As for teenagers and crime with the addition of military training...
I'm not sure it would be a good idea with (from what I understand) the military the way it is, where you can leave or drop out if unsuitable. Given the consistant human rights advocacy in the military over the last fifty/sixty years or so, the military no longer seems to have the means or the drive of 'breaking' people, other than to serve in its elite units.
People, like horses or any other wild animal, can be broken and domesticated with the proper application of force and psychological treatment. I would say that if this sort of thing were allowed today, then I would be all for having teens forcibly enlisted in the military until they passed basic. Coupled with extensive psychological testing, one could virtually guarentee each and every citizen had at least been exposed to the means by which they could make a reasonable living and possibly even determine which members of society were not fit to live in it.
I beleive one and half years of intimate observation and psych testing is needed to weed out virtually all possible mental health issues / socially adverse perspectives. Seeing that each citizen served for two years in such a system could go a long ways in sorting out problems before they happened.
I see a ton of stuff here about how the Army is full of tools who couldn't find gainful employment otherwise.
With colleges set up the way they are today it's almost impossible for anyone to not be able to afford to attend at some level, maybe not Harvard but community at least, probably state. Student loans are subsidized and you don't begin paying those back until you graduate. You can borrow for housing, food, books, etc. Yeah Johnny might need a part time job for some clothes and spending money, but college is accessable.
The Army isn't filled with poor idiots. On average they come from families with above the national average for income, they have a higher incidence of having college degrees than general population. In large part the military offers some very valuable training in their support roles that lead to extremely lucrative jobs outside the military, aviation maintanance and auto maintanance jump to mind.
Just because you don't agree with the war in Iraq doesn't mean you shouldn't respect the soldiers fighting it. All in all, they're smart and well motivated, they do what they do because they choose to.
My personal experience is that I strongly considered entering the military when I graduated in 1998, but the idea of serving under Clinton was nausiating. I didn't respect what he did for the White House or what he did with the military. I have never lost respect for the soldiers, they do a hard job and they do it well. But for me, I couldn't see serving under Clinton.
allen1234 on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
My personal experience is that I strongly considered entering the military when I graduated in 1998, but the idea of serving under Clinton was nausiating. I didn't respect what he did for the White House or what he did with the military. I have never lost respect for the soldiers, they do a hard job and they do it well. But for me, I couldn't see serving under Clinton.
What exactly do you object to what Clinton did to or with the military? Do you consider Bush to be any better?
Didn't Eisenhower and even the founders warn against a military industry and maintaining a standing army, respectively? Because if our business is war, what purpose does peace serve?
Well, I don't know about them warning against a standing army, but I do know we've been a military industry pretty much since the beginning. Even way back when we were a pissant third world nation, we were busy cutting down our forests to build warships to sell to the french and english, so they could continue fighting their incessent wars (Which only stopped when it became more profitable for us to insure they don't). We regularly sells billions of dollars of weaponry to other nations, its the way its always been, and will likely continue for the next couple hundred years. Peace has never been a profitable interest for us. We're a merchant nation, we look to the dollar. I guar-damn-tee that when peace becomes profitable, they'll be a sudden world wide outbreak of it.
Didn't Eisenhower and even the founders warn against a military industry and maintaining a standing army, respectively? Because if our business is war, what purpose does peace serve?
Well, I don't know about them warning against a standing army, but I do know we've been a military industry pretty much since the beginning. Even way back when we were a pissant third world nation, we were busy cutting down our forests to build warships to sell to the french and english, so they could continue fighting their incessent wars (Which only stopped when it became more profitable for us to insure they don't). We regularly sells billions of dollars of weaponry to other nations, its the way its always been, and will likely continue for the next couple hundred years. Peace has never been a profitable interest for us. We're a merchant nation, we look to the dollar. I guar-damn-tee that when peace becomes profitable, they'll be a sudden world wide outbreak of it.
In its modern incarnation, guided by the forces of a global market economy, the military industrial complex is a relatively recent phenomenon. We're not talking international trade. We're talking transnational corporations.
I think I have the "moral flexibility" as it were, to kill people if given the legal opportunity to do so, but I'm not so much cool with the getting shot at.
Vincent Grayson on
0
Options
JimothyNot in front of the foxhe's with the owlRegistered Userregular
My personal experience is that I strongly considered entering the military when I graduated in 1998, but the idea of serving under Clinton was nausiating. I didn't respect what he did for the White House or what he did with the military. I have never lost respect for the soldiers, they do a hard job and they do it well. But for me, I couldn't see serving under Clinton.
What exactly do you object to what Clinton did to or with the military? Do you consider Bush to be any better?
I've always wondered about this. Almost every civilian I know hates the current administration, but the military (at least, my relatives in the Air Force and the friend of the family who just got back from Iraq) love Bush and think he makes a great commander-in-chief. I know that the military typically leans right, but is that because Republicans treat them better, or are just plain better military leaders?
My personal experience is that I strongly considered entering the military when I graduated in 1998, but the idea of serving under Clinton was nausiating. I didn't respect what he did for the White House or what he did with the military. I have never lost respect for the soldiers, they do a hard job and they do it well. But for me, I couldn't see serving under Clinton.
What exactly do you object to what Clinton did to or with the military? Do you consider Bush to be any better?
I've always wondered about this. Almost every civilian I know hates the current administration, but the military (at least, my relatives in the Air Force and the friend of the family who just got back from Iraq) love Bush and think he makes a great commander-in-chief. I know that the military typically leans right, but is that because Republicans treat them better, or are just plain better military leaders?
Honestly, I think cognitive dissonance accounts for a lot of it. After all, if you're stuck out in the middle of nowhere fighting an enemy that is clearly a threat to you *only* because you're there, I imagine it's hard to function without making yourself believe you're working for a commander with integrity who has the best interests of every American in mind when he sends you there.
So, I would agree that we need to beef up our social programs so that the poor aren't routinely forced by need into situations the rest of us would never give passing consideration to. However, it's important to realise that's true for almost every area of life.
The real solution is to create the sort of social situation in which the poor are well enough taken care of that they aren't in a desperate bargaining position, and then pay our volunteers enough that they are willing to enlist (which will most likely be quite a bit). The draft doesn't really enter into it anywhere.
Six more Canadians were killed in Afghanistan Sunday - two of them from my home province (the poorest province in the country).
That brings, I believe, the number of Newfoundlanders killed over there to five - or 10% of total casualties - when the province constitutes barely 1/60th of the country's population. The same goes for the whole Atlantic region, with Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers and Prince Edward Islanders also over-represented. I remember the Toronto Star covered a group going through basic at CFB Borden a few months ago, and not a single one was actually from Toronto - they were all from rural Ontario.
I've always wondered about this. Almost every civilian I know hates the current administration, but the military (at least, my relatives in the Air Force and the friend of the family who just got back from Iraq) love Bush and think he makes a great commander-in-chief. I know that the military typically leans right, but is that because Republicans treat them better, or are just plain better military leaders?
I'm not entirely sure why the military in general leans right...part of it may be that Republicans tend to provide more for the military, but I think more of it is the disproportionate number of servicemembers from rural areas and/or the South.
And no, the military does not love Bush. Perhaps you know a few who love him, but as a whole I've gotten the impression that the military is getting pretty sick of the guy. They may not be able to say so in public (the law prevents active-duty servicemembers from speaking ill of the Commander-in-Chief...or any superiors, really) but don't think that means they all like him.
As a reservist, I can say whatever I want about the guy between drills...and if he died tomorrow I'd throw a fucking party. Not that Cheney is any better, but it'd at least make me feel better for a couple days.
I don't see how that stereotype will hold up these days seeing as the Bush adminstration has been fucknig the military in the ass for several years now. Every miltary person or family member I know was pro-Bush before the iraq war and is now viciously anti-Bush.
The Army isn't filled with poor idiots. On average they come from families with above the national average for income, they have a higher incidence of having college degrees than general population. In large part the military offers some very valuable training in their support roles that lead to extremely lucrative jobs outside the military, aviation maintanance and auto maintanance jump to mind.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume whatever numbers you're looking at there (if you've even looked at numbers, and aren't just repeating what you've been told) include officers.
This would seem to suggest that the average income/level of education for active-duty enlistees is a bit lower than the national average. Largely it appears that this is due more to the upper quartile being underrepresented rather than the lower quartile being overrepresented, though. Still some interesting anomalies in there, though.
Also interesting is that it appears that among minorities enlistees come from families of higher socioeconomic status on average versus their race as a whole. I'd go out on a limb and suggest this could be due to people being turned away for criminal records...this data is from 1998, and I believe the standards regarding criminal convictions have been loosened a bit since.
Just because you don't agree with the war in Iraq doesn't mean you shouldn't respect the soldiers fighting it. All in all, they're smart and well motivated, they do what they do because they choose to.
Eh. I found that there was a disproportionate number of ignorant fucktards in the military, particularly when I was in combat arms. I can only imagine this has gotten worse as the Army lowers standards so as to more effectively scrape the bottom of the barrel. No, not all soldiers are ignorant fucktards....but don't act like none are, or like a lot aren't. I doubt you've had to live in a barracks full of soldiers before.
mcdermott on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
edited April 2007
Republicans make every attempt to appeal to a martial mentality, and tend to hit the same nationalistic notes in their campaigning that the military does in its PR and internal indoctrination. My view is that many "gung ho" military members just see the Republican PR themes as more aligned with their values.
Most of the contractor douchebags I worked with in DC were rabid Republicans because of defense issues - in part because the GOP is much more willing to waste money on defense projects, but also because the GOP advertises a kind of "kick their ass" mentality, which really resonates with overweight Excel monkeys who own guns and read Tom Clancy books.
I've always wondered about this. Almost every civilian I know hates the current administration, but the military (at least, my relatives in the Air Force and the friend of the family who just got back from Iraq) love Bush and think he makes a great commander-in-chief. I know that the military typically leans right, but is that because Republicans treat them better, or are just plain better military leaders?
I largely think it's the product of Vietnam, when the liberal anti-war movement became very anti-military. Liberals also tend to think about war in different terms (a WWII model - whole nation mobilizes against huge and evil threat).
That said, like mcdermott observed, it's absolutely not true that the majority of soldiers (can't speak for other services) love Bush or the war. The Army Times polls showed solid majorities of soldiers opposed the war more than a year ago, and I can only imagine support dropping.
I'm also not down with the whole "taking a life because I'm told to" thing.
And you think that's how it works? The CO just kind of points guys out to you and says, "Boys, kill 'em dead"?
I've always wondered about this. Almost every civilian I know hates the current administration, but the military (at least, my relatives in the Air Force and the friend of the family who just got back from Iraq) love Bush and think he makes a great commander-in-chief. I know that the military typically leans right, but is that because Republicans treat them better, or are just plain better military leaders?
I largely think it's the product of Vietnam, when the liberal anti-war movement became very anti-military. Liberals also tend to think about war in different terms (a WWII model - whole nation mobilizes against huge and evil threat).
That said, like mcdermott observed, it's absolutely not true that the majority of soldiers (can't speak for other services) love Bush or the war. The Army Times polls showed solid majorities of soldiers opposed the war more than a year ago, and I can only imagine support dropping.
As a former service member of 8 years, I disagree. Soldiers love strength and power, in weapons or leadership. Bush and the Republicans do show show strength and good leadership even when its misguided and wrong sometimes. However misguided strength is more admirable to a soldier than Democrats and liberals who show weakness, despair and unwillingness to finish anything.
I've always wondered about this. Almost every civilian I know hates the current administration, but the military (at least, my relatives in the Air Force and the friend of the family who just got back from Iraq) love Bush and think he makes a great commander-in-chief. I know that the military typically leans right, but is that because Republicans treat them better, or are just plain better military leaders?
I largely think it's the product of Vietnam, when the liberal anti-war movement became very anti-military. Liberals also tend to think about war in different terms (a WWII model - whole nation mobilizes against huge and evil threat).
That said, like mcdermott observed, it's absolutely not true that the majority of soldiers (can't speak for other services) love Bush or the war. The Army Times polls showed solid majorities of soldiers opposed the war more than a year ago, and I can only imagine support dropping.
As a former service member of 8 years, I disagree. Soldiers love strength and power, in weapons or leadership. Bush and the Republicans do show show strength and good leadership even when its misguided and wrong sometimes. However misguided strength is more admirable to a soldier than Democrats and liberals who show weakness, despair and unwillingness to finish anything.
Yes, because the last major military exercised when the Dems were in charge was a huge failure. Oh wait! It was actually an attempt to stop insurgents fighting one another, and was in fact quite effective. Also, American loss of life was miniscule.
I'm also not down with the whole "taking a life because I'm told to" thing.
And you think that's how it works? The CO just kind of points guys out to you and says, "Boys, kill 'em dead"?
If you are denying that soldiers are given orders whose context will require the ending of other human lives, I would absolutely love to see you back that up. If you are not, then you have failed to respond to the argument.
Liberals also tend to think about war in different terms (a WWII model - whole nation mobilizes against huge and evil threat).
What a weird thing to say. I'm not sure that liberals were the driving cultural force to fight against Nazism, even less so in the propaganda against Communism, and I sincerely doubt that they are the ideologues behind the current "USA versus Terrorism" ordeal.
It's traditionally been a propaganda tool of whatever government is in charge, and liberals are usually pretty knee-jerky when it comes to the government.
As a former service member of 8 years, I disagree. Soldiers love strength and power, in weapons or leadership. Bush and the Republicans do show show strength and good leadership even when its misguided and wrong sometimes. However misguided strength is more admirable to a soldier than Democrats and liberals who show weakness, despair and unwillingness to finish anything.
Have you served during the current conflicts, though? I know that back in 2000 the Army was overwhelmingly Republican, and supported anything "conservatives" said 100%.
A few years of taking it raw right in the ass seems to have changed some minds. The ones that are left are often the most outspoken, but I've gotten the impression that a lot of soldiers (at least in the Army, and especially in the reserve components) wouldn't really care if Bush died in a fire.
I think a lot of them still voted for Republicans in Congress, but even many/most of those aren't going out of their way to defend Bush.
Londonbridge, this is not a political thread, which means you're flamebaiting.
(Oh, and for the record: Hillary's "fake accent" was her quoting someone who had an accent. Drudge did what Drudge does, and Fox picked up the story like Fox does, and thus the bullshit spread as it usually does.)
If you are denying that soldiers are given orders whose context will require the ending of other human lives, I would absolutely love to see you back that up. If you are not, then you have failed to respond to the argument.
If you don't think "defend that hill" is different from "kill those people," then I guess there's not much point in continuing this conversation. We'll just have to agree to disagree
What a weird thing to say. I'm not sure that liberals were the driving cultural force to fight against Nazism, even less so in the propaganda against Communism, and I sincerely doubt that they are the ideologues behind the current "USA versus Terrorism" ordeal.
You misunderstood me. Liberals believe in a war with a clearly defined, clearly evil enemy in which everyone gears up for the epic showdown. That's the condition where they consider military service. "The War on Terror" doesnt' have a clear enemy or victory condition - it's right there in the name. Hence, not many liberals flocking to recruiting stations. Conservatives are more likely to embrace military service for its own sake, and thus will predominate in the Army when we aren't fighting Nazis. This is just me talking out of my ass here, but it fits the views of the conservatives and liberals I've talked to.
If you are denying that soldiers are given orders whose context will require the ending of other human lives, I would absolutely love to see you back that up. If you are not, then you have failed to respond to the argument.
If you don't think "defend that hill" is different from "kill those people," then I guess there's not much point in continuing this conversation. We'll just have to agree to disagree
What if I don't give a shit about the hill, and the hill is a forty hour flight from my home? Can I just go back home instead of killing people? No. Ergo, being a soldier means being willing to kill when ordered and because ordered. I already don't like orders. And now you're ordering me to ditch my ethics, morals and values. And this is supposed to be compulsory? Fuck no.
If you are denying that soldiers are given orders whose context will require the ending of other human lives, I would absolutely love to see you back that up. If you are not, then you have failed to respond to the argument.
If you don't think "defend that hill" is different from "kill those people," then I guess there's not much point in continuing this conversation. We'll just have to agree to disagree
What if I don't give a shit about the hill, and the hill is a forty hour flight from my home? Can I just go back home instead of killing people? No. Ergo, being a soldier means being willing to kill when ordered and because ordered. I already don't like orders. And now you're ordering me to ditch my ethics, morals and values. And this is supposed to be compulsory? Fuck no.
That means you don't love your country enough and thus don't deserve to live in it! :roll:
What a weird thing to say. I'm not sure that liberals were the driving cultural force to fight against Nazism, even less so in the propaganda against Communism, and I sincerely doubt that they are the ideologues behind the current "USA versus Terrorism" ordeal.
You misunderstood me. Liberals believe in a war with a clearly defined, clearly evil enemy in which everyone gears up for the epic showdown. That's the condition where they consider military service. "The War on Terror" doesnt' have a clear enemy or victory condition - it's right there in the name. Hence, not many liberals flocking to recruiting stations. Conservatives are more likely to embrace military service for its own sake, and thus will predominate in the Army when we aren't fighting Nazis. This is just me talking out of my ass here, but it fits the views of the conservatives and liberals I've talked to.
Thanks; that makes a lot more sense, and in the context of recruitment I'm inclined to agree with you, actually.
Still useful to bear in mind the current trend for many Neocon ideologues' unmoving belief in Manifest Destiny, however.
I think Londonbridge is actually a well played alt of someone, because no one I've known ever sounds like the right wing, Limbaugh spewing idiot that he makes himself out to be.
What if I don't give a shit about the hill, and the hill is a forty hour flight from my home? Can I just go back home instead of killing people? No. Ergo, being a soldier means being willing to kill when ordered and because ordered. I already don't like orders. And now you're ordering me to ditch my ethics, morals and values. And this is supposed to be compulsory? Fuck no.
If you don't think serving the United States is in fact a worthwhile cause or that your actions in its service will in some way contribute to the greater good, then yes, military service is immoral. Why not just say that instead of setting up a straw man? You'd be hard pressed to convince me that stability and support operations are unethical, but I can at least respect a genuinely anti-nationalist point of view. I just find it hard to swallow your glib caricature of the ethical decisions entailed in military service.
Then why dosen't he just say that? Some of you seriously have a skewed misperception of what military service is like, and in threads like these, its showing. Painting with a huge brush like some of you are wont to do ("omg im not gonna shoot anyone just cause", ignoring the fact that there's probably a pretty good possibility that you are being shot at) is almost as ridiculous as the indignation that follows when someone calls you on your ignorance.
It seems like a lot of people are looking for a lolly because they're such free and independent spirits that the MAN ain't gonna tell them what to do. Maybe that impresses the kids down at Hot Topic or something, I don't know.
It seems like a lot of people are looking for a lolly because they're such free and independent spirits that the MAN ain't gonna tell them what to do. Maybe that impresses the kids down at Hot Topic or something, I don't know.
No, it's simply that people prefer not taking orders to taking orders any day of the week.
It seems like a lot of people are looking for a lolly because they're such free and independent spirits that the MAN ain't gonna tell them what to do. Maybe that impresses the kids down at Hot Topic or something, I don't know.
No, it's simply that people prefer not taking orders to taking orders any day of the week.
Yeah, fucking volunteer firemen and EMTs. What a bunch of fucking tools. :roll:
The fact that you ran behind "but I don't wanna have someone telling me what to do!!!!" shows me you have to little to no understanding of how life works outside of your mother's house.
Again, reinforcing my original point, which was a large majority of you who post in these things have no fucking clue what you're talking about outside of movies or books.
Posts
Wow.
Shall we feed them babies??
With colleges set up the way they are today it's almost impossible for anyone to not be able to afford to attend at some level, maybe not Harvard but community at least, probably state. Student loans are subsidized and you don't begin paying those back until you graduate. You can borrow for housing, food, books, etc. Yeah Johnny might need a part time job for some clothes and spending money, but college is accessable.
The Army isn't filled with poor idiots. On average they come from families with above the national average for income, they have a higher incidence of having college degrees than general population. In large part the military offers some very valuable training in their support roles that lead to extremely lucrative jobs outside the military, aviation maintanance and auto maintanance jump to mind.
Just because you don't agree with the war in Iraq doesn't mean you shouldn't respect the soldiers fighting it. All in all, they're smart and well motivated, they do what they do because they choose to.
My personal experience is that I strongly considered entering the military when I graduated in 1998, but the idea of serving under Clinton was nausiating. I didn't respect what he did for the White House or what he did with the military. I have never lost respect for the soldiers, they do a hard job and they do it well. But for me, I couldn't see serving under Clinton.
What exactly do you object to what Clinton did to or with the military? Do you consider Bush to be any better?
Well, I don't know about them warning against a standing army, but I do know we've been a military industry pretty much since the beginning. Even way back when we were a pissant third world nation, we were busy cutting down our forests to build warships to sell to the french and english, so they could continue fighting their incessent wars (Which only stopped when it became more profitable for us to insure they don't). We regularly sells billions of dollars of weaponry to other nations, its the way its always been, and will likely continue for the next couple hundred years. Peace has never been a profitable interest for us. We're a merchant nation, we look to the dollar. I guar-damn-tee that when peace becomes profitable, they'll be a sudden world wide outbreak of it.
In its modern incarnation, guided by the forces of a global market economy, the military industrial complex is a relatively recent phenomenon. We're not talking international trade. We're talking transnational corporations.
There are hypotheticals which could be imagined where I might be willing to kill, but they're never going to crop up in service to the United States.
I've always wondered about this. Almost every civilian I know hates the current administration, but the military (at least, my relatives in the Air Force and the friend of the family who just got back from Iraq) love Bush and think he makes a great commander-in-chief. I know that the military typically leans right, but is that because Republicans treat them better, or are just plain better military leaders?
Honestly, I think cognitive dissonance accounts for a lot of it. After all, if you're stuck out in the middle of nowhere fighting an enemy that is clearly a threat to you *only* because you're there, I imagine it's hard to function without making yourself believe you're working for a commander with integrity who has the best interests of every American in mind when he sends you there.
Edit: Unless you count that one girl who I never actually met and turned out to be a psychotic bigot. She was a fan.
Edit 2: I'm totally serious. Not just taking an opportunity to rip on Bush. There is a problem with the generalisation being made.
That brings, I believe, the number of Newfoundlanders killed over there to five - or 10% of total casualties - when the province constitutes barely 1/60th of the country's population. The same goes for the whole Atlantic region, with Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers and Prince Edward Islanders also over-represented. I remember the Toronto Star covered a group going through basic at CFB Borden a few months ago, and not a single one was actually from Toronto - they were all from rural Ontario.
Real baby-back ribs, dripping with sauce, oh yes....
(Sorry, I had to
I'm not entirely sure why the military in general leans right...part of it may be that Republicans tend to provide more for the military, but I think more of it is the disproportionate number of servicemembers from rural areas and/or the South.
And no, the military does not love Bush. Perhaps you know a few who love him, but as a whole I've gotten the impression that the military is getting pretty sick of the guy. They may not be able to say so in public (the law prevents active-duty servicemembers from speaking ill of the Commander-in-Chief...or any superiors, really) but don't think that means they all like him.
As a reservist, I can say whatever I want about the guy between drills...and if he died tomorrow I'd throw a fucking party. Not that Cheney is any better, but it'd at least make me feel better for a couple days.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume whatever numbers you're looking at there (if you've even looked at numbers, and aren't just repeating what you've been told) include officers.
This would seem to suggest that the average income/level of education for active-duty enlistees is a bit lower than the national average. Largely it appears that this is due more to the upper quartile being underrepresented rather than the lower quartile being overrepresented, though. Still some interesting anomalies in there, though.
Also interesting is that it appears that among minorities enlistees come from families of higher socioeconomic status on average versus their race as a whole. I'd go out on a limb and suggest this could be due to people being turned away for criminal records...this data is from 1998, and I believe the standards regarding criminal convictions have been loosened a bit since.
Eh. I found that there was a disproportionate number of ignorant fucktards in the military, particularly when I was in combat arms. I can only imagine this has gotten worse as the Army lowers standards so as to more effectively scrape the bottom of the barrel. No, not all soldiers are ignorant fucktards....but don't act like none are, or like a lot aren't. I doubt you've had to live in a barracks full of soldiers before.
Most of the contractor douchebags I worked with in DC were rabid Republicans because of defense issues - in part because the GOP is much more willing to waste money on defense projects, but also because the GOP advertises a kind of "kick their ass" mentality, which really resonates with overweight Excel monkeys who own guns and read Tom Clancy books.
That said, like mcdermott observed, it's absolutely not true that the majority of soldiers (can't speak for other services) love Bush or the war. The Army Times polls showed solid majorities of soldiers opposed the war more than a year ago, and I can only imagine support dropping.
And you think that's how it works? The CO just kind of points guys out to you and says, "Boys, kill 'em dead"?
As a former service member of 8 years, I disagree. Soldiers love strength and power, in weapons or leadership. Bush and the Republicans do show show strength and good leadership even when its misguided and wrong sometimes. However misguided strength is more admirable to a soldier than Democrats and liberals who show weakness, despair and unwillingness to finish anything.
Actually, to be honest the fake accent is the only thing that really tweaks me about Bush. Dammit man, you're a Yalie!
Ha ha. Should have heard Hildog's fake ass accent, you'd love that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9I-PKkWDsY
Yes, because the last major military exercised when the Dems were in charge was a huge failure. Oh wait! It was actually an attempt to stop insurgents fighting one another, and was in fact quite effective. Also, American loss of life was miniscule.
If you are denying that soldiers are given orders whose context will require the ending of other human lives, I would absolutely love to see you back that up. If you are not, then you have failed to respond to the argument.
What a weird thing to say. I'm not sure that liberals were the driving cultural force to fight against Nazism, even less so in the propaganda against Communism, and I sincerely doubt that they are the ideologues behind the current "USA versus Terrorism" ordeal.
It's traditionally been a propaganda tool of whatever government is in charge, and liberals are usually pretty knee-jerky when it comes to the government.
Have you served during the current conflicts, though? I know that back in 2000 the Army was overwhelmingly Republican, and supported anything "conservatives" said 100%.
A few years of taking it raw right in the ass seems to have changed some minds. The ones that are left are often the most outspoken, but I've gotten the impression that a lot of soldiers (at least in the Army, and especially in the reserve components) wouldn't really care if Bush died in a fire.
I think a lot of them still voted for Republicans in Congress, but even many/most of those aren't going out of their way to defend Bush.
(Oh, and for the record: Hillary's "fake accent" was her quoting someone who had an accent. Drudge did what Drudge does, and Fox picked up the story like Fox does, and thus the bullshit spread as it usually does.)
If you don't think "defend that hill" is different from "kill those people," then I guess there's not much point in continuing this conversation. We'll just have to agree to disagree
You misunderstood me. Liberals believe in a war with a clearly defined, clearly evil enemy in which everyone gears up for the epic showdown. That's the condition where they consider military service. "The War on Terror" doesnt' have a clear enemy or victory condition - it's right there in the name. Hence, not many liberals flocking to recruiting stations. Conservatives are more likely to embrace military service for its own sake, and thus will predominate in the Army when we aren't fighting Nazis. This is just me talking out of my ass here, but it fits the views of the conservatives and liberals I've talked to.
What if I don't give a shit about the hill, and the hill is a forty hour flight from my home? Can I just go back home instead of killing people? No. Ergo, being a soldier means being willing to kill when ordered and because ordered. I already don't like orders. And now you're ordering me to ditch my ethics, morals and values. And this is supposed to be compulsory? Fuck no.
That means you don't love your country enough and thus don't deserve to live in it! :roll:
Heh.
Thanks; that makes a lot more sense, and in the context of recruitment I'm inclined to agree with you, actually.
Still useful to bear in mind the current trend for many Neocon ideologues' unmoving belief in Manifest Destiny, however.
So whoever mod's alt you are, bravo, bravo.
That's pretty much what they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
It seems like a lot of people are looking for a lolly because they're such free and independent spirits that the MAN ain't gonna tell them what to do. Maybe that impresses the kids down at Hot Topic or something, I don't know.
No, it's simply that people prefer not taking orders to taking orders any day of the week.
Yeah, fucking volunteer firemen and EMTs. What a bunch of fucking tools. :roll:
The fact that you ran behind "but I don't wanna have someone telling me what to do!!!!" shows me you have to little to no understanding of how life works outside of your mother's house.
Again, reinforcing my original point, which was a large majority of you who post in these things have no fucking clue what you're talking about outside of movies or books.