NationStates Jolt Archive

Firefighters get 'danger pay'. Alaskan King Crab fishermen (listed as one of the most dangerous jobs in the world) make big bucks because so many lose their lives. There are many jobs that come with additional financial compensation if the particular task carries a high level of risk.

However, there are no parades for the crab fishermen. Some municipalities may honour their firefighters, but it's not a given that they will. Underwater welders don't get ceremonies. We need all of these people to keep doing what they are doing, but do we really need to go to such lengths to 'honour' soldiers, when they are just one among many groups who risk their lives?

A crab fisherman can make in a few weeks what a soldier earns in a year. Sometimes even more depending on how many crabs his boat pulls up.

A crab fisherman can make in a few weeks what a soldier earns in a year. Sometimes even more depending on how many crabs his boat pulls up.
That's what I mean...stop with the expensive parades and photo-ops...and bring in danger pay for troops in dangerous assignments.

Oh, a whole new can of worms. As an avowed pacifist, I say any and all means must be employed to deter people from deciding upon the military as a career choice. Hence, no danger pay.

...come on, like any of you expect me to say anything other than that? Piffle.

That's what I mean...stop with the expensive parades and photo-ops...and bring in danger pay for troops in dangerous assignments.

While not as much as a good crabber, there are already financial bonuses for being in combat zones, special forces, etc.

Of course I wouldn't mind a pay raise though...:)

That's what I mean...stop with the expensive parades and photo-ops...and bring in danger pay for troops in dangerous assignments.
I agree completely. They do get combat pay, if they go into action, but they should be paid better.

Well, I imagine they'd rather have raises than parades. I know I would.

Oh, a whole new can of worms. As an avowed pacifist, I say any and all means must be employed to deter people from deciding upon the military as a career choice. Hence, no danger pay.

...come on, like any of you expect me to say anything other than that? Piffle.
I personally am against the military as well, and I think danger pay might encourage more people to join...especially low-income people (who tend to join for economic reasons as it is).

Still...just postulating postulations postulatingly.

However, there are no parades for the crab fishermen. Some municipalities may honour their firefighters, but it's not a given that they will. Underwater welders don't get ceremonies. We need all of these people to keep doing what they are doing, but do we really need to go to such lengths to 'honour' soldiers, when they are just one among many groups who risk their lives?I dunno. I doubt that a crab fisher is really going to be that much more efficient if we had parades for them...

I agree completely. They do get combat pay, if they go into action, but they should be paid better.They do. A friend of mine was amazed at how much you can earn by being stationed in Bahrain. And then you get more for being in a danger zone.

They dont get parades because their actions dont affect everone in such a strong way. It can be argued that soldiers do a job because they want to help protect their country but crab fishermen, etc do it mainly for the money

troops do get combat pay and depending on what their MOS is [we're talking us troops as i think you are], they get certain bonuses.

soldiers are not really paraded nearly as much as you think anymore. i read an article about a reserve unit that was sent home and was greeted with probably a handful of people on the tarmac and a general who hadn't earned a single combat tour patch. though, when they do get paraded around, it's because they've been off 'defending our country' [please do not begin to discuss this here]. crab fishermen just bring home good food to eat. in the armed forces you sign up to die for your country. crab fishermen, and the others, seems like they just sign up for danger or perhaps better pay.

I personally am against the military as well, and I think danger pay might encourage more people to join...especially low-income people (who tend to join for economic reasons as it is).

Still...just postulating postulations postulatingly.
Right, and I'd sooner people be given the opportunity to "serve their nation" that doesn't involve learning effective ways to kill, maim and incapacitate, as I don't think those skills can be put to any use other than to kill, maim and incapacitate. I think society would be better, far better served if as many people who are taught the so-called 'art' of war were instead to be taught actual useful skills, and set loose to improve the lot of their countrymen.

It's only as naive as militarism is jaded, folks.

I dunno. I doubt that a crab fisher is really going to be that much more efficient if we had parades for them...
They deserve one though. They risk their lives to bring back that most sweet and delectable crustacean flesh. If I beleived in god I'd ask it to bless them.

They dont get parades because their actions dont affect everone in such a strong way. It can be argued that soldiers do a job because they want to help protect their country but crab fishermen, etc do it mainly for the money
What about firefighters?

Frankly, someone trained to save lives impresses me much more than someone trained to take lives.

Right, and I'd sooner people be given the opportunity to "serve their nation" that doesn't involve learning effective ways to kill, maim and incapacitate, as I don't think those skills can be put to any use other than to kill, maim and incapacitate. I think society would be better, far better served if as many people who are taught the so-called 'art' of war were instead to be taught actual useful skills, and set loose to improve the lot of their countrymen.

It's only as naive as militarism is jaded, folks.

Strange, I'm in the military and I've learned electronics, computers, mechanics, general purpose maintenance,and basic EMT skills to name a few.

I've also used the bonuses and money to get a degree in History and am almost done w/ my Masters.

They do. A friend of mine was amazed at how much you can earn by being stationed in Bahrain. And then you get more for being in a danger zone.
So then the danger pay is in place. Why go further than that? Why the glorification of one career over other dangerous (and important) careers?

I dunno. I doubt that a crab fisher is really going to be that much more efficient if we had parades for them...
Maybe they'll feel all full of zeal when they see how many crab-leg lovers support the great work they do? :D

I'm not advocating parades for any of them.

So then the danger pay is in place. Why go further than that? Why the glorification of one career over other dangerous (and important) careers?

Because of the reason that some see for going in to each career not necessarily because of the danger involved

What about firefighters?

Frankly, someone trained to save lives impresses me much more than someone trained to take lives.

Firefighters and Police deserve just as much respect. I,personally, don't know any military people that really care about getting parades etc.It's nice and all but Just basic respect is better.

Plus a pay raise. :)

Strange, I'm in the military and I've learned electronics, computers, mechanics, general purpose maintenance,and basic EMT skills to name a few.

I've also used the bonuses and money to get a degree in History and am almost done w/ my Masters.
Excellent, isn't it a shame they made you march in close formation, learn God knows how many ways to kill people, and take apart and put together your rifle for hours on end, just to be able to do things that have some constructive, non-military application?

Well look at it this way, the lower pay that is recived by soldiers in conparison to other professions on the "danger list" does help deter some from joining the military, and the parades and ceromonies are a sort of compensation to those who do join.
My father was a British Army Major, and he prefered the ceremonies to the money. His brother was making more than £100,000 a year as a merchant banker, but my father always felt that he was getting the better job satisfaction. Slightly off topic but there you go.

They should be treated with high respect on risking their life for us.

Strange, I'm in the military and I've learned electronics, computers, mechanics, general purpose maintenance,and basic EMT skills to name a few.

I've also used the bonuses and money to get a degree in History and am almost done w/ my Masters.

Good on you mate!

Because of the reason that some see for going in to each career not necessarily because of the danger involved
How can you know why people go into a certain career? Does a dentist become a dentist because he or she loves teeth? Maybe...maybe not. Does a crabfisher become one just because of the high pay? Maybe, maybe not. Does a soldier join the military for purely altruistic reasons? Maybe, maybe not. Some do it for the promised education. Some do it because they have little other opportunities. Some do it to go kill Arabs. Some do it because they believe in their military. You can't weigh intentions of one group against another when there is no real way of calculating who's intentions are 'more noble'...

They should be treated with high respect on risking their life for us.
Who...the crab fishermen? No doubt. Especially considering they're dying just to get us a cheap crab-leg night at Red Lobsters...talk about dedication to detail!

yeah, they do stuff to protect our country!
thats alot different than crab fishing or welding, even though those jobs are extremely dangerous.

soldiers keep our country from terrorism, thus keeping people alive!

besides, parades and stuff would increase tax rates.


:mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
The Armed Republic Of Cruel Tyrany

Excellent, isn't it a shame they made you march in close formation, learn God knows how many ways to kill people, and take apart and put together your rifle for hours on end, just to be able to do things that have some constructive, non-military application?

That's a little stereotypical isn't it. There are branches of the military that never lay hands on a rifle, don't get taught how to kill in a dozen different ways.

How can you know why people go into a certain career? Does a dentist become a dentist because he or she loves teeth? Maybe...maybe not. Does a crabfisher become one just because of the high pay? Maybe, maybe not. Does a soldier join the military for purely altruistic reasons? Maybe, maybe not. Some do it for the promised education. Some do it because they have little other opportunities. Some do it to go kill Arabs. Some do it because they believe in their military. You can't weigh intentions of one group against another when there is no real way of calculating who's intentions are 'more noble'...

I'm not arguing the point that soldiers should be given parades. Personally I feel that none of the careers should be given such ceremonies but it is the opinion of some that the noble side of the military should be glorified

yeah, they do stuff to protect our country!
thats alot different than crab fishing or welding, even though those jobs are extremely dangerous.

soldiers keep our country from terrorism, thus keeping people alive!


A shitty weld may mean the difference between life or death for the person relying on that weld to be sound.

An army can't protect you from terrorism. That should be obvious by now.

That's a little stereotypical isn't it. There are branches of the military that never lay hands on a rifle, don't get taught how to kill in a dozen different ways.
Perhaps it is a little stereotypic. Perhaps the military is far too large and powerful a special interests group. I don't expect to garner much support for my ideas or beliefs here on these forums, but if violence, and institutions dedicated to violence can be promulgated without fear of chastisement, so surely can nonviolence be, as well.

That's a little stereotypical isn't it. There are branches of the military that never lay hands on a rifle, don't get taught how to kill in a dozen different ways.
Does that mean these particular people would never be put into a combat zone? (curious...can you join the military knowing you'll never actually see combat?)

Does that mean these particular people would never be put into a combat zone? (curious...can you join the military knowing you'll never actually see combat?)

Military dentists can i'm sure although that might be a complete lie. I'll need to check it out

Who...the crab fishermen? No doubt. Especially considering they're dying just to get us a cheap crab-leg night at Red Lobsters...talk about dedication to detail!
The true magnitude of their sacrifice only becomes evident when one attends the all-you-can-eat crableg buffet at the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City.

Actually it's been a couple of years since I've been there. I've got to get over there this summer and get my eat on.

Trust me you will there's not that many people in the military
At least compaired to civilians the ratio has gone down

I'm not arguing the point that soldiers should be given parades. Personally I feel that none of the careers should be given such ceremonies but it is the opinion of some that the noble side of the military should be glorified
I guess I'm just questioning why that assumed nobility should be any more important that the nobility inherent in any number of very dangerous careers.

They deserve one though. They risk their lives to bring back that most sweet and delectable crustacean flesh. If I beleived in god I'd ask it to bless them.I believe god would disagree (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com). :D

Perhaps it is a little stereotypic. Perhaps the military is far too large and powerful a special interests group. I don't expect to garner much support for my ideas or beliefs here on these forums, but if violence, and institutions dedicated to violence can be promulgated without fear of chastisement, so surely can nonviolence be, as well.
That is certainly an interesting point of view. I myself abhore violence for violences sake.

I guess I'm just questioning why that assumed nobility should be any more important that the nobility inherent in any number of very dangerous careers.

Perhaps because of how it promotes serving your society. Sorry if these posts are a bit vague but i'm still trying to clarify my thinking on this

The true magnitude of their sacrifice only becomes evident when one attends the all-you-can-eat crableg buffet at the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City.

Actually it's been a couple of years since I've been there. I've got to get over there this summer and get my eat on.
Toast the dead when you do! A few drunken elegies would no doubt be appreciated!

That's a little stereotypical isn't it. There are branches of the military that never lay hands on a rifle, don't get taught how to kill in a dozen different ways.

It has to be stereotypical, otherwise he couldn't justify his rants.

I was in the Navy first. I fired a gun once in boot camp.

In the Army reserves, I qualify twice a year on the M-16 and qualified once on the M-2. I fire more at home than I do in the military.

Most of the H-H training focuses on restraining and subdueing, not killing.

Does that mean these particular people would never be put into a combat zone? (curious...can you join the military knowing you'll never actually see combat?)
There are people who join various military services and can stay there for 20 years and never end up in a combat zone.

That is certainly an interesting point of view. I myself abhore violence for violences sake.
It kind of sounds like its not a view you've seen promoted before...???

Who...the crab fishermen? No doubt. Especially considering they're dying just to get us a cheap crab-leg night at Red Lobsters...talk about dedication to detail!

The Navy,Army,Air Force,Marines Men or Women Should Be Treated To Alot Of Respect Doesnt That Have Detail and Dedication Einstein Everyone knows who I'm talking about

Does that mean these particular people would never be put into a combat zone? (curious...can you join the military knowing you'll never actually see combat?)

Some areas have a much reduced chance of seeing combat. In my Reserve unit (Drill Instructors) several guys have gone back to active duty so they could get deployed.

It has to be stereotypical, otherwise he couldn't justify his rants.

I was in the Navy first. I fired a gun once in boot camp.

In the Army reserves, I qualify twice a year on the M-16 and qualified once on the M-2. I fire more at home than I do in the military.

Most of the H-H training focuses on restraining and subdueing, not killing.
Quite right. I have fired more rounds (admittedly at foxes after my sheep and lambs) on my farm then my father shot in his 26 year service. Not killing people when armed is an art, he always told me, and all soliders should be very very good at it.

Excellent, isn't it a shame they made you march in close formation, learn God knows how many ways to kill people, and take apart and put together your rifle for hours on end, just to be able to do things that have some constructive, non-military application?

Hehe, it just tickles me to see such backwards thinking. Please tell me you're a civilian.

Does that mean these particular people would never be put into a combat zone? (curious...can you join the military knowing you'll never actually see combat?)First question: No. Technically, some jobs don't allow you to carry weapons, but they are still present in combat zones. People that actually served will know better than me, but I think Medics and Chaplains aren't allowed to carry weapons. Second: Depends on the military. Germany for one can't allow it's draftees to be sent to foreign countries unless they volonteer and the same goes for normal troops. But that's the German military. I don't know if there's a way to stay out in the American one.

Perhaps because of how it promotes serving your society. Sorry if these posts are a bit vague but i'm still trying to clarify my thinking on this
No worries.

But firefighters also serve their society. As do police officers. As do teachers (though that profession is only really dangerous in certain areas...but you sure as hell don't see parades in OUR honous, do ya?).

And I would argue that the military does not serve society...it serves the political will of the time, which does not necessarily represent even the bare majority necessary to implement that political will.

And I would also point out...people don't go around protesting firefighting. Why is that?

There are people who join various military services and can stay there for 20 years and never end up in a combat zone.
But is that a guarantee? Could you join up and say, "but I never, ever want to be in a combat situation, is that ok"? And why should we respect and honour ALL soldiers if this is indeed the case?

It kind of sounds like its not a view you've seen promoted before...???
Oh I have seen, heard, been a part of such a view. But the one thing I have realised over the years is that it is very hard to get this idea of non-violence through to many people, which is a shame. I have not given up on it, I just find other methods work better than simply saying "Don't shoot people, it's not nice". I am not saying that this very peaceful way of getting a point across is not valuable, I am simply saying that it does not always work.

The Navy,Army,Air Force,Marines Men or Women Should Be Treated To Alot Of Respect Doesnt That Have Detail and Dedication Einstein Everyone knows who I'm talking about
I Don't Read Well When There Are So Many Capitals In Something That Isn't A Title.

But is that a guarantee? Could you join up and say, "but I never, ever want to be in a combat situation, is that ok"? And why should we respect and honour ALL soldiers if this is indeed the case?

No, there's no "guarantee" you'll never see combat, just greately reduced odds. Anybody who said something like that to a recruiter would most likely be asked to leave.

Hehe, it just tickles me to see such backwards thinking. Please tell me you're a civilian.
Well s/he must be, otherwise s/he would know better.

I don't know. I'm a pacifist and all-and I sure wish there wasn't a need for the military and I certainly don't think what they're being used for now is a 'need,' but -that's a big fucking risk they take just so they can learn about computers.

I'd say this-give them huge fuckin' salaries for combat, like early retirement sized, and massive settlements if they do die in combat. Maybe then they won't be as 'expendable.' You'd have to think twice about an expenditure like that-you certainly would make damn sure if you did use them they'd have the armor they need. And they would feel that value as well.

As a pacifist it's not the troops-they contributed that way and thats cool-it's the jackasses who would piddle that sacrifice that piss me off. Those that do the dirty work, especially in this case-they deserve something more tangable than a parade, which really I'm just using as an excuse to get drunk in public anyway...

But is that a guarantee? Could you join up and say, "but I never, ever want to be in a combat situation, is that ok"? And why should we respect and honour ALL soldiers if this is indeed the case?

No guarantees, at least not in the Army. Now, I'm sure there are plenty of soldiers who don't WANT to be deployed, but if you're called up, you have to go.

Oh I have seen, heard, been a part of such a view. But the one thing I have realised over the years is that it is very hard to get this idea of non-violence through to many people, which is a shame. I have not given up on it, I just find other methods work better than simply saying "Don't shoot people, it's not nice". I am not saying that this very peaceful way of getting a point across is not valuable, I am simply saying that it does not always work.
It's funny...but people who are anti-violence are generally at the most risk of violence because of their views...

Who cares if it ALWAYS works. Nothing always works.

It's funny...but people who are anti-violence are generally at the most risk of violence because of their views...

Who cares if it ALWAYS works. Nothing always works.
OK by that logic the Swiss are the most likely to be violent. Despite the fact that they have not been to war in over 400 years.
Besides I might be anti-violence, but my wife certainly isn't...

I don't know. I'm a pacifist and all-and I sure wish there wasn't a need for the military and I certainly don't think what their being used for now is a 'need,' but -that's a big fucking risk they take just so they can learn about computers.

I'd say this-give them huge fuckin' salaries for combat, like early retirement sized, and massive settlements if they do die in combat. Maybe then they won't be as 'expendable.' You'd have to think twice about an expenditure like that-you certainly would make damn sure if you did use them they'd have the armor they need. And they would feel that value as well.

As a pacifist it's not the troops-they contributed that way and thats cool-it's the jackasses who would piddle that sacrifice that piss me off. Those that do the dirty work, especially in this case-they deserve something more tangable than a parade, which really I'm just using as an excuse to get drunk in public anyway...

I can accept that.

One thing that many don't realize is the ratio of "combat" troops to support troops. While there is some crossover and still not guaranteed, normally combat troops make up only about 10% of the military. The rest is support (cooks, clerks ,mechanics) etc.

The odds of them seeing combat (especially Navy & Air Force) are slim.

It has to be stereotypical, otherwise he couldn't justify his rants.

No stranger to indulging in stereotyping yourself, I see. That's not a rant. That's a heartfelt and longterm conviction of mine. There's a difference. I don't happen to believe in militarism, period. You can say whatever you like, denigrate me, belittle me, write a petition and tell the world how unfair I am to soldiers. It really doesn't matter in the end. Because there will always be more of you than there are of me. There might always be more of you than me, I don't know. I suppose I should expect to be 'protected' by rabid militarists until the day I die, much and all as I wish they'd go find real jobs, stop mooching off of my ungrateful backside, and quit lecturing me about how I owe them something. To me it smacks of the sort of 'protection' one might enjoy from the mob.

And I'm not stereotyping, not nearly stereotyping so much as being uncleverly open about my beliefs here on this thread. So go ahead, pillory me all you want, I will never kiss the figurative ring.

No guarantees, at least not in the Army. Now, I'm sure there are plenty of soldiers who don't WANT to be deployed, but if you're called up, you have to go.

Then what Dobbs said here:

Excellent, isn't it a shame they made you march in close formation, learn God knows how many ways to kill people, and take apart and put together your rifle for hours on end, just to be able to do things that have some constructive, non-military application?
Is true? Maybe as the following quote says, you don't learn dozens of ways to kill...but surely if there is no guarantee you won't be in a combat situation, you are at least forced to learn one way (at the minimum) of killing someone else?

That's a little stereotypical isn't it. There are branches of the military that never lay hands on a rifle, don't get taught how to kill in a dozen different ways.

So the only thing she got wrong was the number of ways of killing learned...?

No stranger to indulging in stereotyping yourself, I see. That's not a rant. That's a heartfelt and longterm conviction of mine. There's a difference. I don't happen to believe in militarism, period. You can say whatever you like, denigrate me, belittle me, write a petition and tell the world how unfair I am to soldiers. It really doesn't matter in the end. Because there will always be more of you than there are of me. There might always be more of you than me, I don't know. I suppose I should expect to be 'protected' by rabid militarists until the day I die, much and all as I wish they'd go find real jobs, stop mooching off of my ungrateful backside, and quit lecturing me about how I owe them something. To me it smacks of the sort of 'protection' one might enjoy from the mob.

And I'm not stereotyping, not nearly stereotyping so much as being uncleverly open about my beliefs here on this thread. So go ahead, pillory me all you want, I will never kiss the figurative ring.

Nice rant about stereotypes while stereotyping again.

Dying is a soldier's talent.

PEACE

I'm a little dismayed at the lack of respect for the military profession here.

Firemen, crab fishermen, and all other dangerous professions have one thing that a soldier doesn't: choice.

A soldier has one chance to make the choice, to be a soldier or not. If a crab fisherman finds out he doesn't like the job, for any reason, he can leave it on the spot, no questions asked. A soldier doesn't have that chance.

When I joined the military out of high school, it wasn't for guts, glory, or college money. I just felt like giving something back to the country I grew up in. And when I was on the plane to Afghanistan after Sep 11, I didn't for a minute try to get out of it. Not because I wanted to kill anyone, and not because I wasn't scared to die, but because I wanted other American men and women to walk confident in the knowledge that they wouldn't be called to go because I balked.

All you people who are disdaining the military...just remember that America's military has given you most of the freedom you enjoy. Including the freedom not to have to join it. The more people try to disuade young men and women from joining, the closer you bring this country back to the draft. If someone wants to serve in this nation's military, you should thank them, not scorn them. Not because you believe in what they are doing, but because it allows you to do what you want to be doing.

OK by that logic the Swiss are the most likely to be violent.
The swiss are also very militaristic...not pacifistic by any means. So, no.

No stranger to indulging in stereotyping yourself, I see. That's not a rant. That's a heartfelt and longterm conviction of mine. There's a difference. I don't happen to believe in militarism, period. You can say whatever you like, denigrate me, belittle me, write a petition and tell the world how unfair I am to soldiers. It really doesn't matter in the end. Because there will always be more of you than there are of me. There might always be more of you than me, I don't know. I suppose I should expect to be 'protected' by rabid militarists until the day I die, much and all as I wish they'd go find real jobs, stop mooching off of my ungrateful backside, and quit lecturing me about how I owe them something. To me it smacks of the sort of 'protection' one might enjoy from the mob.

And I'm not stereotyping, not nearly stereotyping so much as being uncleverly open about my beliefs here on this thread. So go ahead, pillory me all you want, I will never kiss the figurative ring.
You could easily argue that being in the military as a long term job is a relitivly modern thing. For example in the reign of Edward the Confessor the King could only call up his soliders for 40 days a year, the rest of the time they were farmers.

I Don't Read Well When There Are So Many Capitals In Something That Isn't A Title.Not everyone's first language is English, Sin. Green Israel doesn't capitalize anything and his English is horrible, but he puts a lot of thought into his posts. :rolleyes:

I'm a little dismayed at the lack of respect for the military profession here.

Firemen, crab fishermen, and all other dangerous professions have one thing that a soldier doesn't: choice.

A soldier has one chance to make the choice, to be a soldier or not. If a crab fisherman finds out he doesn't like the job, for any reason, he can leave it on the spot, no questions asked. A soldier doesn't have that chance. That's part of the choice. They don't just spring that piece of information at you after you sign on. You know, you sign up and you're in for the long haul.

That's choice. You make it, just like a fireman or a fisherman.

Not everyone's first language is English, Sin. Green Israel doesn't capitalize anything and his English is horrible, but he puts a lot of thought into his posts. :rolleyes:
The original post was by Homiville, who speaks English fine most of the time...?

That's part of the choice. They don't just spring that piece of information at you after you sign on. You know, you sign up and you're in for the long haul.

That's choice. You make it, just like a fireman or a fisherman.Would this mean you'd support parades for a military that used a draft but not for one that was based on volontary service?

The swiss are also very militaristic...not pacifistic by any means. So, no.
OK so they have National Service, but the thing is the most military thing they do is guard the Vatican City. Since when has the Pope been a raving military obcessed meglomanic.... Ok Innocent the Third, and Eugeniuss, and Urban the Second and half a dozen others. But the point is that the majority of anti-violence supporters are just as safe as anyone else. There are of course a few hotheads who take things too far and end up getting hurt.

Then what Dobbs said here:

Is true? Maybe as the following quote says, you don't learn dozens of ways to kill...but surely if there is no guarantee you won't be in a combat situation, you are at least forced to learn one way (at the minimum) of killing someone else?



So the only thing she got wrong was the number of ways of killing learned...?
Nope, just another stereotype.

Even the police learn at least "one way to kill" and F/F's are taught how to defend themselves.

The focus is not on "killing" but procedure and survival. The days of "cleaning your rifle for hours on end" have been over for years.

The original post was by Homiville, who speaks English fine most of the time...?Homieville is a kid in Poland. Cut him some slack.

Nice rant about stereotypes while stereotyping again.
Like I said, go ahead and denigrate me. My opinions are minority opinons, and should not be given an equal airing. I'm used to it by now.

Did you retain any small part of my previous post?

Like I said, go ahead and denigrate me. My opinions are minority opinons, and should not be given an equal airing. I'm used to it by now.
No opinion is any better than any other. Don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise, all opinions are equal.

Like I said, go ahead and denigrate me. My opinions are minority opinons, and should not be given an equal airing. I'm used to it by now.

Did you retain any small part of my previous post?


And you are free to express that opinion. I have no problem w/ pacifists. It's when they make comments about the military only killing and maiming when they obviously have no idea what they're talking about that I express my freedom of speech.

You should really get down off that cross, the wood would be more usefull somewhere else.

And you are free to express that opinion. I have no problem w/ pacifists. It's when they make comments about the military only killing and maiming when they obviously have no idea what they're talking about that I express my freedom of speech.

You should really get down off that cross, the wood would be more usefull somewhere else.
And I expect you have a better use for the nails, as well, what of that?

Thank you for opting not to employ any further stereotyping in your reply, sir.

How much do I owe you?

Firefighters get 'danger pay'. Alaskan King Crab fishermen (listed as one of the most dangerous jobs in the world) make big bucks because so many lose their lives. There are many jobs that come with additional financial compensation if the particular task carries a high level of risk.

However, there are no parades for the crab fishermen. Some municipalities may honour their firefighters, but it's not a given that they will. Underwater welders don't get ceremonies. We need all of these people to keep doing what they are doing, but do we really need to go to such lengths to 'honour' soldiers, when they are just one among many groups who risk their lives?

I sincerely hope you never have to see the day you feel the NEED to honor them for what they have done for you.

Liverbreath']I sincerely hope you never have to see the day you feel the NEED to honor them for what they have done for you.
How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

Right, and I'd sooner people be given the opportunity to "serve their nation" that doesn't involve learning effective ways to kill, maim and incapacitate, as I don't think those skills can be put to any use other than to kill, maim and incapacitate. I think society would be better, far better served if as many people who are taught the so-called 'art' of war were instead to be taught actual useful skills, and set loose to improve the lot of their countrymen.

It's only as naive as militarism is jaded, folks.


You'd be on the right track, in a perfect world. And I'd love a world where I could say you were right. It would be nice to dedicate the time and resources toward education & health care, rather than military.

Right now though, we need men that can kill, maim and incapacitate. Otherwise, sooner or later, people such as yourself may have to change their ways of life. Dont misunderstand this as a personal attack. The strong & aggresive have preyed upon the weak & passive since the dawn of time. Just because you love peace and harmony, doesnt make you safe.

What about firefighters?

Frankly, someone trained to save lives impresses me much more than someone trained to take lives.

Taking lives is always more interesting and fun than saving them, that's why hollywood puts out super violent crap nowadays instead of anything good.

You'd be on the right track, in a perfect world. And I'd love a world where I could say you were right. It would be nice to dedicate the time and resources toward education & health care, rather than military.

Right now though, we need men that can kill, maim and incapacitate. Otherwise, sooner or later, people such as yourself may have to change their ways of life. Dont misunderstand this as a personal attack. The strong & aggresive have preyed upon the weak & passive since the dawn of time. Just because you love peace and harmony, doesnt make you safe.


Terrorists know this very well, and it's why Pacifists are always such idiots.

You'd be on the right track, in a perfect world. And I'd love a world where I could say you were right. It would be nice to dedicate the time and resources toward education & health care, rather than military.

Right now though, we need men that can kill, maim and incapacitate. Otherwise, sooner or later, people such as yourself may have to change their ways of life. Dont misunderstand this as a personal attack. The strong & aggresive have preyed upon the weak & passive since the dawn of time. Just because you love peace and harmony, doesnt make you safe.
Ah, but conditions are being manipulated so as to ensure the indispensibility of 'fighting men' to the preclusion of the indispensibility of men of peace. I.e., the military is playing with a stacked deck.

And we're supposed to play along with that?

Ah, but conditions are being manipulated so as to ensure the indispensibility of 'fighting men' to the preclusion of the indispensibility of men of peace. I.e., the military is playing with a stacked deck.

And we're supposed to play along with that?


Your argument does have some merit, but I dont believe in such a vast conspiracy.

Just for arguments sake, do you think if, for example, the United States
never got involved in affairs beyond its borders, except for trade- What would North Korea be doing now? How about Iraq, or even China?

I am not saying you're insane and your opinion is stupid. I can see some people stirring the pot to make themselves valid-almost like firebugs setting fires so they can put them out?
But on the large scale- I dont know where you live, but do you think you would be living life the way you choose without the military? Would you still be free? Would you be safe? Or would you be exposed to the whims of true madmen whom just hadnt reached you yet?

We have so many ceremonies and parades and such for soldiers because under most circumstances they're there to protect our country and everyone in it. We probably should pay them more as well because it's such an important job with such high risks, but it's hard because there are so many of them. If we cut the numbers significantly we could afford to pay them better, but then you have a smaller and thus weaker military.

Your argument does have some merit, but I dont believe in such a vast conspiracy.

Just for arguments sake, do you think if, for example, the United States
never got involved in affairs beyond its borders, except for trade- What would North Korea be doing now? How about Iraq, or even China?

I am not saying you're insane and your opinion is stupid. I can see some people stirring the pot to make themselves valid-almost like firebugs setting fires so they can put them out?
But on the large scale- I dont know where you live, but do you think you would be living life the way you choose without the military? Would you still be free? Would you be safe? Or would you be exposed to the whims of true madmen whom just hadnt reached you yet?
As to your last four questions:

1 - Yes, assuredly.
2 - Only if America had something to say about it.
3 - A conditional yes, dependent on the above response.
4 - Highly unlikely.

As to the questions of isolationism, I can't possibly answer those. It's an entirely speculative, hypothetical question - rendered rudely moot by the inconvenience of reality. Alas.

Thank you for not simply assuming that I am, in some fashion, not in full possession of my faculties. Likewise, it is a pleasure to correspond with someone who isn't peppering his (or her) responses with personal invective/outright disdain for opposing points-of-view.

Kudos for the afore-mentioned gentlemanly comportment.

When there is mutual fear men think twice before they make aggression upon one another
Hermocrates of Syracuse
He serves me most, who serves his country best
Homer
A wise man in times of peace prepares for war
Horace
A small country cannot contend with a great; the few cannot contend with the many; the weak cannot contend with the strong
Mencius
We make war that we may live in peace
Aristotle

hmm, just a collection of interesting quotes.
my thoughts on whether soldiers/military professionals (we're not all soldiers) should be treated like any other person with a dangerous job:
People who serve their country in the military, and I also believe the emergency services (police/firemen/medical/SES), should recieve more respect for the fact that they accept lower pay and conditions under which civilian members of society do not obey (no drugs/ freedom of speech/ obedience to superiors), myself, I serve not only my country, but my way of life and the freedom for others to pursue this way of life.(western democracy ~ secular government ~ free speech ~ freedom of thought)

However, people in dangerous professions such as mining/underwater welding/ crab fishermen???? perform these acts of danger for the renumeration (Money) that these dangerous jobs entail, not for the benefit of others.

First, i'd like to point out, i think that in certain situations, firemen/police/etc get parades.

1. when an officer/fireman dies. They have a parade in major cities (think of the movies backdraft and any cop movie where a cop dies)
2. the cost of a parade, imo, won't meet the cost of paying the soldiers. Apparently there are close to 180,000 marines. if only 10% of that is the fighting force, 18,000 would get higher pay. but crab fishermen make what... 36,000 in 3 months? that's 144k a year (but i think they only work the 3 months, and then rest for 9). so, since marines are in the combat zone for 1 year minimum, they should get the 144k. Now, back to our 180k figure. 10% getting 144k, is.... 2,592,000,000 $, and that's just for the marines. I don't think overall parades cost that much. Most parades are done at their home towns, cost covered by the town, and any large parade i don't think will run in the 2.5 billion range (could be wrong). And even if you do hold a parade for the military (all branches) that costs 2.5billion, it will be only 1 time, while you would need to pay servicemen year after year.

Thus, the reason why i think military doesn't paid as much as crabmen. And i've already stated that fire dept. and police dept. get parades (i'm sure they do more than just funerals). also, with the police/fire, they can make money well in excess of what a soldier can make. i think the starting pay for a state trooper in Texas is 45k. or in the 40 range, while an enlisted man gets about 24k-28k starting.

another reason why i think military gets more parades than other people is because of the morale boost.

As for some of the other issues discussed in this thread, eh, i forgot what they were :P

*edit*

heh, guess i should answer your original question: "Should soldiers be treated like any other person with a dangerous job?

simply, yes.

not so simply. it's different putting your life on the line fighting a fire than when someone is trying to kill you. Even people don't try to kill cops on a daily basis, otherwise it would make the news "serial killer targets cops" or somesuch nonsense. And crabs definitely don't try to kill the crabmen. (besides crabs are a luxury, we could do w/o (hate's crustaceans), while freedom (which theoretically the military preserves) is something we don't want to do w/o)

thanks, and w/ that said. i'm gonna go work out. i hope it wasn't too long, and that ppl respond.

*double edit*
o and that reminds me of one of the other questions... how much do servicemen's families get if they die... i think it used to be 10k. but there was a bill that pushed it up to 250k. So compensation is given to the families to those who die in combat.

Firefighters get 'danger pay'. Alaskan King Crab fishermen (listed as one of the most dangerous jobs in the world) make big bucks because so many lose their lives. There are many jobs that come with additional financial compensation if the particular task carries a high level of risk.

However, there are no parades for the crab fishermen. Some municipalities may honour their firefighters, but it's not a given that they will. Underwater welders don't get ceremonies. We need all of these people to keep doing what they are doing, but do we really need to go to such lengths to 'honour' soldiers, when they are just one among many groups who risk their lives?

but do crab fisherman get government health benifits and paid housing/food in the way soldiers do ? i think if you added up the cost of benifits.. that gap would close conseriderably

Firefighters get 'danger pay'. Alaskan King Crab fishermen (listed as one of the most dangerous jobs in the world) make big bucks because so many lose their lives. There are many jobs that come with additional financial compensation if the particular task carries a high level of risk.

However, there are no parades for the crab fishermen. Some municipalities may honour their firefighters, but it's not a given that they will. Underwater welders don't get ceremonies. We need all of these people to keep doing what they are doing, but do we really need to go to such lengths to 'honour' soldiers, when they are just one among many groups who risk their lives?

I say less pay increased parade count.

Answer to the original question: Absolutely NOT!
People in the military consistantly give all they have- their lives, jobs, families, everything to protect us- we who sit at home, work at our jobs, have the freedom we have.
Military personell work for our liberty, our ability to speek freely-
Even if you have no respect for the people who send them out to fight, at least have some type of respect for those who give all so that we can have conversations and not die because of them.
Money is no equivilant to the amount of respect, love, adoration, and "parades" we owe to them- we owe our total existance to them.
For that, they should never be treated like any "normal person" for, they are NEVER normal, nor WERE they ever normal.

I for one would die if I saw any military personell, let alone soldiers be treated as a "normal person." How discusting.

Firefighters get 'danger pay'. Alaskan King Crab fishermen (listed as one of the most dangerous jobs in the world) make big bucks because so many lose their lives. There are many jobs that come with additional financial compensation if the particular task carries a high level of risk.

However, there are no parades for the crab fishermen. Some municipalities may honour their firefighters, but it's not a given that they will. Underwater welders don't get ceremonies. We need all of these people to keep doing what they are doing, but do we really need to go to such lengths to 'honour' soldiers, when they are just one among many groups who risk their lives?
Firefighters, Police, EMS and Doctors they all can go home at the end of their shift. their shift can last up to a couple of weeks, but for the military, it can go on for months, or even years.

those outside of the military have a little slice of life outside of work, not so the military, think of those out in Iraq fighting a war that more and more people don't agree with. they know if they pull out before the Iraqi's can fully control and safeguard their people, all that their friends died for will be in vain.

When they come home, the parades and photo ops are there for the civilians to say to them, "Welcome Home. you were missed."

But everyone acts as if all military personel are/were honerable and did nothing but fight the good and honerable fight while over there (Wherever over there IS this time). I see no reason to accord special honors to military personel, on the basis of them just being military personel.

Tell me what you did, and then I will respect what you have done, the same with everyone else.

But everyone acts as if all military personel are/were honerable and did nothing but fight the good and honerable fight while over there (Wherever over there IS this time). I see no reason to accord special honors to military personel, on the basis of them just being military personel.

Tell me what you did, and then I will respect what you have done, the same with everyone else. :confused: except for participating in some parades where they supply music and help fill it out, the only other time I see military acually being the center of the parade is when they come home from combat or any hazzardous duty. not normal tours either.

:confused: except for participating in some parades where they supply music and help fill it out, the only other time I see military acually being the center of the parade is when they come home from combat or any hazzardous duty. not normal tours either.

I wasn't speaking of parades, I'm actually speaking more towards the attatude today that if you meet someone in the military you should automatically drop down and shine their boots.

Ok, maybe not quite THAT bad. But I see a lot of emails being bounced around how such and such company didn't automatcially donate a free dinner to a group of Marines or how Target is evil as they won't send fishing rods over or what not. And the posting I've seen in this thread seems to make that conclusion, that any military personel, regardless of service, duty, or actions should be looked upon as somehow higher and better than the very population they came from in the first place.

I disagree with that notion as while I have met many military personel who do a hard job in hard conditions and have gotten killed or worse due to it, I've also met those who spent 6 years in the service where their job of standing duty consisted of playing playstation for 8 hours at a time.

And this doesn't even take into account those folks who dishonored the service and the nation with their actions while wearing a uniform.

That's why I disgree with auotmatic respect, tell me what you did and THEN I'll be happy to honor you.

I draw the lines at parades though, I never liked the damn things anyway. ;)

Would this mean you'd support parades for a military that used a draft but not for one that was based on volontary service?
Neither. I wouldn't support parade period. I'd support danger pay, and that's it. No glory unless those who want it pay for it themselves. Right now, they don't have the choice to pocket the parade money or have the parade.

OK so they have National Service, but the thing is the most military thing they do is guard the Vatican City. Since when has the Pope been a raving military obcessed meglomanic.... Ok Innocent the Third, and Eugeniuss, and Urban the Second and half a dozen others. But the point is that the majority of anti-violence supporters are just as safe as anyone else. There are of course a few hotheads who take things too far and end up getting hurt.
Don't confuse anti-violence or pacifism with the total avoidance of violence. I am non-violent...but I don't run from confrontation. I simply avoid making it a violent confrontation. Many pacifists actively protest violence...and that makes them a target of people who support that violence.

Homieville is a kid in Poland. Cut him some slack.
Laerod...I appreciate you sticking up for those for whom English is a second language. However, Homieville has shown himself quite capable of making himself understood on General. His post, with all the capitals, was not a 'mistake'...it was a statement of sorts...kind of like yelling, but not quite. If he wants to tell us that his English is poor and he just couldn't form the sentence coherently, that's okay. I wouldn't hold that against him. But don't assume on his behalf. It's disempowering.

Liverbreath']I sincerely hope you never have to see the day you feel the NEED to honor them for what they have done for you.
Yes, I also feverently hope my house never catches fire.

But I suspect you were speaking of soldiers?

I still fail to see how those who choose the military as a career should be afforded any more respect than firefighters. Or cops.

Right now though, we need men that can kill, maim and incapacitate. Otherwise, sooner or later, people such as yourself may have to change their ways of life. Dont misunderstand this as a personal attack. The strong & aggresive have preyed upon the weak & passive since the dawn of time. Just because you love peace and harmony, doesnt make you safe.
Carn...at least you're being honest about it. Others here want us to believe that soldiering isn't about death.

The fact is, all of us have certain views about certain professions. Consider the amount of lawyer jokes out there, for example. Certain professions have more social standing than others, are more respected than others. It's not necessarily a rational thing, but hey, little in life is.

However, the point Dobbs and I are trying to make, albeit in different ways, is that there is this expectation that one will automatically respect soldiers. I can't. I simply can not respect a person who willingly chooses a job that will likely require that person to take another human life. It isn't about necessity for me, it isn't about believing that war is inevitable. It's about a one-on-one distaste for that choice. I would feel this way about the person who carries out executions in places where capital punishment still exist.

Yet soldiers are afforded a special 'untouchable' position that I vehemently disagree with. Wars have always been glorified by those seeking warm bodies to fill uniforms. Just look at the war propaganda in my own nation during both world wars...they made it sound like a delightful lark in foreign lands, an adventure for boys who grew up on tales of cowboys and indians.

We cover up the truth about the reality of war. We don't allow news stations to broadcast pictures of coffins. We play down casualties. We have parades, and rousing speeches. Yes, I know this is all part of the political game. But it's a false image and that image is what they're selling to kids. KIDS are going off to die because they don't quite get it. I don't think you can get it unless you've been there.

So stop the glorification. Be honest about the risks. Have danger pay. But leave the war drums at home. Let people go into that career, like people do who go into any dangerous career.

.

Thank you for not simply assuming that I am, in some fashion, not in full possession of my faculties. Likewise, it is a pleasure to correspond with someone who isn't peppering his (or her) responses with personal invective/outright disdain for opposing points-of-view.

Kudos for the afore-mentioned gentlemanly comportment.

I'm just trying to understand your point of view without challenging your ego or right to feel how you do, in a thread that is already charged with personal hostilities.
I feel differently, but it doesnt mean I cant tolerate your point of view.

Thanks.

I am not saying you're insane and your opinion is stupid. I can see some people stirring the pot to make themselves valid-almost like firebugs setting fires so they can put them out? I like that analogy...though to make it fit a bit better, I'd say it would be like the firechief setting the fires to justify her force.



But on the large scale- I dont know where you live, but do you think you would be living life the way you choose without the military? Would you still be free? Would you be safe? Or would you be exposed to the whims of true madmen whom just hadnt reached you yet?
Military might alone does not decide freedom. And madmen can reach us just fine anyway.

, and "parades" we owe to them- we owe our total existance to them.
For that, they should never be treated like any "normal person" for, they are NEVER normal, nor WERE they ever normal.

I for one would die if I saw any military personell, let alone soldiers be treated as a "normal person." How discusting.
We owe our total existence to them? And at the cost of who's existence? The enemies we create to justify their continued employment?

State-sanctioned murder is still the taking of human lives without the consent of the person who must die. I can not adore someone like that, nor treat them like a 'normal' person. Normal people don't kill other humans.

When they come home, the parades and photo ops are there for the civilians to say to them, "Welcome Home. you were missed."
Now that is a bit more reasonable than saying we should adore them and treat them as somehow above 'normal' people.

But everyone acts as if all military personel are/were honerable and did nothing but fight the good and honerable fight while over there (Wherever over there IS this time). I see no reason to accord special honors to military personel, on the basis of them just being military personel.

Tell me what you did, and then I will respect what you have done, the same with everyone else.
True. There is no inherent nobility in any profession. Your actions as a member of that profession, your conduct, creates either pride or disgrace.

:confused: except for participating in some parades where they supply music and help fill it out, the only other time I see military acually being the center of the parade is when they come home from combat or any hazzardous duty. not normal tours either.
It's not just about parades, or being the center of attention. It's the attitude that "I was in the military, I'm noble, never question me!" Not every soldier is a good person. Just like not every doctor is in it to serve her fellow humans. People so much as question the validity of the military, even politely, and insults are rained down upon them by people who believe that soldiers are sacrosanct.

I'm just trying to understand your point of view without challenging your ego or right to feel how you do, in a thread that is already charged with personal hostilities.
I feel differently, but it doesnt mean I cant tolerate your point of view.

Thanks.
Hallelujah Carn, and thanks! It's a touchy subject, and people seem to resort to personal attacks first, and ask questions later. Thanks for not walking that path!

Carn...at least you're being honest about it. Others here want us to believe that soldiering isn't about death.

The fact is, all of us have certain views about certain professions. Consider the amount of lawyer jokes out there, for example. Certain professions have more social standing than others, are more respected than others. It's not necessarily a rational thing, but hey, little in life is.

However, the point Dobbs and I are trying to make, albeit in different ways, is that there is this expectation that one will automatically respect soldiers. I can't. I simply can not respect a person who willingly chooses a job that will likely require that person to take another human life. It isn't about necessity for me, it isn't about believing that war is inevitable. It's about a one-on-one distaste for that choice. I would feel this way about the person who carries out executions in places where capital punishment still exist.

Yet soldiers are afforded a special 'untouchable' position that I vehemently disagree with. Wars have always been glorified by those seeking warm bodies to fill uniforms. Just look at the war propaganda in my own nation during both world wars...they made it sound like a delightful lark in foreign lands, an adventure for boys who grew up on tales of cowboys and indians.

We cover up the truth about the reality of war. We don't allow news stations to broadcast pictures of coffins. We play down casualties. We have parades, and rousing speeches. Yes, I know this is all part of the political game. But it's a false image and that image is what they're selling to kids. KIDS are going off to die because they don't quite get it. I don't think you can get it unless you've been there.

So stop the glorification. Be honest about the risks. Have danger pay. But leave the war drums at home. Let people go into that career, like people do who go into any dangerous career.

You and I will likely never see eye to eye on this, but thats ok. Our paths, backrounds and ubringing-not to mention cultures-are completely different from each other.
I dont agree with "glorifying war" either- I see war as a total failure and an effort of last resort.
I have NYC Policemen and Firemen in the family, as well as relations in the US Marines. I am proud of, and respect all of them.
More than if they were crab fishermen or loggers. I like crab-dont get me wrong, but I dont need it.

I do need men that will go right into harms way to protect, serve and defend my family and our way of life.
They should be paid better than they are. But they also deserve the honor and respect, as long as they serve with honor and respect.

Parades are less for the marchers and more for the spectators. They bring people together,sharing pride and accomplishment.

As for playing down war? I see gruesome pictures of bodies and still burning vehicles/buildings every night on every channel. Every time someone dies I get a tally. And its usually within the hour of death. One channel honors the fallen with their living picture and gives a brief life story, etc...

No pictures of coffins? maybe out of respect for those deceased? have you ever seen anyone in your family taking pictures of a relative's coffin. If you need pictures of coffins, I'm sure you can google it and get 100 sites selling coffins-with pictures.

I'm thinking of having my kids become baseball players. They get millions in cash, dont pay for anything they do, have pussy follow them all around the country and get a parade when they win.
They get the best of both worlds for playing a game.

Hallelujah Carn, and thanks! It's a touchy subject, and people seem to resort to personal attacks first, and ask questions later. Thanks for not walking that path!

Sometimes, I'm level headed, tolerant and even reasonable...you..uhh..ggGGrrr...DAMNED NOSY LOUDMOUTH!! ! AAAAHHHAHHHHAH!!!



:p

Dobbs please don't be so predictable. Many noncombat military jobs offer hazardous duty pay too. Pararescue for one. Despite what you think a proud tradition of military men and women have given there life to let you speak your piece (peace?). Do not let your distain for the current authors of forgein policy color your opinion of the military.


Oh, a whole new can of worms. As an avowed pacifist, I say any and all means must be employed to deter people from deciding upon the military as a career choice. Hence, no danger pay.

...come on, like any of you expect me to say anything other than that? Piffle.

Military might alone does not decide freedom. And madmen can reach us just fine anyway.

I'm not willing to try it without them, if given the choice. And you'd be foolish if you claimed you'd do fine.

Hallelujah Carn, and thanks! It's a touchy subject, and people seem to resort to personal attacks first, and ask questions later. Thanks for not walking that path!Ach, just blame it on the person that brought it up in the first place... Wait a moment! THAT WAS YOU! :mad: ( :p )

Dobbs please don't be so predictable. Many noncombat military jobs offer hazardous duty pay too. Pararescue for one. Despite what you think a proud tradition of military men and women have given there life to let you speak your piece (peace?). Do not let your distain for the current authors of forgein policy color your opinion of the military.

Very true. A couple bad choices should not cause the disdain of the proud men and women who would much prefer only to defend us instead of attacking.

Dobbs please don't be so predictable.
Perhaps you can call it predictable when someone is consistent in their views. But how could you be anything but predictable when your beliefs are well grounded? We're not here to be unpredictable, and 'trick' you...

Ach, just blame it on the person that brought it up in the first place... Wait a moment! THAT WAS YOU! :mad: ( :p )
That's me...touchy subject woman. *touch, touch*

... I still fail to see how those who choose the military as a career should be afforded any more respect than firefighters. Or cops.

thanks for totally ignoring my post. It attempts to explain why we should give more respect to military rather than firefighters/cops. And you haven't argued against my points, but you say this :P.....

I'm not willing to try it without them, if given the choice. And you'd be foolish if you claimed you'd do fine.
The problem for me is this:

I'm a pacifist. That doesn't mean I run away from any and all conflict. It doesn't mean I wring my hands and watch others get hurt. It means that violence, for me, can only be the very, and absolute last resort...and only as defense, never as aggression. One can not truly be a pacifist without the power to do violence. One who is simply weak is not a pacifist. No choice is being made. Weakness is the only option. A pacifist must be capable of violence...and choose to avoid it.

I can see armies as being pacifistic. Yes, I know that sounds inherently contradictory. But I use for example, peacekeeping troops. The ideal if not the less than glorious reality. Not an army of aggression. Of protection, of defense, of violence only when no other choice is available, and only as much as is needed to defend.

Yes, it's dangerous. I would argue it also requires much more skill to be successful. But this kind of militarism should be the goal. To minimise the loss of human life. Not just to minimise the loss of "our people's" lives.

I don't support a military buildup with the intent to deter. MAD was a terrible idea, and the equivalent in human form is too. But you look at the Swiss. Their army is a defensive army, not one of aggression. True, they are a small country. But that in no way invalidates the concept.

Too much of the military technology being developed is created with the intent to maximise enemy casualties, while minimising our own. Instead, we should be seeking to minimise ALL casualties.

thanks for totally ignoring my post. It attempts to explain why we should give more respect to military rather than firefighters/cops. And you haven't argued against my points, but you say this :P.....
I'm not deliberately ignoring your post. I simply saw your points as your opinion, much as mine are. We can discuss our opinions, sure...but I'm not going to try and say "your opinion is wrong and this is why".

The problem for me is this:

I'm a pacifist. That doesn't mean I run away from any and all conflict. It doesn't mean I wring my hands and watch others get hurt. It means that violence, for me, can only be the very, and absolute last resort...and only as defense, never as aggression. One can not truly be a pacifist without the power to do violence. One who is simply weak is not a pacifist. No choice is being made. Weakness is the only option....

tell this to Dobbs.

tell this to Dobbs.
Why would you make the assumption that she is not fully aware of this?

Dobbs has never indicated that she is pacifistic out of weakness. That is simply the assumptions made by others.

I'm not deliberately ignoring your post. I simply saw your points as your opinion, much as mine are. We can discuss our opinions, sure...but I'm not going to try and say "your opinion is wrong and this is why".

isn't this what we're doing? discussing our opinions? :P i tried throwing a little fact in there on how much crabmen get paid and why soldiers don't get as much, but i thought that's what the board was here for. to discuss opinion and tell other people why you think theirs is wrong or right.

Someone who has to take lives at any moment, deal with the psycological pain. Seeing their buddies who they have known since training get their leg blown off by stepping on a mine or getting shot in the head. Being scared shitless by mortar fire, or seeing a carbomb explode right in the middle of their unit. Guarding roadblocks which makes active targets for any terrorist. Having new orifices blown into them by AK-47s or IEDs.

Yes, they should get special treatment. I think more so than a crab fishermen. However, resources are low. There aren't many crab fishermen, but there are alot of soldiers. Do with what you have.

Why would you make the assumption that she is not fully aware of this?

Dobbs has never indicated that she is pacifistic out of weakness. That is simply the assumptions made by others.

i meant the bolded part. It said nothing about weakness. In fact, it takes a very strong willed person to be a pacifist.

and bring in danger pay for troops in dangerous assignments.

Since our troops enlist with the knowledge that they can be sent anywhere our government decides they are needed at any time, they know going in that it could be dangerous. I don't know how much our soldiers are paid currently, but I think that if someone takes a job (any job) for a set salary, then they should do that job for that pay.

Now, I know people who work in the police departments of some towns where they are not provided with equipment like bullet proof vests. If they want those, they have to buy them on their own. I do believe that we should provide people with the tools to do their jobs. Police should have vests, guns, bullets etc. The military should have armour and weapons. All this might seem like common sense, but sadly, many areas do not provide for their "heros."

Firefighters get 'danger pay'. Alaskan King Crab fishermen (listed as one of the most dangerous jobs in the world) make big bucks because so many lose their lives. There are many jobs that come with additional financial compensation if the particular task carries a high level of risk.

However, there are no parades for the crab fishermen. Some municipalities may honour their firefighters, but it's not a given that they will. Underwater welders don't get ceremonies. We need all of these people to keep doing what they are doing, but do we really need to go to such lengths to 'honour' soldiers, when they are just one among many groups who risk their lives?

Well, if many of us made "big-bucks" while we were in; we likely would not have left...

That being said... when I left the USN in 1997, my salary was about $28,000 a year: This included Base pay for E-6 with 6 years in service, Submarine Duty pay for 6 years in service, Sea Pay (With a Sea-Counter of about 2 years)

First, i'd like to point out, i think that in certain situations, firemen/police/etc get parades. True...and for me, 'parades' is just a metaphor...public acclaim and all that. The cost is probably not all that much, but it's more the concept that soldiers should get MORE acclaim than a firefighter or a cop etc that I question.

2. the cost of a parade, imo, won't meet the cost of paying the soldiers. Apparently there are close to 180,000 marines. if only 10% of that is the fighting force, 18,000 would get higher pay. but crab fishermen make what... 36,000 in 3 months? that's 144k a year (but i think they only work the 3 months, and then rest for 9). so, since marines are in the combat zone for 1 year minimum, they should get the 144k. Now, back to our 180k figure. 10% getting 144k, is.... 2,592,000,000 $, and that's just for the marines. I don't think overall parades cost that much. Most parades are done at their home towns, cost covered by the town, and any large parade i don't think will run in the 2.5 billion range (could be wrong). And even if you do hold a parade for the military (all branches) that costs 2.5billion, it will be only 1 time, while you would need to pay servicemen year after year. So in essence, the cost to adequately compensate a soldier in a dangerous assignment (being as there are many in such assignments) would not really be manageable? Do you think the parades and acclaim are the compensation for that?

another reason why i think military gets more parades than other people is because of the morale boost. I can't see any other reason for it:).

heh, guess i should answer your original question: "Should soldiers be treated like any other person with a dangerous job?

simply, yes.

not so simply. it's different putting your life on the line fighting a fire than when someone is trying to kill you. Even people don't try to kill cops on a daily basis, otherwise it would make the news "serial killer targets cops" or somesuch nonsense. And crabs definitely don't try to kill the crabmen. (besides crabs are a luxury, we could do w/o (hate's crustaceans), while freedom (which theoretically the military preserves) is something we don't want to do w/o) So one job is inherently more dangerous than another. Does that necessarily make it more noble? I don't think it does. But that's my opinion.

Right, and I'd sooner people be given the opportunity to "serve their nation" that doesn't involve learning effective ways to kill, maim and incapacitate, as I don't think those skills can be put to any use other than to kill, maim and incapacitate. I think society would be better, far better served if as many people who are taught the so-called 'art' of war were instead to be taught actual useful skills, and set loose to improve the lot of their countrymen.

It's only as naive as militarism is jaded, folks.

Yes, we all know how all the Damage-Control and Fire-Fighting skills, Intelligence training, and the plethora of other tech skills many of us learn are not "real-world"... We are taight, for the most part, "real skills"... A majority of the MOS/NEC's of the forces are very high-tech career starters. The idea of "grunts" died some time ago in the mid-stages of the Cold War in the 60's and 70's...

For a short stint after I left, I spent time with Hewlet Packard working as a Consultant, doing much of the same work I did in the military; just making 96,000 per year as opposed to 28,000....

i meant the bolded part. It said nothing about weakness. In fact, it takes a very strong willed person to be a pacifist.

One can not truly be a pacifist without the power to do violence.

So why do you think I should tell this to Dobbs? What part of it do you think she doesn't understand?

There is a difference between consistancy and predictablity. Reagan, both Roosevelts and Ike were consistant, Bush is sadly predictable.

Afterthought Carter was consistant too, not that I agreed with him much but he was cleanly defined by his beliefs. A better ex-pres than pres.



Perhaps you can call it predictable when someone is consistent in their views. But how could you be anything but predictable when your beliefs are well grounded? We're not here to be unpredictable, and 'trick' you...

"Should soldiers be treated like any other person with a dangerous job?"

Now, Sinuhue, you know as well as anyone else on here that you can treat anyone any way you so desire. Whether everyone else will agree with your treatment is another matter entirely. One of the things anyone who becomes a solider with their eyes open has to face into is that not everyone is going to admire, honor, or even like them. It's part of the job, just like being a peace officer means that a certain class of people is not going to like you.

tell this to Dobbs.
Try telling it to me yourself. I'm not going anywhere. You can even send me a TG, Mirchaz.

Try telling it to me yourself. I'm not going anywhere. You can even send me a TG, Mirchaz.
Yeah, sorry I couldn't relay the message to you on his behalf Dobbs. I'm just not sure what it is...considering my personal philosophy isn't one I expect others to accept as truth anyway...

So why do you think I should tell this to Dobbs? What part of it do you think she doesn't understand?

One can not truly be a pacifist without the power to do violence.
Because she seems to be a pacifist that doesn't believe in any type of violence.


Try telling it to me yourself. I'm not going anywhere. You can even send me a TG, Mirchaz.

now a TG would be too much effort, especially since you read the boards :P

the reason i wanted Sin to tell you is because you are more likely to believe it coming from another pacifist, rather than someone who supports war.

but if you must insist...

"One can not truly be a pacifist without the power to do violence"

Thanks.

I do not respect the police at all. They do easy jobs and I feel less safe with them around. This is from personal experience nothing more nothing less and until I experience otherwise my opinion will not change.

From a current US., As far as military no I do not have much respect for most of them either. I do not believe that they currently are doing anything that has anything to protect my freedom, in fact I think the current situation is making things worse. I also do not like/support violence, but no matter what I say or do people are still gonna kill each other. I do not have respect for soldiers these days because in today's war they are not killing fellow enemy soldiers they are mostly killing civilians. They are not serving this country they are serving the few. They are not protecting us, they are protecting assests.

Firefighters get 'danger pay'. Alaskan King Crab fishermen (listed as one of the most dangerous jobs in the world) make big bucks because so many lose their lives. There are many jobs that come with additional financial compensation if the particular task carries a high level of risk.

However, there are no parades for the crab fishermen. Some municipalities may honour their firefighters, but it's not a given that they will. Underwater welders don't get ceremonies. We need all of these people to keep doing what they are doing, but do we really need to go to such lengths to 'honour' soldiers, when they are just one among many groups who risk their lives?

I don't think so. But...
They don't get paid enough, they do a difficult job whether or not they approve of the war they're in or if they're scared shitless. I'm not saying they don't know this will happen going in, I'm just saying that for me, they have definitely earned my respect because they go ahead and do their job.

But for me, this applies to other jobs that are dangerous and necessary, like firefighting. To me, these groups have equal honor in my mind.

Other than that, I don't know a single person in the military, so I usually don't participate in actual planned activities that would honor them. I'm also not generally opposed to it. I think it serves an important function, in terms of their emotional health.

Originally Posted by Mirchaz
I meant the bolded part. It said nothing about weakness. In fact, it takes a very strong willed person to be a pacifist.

While avoiding violence is to be lauded there are time when it is simply morally wrong to be a pacifist.

To not have fought on the Allied side in WWII in my opinion would be morally wrong.

To not stop somebody getting beaten up or stop a rape.

Does that mean these particular people would never be put into a combat zone? (curious...can you join the military knowing you'll never actually see combat?)

Let's see....

MU's (Naval rate, Musicians); have as much chance ending up in combat, as one would have winning a state lottery (somewhere in the order of 1 chance in several million).

Most Hospital Corpsmen are attached to shore commands back home, as opposed to active military vessels at sea.

Intelligent Specialists and Cryptologists spend most of their time processing data at communication centers and Strategic Operation bases back home, then in combat zones... Most, if they do spend it at sea, maybe a week on a sub or other vessel every few years or so.

A fair-sized chunk of DP's (Data Processing Tech's) YN's (Yeomen), LN's (Legalmen), PN's (Personnelmen), SK's (StoreKeepers), etc. may spend time at sea, but never once get to handle a weapon. A fair chunk of "soldiers" are "techs" which are in "support" roles.... Countless people in the military are devoted to supply, processing, administration, medical and other support roles....

So in essence, the cost to adequately compensate a soldier in a dangerous assignment (being as there are many in such assignments) would not really be manageable? Do you think the parades and acclaim are the compensation for that?
i don't think it would be manageable. not w/o a great tax increase.


So one job is inherently more dangerous than another. Does that necessarily make it more noble? I don't think it does. But that's my opinion.
Nodnod, that's where we differ, i think it makes all the difference in the world. But then again, i respect firefighters/cops/emt/etc as equally as i do military personnel, so the point is kinda moot for me :P

"Should soldiers be treated like any other person with a dangerous job?"

Now, Sinuhue, you know as well as anyone else on here that you can treat anyone any way you so desire. Whether everyone else will agree with your treatment is another matter entirely. One of the things anyone who becomes a solider with their eyes open has to face into is that not everyone is going to admire, honor, or even like them. It's part of the job, just like being a peace officer means that a certain class of people is not going to like you.
It's this little insinuation at the end that gets my goat (give it back! I plan on eating that little f*cker this weekend!). I'm not one to spit on a soldier. But neither will I fawn over one. That does not make me a 'certain class of person' (yeah, I know you said it about police officers, but I suspect you mean it for soldiers too).

If I protest a war, it doesn't make me a solider hater and a scumbag. Or whatever other insults get hurled at me.

Because she seems to be a pacifist that doesn't believe in any type of violence.

the reason i wanted Sin to tell you is because you are more likely to believe it coming from another pacifist, rather than someone who supports war.


Just because we are both pacifists doesn't mean we are for the same reasons.

And as I said in the other thread...don't confuse the ability to do violence with winning. Being able to be violent doesn't mean you'll be successful.

I do not respect the police at all. They do easy jobs and I feel less safe with them around. This is from personal experience nothing more nothing less and until I experience otherwise my opinion will not change.

From a current US., As far as military no I do not have much respect for most of them either. I do not believe that they currently are doing anything that has anything to protect my freedom, in fact I think the current situation is making things worse. I also do not like/support violence, but no matter what I say or do people are still gonna kill each other. I do not have respect for soldiers these days because in today's war they are not killing fellow enemy soldiers they are mostly killing civilians. They are not serving this country they are serving the few. They are not protecting us, they are protecting assests.

now the bolded part is just hogwash. More civilians die from insurgent attacks than they do the US Armed Forces. as for the rest, you're free to have your opinion, but i disagree w/ it.

Just because we are both pacifists doesn't mean we are for the same reasons.

And as I said in the other thread...don't confuse the ability to do violence with winning. Being able to be violent doesn't mean you'll be successful.
That depends on how you gauge 'winning', I suppose. And no, evidently we're different kinds of pacifists. I use the term loosely, whereas you seem to be applying some sort of external definition of the word. Whatever, Sinuhue. Vive les differences, n'est-ce pas?
I don't care to fight right now in any event, thanks. Not with you, anyway.

And as I said in the other thread...don't confuse the ability to do violence with winning. Being able to be violent doesn't mean you'll be successful.

I never confused the ability to do violence w/ winning. I agree that just cos you can be violent, doesn't mean you'll win the conflict. As far as what point i'm trying to get across is that you said you can't be a true pacifist w/o the ability to do violence. I think Dobbs doesn't contain the ability to do violence. (or with what i've read, doesn't want to use the violence, even tho she's capable)

I don't know. I'm a pacifist and all-and I sure wish there wasn't a need for the military and I certainly don't think what they're being used for now is a 'need,' but -that's a big fucking risk they take just so they can learn about computers.

I'd say this-give them huge fuckin' salaries for combat, like early retirement sized, and massive settlements if they do die in combat. Maybe then they won't be as 'expendable.' You'd have to think twice about an expenditure like that-you certainly would make damn sure if you did use them they'd have the armor they need. And they would feel that value as well.

As a pacifist it's not the troops-they contributed that way and thats cool-it's the jackasses who would piddle that sacrifice that piss me off. Those that do the dirty work, especially in this case-they deserve something more tangable than a parade, which really I'm just using as an excuse to get drunk in public anyway...


I agree, there are generally two types who enter service....

The first is the average joe. They join because of a sense of duty wish to serve their country. After years of bad pay, these tend to leave, taking with them their relative "reasonablness" into the civilian world.

The second type joins for the lust for battle. These are not detracted by low pay, and remain in to "kill" as they will in combat.

The result, is a militayr composed of the blood-thirsty, who are no longer put in check by those who serve our of a pure sense of duty.

And as I said in the other thread...don't confuse the ability to do violence with winning. Being able to be violent doesn't mean you'll be successful.

Perhaps not, but I'd say it drastically improves your odds. ;)

now the bolded part is just hogwash. More civilians die from insurgent attacks than they do the US Armed Forces. as for the rest, you're free to have your opinion, but i disagree w/ it.

Uh we bombed a wedding... we also killed kids who stole candy from soldiers. And you're telling me the soldiers take the time to distinguish the insurgents from civilians in order to save lives? please...The civilian casualties are way higher than the soldier's.

I never confused the ability to do violence w/ winning. I agree that just cos you can be violent, doesn't mean you'll win the conflict. As far as what point i'm trying to get across is that you said you can't be a true pacifist w/o the ability to do violence. I think Dobbs doesn't contain the ability to do violence. (or with what i've read, doesn't want to use the violence, even tho she's capable)
Hey, I'm right here. No need to talk about me in the third person. I'm not interested in textbook definitions of pacifism. If what I hold true happens to match someone's notion of a particular 'ism', hey, great. If not, oh well. It's not like it matters much in the long run.

While I might not contain the ability to do violence, I do contain the ability to negate it. That's good enough for me. That ought to be good enough for anybody. But I'm not going to tell anyone that that's how they have to be. If they decide that's how things ought to be for them, that's great. I'll applaud them.

If not, that's fine, too. Just don't expect me, or those who are somewhat like me, to join in on the reindeer games out of some sense I don't possess.

Uh we bombed a wedding... we also killed kids who stole candy from soldiers. And you're telling me the soldiers take the time to distinguish the insurgents from civilians in order to save lives? please...The civilian casualties are way higher than the soldier's.

we did it intentionally did we?
i'd like to see a link to this.
i think they do.
What is the civilian count of deaths caused by US soldiers?

It's this little insinuation at the end that gets my goat (give it back! I plan on eating that little f*cker this weekend!). I'm not one to spit on a soldier. But neither will I fawn over one. That does not make me a 'certain class of person' (yeah, I know you said it about police officers, but I suspect you mean it for soldiers too).

If I protest a war, it doesn't make me a solider hater and a scumbag. Or whatever other insults get hurled at me.
No insult was intended. The two statements are unrelated. :p

Hey, I'm right here. No need to talk about me in the third person.
i was talking to Sin about you. wasn't attempting to talk to you.

I'm not interested in textbook definitions of pacifism. If what I hold true happens to match someone's notion of a particular 'ism', hey, great. If not, oh well. It's not like it matters much in the long run.
true. i also respect your right of your type of pacifism.

While I might not contain the ability to do violence, I do contain the ability to negate it. That's good enough for me. That ought to be good enough for anybody.
i wish this world was full of people with this attitude. Unfortunately, there will always be violence, and imo, i don't think violence can be negated 100% of the time.

If not, that's fine, too. Just don't expect me, or those who are somewhat like me, to join in on the reindeer games out of some sense I don't possess.
i don't expect you to do anything you don't want to do.

I never confused the ability to do violence w/ winning. I agree that just cos you can be violent, doesn't mean you'll win the conflict. As far as what point i'm trying to get across is that you said you can't be a true pacifist w/o the ability to do violence. I think Dobbs doesn't contain the ability to do violence. (or with what i've read, doesn't want to use the violence, even tho she's capable)

Nor would I.

I think we're having trouble with meanings here.

Perhaps I should reword this: "You can't be a true pacifist without the ability to do violence"... You can't be a true pacifist without the ability to choose. If you are comatose, and unable to make any decisions about violence done to you or around you, you aren't being pacifistic. If you live thousands of kilometres away from where violent acts are taking place, and you know nothing about this violence, that doesn't make you pacifistic. If you know of this violence, you protest nonviolently against it, you attempt to get others to put pressure on the perpetrators to stop the violence...THAT is pacifism. It is active, not passive, despite the connotations of the word.

Pacifism is an action, not a lack of action. It is defiance, even in submission. It's saying, "I know you can do violence to me. But your actions will not force me to take up a tool I abhore".

i was talking to Sin about you. wasn't attempting to talk to you.


The very definition of speaking of someone in the third person. And unecessary, as the subject is present. Shit, now I'm doing it.

Hi Dobbs. :headbang:

I agree, there are generally two types who enter service....

The first is the average joe. They join because of a sense of duty wish to serve their country. After years of bad pay, these tend to leave, taking with them their relative "reasonablness" into the civilian world.

The second type joins for the lust for battle. These are not detracted by low pay, and remain in to "kill" as they will in combat.

The result, is a militayr composed of the blood-thirsty, who are no longer put in check by those who serve our of a pure sense of duty.
This is totally inaccurate.

The civilian misconceptions about life in the military and what we do always make me laugh. Especially when you see people on here arguing about things they couldn't possibly know.

Hey folks, its not the late 60's and early 70's anymore. You can stop hating on the military. Thank you.

Semper Fi.

It's all about capitalism. Crab fishermen get their pay because businesses reap huge profits from the crab sales (think about how much it costs for crab at stores). They get paid for net crab harvests. It's how that works. A CEO can be paid millions a year, and for what? The business still finds profitability out of that person. The military is a different issue. The US government doesn't get paid for removing the terrorist threats, or making the world a safer place. If the soldiers were paid a huge salary, our government would collapse in debt in no time.

The civilian misconceptions about life in the military and what we do always make me laugh. Especially when you see people on here arguing about things they couldn't possibly know.

Hey folks, its not the late 60's and early 70's anymore. You can stop hating on the military. Thank you.

Semper Fi.

i like your presumptions about us not knowing what we're talking about.

We know it's not the 60/70's, and most of us aren't "hating on" the military.

Take your generalizations elsewhere.

Thank you.

I don't hate the military persay. I hate the idea of people not thinking for themselves. I also hate how people think that military force will solve everything. And for those who keep quoting stuff about violence here's some to consider:

"An eye for an eye makes the world blind." Ghandi

"Violence breeds violence."

And for those who think the US will be powerful forever:

"There's only one way to go once you're on top."

This is totally inaccurate.

Not totally... Better pay ensured a better check-in-ballance in the system.

If I got payed better, would I have likely stayed in? Yes...

I was also one of the ones with my "finger on the button" so-to-say. While many of the ones who stayed were far more likely to indiscriminately follow orders...

The very definition of speaking of someone in the third person. And unecessary, as the subject is present. Shit, now I'm doing it.

Hi Dobbs. :headbang:
Heh heh. Hello, Sinu. Hello, Mirchaz.

Heh heh. Hello, Sinu. Hello, Mirchaz.

Sure-leave me out. I'll just keep sitting here by myself, reading and yawning...

Heh heh. Hello, Sinu. Hello, Mirchaz.

Howdy :D

Sure-leave me out. I'll just keep sitting here by myself, reading and yawning...
Oops.

Oops.
He's just feeling sorry for himself because no one has turned this thread into an orgy yet (the only subject that doesn't make him yawn) :D

He's just feeling sorry for himself because no one has turned this thread into an orgy yet (the only subject that doesn't make him yawn) :D

Now you're talking!!!
Turn around,Sin,I've got a use for you- Besides-you aint got nothin better to do and I'm bored...

And I
Never
feel sorry
for myself...

Besides-you aint got nothin better to do and I'm bored...

It's like a line from the Pulp tune, 'Common People', or something...(ouch, my head)

Yes, I also feverently hope my house never catches fire.

But I suspect you were speaking of soldiers?

I still fail to see how those who choose the military as a career should be afforded any more respect than firefighters. Or cops.

Having been both a soldier and a cop I can tell you that most that choose the military do not do so as a career choice, but out of a personal obligation to protect and defend ones society. One chooses to be a cop with the same public service in mind, but as a career, with a very reasonable expectation of going home at the end of every day. There is a huge difference in the degree of sacrifice, risk and reward between the two. The law enforcement officer supports the society that the soldier enabled them to have, and protects them from each other. The soldier protects their right to even exist.
Without the soldier, your society would be invaded and you would be subjugated to serve whom ever it was that conquered you. For this very reason I believe that a greater degree of honor should be afforded to those that put the welfare of their fellow countrymen ahead of their own survival. It is actually a very very small price to pay for what you get in return.

Now, feel free to dismiss this as patriotic garbage as I am sure you will, however, please remember these words should you ever find yourself in such a grave situation that a cop simply can't do the job, because the bad guy is in tanks.

Liverbreath']Now, feel free to dismiss this as patriotic garbage as I am sure you will, however, please remember these words should you ever find yourself in such a grave situation that a cop simply can't do the job, because the bad guy is in tanks.
What if the 'bad guy' is in a suit and tie instead of a tank?

It's like a line from the Pulp tune, 'Common People', or something...(ouch, my head)


"Its So Easy"-Guns N Roses