I'm confused in all of this.  And have been meaning to reply to your posts.  Leave me out of it and let's talk about the military in general.  Are you saying that military service itself is not honorable or just not blanketly so?  If the latter, I wholely agree.  By mearly volunteering to wear the uniform, does not make one honorable.  I know plenty of people in the military I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.  Just as in the general population. 

Your earlier comment about your own experience in the military and Rambo types isn't a fair comparison.  First, I know very few Rambo types in the military.  Those I do know who thought themselves such quickly changed their tune when the bullets started flying.  Most people I know join the military because it gives them a purpose.  Sure, some do it solely for the educational benefits, but by and large most fall under the category of "lost souls" who find meaning and direction.  I fall into the 2nd category, though I also have a strong desire to defend the US Constitution as well as a family line of military service.

I guess you can call me a hired gun, though I dislike the mercenary conotation in that regard.  I make about 85k a year currently.  Good money for sure, but I could be making well over 100k if I took my skill set outside of the public sector.  I choose not to do so at this time because I believe in what I'm doing. 

I have mixed feelings about Assanage.  I don't know him personally, so I really have nothing to go on.  He's more of a thorn in the lion's paw than anything else.  As I have repeated several times, my issue is with Bradley Manning; not Assanage.  I don't know what sexual crimes Assanage may have committed and honestly don't care.  Rape and sexual assault probably happens 1000s of times across the globe each day, so whatever alleged acts he may have done really mean dick to me. 

The most supportive wikileaks types don't distinguish between the information and the man who made them available.  The yahoo on this site calling him a hero is a perfect example.  Endangering the lives of people or not, Assanage tries to portray himself as acting under the veil on transparency.  Either way he fails at this.  By holding back some information, he is stating that he is capable of what is newsworthy and what isn't.  I don't believe him qualified to do so.  And if such a line can be drawn, with regard to what can/can't be released, then how is he any different than the US govt and its determination of what is public domain?  When he threatened to relase shit if he was arrested, that further shows that he isn't interested in transparency or security.  The pain and suffering of one man can't justify the pain and suffering of many more just because he gets pissed off.

If the US really wanted him gone, they'd have the CIA take him out.  This guy goes MIA for months at a time staying with friends in populated European cities.  He's not that hard to track.  Some CIA agent just needs to take him out when he's "underground" and he'll just never resurface. 

This whole wikileaks thing has really been a joke to me.   Nothing really important has been revealed and from a US intelligence perspective, Manning never had access to Top Secret material, so Wikileaks won't be revealing that anytime soon.  It's mostly just gossip and information that everyone already knew or had very good reason to heavily speculate on. 

But back to the original point of discussion.  I don't know if what I do is honorable or not.  I guess I would say so, but I kind of lack objectivity in this regard.  And since no one here knows exactly what I do and I have no intention of elaborating, they too can only speculate.  I'm a Captain in the US Army.  I've been to Iraq and am trying to get to Afghanistan.  If that's honorable, so be it.  If not, life will go on.  Either way, I'll be happy.

Wouldn't somone from Ireland, who really believed in self determination and avoiding corrupt governments, support the real IRA.  I mean, if someone was really dedicated to change and was from Ireland, I can't see how they wouldn't .  Otherwise, they're just leaching off the safety net provided by England.  I won't honor this moron or his alter ego with a direct response, but just a little food for thought for the other members of the forum.

No, it's not directed at you.  It's directed at the person who believes he's able to provide the people who listen to him with a path of redemption.  As well as the foolish notion that nodding your head in agreement from your computer desk towards the acts of strangers is somehow a meaningful contribution.

So what is this nut job willing to sacrifice for his crusade for truth?  Is he willing to leave the comfort of his home to make the change he feels enlightened and righteous that he champions?  Cause without force and sacrifice, you're nothing more than an acne faced teenager sucking the tit of his mother while you live in the basement.  You want to change the world, you'll have to get past me and 2 million other armed and willing combatants who have no problem leaving the safety net we've provided for you.  Until that point, please return to fantasia and let the adults get back to work.

There is a difference between elected politicians who may or may not have served in the military, (both Bush and Rumsfeld did) and those civilians whom have no military experience, aren't held accountable for thier choices who feel empowered to cheer for war from the safety of their homes.  My argument is with the latter primarily, though career politicians who would never consider doing a 3 year stint are no better.  That is my personal problem with modern America.  The vast majority have no connection to the military or understand what it means.  It's as real as the books or video games they play.  My ultimate problem is when people get in a frenzy and pray for war only to change their mind a short period in when a slight inconvience that may be attributed to the war is endured.  You ask strangers who volunteer to join to go half way around the world to do something they don't believe in or really understand.  But they mentally prepare and condition themself to win the fight.  They watch friends die and see lives ruined, only to return home to an unthankful and more importantly, understanding public. 

You know what people ask me when they see me in uniform or know I was in Iraq?  "How many people did you kill?"  What kind of fucking question is that.  A Soldier who kills someone likely watched a friend be killed or seriously injured.  While he was killing some distant concept to the average american, he stood by as his friends got Dear John letters from women who couldn't keep their legs closed and the accomplice of men all to eager to deliver.  I find myself growing more and more distant from civilian life every day.

My father killed himself 4 weeks ago.  My emotions and reaction were different than anyone else in the family.  I bottled it all up and realized that his passing has no lasting effect on me.  I loved my father, but I've been all over the world the past 8 years and have not called his home my own in some time.  Being there made me realize how far I grown distant from my family and how that pace will continue to grow.  There is no turning back and the faster those not willing to support a cause they'll gladly send others to fight for only expedites that distance.  I'm no coward and will go where I am told.

But there are consequences for cheering on war.  Consequences ignored by the media and politicians alike.  Remember that next time.