NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: I have always thought that an all-volunteer force was a good idea. After having seen the differences between soldiers who want to be there as opposed to those who would rather be virtually anywhere else, I concluded that I would rather have the former at my back. There is, however, a downside of having the burden of citizenship carried by only a few, as this article seems to illustrate. Personally, there are times when I think that only those who serve should be allowed to vote, although I realize that's a totally unrealistic idea. Please read this article and let me know what you think.


Society marked by reality of war (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


January 2, 2006
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Nearly 1 million members of the U.S. armed forces have been deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other danger zones since the September 11 terror attacks, a figure that has implications both for the military and society at large, analysts say.
For the first time in 30 years, a significant portion of society will have seen the misery and violence of war for an extended period.
"The only silver lining you can find in these numbers is that, for a generation to come, America will have many, many adults who understand the reality of what war is all about," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
"Today hundreds of thousands of soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors are seeing war up close. They will carry that knowledge into the future as they return to the United States."
But not everyone. During Vietnam, more Americans knew someone who served, and someone who died. The post-September 11 wars are far less a part of the mainstream American experience, says Charles C. Moskos, a Northwestern University professor who researches the military and society.
"It's not a generational experience," he said.
More than 3.4 million people, including draftees, served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. More than 58,000 died. About 700,000 Americans served in the Persian Gulf during the 1991 war with Iraq, but many came home quickly after the liberation of Kuwait. Of those, 382 died.
Since September 11, 2001, military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan combined are close to 1,500.
Today's military is billed an all-volunteer, professional force, though tens of thousands of members of the National Guard and reserves are serving in Iraq. [ NOTE: All of whom are also volunteers, btw! ]
"The reality is you will have had a group of Americans who bore almost all of the burden of citizenship," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "For most Americans it is being fought by other families' sons and daughters, who are both out of sight and often out of mind."
He described the situation as "a society which pays a fraction of its population to take all the real risks of citizenship."
The press can tell only so much of their story to the rest of the country.
"I don't think you have much information as to what it means to spend six months in a combat zone. You can't easily communicate what it means to come back with serious and debilitating wounds and have to live with the aftermath," Mr. Cordesman said. More than 10,000 U.S. service members have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The demographics of the soldiers have changed since earlier wars. More women are going to war. More young men and women are leaving spouses and children at home.
"Going overseas [for a married soldier] is going to be more traumatic than it would be for a single soldier," Mr. Moskos said.
Still, he said, "the social background of the troops is basically the same. These are solid, working-class men and women. They are not in any sense the bottom of the barrel, but they are not the children of the privileged, either."
Another difference: The troops overseas are not interacting with the indigenous cultures the way they have in the past. Americans saw most of the world during World War II; GIs walked around Saigon during the Vietnam War. Most of Baghdad today is too dangerous. Even allied countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan minimize any U.S. presence for fear of angering the public.

It's been proven that the more conscripts you have in your modern armed forces, the more they suck.

That said, the future of modern armed forces is fewer soldiers. With higher tech stuff. So you'll have to pay them more.

This isn't the days of "every able bodied man" picking up a musket and reporting to the village square.

I'd much rather have people who signed up for it, having signed up for it myself before.

Personally, there are times when I think that only those who serve should be allowed to vote,
*sigh* Yeah - we don't want those pesky disabled people voting.

COMMENTARY: I have always thought that an all-volunteer force was a good idea. After having seen the differences between soldiers who want to be there as opposed to those who would rather be virtually anywhere else, I concluded that I would rather have the former at my back. There is, however, a downside of having the burden of citizenship carried by only a few, as this article seems to illustrate. Personally, there are times when I think that only those who serve should be allowed to vote, although I realize that's a totally unrealistic idea. Please read this article and let me know what you think.


Society marked by reality of war (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


January 2, 2006
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Nearly 1 million members of the U.S. armed forces have been deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other danger zones since the September 11 terror attacks, a figure that has implications both for the military and society at large, analysts say.
For the first time in 30 years, a significant portion of society will have seen the misery and violence of war for an extended period.
"The only silver lining you can find in these numbers is that, for a generation to come, America will have many, many adults who understand the reality of what war is all about," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
"Today hundreds of thousands of soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors are seeing war up close. They will carry that knowledge into the future as they return to the United States."
But not everyone. During Vietnam, more Americans knew someone who served, and someone who died. The post-September 11 wars are far less a part of the mainstream American experience, says Charles C. Moskos, a Northwestern University professor who researches the military and society.
"It's not a generational experience," he said.
More than 3.4 million people, including draftees, served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. More than 58,000 died. About 700,000 Americans served in the Persian Gulf during the 1991 war with Iraq, but many came home quickly after the liberation of Kuwait. Of those, 382 died.
Since September 11, 2001, military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan combined are close to 1,500.
Today's military is billed an all-volunteer, professional force, though tens of thousands of members of the National Guard and reserves are serving in Iraq. [ NOTE: All of whom are also volunteers, btw! ]
"The reality is you will have had a group of Americans who bore almost all of the burden of citizenship," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "For most Americans it is being fought by other families' sons and daughters, who are both out of sight and often out of mind."
He described the situation as "a society which pays a fraction of its population to take all the real risks of citizenship."
The press can tell only so much of their story to the rest of the country.
"I don't think you have much information as to what it means to spend six months in a combat zone. You can't easily communicate what it means to come back with serious and debilitating wounds and have to live with the aftermath," Mr. Cordesman said. More than 10,000 U.S. service members have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The demographics of the soldiers have changed since earlier wars. More women are going to war. More young men and women are leaving spouses and children at home.
"Going overseas [for a married soldier] is going to be more traumatic than it would be for a single soldier," Mr. Moskos said.
Still, he said, "the social background of the troops is basically the same. These are solid, working-class men and women. They are not in any sense the bottom of the barrel, but they are not the children of the privileged, either."
Another difference: The troops overseas are not interacting with the indigenous cultures the way they have in the past. Americans saw most of the world during World War II; GIs walked around Saigon during the Vietnam War. Most of Baghdad today is too dangerous. Even allied countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan minimize any U.S. presence for fear of angering the public.
Personally, there are times when I think that only those who serve should be allowed to vote

Thank god that the people that designed our country and election procedures were smarter then that

Un-realistic is right (again thank god)

*sigh* Yeah - we don't want those pesky disabled people voting.
I'm disabled. :p

I'm disabled. :p
I think he meant those that are disabled pre-service thus not eligible to serve

Personally, there are times when I think that only those who serve should be allowed to vote,
Nothing better than only allowing the people who, in the majority, beleive whatever the Republican governments have done is a-ok and have been trained to believe that and met that belief every day.

I think we should only allow people who could pass a test on American history relating to government, current events, and basic laws should be allowed to vote. You know, informed people.

I think he meant those that are disabled pre-service thus not eligible to serve
In Heinlein's vision of giving the vote to anyone who served, they had provisions for most disabled people to serve (even if only in a rear-area support function).

Obviously, the mentally disabled (severe mental retardation, severe schizophrenia) won't be voting in any case.

In Heinlein's vision of giving the vote to anyone who served, they had provisions for most disabled people to serve (even if only in a rear-area support function).

Obviously, the mentally disabled (severe mental retardation, severe schizophrenia) won't be voting in any case.
For some reason I am not thrilled at requiring that many people to serve. We should not have a need for a millitary that big (if we do I think we should re evaluate our actions)

It seems like such a waste

I compleatly repsect thoes that CHOOSE to serve
and I suport making sure they are being taken care of (health and financialy) but compelling everyone to serve just to get the right to vote I feel would be a horrible Idea

Why limit it to just military service? Police, firemen, EMTs, anyone who takes up a public service job for a set term...

I think he meant those that are disabled pre-service thus not eligible to serve

I think a Starship troopers style of Government would be awesome. Immediate execution of murderers, rapists, and child molesters! However, I'm opposed to the one world government. Just keep it to one continent, mm'kay?

Why limit it to just military service? Police, firemen, EMTs, anyone who takes up a public service job for a set term...
In the end does not all civilian work contribute to the health of the country?
Without civilians you would have no money ... no country... and nothing to fight for.

For some reason I am not thrilled at requiring that many people to serve. We should not have a need for a millitary that big (if we do I think we should re evaluate our actions)

It seems like such a waste

I compleatly repsect thoes that CHOOSE to serve
and I suport making sure they are being taken care of (health and financialy) but compelling everyone to serve just to get the right to vote I feel would be a horrible Idea

Oh, I don't think it should be universal "military" service.

But I do think that some sort of "public" service from age 18 to 20 would be a good idea. You should have to volunteer for military service (draftees and such are proven to suck, regardless of which army we're talking about).

Oh, I don't think it should be universal "military" service.

But I do think that some sort of "public" service from age 18 to 20 would be a good idea. You should have to volunteer for military service (draftees and such are proven to suck, regardless of which army we're talking about).
While I think that encouraging public service would be cool (I am a firefighter myself)It feels wrong hanging someones ability to vote on that act

I think a Starship troopers style of Government would be awesome. Immediate execution of murderers, rapists, and child molesters! However, I'm opposed to the one world government. Just keep it to one continent, mm'kay?
Impossible. A totally militant government with such a superiority complex would basically be required to take over the world.

In the end does not all civilian work contribute to the health of the country?
Without civilians you would have no money ... no country... and nothing to fight for.

Errr... No. Unless you wanted to turn the US into a shareholder democracy of some sort, then that doesn't totally work. Not all people work, not all people do work that is of significant value to the nation. Saying that someone who peddles 5 dollar watches in NYC does work of equal value to say, a brain surgeon is kind of nuts and unless you compensate for the degree of service done, assuming you get a vote for existing as an economic entity can't work.

Universal voting is best justified as a natural right.

While I think that encouraging public service would be cool (I am a firefighter myself)It feels wrong hanging someones ability to vote on that act
Alternatively, I would be ok with an extra tax for the rest of your life (say, a total of 1 million dollars, paid over your lifetime).

It's a demonstration of your support for the system. If you don't support the system, either through being monetarily successful, or serving, then you shouldn't be allowed in on the decisionmaking.

Impossible. A totally militant government with such a superiority complex would basically be required to take over the world.
I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, provided the society was still democratic in principle.

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, provided the society was still democratic in principle.
"In principle" is a magical bullshit term.

"In principle" is a magical bullshit term.

So is 'fair government' but you have to work with what you have.

"In principle" is a magical bullshit term.
Whatever.

I strongly suspect that there is never going to be peace unless it's enforced. All things being equal, I would rather see peace enforced by a democratic society than any other. The only people I have ever met who support a democratic form of government and who also have the courage and chutzpa to lay down the law to the degree necessary to force warring parties to the negotiating table are military types. So either we voluntarily elect former military personnel to public office or we prohibit non-veterans from running.

I think they still have National Service (Wehrdienst) in Germany, or - for pacifists, or people who don't want to do it for whatever reason - Zivildienst (Community Service).

I have to say I disagree with you. I'd hate to judge you, of course, but I can't help but wonder what makes people want to join the army. A friend of mine recently dropped out of college and is joining up in April. It makes me sad more than anything else, and certainly not proud. I was against the war in Iraq for various reasons, and I tend to be more concerned about the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians than the handful of soldiers who have died, often due to incompetence (ie "friendly fire" and the like). That's not to say I don't respect many soldiers as individuals, and I wish this waste wasn't necessary. Anyway, that's enough of me. Hope I haven't caused any offence, that was far from my intention.

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, provided the society was still democratic in principle.

I see it as a bad thing since people who generally wanted to take over the world left it littered with corpses before they were pulled down. Not to mention that people with such tendencies tended to become dictators or declare themselves emperors anyway.

I think they still have National Service (Wehrdienst) in Germany, or - for pacifists, or people who don't want to do it for whatever reason - Zivildienst (Community Service).

I have to say I disagree with you. I'd hate to judge you, of course, but I can't help but wonder what makes people want to join the army. A friend of mine recently dropped out of college and is joining up in April. It makes me sad more than anything else, and certainly not proud. I was against the war in Iraq for various reasons, and I tend to be more concerned about the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians than the handful of soldiers who have died, often due to incompetence (ie "friendly fire" and the like). That's not to say I don't respect many soldiers as individuals, and I wish this waste wasn't necessary. Anyway, that's enough of me. Hope I haven't caused any offence, that was far from my intention.
None taken.

People join the military for all sorts of reasons. And friendly fire =/= incompetence.

I see it as a bad thing since people who generally wanted to take over the world left it littered with corpses before they were pulled down. Not to mention that people with such tendencies tended to become dictators or declare themselves emperors anyway.
Who said anything about "people who ... wanted to take over the world?"

Alternatively, I would be ok with an extra tax for the rest of your life (say, a total of 1 million dollars, paid over your lifetime).

It's a demonstration of your support for the system. If you don't support the system, either through being monetarily successful, or serving, then you shouldn't be allowed in on the decisionmaking.
Why? even without the tax you still rely on the system and need , you should have some say.

Who said anything about "people who ... wanted to take over the world?"

The one world government thing comes pretty close don't you think?

As I understand it, in a democratic system, your duty as a citizen doesn't extend beyond following the laws laid down by the legitimate, democratically elected government (which includes paying tax). If military service were obligatory, you would have a duty to do it; while it remains voluntary there is no such duty, and therefore people shouldn't be penalised for failing to volunteer.

Alternatively, I would be ok with an extra tax for the rest of your life (say, a total of 1 million dollars, paid over your lifetime).

Seeing as how the average person doesn't earn half of that over their life, that would limit voting to the military and the rich.

Now what does both those group overwhelmingly vote for?

Seeing as how the average person doesn't earn half of that over their life, that would limit voting to the military and the rich.

Now what does both those group overwhelmingly vote for?
I am just wondering why it requires an EXTRA tax.

Seeing as how the average person doesn't earn half of that over their life, that would limit voting to the military and the rich.

Now what does both those group overwhelmingly vote for?
Read back in the thread - in my system there's universal service, not universal military service.

Everyone, including the disabled (assuming they're not completely mental) would have a place to serve, even if only changing bedpans in a hospital.

Who said anything about "people who ... wanted to take over the world?"
You're kidding, right?


Impossible. A totally militant government with such a superiority complex would basically be required to take over the world.
I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, provided the society was still democratic in principle.
We can still see what you wrote. You do know that, don't you?

It is a telling flaw in your logic that the only burdon of citizenship in your mind is military service, that he only way a person can earn their place is to kill or fight someone else. Works if you're a Klingon, or perhaps in a fuedal period where you fight for your land-but I would like to believe we have a more civilized and rational, at least to a degree, where my citizenship isn't determined by who I kill and for whom. The very idea smacks of barbarism.

Incedentilly, there was a choice this last election between someone who served and obstensivly someone who didn't, someone who thought national service (in more than just the military) was a good idea and someone who thought the best way to focus a nation in time of crisis was to tell them to shop. We know the choice made by the people beating their chest here-where the rhetoric meets the road there is a seperation of deeds and acts.

Read back in the thread - in my system there's universal service, not universal military service.

Everyone, including the disabled (assuming they're not completely mental) would have a place to serve, even if only changing bedpans in a hospital.
Funny thing is this proposal is starting to sound a little like communist practices of making state jobs and or free labor for the “common good” then applying that to the entire population

Propsed Amendment 28 to the Constitution of the Unitied States of America:

Article I, Section II [2]

Article I, Section II [3}

Article II, Section I [5]

Shall all be amended to include the words: "or who has not voluntarily served in the uniformed armed services of the United States of America for a minimum of three years."

Heh. Very good.

Joking, right?

You're kidding, right?

We can still see what you wrote. You do know that, don't you?

It is a telling flaw in your logic that the only burdon of citizenship in your mind is military service, that he only way a person can earn their place is to kill or fight someone else. Works if you're a Klingon, or perhaps in a fuedal period where you fight for your land-but I would like to believe we have a more civilized and rational, at least to a degree, where my citizenship isn't determined by who I kill and for whom. The very idea smacks of barbarism.

Incedentilly, there was a choice this last election between someone who served and obstensivly someone who didn't, someone who thought national service (in more than just the military) was a good idea and someone who thought the best way to focus a nation in time of crisis was to tell them to shop. We know the choice made by the people beating their chest here-where the rhetoric meets the road there is a seperation of deeds and acts.
There's a vast difference between "taking over the world" and "enforcing peace." Surely you can tell the difference?

As to John "seared-into-my-brain" Kerry, he would have cleared the hurdle of "having served," but not the hurdle of "having any sense as a result."

Propsed Amendment 28 to the Constitution of the Unitied States of America:

Article I, Section II [2]

Article I, Section II [3}

Article II, Section I [5]

Shall all be amended to include the words: "or who has not voluntarily served in the uniformed armed services of the United States of America for a minimum of three years."
The other implication of this is that it requires a government indoctrination, which includes an enforcement of obedience to the comand structure, before people are allowed to vote. This is not an informed elecorate, it is a programed electorate and there for only a mock democracy. Under this system the potential for abuse is high enough to almost be garaunteed.

And again, I remain unconvinced that the only burdon of citizenship is to kill people from other countries.

Propsed Amendment 28 to the Constitution of the Unitied States of America:

Article I, Section II [2]

Article I, Section II [3}

Article II, Section I [5]

Shall all be amended to include the words: "or who has not voluntarily served in the uniformed armed services of the United States of America for a minimum of three years."
The other implication of this is that it requires a government indoctrination, which includes an enforcement of obedience to the comand structure, before people are allowed to vote. This is not an informed elecorate, it is a programed electorate and therefore only a mock democracy. Under this system the potential for abuse is high enough to almost be garaunteed.

And again, I remain unconvinced that the only burdon of citizenship is to kill people from other countries.

Funny thing is this proposal is starting to sound a little like communist practices of making state jobs and or free labor for the “common good” then applying that to the entire population

Just for three years. And I'm pretty sure that some people won't do it.

Just for three years. And I'm pretty sure that some people won't do it.
Thats why I said a little like

Though it surprises the hell out of me coming from someone “right” of center, we tend to hear them label us commie pinko's too often (not saying you yourself)

There's a vast difference between "taking over the world" and "enforcing peace." Surely you can tell the difference?
Let's review then.
required to take over the world.
I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing
Yep, still sounds like taking over the world to me. Oh, but you have good intentions. Yeah, everyone who wants to take over the world thinks it's a good thing for them to be in charge. Remember, Cobra Commander is a kids cartoon chararcter. Not everyone is going to benefit from the same government, and a government too large is too easily disconnected from its people. One can argue that he US is already reaching that point. Star Trek is a nice idea, but....

As to John "seared-into-my-brain" Kerry, he would have cleared the hurdle of "having served," but not the hurdle of "having any sense as a result."
Great, you've deflated your own arguement, we can all move on with our day now...

Thats why I said a little like

Though it surprises the hell out of me coming from someone “right” of center, we tend to hear them label us commie pinko's too often (not saying you yourself)

My pet theory is that, on the basis of "the greater good", all forms of government progress to fascism, and ultimately to dictatorship. Regardless of where they start out on the political spectrum.

My pet theory is that, on the basis of "the greater good", all forms of government progress to fascism, and ultimately to dictatorship. Regardless of where they start out on the political spectrum.
Intresting theory ... I think you may be right
Maybe something wired into how us humans think

I am not in favor of compulsory military service. I am not in favor of compulsory anything. The less people enjoy what they do, the more incompetent their work is, and the more hostility they exude. Right now, the world needs a great deal fewer aggravated idiots with access to heavy artillery. Not more.

I am very much in favor of having a commander-in-chief who has first-hand knowledge of what it's like to serve on active duty in wartime. Maybe then he'd think twice about which conditions call for sending young men and women to fight and die.

On a related tangent, it aggravates me that so few members of Congress have served, or have children who have served. By a wide margin, it is the rural poor who bear the burden of the "War of Terror"... an entirely unjust situation, since neither they nor their kin were ever responsible for stirring up the hornet's nest to begin with.

...Personally, there are times when I think that only those who serve should be allowed to vote...
Although I'm going on a tangen here it seems relevant:
I totally agree with the above quote, I also read later in the thread about all public jobs receiving voting rights - this is also a good point although i think it should be restricted to military, police, and fire services.

The root of my belief is that society (and perhaps quality of living) is way too easy on young people these days. We (I'm 22) have things VERY easy! I live in Australia and I'm very patriotic about my country, this is why I joined the Royal Australian Infantry at 18. There is a severe lack of discipline being handed down by the current parenting population, much more watered down than what my parents or theirs had, coupled with the anti-corporal punishment attitude of the politicaly-correct obsessed government is breeding a generation of lazy, arrogant, disrespectful youths who expect everything on a silver platter while showing no sense of national pride whatsoever.

I believe we should bring back cumpulsory national service to wipe the smugness off todays youths' faces. A year or 2 is all thats needed. They dont even need to serve in a combat core (I'm a true product of the professional soldier concept and it works MUCH better than a conscript fighting force), theres plenty of excellent positions in support roles - heck, most people dont know that in any defense force there is about 8-10 support soldiers for every combat soldier! and these jobs are great, providing you with excellent qualifications in the private sector, I even believe most would continue to pursue a military career once their minimum term was finished because it's such a great lifestyle.
While all good in theory it will never happen :(


I think a Starship troopers style of Government would be awesome..

Now I believe this would be good for some aspects of this style but not for the same reason the author of the quote has:
I propose the idea of being a 2nd class citizen if you dont serve. For example, you dont get to vote, you're only elligible for a limited pension, reduced public health... things like that.

Bah! It'll never happen...

snip

I believe we should bring back cumpulsory national service to wipe the smugness off todays youths' faces.

snip
You want a forced lifestyle just because young people have a perceived latitude towards things

Wow

Not to mention I see plenty of smugness out of those that HAVE served
Somehow I am doubting that service is going to change that fact, though you probably dont care you are just looking for smugness that you agree with

The Reality of War (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance66.html)
I rarely post here but I feel it's neccessary to link to this report.
Not everything can be censored, as much as those with something to hide try.

You want a forced lifestyle just because young people have a perceived latitude towards things

Wow

Not to mention I see plenty of smugness out of those that HAVE served
Somehow I am doubting that service is going to change that fact, though you probably dont care you are just looking for smugness that you agree with

My own pride at having served does not extend so far as to condemn those who have not. There are many honorable service professions (police, nursing, soup kitchens, etc.) that have nothing to do with the military.

I concur with the idea that people are better citizens if they have personal experience of service and sacrifice. They are better human beings in general, and they are MUCH better leaders. That doesn't mean it ought to be compulsory.

Citizenship in the US is based on freedom. Even (and perhaps especially) when we don't agree.

You want a forced lifestyle just because young people have a perceived latitude towards things

Wow

Not to mention I see plenty of smugness out of those that HAVE served
Somehow I am doubting that service is going to change that fact, though you probably dont care you are just looking for smugness that you agree with

True - there is alot of smugness on soldiers' faces - only because we've seen the reality of life: that there are more important things than mp3 players, V8 chevs, and freakin refridgerators with internet access! The reality of life is poverty (im not talkin about Iraq here) - over 60% of the world lives in it! I've been a peacekeeper in East Timor most recently among other places, and when i come back home I feel more distant to civillians I know, even parts of my extended family, because of the petty gripes of their lives: complaining that the supermarket is out of your favourite flavour of soda, for instance. It disgusts me!

My own pride at having served does not extend so far as to condemn those who have not. There are many honorable service professions (police, nursing, soup kitchens, etc.) that have nothing to do with the military.

I concur with the idea that people are better citizens if they have personal experience of service and sacrifice. They are better human beings in general, and they are MUCH better leaders. That doesn't mean it ought to be compulsory.

Citizenship in the US is based on freedom. Even (and perhaps especially) when we don't agree.

Sanity at last.

I was wondering when someone was going to use the "f" word (that's freedom) in it's correct context.

Wouldn't y'all think that freedom would include the right to disagree profoundly with taking up arms, or working for the state? Under any and all circumstances? For what it's worth, I agree with everything that Aurania writes here-I was a nurse for 6 years, I believe in the system of government in my country, and I wouldn't pick up a gun if you paid me (apart from clay pigeon shooting, and I'd still rather play golf:p ).

But to try and argue that because you agree with the system you live in should give you more rights than those who don't isn't too far away from granting privilige on the basis of political party membership.......

snip

But to try and argue that because you agree with the system you live in should give you more rights than those who don't isn't too far away from granting privilige on the basis of political party membership.......
Circle gets the square.

Wouldn't y'all think that freedom would include the right to disagree profoundly with taking up arms, or working for the state? Under any and all circumstances? For what it's worth, I agree with everything that Aurania writes here-I was a nurse for 6 years, I believe in the system of government in my country, and I wouldn't pick up a gun if you paid me (apart from clay pigeon shooting, and I'd still rather play golf:p ).


Fantastic, love it when someone says something that I was struggling to put eloquently, saves me a lot of energy. I completely agree. Thanks.

For some reason I am not thrilled at requiring that many people to serve. We should not have a need for a millitary that big (if we do I think we should re evaluate our actions)

We didn't start this war, it was thrust upon us. The sleeping giant was awakened.

It seems like such a waste

I compleatly repsect thoes that CHOOSE to serve
and I suport making sure they are being taken care of (health and financialy) but compelling everyone to serve just to get the right to vote I feel would be a horrible Idea

l

Although I'm going on a tangen here it seems relevant:
I totally agree with the above quote, I also read later in the thread about all public jobs receiving voting rights - this is also a good point although i think it should be restricted to military, police, and fire services.

The root of my belief is that society (and perhaps quality of living) is way too easy on young people these days. We (I'm 22) have things VERY easy! I live in Australia and I'm very patriotic about my country, this is why I joined the Royal Australian Infantry at 18. There is a severe lack of discipline being handed down by the current parenting population, much more watered down than what my parents or theirs had, coupled with the anti-corporal punishment attitude of the politicaly-correct obsessed government is breeding a generation of lazy, arrogant, disrespectful youths who expect everything on a silver platter while showing no sense of national pride whatsoever.

I believe we should bring back cumpulsory national service to wipe the smugness off todays youths' faces. A year or 2 is all thats needed. They dont even need to serve in a combat core (I'm a true product of the professional soldier concept and it works MUCH better than a conscript fighting force), theres plenty of excellent positions in support roles - heck, most people dont know that in any defense force there is about 8-10 support soldiers for every combat soldier! and these jobs are great, providing you with excellent qualifications in the private sector, I even believe most would continue to pursue a military career once their minimum term was finished because it's such a great lifestyle.
While all good in theory it will never happen :(




Now I believe this would be good for some aspects of this style but not for the same reason the author of the quote has:
I propose the idea of being a 2nd class citizen if you dont serve. For example, you dont get to vote, you're only elligible for a limited pension, reduced public health... things like that.

Bah! It'll never happen...

Thank God....

The Reality of War (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance66.html)
I rarely post here but I feel it's neccessary to link to this report.
Not everything can be censored, as much as those with something to hide try.

So umm...cut and run?

I say........NAY! Finish what we started. A stable government in Iraq goes a LONG way towards a more stable and hadji-free middle east.

I think a Starship troopers style of Government would be awesome. Immediate execution of murderers, rapists, and child molesters! However, I'm opposed to the one world government. Just keep it to one continent, mm'kay?
Tell me, do you really have these views, or are you just a liberal taking the piss out of redneck fascists with this insane parody?

I am not in favor of compulsory military service. I am not in favor of compulsory anything. The less people enjoy what they do, the more incompetent their work is, and the more hostility they exude. Right now, the world needs a great deal fewer aggravated idiots with access to heavy artillery. Not more.

I am very much in favor of having a commander-in-chief who has first-hand knowledge of what it's like to serve on active duty in wartime. Maybe then he'd think twice about which conditions call for sending young men and women to fight and die.

On a related tangent, it aggravates me that so few members of Congress have served, or have children who have served. By a wide margin, it is the rural poor who bear the burden of the "War of Terror"... an entirely unjust situation, since neither they nor their kin were ever responsible for stirring up the hornet's nest to begin with.
TrashCat sez:

As My friend, she who walks through walls (Schrodinger's Cat), tells me, the Heinleinian System is NOT compulsory. People focus too much on the Military aspects of the book. No one is required to serve. That was made quite clear in the animosity between the central character - who chose to Serve - and his parents - vastly wealthy non-voters. You Serve because you wish to participate in upholding the System - and thereby gain the Privelege of participating in controling it.

As I am told, Under RAH:

People not wishing to Serve are not Punished in any real way. They can own property, make Contracts, Get Rich, They just can't vote. Currently, more than half of eligible voters in Western Democracies don't vote anyway. What's the difference?

People in Service have no Vote - it prevents Government Employees from voting their own checkbooks - like they do now.

People who have not Served cannot Run for Office. - How in the hell can you run a government if you have never worked for it?

l
? Ok that does not go with what I was saying but whatever

I was talking about general military standings not a time of emergency

TrashCat sez:

snip

People who have not Served cannot Run for Office. - How in the hell can you run a government if you have never worked for it?
How does digging a ditch for 4 years qualify you any more for running for an office?

I think a Starship troopers style of Government would be awesome. Immediate execution of murderers, rapists, and child molesters!

"A murderer was arrested this morning, tried this afternoon. Execution tonight."

- Yes, it's a sad state off affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law) when suspected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence) murderers, rapists and child molesters utilizes useless and time-consuming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trial) procedures stemming from a quaint (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) and outdated (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentvi) legal system, when we could have immediate executions. They have no decency! :rolleyes:

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, provided the society was still democratic in principle.
A totally militant government, that is still democratic in principle? Yikes! That feels very contradictory. I fail to see how you would make this work and still retain the part about democracy.

Personally, there are times when I think that only those who serve should be allowed to vote, although I realize that's a totally unrealistic idea.

Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy. Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?

I served in the military. I'm proud of my time in the military, I helped to forge me into the man I am today. *munches on a taco*

Civic duty is a valuable and noble characteristic. I think the American culture and history cultivate it. But it takes numerous forms and ot all of them are 'Join the Armed Forces." There are nuerous ways to better your country, humanity and/or the world. I think all are equally noble.

I value my country and I do what I eel is my ciic duty toward it. Afterall, few other countries would let me run around loose and unmonitored. :D

How does digging a ditch for 4 years qualify you any more for running for an office?
It means you weren't a pampered Git for all of your life?

I would never support mandatory military or even government service in order to gain the right to vote. If I thought there was a way to do it fairly and that it couldn't be misused, I would support testing citizens on the history of the country and the make-up of the government before allowing them to vote (the first time, of course), but there's too much that could go wrong there.

First of all, it leads to an "elite" which govern the non-elite. People with pacifistic views (unless they wanted to be firefighters or something) would have no part in their own government, even if they wanted to. Those who would serve the public good in other ways, such as doctors, engineers, etc. would most likely be set back in their education (or would have no place in their own government).

Second of all, it simply isn't freedom, under any guise of the word. The purpose of a democratically based government is that no person should be governed by a government they can have no part in - that they have no representation in. It isn't for people who have served that government - but for all people governed by it.

Finally, the military, in bootcamp and other training, comes dangerously close to brainwashing troops. They have reasons for it, but that's basically what it comes down to. They completely break these men and women down, to build them back up again as soldiers. It might make them good soldiers, but depending on just how impressionable they are, it can also make them less able or willing to make their own political decisions. ((Luckily, it doesn't for most, as most are a bit more strong-willed than that)). Do we want those who control our government to always be those who were trained by it?

Although I'm going on a tangen here it seems relevant:
I totally agree with the above quote, I also read later in the thread about all public jobs receiving voting rights - this is also a good point although i think it should be restricted to military, police, and fire services.

The root of my belief is that society (and perhaps quality of living) is way too easy on young people these days. We (I'm 22) have things VERY easy! I live in Australia and I'm very patriotic about my country, this is why I joined the Royal Australian Infantry at 18. There is a severe lack of discipline being handed down by the current parenting population, much more watered down than what my parents or theirs had, coupled with the anti-corporal punishment attitude of the politicaly-correct obsessed government is breeding a generation of lazy, arrogant, disrespectful youths who expect everything on a silver platter while showing no sense of national pride whatsoever.

I believe we should bring back cumpulsory national service to wipe the smugness off todays youths' faces. A year or 2 is all thats needed. They dont even need to serve in a combat core (I'm a true product of the professional soldier concept and it works MUCH better than a conscript fighting force), theres plenty of excellent positions in support roles - heck, most people dont know that in any defense force there is about 8-10 support soldiers for every combat soldier! and these jobs are great, providing you with excellent qualifications in the private sector, I even believe most would continue to pursue a military career once their minimum term was finished because it's such a great lifestyle.
While all good in theory it will never happen :(




Now I believe this would be good for some aspects of this style but not for the same reason the author of the quote has:
I propose the idea of being a 2nd class citizen if you dont serve. For example, you dont get to vote, you're only elligible for a limited pension, reduced public health... things like that.

Bah! It'll never happen...


Wanna immigrate to the US? I'll throw in 20$ towards the cost. WE could use people like you over here.

Snip
Do we want those who control our government to always be those who were trained by it?
Agreed
Same reason I do not want a test to determine voter competency

Do we really want the government in the business of being able to filter those that elect the next set of officials

Seems very abuse ready

Finally, the military, in bootcamp and other training, comes dangerously close to brainwashing troops. They have reasons for it, but that's basically what it comes down to. They completely break these men and women down, to build them back up again as soldiers. It might make them good soldiers, but depending on just how impressionable they are, it can also make them less able or willing to make their own political decisions. ((Luckily, it doesn't for most, as most are a bit more strong-willed than that)).

When it comes to brainwashing, they don't "come close". They do it, pure and simple. At the end of basic training I would have proudly volunteered to run into the fire of guns, waving an American flag and bellowing the national anthem. Without prodding. Wearing a smile! And I was in the Air Force, who at that time had only a 6-week program, the shortest of the 5 branches.

Have no doubt, they do it. It isn't too hard for me to understand how other people can end up becoming suicide bombers, and to pity them. They're brainwashed. Same principle, different leaders.

(And you'll notice that the leaders never run into gunfire, or blow themselves up, as the case may be. Their sense of duty and/or self-righteous outrage is never THAT strong.)

Do we want those who control our government to always be those who were trained by it?

In a word, yes.

Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in civilian control of the military. However, just like driving a tank or submarine, you must understand the beast in order to maneuver it well. You can't get that kind of education from outside the system. We need to choose leaders whose decisions reflect their commitment to changing the system from within.

In a word, yes.

Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in civilian control of the military. However, just like driving a tank or submarine, you must understand the beast in order to manuver it well. You can't get that kind of education from outside the system. We need to choose leaders whose decisions reflect their commitment to changing the system from within.
What makes you think you get that kind of information needed from within?

I'm getting to the fight a little late and, as usual, it's off its tracks.

Getting back to Eut's original argument about a small portion of society bearing the burden of an all-vol force, I've got a couple questions for him to answer.


Wasn't it common practice for draftees with decent ASVAB scores to go to the recruiter and sign up for another year of service in a non-combat MOS? It seems like that would be even more selective against the folks that couldn't do well on the entry exams.

And students were deferred from the draft. Wasn't it fairly common for them to stay in school as long as they could, thus avoiding their eligiblity? That would also tend to discriminate against drafting the well-to-do. It might also explain this plague of liberalism in colleges.

Even the policies during the Vietnam draft discriminated against having anyone but the less educated serve in the relatively few combat positions that the military required.

A totally militant government, that is still democratic in principle? Yikes! That feels very contradictory. I fail to see how you would make this work and still retain the part about democracy.


Who says the people have to vote for peace? Mind you the very threat of democracy is the ease in which one can influence the people, stir up enough propaganda and the people and their representatives will want a war. It all depends on who can make the most convincing argument.

We'd all like to think that a nation that respects the rights of its people will respect the rights of other nations, but a fair government in no way guarantees 'fair' foreign policy.

What makes you think you get that kind of information needed from within?

Because in any political system, you need buy-in from other members of the system in order to make a change. In order to get that type of an endorsement, you need to understand (a) what the other members want, and (b) how to give it to them. You get that by spending time with them.

And you get more flies with honey than with vinegar, pure and simple. Standing outside a group railing against its injustice and corruption will never cause as much change as someone inside the club standing up and saying, "Fellas, I've given this some thought, and I believe we can make these wonderful gains by tweaking things a bit in this way..." That's the way life is. People will listen to a friend WAY before they'll listen to a sign-waving freak.

The most effective politicians - for better or for worse - are the ones who have been around a long time, are better at building bridges than they are at burning them, AND have plenty of ideas to submit on behalf of their constituency. The very best of those have intimate knowledge of what it feels like to be last in line, to go without, and to give until it hurts.

I say that there should be a "vote tax" equal to about 10% of a persons income, with a possible exception to this being the military (they get almost everything else free anyway) this way no matter how rich you are you're still making a sacrfice so people who actually care will be the ones to decide

I'm getting to the fight a little late and, as usual, it's off its tracks.

Getting back to Eut's original argument about a small portion of society bearing the burden of an all-vol force, I've got a couple questions for him to answer.


Wasn't it common practice for draftees with decent ASVAB scores to go to the recruiter and sign up for another year of service in a non-combat MOS? It seems like that would be even more selective against the folks that couldn't do well on the entry exams.

And students were deferred from the draft. Wasn't it fairly common for them to stay in school as long as they could, thus avoiding their eligiblity? That would also tend to discriminate against drafting the well-to-do. It might also explain this plague of liberalism in colleges.

Even the policies during the Vietnam draft discriminated against having anyone but the less educated serve in the relatively few combat positions that the military required.


The US Army recruiters used to steer smarter people away from the infantry, until the late 1980s, when they did a sudden reversal. It seems that getting candidates for Ranger battalions and Special Forces required a crop of fairly intelligent infantrymen.

As more and more of the infantryman's job becomes higher tech and more complicated, the requirement for some intelligence and education goes up.

Overall, there's a trend towards smaller combat forces, smaller armies, more special forces, more high tech. Even the ground attack aircraft of the future may not have any people riding in them.

In a very strange sense, the ground soldier of the future will only be an elaborate sensor platform, meant to verify and identify targets for larger systems to obliterate.

Because in any political system, you need buy-in from other members of the system in order to make a change. In order to get that type of an endorsement, you need to understand (a) what the other members want, and (b) how to give it to them. You get that by spending time with them.
snip
That works for the civilian side as well ... you give a great example of why civilians (thoughs that have always been) should also have a say in it as well

The goverment serves the people, civilians as well (some would say primarily)

They need to understand what thoes people want and how to give it to them

Who says the people have to vote for peace? Mind you the very threat of democracy is the ease in which one can influence the people, stir up enough propaganda and the people and their representatives will want a war. It all depends on who can make the most convincing argument.

We'd all like to think that a nation that respects the rights of its people will respect the rights of other nations, but a fair government in no way guarantees 'fair' foreign policy.
Here is exactly one of the points Heinlein was trying to make.

Most people only understand Warfare from TV & Video games. People who have lived it, or at the very least spent time learning how messy muddy cold filthy hot bloody painful it can be might think a little harder about sending others into the situation.

The same holds true for working for Government in a non-combat role.
Why do we have such an expensive, inefficient government? Because Government Employees are the single largest Voting Block in the US... Do you think that they, R or D, will actually vote to get rid of the insane numbers of paper-pushers pushing paper past paper-pushers, reduce duplication, redundancy, and life-time jobs for the incompetent?

I say that there should be a "vote tax" equal to about 10% of a persons income, with a possible exception to this being the military (they get almost everything else free anyway)
Why the people are already paying taxes

All you do is ensure that the bottom percentage choose to eat rather then vote
That is hardly justice

Who says the people have to vote for peace? Mind you the very threat of democracy is the ease in which one can influence the people, stir up enough propaganda and the people and their representatives will want a war. It all depends on who can make the most convincing argument.

We'd all like to think that a nation that respects the rights of its people will respect the rights of other nations, but a fair government in no way guarantees 'fair' foreign policy.

We're not talking about foreign policy here, but domestic... A "totally militant government" could not, in my mind, exist and at the same time be a truly democratic government.

And given that you somehow made it work (and I would like to know how you did that!), would a "totally militant government" respect the rights of the people? How could one make sure?

Why the people are already paying taxes

All you do is ensure that the bottom percentage choose to eat rather then vote
That is hardly justice


No representation without taxation!

That works for the civilian side as well ... you give a great example of why civilians (thoughs that have always been) should also have a say in it as well

The goverment serves the people, civilians as well (some would say primarily)

They need to understand what thoes people want and how to give it to them

You're absolutely right. They ought to have a say. And as I said, I am in favor of a civilian-controlled military. Unless there were a pressing reason not to, I would personally choose a civilian who had served in the armed forces over one who had not, as my president. Why? Because he may be leading people off to war, and lives will be at stake, and that experience will be very valuable to the nation (and here lately, the rest of the world as well). I don't want to leave those decisions and that thought process in the hands of someone (an advisor) who gets appointed, which is what generally happens when the president is dealing with an area in which he has little to no experience or expertise. I don't want something of that magnitude to be delegated. It's unacceptable to me.

At the core, civilians DO have the final say... if they vote, that is. ;)

Why the people are already paying taxes

All you do is ensure that the bottom percentage choose to eat rather then vote
That is hardly justice


You are right but there must me something at stake or alot of uniformed idiots that just don't care (I probably fall under this category) get to choose. I guess a certain percentage once a minimum ammount of income has been reached, how dose that sound?

Let's review then.

Yep, still sounds like taking over the world to me. Oh, but you have good intentions. Yeah, everyone who wants to take over the world thinks it's a good thing for them to be in charge. Remember, Cobra Commander is a kids cartoon chararcter. Not everyone is going to benefit from the same government, and a government too large is too easily disconnected from its people. One can argue that he US is already reaching that point. Star Trek is a nice idea, but....

Great, you've deflated your own arguement, we can all move on with our day now...
You're really finding this a challenge, aren't ya. Let me try one ... more ... time!

1. Only those who have served in the military for three or more years would be eligible to vote.

2. No active duty military would be allowed to run for office ( just as now ).

3. No one is suggesting anyone "take over the world."

Can you get your mind around that now that I've broken it down into little bitty baby steps?

Finally, the military, in bootcamp and other training, comes dangerously close to brainwashing troops. They have reasons for it, but that's basically what it comes down to. They completely break these men and women down, to build them back up again as soldiers. It might make them good soldiers, but depending on just how impressionable they are, it can also make them less able or willing to make their own political decisions.
Unadulterated bullshit.

The millitary doesn't "brainwash" anyone. Other than the occasional individual with severe personality problems, the only effect I have ever seen it have is to build an individual's self-discipline, organizational ability and perseverence.

Unadulterated bullshit.

The millitary doesn't "brainwash" anyone. Other than the occasional individual with severe personality problems, the only effect I have ever seen it have is to build an individual's self-discipline, organizational ability and perseverence.

Eut, it's part and parcel of US Liberal theology that people only join the military because they have nowhere else to go, and no one can kill unless they've been brainwashed to do so, and no one would risk their life in a war for any reason unless they had been brainwashed to do so.

No one, for example, would risk life and limb in combat, and kill, in order to save one's fellow soldiers - unless of course, they had been brainwashed.

Whenever people with these beliefs meet actual unbrainwashed soldiers who have been in combat, they are usually left spluttering because their whole view of the universe is turned upside down.

Unadulterated bullshit.

The millitary doesn't "brainwash" anyone. Other than the occasional individual with severe personality problems, the only effect I have ever seen it have is to build an individual's self-discipline, organizational ability and perseverence.

I am a veteran, and I respectfully disagree with your view. The entire point of basic training is to re-train a person's thoughts and actions to be more in line with the desired results (i.e., the qualities one would desire in a soldier). Whether you or I agree with the results, or the values they imply, is irrelevant. That process is the very definition of brainwashing. One set of actions and principles is being deliberately (and in some cases forcibly) replaced by another.

That doesn't mean it might not have good results.

Finally, the military, in bootcamp and other training, comes dangerously close to brainwashing troops. They have reasons for it, but that's basically what it comes down to. They completely break these men and women down, to build them back up again as soldiers. It might make them good soldiers, but depending on just how impressionable they are, it can also make them less able or willing to make their own political decisions.


Unadulterated bullshit.

The millitary doesn't "brainwash" anyone. Other than the occasional individual with severe personality problems, the only effect I have ever seen it have is to build an individual's self-discipline, organizational ability and perseverence.
This is a great example of the difference between 'them that have' and 'them that haven't'. I can't imagine a worse use for basic training that brainwashing troops. That might hold some water in totalitarian regimes, but in the U.S., you absolutely, positively want a soldier or Marine that is willing and able to take charge and apply either common sense or ingenuity, depending on which is needed at the time.

There's not enough time in the day to start preaching politics. Besides, troops are the best BS detectors ever built. They wouldn't stand for it.

Eut, it's part and parcel of US Liberal theology that people only join the military because they have nowhere else to go, and no one can kill unless they've been brainwashed to do so, and no one would risk their life in a war for any reason unless they had been brainwashed to do so.

No one, for example, would risk life and limb in combat, and kill, in order to save one's fellow soldiers - unless of course, they had been brainwashed.

Whenever people with these beliefs meet actual unbrainwashed soldiers who have been in combat, they are usually left spluttering because their whole view of the universe is turned upside down.

I'm a liberal and I don't think this. It's true that some join teh military for education or because they have no other options that they can see, but for others it isn't. Some wish to help their country and some just want to kill people legally no matter what the reason for killing them is (which is the reason you gave right?).

This is a great example of the difference between 'them that have' and 'them that haven't'. I can't imagine a worse use for basic training that brainwashing troops. That might hold some water in totalitarian regimes, but in the U.S., you absolutely, positively want a soldier or Marine that is willing and able to take charge and apply either common sense or ingenuity, depending on which is needed at the time.

There's not enough time in the day to start preaching politics. Besides, troops are the best BS detectors ever built. They wouldn't stand for it.

One of the things that is the hallmark of the US soldier for some time now is the ability to demonstrate and use personal initiative. It's something that is lacking in many militaries, even today.

And it's a huge advantage - you don't get that sort of initiative out of brainwashed people.

I'm a liberal and I don't think this. It's true that some join teh military for education or because they have no other options that they can see, but for others it isn't. Some wish to help their country and some just want to kill people legally no matter what the reason for killing them is (which is the reason you gave right?).
Then you don't buy into the liberal mythology, that's all.

And yes, some people join for the excitement - and in my case, you're right.

1. Wasn't it common practice for draftees with decent ASVAB scores to go to the recruiter and sign up for another year of service in a non-combat MOS? It seems like that would be even more selective against the folks that couldn't do well on the entry exams.

2. And students were deferred from the draft. Wasn't it fairly common for them to stay in school as long as they could, thus avoiding their eligiblity? That would also tend to discriminate against drafting the well-to-do. It might also explain this plague of liberalism in colleges.
1. Yes.

2. Yes again. And you are absolutely correct in saying one result of catering to the spoiled brats was that many of them stayed cloistered in academie and now form the elitists who know oh so much better than we how our lives should be managed and how we should think. IMHO, they're little better than worthless bastards walking over the corpses of good men and women who did their dirty work for them.

Eut, it's part and parcel of US Liberal theology that people only join the military because they have nowhere else to go, and no one can kill unless they've been brainwashed to do so, and no one would risk their life in a war for any reason unless they had been brainwashed to do so.

No one, for example, would risk life and limb in combat, and kill, in order to save one's fellow soldiers - unless of course, they had been brainwashed.

Whenever people with these beliefs meet actual unbrainwashed soldiers who have been in combat, they are usually left spluttering because their whole view of the universe is turned upside down.
I totally agree ... totally, that is. :)

... some just want to kill people legally no matter what the reason for killing them is (which is the reason you gave right?).
I was in the military in one venue or another for over 34 years, and during that entire time, I met one ... count him ... one person who had this attitude.

Then you don't buy into the liberal mythology, that's all.

And yes, some people join for the excitement - and in my case, you're right.


What I think is that YOU are buyign into the anti-liberal propaganda that "it's part and parcel of US Liberal theology that people only join the military because they have nowhere else to go, and no one can kill unless they've been brainwashed to do so, and no one would risk their life in a war for any reason unless they had been brainwashed to do so."

Yes, some may have that view but you are saying it's the way most liberals think, as if liberals dont think for themselves and are unable to see the reality that the world isn't so black and white. Anyone with one eye open can see that some people join the military due to some patriotic duty.

One of the things that is the hallmark of the US soldier for some time now is the ability to demonstrate and use personal initiative. It's something that is lacking in many militaries, even today.

And it's a huge advantage - you don't get that sort of initiative out of brainwashed people.
Correct. And this is becoming even more true as the US military relies increasingly on special operations forces. As a matter of fact, one of the requirements for even getting into the Special Forces is an ability to think and operate independently. Since I first joined, back in 1965, every officer in the US Army has been rated on his or her performance report on several important dimensions, one of which is "Initiative."

IMHO, they're little better than worthless bastards walking over the corpses of good men and women who did their dirty work for them.

Mostly the rich, influential, and well-educated, I agree. The poor marched obediently off to die.

I believe real conscientious objection should be respected unless US soil is being attacked, especially when the objection is for religious reasons. Besides, there are plenty of vital non-combat jobs in all 5 branches.

Cowardice in the face of a duty that ought to be shared by ALL Americans, however, is not respectable. Even when the duty is one with which you do not personally agree. All the more reason to choose a president carefully, IMO.

1. Only those who have served in the military for three or more years would be eligible to vote.

Because it guarantees the best government when only veterans (http://static.flickr.com/11/11568277_dbea2b3916_m.jpg) may vote, and it keeps out those who aren't fit (http://zagrebsummit.yoga-in-daily-life.hr/download/Gandhi1.jpg) for office (http://www.worth1000.com/web/media/99084/mr%20reagan.jpg). ;)

I'm glad I don't live in that kind of a meritocracy...

You're absolutely right. They ought to have a say. And as I said, I am in favor of a civilian-controlled military. Unless there were a pressing reason not to, I would personally choose a civilian who had served in the armed forces over one who had not, as my president. Why? Because he may be leading people off to war, and lives will be at stake, and that experience will be very valuable to the nation (and here lately, the rest of the world as well). I don't want to leave those decisions and that thought process in the hands of someone (an advisor) who gets appointed, which is what generally happens when the president is dealing with an area in which he has little to no experience or expertise. I don't want something of that magnitude to be delegated. It's unacceptable to me.

At the core, civilians DO have the final say... if they vote, that is. ;)
While I can understand a personall prefference and I respect your right to think that one with military experience would be better

I find it hardly the right step to codify that in law

Unadulterated bullshit.

The millitary doesn't "brainwash" anyone. Other than the occasional individual with severe personality problems, the only effect I have ever seen it have is to build an individual's self-discipline, organizational ability and perseverence.
Not to mention unquestioning loyalty..

You are right but there must me something at stake or alot of uniformed idiots that just don't care (I probably fall under this category) get to choose. I guess a certain percentage once a minimum ammount of income has been reached, how dose that sound?
Nope ... there is a reason sufferage was moved beyond just landowners

changing landowners to moneyowners is hardly what we were going for.
The government in part exists to protect the rights of ALL of their constituants as such they should have the ability to vote to help their situation as they see fit

Not to mention unquestioning loyalty..
I guess that's why I received explicit training in questioning orders.

I guess that's why they assigned me to watch a van full of officers while they went about their duties with nuclear missiles.

I guess that's why my orders were to shoot anyone doing anything outside the bounds of permitted activity (especially illegal orders) with little or no warning, and why I was taught to say (in a room full of officers that technically outranked me), "In the absence of competent authority I assume command".

I am a veteran, and I respectfully disagree with your view. The entire point of basic training is to re-train a person's thoughts and actions to be more in line with the desired results (i.e., the qualities one would desire in a soldier). Whether you or I agree with the results, or the values they imply, is irrelevant. That process is the very definition of brainwashing. One set of actions and principles is being deliberately (and in some cases forcibly) replaced by another.

That doesn't mean it might not have good results.
Exactly ... people choose to undertake this in order to do what they feel right
(protect the country)

But restricting the rights of thoes that dont do this no longer makes that a choice then it becomes forced indoctronation

It may be what we need for the millitary but it may not be what we need as a whole country

I guess that's why I received explicit training in questioning orders.

I guess that's why they assigned me to watch a van full of officers while they went about their duties with nuclear missiles.

I guess that's why my orders were to shoot anyone doing anything outside the bounds of permitted activity (especially illegal orders) with little or no warning, and why I was taught to say (in a room full of officers that technically outranked me), "In the absence of competent authority I assume command".
In all your examples you WERE following orders ... even when your orders were to question orders

Of one sort or another YOU were just obeying orders

While I can understand a personall prefference and I respect your right to think that one with military experience would be better

I find it hardly the right step to codify that in law

I agree. Bad idea. I disagree with laws preventing non-vets from becoming president just as much as I disagree with Eutrusca's idea that only vets should vote. My preferences for vets in office are just that. I value my own freedom too much to try to infringe on yours. :)

I guess that's why my orders were to shoot anyone doing anything outside the bounds of permitted activity (especially illegal orders) with little or no warning, and why I was taught to say (in a room full of officers that technically outranked me), "In the absence of competent authority I assume command".
That must be an Army thing. In the sea services, the senior line officer is always in command.

In all your examples you WERE following orders ... even when your orders were to question orders

Of one sort or another YOU were just obeying orders

I spent a lot of time questioning orders as a result. Probably far more than most people would.

In situations other than the one mentioned, I had a habit of deliberately disobeying direct orders - and I got away with it most of the time.

Including orders to shoot someone (when I felt it wasn't justified under the circumstances).

I was taught to say (in a room full of officers that technically outranked me), "In the absence of competent authority I assume command".
Funny. I did that once. I was running a Range when I got to tell BG where he could get off because his orders were foolish, illegal, and endangering the lives of the troops on my range... oh, I was an SP4 at the time.

Of course, he went ballistic, tried to have me arrested, tried to get me for insubordination, etc. but it was my signature on the bottom line for the Range and I could (at the time) quote Para and Sub Para for every Reg he wanted me to ignore.

He lost, I got an ARCOM. Go figure. :p

I guess that's why my orders were to shoot anyone doing anything outside the bounds of permitted activity (especially illegal orders) with little or no warning,
That sure proved me wrong. :rolleyes:

I agree. Bad idea. I disagree with laws preventing non-vets from becoming president just as much as I disagree with Eutrusca's idea that only vets should vote. My preferences for vets in office are just that. I value my own freedom too much to try to infringe on yours. :)
Exactly we see things different but I agree on you about this

That must be an Army thing. In the sea services, the senior line officer is always in command.
In Pershing (tactical nuclear missile), I was assigned to guard both nuclear warheads (in transit and storage) and the activities of the launch crew.

The launch crew consisted of officers and NCOs. People in my position were E-4.

We went to the same launch training, etc., in order to know exactly what was valid and what was invalid - from any technical activity to any activity concerning the action message. There was also quite a bit of psychological screening.

If an improper activity occurred, and no other officers present moved to stop the action (such as an illegal order to fire, or attempt to bypass PAL, or sabotage the weapon in any way), we were to shoot first and then declare the entire present command structure incompetent. Considering how fast I could draw and fire and hit someone multiple times, this would probably be less than a second for someone else in the room to react.

My orders were then to hold the people present under arrest, and get on the radio to call for help.

Unadulterated bullshit.

The millitary doesn't "brainwash" anyone. Other than the occasional individual with severe personality problems, the only effect I have ever seen it have is to build an individual's self-discipline, organizational ability and perseverence.

I never said the military does brainwash anyone. I said that they use tactics that fall rather close. Are you going to suggest that the military does not break down the self-esteem of men and women, only to build it back up again on their terms? That would be news to every soldier I've ever met who went though boot camp.

I never said the military does brainwash anyone. I said that they use tactics that fall rather close. Are you going to suggest that the military does not break down the self-esteem of men and women, only to build it back up again on their terms? That would be news to every soldier I've ever met who went though boot camp.

Been through boot camp - US Army infantry basic - Georgia School for Wayward Boys, Summer 1987.

No, they didn't break down our self-esteem at all.

In Pershing (tactical nuclear missile), I was assigned to guard both nuclear warheads (in transit and storage) and the activities of the launch crew.

The launch crew consisted of officers and NCOs. People in my position were E-4.

We went to the same launch training, etc., in order to know exactly what was valid and what was invalid - from any technical activity to any activity concerning the action message. There was also quite a bit of psychological screening.

If an improper activity occurred, and no other officers present moved to stop the action (such as an illegal order to fire, or attempt to bypass PAL, or sabotage the weapon in any way), we were to shoot first and then declare the entire present command structure incompetent. Considering how fast I could draw and fire and hit someone multiple times, this would probably be less than a second for someone else in the room to react.

My orders were then to hold the people present under arrest, and get on the radio to call for help.
Heh. You should try working on an ADM team sometime... no launch-codes necessary to make the big boom. :D

Eut, it's part and parcel of US Liberal theology that people only join the military because they have nowhere else to go, and no one can kill unless they've been brainwashed to do so, and no one would risk their life in a war for any reason unless they had been brainwashed to do so.

Well, although I've never met anyone who says any of this, I guess it's a good thing I'm not a liberal.

Many people join the military out of a sense of patriotism or duty - a wish to protect others. Some join in order to get the educational benefits. Some join because they aren't sure what to do and this gives them something to do while figuring out their lives. Some join because it seems the best way for them to go monetarily. Some join because their parents and parents' parents and parents' parents' parents were all military. Some join because they have always wanted to be a pilot/sailor/etc./etc.

As for killing - we all have the capacity to kill. Given the right situation, just about any human being would kill another. Most human beings won't do so lightly, nor will they enjoy it. Those that do probably fall along the psychopath or sociopath line (or over it).

No one, for example, would risk life and limb in combat, and kill, in order to save one's fellow soldiers - unless of course, they had been brainwashed.

I actually think that risking one's life for others is an incredibly noble thing. I would hope we would all do it, in some capacity or other.

Whenever people with these beliefs meet actual unbrainwashed soldiers who have been in combat, they are usually left spluttering because their whole view of the universe is turned upside down.

I have met many soldiers, some brainwashed, most not. Like I said, it is only those who are very open to suggestion that end up being "grunts for life" as it were - people who can only follow orders. However, I have met very few soldiers that didn't realize exactly what much of basic training is - a psychological tactic aimed at first breaking down their self-esteem, and then rebuilding it in the form of a soldier.

Originally Posted by Eutrusca
Unadulterated bullshit.

The millitary doesn't "brainwash" anyone. Other than the occasional individual with severe personality problems, the only effect I have ever seen it have is to build an individual's self-discipline, organizational ability and perseverence.


Bullshit.

There is no other way to take some dirty, average yokel off the street, and turn him into a marine, other than to brainwash him.
No one comes into the military fully possessed with a killer instinct.
The military instills that aspect, and develops it.
They break down a persons resistance to losing their individuality, until they arent seen as "people", but "soldiers".

Also, to even suggest that only military, or former military personnell should be allowed to vote, smacks of so much fascism, you should be ashamed, Eut.

Nope ... there is a reason sufferage was moved beyond just landowners

changing landowners to moneyowners is hardly what we were going for.
The government in part exists to protect the rights of ALL of their constituants as such they should have the ability to vote to help their situation as they see fit

I guess I didn't explin myself enough, and I'm slightly changing this from my last post too. There should be a tax but the percentage should be very low (maybe .5%) for people with low income and quite high (possibly up to 30%) for people who make 100 million dollars a year. Even if you don't agree with me on this do you believe that there should be atleast some basic requirement for voting than the geogrphical location of where you were born?

No one comes into the military fully possessed with a killer instinct.

I beg to differ...

Nothing better than only allowing the people who, in the majority, beleive whatever the Republican governments have done is a-ok and have been trained to believe that and met that belief every day.

I think we should only allow people who could pass a test on American history relating to government, current events, and basic laws should be allowed to vote. You know, informed people.

and how may i ask do u define informed... some one who takes a democratic view... i mean where do u draw the line, "wow good job so far, up you supported the war in iraq, you must have not known anything so u dont get to vote" now as stupid as that sounds, ive experianced people with that view point... so basically its this, u get to vote because you live here, aint that grand.

I beg to differ...


eh so do i.... some people do.

I beg to differ...


Beg all you want, you'll still get nothing.

Theres a distinct line between having the basic urges to kill, and fully honed predatory instinct, brought out by rigorous training.

No one comes into the service with that.

Beg all you want, you'll still get nothing.

Theres a distinct line between having the basic urges to kill, and fully honed predatory instinct, brought out by rigorous training.

No one comes into the service with that.
ummm.... that's not what they told me after the psychological testing.

Bullshit.

There is no other way to take some dirty, average yokel off the street, and turn him into a marine, other than to brainwash him.
No one comes into the military fully possessed with a killer instinct.
The military instills that aspect, and develops it.
They break down a persons resistance to losing their individuality, until they arent seen as "people", but "soldiers".

Also, to even suggest that only military, or former military personnell should be allowed to vote, smacks of so much fascism, you should be ashamed, Eut.


hey just cause you ain't got the balls to serve in the military, dont be bashing people. ure not brainwashed, your taught how that working as a group rather than an individual is more effective and can save yourlife. the killerinstinct gets installed through training when you realize that out there its kill or be killed.

Nothing better than only allowing the people who, in the majority, beleive whatever the Republican governments have done is a-ok and have been trained to believe that and met that belief every day.

I think we should only allow people who could pass a test on American history relating to government, current events, and basic laws should be allowed to vote. You know, informed people.

That's only semi-accurate. It is mostly true of combat arms personnel, and a lot of the combat support, but there are a lot of soldiers, sailors, and airmen (very few marines, but I'm sure they exist) who actually think for themselves and are outraged. Most of my friends from my time in the army are in Intel, and don't take to brainwashing very well. The thing about tests is how they would be administered and designed. You have to be careful not to end up with the "literacy tests" the south had for such a long time.

ummm.... that's not what they told me after the psychological testing.

Pish-posh, even if it was true in your case, youre probably a special case, and certainly not the norm, or average, Im guessing.

No one comes into the marines...already a marine.
The basic human urges to kill, given to us by our reptilian sub-brain, everyone has.
Yet, these primal urges to not make us killers,if it did, everyone would be a killer by age ten.
The military takes you, and makes you into an instrument of war....how do they do this?

First, by letting you know you are capable of killing, and then re-inforcing that belief.

Brainwashing.

Why do you suppose that over 70% of people in the armed forces are republican?

hey just cause you ain't got the balls to serve in the military, dont be bashing people. ure not brainwashed, your taught how that working as a group rather than an individual is more effective and can save yourlife. the killerinstinct gets installed through training when you realize that out there its kill or be killed.


Wow.

Youre smart.

I never said the military does brainwash anyone. I said that they use tactics that fall rather close. Are you going to suggest that the military does not break down the self-esteem of men and women, only to build it back up again on their terms? That would be news to every soldier I've ever met who went though boot camp.
I spent the better part of my basic & AIT in just-under Article-15 trouble. When they realized they not only couldn't break me, but that I was determined to have a good time I was required to do pushups whenever I came into Salute Range of any of my unit's Officers or NCOs (same distance, no salute).

I got KP once (on roster)... then was banned from ever doing it again because (having industrial food service experience) made the tray-line actually efficient enough to keep up with the flow of trays. The poor mess sergeant had nothing to yell about.

I taught my Platoon how to do Exhibition D&C simply to annoy our DI - who was having too much fun trying to make us "fail to follow orders" when having us march. (Never seen a man so livid when a bunch of privates performed a perfect Queen Anne... :D )

Brainwash? Maybe some of the glassy eyed sub-morons in my Company (hazards of 13B OSUT :rolleyes: ), but not me.

Pish-posh, even if it was true in your case, youre probably a special case, and certainly not the norm, or average, Im guessing.

No one comes into the marines...already a marine.
The basic human urges to kill, given to us by our reptilian sub-brain, everyone has.
Yet, these primal urges to not make us killers,if it did, everyone would be a killer by age ten.
The military takes you, and makes you into an instrument of war....how do they do this?

First, by letting you know you are capable of killing, and then re-inforcing that belief.

Brainwashing.

Why do you suppose that over 70% of people in the armed forces are republican?


You can take off your tinfoil hat anytime, you know.

I learned to enjoy killing and being a predator because I had been hunting in every legal hunting season since I was age 6 - and in the off seasons I used to track deer to learn their habits for later use in hunting season.

You've obviously watched far too many movies about the nature of killing. May I suggest that you read Hannah Arendt's work on the subject? It doesn't take any special training at all to make someone into a killer.

Pish-posh, even if it was true in your case, youre probably a special case, and certainly not the norm, or average, Im guessing.

No one comes into the marines...already a marine.
The basic human urges to kill, given to us by our reptilian sub-brain, everyone has.
Yet, these primal urges to not make us killers,if it did, everyone would be a killer by age ten.
The military takes you, and makes you into an instrument of war....how do they do this?

First, by letting you know you are capable of killing, and then re-inforcing that belief.

Brainwashing.

Why do you suppose that over 70% of people in the armed forces are republican?

Maybe because they were Republican-leaning beforehand? The military does not brainwash you into voting Republican.

Conscripts that don't want to be there generally suck.

Also contracting Malaria should have been a major offence in Nam.

Because it guarantees the best government when only veterans (http://static.flickr.com/11/11568277_dbea2b3916_m.jpg) may vote, and it keeps out those who aren't fit (http://zagrebsummit.yoga-in-daily-life.hr/download/Gandhi1.jpg) for office (http://www.worth1000.com/web/media/99084/mr%20reagan.jpg). ;)

I'm glad I don't live in that kind of a meritocracy...

As a veteran, I am inclined to agree. It would be nice to live in SOME kind of meritocracy though. You know, one where people held office based on ability. I think China had that once upon a time.

Why do you suppose that over 70% of people in the armed forces are republican?
Because the Democrats tend to be vocally anti-military and are constantly trying to cut the budget (except in their own States... :rolleyes: )?

In Pershing (tactical nuclear missile), I was assigned to guard both nuclear warheads (in transit and storage) and the activities of the launch crew.

I didn't think about nukes. There is another set of rules for those things.

You can take off your tinfoil hat anytime, you know.

I learned to enjoy killing and being a predator because I had been hunting in every legal hunting season since I was age 6 - and in the off seasons I used to track deer to learn their habits for later use in hunting season.

You've obviously watched far too many movies about the nature of killing. May I suggest that you read Hannah Arendt's work on the subject? It doesn't take any special training at all to make someone into a killer.

Hunting deer, and humans are not the same thing, and you know it.

You can stop waving the flag at any time.

Bullshit.
No one comes into the military fully possessed with a killer instinct.


Actually that is not true. Once apon a time, you could either go to jail or the military.

I even read about an ex-gangbanger who is hunting insurgents in Baghdad. His street fighting past was rather useful.

Pish-posh, even if it was true in your case, youre probably a special case, and certainly not the norm, or average, Im guessing.

No one comes into the marines...already a marine.
The basic human urges to kill, given to us by our reptilian sub-brain, everyone has.
Yet, these primal urges to not make us killers,if it did, everyone would be a killer by age ten.
The military takes you, and makes you into an instrument of war....how do they do this?

First, by letting you know you are capable of killing, and then re-inforcing that belief.

Brainwashing.

Why do you suppose that over 70% of people in the armed forces are republican?

Having served in the army, I take offense at using the marine corps as the basis to judge servicemembers. They're called jarheads for a reason you know (No offense to any marines or former marines intended, I know there are a few decent ones out there). That's just as bad as using the air force (AKA chair force)to judge the military. Those two are the extremes on the service scale.

Pish-posh, even if it was true in your case, youre probably a special case, and certainly not the norm, or average, Im guessing.

No one comes into the marines...already a marine.
The basic human urges to kill, given to us by our reptilian sub-brain, everyone has.
Yet, these primal urges to not make us killers,if it did, everyone would be a killer by age ten.
The military takes you, and makes you into an instrument of war....how do they do this?

First, by letting you know you are capable of killing, and then re-inforcing that belief.

Brainwashing.

Why do you suppose that over 70% of people in the armed forces are republican?


how do they make you an instrument of war, easy they tell you that if you take said gun and point it at said person and pull said trigger that youll blow his said head off before he blows yours off, then they teach you that by relying on the guy next to you, both of you might make it home, and then they teach you that to punch here and kick here, youll decapacitate your enemy. its not brainwashing, unless you a one of those dorky kids with glasses who arent fit to be in the military(not sayin thats bad, i mean phyiscally unfit) and think how dare they not let me in, they must have realized im too much of an individual, yeah thats it.

and why are 70% republican, cause theyre not picocommies. ;) no one fully exhibits all the beliefs of theyre political parties let see democrats say TOLERANCE, and obviously you are intolerant of repubs. so there. and just cause your not a republican, doesnt make them idiots, dont just take whats forcefed to you by the far left. or the far right for that matter, im a moderate republican, bush lies i know this, but big whoop, show me one president who HASNT lied to the people and ill show you a fabrication of history

I didn't think about nukes. There is another set of rules for those things.
It struck me as crazy - I didn't volunteer for it.

It looked like they wanted the officers to be extremely paranoid and careful - some unwashed enlisted man with a gun was sitting next to them.

Maybe because they were Republican-leaning beforehand? The military does not brainwash you into voting Republican.


Actually, they do.

Its not blatant, mind you, and its possible that they dont even know theyre doing it, but they do.
They are taught to believe that the President, is practically infallible, and should be supported, particularly since he is thier commander in chief.
God, Mom, and Apple Pie and all that.

20/20 did an excellent story on this not too long ago, it turns out that the american militaries are republican breeding machines.

Having served in the army, I take offense at using the marine corps as the basis to judge servicemembers. They're called jarheads for a reason you know (No offense to any marines or former marines intended, I know there are a few decent ones out there). That's just as bad as using the air force (AKA chair force)to judge the military. Those two are the extremes on the service scale.

well since i wont take offense to the marines i hope you wont take offense to this. A.R.M.Y. Arent Really Marines Yet

Because the Democrats tend to be vocally anti-military and are constantly trying to cut the budget (except in their own States... :rolleyes: )?

Whereas Republicans are just unvocally anti-military. They like to talk big, but most of the military budget goes to civilian defense contractors, leaving actual enlisted servicemembers with very little(notice I said enlisted, officers tend to do quite well financially), and the Department of Veterans Affairs with even less.

Hunting deer, and humans are not the same thing, and you know it.

You can stop waving the flag at any time.

I'm not waving the flag, either. I'm just letting you know why people do what they do in combat.

Studies have shown that the majority of people kill in combat in order to "defend the group". The phenomenon is called "small group dynamics" and the term came from a UK post-WWII military study.

They found that nearly all soldier behavior, from abusing prisoners, killing people, setting fire to houses, etc., came not from training or instruction, but from "small group dynamics" - i.e., you killed to keep your close friends safe, you abused prisoners because their side had wronged your close friends (the UK troops were famous for shooting German prisoners who were even slightly out of uniform), and you burned houses to deny their shelter to the enemies of your close friends.

It has nothing to do with brainwashing.

well since i wont take offense to the marines i hope you wont take offense to this. A.R.M.Y. Arent Really Marines Yet

Of course not, that's friendly interservice barbs..different services, different missions. I expect from marines exactly what I expect out of the combat arms MOSs in the army...I mean, the whole Marine Corps is just a glorified combat arms branch of the Navy ;-)
MARINES = My Ass Really Is Navy Equipment, Sir!

well since i wont take offense to the marines i hope you wont take offense to this. A.R.M.Y. Arent Really Marines Yet
Snerk. My DI left the Marines to be an Army DI... So that sort of negates that bit... ;)

Hunting deer, and humans are not the same thing, and you know it.

You can stop waving the flag at any time.

like hell theyre not, a bullet ripping through a dear has the same effect as a bullet riping through a human. only diference is that the human is smarter and is fighting back. thus coming back to KILL of be KILLED

Snerk. My DI left the Marines to be an Army DI... So that sort of negates that bit... ;)

naw it means he just couldnt cut it, had to regress:p

Actually, they do.

Its not blatant, mind you, and its possible that they dont even know theyre doing it, but they do.
They are taught to believe that the President, is practically infallible, and should be supported, particularly since he is thier commander in chief.
God, Mom, and Apple Pie and all that.

20/20 did an excellent story on this not too long ago, it turns out that the american militaries are republican breeding machines.
Of course they're taught not to question the orders of the President (or any other higher ranking officer)

Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or die.

If your logic holds true than everything will be 'ok' again when a Democrat gets into office...

Of course not, that's friendly interservice barbs..different services, different missions. I expect from marines exactly what I expect out of the combat arms MOSs in the army...I mean, the whole Marine Corps is just a glorified combat arms branch of the Navy ;-)
MARINES = My Ass Really Is Navy Equipment, Sir!


sad but true........sad but true:p

I'm not waving the flag, either. I'm just letting you know why people do what they do in combat.

Studies have shown that the majority of people kill in combat in order to "defend the group". The phenomenon is called "small group dynamics" and the term came from a UK post-WWII military study.

They found that nearly all soldier behavior, from abusing prisoners, killing people, setting fire to houses, etc., came not from training or instruction, but from "small group dynamics" - i.e., you killed to keep your close friends safe, you abused prisoners because their side had wronged your close friends (the UK troops were famous for shooting German prisoners who were even slightly out of uniform), and you burned houses to deny their shelter to the enemies of your close friends.

It has nothing to do with brainwashing.

It most certianly does, and now I suspect you have a limited view of what brainwashing is.

The idea is simple.
You wear down a person mentally, and physically for a time, until they are susceptible to a suggestion, then you re-inforce that suggestion until it becomes truth to the individual.

This doesnt have to involve any kind of brainwashing scene from a bad b movie.

The military constantly reinforces a suggestion to the trainee.
Over and over.
They do this after breaking you down mentally and physically.
Its called "Boot Camp".

As you pointed out, its simply easier to get someone to fall back on that suggestion when moved by group dynamics.
But first you must give the person the basic "programming" to fall back onto.

Of course they're taught not to question the orders of the President (or any other higher ranking officer)

Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or die.

If your logic holds true than everything will be 'ok' again when a Democrat gets into office...


Well, if I were a Democrat, I might believe that.
Im not.

I think things might be better, but its gonna be a long ways from "ok again".

Actually, they do.

Its not blatant, mind you, and its possible that they dont even know theyre doing it, but they do.
They are taught to believe that the President, is practically infallible, and should be supported, particularly since he is thier commander in chief.
God, Mom, and Apple Pie and all that.

20/20 did an excellent story on this not too long ago, it turns out that the american militaries are republican breeding machines.


let me explain the chain of command,
president is at top because hes commander and chief, your chain of command starts with you, your at the bottom and hes at the top,

now someone lower than you has you above him, so your up on the chain of command to that person.

the point of the chain of command is not to ask y, or even understand, if you can thats great, but theyre not asking you to understand theyre asking you to do it, hesitation can get you killed, dont stop to ask questions, just do it and hope you come out okay,

naw it means he just couldnt cut it, had to regress:p
Nah. He just loved being a DI and the Marines wouldn't let him do it any more... They insisted on promoting out of the job so he transferred services at his ETS date.

let me explain the chain of command,
president is at top because hes commander and chief, your chain of command starts with you, your at the bottom and hes at the top,

now someone lower than you has you above him, so your up on the chain of command to that person.

the point of the chain of command is not to ask y, or even understand, if you can thats great, but theyre not asking you to understand theyre asking you to do it, hesitation can get you killed, dont stop to ask questions, just do it and hope you come out okay,

Thanks for explaining what everyone already knew.

Well, if I were a Democrat, I might believe that.
Im not.

I think things might be better, but its gonna be a long ways from "ok again".

I figured as much, most Americans (including me) on NS don't fit very well into the 2-party spectrum, but you were mentioning Republicans so forgive me there.

I started late and only read the first post, but as you were talking about the difference between soldiers that 'want to be there' and those that would want to be 'virtually anywhere else' I must say, I have never heard of any troop that wanted to be there. I'm sure there are a few out there that 'enjoy' it, but those are rare and dangerous people.

Even the volunteer forces don't want to be in war, I'm not sure if you are in the forces or not, but I would have to guess not. Also, for only the people that serve in the war to vote would be a bad idea, as they are trained to serve the president, and they are fed news that only supports the government. Don't try to debate this. Therefore the elections would, for the most part, not be true.

It most certianly does, and now I suspect you have a limited view of what brainwashing is.

The idea is simple.
You wear down a person mentally, and physically for a time, until they are susceptible to a suggestion, then you re-inforce that suggestion until it becomes truth to the individual.

This doesnt have to involve any kind of brainwashing scene from a bad b movie.

The military constantly reinforces a suggestion to the trainee.
Over and over.
They do this after breaking you down mentally and physically.
Its called "Boot Camp".

As you pointed out, its simply easier to get someone to fall back on that suggestion when moved by group dynamics.
But first you must give the person the basic "programming" to fall back onto.


have you ever served in the military, or any military programing for that matter such as NAVY sea cadets (THATS ME!!!!!) or civil air patrol (PUSSIES!!!)

im guessing no because its obvious you have no idea what your talking about, you basing all your argument on an antimilitary newsstation, i mean cbs is so fair and balanced.

It most certianly does, and now I suspect you have a limited view of what brainwashing is.

The idea is simple.
You wear down a person mentally, and physically for a time, until they are susceptible to a suggestion, then you re-inforce that suggestion until it becomes truth to the individual.

This doesnt have to involve any kind of brainwashing scene from a bad b movie.

The military constantly reinforces a suggestion to the trainee.
Over and over.
They do this after breaking you down mentally and physically.
Its called "Boot Camp".

As you pointed out, its simply easier to get someone to fall back on that suggestion when moved by group dynamics.
But first you must give the person the basic "programming" to fall back onto.


Nope - none of the breaking down occurs. Maybe you're unfamilar with the training circular the Army wrote in the early 1980s - you can't do any of the things that you seem to think happen in basic training - more to the point, the letter FORBIDS breaking anyone down in any way.

Can't beat a trainee. Can't force them to take a sand bath. Can't denigrate anything about them. Can't curse or use foul language. All forms of physical abuse (and they enumerated many, just so there would be no question) are forbidden.

They not only wrote this, they forced the drill sergeants to read it to us on our first day - we were encouraged to report violations directly to the commander.

I think you need a better tinfoil hat - either that, or visit Ft. Benning and see for yourself.

Not to mention unquestioning loyalty..
Oh, horseshit! Try joining and actually getting some firsthand experience before you indulge in verbal diarreah.

I figured as much, most Americans (including me) on NS don't fit very well into the 2-party spectrum, but you were mentioning Republicans so forgive me there.


de nada.

Nope - none of the breaking down occurs. Maybe you're unfamilar with the training circular the Army wrote in the early 1980s - you can't do any of the things that you seem to think happen in basic training - more to the point, the letter FORBIDS breaking anyone down in any way.

Can't beat a trainee. Can't force them to take a sand bath. Can't denigrate anything about them. Can't curse or use foul language. All forms of physical abuse (and they enumerated many, just so there would be no question) are forbidden.

They not only wrote this, they forced the drill sergeants to read it to us on our first day - we were encouraged to report violations directly to the commander.

I think you need a better tinfoil hat - either that, or visit Ft. Benning and see for yourself.


I might even add that in basic training that involves a mix of men and women, the US Army has "stress" cards - sort of a "get out of duty for a minute" card when you feel you've been stressed too much.

Yeah, that's really brainwashing.

In all your examples you WERE following orders ... even when your orders were to question orders

Of one sort or another YOU were just obeying orders
Do you have a job? Does your boss ever give you orders? Do you follow them? Then you WERE following orders. DUH!

I started late and only read the first post, but as you were talking about the difference between soldiers that 'want to be there' and those that would want to be 'virtually anywhere else' I must say, I have never heard of any troop that wanted to be there. I'm sure there are a few out there that 'enjoy' it, but those are rare and dangerous people.

Even the volunteer forces don't want to be in war, I'm not sure if you are in the forces or not, but I would have to guess not. Also, for only the people that serve in the war to vote would be a bad idea, as they are trained to serve the president, and they are fed news that only supports the government. Don't try to debate this. Therefore the elections would, for the most part, not be true.

ok here we go again, why do the serve the president because hes the commander and cheif. they teach soldiers to follow his orders in military affairs the president however has no control over theyre civilian life which includes voting for president.

and you are right though no sensible person wants to be in war, war is the most horrible brutal thing in this world. a WWII vet once said theyres nothing good about war, but theyres good in the reason you go to war. theyre not there just to fight a war, but theyre there to fight for something they believe in, something i wish more people had the spine to do.

Nope - none of the breaking down occurs. Maybe you're unfamilar with the training circular the Army wrote in the early 1980s - you can't do any of the things that you seem to think happen in basic training - more to the point, the letter FORBIDS breaking anyone down in any way.

Can't beat a trainee. Can't force them to take a sand bath. Can't denigrate anything about them. Can't curse or use foul language. All forms of physical abuse (and they enumerated many, just so there would be no question) are forbidden.

They not only wrote this, they forced the drill sergeants to read it to us on our first day - we were encouraged to report violations directly to the commander.

I think you need a better tinfoil hat - either that, or visit Ft. Benning and see for yourself.

There is middle ground here...it's not like the choice is between "The military brainwashes people" and "All the military does is build confidence". Both those statements are total bullshit. There are always exceptions, but the constant yelling and pressure is going to break most people down just a little bit. For you to suggest that doesn't is as ludicrous as people suggesting that total brainwashing occurs. (The people who end up "brainwashed" didn't enter the military with enough brains to wash)

Because it guarantees the best government when only veterans (http://static.flickr.com/11/11568277_dbea2b3916_m.jpg) may vote, and it keeps out those who aren't fit (http://zagrebsummit.yoga-in-daily-life.hr/download/Gandhi1.jpg) for office (http://www.worth1000.com/web/media/99084/mr%20reagan.jpg). ;)

I'm glad I don't live in that kind of a meritocracy...
As Cannot think of a name has accused me before: way to "cherry pick."

Nope - none of the breaking down occurs. Maybe you're unfamilar with the training circular the Army wrote in the early 1980s - you can't do any of the things that you seem to think happen in basic training - more to the point, the letter FORBIDS breaking anyone down in any way.

Can't beat a trainee. Can't force them to take a sand bath. Can't denigrate anything about them. Can't curse or use foul language. All forms of physical abuse (and they enumerated many, just so there would be no question) are forbidden.

They not only wrote this, they forced the drill sergeants to read it to us on our first day - we were encouraged to report violations directly to the commander.

I think you need a better tinfoil hat - either that, or visit Ft. Benning and see for yourself.

and frankly, I think your sounding silly.

Take a quick look at SEAL training.
Sleep deprivation.
Forced marches.
being made to sit in near freezing water for hours on end.

The purpose of this is to do what I have described above.

Yet again, you completely misunderstand what "brainwashing" is.

You keep thinking it involves abuse....stop that.
It most certainly doesnt have to.
In fact, abusive tactics often fail, becuase the person willfully becomes more resistant to co-operate.
Then, it becomes torture, and the US military does not torture its recruits.

I might even add that in basic training that involves a mix of men and women, the US Army has "stress" cards - sort of a "get out of duty for a minute" card when you feel you've been stressed too much.

Yeah, that's really brainwashing.


im gonna assume thats sarcasm, the brainwashing part, because if its not, youve got a weak idea of what brainwashing actually takes

Do you have a job? Does your boss ever give you orders? Do you follow them? Then you WERE following orders. DUH!
Right now I run my own busniess for the majority of my income

I might even add that in basic training that involves a mix of men and women, the US Army has "stress" cards - sort of a "get out of duty for a minute" card when you feel you've been stressed too much.

Yeah, that's really brainwashing.

That came into being long after I went through basic, but everyone I talked to about it had the same opinion of that - OMGWTF! Being stressed "too much" is how you get prepared for war. And this is my own personal opinion, but if a basement rat like me can survive the way it was in 1999 (not as brutal as "the good old days" but they still trained you to deal with stress) anybody can.

im curious where dose brainwashing begin? An occasional suggestion? Yelling? significant physical exertion? torture?

I might even add that in basic training that involves a mix of men and women, the US Army has "stress" cards - sort of a "get out of duty for a minute" card when you feel you've been stressed too much.

Yeah, that's really brainwashing.

That came into being long after I went through basic, but everyone I talked to about it had the same opinion of that - OMGWTF! Being stressed "too much" is how you get prepared for war. And this is my own personal opinion, but if a basement rat like me can survive the way it was in 1999 (not as brutal as "the good old days" but they still trained you to deal with stress) anybody can.

im curious where dose brainwashing begin? An occasional suggestion? Yelling? significant physical exertion? torture?

and frankly, I think your sounding silly.

Take a quick look at SEAL training.
Sleep deprivation.
Forced marches.
being made to sit in near freezing water for hours on end.

The purpose of this is to do what I have described above.

Yet again, you completely misunderstand what "brainwashing" is.

You keep thinking it involves abuse....stop that.
It most certainly doesnt have to.
In fact, abusive tactics often fail, becuase the person willfully becomes more resistant to co-operate.
Then, it becomes torture, and the US military does not torture its recruits.

okay
1.seal training is Voluntairy u have to apply for it
2.sleep deprevation teaches you how to function while tired, cause unfortunatly u cant just stand up and call time out for a nap.
3.forced marches, are in every branch of the military. the teach you uniformity, and how to work better as a team. team work is taught to little kids at summer camp through "project adventure" this is basically project adventure on steroids.
4. freezing water is apart of a seals life. 80% of the time seals operations are aquatic. and water out in the middle of the north atlantic ocean in december at night are Fudging COLD! if youve got hypothermia you cant fight the enemy, youll probably take the first bullet. the cold water conditions your body to be able to operate under those circumstances.

Actually, they do.

Its not blatant, mind you, and its possible that they dont even know theyre doing it, but they do.
They are taught to believe that the President, is practically infallible, and should be supported, particularly since he is thier commander in chief.
God, Mom, and Apple Pie and all that.

20/20 did an excellent story on this not too long ago, it turns out that the american militaries are republican breeding machines.
I don't give a shit WHO said it, that's bullshit and anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about the military and half an ounce of sense knows it's bullshit.

Try making sense once in awhile. Who knows? You might actually like it.

That came into being long after I went through basic, but everyone I talked to about it had the same opinion of that - OMGWTF! Being stressed "too much" is how you get prepared for war. And this is my own personal opinion, but if a basement rat like me can survive the way it was in 1999 (not as brutal as "the good old days" but they still trained you to deal with stress) anybody can.

exactly the military is training people to go to war. War is a very stessful nerveracking ordeal. i mean the next seccond you could step on a land mine or sniper fire or ambushed or while your actually in combat could get blown to bits and all that. yet under all this stress you still have to fight back. your taught how to react under these circumstances this will save your life. mind you there are still casuallties in war.

Actually, they do.

Its not blatant, mind you, and its possible that they dont even know theyre doing it, but they do.
They are taught to believe that the President, is practically infallible, and should be supported, particularly since he is thier commander in chief.
God, Mom, and Apple Pie and all that.

20/20 did an excellent story on this not too long ago, it turns out that the american militaries are republican breeding machines.

Oh come on now.

A cyberfriend just rotated out of Iraq. He thinks the shrub is full of shit.

My buddy did two tours in Nam and he never voted for a Republican in his life.

People heading into the military tend to be conservative so they will tend to lean to the Repubs anyway.

Any effort to force people to vote a certain way would be disasterous for the military.

After all the military is supposed to fight for this country; not run it's politics....

and frankly, I think your sounding silly.

Take a quick look at SEAL training.
Sleep deprivation.
Forced marches.
being made to sit in near freezing water for hours on end.

The purpose of this is to do what I have described above.
Sounds more like one of my weekend camping trips when I was growing up in wyoming. Maybe I should have been a SEAL. :rolleyes:

I don't give a shit WHO said it, that's bullshit and anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about the military and half an ounce of sense knows it's bullshit.

Try making sense once in awhile. Who knows? You might actually like it.

etrusca your waisting your fingers. this is a product of far left propaganda. oh well. another life corrupted. and no to all you others out there im not a victim of far right influence. i actually been through all this crap were talking about.

I don't give a shit WHO said it, that's bullshit and anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about the military and half an ounce of sense knows it's bullshit.

Try making sense once in awhile. Who knows? You might actually like it.


Try having an open mind for once, you may discover theres so much more to any story, than just your own opnion.

Meanwhile, Mr Veteran, go vote republican.

Sounds more like one of my weekend camping trips when I was growing up in wyoming. Maybe I should have been a SEAL. :rolleyes:

hell yeah!

Try having an open mind for once, you may discover theres so much more to any story, than just your own opnion.

Meanwhile, Mr Veteran, go vote republican.


i can say the same to you wise guy....

AND OOOOO BIG DISS!! tell the republican to go vote republican OUCH!!!!!

Try having an open mind for once, you may discover theres so much more to any story, than just your own opnion.

Meanwhile, Mr Veteran, go vote republican.

On behalf of a LOT of veterans....HELL NO!

On behalf of a LOT of veterans....HELL NO!


hey theres nothing wrong with voting for a republican. depends on whos the better choice. i mean theres nothing wrong with voting for bush when teh opponent is gore or kerry

and frankly, I think your sounding silly.

Take a quick look at SEAL training.
Sleep deprivation.
Forced marches.
being made to sit in near freezing water for hours on end.

The purpose of this is to do what I have described above.

Yet again, you completely misunderstand what "brainwashing" is.

You keep thinking it involves abuse....stop that.
It most certainly doesnt have to.
In fact, abusive tactics often fail, becuase the person willfully becomes more resistant to co-operate.
Then, it becomes torture, and the US military does not torture its recruits.
Man, you are so wrong that even liberals are agast! The purpose of the sleep deprivation and forced marches, etc. is not to "brainwash" anyone. It's to weed out those who can't take it, in the hope that it will also weed out those who can't take being on a highly dangerous mission under fire.

Oh come on now.

A cyberfriend just rotated out of Iraq. He thinks the shrub is full of shit.

My buddy did two tours in Nam and he never voted for a Republican in his life.

People heading into the military tend to be conservative so they will tend to lean to the Repubs anyway.

Any effort to force people to vote a certain way would be disasterous for the military.

After all the military is supposed to fight for this country; not run it's politics....

Well, dont get me wrong, I, nor 20/20 never implied that the military forces a person to vote any particular way.
They simply reinforce the idea of thier commander in chief, as being the highest athuority in the land, and complete subservience to that man.
Usually, that man has been a republican.
This means, that come relection, the urge is to replace him, with another strong military leader.

So, its not blatant forcing of the voters hand, its more of an instillation of the ideals of who the soldeir will tend to view as a strong leader.
Take Bush for instance, even though his military service was a disgraceful joke, he still made some effort to display that he served.

hey theres nothing wrong with voting for a republican. depends on whos the better choice. i mean theres nothing wrong with voting for bush when teh opponent is gore or kerry

I'll respectfully disagree with you there. I would have voted for McCain(sp?) over Gore or Kerry, but I wouldn't vote for Bush over a trained chimp.

Try having an open mind for once, you may discover theres so much more to any story, than just your own opnion.

Meanwhile, Mr Veteran, go vote republican.
I can't vote in their primary. See if you can figure out why, oh ye of little discernment.

Try getting some actual, you know ... like, real life experience. You may discover that not everyone has mush for brains.

Man, you are so wrong that even liberals are agast! The purpose of the sleep deprivation and forced marches, etc. is not to "brainwash" anyone. It's to weed out those who can't take it, in the hope that it will also weed out those who can't take being on a highly dangerous mission under fire.


eh even if ure a liberal eutrusca you voice alot of conservative beliefs. the real beliefs not the ones that the farleft make up. like how were gay bashers. no were not gaybashers,(well maybe some) were against the sanctity of marriage being destroyed. marriage is a religious institution. most religions state that its between man and women and nothing else. want a civil union go ahead but its not marriage.

hey theres nothing wrong with voting for a republican. depends on whos the better choice. i mean theres nothing wrong with voting for bush when teh opponent is gore or kerry
Aaaa-frakking-men! :D

I'll respectfully disagree with you there. I would have voted for McCain(sp?) over Gore or Kerry, but I wouldn't vote for Bush over a trained chimp.

beauty of america aint it. i respect your right to disagree, but i shall keep my thoughts about it to my self.

Oh, horseshit! Try joining and actually getting some firsthand experience before you indulge in verbal diarreah.

This guy claims to have firsthand experience:


the point of the chain of command is not to ask y, or even understand, if you can thats great, but [theyre not asking you to understand theyre asking you to do it, hesitation can get you killed, dont stop to ask questions, just do it and hope you come out okay,

A cyberfriend just rotated out of Iraq. He thinks the shrub is full of shit.

My buddy did two tours in Nam and he never voted for a Republican in his life.
Is this two different people you're talking about, or just one??? :confused:

eh even if ure a liberal eutrusca you voice alot of conservative beliefs. the real beliefs not the ones that the farleft make up. like how were gay bashers. no were not gaybashers,(well maybe some) were against the sanctity of marriage being destroyed. marriage is a religious institution. most religions state that its between man and women and nothing else. want a civil union go ahead but its not marriage.

Most moderates have a lot of similar beliefs, I think. Government having no place in marriage, pro life but anti-government taking the choice away, freedom to say what you want without being watched as a subversive, etc.

I'll respectfully disagree with you there. I would have voted for McCain(sp?) over Gore or Kerry, but I wouldn't vote for Bush over a trained chimp.

Senator Mckain(i think sp) was my first choice, but he didnt get passed the primary....so ohwell.

Most moderates have a lot of similar beliefs, I think. Government having no place in marriage, pro life but anti-government taking the choice away, freedom to say what you want without being watched as a subversive, etc.


yeah but us conservatives, believe that abortion isnt a right, and we believe that freedom of speech, but it should be allowed for you to be monitered in the event, that your plotting something that would endager the public.

eh even if ure a liberal eutrusca you voice alot of conservative beliefs. the real beliefs not the ones that the farleft make up. like how were gay bashers. no were not gaybashers,(well maybe some) were against the sanctity of marriage being destroyed. marriage is a religious institution. most religions state that its between man and women and nothing else. want a civil union go ahead but its not marriage.
That's why I'm not a republican. I happen to think that anyone wants to marry a member of the same sex, that's their business, not mine. But that's another thread.

I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I happen to be something in between. Which means that I decide for myself what I think on each issue. I just happen to appear to be more "right" when it comes to international relations, the military and America's place in the world.

Man, you are so wrong that even liberals are agast! The purpose of the sleep deprivation and forced marches, etc. is not to "brainwash" anyone. It's to weed out those who can't take it, in the hope that it will also weed out those who can't take being on a highly dangerous mission under fire.


No.

You misunderstand too.

Its mental conditioning,

It simply has the added benefit of weeding out the ones who cannot handle it.

You of all people should understand.

It seems not many people here actually know what "brainwashing" really is, and think that its all entirely bad.
Its simply a way of mentally conditioning an individual, to get a programmed response, either mentally, or physically.

Lets run through this again, and if any of these steps dont make sense, feel free to ask questions.

In adition to physical training, the added effect of prolonged physical activity, sleep deprivation, and prolonged discomfort, is to wear a person down mentally, so that a suggestion can be placed.
This suggestion could simply be..."climb that wall!", or any such motivational effort.
However, the ultimate goal..is to make a soldier out of the recruit.
To strip away the civillian, and replace them with a soldier...a professional warrior.

In this way, undeniably, soldiers are "brainwashed" to rely on the training provided, when the time comes to use it.

This guy claims to have firsthand experience:

never seen battle, but this stuff became evident as i got my ass kicked in field evolutions.(basically paintball with wartime scenarios)

In this way, undeniably, soldiers are "brainwashed" to rely on the training provided, when the time comes to use it.
So then, all training that incorporates a physical element is brainwashing. Got it. :rolleyes:

Whatever.

I strongly suspect that there is never going to be peace unless it's enforced. All things being equal, I would rather see peace enforced by a democratic society than any other. The only people I have ever met who support a democratic form of government and who also have the courage and chutzpa to lay down the law to the degree necessary to force warring parties to the negotiating table are military types. So either we voluntarily elect former military personnel to public office or we prohibit non-veterans from running.

In other words, you'd be all for turning the United States into a feudalistic nation with a ruling samurai warrior class. What's next Forrest? The right to kill anyone who looks at them the wrong way without being held accountable? Ritual suicide for dishonor? Not only are you a Bushevik, you're also getting Junta Happy.

:rolleyes:

No.

You misunderstand too.

Its mental conditioning,

It simply has the added benefit of weeding out the ones who cannot handle it.

You of all people should understand.

It seems not many people here actually know what "brainwashing" really is, and think that its all entirely bad.
Its simply a way of mentally conditioning an individual, to get a programmed response, either mentally, or physically.

Lets run through this again, and if any of these steps dont make sense, feel free to ask questions.

In adition to physical training, the added effect of prolonged physical activity, sleep deprivation, and prolonged discomfort, is to wear a person down mentally, so that a suggestion can be placed.
This suggestion could simply be..."climb that wall!", or any such motivational effort.
However, the ultimate goal..is to make a soldier out of the recruit.
To strip away the civillian, and replace them with a soldier...a professional warrior.

In this way, undeniably, soldiers are "brainwashed" to rely on the training provided, when the time comes to use it.

one STOP IGNORING MY POSTS! IVE BEEN THROUGH SOME PARTS OF SEAL TRAINING! i already explained the purpose. and your idea of a soldier i can tell comes from the movie SOLDIER in which he was taken at birth and made into the perfect soldier. SOLDIERS are both soldiers and civilians. when you get called to duty you stop being a civilian, but once your off duty your a civilian again. the whole purpose is to get you accustumed to following orders during battle and to get you physically and mentally fit for battle. not to turn you into a republican. can you say conspiracy theory GONE NUTS!

No.

You misunderstand too.

Its mental conditioning,

It simply has the added benefit of weeding out the ones who cannot handle it.

You of all people should understand.

It seems not many people here actually know what "brainwashing" really is, and think that its all entirely bad.
Its simply a way of mentally conditioning an individual, to get a programmed response, either mentally, or physically.

Lets run through this again, and if any of these steps dont make sense, feel free to ask questions.

In adition to physical training, the added effect of prolonged physical activity, sleep deprivation, and prolonged discomfort, is to wear a person down mentally, so that a suggestion can be placed.
This suggestion could simply be..."climb that wall!", or any such motivational effort.
However, the ultimate goal..is to make a soldier out of the recruit.
To strip away the civillian, and replace them with a soldier...a professional warrior.

In this way, undeniably, soldiers are "brainwashed" to rely on the training provided, when the time comes to use it.

This is basically what I was saying originally. I wasn't saying that the military abuses anyone or attempts to plant any political ideas. However, the practices used are a form, albeit not what most would think of, close to or equivalent to brainwashing. In the event that only those who had served could vote, the room for abusing this practice would become so large as to be inevitable.

This guy claims to have firsthand experience:
It's considerably more complex than what can be illustrated by that one short statement. The Chain of Command gives the military clear lines of authority so they can respond rapidly to changing events on the battlefield. That's its primary function, but not its only function.

As to taking orders: as I have repeatedly stated on here, the oath everyone entering the US military must take says "obey the lawful orders" of everyone in above me in the chain of command. Note the word "lawful." Every servicemember is expected to understand the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful order, from the lowest private all the way up to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs ( who, BTW, is a Marine and someone I admire greatly - anyone who steadfastly corrects the Secretary of Defense in public when he's wrong has my vote of confidence! ). A servicemember can be Court Martialled for obeying an unlawful order.

one STOP IGNORING MY POSTS! IVE BEEN THROUGH SOME PARTS OF SEAL TRAINING! i already explained the purpose. and your idea of a soldier i can tell comes from the movie SOLDIER in which he was taken at birth and made into the perfect soldier. SOLDIERS are both soldiers and civilians. when you get called to duty you stop being a civilian, but once your off duty your a civilian again. the whole purpose is to get you accustumed to following orders during battle and to get you physically and mentally fit for battle. not to turn you into a republican. can you say conspiracy theory GONE NUTS!
LOL! Easy, big fella! Don't break something over an online forum dispute! :D

In other words, you'd be all for turning the United States into a feudalistic nation with a ruling samurai warrior class. What's next Forrest? The right to kill anyone who looks at them the wrong way without being held accountable? Ritual suicide for dishonor? Not only are you a Bushevik, you're also getting Junta Happy.

:rolleyes:

OMG!!!!!!!!!!! ENOUGH OF THE BUSHEVIK SHIT ALREADY!!!!!!!! God almighty!!!! god forbid anyone have a different view point then you, so any one who has one gets slandered. YOU ARE A PICKO COMMIE YOU CRACK SNIFFING BASTARD!!!! see i can do it to.

So then, all training that incorporates a physical element is brainwashing. Got it. :rolleyes:


Well, in a sense, yes.

Look at martial arts training.
To learn a move, it is shown to the student, and repeated hundreds of times.
This is to develop the move into muscle memory.

This means that when needed, the mind will execute this manuever, without thinking about it.

So, yes, in a sense, it IS brainwashing.

Once again, not all brainwashing, involves changing the beliefs of an individual, through coercion.

LOL! Easy, big fella! Don't break something over an online forum dispute! :D
pisses me of man... ignore the arguments that prove you wrong. SOME PEOPLE!:headbang:

one STOP IGNORING MY POSTS! IVE BEEN THROUGH SOME PARTS OF SEAL TRAINING! i already explained the purpose. and your idea of a soldier i can tell comes from the movie SOLDIER in which he was taken at birth and made into the perfect soldier. SOLDIERS are both soldiers and civilians. when you get called to duty you stop being a civilian, but once your off duty your a civilian again. the whole purpose is to get you accustumed to following orders during battle and to get you physically and mentally fit for battle. not to turn you into a republican. can you say conspiracy theory GONE NUTS!


I'll stop ignoring you, when you have something valuable to contribute, and learn to control yourself.
Untill then, you are to be ignored.

Well, in a sense, yes.

Look at martial arts training.
To learn a move, it is shown to the student, and repeated hundreds of times.
This is to develop the move into muscle memory.

This means that when needed, the mind will execute this manuever, without thinking about it.

So, yes, in a sense, it IS brainwashing.

Once again, not all brainwashing, involves changing the beliefs of an individual, through coercion.


okay so me going to school is brain washing. because im getting told something and am forced to study it because if i dont study it and dont know it when im tested on it, i fail.

same analogy.
im being taught a move. but i never repeat it, so when the time comes i dont know it ....and ......i...DIE!!!!!

one STOP IGNORING MY POSTS! IVE BEEN THROUGH SOME PARTS OF SEAL TRAINING! i already explained the purpose. and your idea of a soldier i can tell comes from the movie SOLDIER in which he was taken at birth and made into the perfect soldier. SOLDIERS are both soldiers and civilians. when you get called to duty you stop being a civilian, but once your off duty your a civilian again. the whole purpose is to get you accustumed to following orders during battle and to get you physically and mentally fit for battle. not to turn you into a republican. can you say conspiracy theory GONE NUTS!
His ideas are a little funny. Except for the short hair and better posture, I'm not sure you could tell the difference between an 18 year old Marine and an 18 year old college freshman in his off-duty time.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!! ENOUGH OF THE BUSHEVIK SHIT ALREADY!!!!!!!! God almighty!!!! god forbid anyone have a different view point then you, so any one who has one gets slandered. YOU ARE A PICKO COMMIE YOU CRACK SNIFFING BASTARD!!!! see i can do it to.
I'd be willing to bet that two seconds after Gauthier read this post, he was busy reporting it to the Mods. Good luck. :)

I'll stop ignoring you, when you have something valuable to contribute, and learn to control yourself.
Untill then, you are to be ignored.
Oh, BROTHER! Talk about someone needing to take their own advice! Sheesh! :rolleyes:

I'll stop ignoring you, when you have something valuable to contribute, and learn to control yourself.
Untill then, you are to be ignored.

oh i see, so because ill my posts have repeatedly explained how what your saying is wrong, theyre not credible. hmm okay.... wish the world worked that way. you failed no i think i passed there for i did.

Well, dont get me wrong, I, nor 20/20 never implied that the military forces a person to vote any particular way.
They simply reinforce the idea of thier commander in chief, as being the highest athuority in the land, and complete subservience to that man.
Usually, that man has been a republican.
This means, that come relection, the urge is to replace him, with another strong military leader.

So, its not blatant forcing of the voters hand, its more of an instillation of the ideals of who the soldeir will tend to view as a strong leader.
Take Bush for instance, even though his military service was a disgraceful joke, he still made some effort to display that he served.

Wellllllllllll

That is not really the case. Let's look at the Marines as one may argue that they are nothing more then brainwashed Jarheads. Take a look at their motto Semper Fidelis(Always faithful) The usual order is "Faithful to god, Country, Family and the Corps." This does not mean unquestioned loyalty to the President in all matters.

The guys in the military are not dumb. They want the best training and the best equipment. They will tend to favor a politician the promises it.

Even in Iraq; if the shrub had say cut the troop levels to 1/2 and slashed funding, the military would not have voted for him......

Oh, BROTHER! Talk about someone needing to take their own advice! Sheesh! :rolleyes:

thanks for backin me up:D

I'd be willing to bet that two seconds after Gauthier read this post, he was busy reporting it to the Mods. Good luck. :)

Nope, not yet. :p

This is basically what I was saying originally. I wasn't saying that the military abuses anyone or attempts to plant any political ideas. However, the practices used are a form, albeit not what most would think of, close to or equivalent to brainwashing. In the event that only those who had served could vote, the room for abusing this practice would become so large as to be inevitable.


Thank you.
At least ONE person understands what Im getting at, instead of thinking Im personally attacking any servicemen who read this.

The tactics Ive described ARE forms of brainwashing, and the military DOES, even if unintentionally, tend to promote voting Republican.

What no one has asked, is if I disagree at all with the tactics they use in training.

His ideas are a little funny. Except for the short hair and better posture, I'm not sure you could tell the difference between an 18 year old Marine and an 18 year old college freshman in his off-duty time.

Bingo! :)

Is this two different people you're talking about, or just one??? :confused:

:D

The greatest writer I am not!

Two people. The Nam solider I have known for awhile. The Iraq soldier I know from the Net. We always talk about meeting but we never do.....

Well, dont get me wrong, I, nor 20/20 never implied that the military forces a person to vote any particular way.
They simply reinforce the idea of thier commander in chief, as being the highest athuority in the land, and complete subservience to that man.
Usually, that man has been a republican.
This means, that come relection, the urge is to replace him, with another strong military leader.

So, its not blatant forcing of the voters hand, its more of an instillation of the ideals of who the soldeir will tend to view as a strong leader.
Take Bush for instance, even though his military service was a disgraceful joke, he still made some effort to display that he served.

wait im sorry. kerry i believe had an incredible service record. 3 purple hearts. damn hes a hero. yet hes sitting on the sentate while bush got 4 more years. hmmmmmm Tell ya something?

Thank you.
At least ONE person understands what Im getting at, instead of thinking Im personally attacking any servicemen who read this.

The tactics Ive described ARE forms of brainwashing, and the military DOES, even if unintentionally, tend to promote voting Republican.

What no one has asked, is if I disagree at all with the tactics they use in training.

we understand what your getting at, were just explaining on how your wrong. but instead of being open minded youve put up defensive shields and started contradicting your own arguments. its obvious you disagree with their methods of training because youve been badmouthing them the whole time.

Oh, BROTHER! Talk about someone needing to take their own advice! Sheesh! :rolleyes:


You constantly dissapoint me.

I was going to compare the two of you, using you as the better comparison.
You also disagree with me, but you havent started ranting and screaming like a child to make your point heard.

This is why I will usually respond to you when you tell me how wrong I am.
Becuase you do it civilly.

In this case, I always take my own advice.

Sometimes you show the wisdom given by age...other times...not so much.
Guess it means your human.

(a MISTAKEN human, but human nontheless.)

YOU ARE A PICKO COMMIE

Wow. I haven't heard those words used as an insult in a long time.

You do realise that a pinko was somebody that mildly supported socialism or communism. Not the same as a commie.....

;)

wait im sorry. kerry i believe had an incredible service record. 3 purple hearts. damn hes a hero. yet hes sitting on the sentate while bush got 4 more years. hmmmmmm Tell ya something?

Yeah, that the two-party system is horrible.

The fact that a man got elected is NO indication about the validity of their party. That goes for anyone and any party.

*ahem*

His point wasn't that Kerry was better than Bush. His point was that even candidates with little military service will bring it up as a positive attribute.

wait im sorry. kerry i believe had an incredible service record. 3 purple hearts. damn hes a hero. yet hes sitting on the sentate while bush got 4 more years. hmmmmmm Tell ya something?

Uhmmm you might want to ask Eut and DK about their viewpoints on Kerry.

Wow. I haven't heard those words used as an insult in a long time.

You do realise that a pinko was somebody that mildly supported socialism or communism. Not the same as a commie.....

;)

yeah i know... it was to prove a point. notice on how he hasnt posted a rebuttle

I'd be willing to bet that two seconds after Gauthier read this post, he was busy reporting it to the Mods. Good luck. :)

he can kiss my furry blue but for ill i care... I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!!!

we understand what your getting at, were just explaining on how your wrong. but instead of being open minded youve put up defensive shields and started contradicting your own arguments. its obvious you disagree with their methods of training because youve been badmouthing them the whole time.


Look, if it will shut you up, and make you act like an adult, I'll respond to you.

Firstly, you are making gross misassumptions about me, and what I believe, exactly like you have been doing since your first post in this thread.
Look back at what you've written, and see if you cant get understand what I mean.

Secondly, you have explained many things that everyone already knows, and thus, was not helpful to a discussion.
Im specifically reffering to your post on chain of command.'


Most importantly, I have never ONCE badmouthed the training provided by the amed service.
In fact, I FAVOR it, even though it is brainwashing, becuase brainwashing is SUCH an effective form of training.
Im happen to be a civillian, and I most assuredly prefer the army to be well fucking trained.

Since you assumed I was bad-mouthing the military, you obviously have not read anythuing I wrote, or if you did, you simply didnt comprehend any of it.
THATS why I have been ignoring you.
THATS why I will continue to do so, from this point on.

we understand what your getting at, were just explaining on how your wrong. but instead of being open minded youve put up defensive shields and started contradicting your own arguments. its obvious you disagree with their methods of training because youve been badmouthing them the whole time.


Look, if it will shut you up, and make you act like an adult, I'll respond to you.

Firstly, you are making gross misassumptions about me, and what I believe, exactly like you have been doing since your first post in this thread.
Look back at what you've written, and see if you cant get understand what I mean.

Secondly, you have explained many things that everyone already knows, and thus, was not helpful to a discussion.
Im specifically reffering to your post on chain of command.'


Most importantly, I have never ONCE badmouthed the training provided by the amed service.
In fact, I FAVOR it, even though it is brainwashing, becuase brainwashing is SUCH an effective form of training.
Im happen to be a civillian, and I most assuredly prefer the army to be well fucking trained.

Since you assumed I was bad-mouthing the military, you obviously have not read anythuing I wrote, or if you did, you simply didnt comprehend any of it.
THATS why I have been ignoring you.
THATS why I will continue to do so, from this point on.

we understand what your getting at, were just explaining on how your wrong. but instead of being open minded youve put up defensive shields and started contradicting your own arguments. its obvious you disagree with their methods of training because youve been badmouthing them the whole time.


Look, if it will shut you up, and make you act like an adult, I'll respond to you.

Firstly, you are making gross misassumptions about me, and what I believe, exactly like you have been doing since your first post in this thread.
Look back at what you've written, and see if you cant get understand what I mean.

Secondly, you have explained many things that everyone already knows, and thus, was not helpful to a discussion.
Im specifically reffering to your post on chain of command.'


Most importantly, I have never ONCE badmouthed the training provided by the amed service.
In fact, I FAVOR it, even though it is brainwashing, becuase brainwashing is SUCH an effective form of training.
Im happen to be a civillian, and I most assuredly prefer the army to be well fucking trained.

Since you assumed I was bad-mouthing the military, you obviously have not read anythuing I wrote, or if you did, you simply didnt comprehend any of it.
THATS why I have been ignoring you.
THATS why I will continue to do so, from this point on.

we understand what your getting at, were just explaining on how your wrong. but instead of being open minded youve put up defensive shields and started contradicting your own arguments. its obvious you disagree with their methods of training because youve been badmouthing them the whole time.


Look, if it will shut you up, and make you act like an adult, I'll respond to you.

Firstly, you are making gross misassumptions about me, and what I believe, exactly like you have been doing since your first post in this thread.
Look back at what you've written, and see if you cant get understand what I mean.

Secondly, you have explained many things that everyone already knows, and thus, was not helpful to a discussion.
Im specifically reffering to your post on chain of command.'


Most importantly, I have never ONCE badmouthed the training provided by the amed service.
In fact, I FAVOR it, even though it is brainwashing, becuase brainwashing is SUCH an effective form of training.
Im happen to be a civillian, and I most assuredly prefer the army to be well fucking trained.

Since you assumed I was bad-mouthing the military, you obviously have not read anythuing I wrote, or if you did, you simply didnt comprehend any of it.
THATS why I have been ignoring you.
THATS why I will continue to do so, from this point on.

I'd be willing to bet that two seconds after Gauthier read this post, he was busy reporting it to the Mods. Good luck. :)

Unlike you Forrest, I'm not the one who can dish it out but can't take and whines to the mods when the itty bitty feeling gets hurt by the mean people on the forum.

A Vietnam Vet who worships the Shrub. Man, and I thought the X-Box 360 was the biggest sellout in history.

:rolleyes:

Thank you.
At least ONE person understands what Im getting at, instead of thinking Im personally attacking any servicemen who read this.

The tactics Ive described ARE forms of brainwashing, and the military DOES, even if unintentionally, tend to promote voting Republican.

What no one has asked, is if I disagree at all with the tactics they use in training.But you see, the term "brainwashing" is a loaded one - i.e. it has a highy negative connotational index.

I'm not sure too many dancers or musicians would consider your assertion that muscle-memory is the result of brainwashing to be at all accurate.

People tend to vote their livelihood. Since the R's tend to (at least) talk a better game to the military, it makes sense that the military tends to vote R. Same goes for GSA. GSA employees know the D's talk a better game (increasing non-military govt spending) than the Rs (uesd to anyway) so GSA types tend to vote D.

Has nothing to do with the training.

Military Training per-se has no impact on voting R, just as Dance School, per-se has no impact on voting D.

he can kiss my furry blue but for ill i care... I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!!!

Keep ranting Junior, Mark Twain hit the nail on the head when he was talking about you.

:D

wait im sorry. kerry i believe had an incredible service record. 3 purple hearts. damn hes a hero. yet hes sitting on the sentate while bush got 4 more years. hmmmmmm Tell ya something?
Yeah. It tells me that three purple hearts you get for doing stupid shit doesn't qualify you to be President.

Everyone physically capable should be required to serve in the military in one form or another for a year or two.

A Vietnam Vet who worships the Shrub.
See, it's statements like this which make me totally disregard what you post.

wait im sorry. kerry i believe had an incredible service record. 3 purple hearts. damn hes a hero. yet hes sitting on the sentate while bush got 4 more years. hmmmmmm Tell ya something?
That incredible service record we're still waiting to see? All a purple heart means is that you didn't duck fast enough or far enough. That's not a hero medal, any more than a Navy Achievement medal is.

I think a Bronze Star is the entry level hero-thing. And the Silver Stars that Kerry 'won' aren't worth the paper that he nominated himself with.

But Kerry is a whole 'nother matter and we'll get to talk him up in another couple years.

Even in Iraq; if the shrub had say cut the troop levels to 1/2 and slashed funding, the military would not have voted for him......
That is exactly why I voted against his dad. And still hate Cheney. I was part of the post-Desert Storm RIF and didn't like it at all.

Unfortunately, I voted for Clinton. I'll always regret that vote.

Fortunately, it was in the State of Florida. They went GHWB in a big way and my absentee ballot was probably never counted.

So, you see, not all Marines vote Republican all the time. In fact, the only Republican I've voted for in a long time has been John "Fair Tax" Linder.

Everyone physically capable should be required to serve in the military in one form or another for a year or two.
I think we would be better served by adding two years to the required education every student gets


Or how about this novel idea ... letting people frigging choose whats best for them

Everyone physically capable should be required to serve in the military in one form or another for a year or two.
Why? I'd think that would turn the military into an inefficient mess.

As Cannot think of a name has accused me before: way to "cherry pick."

Why, thank you. I have learned from the best :p

But still, I hope you saw the point I had hidden so carefully between the lines. :)

Everyone physically capable should be required to serve in the military in one form or another for a year or two.

Sounds good but not really. Nothing worst then a soldier that does not want to be there.

Not everybody is cut out for soldiering.

My family has done it longer then we can remember. Granddad was a great soldier. Fought the Germans in two armies.

My father was a crap soldier.

Military can build character. But you have to have it in the first place.

Sounds good but not really. Nothing worst then a soldier that does not want to be there.

Not everybody is cut out for soldiering.

My family has done it longer then we can remember. Granddad was a great soldier. Fought the Germans in two armies.

My father was a crap soldier.

Military can build character. But you have to have it in the first place.
Lt Dan wanted to die in battle... just like every one of his male ancestors... ;)

Why? I'd think that would turn the military into an inefficient mess.
AGREED! its the MILLITARY not a fucking finishing school

Or how about this novel idea ... letting people frigging choose whats best for them
Agreed. Never said otherwise. I just think it would be interesting ( to say the least ) if we required all candidates for public office at the federal level to have served in the military. As my favorite Vulcan use to say: "Fascinating!" :)

Lt Dan wanted to die in battle... just like every one of his male ancestors... ;)

:D

Funny you mention that. You remember the scene when he was up the mast during the storm, screaming like a mad man, and swearing at God?

My wife looked over at me during the movie and said "Oh my God; that's you!"

Agreed. Never said otherwise. I just think it would be interesting ( to say the least ) if we required all candidates for public office at the federal level to have served in the military. As my favorite Vulcan use to say: "Fascinating!" :)
Yeah while I would not mind some sort of study (if that is even possible in pollitics for a lot of it) I hardly trust my future to "intresting" lol

Agreed. Never said otherwise. I just think it would be interesting ( to say the least ) if we required all candidates for public office at the federal level to have served in the military. As my favorite Vulcan use to say: "Fascinating!" :)

Hmmmm?

Maybe not. Many of the Presidents did serve if you want that as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidents_by_military_service

How many of the Founders served? ;)

Hmmm Ben Franklin didn't serve so was he of little use to this country? :p

Hmmmm?

Maybe not. Many of the Presidents did serve if you want that as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidents_by_military_service

How many of the Founders served? ;)

Hmmm Ben Franklin didn't serve so was he of little use to this country? :p
Unless I miss my guess, the honorable Mr. Franklin was already too old by the time of the Revolution to be of much physical use to the Continental Army.

Unless I miss my guess, the honorable Mr. Franklin was already too old by the time of the Revolution to be of much physical use to the Continental Army.

True but there were other wars before such as the French Indian war.

The overall point is that you can have a great political leader/servant that didn't serve.....

True but there were other words before such as the French Indian war.

The overall point is that you can have a great political leader/servant that didn't serve.....
Exacty ... its not like we are saying that thoes that were in the millitary should not hold office

Just that people can contribute from both in and out of the millitary and there is absolutly no legitimate reson to allow only thoes that have served in public office

Yeah. It tells me that three purple hearts you get for doing stupid shit doesn't qualify you to be President.

what he got em for is regardless(piece of shrapnel that was a fricken pin....) theyre on his record, and all his medals he was "awarded" hes got quite a record..

Look, if it will shut you up, and make you act like an adult, I'll respond to you.

Firstly, you are making gross misassumptions about me, and what I believe, exactly like you have been doing since your first post in this thread.
Look back at what you've written, and see if you cant get understand what I mean.

Secondly, you have explained many things that everyone already knows, and thus, was not helpful to a discussion.
Im specifically reffering to your post on chain of command.'


Most importantly, I have never ONCE badmouthed the training provided by the amed service.
In fact, I FAVOR it, even though it is brainwashing, becuase brainwashing is SUCH an effective form of training.
Im happen to be a civillian, and I most assuredly prefer the army to be well fucking trained.

Since you assumed I was bad-mouthing the military, you obviously have not read anythuing I wrote, or if you did, you simply didnt comprehend any of it.
THATS why I have been ignoring you.
THATS why I will continue to do so, from this point on.


OBVIOUSLY u didnt know about the stuff i was talking about or i woulnd have had to post them and from what most people can gather your idea of brainwashing is a little skewed. with your definition of brainwashing, SCHOOL is brainwashing, so lets get rid of it, sounds good to me.

see where do we draw the line between brainwashing and education?o.O

I wish you'd all just blow it out your backsides instead of indulging in verbal diarrhea.