Signing up should never prove the fact that your commander in chief can force soldiers to serve a civilian oligarchy commanding the military into a war, which is illegal according international war laws and partly according to the US constitution and the UCMJ.

When it comes to a decision, which laws a soldier has to serve first, international war laws, the US constitution and the UCMJ or the legal obligation of you signed contract, it seems to be unlikely that the contract laws would override constitutional and international war laws or the UCMJ.

Signing up for the armed forces doesn't mean you sign up for serving a commander, who engages in illegal war activities. It means you serve a commander, who complies with constitutional and international war laws, at least in my books and in my moral standards.

You think because the commander in chief uses the "Freedom" banner as a fig leaf to justify his wars, stirring up all over the world resentment and hate against his "efforts to spread, ie. enforce militarily freedom everywhere", everybody will buy into it and not see it as for what it really has become nowadays, a fig leaf for a naked emperor?

I heard today on the radio Dick Army saying in defense of the Iraq war policies of the Republicans and the Bush administration: "The Americans should be proud of themselves and their country, it's the only country in the world, who loves freedom so much that it even sacrifices its own people to fight for the freedom of others."

This argument caused Americans to buy into any ideologically based wars the Americans have engaged in. I don't blame them. It sounds good, makes you feel good and makes the soldier feel that "war gives him meaning". But it can't be a justification for imposing your freedom ideologies with military might on other nations pre-emptively and agressively.

For decades and centuries Americans were raised to be the defendor and beacon of freedom and I know that til today almost all Americans believe in that self-declarated role.

But with the end of the cold war, you have used up this justification and the argument doesn't fit as a justification for engaging in an never ending "international war against terror" with military might.

I don't blame the US armed forces for the way they don't or can't fight against terrorists, but are misused by the commander in chief to fight in a war that causes terrorism and jihadism to increase.

I blame the commander in chief to engage in reckless big-mouthed bully talk, persue a dumb approaches to "secure this country" and to use illegal methods to enforce his security policies.

I blame the commander in chief for the imorality of his war in Iraq, an invasion and occupation justified behind the figleaf of "spreading freedom and democracy". Wouldn't even as bad if it would work, but it doesn't. And apparently the Americans were the only ones, who didn't understand that it wouldn't work.

I blame the Congress for not checking on executive powers of the commander in chief. If American lives are sacrificed for those policies, then, I beg to ask, to force ALL Americans to sacrifice and don't hide behind a contract of so-called volunteer armed forces and make some people more holier, more heroic than others for their sacrifices. It's a cop-out that allows the executive to abuse the military.

Why aren't the Americans engaged in solidarity and loyalty to each other? Carry the burdens of war all equally? Carry the burden of universal health care all equally? With all that great compassion for freedom, there is apparnetly no compassion at all for solidarity, fairness and equality in sharing burdens, all for everybody. I don't see it on the political level, at least.

The way soldiers are recruited these days reminds me of cheap used car dealership lemon deals. The more lemon the wars will become, the higher the "bonus" offered to buy into a lemon contract. Nothing honorable about it anymore.  

A true volunteer army would volunteer into these contracts without ANY bonuses, GI bills etc. But if you can't trust the military's civilian leadership to lead morally acceptable and legal wars, I guess you have to pay a high price for your "volunteer army". What a waste of money, morals and emotions.

.