I am attempting to join the ARMY.

[Hornfinger]

I think the thing I find most disturbing about this thread, is that when someone decides they want to go out and kill people for a living we should all pat them on the back and say how brave they are.

But the person who says 'that's not a good idea, you can do a lot better with your life' is the one that is 'rude' and 'trolling' and an 'asshole'

From where I'm sat, I'm not the one thats brainwashed. I'm glad that miles and boozeboxer are also talking some sence here.

[VictorCharlie]

I think the thing I find most disturbing about this thread, is that when someone decides they want to go out and kill people for a living we should all pat them on the back and say how brave they are.

But the person who says 'that's not a good idea, you can do a lot better with your life' is the one that is 'rude' and 'trolling' and an 'asshole'

From where I'm sat, I'm not the one thats brainwashed. I'm glad that miles and boozeboxer are also talking some sence here.

I guess I do not see joining the military service and wanting to go kill people as being one and the same. As I've stated before very few service members have actually used lethal force. No Contest could just as easy be a clerk and only pick up his rifle 3-4 times a year to qualify.

[VictorCharlie]

First, Miles, I don't see how SALT III is relevant at all.

Second, VictorCharlie, although the military doesn't make foreign policy--they implement it, I think it is very naive answer to disregard what the US military foreign policy has done in the past before joining. Just because you don't make the policy, if you sign up for something that clearly has hundreds of years history---you should at least be aware of that.

In an obviously extreme example: if I worked at an abortion clinic and mopped the floors---I don't make the policy there I just implement it---clearly I am at least in some way being complacent about the situation.

Maybe I wasn't clear earlier, but I essentially agree with your post. Yes, if you join to a certain extent you are at the very least giving a modicum of endorsement. But how far back and deep does that go? I joined in 2004, so am I complicit in the Vietnam War and everything that went with it? If No Contest joins in 2011 is he endorsing the Iraq War? Not really sure there is a cut and dry answer. Some people just want to serve in the military, I don't think this equates to a lock step endorsement of every military action prior to, during and after their service.

[Hornfinger]

I think the thing I find most disturbing about this thread, is that when someone decides they want to go out and kill people for a living we should all pat them on the back and say how brave they are.

But the person who says 'that's not a good idea, you can do a lot better with your life' is the one that is 'rude' and 'trolling' and an 'asshole'

From where I'm sat, I'm not the one thats brainwashed. I'm glad that miles and boozeboxer are also talking some sence here.

I guess I do not see joining the military service and wanting to go kill people as being one and the same. As I've stated before very few service members have actually used lethal force. No Contest could just as easy be a clerk and only pick up his rifle 3-4 times a year to qualify.

So go and be clerk somewhere else.

Look correct me if I'm wrong but on an american football team it's rare that the quarter back scores the touchdown or kicks the field goal. He's still instrumental in scoring the points though right?

Get what I'm saying?

Of course you don't look at joining the military in that way. If the majority of the population did there would be much fewer people willing to sign up, fewer wars would happen. That wouldn't be good for the arms manufacturers or the military industrial complex.

[VictorCharlie]

I think the thing I find most disturbing about this thread, is that when someone decides they want to go out and kill people for a living we should all pat them on the back and say how brave they are.

But the person who says 'that's not a good idea, you can do a lot better with your life' is the one that is 'rude' and 'trolling' and an 'asshole'

From where I'm sat, I'm not the one thats brainwashed. I'm glad that miles and boozeboxer are also talking some sence here.

I guess I do not see joining the military service and wanting to go kill people as being one and the same. As I've stated before very few service members have actually used lethal force. No Contest could just as easy be a clerk and only pick up his rifle 3-4 times a year to qualify.

So go and be clerk somewhere else.

Look correct me if I'm wrong but on an american football team it's rare that the quarter back scores the touchdown or kicks the field goal. He's still instrumental in scoring the points though right?

Get what I'm saying?

Of course you don't look at joining the military in that way. If the majority of the population did there would be much fewer people willing to sign up, fewer wars would happen. That wouldn't be good for the arms manufacturers or the military industrial complex.

There are only two people who touch the football everyplay. The center and the QB. The QB is instrumental on just about everying scoring play/drive so the analogy doesn't really work. Handling a battalion's finance paper work does not really equate to being the one indespensable cog in the nation's war machine.

I got a good friend in the Navy who has not spent a day in Iraq or Afghanistan but worked in Pakistan doing the flood relief, Haiti doing medical evacs and is now in Japan doing god knows what. My point is there is a huge amount of good being done by service members yet you seem totally fixated on the "every Soldier is a blood thirst killer"

[boozeboxer]

First, Miles, I don't see how SALT III is relevant at all.

Second, VictorCharlie, although the military doesn't make foreign policy--they implement it, I think it is very naive answer to disregard what the US military foreign policy has done in the past before joining. Just because you don't make the policy, if you sign up for something that clearly has hundreds of years history---you should at least be aware of that.

In an obviously extreme example: if I worked at an abortion clinic and mopped the floors---I don't make the policy there I just implement it---clearly I am at least in some way being complacent about the situation.

Maybe I wasn't clear earlier, but I essentially agree with your post. Yes, if you join to a certain extent you are at the very least giving a modicum of endorsement. But how far back and deep does that go? I joined in 2004, so am I complicit in the Vietnam War and everything that went with it? If No Contest joins in 2011 is he endorsing the Iraq War? Not really sure there is a cut and dry answer. Some people just want to serve in the military, I don't think this equates to a lock step endorsement of every military action prior to, during and after their service.

I actually think we are pretty close on this one. You guys have a good weekend!

[Andre]

Yep lets wraps this up.

[Andre]

[Hornfinger]

I think the thing I find most disturbing about this thread, is that when someone decides they want to go out and kill people for a living we should all pat them on the back and say how brave they are.

But the person who says 'that's not a good idea, you can do a lot better with your life' is the one that is 'rude' and 'trolling' and an 'asshole'

From where I'm sat, I'm not the one thats brainwashed. I'm glad that miles and boozeboxer are also talking some sence here.

I guess I do not see joining the military service and wanting to go kill people as being one and the same. As I've stated before very few service members have actually used lethal force. No Contest could just as easy be a clerk and only pick up his rifle 3-4 times a year to qualify.

So go and be clerk somewhere else.

Look correct me if I'm wrong but on an american football team it's rare that the quarter back scores the touchdown or kicks the field goal. He's still instrumental in scoring the points though right?

Get what I'm saying?

Of course you don't look at joining the military in that way. If the majority of the population did there would be much fewer people willing to sign up, fewer wars would happen. That wouldn't be good for the arms manufacturers or the military industrial complex.

There are only two people who touch the football everyplay. The center and the QB. The QB is instrumental on just about everying scoring play/drive so the analogy doesn't really work. Handling a battalion's finance paper work does not really equate to being the one indespensable cog in the nation's war machine.

I got a good friend in the Navy who has not spent a day in Iraq or Afghanistan but worked in Pakistan doing the flood relief, Haiti doing medical evacs and is now in Japan doing god knows what. My point is there is a huge amount of good being done by service members yet you seem totally fixated on the "every Soldier is a blood thirst killer"

You can do aid work in all thses countries without being in the military.

[Andre]

I think the thing I find most disturbing about this thread, is that when someone decides they want to go out and kill people for a living we should all pat them on the back and say how brave they are.

But the person who says 'that's not a good idea, you can do a lot better with your life' is the one that is 'rude' and 'trolling' and an 'asshole'

From where I'm sat, I'm not the one thats brainwashed. I'm glad that miles and boozeboxer are also talking some sence here.

I guess I do not see joining the military service and wanting to go kill people as being one and the same. As I've stated before very few service members have actually used lethal force. No Contest could just as easy be a clerk and only pick up his rifle 3-4 times a year to qualify.

So go and be clerk somewhere else.

Look correct me if I'm wrong but on an american football team it's rare that the quarter back scores the touchdown or kicks the field goal. He's still instrumental in scoring the points though right?

Get what I'm saying?

Of course you don't look at joining the military in that way. If the majority of the population did there would be much fewer people willing to sign up, fewer wars would happen. That wouldn't be good for the arms manufacturers or the military industrial complex.

There are only two people who touch the football everyplay. The center and the QB. The QB is instrumental on just about everying scoring play/drive so the analogy doesn't really work. Handling a battalion's finance paper work does not really equate to being the one indespensable cog in the nation's war machine.

I got a good friend in the Navy who has not spent a day in Iraq or Afghanistan but worked in Pakistan doing the flood relief, Haiti doing medical evacs and is now in Japan doing god knows what. My point is there is a huge amount of good being done by service members yet you seem totally fixated on the "every Soldier is a blood thirst killer"

You can do aid work in all thses countries without being in the military.

With job security and bodily protection?




Sorry, Im actually with you on this, only because I know exactly whos bidding i would be forced into doing if in there myself.

I can still see both sides of the issue though.

We cant just tar everyone with the same brush in or out of the forces.

If it stands still paint it, if it moves salute it

[Andre]

[Andre]

More Wars Is A Policy… Right?



Via PBH: The Republican Plan For America.

[Andre]

[Ghost]

Cute photos Andre.




Aussie's at work according to movie's put out by the Federal government.

[Andre]

Cute photos Andre.




Aussie's at work according to movie's put out by the Federal government.

This is our harem of fine females you infidel you now have a fatwah on your head!

Fat wah: Fat = something big. wah= "wah ha!" from the Simpson s character.