I'm impressed by your devotion to your country, and your commitment to the military.
Sorry for the confusion, but I was only posting something I read on another forum.
My own experience prompts me to go a giant step beyond what Matthew has written or posted and to insist forthrightly that if one's country happens to be the USA, any properly oriented "devotion" to one's country (love
would be a far better, far less qualm-provoking word) of necessity
involves a total eschewal of a "commitment to the military."
Though off the top of my head I could easily write ten thousand words on this theme, let me confine its elaboration to two points.
For starters, I suggest that you reread closely everything that jozeftiso1947 wrote on page 1 of this thread. The bluntness of his wording might be unappealing to some, but aside from the insupportable contention that National Socialist Germany as a polity
"profess[ed] Christian principles," he is right about the facts. (Had he instead simply written that as bad as Hitler's regime was, it was hardly more than the fifth, sixth, or seventh worst regime in place among the combatants at the time, it would be much tougher to take him to task.)
Second, the writer of the evidently fine article that Matthew quotes from was clearly born some years after my own time as a draftee in the army had come to an end (during a year of that time I was assigned to an infantry division in Vietnam). Yet aside from the exaltation of faggots and faggotry and the norming of women in combat and in barracks cohabitation with men—phenomena of the nineties and the naughts, respectively—the endemic immorality of every aspect of military life was just as plain to see in 1968 as in 2008. Indeed, it began in basic training, where everyone was expected to sing marching songs wherein someone who'd dodged the draft (a fellow generically named Jodi) was graphically described as screwing one's wife or girl friend and spending one's allotment check while the singing draftee was getting ready to keep his country "safe"—"safe from what
" was seldom if ever addressed, of course. It amazed me at the time how effective this entry-level propaganda (used, nota bene,
in both World Wars in pamphlets directed at enemy
soldiers!) was in motivating ordinary trainees to resent civilians generally and to think of women, even their loved ones, as good for little else but carnal "service." (Happily, I myself was immune from at least this form of psychological pressure since I had neither a wife nor a girl friend to picture in dalliance with Jodi!)
What kind of country, MariaCatherine, trains its young men (now, too, its deluded young women) to react and think in this fashion? What sort of "justice" can there be in aggressive wars that require that such motivations be instilled in those sent to wage them, when even those with a 70 IQ would laugh aloud at the idea of themselves as defenders of the realm? Where, after all, are these wars being waged, and what is the threat being defended against? By the testimony of the U.S. government itself, certainly not Islam or its adherents! Look at the Obama-supported immigration bill, now in the House, that Jewish money and influence have thrown their full weight behind. Among its several treasonous messages, one of them is this: Muslims R Us.
I certainly don't expect Cheesehead Dolan and the other American conciliar prelates to bite the hand that feeds them by declaring service in the military objectively disordered and gravely sinful. But I nearly despair of Trads—whether pro-Resistance, pro-SSPX, or otherwise affiliated—who in a real sense subvert the very Faith they claim to want to further by speaking anything but ill of service in this country's evil armed forces.