?"

Because they are trained to do so. (where "trained" can mean anything on the spectrum from 'socialized' to 'brain washed' depending on what axe you have to grind.)

[il_mio_gufo]

but when does the training begin? before one enlists? or after?

[ameliorate]

Probably both right? I mean it seems that people who have military family /tend/ but not always to be more open to the concept. You enlist because you see it as a duty/privilege/ honor/way to make money/survive and after you enlist it can be reinforced through a variety of techniques.

[il_mio_gufo]

agreed. electing to serve in one of our military branches is usually perceived as a less 'dangerous' thing by those with some type familial ties to the military.

from what i've seen, in my life, those who elect to serve but come from a family with little or no military-ties usually have a harder time attaining familial support.

u know - it's the familiar vs the unfamiliar

[il_mio_gufo]

hmmmm...I suppose we are taught that it is honorable to take the risk. It is only potentially that one might have to kill. It is only potentially that one might his/himself be killed. Therefore it is just a risk rather than something guaranteed.

To 'serve' is to take that risk. This particular risk also happens to be socially viewed as an honourable one!