Replies

I think the faulty premise is that service is looked upon as "noble" or as a "moral obligation" regardless of the reason or the cause. Those who went along without question in every unconstitutional military conflict in U.S. history (e.g., Bosnia) are considered "noble" because they "did their duty." Those who refuse to take part, whether on moral or constitutional grounds, are considered unpatriotic cowards who don't deserve to live. It seems people will think or say anything to set their minds at ease

''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''

This is the oath of office taken by all who enter the military. Where and when they fight is determined not by them but by the President and Congress. As a civilian you can question a conflict and whether it is right or not. Those who wear the uniform can't. That is what makes it noble. Maybe you don't consider it noble to give up your rights as an American citizen and risk your life for our way of life but I do. That is what makes our Vietnam vets who still love their country so great. They served at the whim of our elected officials and returned home to be spit on by the people who elected them. May God bless those who serve and those who have.

Amen

Forgive me if I sound narrow-minded, but I have never understood how one can swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and then willingly obey the orders of those "domestic" enemies of the Constitution in Washington. Shouldn't the oath take precedence over the whim of some politician?