American Foreign Legion part 2

[Pekka]

Ok, good point. Well this in our minds now, there could be some rules against it, like not-Americans could not be ordered to restore whatever in the US soil, or against the American civilians. But I think it's a good point, but can be avoided.

I read some of my earlier posts and I sound like some crazy man who is saying anything to justify fighting for himself etc bs. That's not my intension . I don't want to sound like idealist hypocrite.

[Jaakko]

But, can you answer the former question about my model of the 'legion', how would it be independent from public opinion?

Because they could always be available for use, no matter how much the citizenry disapproves of the action that the government wants to take. Why? Because the legionnaires don't get to vote, and if they don't obey they can be booted out of the unit and the US.

[Pekka]

They wouldn't be legionnaires in that sense. They'd be part of US army.

[Pekka]

And it could have some elements of FFL. Like officers could be only Americans. Maybe later on, with neutralization some of them can become officers too, especially in the troops where are more foreigners.
It would also have Americans in it, so they would not become outcasts. Sure, dangerous missions can be assigned to these people, since they know what can come if they sign up, they volunteered. They're supposed to be tough. And they can't just send them do the dirty work what public could not tolerate, since it would be lead by American officers, and there would be American soldiers too. They should be also integrated so, that it would not be possible to have these foreigners to be tossed around by others. Shouldn't be that hard to accomplish.

And yes, if trooper happens to suck, kick him out. No place for bad quality soldiers. It should be this way, if they let anyone in from poor countries (sorry to sound so harsh), majority of them would desert the first chance they get when they have to do combat. They signed up for food and up keep, not possible death. So none of these people. That's also one reason more to keep with the safer buddy countries, not just terrorism.

[Pekka]

And if this model would work, then they could just spread these foreigners more, so there wouldn't be one foreigners group that no American wants to go in before forced to. They would go the same training as the rest of them, so they have the same respect. Nothing less..
Also, if they desire to become citizens, they should take the tests needed for that, so everything goes well, and there's no ex-military citizen who can't speak english, doesn't know jack about the US or isn't interested.

also they should have a system to make sure they become productive citizens afterwards. Should be pretty easy, they have to be able to do work in the US after so if they don't have an occupation, they must go to college/university to get a degree after, or at the same time perhaps. If they are not eligible for higher education, then the only chance they have is to stay in the army for let's say 20 years, work for them. This would minimize the chance of them becoming people living on welfare, no free loaders.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Jaakko


No, rather that you'd have a part of the military that consists of non-Americans who want to be Americans, who could be much more easily used against American civilians. It would be easier because their only link to America would absolutely depend on the government that gives them orders.

The use of Uniformed soldiers, except in the most extreme of cases, against the American public wouod never be tolerated by the American citizenry.

[Pekka]

And these new soldiers would not be able to bring their families (if they have one) with them. Only after they've been neutralized, served. So there wouldn't be cases of soldier dying and his family in the US doing nothing.
Of course family here means spouse and children. No grandparents etc.

Also age limit.. to something like under 28-30 or something, no old men, sorry. So they'd actually have a future after service and possible education. We want these people to become either career soldiers, or people with degree, or some other occupation that is possible for him to do in the states. Maybe the army could help these people to get a job, but they could not become unemployed, for example if person has occupation and has served, but is unable to find a job in the next, let's say 6 months, he has to come back and work for the army. Hey, everyone signed for it, they can't complain.
So they are motivated to look for a job, and others are studying, or staying in the army. Beautiful plan! No people looking to exploit the country, only contributors, and everyone has an equal chance to succeed.

[Jaakko]

Kramerman - ya, that's why I said it was unrealistic in the foreseeable future.

Pekka - with all the rules and exceptions you're laying out, how many people would join? Would anyone come from wealthy countries, given that they can get a far better deal in their own country's army.

BTW, have you tried applying to the Rapid Reaction Force thingie here in Finland, or just some other army position? I hear there are great opportunities to serve abroad in UN related outfits.

[Pekka]

Well, that's the point, they're not looking for exploiters, but people who want to do some combat, and maybe get a degree. Do you know how expensive a degree is in states? It's still cheap for the US, this deal, but it's also quite beneficial for the other part too. He gets that combat plus place to study if he's not too dumb, degree, and voila, citizenship. Tuition usually covers for food and housing, well anyway that packet should be offered.
That's good, if you don't get killed. I'd take it right now if it was possible, where do I sign up?!
The point is, many countries armies don't get to fight. I'm not looking anymore to go in cadet school (I used to think about it). I get more action if I just become a police officer. Plus they really pay **** money.
I have already served, and I didn't go for the Rapid Reaction Force, and now it's impossible, since I already served.

So, they wouldn't get 1 million man army. That's not the goal I think. They'd get some thousand quality fighters, cheap and good in the future also for the country.
Those rules only makes sure that the person won't become unemployed outcast when he's done with the service. It's good for him too. It's not like they'd kick him out of the country if he could not find a job after 6 months, he would just have to do some work in the army, some civilian work perhaps, until he finds that job. He gets money anyway.

And career soldiers would naturally start making decent living after they have served to their neutralization. Then they'd get full pay and vacations and all that. After all he'd be citizen, why not. Now, would I go to US army even for pure army career, or Finland? We never get to see action. The US does. They also PAY. Also it's more interesting and better opportunities.. I wouldn't think twice about it. I already did one year with $3 a day, I think I could manage few years with something simular if I get those benefits afterwards.

[Pekka]

And what, these are good opportunities too:

'Join the army, serve x time and get the army to pay your tuition! Also citizenship!' Now how bad of an offer is this?
Not that bad.. and it's not supposed to be for people who just want lots of money, they need to make sure only the right people come in this thing. People who want to fight, people who want to serve in the US army, and people who are looking forward to also become good citizen with goals in their lives. If one does like supposed to, he's in a good place. If he screws up, well he did volunteer, that's too bad.

edit: And that's why they don't get salary, only pocket money. Maybe combat bonus. And that's why it becomes even more cheap. And that's why only the motivated people are going to join.

[Pekka]

But these are not of course THE rules. I'm just thinking out loud. These could be changed to suit both needs better. I'm sure there are even better ways with these things. So, everything is negotiable, the basic idea though is pretty stable as it is..

Please tell us what you think of this? Americans especially share your thoughts .
I'm now discussing about the detailed rules and arguing about them with another Finn Come on people!

[VetLegion]

So, I'm young, still in shape, able to do combat. Why shouldn't I do it? I can think of many reasons why I should, but can you come up with good reasons why NOT to go for it?

There is big chance war would destroy you as a person. This depends on you, but is still not something you can predict. In Croatia, who fought essentially a defensive war, many many people still suffer from mental disorders caused by war. Every now and then a former soldier kills himself or blows something up.

UN soldiers who did peacekeeping here and in Bosnia especially were badly shaken up too.

Many people find it difficult to integrate into civil society after the war.

I wont preach to you what to do, but if you read a book or two about horrors of war you may change your mind. Or see a movie, but not one of the action ones.

[Pekka]

I know this. Like I said earlier, there's a huge chance of getting killed, badly injured for the rest of remaining life or could be bad mentally. The last one is most likely to happen, if not getting killed first.
And that's why I'm afraid I might offend someone here who has actually done combat and reads my stuff.
I have considered it, believe me. But no, it's not a stopping factor for me.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by VetLegion

So, I'm young, still in shape, able to do combat. Why shouldn't I do it? I can think of many reasons why I should, but can you come up with good reasons why NOT to go for it?

There is big chance war would destroy you as a person. This depends on you, but is still not something you can predict. In Croatia, who fought essentially a defensive war, many many people still suffer from mental disorders caused by war. Every now and then a former soldier kills himself or blows something up.

UN soldiers who did peacekeeping here and in Bosnia especially were badly shaken up too.

Many people find it difficult to integrate into civil society after the war.

I wont preach to you what to do, but if you read a book or two about horrors of war you may change your mind. Or see a movie, but not one of the action ones.

This is very dependent on the person, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is by far most prevalent among those who fought reluctantly, and especially those who faut against their will (it is also prevalent among those who use mind altering drugs during warfare). These are the types who cannot handle war, because mentally they do not want to. And that is perfectly fine. I think it is sad that these types get mixed up in fighting they dont believe in .

And then on the other extreme are guys like my father, whe served 2 tours in Veitnam (he enlisted), and every major US action till Somlaia in 1993. He was highly decorated, and definately saw some of the most horrible sights a man can see - in person, face to face. But he is completely unaffected. You would never be able to tell this guy had held a dying close friend in his arms on more than one occasion, or that he has taken the lives of other people (in war, of course... if that is any justification).

Tho again, for some people, what you say is very true.

Kman

[VetLegion]

You think it is not a stopping factor. You just cant know for sure.

By the way, I dont want judge your morals. If you want to fight for the sake of fighting I will not judge that.

But if half of things you said you wouldnt do are true, how do you think of fighting. You cant fight and keep an eye on moral things to do.

And I am not talking from personal expirience. I was too young to fight. But I can tell you I see consequences of war and they are not good. I would give everything not to have to fight a war in my life. Top priority to that