NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X78CYn_F6b8

That man had little hair. I wonder if he uses Turtle Wax? I feel lucky to have full head of hair, especially on the cold days.

Care to elaborate?

There really isn't much to add.

There really isn't much to add.

Maybe 'summarize' would've been a better word choice. Just maybe. ;)

I can say that there is nowhere near enough help for returning combat vets. This is a serious problem that has plagued the military in every war. When I got out of the first Gulf War there was just a quick evaluation and a pamphlet on mental health given. Were told that if we needed help to seek it. There was no program to deal with combat related issues that I knew of. Thankfully for me I can deal with that type of stress and came out ok. Not everyone can and this should be addressed in a more comprehensive manner.

Yeah, we really need to address these problems.

I can say that there is nowhere near enough help for returning combat vets. This is a serious problem that has plagued the military in every war. When I got out of the first Gulf War there was just a quick evaluation and a pamphlet on mental health given. Were told that if we needed help to seek it. There was no program to deal with combat related issues that I knew of. Thankfully for me I can deal with that type of stress and came out ok. Not everyone can and this should be addressed in a more comprehensive manner.

It's ridiculous too because there's more than enough money floating around, and we'd easily save tons of money on retraining, training new recruits, and so on and so forth. Better to care for what you've got if you've invested so much money into it rather than buying a new one. Buying a new one works for cheap shit that's easily replaced. It doesn't work when you've invested thousands of dollars PER SOLDIER/SAILOR/MARINE.

Maybe 'summarize' would've been a better word choice. Just maybe. ;)

Its a long list of the utter shit caused by the Iraq War. The person posting the video is a market anarchist and ties it into an attack on the state, but even if you don't buy the anarchist arguments at the end, it is a powerful video.

EDIT: In the end, he states "When you salute the flag you stand in blood."

It's ridiculous too because there's more than enough money floating around, and we'd easily save tons of money on retraining, training new recruits, and so on and so forth. Better to care for what you've got if you've invested so much money into it rather than buying a new one. Buying a new one works for cheap shit that's easily replaced. It doesn't work when you've invested thousands of dollars PER SOLDIER/SAILOR/MARINE.

That would be like applying neosporin to a severed limb.

It's ridiculous too because there's more than enough money floating around, and we'd easily save tons of money on retraining, training new recruits, and so on and so forth. Better to care for what you've got if you've invested so much money into it rather than buying a new one. Buying a new one works for cheap shit that's easily replaced. It doesn't work when you've invested thousands of dollars PER SOLDIER/SAILOR/MARINE.

Yeah. I think I read somewhere that its costs the U.S. around ~$200,000 to train each new recruit. I think it would be in the military's best interest to address these problems, and in addition we have the moral obligation to do so. At least we have been doing okay with wounded vets, although it is by no means perfect.

Also, I believe a large part of the issue is multiple deployments over a short amount of time. In Vietnam normally they served 1 or 2 tours, in Iraq they have 3 or 4. That makes a big difference I'd think.

That would be like applying neosporin to a severed limb.
Oh, come on, Vittos. You know exactly what I meant. I was talking about funding the care, whatever it might be.

Yeah. I think I read somewhere that its costs the U.S. around ~$200,000 to train each new recruit. I think it would be in the military's best interest to address these problems, and in addition we have the moral obligation to do so. At least we have been doing okay with wounded vets, although it is by no means perfect.

Indeed. It's why I'm desperately hoping to avoid any sort of injury while in service in the Navy. I'm not inclined to have to cope with the military's health care system.

Also, I believe a large part of the issue is multiple deployments over a short amount of time. In Vietnam normally they served 1 or 2 tours, in Iraq they have 3 or 4. That makes a big difference I'd think.

That's especially true for psychological issues. Our men and women need breaks. They need time off to recuperate. Contrary to what Drill Sergeants, RCDs, and so on would like people to believe, humans are simply not capable of continuing on and on under adversity without some sort of break or help. You can't just yell at them to get them back into fighting shape.

Buying a new one works for cheap shit that's easily replaced. It doesn't work when you've invested thousands of dollars PER SOLDIER/SAILOR/MARINE.

The solution is extremely straightforward.

Being elected to the Senate, House of Representatives, or Presidency constitutes explicit acceptance of immediate and obligatory military service lasting exactly one standard tour of combat duty. Once said obligatory service is complete, one may claim one's elected office.

The problem is gone overnight.

(Yes, I've read Heinlein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers) and understood what he was saying [Verhoeven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_%28film%29), however, is an idiot])

The solution is extremely straightforward.

Being elected to the Senate, House of Representatives, or Presidency constitutes explicit consent to immediate military service lasting exactly one standard tour of combat duty. Once said obligatory service is complete, one may claim one's elected office.

The problem is gone overnight.

(Yes, I've read Heinlein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers) and understood what he was saying [Verhoeven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_%28film%29), however, is an idiot])
Never going to happen. See, thing is, the very people who would be able to legislate that requirement are the people who would be directly affected and they'd have no reason to do it.

Never going to happen. See, thing is, the very people who would be able to legislate that requirement are the people who would be directly affected and they'd have no reason to do it.

Yeah, I know. The idea was intended to illustrate exactly why human beings are considered "cheap shit."

When those calling the shots are doing so from their plush executive mansion, what does one expect?

But it's not impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland. Although the Swiss extend the requirement to all male citizens (which, of course, includes those male citizens who are not legislators). I am especially fascinated by the practice whereby a General is elected to the office of "Commander-In-Chief" by the Federal Assembly during time of war/crisis. Make sure someone competent has the helm.

I am especially fascinated by the practice whereby a General is elected to the office of "Commander-In-Chief" by the Federal Assembly during time of war/crisis. Make sure someone competent has the helm.

However, usually when the military is in complete control during war time the results aren't very good, in regards to actions against human rights and civilians.

Yeah, I know. The idea was intended to illustrate exactly why human beings are considered "cheap shit."

When those calling the shots are doing so from their plush executive mansion, what does one expect?
Exactly.

But it's not impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland. Although the Swiss extend the requirement to all male citizens (which, of course, includes those male citizens who are not legislators). I am especially fascinated by the practice whereby a General is elected to the office of "Commander-In-Chief" by the Federal Assembly during time of war/crisis. Make sure someone competent has the helm.

It's a good idea certainly, but Switzerland is a completely different situation. Remember, they're a small nation that hasn't fought a real war for a long time. Furthermore, they organize this practice because they only have so many citizens capable of fighting.

Whereas we Americans have enormous numbers to call upon should we need to...it's why we're able to get away with having a purely voluntary military force. Plus, our military doesn't want conscripts anyway. Conscripts fight poorly compared to volunteers.

However, usually when the military is in complete control during war time the results aren't very good, in regards to actions against human rights and civilians.

Also very true. Not the best of ideas.

But I think he was referring to the idea of making sure that the leader of the nation during wartime is able to competently lead the military, which IS a good idea.

However, usually when the military is in complete control during war time the results aren't very good, in regards to actions against human rights and civilians.

I would assume that the fact that the "Commander-In-Chief" is elected by the Federal Assembly means that he is responsible to the Federal Assembly in some significant way. I seriously doubt that the "Commander-In-Chief" is free to do whatever however. Rather, I would assume that the office is chosen in the way it is in order to ensure that the "Commander-In-Chief" is indeed knowledgeable, competent, and capable of handling the responsibilities of the post.

As opposed to having someone who just skipped his way though, say, the Texas Air National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).

I would assume that the fact that the "Commander-In-Chief" is elected by the Federal Assembly means that he is responsible to the Federal Assembly in some significant way. I seriously doubt that the "Commander-In-Chief" is free to do whatever however. Rather, I would assume that the office is chosen in the way it is in order to ensure that the "Commander-In-Chief" is indeed knowledgeable, competent, and capable of handling the responsibilities of the post.

As opposed to having someone who just skipped his way though, say, the Texas Air National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).

Yes, you are right in that regard, but I personally believe that a Joint Chiefs, General Staff sort of thing is a better fit.

Military is given a lot of leeway in wartime normally anyway.

The trick is that Switzerland doesn't have "conscripts." It has Citizens.

And it has the Alps. God knows those are near-impossible barriers with today's technology, much less technology from 1200.

Whereas we Americans have enormous numbers to call upon should we need to...it's why we're able to get away with having a purely voluntary military force.


This large supply is also part of the reason why human beings are treated as easily replaced "shit."

If anything, we are looking for a way to restrict that supply exactly so this is no longer true.


Plus, our military doesn't want conscripts anyway. Conscripts fight poorly compared to volunteers.


This may be true for the United States. But one would think that if conscripts were so poor necessarily and universally, Switzerland would have been annexed out of existence by some far larger military force a long time ago.

The trick is that Switzerland doesn't really have "conscripts." It has Citizens.

Edit: I agree that "conscription" is a very bad idea, and I am absolutely opposed to it. However, Citizenship continues to fascinate me.

And it has the Alps. God knows those are near-impossible barriers with today's technology, much less technology from 1200.

Favorable geography doesn't hurt. But at the end of the day, a society where this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg) is a perfectly normal daily occurrence is a society that is not to be screwed around with.

This large supply is also part of the reason why human beings are treated as easily replaced "shit."

If anything, we are looking for a way to restrict that supply exactly so this is no longer true.
I wouldn't say restrict the supply so much as we better manage it. Try to remember that we're all human and all that.



This may be true for the United States. But one would think that if conscripts were so poor necessarily and universally, Switzerland would have been annexed out of existence by some far larger military force a long time ago.

The trick is that Switzerland doesn't really have "conscripts." It has Citizens.

Edit: I agree that "conscription" is a very bad idea, and I am absolutely opposed to it. However, Citizenship continues to fascinate me.

Ah, yes, there is certainly an important distinction, but I again point to Switzerland's small size for the reason it works the way it does. Furthermore, we're talking about a nation whose military is solely defensive, versus the United States who has mainly fought offensively. Only rarely has there been any actual defense of the U.S. itself.

I wouldn't say restrict the supply so much as we better manage it. Try to remember that we're all human and all that.


I don't mean to imply anything less.


.. but I again point to Switzerland's small size for the reason it works the way it does.


True enough.


Only rarely has there been any actual defense of the U.S. itself.


This is perhaps the most important part of the problem.

Favorable geography doesn't hurt. But at the end of the day, a society where this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg) is a perfectly normal daily occurrence is a society that is not to be screwed around with.

Why is it that everything in foreign countries these days looks exactly the same as in the U.S.? Everytime I see a photo from some place like Switzerland or Iran I'm amazed at how it looks no different than, say, Denver or New York. Sure, the layout of the buildings can be different, but the differences in architecture and style and all sorts of cultural goodies you'd expect just aren't there anymore...:(

I don't mean to imply anything less.

Damn the failure of text to carry tone. I wasn't trying to say that of you...it was carrying on with what I said, with it being one of the methods of better managing our resources.



This is perhaps the most important part of the problem.

Indeed. We simply haven't really faced war the way most of the rest of the world has. We haven't had our cities firebombed, terror bombed, and blown to bits in two World Wars. We haven't had to watch thousands upon thousands of our citizens carried away to gulags or concentration camps. We haven't had to fight tooth and nail in a desperate attempt to prevent some power from trying to grind us all into the ground to obey their superiority and so on and so forth.

Why is it that everything in foreign countries these days looks exactly the same as in the U.S.? Everytime I see a photo from some place like Switzerland or Iran I'm amazed at how it looks no different than, say, Denver or New York. Sure, the layout of the buildings can be different, but the differences in architecture and style and all sorts of cultural goodies you'd expect just aren't there anymore...:(

I would be less opposed to the cultural homogenization of economic globalization if it meant I could ride the bus with an unloaded Sturmgewehr 90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_90) over my shoulder without dying at the hands of the local county SWAT.

I would be less opposed to the cultural homogenization of economic globalization if it meant I could ride the bus with an unloaded Sturmgewehr 90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_90) over my shoulder without dying at the hands of the local county SWAT.

Heh. I admit that'd be pretty interesting to do. Sadly, it's not happening.

...

Would they really shoot you on sight? Wouldn't you have to present a clear and present danger first? After all, I'm sure plenty of people who have licenses for firearms carry them in public...right?

However, usually when the military is in complete control during war time the results aren't very good, in regards to actions against human rights and civilians.

Aren't they just blunt instrumentations of whomever is regarded as "Commander in Chief"?
A tool's a tool.

I'm sure plenty of people who have licenses for firearms carry them in public...right?

Come visit Alaska some time. :)

Aren't they just blunt instrumentations of whomever is regarded as "Commander in Chief"?
A tool's a tool.
I object to being considered a tool!
Come visit Alaska some time. :)
I'm guessing people carry around firearms in public? (I'll probably end up in Alaska at some point...)

Would they really shoot you on sight? Wouldn't you have to present a clear and present danger first? After all, I'm sure plenty of people who have licenses for firearms carry them in public...right?


I live in a city where one's air rifle is prohibited by municipal code. I live in a state where a rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_Barrett_rifle) (including the bolt-action version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M95)) is banned because in the movies it can shoot down an airliner doing mach .70 from 20 miles away. The multitude of peaceful enthusiasts (http://www.fcsa.org/visitors/position_statement.htm) who insist that Hollywood fantasy is not a good measure of reality don't mean anything. Never mind that anyone rich enough to afford one has better things to do than commit crime.

I figure being seen in public with an "assault rifle" is probably a good way to die.

I object to being considered a tool!Oddly enough, people (generally) don't seem to do enough discriminating 'twixt "duty" and "honour" anymore.
I suspect people are going to misinterpret that, but i really don't care. Perhaps there will be another thread about it.

I'm guessing people carry around firearms in public? (I'll probably end up in Alaska at some point...)
Not a bad guess. :)

I live in a city where one's air rifle is prohibited by municipal code. I live in a state where a rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_Barrett_rifle) (including the bolt-action version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M95)) is banned because in the movies it can shoot down an airliner doing mach .70 from 20 miles away. The multitude of peaceful enthusiasts (http://www.fcsa.org/) who insist that Hollywood fantasy is not a good measure of reality don't mean anything. Never mind that anyone rich enough to afford one has better things to do than commit crime.
Stupid legislatures...

I figure being seen in public with an "assault rifle" is probably a good way to die.
More than likely...
Oddly enough, people (generally) don't seem to do enough discriminating 'twixt "duty" and "honour" anymore.
I suspect people are going to misinterpret that, but i really don't care. Perhaps there will be another thread about it.

I was mainly making a joke, actually, about the whole tool bit.

Not a bad guess. :)
Well...okay then.

I was mainly making a joke, actually, about the whole tool bit. It's okay. Most people object, at first, at being objectified ... but we all get used to it.

Well...okay then.

http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2006/03/stand-your-ground-bill-passes-alaska.html
http://www.dps.state.ak.us/PermitsLicensing/achp/
http://www.carryconcealed.net/legal/alaska-ccw-state-laws.php

:)

It's okay. Most people object, at first, at being objectified ... but we all get used to it.
NYET! :(


http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2006/03/stand-your-ground-bill-passes-alaska.html
http://www.dps.state.ak.us/PermitsLicensing/achp/
http://www.carryconcealed.net/legal/alaska-ccw-state-laws.php

:)
I see.