NationStates Jolt Archive

So I was just curious, how do you perceive the people who serve in the U.S. military? I will not be posting in this topic. It is for civilians only.

Predominately Southern, Middle and Lower Middle class mostly,generally hard-working and otherwise representative of the rest of the population.

As workers of iniquity and prone to human rights abuses, but apparently faggotry is their kryptonite - it undermines their cohesion and disintegrates their morale. So I do my part.

here have a brief dialog:

*Sargent to class talking about the fundamentals of army life*

"and where would we be without discipline?"

*me puts hand up cause I'm that irritating kid*

"chaos?"

"no worse, we'd be the American army"

sums it up nicely:p

They are normal people, with wives and families, or most, especially the National Guard. They are defiantly not baby-killers.

here have a brief dialog:

*Sargent to class talking about the fundamentals of army life*

"and where would we be without discipline?"

*me puts hand up cause I'm that irritating kid*

"chaos?"

"no worse, we'd be the American army"

sums it up nicely:p

I said civilians only.

Members of the US military are like any other people, who largely live in economic conditions that leave the military as a last resort. They also have a tendency to draw in people who either have no problem shooting someone, or possibly even have a strong desire to shoot someone. That comes with any military that relies on recruiting the poor as the majority of the forces. The US is not necesarilly any worse than any other armed forces for this.

I voted "Baby Killers" because you displayed your prejudices and made it so that anyone who didn't think the military was good had to vote for an option that made them sound like idiots.

Members of the US military are like any other people, who largely live in economic conditions that leave the military as a last resort. They also have a tendency to draw in people who either have no problem shooting someone, or possibly even have a strong desire to shoot someone. That comes with any military that relies on recruiting the poor as the majority of the forces. The US is not necesarilly any worse than any other armed forces for this.

Actually, the Army recruits quite a bit of middle class people as well. Rich is uncommon, but not rare. Most rich people end up going to the Military Academies. At least, this is what I have heard.

I voted "Baby Killers" because you displayed your prejudices and made it so that anyone who didn't think the military was good had to vote for an option that made them sound like idiots.

He had the mixed bag, leading towards bad, option.

how do you perceive the people who serve in the U.S. military?

that single mistake ain't enough to condemn them, but it sure ain't a good place to be if you want to not wind up killing babies and torturing foreigners.

this can be generalized to the nation-state's armed thugs in general. but in other contexts, other answers.

I voted "Baby Killers" because you displayed your prejudices and made it so that anyone who didn't think the military was good had to vote for an option that made them sound like idiots.

It was not my intention, that is what people who think that call us. What would you like me to change it to?

Actually, the Army recruits quite a bit of middle class people as well. Rich is uncommon, but not rare. Most rich people end up going to the Military Academies. At least, this is what I have heard.

I realize I was painting with a large brush. My main point, is that the US is not really any worse than any other armed forces that recruit large numbers of relatively poor people with a desire to shoot people.

That doesn't sound very nice either. *shrugs*

Where's the "last resort of the weak and uneducated" option?

I have a friend in the air force stationed in Turkey. He only joined to pay for college, and unless there's a war in Turkey he's never going to see combat. He's not exactly a liberal, but he's a far cry from the ultraconservative, gung-ho stereotype (which he ironically invokes when referring to his fellow airmen). I think that joining up was a mistake, but I'm sure that there are plenty of other people like him in the military.

It was not my intention, that is what people who think that call us.

No, that's what you'd like to claim that people who don't like you call you. It's an exemplary straw man.

all but one of the people i know personally who wish to or already serve in the military (UK) are contemptable individuals who make me nervous for all the people who may find themselves on the wrong end of their weapons.

that single mistake ain't enough to condemn them, but it sure ain't a good place to be if you want to not wind up killing babies and torturing foreigners.

this can be generalized to the nation-state's armed thugs in general. but in other contexts, other answers.

I wasn't aware the U.S. soldiers were killing every baby the see.

I wasn't aware the U.S. soldiers were killing every baby the see.

you have to kill every baby to be a baby killer?

From who I know, there are some soldiers who are very gung-ho and will easily kill. I also know of some who now think it was a mistake. Most fall in the middle.

you have to kill every baby to be a baby killer?

True.

you have to kill every baby to be a baby killer?

Yes, and you need to molest every child you see to be a paedophile.

No, that's what you'd like to claim that people who don't like you call you. It's an exemplary straw man.

but that's more likely due to the fact that you're a brainless baby-killer
-Greater Trostia

i dont know about u right now but id rather have a vietnam vet baby killer
-Jesis

"baby killer" was bolded in quotes and: that's true. The bolded bit.
-Zakaron

To cite a few.

So I was just curious, how do you perceive the people who serve in the U.S. military? I will not be posting in this topic. It is for civilians only.

Generally as good hard-working people afflicted with a few nutjobs.

Generally as good hard-working people afflicted with a few nutjobs.

since the 'nutjobs' appear fairly prominent in both volunteer and conscription armies, i'd say that they are a feature, not a bug.

Just normal people who just do their jobs. Some are better at it than others though.

A sad necessity of realistic foreign policy. Most members of the military are perfectly good, normal people, except for a few traits that get drilled into them. One of those traits is an almost cabalistic tendancy of disdain and seperation from and towards non-members, some level of political prejudice, and, more often than not, a skewed sense of what constitutes appropriate social behaviour. The last one of those tends to fade after a few years. The other two tend to remain in many cases.

However, most members of the military have only the best intentions. Some members, however, do not.

I would say a mixed bag with a lot leaning towards bad (in my opinion).

but that's more likely due to the fact that you're a brainless baby-killer
-Greater Trostia

i dont know about u right now but id rather have a vietnam vet baby killer
-Jesis

"baby killer" was bolded in quotes and: that's true. The bolded bit.
-Zakaron

To cite a few.

Oh, noes. You paraphrased all of three people off teh Intarwebs with no corroboration or context. How convincing and justifiable of your complex.

Well, they train the military member's to kill. But they have to. Hawks eat doves you know. There are nutjobs in this world, and you need people willing to kill them if they want to kill you, its a sad, but basic fact of the world we live in. Then again, they also teach them numerous skills. Take my cousin, he was a mechanic for the Air Force. Now he is retiring and set to make $100,000 a year or around that. Not bad.

Join the Army, travel to distant countries, experience new cultures, meet new people, and kill them...

Join the Army, travel to distant countries, experience new cultures, meet new people, and kill them...

In a perfect world we would all live in peace. But we don't. Kill or be killed, in war.

It was not my intention, that is what people who think that call us. What would you like me to change it to?

I think the poll options I would've gone with would be:

Cause much more harm then good
Cause much more good then harm
Cause some harm, cause some good
Cause slightly more harm then good
Cause slightly more good then harm
Myrth-Based option.

Sorry, but you must admit making the "I really don't like the military" option "baby killers" is a bit extreme. Eh, you can't change it now.

The military of the US, from what I can observe, is suffering from a malaise that affects all volunteer armies - it is not representative of the people who it claims to defend. Volunteer armies, by their very nature of being an organised killing machine, tend to attract those members of society whom are either unable or unwilling to perform normal functions within civilian society. Some (not all, not a majority, but still some) join because it is their only chance to shoot guns and kill. Worrying to say the least. The worse any manpower shortage gets the greater the small percentage of these people within the military becomes. Voluntary military service also attracts people of a jingoistic and nationalist manner, people who are willing to do anything (including kill babies) because it is in the service of their country. Again, not all, not a majority but some. And some is too many. And again, the worse any manpower shortage gets the greater the small percentage of these people within the military becomes.

The military of the US, from what I can observe, is suffering from a malaise that affects all volunteer armies - it is not representative of the people who it claims to defend. Volunteer armies, by their very nature of being an organised killing machine, tend to attract those members of society whom are either unable or unwilling to perform normal functions within civilian society. Some (not all, not a majority, but still some) join because it is their only chance to shoot guns and kill. Worrying to say the least. The worse any manpower shortage gets the greater the small percentage of these people within the military becomes. Voluntary military service also attracts people of a jingoistic and nationalist manner, people who are willing to do anything (including kill babies) because it is in the service of their country. Again, not all, not a majority but some. And some is too many. And again, the worse any manpower shortage gets the greater the small percentage of these people within the military becomes.

Actually a lot of members would not accept the order to kill a baby. Then, even if some members are militaristic and nationalistic, then that saves the people who aren't that from serving in the military. The U.S. probably doesn't have any more of these than say the Germans, or the English, or the Dutch, or the Chinese, or the Russians.

The U.S. probably doesn't have any more of these than say the Germans, or the English, or the Dutch, or the Chinese, or the Russians.

no if you walked into a British army career office and said you wanted to kill/serve your country you would be kindly asked to leave a have a good think about why you want to join

hell even saying you think the uniforms kinky gets you further and the British army is *desperate* for recruits

Actually a lot of members would not accept the order to kill a baby. Then, even if some members are militaristic and nationalistic, then that saves the people who aren't that from serving in the military. The U.S. probably doesn't have any more of these than say the Germans, or the English, or the Dutch, or the Chinese, or the Russians.

I said volunteer armies. The difference with the Russain and (especially) the Chinese armies is that they probably contain a hell of a lot of people who don't even want to be in the military.

As for the rest of your point, jingoistic peole serving saves the others from serving? What? If they wern't there there would be no one serving. Learn the meaning of the word voluntary.

I said volunteer armies. The difference with the Russain and (especially) the Chinese armies is that they probably contain a hell of a lot of people who don't even want to be in the military.

As for the rest of your point, jingoistic peole serving saves the others from serving? What? If they wern't there there would be no one serving. Learn the meaning of the word voluntary.

What I meant to say was, volunteers, they want to serve, thats "saves" someone who doesn't want to serve from being conscripted. Sorry for not being more clear. :)

The military of the US, from what I can observe, is suffering from a malaise that affects all volunteer armies - it is not representative of the people who it claims to defend. Volunteer armies, by their very nature of being an organised killing machine, tend to attract those members of society whom are either unable or unwilling to perform normal functions within civilian society. Some (not all, not a majority, but still some) join because it is their only chance to shoot guns and kill. Worrying to say the least. The worse any manpower shortage gets the greater the small percentage of these people within the military becomes. Voluntary military service also attracts people of a jingoistic and nationalist manner, people who are willing to do anything (including kill babies) because it is in the service of their country. Again, not all, not a majority but some. And some is too many. And again, the worse any manpower shortage gets the greater the small percentage of these people within the military becomes.

An order to kill a child would violate the UCMJ, and any officer/NCO giving such an order would quickly find himself standing in front of a General Court Martial.

I spent most of my adult life in the Army, serving as an infantryman. I was trained to kill people, but also to know when to shoot. The Army taught me discipline, the value of hard work, and how not only to rely on myself, but how to work as a team. It's not for everyone.

When I joined I was a white liberal kid from Northern California. I had other options, but at 17 I had no desire to go to college and no idea what I wanted to do with my life. So I enlisted looking for a little adventure. I found it.

Yes, we do have nutjobs. So does any large organization. We also have dedicated troops who only touch a rifle twice a year for qualification and still are proud to call themselves soldiers. We are from everywhere, from every race and demographic. Rich, poor, and middle class. I went through Basic with a Harvard dropout and a kid whoi barely finished the eight grade before having to work on his family farm. They became best friends. We are, in short, a cross-section of America.

no if you walked into a British army career office and said you wanted to kill/serve your country you would be kindly asked to leave a have a good think about why you want to join

hell even saying you think the uniforms kinky gets you further and the British army is *desperate* for recruits

But most don't say that. Likewise if you said that to a recruiter here, they would say no or refer you to a shrink.

An order to kill a child would violate the UCMJ, and any officer/NCO giving such an order would quickly find himself standing in front of a General Court Martial.

I spent most of my adult life in the Army, serving as an infantryman. I was trained to kill people, but also to know when to shoot. The Army taught me discipline, the value of hard work, and how not only to rely on myself, but how to work as a team. It's not for everyone.

When I joined I was a white liberal kid from Northern California. I had other options, but at 17 I had no desire to go to college and no idea what I wanted to do with my life. So I enlisted looking for a little adventure. I found it.

Yes, we do have nutjobs. So does any large organization. We also have dedicated troops who only touch a rifle twice a year for qualification and still are proud to call themselves soldiers. We are from everywhere, from every race and demographic. Rich, poor, and middle class. I went through Basic with a Harvard dropout and a kid whoi barely finished the eight grade before having to work on his family farm. They became best friends. We are, in short, a cross-section of America.

The US army, like most doesn't publish or even collect figures on the social make up of its recruits (if I am wrong then someone provide them, I would be very interested to see them).

Why? Because the US army other ranks, just like the British army and most western volunteer armies other ranks, is made up almost exclusively of working class men recuited from poor neighbourhoods who see the army as their only route out of poverty, or zealous over patriotic men who see it as their "duty" to serve in some capacity or another. Note the fact you went through basic with a Harvard dropout. Didn't do it with a Harvard graduate did you?

if you said that to a recruiter here, they would say no or refer you to a shrink.

http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step02_reasons,,00.html

I tell you one thing, the more I post on this forum the more I see that military personnel are block-headed egomaniacs with raging hard-ons for killing and bigotry. Deep Kimchi, "Killing Muslims is better than sex," to all the other (apparently) military folks defending each and every military situation against the unwashed hordes of ungrateful "civvies."

Now, in my real life, I know better.

So I'm going to say that military personnel, aside from their representation on anonymous internet forums, are not better or worse than anyone else.

However, they do tend to be armed and engaged in a process of destruction, which inevitably winds up killing innocent people.

http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step02_reasons,,00.html

What about it? Iv'e read it.

The US army, like most doesn't publish or even collect figures on the social make up of its recruits (if I am wrong then someone provide them, I would be very interested to see them).

Why? Because the US army other ranks, just like the British army and most western volunteer armies other ranks, is made up almost exclusively of working class men recuited from poor neighbourhoods who see the army as their only route out of poverty, or zealous over patriotic men who see it as their "duty" to serve in some capacity or another. Note the fact you went through basic with a Harvard dropout. Didn't do it with a Harvard graduate did you?

But, they graduate from schools like West Point, which are good Academically.

http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics.asp

What about it? Iv'e read it.

Read it closer you might see what he's gettjng at

But, they graduate from schools like West Point, which are good Academically.

West Point is a military school teaching military values. Of course graduating there is no different from graduating from a civilian school is it :rolleyes:

West Point is a military school teaching military values. Of course graduating there is no different from graduating from a civilian school is it :rolleyes:

I didn't say it was. I said it teaches regular Academics, as well.

I didn't say it was. I said it teaches regular Academics, as well.

Yes it does but that still does not change my point that I made does it?

Yes it does but that still does not change my point that I made does it?

No. But I was saying that they teach other stuff besides how to kill.

No. But I was saying that they teach other stuff besides how to kill.

That wasn't my point. My point was that college dropouts are not a microcosm of US society, just as West Point graduates are not either.

That wasn't my point. My point was that college dropouts are not a microcosm of US society, just as West Point graduates are not either.

True. Did you see that link I gave you?

leaning towards badly, I'm not saying everyone in the military is bad though prehaps a slightly majority.

True. Did you see that link I gave you?

Yes I did but it still doesn't tell you their class backgrouund or how many are from poor neighbourhoods.

Yes I did but it still doesn't tell you their class backgrouund or how many are from poor neighbourhoods.

I know. I tried looking for that, but couldn't find it. I do recall that the number of poor did outdo everyone else. But there was also a large amount of middle-class as well. I'm sorry I cannot find that, however.

I know. I tried looking for that, but couldn't find it. I do recall that the number of poor did outdo everyone else. But there was also a large amount of middle-class as well. I'm sorry I cannot find that, however.

Surprise

Surprise

It's somewhere. Email the Army.

mixed-bag leaning towards good. I believe that most of the people in the military have a genuine desire to serve, and there are a few assholes, as there are everywhere.

I said "mixed bag, leaning towards bad".

Obviously there's good people and bad people who join the army, in fact there's as many different people and motivations as there are servicemen and -women.

But I think the organisation as a whole is prone to making people worse. Not only do I think that war can be very bad for your character, but the training already creates an "us against them" idea and a personality that is made up of arrogance, disrespect towards non-military people and a readiness for violence.

I suppose every military is going to be like that, judging from the stories you hear occasionally the Bundeswehr is certainly no exception. But be that as it may, because the US Military is somewhat unique in the world with regards to the organisational culture and especially the extent to which it is engaged overseas, I think that it is more likely to destroy people's characters and make them worse people than the other way.

Mixed bag, maybe with a slightly higher percentage of nutters who want to go and kill those damned evil [whoever] than the rest of society.

That comes with any military that relies on recruiting the poor as the majority of the forces. The US is not necesarilly any worse than any other armed forces for this.

This is why I support draft instead of professional army.

Draft = every citizen is called to defend his country. Rich, poor, intelligent, stupid, good, bad. The whole country, in short.

Professional army = troops and junior ranks filled by poor, exploited people coming from families with poor cultural background, while most senior ranks come out of a sort of military "aristocracy" (most senior officers usually have at least a relative in the military, being a senior officer becomes a sort of "family tradition", leading to nepotism etc).

I think that a professional army is less adequate to a democratic country.

I wonder why people call the soldiers of a professional army "volunteers". Volunteers - I usually call a volunteer a person that does something without being paid for it (or receiving any other benefit).
Professionals - this describes better the people who work as soldiers and get paid for it.

I have nothing against the armed forces except there's always a small minority of control freaks who think they can do anything when given a weapon.

(This is Jeruselem - using my army football team nation :) )

My perception of the US military:

Air Force: Arrogant and well nothing more then that.

Army: Nice folk, not too smart though.

Navy: Nice folk, often the smartest of the bunch, navy aviators are arrogant too but unlike the Air Force guys they have a reason to because they're good.

Marines: Nice folk, bit odd but very good.

BTW: me=no Civilian

The U.S Military?
I couldn't really give a fuck.
That wasn't an option so I went with mixed bag-leaning towards bad.

No, that's what you'd like to claim that people who don't like you call you. It's an exemplary straw man.

No....that's actually what a hell of a lot of people call us. You obviously have a personal issue here. The guy was in no way confrontational. You're being an enormous douche.

since the 'nutjobs' appear fairly prominent in both volunteer and conscription armies, i'd say that they are a feature, not a bug.

Feel free to back that assertion up with anything past rhetoric. I'll wait.

Well, I have met just a dozen marines or so...I don't know about the army, but the ones (marines) I know were a bunch of douchebags. Each and every one. I am wise enough to avoid a mass generalization, but statistics speak against me being in favor of them. Should they ever invade here, I think they would go on a rape-stealing rampage.

There is a difference between the soldiers and the officers leading them and the generals above them.

Bad and good aspects become more emphasized the higher up you go.

Normal people trying to get ahead in life.

The US army, like most doesn't publish or even collect figures on the social make up of its recruits (if I am wrong then someone provide them, I would be very interested to see them).

Why? Because the US army other ranks, just like the British army and most western volunteer armies other ranks, is made up almost exclusively of working class men recuited from poor neighbourhoods who see the army as their only route out of poverty, or zealous over patriotic men who see it as their "duty" to serve in some capacity or another. Note the fact you went through basic with a Harvard dropout. Didn't do it with a Harvard graduate did you?


So....in the same breath that you suggest the military does not keep up with the social trends of recruitment, you make a statement as fact regarding the social trends in recruitment? How cute.

Well, I have met just a dozen marines or so...I don't know about the army, but the ones (marines) I know were a bunch of douchebags. Each and every one. I am wise enough to avoid a mass generalization, but statistics speak against me being in favor of them. Should they ever invade here, I think they would go on a rape-stealing rampage.

How incredibly ignorant of you.

So I was just curious, how do you perceive the people who serve in the U.S. military? I will not be posting in this topic. It is for civilians only.

The US military like other militaries in the world, is composed of a vast assortment of people, and it is unhelpful to generalise about the individuals therein. Having said that, I will now proceed with my generalisations.

If the US military does basic training in a manner similar to the Canadian forces, I would assume that the people who make it through are more violent than those who decided not to join. Basic training, according to the soldiers and recruits I have communicated with, is an abusive environment that glorifies violence and degrades the individual. I assume that most people make it through without losing too much of their morality, but some gets lost on the way. I assume that this is necessary to turn the average person into someone who kills on orders.

Also, the armed forces may be one of the few places that violent people can integrate themselves into society in a useful manner. This would have the added benfit of removing them from civilian society, where their violent tendencies would be counterproductive, unless they joined the police or intelligence agencies.

I do not believe that these people make up a majority of the people in the military. I don't think they are even a significant minority, so I chose 'mixed bag', as that seemed to describe the vast majority of the people in the military.

Oh, and I also think that the majority vote Republican, which gets a big 'meh' from me.

How incredibly ignorant of you.

What, him refusing to generalise and making it clear that this is just his personal impression?

No....that's actually what a hell of a lot of people call us. You obviously have a personal issue here. The guy was in no way confrontational. You're being an enormous douche.


I see you have met Fass. He is actually being very polite in this thread compared to his usual manner. You're not a real NSer until you've been flamed by Fass.

How incredibly ignorant of you.

Well, I guess you have officers to "take care" of them, as in "restraint" them, but the way they behave...

Perhaps you are not familiar with the way your troops behave outside your borders?

What, him refusing to generalise and making it clear that this is just his personal impression?

Do not dig deep.

I am refusing to generalize, yes, and it is my personal impression. I guess he means we should surrender to the marines' charisma and let themselves have their way with us, because we foreign women are the compulsory booty of any American invader.

What, him refusing to generalise and making it clear that this is just his personal impression?

I didnt realize personal impressions could not be infinitely idiotic. I'll have to make a note of that........

Insults aside, yes....it is insane that someone could go from, "The Marines I've met are douchebags," to the extreme perception that this lends to an ability to rape and steal. That's a pretty impressively stupid leap in logic.

Well, I guess you have officers to "take care" of them, as in "restraint" them, but the way they behave...

Perhaps you are not familiar with the way your troops behave outside your borders?

I was a Marine for eight years. I'm intimately familiar with the behavior of servicemen. Your statement was still painfully ignorant.

I see you have met Fass. He is actually being very polite in this thread compared to his usual manner. You're not a real NSer until you've been flamed by Fass.

I've got a feeling I'll enjoy picking him apart, though he seems the type to ignore being put in his place.

I didnt realize personal impressions could not be infinitely idiotic. I'll have to make a note of that........

Insults aside, yes....it is insane that someone could go from, "The Marines I've met are douchebags," to the extreme perception that this lends to an ability to rape and steal. That's a pretty impressively stupid leap in logic.

Depends on your definition of douchebag. Unwanted and repeated offerings of "raw and bestial sex" with a "true man", qualifies a man as both a "douchebag", and also a potential rapist, in my humble opinion.

The leap of logic is smaller now?

Do not dig deep.

I am refusing to generalize, yes, and it is my personal impression. I guess he means we should surrender to the marines' charisma and let themselves have their way with us, because we foreign women are the compulsory booty of any American invader.

Wow...I'm like an open book to you. Get out of my head.

Depends on your definition of douchebag. Unwanted and repeated offerings of "raw and bestial sex" with a "true man", qualifies a man as both a "douchebag", and also a potential rapist, in my humble opinion.

The leap of logic is smaller now?

So which is it now? Was it one Marine or three? And you seem to be adding to the story as you go along. Generally when people are trying to make a direct point, they make sure they've provided appropriate clarity from the start.

And again, yes...it is an incredible leap in logic to judge an entire branch of the military, consisting of many thousands of very different people....on three that made a particularly bad impression.

I was a Marine for eight years. I'm intimately familiar with the behavior of servicemen. Your statement was still painfully ignorant.

I gave away that I refuse to generalize. The marines I have known are still disconsiderated, uneducated, idiotic grunts. If you know the same marines I've known, then we can argue, if you don't, please stand down with your "ignorance" statement.

So which is it now? Was it one Marine or three? And you seem to be adding to the story as you go along. Generally when people are trying to make a direct point, they make sure they've provided appropriate clarity from the start.

And again, yes...it is an incredible leap in logic to judge an entire branch of the military, consisting of many thousands of very different people....on three that made a particularly bad impression.

The part that I have refused to generalize still doesn't enter that thick skull of yours, no? Or is it the helmet that protects you from understanding?

I went with Mixed Bag (Leaning Towards Bad)

...though I may or may not have some military background...

An order to kill a child would violate the UCMJ, and any officer/NCO giving such an order would quickly find himself standing in front of a General Court Martial.
*Cough*

How quickly?

The Marine Corps chain of command in Iraq ignored "obvious" signs of "serious misconduct" in the 2005 slayings of two dozen civilians in Haditha, and commanders fostered a climate that devalued the life of innocent Iraqis to the point that their deaths were considered an insignificant part of the war, according to an Army general's investigation.
Bargewell's previously undisclosed report, obtained by The Washington Post, found that officers may have willfully ignored reports of the civilian deaths to protect themselves and their units from blame. Though Bargewell found no specific coverup, he concluded that there also was no interest at any level in investigating allegations of a massacre.
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042002308.html)

No....that's actually what a hell of a lot of people call us. You obviously have a personal issue here.

I'm loving the irony, oh, thou impartial one.

*savours it some more*

*almost done*

*there*

The guy was in no way confrontational. You're being an enormous douche.

Enormous? Oh, how inexperienced you must be, almost naïve even. Too cute.

I've got a feeling I'll enjoy picking him apart, though he seems the type to ignore being put in his place.

Oh, heavens - you've left cuteness behind and gone straight for the adorable. *pats*

I respect the servicemen as heroes. They are doing their duty. I wish that fatties were allowed into the military. Alas, I probably could not afford to be in the service because the pay is not enough to pay my darn mortgages. I volunteered as soon as the fighting started. I was too fat they said (but were polite about it).

I see you have met Fass. He is actually being very polite in this thread compared to his usual manner. You're not a real NSer until you've been flamed by Fass.Baptême de Feu.
Baptême de Fass.

:D

I said "mixed bag, leaning towards bad".

Obviously there's good people and bad people who join the army, in fact there's as many different people and motivations as there are servicemen and -women.

But I think the organisation as a whole is prone to making people worse. Not only do I think that war can be very bad for your character, but the training already creates an "us against them" idea and a personality that is made up of arrogance, disrespect towards non-military people and a readiness for violence.

I suppose every military is going to be like that, judging from the stories you hear occasionally the Bundeswehr is certainly no exception. But be that as it may, because the US Military is somewhat unique in the world with regards to the organisational culture and especially the extent to which it is engaged overseas, I think that it is more likely to destroy people's characters and make them worse people than the other way.
As usual, Neu Leonstein says it best :)

.. put in his place.nothing ive seen, tells me you have big enough shoes.

..though he seems the type to ignore...he usually ignores the small fish..

I've got a feeling I'll enjoy picking him apart...Oh you will eventually "enjoy him".. If one day you are worthed of his attention.

If the only information I knew about someone was that he was in the military, the only thing I would think is that he is likely quite athletic or well disciplined and trained in something. He would also likely be quite brave. I wouldn't be able to judge his personality. I also wouldn't be able to judge his intelligent as there are so many jobs in the army, some of which require you to be incredibly intelligent.

If the only information I knew about someone was that he was in the military...a cousin of mine.. he was.. -slow-
some kids in the family would call him retarded..

one day I learned a recruiter convinced him to sign..
My first reaction was "What an idiot !!! :headbang: "..
..and later on it was "Poor him :( "

I also find it very hard to understand that in America it's an unwritten rule to have been in the Military if you wish to be succesfull...

I also find it very hard to understand that in America it's an unwritten rule to have been in the Military if you wish to be succesfull...

It is?

I also find it very hard to understand that in America it's an unwritten rule to have been in the Military if you wish to be succesfull...you have it backwards.

If you were born into an "unsuccessful" situation.. you are more likely to end up in the US Military.
(BTW This "unwritten rule" is not restricted to America.. )

First.....all other conversation aside, I'm going to give you some context.

I served for eight years. I changed a hell of a lot in my time in service, and not many of my personal views meshed with those held by the brass. The good ol' boys club are the people that have been in thirty years, and are tied up in Washington with the suits and who grasp tightly to ways that are no longer socially acceptable to most servicemen today.

I'm out now.

I am not a conservative, as one is generally defined, nor a liberal. I'm a Libertarian Socialist.

Having said that, I can assure you my opinions of the service and the men and women that fill the ranks is not slanted in any obvious way.

So, my opinion on military perception?

Servicemen are you. They are no different than any civilian, past training. They are no more willing to kill than my next door neighbor. Do I need to cite examples of how violent the average human being has been to his brother/sister since we've developed an ability to do extreme harm to one another? Servicemen are no more prone to violence than you are. I'm sure almost all of you would be willing to kill given the right circumstances. All of you.

We come from average, middle class homes.
We come from the ghetto.
We throw away million dollar contracts in the NFL to join the military.
We join because we're not ready to go to college yet.
We join to go to college.
We join because of family tradition.
We joing because some still idealize the United States and the endeavors it pursues.

I could go on. Regardless, yes....the service is a cross section of middle to lower class America, with a few other groups tossed in for good measure. To assume this somehow equates to lower personal standards is absurd. Tell that to a guy that works in intel, or who is an NBC specialist.

As far as character goes...I dont think that the average serviceman has any more character than a civilian. The fact is, ninety five percent of people in uniform that you'll meet are between eighteen and twenty one. I dont know about you, but I think most eighteen year old males are douchebags by design. They're horny, they're arrogant, and they're still kids as far as I'm concerned. I've met very few eighteen year old boys, military or not, that arent dickheads to some extent.

That doesnt make them bad people.

Unfortunately, their careers put them in a position of doing dirty work with dirty consequences. If you honestly think participating in the details of war destroys character, and makes these young men bad people, I suggest you visist a vet hospital and talk to the guys that are so psychologically broken down by what they've had to participate in, that they can barely function. That's the other unfortunate side effect of being able to join a standing military body when you're basically still a child. You dont really understand the consequences of what you've been called to do until you're actually doing them.

And yes, in as large a military as we have, there is a representative body of people that should never be allowed to touch a gun, much less be allowed to get as far as bootcamp. One of my many complaints about the service these days is how much lower the standards are when it comes to recruitment. When I joined, I was almost turned down because I went to family counseling with my parents when I was ten.

People like the NG reservists that participated in the Abu Ghraib scandal, or the Marines that raped and killed the Iraqi girl should have never had the opportunity to even consider the military. People like that cant hide their defective minds from real probing. The service should work a lot harder on making sure those people dont slip through the cracks.

And as far as the statement on homosexuals and how they're a huge issue within the branches.....eh, not so much. Yes, there is a population within the military that is still afraid that if homosexuals are allowed to openly join the service, all hell will break loose. And that population is substantial. That being said, the majority of it is the old school brass. The lifers that are petrified of the same things that they didnt understand in the sixties.

As I stated, I was a Marine for eight years, and I knew a large number of homosexuals, and those men/women didnt keep the secret particularly well. We didnt care. One of the most incredible scout snipers I've ever met lived with his boyfriend out in Oceanside, CA and would invite couples and friends over for dinners and parties regularly. Honestly, most of the paranoid people do not exist among the eighteen to twenty five enlisted demographic.

All that aside, in the end....people in the military are no different from you. Yes, there is an unfortunate trend among the old guard to instill a sense of seperation from the troop and the civilian, and that is one of the issues that I have with training. Today though, bootcamp is a different animal. It does create a bond between those that endure it together, but there is no secret program to brainwash people into lethal, mindless killers.

Servicemen do a job that sometimes lead to situations and times in our history that we'd just as soon forget, because terrible men control their lives and their futures. Granted, they put themselves in this position, but what can I say? Recruiters have a pretty slick PR machine, and eighteen year olds can be dumb.

It is a mix, but you could apply those options in that poll to civilization, and the answers SHOULD be the same.....because we're all alike in every way.

I gave away that I refuse to generalize. The marines I have known are still disconsiderated, uneducated, idiotic grunts. If you know the same marines I've known, then we can argue, if you don't, please stand down with your "ignorance" statement.

So the concept that your impression is still deeply flawed and without merit still escapes you? Three Marines are no basis for an opinion that covers thousands. This is very easy stuff to grasp.

The part that I have refused to generalize still doesn't enter that thick skull of yours, no? Or is it the helmet that protects you from understanding?

Saying you refuse to generalize after having generalized is kind of odd, dont'cha think?

I'm loving the irony, oh, thou impartial one.

*savours it some more*

*almost done*

*there*



Enormous? Oh, how inexperienced you must be, almost naïve even. Too cute.



Oh, heavens - you've left cuteness behind and gone straight for the adorable. *pats*


You're going to have to do better than this, sweet cheeks. ;)

So the concept that your impression is still deeply flawed and without merit still escapes you? Three Marines are no basis for an opinion that covers thousands. This is very easy stuff to grasp.

I grasped your point, but you still fail to grasp mine. I know my opinion is flawed, thankyouverymuch, I stated that in my first post, detailing the flaws on it. Without merit? that's as generalizing as saying that all the marines are exactly like the ones I've met, which is something I haven't said. However, I have enough reasons to believe those three, or six, or a dozen, will behave badly if things go awry, and that will be enough for me to be afraid and suspicious of marines, mainly because they also have the power to pull off their intentions in a war situation.

You did well in your last post before the one quoted by me, you should had ended there.

Err to be honest, a mixed bag, leaning towards bad.

Let's face it, they get paid to kill people. This is, obviously, bad.

On the other hand, there are some fairly solid people that I know in the UK military, and I guess that there are probably a few good people in the US military, too.

Saying you refuse to generalize after having generalized is kind of odd, dont'cha think?

At the same time, dear, in the same post.

You're going to have to do better than this, sweet cheeks. ;)

Actually, the sad bit for you is that I don't have to do better than that. Especially seeing the A4 page you wrote up here; people without personal issues don't write A4 pages on Internet fora to defend themselves from imagined attacks that these issues centre upon. So, soldier boy, your very testament to your issues is what has rendered you without credibility in your claims as to what people call your lot, and that was that tasty irony I was savouring earlier.

Thank you for prolonging it. I forget how easy new posters are in that respect. I also recall how new posters tend not to get it. That's OK. I got out of this what I wanted.

At the same time, dear, in the same post.

"If you travel on airplanes, terrorists will eat your babies. Of course, I'm not saying that terrorists actually will eat your babies, but you know what I mean."

Actually, the sad bit for you is that I don't have to do better than that. Especially seeing the A4 page you wrote up here; people without personal issues don't write A4 pages on Internet fora to defend themselves from imagined attacks that these issues centre upon. So, soldier boy, your very testament to your issues is what has rendered you without credibility in your claims as to what people call your lot, and that was that tasty irony I was savouring earlier.

Thank you for prolonging it. I forget how easy new posters are in that respect. I also recall how new posters tend not to get it. That's OK. I got out of this what I wanted.

*hands you a special Hashijuana cookie for noob ownage*

I grasped your point, but you still fail to grasp mine. I know my opinion is flawed, thankyouverymuch, I stated that in my first post, detailing the flaws on it. Without merit? that's as generalizing as saying that all the marines are exactly like the ones I've met, which is something I haven't said. However, I have enough reasons to believe those three, or six, or a dozen, will behave badly if things go awry, and that will be enough for me to be afraid and suspicious of marines, mainly because they also have the power to pull off their intentions in a war situation.

You did well in your last post before the one quoted by me, you should had ended there.

Yes, without merit....which in the end is the point. You couldnt rationally support that position if you tried.

Yes, without merit....which in the end is the point. You couldnt rationally support that position if you tried.

From the first post, I never tried. However, opinions are still worthwhile, and mine has already been told.

Egghiccup;12596290']My opinion of the U.S military is not at all gun happy evil merchants who can't tell the difference between enemy fighters/a hotel full of journalists or allied soldiers. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I
Err to be fair, that's one instance. Although it does show that people are complete fucking wankers sometimes.

Esp. if they're 18-21 and without any real moral boundries, due to being put in a foreign land which they seem to have been indoctrinated is full of savages, so they can do whatever they like.

Actually, the sad bit for you is that I don't have to do better than that. Especially seeing the A4 page you wrote up here; people without personal issues don't write A4 pages on Internet fora to defend themselves from imagined attacks that these issues centre upon. So, soldier boy, your very testament to your issues is what has rendered you without credibility in your claims as to what people call your lot, and that was that tasty irony I was savouring earlier.

Thank you for prolonging it. I forget how easy new posters are in that respect. I also recall how new posters tend not to get it. That's OK. I got out of this what I wanted.

There really is nothing more entertaining that watching someone claim "victory" after having delivered nothing more than a few rough edged, smarmy comments. And, meh....I'm comfortable with my long winded bit. I'm under no impression that I've been attacked, by the way. Unless you're trying to pass off your anemic jabs as something more than they're actually worth considering.

It's also nice to see that the order of things never changes forum to forum. There is always one belligerent, needlessly angry schmuck waiting in the wings ready to lay the old standards on you.

"You're new!"
"I'm witty!"

Bork-bork......

*sigh*

Oh well.....I do believe I've allowed you more of my attention than you rightly deserve today, dont ya' think? I believe I'll let you claim another victory by allowing you the last word. Least I can do. You can claim your prize and stick it on your e-shelf with all the other mental masturbation medals you've earned. :D

From the first post, I never tried. However, opinions are still worthwhile, and mine has already been told.

Opinions arent always worthwhile. But there really isnt any reason to go around in circles. I'm not trying to change your mind.

Opinions arent always worthwhile. But there really isnt any reason to go around in circles. I'm not trying to change your mind.

You were just then trying to call me names or what?

*hands you a special Hashijuana cookie for noob ownage*

Credit where credit due! He dug his, demonstrably very deep, pit all on his own with his "We're, too, called baby killers! You're the one with the issues, douchebag! Waah! Now watch me write half a metre and demonstrate how the issue is mine!" faux pas. The cookie rightly goes to him. Never let it be claimed that I take honour in such diligent works of others.

You were just then trying to call me names or what?

Dont recall having called you names. I did label your statement a few times. The closest I came was suggesting the position was born of ignorance. That's not a judgement of your overall character, and it wouldnt be fair of me to make it having only just now interacted with you on one topic.

Dont recall having called you names. I did label your statement a few times. The closest I came was suggesting the position was born of ignorance. That's not a judgement of your overall character, and it wouldnt be fair of me to make it having only just now interacted with you on one topic.

Thanks for the explanation.

Well, I was torn between "normal people" and "mixed bag, leaning towards good". I voted the latter, but I don't really see much difference between these two categories. Normal people are a mixed bag, leaning towards good.

There are all kinds of people in the US military, of course, and you could find someone there to fit any of the listed categories. Most of them are just ordinary people doing a tough job, though. They aren't saints, they aren't homicidal maniacs, they aren't omniscient and they sometimes make mistakes, especially under pressure. But they do their best.

I was in the military. U.S. Navy to be specific. I never killed a baby. I never even maimed a baby. In fact, I really don't recall any baby contact whatsoever during my military service. I may have tickled a toddler though. *nod*

I chose my rate very carefully to reflect my personality and interests. I became an Electronic Warfare Technician and my job was to protect the ship from missile attack and to collect and disseminate ESM information.

I was pretty good at it. If my elite information gathering and anti-ship missile defense skills caused the deaths of any infants, I humbly apologize. *nod*

I was in the military. U.S. Navy to be specific. I never killed a baby. I never even maimed a baby. In fact, I really don't recall any baby contact whatsoever during my military service. I may have tickled a toddler though. *nod*

I chose my rate very carefully to reflect my personality and interests. I became an Electronic Warfare Technician and my job was to protect the ship from missile attack and to collect and disseminate ESM information.

I was pretty good at it. If my elite information gathering and anti-ship missile defense skills caused the deaths of any infants, I humbly apologize. *nod*

I think the baby killings predominantly occur during Shock and Awe bombing runs when legitimate targets are destoyed and a baby also gets killed as part of the 'collateral damage'. I don't think any intentional baby targetting occurs. However, if you wanted to target a baby from a plane, you would probably need some sort of wicked-ass electronics gear like you specialise in.