I’m not a murderer. I once considered doing it. Contemplated doing it for years. I was going to blow people up- or gun them down, maybe do both at the same time. If I sound like a psychopath right now, then I’ve met my goal.
I had a pretty normal childhood. Mom, dad, two older sisters, a golden retriever. Growing up, I loved playing with army men. I would sit down on my bed and fold the sheets until they made a series of little ruffles. To a child’s imagination, the ruffles in the sheets made for great trenches; in each crease, a fox hole, each wide distance of flat terrain between the ruffles, the dreaded “no man’s land.” This is where my two armies would fight. One was green, the second gray. They’ll heroically charge the each other, fearlessly brave the other’s onslaught while dishing out mayhem of their own. In the end, one side would prevail in glorious battle!
Even young, I knew something about tactics. The machine gunners, crouched and hunched over their massive guns were positioned in pillboxes (folding the sheets to make cover was quite easy). Their guns were too large and too heavy for them to be mobile, but in these pillboxes, they could lay down surpressive fire on the enemy infantry; the hail of bullets flying over the enemy’s heads, keeping them pinned them down. While the machine gunners laid down some cover fire, the riflemen were assembled in the trenches behind them. Equipped with lighter weapons, they were assault troops. They were the ones to brave across no man’s land. They’ll take the most casualties, but they’ll also win the battle- no army ever wins a war by staying put. Every bag of army men came with some troopers who held a radio in one hand and an uzi in the other. I considered them useless at the time; carrying a little submachine gun while their squadmates carried rifles and also talking on the radio during a shoot out- did these guys want to die?! I usually had them killed off early. It was not until later that I discovered that in real-life, these radio men were some of the most powerful men in the battle. They could call in air and artillery strikes over the radio, effectively giving them the most firepower of any soldier on the field. I promptly started using them as such. I also had a few tanks. The tanks were awesome. With their thick armor, they’d drive right across no man’s land, enemy bullets simply bouncing off the steel. They would advance over an enemy trench, running over enemies troops under their treads, sending the defenders in a panicked flight. The only things that could destroy the tank were an artillery or air strike, a bazookaman or a lucky grenade tossed down the hatch. The tank, either its destruction or its triumph, was the climax of the battle
As I got older, I discovered videogames. I loved games where I’d get control over an army and conquer the world. I became great at the games Risk and Total Annihilation. As far a shooters go, I loved Call of Duty and Brothers In Arms. I fashioned myself a strategic genius. I also got more and more into real life warfare. “Saving Private Ryan” opened in theaters while I was in sixth grade. When I first saw the opening of the movie, when the soldiers storm the beaches under a hail of machine guns bullets, I was blown away. It amazed me that such scenes actually happened in real life. The drama of the Higgins landing craft full of men approaching the beach- waves shaking the vessel and the crew, enemy artillery shells landing and blowing up these boats before the men even had a chance to land, the German MG42 machine guns shredding the Americans to pieces as soon as the frontal drop door of the Higgins came down, the sheer desperation of the Americans as they crawled through the sand, bullets flying over their heads and bouncing all around them, and the final push of the Americans up into German bunkers using their flamethrowers and grenades all left me so pumped up. It created an infinite curiosity.
In high school, I started reading about World War II. I learned about the Western, Eastern, North African, Bruma and Pacific fronts. My interest began to focus more and more on tanks. The Wehrmacht’s “blitzkrieg” which won the German’s win early victories at the start of the war (Germany conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France in just ten months) was entirely based on the revolutionary idea of grouping all their tanks into dedicated tank “panzer” formations; and using these extremely mobile, fast and lethal concentrations of tanks to punch a hole through enemy lines and proceed lighting fast hundreds of miles into the enemy rear; encircling the enemy and cutting off the frontline troops from their supply lines, reinforcements and communications with headquarters, obliterating that unit’s combat effectiveness and morale. I learned to respect the tank. It’s strength was awe inspiring. It’s appeal impeccable.
I knew I wanted to serve. It seemed logical for me. I wanted to join for a whole host of reasons. I knew much about and very much wanted to be a part of the history of the United States Army, I loved shooting stuff, thought explosions were cool- honestly, they are- loved the idea of discipline that army might bring, wanted to wear the uniform proudly and get the respect and appreciation that comes with it, to travel and see the world, to live adventure, to pay for school, and finally, my idea of a good time was and still is crawling around in the dirt under barbed wire, running around in the wilderness, and getting dirty.
I did my research and opted to join the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps in college. Upon graduation, I’d be commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army, with command of some twenty to forty combat troops. During the troop surge in Iraq in 2007, I spoke to a recruiter and took the ASVAB, the military version of the SAT which determines which MOS, Military Occupational Specialty, I’d get to do, and qualified to be a tanker on the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank. Standing eight feet tall and weighing in at 65 tons, this war machine is deceitfully fast, traveling at 42 mph on road , 25 mph off road. It has a turbine engine- yes, an engine for aircraft, put in a tank. It’s main gun is a 120mm cannon which could accurately hit targets at more than two miles away and it’s secondary gun is the devastating .50 caliber machine gun. The Abrams is a legend. It is the most battle tested and feared tank in the world. In the 1990-91 Gulf War, American Abrams destroyed hundreds of Iraqi T-72 tanks with impunity, not losing a single Abrams to enemy fire.
However, as I I made the rounds and told my family, friends and colleagues of my intention to enlist, the more vocal among them challenged my militarism. An ex teacher of mine from high school was adamant that I not go. He was one of those Greenpeace malcontents who had a problem with everything about our capitalistic society though, so I was able to dismiss his objections without much consideration. However, one of my best friends in high school whose opinion I valued much higher, would really push at me as to why I wanted to fight. Her questions of why I thought the uniform looked so cool or why I knew so much about guns and violence really made me look internally at the type of human being I am. And finally, my first boss, a man whom I had all the respect in the world for, said the wisest thing anyone has ever told me about war:
“I would never do something like that. Go to another country and kill someone who I have no idea what their name is- who their family is.”
He might have said more, it happened so long ago I can’t remember, but those first words, they are what stuck. I went home and contemplated what he had said. I never quite thought of war in that way; war is human beings volunteering to go to another country and kill the human beings living there even though they have NO idea who these individuals are. They are killing complete strangers to them. They don’t know these people’s names, they don’t know these people’s parents or siblings, they don’t know who these people love, they don’t know what these people’s favorite past times and hobbies are. They know nothing about them. Yet, they are willing to risk their lives to kill these strangers because that is what they were ordered to do. If I joined, I’d be volunteering to kill a complete stranger just because someone else told me to. Conversely, the people trying to kill me, Iraqi or Afghan resistance, would also have no idea who I was and would have no motive for wanting to kill me besides the fact that that is what HIS superiors had ordered him to. It is the epitome of being a tool: literally killing someone because someone else told you to. It is like when some instigator in elementary school tells you to go fight another kid in the playground and you go and fight him or her just because that is what the instigator said; except it is with adults and the fights are fatal.
I started reassessing my drive. I had a hard time justifying why I wanted to volunteer to fight somewhere else. I came to terms with the fact that I’m not a violent guy. I haven’t gotten in a fight in school since third grade and I avoided the gangs and petty school rivalries and jumping that happens in high school. I simply don’t like fighting or even arguing. I would never kill someone in my personal life; yet here I was ready to commit to wearing a uniform and training to end somebody’s life on someone else’s account- why would I do that?
I started giving more consideration to antiwar arguments. I scoured the internet, trying to figure out what path I should take. Among the dozens of interesting quotes I found that challenged me, the following three (with my thoughts following) are my most thought provoking:
1) “There would be no war without soldiers.” – Unknown
If NO one volunteers to fight on either side, then the war mongers and generals would have no one to send to battle. Literally, there would be no one to fight the war. The argument that the war mongers and generals could enact a draft to force civilians to fight is a fallacy because who would exactly be going door to door scooping up these draftees? There is no army and if it was the police force sent to scoop up the civilians, then what happens when these same police officers disobey the order? No one would be around to put them in check. It is the public that enables war, without the populace’s support, the war mongers would have to take their ball and go home. This may sound like a pipe dream, and you may call me a dreamer, but as Lennon said, “I’m not the only one.”
2) “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”- Voltaire
We as a society despise murderers; in the evening news and in the paper, we are brought up to believe that every homicide we read or hear about is a tragedy, and the culprit is fittingly judged. Yet, when it comes to warfare, we honor soldiers whose job it is, by definition, to kill people. The double standard is blatantly obvious.
3) “Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” -Hermann Goering, Reichsmarschall, Third Reich
Goering was one of Hitler’s closest aides and one time second in command. He headed the Luftwaffe as well as the Gestapo. World War II is a tragedy unlike any other the world has ever witnessed (unless you’re not counting the dinosaurs- if this case we’re not counting the dinosaurs). For one the its chief architects to frankly explain how he and the Nazi party manipulated the German people to get them agitated and on the path of war, shows us how other societies can use the same methods to get the war they want waged. Particularly during the build up to the Second Gulf War in 2003, President George W Bush and other war hawks galvanized the American people by convincing them that Saddam Hussein was a threat and possessed weapons of mass destruction (an accusation that was later proved false) while at the same time questioning the patriotism of those Americans who did not support the war.
I thought long and hard about these things. Particularly in American history, one could make an argument on behalf of the justification of war. This nation was forged in war. Without the founders of fighting for independence, there would not be a United States of America, at least as we know it today. War is what freed the slaves. War is what ended the Holocaust and saved the world from Nazism. But then I realized, every argument that soldierdom can be a good thing, can be struck down by acknowledging that the other side used soldiers too. There would have been no fight for independence without the red coats; there would have been no need for a civil war without Confederate soldiers; and there would have been no Holocaust or D-Day without the Wehrmacht. Soldiers are as much part of the problem as they are part of the solution. Therefore, all claims of the good war and soldierdom had achieved can be negated by the fact that it is also the enabler of ills it supposedly saved us from.
I contemplated for years, wrestled with my childhood dreams and my adult reality, ultimately deciding war is a terrible tragedy that I want no part of. I still like shooting guns. And explosions are still awesome, I love setting the sky ablaze on the Fourth of July. And I love the adrenaline of playing paintball and lasertag. I still read a lot about World War II and think the Abrams tank is one of the coolest things ever, but I would never be a tool. I can never contemplate ending another person’s life. It is so cruel and wrong. I’ve seen a few of those new ROTC students walking around campus in their uniforms. I wonder how it is that they rationalize their willingness to murder.
The piece commences in a way which leaves the critics to believe that the writer is a psychopath. But, when the writer states, “I’ve met my goal”, I get the sense that the author is playing with the audiences mind. During the writer’s youth, critics get an idea of how the author grew up having knowledge of warfare. I really like the details used to describe the tank. You can add more details as to why your family, friends and colleagues didn’t or did want you to enlist. The turning point of this piece is the line where you stated, “I would never do something like that. Go to another country and kill someone who I have no idea what their name is- who their family is.” Before that you stated, “I loved shooting stuff” so you were in the shoes of those ROTC students before the turning point. You may add an interview of an ROTC student and find out how they rationalize murder, this way you can answer your own question.
This piece was incredibly vivid and powerful in its detail and description. The use of that first paragraph as a way to entice the reader was executed excellently. It provoked curiosity and created anticipation right from the start. Although very wordy, your memoir was at no point boring, which shows how carefully you chose your words. Every words and reference in this piece mattered. Your use of references involving historical content and knowledge of specific scenes in Saving Private Ryan, spoke volumes about your credibility. I enjoyed your explicit explanations of all things military related, specifically the “M1A1 Abrams main battle tank”. Your knowledge of basically everything on this tank shows the reader how passionate you were or perhaps still are about military weaponry.
The style in which you chose to write your memoir made it easy for the reader to follow. I enjoyed that you broke down your arguments as to why not to go to war into bullet points because not only does it make it easy for the reader, but it also shows the importance of the information being provided. I was able to clearly pinpoint the message you were trying to convey through your piece. Overall, there really isn’t much negative criticism that I can provide for this piece. Aside from grammatical errors and perhaps a couple of run on sentences, the piece was interesting and captivating and just needs to be revised. Great job.
whoa, great job man i liked the break down of the quotes, it was a nice touch.
however,” If I sound like a psychopath right now, then I’ve met my goal.” this line is unnecessary, because its obvious it was your point, and it goes without saying. that line also takes away a great deal from the “shock” intro. and i do believe that the last line could of been more powerful, i kinda expected more of a self reflection than a single sentence in the last paragraph.
This piece was extremely captivating and written nicely. Your introduction definitely serves it’s purpose in being controversial yet hooking the reader into wanting to read more. Your transitions moved really well. I thought you did a great job in making references to history without ever being boring despite how descriptive you were. Your piece delivered story and was equally informative to someone who may not be knowledgeable of the Military. I enjoyed the part of how you find yourself supporting antiwar arguments despite having your mind set on being in the military for most of your adolescence because the examples you provided were moving. Though you conclusion was short, I like how it leaves the reader to ponder the idea of how someone would be okay with killing someone; the same idea raised in your introduction. Your piece came full circle in the end and I never lost interest. Excellent job.
I really appreciated how the story began talking about the narrator’s experience with almost joining the army as a technique to introduce the concept of war. By doing this the reader is able to see how easily society influences our beliefs regarding war because some soldiers never think about the cruelties of war, but only of the admiration and respect they would receive by being a soldier. I found that the narrator established a trusting relationship with the reader because the writer was knowledgeable with war machinery, tactics, movies, toys, video games, and also the history of war. The voice of the narrator was innocent and informative, which made this piece engaging because it allowed the reader to vicariously experience this as the main character as a child up until the moment where he has a realization about war.
I appreciated how the narrator include the quote by his boss without getting into specific details about his appearance because it allowed the reader to imagine this character however they please. The piece employs an ingenious literary technique that allowed the reader to connect with the main character from the beginning and the end, although the majority of the piece talks about factual information. I would suggest that author include a quote from Sun Tzu’s Art of War because it would explain the justification of war by a Chinese military general.
First note. Take out the dinosaur reference it messes with the tone of you essay.
Your essay is opinionated and I can judge your opinion only respond to it. Some of your facts ate arguable and your using them to prove your point but I also can use your arguments (civil war, holocaust and indenpenced) to make a valid counter argument but I won’t because I’m on your side but I disagree with your opinion, particularly calling soliders tools. Soliders aren’t tools they are resources. They are part of a nescessary evil, our military, which in alot of cases kills people but it I’d not murder. Murder is a legal term. It when someone unlawfully takes someone else’s life. Solider can’t commit murder when fulfilling their duties. Duties which keep Americans safe physically and psychologically. We as a people feel safer from foreign treats because of are military and foreign threats feel more threaten by our military presence. Your argument should be less pointed ( and disrespectful) toward soliders and morepointed toward people that cause war (politicians and corporations).
Soliders, just like the people, hold all the power but we rely on leadership. Leadership to fight war and prevent it. Your argument shouldn’t be about the masses it should be about the leadership; because good soliders and good civilians follow the rules, laws and orders of leadership. That’s why we put them in power and when they fail us that’s when we take it away
I had really mixed opinions of your opening paragraph. The line “then I’ve met my goal” made it sound really obvious that you were trying to shock people for the sake of shocking people. At the same time, it worked, very well. I was really drawn in by your introduction. I like how you gave a lot of detail when you were describing your youth. All of the information about the soldiers, and the M1A1 really showed how into all of that you really were. It was really interesting as well.
I would like it better if you put more detail into the turning point of this piece. You put so much detail into describing your self as a youth as well as into describing the tank, but i felt like you almost glossed over the point where you change your opinion on joining the military. I would like even more detail. Overall its a strong first draft and I enjoyed reading it.
When I got to the end, I actually wasn’t sure how it connected to your first paragraph. Looking back, of course, it made sense, but I think what threw me off was the last sentence of the first paragraph. Perhaps psychopath may have been too strong of a word. Also, you don’t ever mention the word again. Maybe you were using it to describe yourself and what you sounded like, but be aware that you are also indirectly calling soldiers psychopaths based on the preceding sentences. By using this word, you sound like you really hate what soldiers do, but I didn’t get enough of this sense of hatred in your piece. You were also able to understand why soldiers do what they do in the third to last paragraph, and it ultimately just sounds like a case of strong disapproval. I think you sounded pretty rational in that you sat down and thought things through, so your voice was not fervid enough in its opposition to use such strong words such as “psychopath.”
You definitely have a hook here. In this piece, you also sound like you really knew what you were talking about; I like how you went into the details about things, like the tanks. I suggest looking over your writing next time; there were many grammatical errors that affected the flow, and a few sentences that were missing words, and I had to guess or just didn’t understand what they were supposed to mean. Also, you spelled Burma as “Bruma,” which should be fixed (sorry, I’m Burmese). I suspect there are quite a number of people who disagree with your arguments, so I suggest you really expand on your arguments, and back them up more, not saying you haven’t done so already. I think everything could definitely be expanded; you have a lot to work with and a lot more you can tell about each event, or even period of your life. It’s all very interesting and more wouldn’t hurt. Keep working on it!
Great piece. I like the way you started out this piece with a statement so blatant and nonchalant as, “I’m not a murderer. I once considered doing it. Contemplated doing it for years. I was going to blow people up- or gun them down, maybe do both at the same time.” I automatically assume you are some type of seriokiller. But it is clear that you have basically said in real terms that you use to want to be a soldier. The voice of the piece seemed veey formal and there was great use of details to back up your reasons behind whether you should or shouldn’t pursue this childhood dream.
I really liked this piece, it is very vivid and informative, my favorite part is the first part ” I’m not a murderer. I once considered doing it. Contemplated doing it for years. I was going to blow people up- or gun them down, maybe do both at the same time. If I sound like a psychopath right now, then I’ve met my goal.” This paragraph right here can entail many things other than joining the service, because soldiers are not considered to be psychopaths, at least not in the eyes of the society. However this part really had me enticed and eager to read more. I think you can improve this piece by adding more reasons to why the character decided not to join the service.
Good story. Great ending.
Your paper is surprising. From the beginning I expect you to want to join the military. I can relate to your conclusion. I cannot relate to your beginning. It is a good paper for someone to read who is wondering whether or not to go to war. I think it is good that you listen to those close to you.
Conscientious
Reading the first part of your piece made me worried finding out what I was going to read. At the same time this part is effective because it was the hook for me to keep on reading. I enjoyed the voice in your story of confusion, guilt, and determination. You were willing to do something because the idea of protecting your country was imbedded in you. I respect that, but you also found out the reason of why you should not join, that is the reason a lot of people don’t register. I was convinced of your decision. You did a very good job in convincing me.
“I’m not a murderer. I once considered doing it. Contemplated doing it for years. I was going to blow people up- or gun them down, maybe do both at the same time. If I sound like a psychopath right now, then I’ve met my goal.”
I really like how you started your piece “If I sound a psychopath right now then I’ve met my goal.” it really explains what the piece will be about. I also like how you noticed both the good and the bad and came into realization that becoming a soldier wasn’t meant for you. I enjoyed reading this piece.
It’s always great to read about something that the author is passionate about. I knew your love for the army was strong, which was why I was so surprised that piece did a 180 on me. Since you were young, you were obsessed with the weapons and learning to use them, so this ending feels insincere, like you’re forcing yourself into this decision just because you think its right but not because you want to. I enjoyed the first portion with the memories as a child because I felt your interest and excitement, but your ending wasn’t as captivating because it felt like it was a decision you settled on, not one you particularly wanted.
This story is a little disturbing. The author wrote this piece I believe to let out a little psychotic fume. He wants the audience to feel some of his wrath. Growing up obsessed with the military and war is something that a chunk of the pre-adolescent male demographics are pressured into doing, but the author seems to take pleasure in it.
I see why you named this piece Conscientiousness.
Bravo to you, for considering the ramifications of your decision.
It is in our nature to want to be violent, or to want to harm or kill others; but such impulses are quite harmful to humanity as a whole, so we find outlets for these emotions. The first thing we need to admit, are that these impulses are okay. They are a part of us. The next thing we need to realize, is that it’s not okay to enact these impulses on others. Why is life so bizarre and ironic? You got me.
I like this story because it really exposes the narrator as a human being. He grows, and ultimately defies his childhood dream in the name of morality.
I was in the National Guard once, and I believed wholeheartedly in defending the country I live in, but I found out while I was in there that they send us overseas as though we were regular army. I didn’t believe in that. I was also incredibly scared by this thought, and I had already been scared by the fact that some of these people were basically criminals. Some people were very good people, but there were so many of these apathetic men looking to hurt someone…. I knew then that this wasn’t for me. I decided to pursue college and got honorably discharged before going to basic training. I was looking forward to Basic Training then; a lot of skills and discipline I could’ve used, but I didn’t want to kill others… I only wanted to defend the people I care about.
I enjoyed this piece. It’s done quite thoroughly and leaves no gaps for the reader. The transitioning is done quite well. In addition, I like the way you engaged the reader in your reasoning with the listed and expalined quotes.
It’s interesting how external factors played such a huge role in your decision. The fact that you opened with “I’m not a murderer” but ended with “. I can never contemplate ending another person’s life. It is so cruel and wrong” wrapped the peice quite well.
Great piece.
The opening of the piece, immediately captivates the reader, as he/ or she is forced to question the sanity of the author. The piece had a great narrative development, where the author (you) seems to explain his thought process. You explain your fascination for video games and guns, which is necessary for the reader to understand the character. However, I wonder how much of this explanation is really necessary for the reader to understand the character. I was quite lost when you spoke in detail about the video games, as I felt the narrative stopped for a second/ or slowed down a little. It picked back up, when you began to speak about your thoughts about war. I liked the list like examples you used, when describing your reasons against war, as they made your overall argument stronger. Great piece, and you succeeded in convincing me!
This was a very well written piece. The quotes that were mentioned in the story held a strong significance in the essay. You gave a lot of details into your childhood. That is both a good and a bad thing. The only problem that I can get from this was the length. It was a little too long for my taste. Try to condense this piece a little more and it would definitely provide a stronger impact on the reader.