Published on January 22, 2005 By philomedy In Current Events
I was walking through campus the other day, and I ducked into one of the lecture centers in order to escape the cold. As I had some time to kill, I perused the flyers tacked up to the corkboard, which advertised everything from laptops to apartments to that damn free ipod everyone's all up in arms about. As I was looking, this little gem caught my eye:

There had been a meeting organized on campus for people to listen to and/or voice their displeasure with the current war. Although I forget the specifics of this flyer, the cartoon on it caught my eye. It was a rather sad looking individual, somewhat disappointed, with a thought bubble that said "I only joined the army for the college money."

Hmm. Am I supposed to feel bad for this person?

If you join the army (see: the organized group that is responsible for a nation's security), there has to be some kernel of insight somewhere in your mind that tells you that, at some point, you may be asked to fight in a war. If you join the army (see: the group who's job description is fighting in wars), you have to know that whatever you go to college for, whatever you choose to do, you have enlisted in a group who's purpose, who's immediate calling and concern, is to protect the United States of America, which usually means war, since Texas Hold'em does not yet have such universal appeal as to clear up international incidents.

I am not here to debate whether or not the war was right or wrong; I think anyone that reads my articles knows where I stand on this, and either way, that matter is not an issue. The issue is thinking that "I only did it for college money" entitles you to some sort of pity from me because now you have to go and fight. IT'S AN ARMY!!! WHAT DID YOU THINK THEY DO, KNIT???

I know that a majority of soldiers don't feel this way, and that this flyer probably doesn't speak for the brave men and women of our armed forces. It sure as hell weakens the many valid arguments for opposing the war, though.

Comments
on Jan 22, 2005
Great article.

'Texas Hold'em does not yet have such universal appeal as to clear up international incidents.' Oh Lord, how many times I've wished this were the case. If it did, Canada would be in great shape. Proud Canadian Dan Negreanu recently won Cardplayer Player of The Year, was best All Around player at the 2004 World Series, and can legitimately lay claim to being the best tournament poker player today. I laugh when I hear people say Bush would be a good poker player or when he makes poker analogies because poker requires so much analytical - or 'nuanced', if you will - thought he'd lose his roll in an hour in a penny ante game (To be fair, my PM would probably just give his roll away to the nearest, whiniest special interest group). Truman played Omaha up to 12 hours a day toward the end of WWII, though, and Nixon launched his political career with money he won playing poker in the Navy. Anyhoo, I'd be quite happy with any of Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, Barry Greenstein, or Kathy Liebert as POTUS and I predict that poker has become so mainstream you will soon see a famous poker pro run for office. Sorry for the off topic comment, but it's rare that anyone posts about what's really important - poker

David St. Hubbins

on Jan 22, 2005
Haha. Yeah, that's ironic. "You didn't even care about your country so much, you just wanted the college money, huh?" That alone doesn't raise sympathy, if you put it that way.

My sister was in the army, and I'm sure she didn't realize she'd have to fight in a war at some point if that necessity came about, but she's been out for years now, and I'm betting she's content with that. And, it's besides the point, but she didn't even get the money she wanted for college 'cause she got sick of the army.
on Jan 23, 2005
Sorry for the off topic comment, but it's rare that anyone posts about what's really important - poker


So true.

My sister was in the army, and I'm sure she didn't realize she'd have to fight in a war at some point


It's certainly unpredictable when or where the circumstance will come up, and I'm sure that many people go into it for the scholarship money, sincerely not expecting any international crises to arise. However, it is truly maddening that certain anti-war groups try to use this as an argument for their side. It's like taking an AFL-CIO scholarship and getting indignant when they want you to teach.

on Feb 13, 2005
When I first joined the Army back in the early 80's, war was spoken of as an "if". "If the balloon goes up...", "If we go to war then...", From basic training, to radio school, jump school, and even my guard unit. Once I went active duty, war was still an "ify" prospect.

Sure, there had been that limited scirmish in Grenada, and the DMZ in Korea had heated up a few times, but the threat of war was still very much memories of Vietnam, which ended a decade before.

By the late 80's a few things had happened. The "invasion" (I use the term loosely because how do you invade a nation where most the "invasion" force had been stationed there for years) of Panama seemed to be the first, but it was followed by a string of "Christmas Parties" and "Brush Fires" that has transended party or supposed "pacifism" of the Commander In Chief.

So, if someone joined at the same time I did, then I'd believe them if they said that war really didn't seem likely during their hitch. However, if someone joined the active duty within the last 15 years, or the Reserves or Guard in the last 5, and tried to play that game, I'd say the same thing I did to troops who said it while we deployed to Desert Storm...

"That school money's not looking so important now, is it!" ;~D

IT'S AN ARMY!!! WHAT DID YOU THINK THEY DO, KNIT???


umm, does sewing count? I can't remember anyone being taught how to knit, but I did spent 3 weeks at Ft. Lee learning how to sew! ;~D