NationStates Jolt Archive

(I am not about to make an argument against joining the military. Please actually read this whole post before responding.)

As somebody who is trying to enlist in the U.S. military (navy), I have naturally gotten some arguments against my decision. I have observed that people commonly say that it's foolish to join the military in "this day and age." This statement confuses and irritates me. The purpose of the military never changes; it's main role always has been and always will be to go to war. If you join the military, you have to accept the fact that you may end up going to war. So, what is the point in just saying its a bad idea to join the military during a state of war? Why not just say its a bad idea period?

If you join the military during peace time there is a chance you'll go to war. If you join during a war then there's a chance you'll get to stay at home.

Though at least in the navy you'll be quite far away from the insurgents you'll be killing, so they won't be shooting at you. Probably.

because in times of war you have a much higher chance of being IN a war instead of just preparing for one?

you should follow your own conscience. if it leads you to the military then go for it and do your best.

So, what is the point in just saying its a bad idea to join the military during a state of war?
Is the "This day and age" reference specifically supposed to refer to the country currently being in a state of war? Because you could quite easily reinterpret it as meaning "a time where wars are waged on unsupported assumption and prejudice, where wider strategy is grossly oversimplified and where you have no reason to assume that the people whose orders you're following are trying to achieve ends worth risking anybody's life for".

If you join the military during peace time there is a chance you'll go to war. If you join during a war then there's a chance you'll get to stay at home.

Though at least in the navy you'll be quite far away from the insurgents you'll be killing, so they won't be shooting at you. Probably.

Probably, as I don't intend on being a SEAL or a Seabee.

. So, what is the point in just saying its a bad idea to join the military during a state of war? Why not just say its a bad idea period?

Correct. If you don't have a problem with the fact that you may be required to participate in killing people you may not feel need killing, and with people in general trying to kill you, you're ok.

I'm also told that a deep hatred of polishing and ironing can be a good reason to stay out of the military in general as well.

Is the "This day and age" reference specifically supposed to refer to the country currently being in a state of war? Because you could quite easily reinterpret it as meaning "a time where wars are waged on unsupported assumption and prejudice, where wider strategy is grossly oversimplified and where you have no reason to assume that the people whose orders you're following are trying to achieve ends worth risking anybody's life for".

I think most people I hear it from are referring to the former.

Correct. If you don't have a problem with the fact that you may be required to participate in killing people you may not feel need killing, and with people in general trying to kill you, you're ok.

I'm also told that a deep hatred of polishing and ironing can be a good reason to stay out of the military in general as well.

I'm ready to kill insurgents AND polish and iron them if necessary!

I think most people I hear it from are referring to the former.
Then yeah. I agree with you. :p

Because the original purpose of the military (at least in america) was for defense. Its only in the past century that, the purpose has change to that of the world police. Its a bad idea not because you'll be fighting for our country. But because you'll be fighting in wars started by politicians for special interests and other petty reasons. Killing for no real reason. Like say defending the country.

As far as the navy is concerned. You'll probably won't be in middle of the conflict unless we go into a war with a nation with a navy. So of the four its probably the least morally questionable. That's a plus. Many have issues with the military in general and don't distinguish between branches. If you do decide to join then the best of luck to you.

(I am not about to make an argument against joining the military. Please actually read this whole post before responding.)

As somebody who is trying to enlist in the U.S. military (navy), I have naturally gotten some arguments against my decision. I have observed that people commonly say that it's foolish to join the military in "this day and age." This statement confuses and irritates me. The purpose of the military never changes; it's main role always has been and always will be to go to war. If you join the military, you have to accept the fact that you may end up going to war. So, what is the point in just saying its a bad idea to join the military during a state of war? Why not just say its a bad idea period?

Join up. And good luck. You probably have more courage than most of your detractors combined.

Because the original purpose of the military (at least in america) was for defense. Its only in the past century that, the purpose has change to that of the world police. Its a bad idea not because you'll be fighting for our country. But because you'll be fighting in wars started by politicians for special interests and other petty reasons. Killing for no real reason. Like say defending the country.

I imagine none of the people who I have heard the argument from--my mother being the main user of it--have probably thought of it that way, but I see your point.

As far as the navy is concerned. You'll probably won't be in middle of the conflict unless we go into a war with a nation with a navy. So of the four its probably the least morally questionable.

The Coast Guard would be the least morally questionable.

I'm ready to kill insurgents AND polish and iron them if necessary!
What did Poland ever do to you? :p

(I am not about to make an argument against joining the military. Please actually read this whole post before responding.)

As somebody who is trying to enlist in the U.S. military (navy), I have naturally gotten some arguments against my decision. I have observed that people commonly say that it's foolish to join the military in "this day and age." This statement confuses and irritates me. The purpose of the military never changes; it's main role always has been and always will be to go to war. If you join the military, you have to accept the fact that you may end up going to war. So, what is the point in just saying its a bad idea to join the military during a state of war? Why not just say its a bad idea period?

You may go to war yes ... which war and the goal of that war change based on "this day in age" though

Join up. And good luck. You probably have more courage than most of your detractors combined.

Yeah i do tend to notice how the couragous people always seem to sacrafice themselves for the sake of the country/everyone else/fair maiden, where as the cowards tend to live. I'd rather live and be a coward than die and be a hero. Plus you are obviously wrong on the courage bit, people don't not join the army because they have no courage, they don't join because they don't see any financial or moral reason to do so. Its hard work for little pay and long periods away from the people you love, if you are doing that and killing someone who you feel doesn't deserve to be shot, then how do you justify what you are doing?

Because the original purpose of the military (at least in america) was for defense. Its only in the past century that, the purpose has change to that of the world police. Its a bad idea not because you'll be fighting for our country. But because you'll be fighting in wars started by politicians for special interests and other petty reasons. Killing for no real reason. Like say defending the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

lolwut?

If you join the military during peace time there is a chance you'll go to war. If you join during a war then there's a chance you'll get to stay at home.

Though at least in the navy you'll be quite far away from the insurgents you'll be killing, so they won't be shooting at you. Probably.

ahem... may I remind you of the U.S.S. Cole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing)?

This day and age works because compare:

Signing up before or during WWI
Signing up before or during WWII

Which would you rather do? I don't really care about the reasons, personally, there are a few things I can think of and I know they're all hindsight.

But they do show why the argument works.

(I am not about to make an argument against joining the military. Please actually read this whole post before responding.)

As somebody who is trying to enlist in the U.S. military (navy), I have naturally gotten some arguments against my decision. I have observed that people commonly say that it's foolish to join the military in "this day and age." This statement confuses and irritates me. The purpose of the military never changes; it's main role always has been and always will be to go to war. If you join the military, you have to accept the fact that you may end up going to war. So, what is the point in just saying its a bad idea to join the military during a state of war? Why not just say its a bad idea period?

I assume that they are referring to the fact that you will be deployed much more now than in the past. My father, who has been in the Army for 35+ years, was combat deployable during the 80s and 90s. He was able to spend most of his time with his family (when he wasn't in the field training). If I remember correctly, he was overseas for combat a total of 3 times. My brother, who joined about 5 years ago and is getting out now, was deployed every month that he was eligible (he went through Ranger school and some other training stuff the first 2 years or so, but once he joined a unit he was deployed almost constantly, with the exception of 5 months off between tours). The "this day and age" argument rings true for my brother, at least. For him, the opportunity to have a family (and spend a significant amount of time outside of a combat zone) was a big factor. My dad, on the other hand, never had choose between service and, well, having a life outside combat.

ahem... may I remind you of the U.S.S. Cole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing)?

Things like that are why I said "probably". I actually forgot about the SEALs.

Because at certain times in the past, it was within the range of possibility that the military might fight a genuinely defensive war.

Not any more.

Yeah i do tend to notice how the couragous people always seem to sacrafice themselves for the sake of the country/everyone else/fair maiden, where as the cowards tend to live. I'd rather live and be a coward than die and be a hero. Plus you are obviously wrong on the courage bit, people don't not join the army because they have no courage, they don't join because they don't see any financial or moral reason to do so. Its hard work for little pay and long periods away from the people you love, if you are doing that and killing someone who you feel doesn't deserve to be shot, then how do you justify what you are doing?

well, obviously you don't join if you have ethical qualms. I would consider the idea more, but I'm a geek who's thoroughly lacking in the physical fitness department, and I'd be a danger to myself and others. And if you've got, say, a family to support, don't join. other than that, however... If you refuse point-blank to tender some kind of service to your country, you kind of suck.

I'm also told that a deep hatred of polishing and ironing can be a good reason to stay out of the military in general as well.
This is why I could never join the military. Killing people might be interesting, and the thought of dying doesn't really bother me. The prospect of ironing my clothes or only being able to wear a shirt once before it has to be washed fills me with dread and horror.
Not joining the military because of an ongoing conflict is just silly. For one thing, most forms of service are a five year commitment (at least), so there is no reason to believe that the present (whether it is peace or war) will continue for the whole of it.

Reasons to join the military.

1. In times of financial turmoil, it's a steady job with regular pay, housing, medical care and food provided.
2. It's one of the very rare meritocracies left. In the military, a poor, disadvantaged person with intelligence and drive can succeed - it's one of the few places outside of show business and crime where capable minorities can attain positions of authority.

Disadvantage

1. You might be endangered. As opposed to the world outside the military where everything is safe and secure and there is absolutely no danger to you as you go about your daily lives. (yeah, right).

Reasons to join the military.

1. In times of financial turmoil, it's a steady job with regular pay, housing, medical care and food provided.
2. It's one of the very rare meritocracies left. In the military, a poor, disadvantaged person with intelligence and drive can succeed - it's one of the few places outside of show business and crime where capable minorities can attain positions of authority.


WHich is why I would maybe consider joining it if the financial system gets any worse than it is now. But I'm not so sure i can just sell out my morals. It'd be very hard to choose between eating and staying true to myself.

WHich is why I would maybe consider joining it if the financial system gets any worse than it is now. But I'm not so sure i can just sell out my morals. It'd be very hard to choose between eating and staying true to myself.

One of the first things to go from severe starvation is the moral reasoning part of your brain. :p

For one thing, most forms of service are a five year commitment (at least), so there is no reason to believe that the present (whether it is peace or war) will continue for the whole of it.

The U.S. military has an eight year commitment at least, counting active duty and reserve time.

The U.S. military has an eight year commitment at least, counting active duty and reserve time.


I thought it was six. My kids were in the Navy during the Gulf War. My son was in six years and was not required to serve any more time. My daughter was in seven and wasn't required to do any more (although now she's an Air Force officer, largely because they were the only ones hiring in her specialty).

I thought it was six. My kids were in the Navy during the Gulf War. My son was in six years and was not required to serve any more time. My daughter was in seven and wasn't required to do any more (although now she's an Air Force officer, largely because they were the only ones hiring in her specialty).

It must have changed since then. The minimum active duty requirement is four years (unless they still have that two year programme going, but I doubt it), and then there's a four year reserve requirement.

Reasons to join the military.

1. In times of financial turmoil, it's a steady job with regular pay, housing, medical care and food provided.
2. It's one of the very rare meritocracies left. In the military, a poor, disadvantaged person with intelligence and drive can succeed - it's one of the few places outside of show business and crime where capable minorities can attain positions of authority.

Another advantage I've learned from my Military Friends is the prices at their commisaries...

I do all my grocery shopping with them there. man those are some LOW prices!

omg ppl mite shut @ u :(

omg ppl mite shut @ u :(

Oh noez!!!1 :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

lolwut?

Bad example. The ransom the Barbary Pirates were demanding of the infant U.S. was almost a third of their GDP, if I remember correctly. Needless to say, that is not tolerable for a new nation, or any nation. Moreover, the Barbary Pirates had been used in the past by European powers as privateers to prey on enemy shipping, and it was a risk the U.S, who was far from liked in Europe, could not take.

So while it might not have been a war of self defense, it was certainly a war of national security (though I doubt they had the term back then).

I thought it was six. My kids were in the Navy during the Gulf War. My son was in six years and was not required to serve any more time. My daughter was in seven and wasn't required to do any more (although now she's an Air Force officer, largely because they were the only ones hiring in her specialty).

It's been eight for years...the reason it was only six was because the second two years are in the inactive reserve, which means that while you don't do drill weekends, don't get paid (unless you have pension), or have anything to do with the military at all, you can still be called up.

EDIT: Forgot to answer the OP. I'm a National Guardsmen, intend to have a career in the service, and support you whole heartedly. Don't listen to the people who try to tell you not to do it-it's a great opportunity.

well, obviously you don't join if you have ethical qualms. I would consider the idea more, but I'm a geek who's thoroughly lacking in the physical fitness department, and I'd be a danger to myself and others. And if you've got, say, a family to support, don't join. other than that, however... If you refuse point-blank to tender some kind of service to your country, you kind of suck.

"My Country"? Which country is that? I hold two citizenships, and grew up in a third nation. Who should I serve? I don't feel that any of the three nations are using their forces correctly, and I would not be happy with myself working for them. Why should I serve?

Much more to the point, why in the name of God should I serve a country* that has disenfranchised me? Fuck that.

*The USA, for the record. So much for freedom and democracy.

Correct. If you don't have a problem with the fact that you may be required to participate in killing people you may not feel need killing, and with people in general trying to kill you, you're ok.

I'm also told that a deep hatred of polishing and ironing can be a good reason to stay out of the military in general as well.

That's one of the reasons why I didn't join (that, and I would have been like Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket, which is to say a screwup).

Why not just say its a bad idea period?
I've always said it's a bad idea to join the armed forces in the first place.

There's no particular "time" when it becomes a bad idea. It's always been a stupid choice to make.

The U.S. military has an eight year commitment at least, counting active duty and reserve time.
My brother joined the U.S. Navy recently, and I think he said he was only obligated for five years, but he might only have been referring to active service (sans training and reserves). I might also be remembering it wrong, which would make sense because I was drunk when he told me.

My brother joined the U.S. Navy recently, and I think he said he was only obligated for five years, but he might only have been referring to active service (sans training and reserves). I might also be remembering it wrong, which would make sense because I was drunk when he told me.

He was referring to active duty time. You can enlist for four, five, or six years. (Some jobs require enlisting for five or six, mostly the really important and hard-to-fill ones such as anything intelligence related and highly technical fields such as the nuclear field.)

(I am not about to make an argument against joining the military. Please actually read this whole post before responding.)

As somebody who is trying to enlist in the U.S. military (navy), I have naturally gotten some arguments against my decision. I have observed that people commonly say that it's foolish to join the military in "this day and age." This statement confuses and irritates me. The purpose of the military never changes; it's main role always has been and always will be to go to war. If you join the military, you have to accept the fact that you may end up going to war. So, what is the point in just saying its a bad idea to join the military during a state of war? Why not just say its a bad idea period?

True. Wars have usually been dishonest bloodsheds for nothing. I mean it's obvious with American high ranking government officials working for big oil companies who secure contracts in Iraq and all but this is nothing new....

That's one of the reasons why I didn't join (that, and I would have been like Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket, which is to say a screwup).

Hey, at least you'd rid the world of a scary-as-fuck drill sergeant.

It must have changed since then. The minimum active duty requirement is four years (unless they still have that two year programme going, but I doubt it), and then there's a four year reserve requirement.All contracts that you sign are for eight years. You can serve out the full eight years as "active", or you can split it up. Six "active", and two "inactive", or any other variant of that. And yes, you can sign for two years, or three years if you wish, but you'll have six or five years inactive respectively. That's how it was explained to me, anyways.

All contracts that you sign are for eight years. You can serve out the full eight years as "active", or you can split it up. Six "active", and two "inactive", or any other variant of that. And yes, you can sign for two years, or three years if you wish, but you'll have six or five years inactive respectively. That's how it was explained to me, anyways.

If you only enlist for two or three years, or even four, you will probably have to do at least a few years in a reserve component, be it the Army National Guard or Army Reserve.

If you only enlist for two or three years, or even four, you will probably have to do at least a few years in a reserve component, be it the Army National Guard or Army Reserve.No, what I meant was that you'll be inactive, but still able to be called to duty at any time during the fulfillment of your contract. Even if you're not a part of the Armed Forces anymore. If you enlist in the active Army force two years, you serve those two years active, and serve the last six as inactive reserve. There isn't a trade-down/up program between the National Guard and the Army/Army Reserve because the two are federalized, and the National Guard is empowered and employed by their respective state.

No, what I meant was that you'll be inactive, but still able to be called to duty at any time during the fulfillment of your contract. Even if you're not a part of the Armed Forces anymore. If you enlist in the active Army force two years, you serve those two years active, and serve the last six as inactive reserve. There isn't a trade-down/up program between the National Guard and the Army/Army Reserve because the two are federalized, and the National Guard is empowered and employed by their respective state.

I believe you can choose inactive or active reserve after you're done your active duty time.

I believe you can choose inactive or active reserve after you're done your active duty time.I wouldn't know. I won't be able to sign up for active duty 'till February. But I intend to join (the Active Army) the day after I turn eighteen.

I wouldn't know. I won't be able to sign up for active duty 'till February. But I intend to join (the Active Army) the day after I turn eighteen.

Good luck with that, mate.


If anybody here has served in the U.S. navy, I would love to hear about your experiences.

I believe you can choose inactive or active reserve after you're done your active duty time.

Yes, or National Guard for your respective state. It is something that would be outlined in your contract.

No, what I meant was that you'll be inactive, but still able to be called to duty at any time during the fulfillment of your contract. Even if you're not a part of the Armed Forces anymore. If you enlist in the active Army force two years, you serve those two years active, and serve the last six as inactive reserve. There isn't a trade-down/up program between the National Guard and the Army/Army Reserve because the two are federalized, and the National Guard is empowered and employed by their respective state.

Not entirely true. The vast majority of the NCOs in my unit actually served in regular army units, but at the end of their active duty service went to the National Guard.
This is also largely due to the fact that the Army Reserve is primarily support MOS's, whereas the Army National Guard actually makes up the majority of some combat jobs.

Also, while the National Guard is controlled by the Governor as compared to the President (at least usually), it recieves funding from both federal and state governments. At some point in the 70s (I think), National Guard became Army National Guard, and is now less a state-controlled military as a reserve component of the federal army.

I wouldn't know. I won't be able to sign up for active duty 'till February. But I intend to join (the Active Army) the day after I turn eighteen.

Awesome. What MOS?

Yes, or National Guard for your respective state. It is something that would be outlined in your contract.


I can see how this would work with Army or Air Force, but the navy has no equivalent to the national guard, so I don't think I would be able to do that. If so, it would depend on my rating, of course. I don't think a boatswain's mate would be too useful to the Army National Guard, for example. ;)

Not entirely true. The vast majority of the NCOs in my unit actually served in regular army units, but at the end of their active duty service went to the National Guard.
This is also largely due to the fact that the Army Reserve is primarily support MOS's, whereas the Army National Guard actually makes up the majority of some combat jobs.

Also, while the National Guard is controlled by the Governor as compared to the President (at least usually), it recieves funding from both federal and state governments. At some point in the 70s (I think), National Guard became Army National Guard, and is now less a state-controlled military as a reserve component of the federal army.Thanks for explaining.



Awesome. What MOS?19K. Hopefully KB.

I can see how this would work with Army or Air Force, but the navy has no equivalent to the national guard, so I don't think I would be able to do that. If so, it would depend on my rating, of course. I don't think a boatswain's mate would be too useful to the Army National Guard, for example. ;)

Heh. Yeah, no National Guard for the Navy. Though you would think maybe a few states would...:tongue:

Thanks for explaining.



19K. Hopefully KB.

No problem. And rodger that, nothing quite like rolling in an Abrams to liven up your day.

No problem. And rodger that, nothing quite like rolling in an Abrams to liven up your day. I just love the idea of cruising along at thirty miles per hour in seventy tons of steel. :D

Good luck with that, mate.


If anybody here has served in the U.S. navy, I would love to hear about your experiences.

I never served in the Navy but my kids and my parents did. I have to say, I really enjoyed going on a tiger cruise on my son's destroyer and visiting my daughter's destroyer tender. I have a whole flotilla of pictures of places they've been and souvenirs from those places. But, I have to say the berthings for enlisted and lower level NCOs on ships are hideously claustrophobic, there is no privacy and it's near impossible to get used to the noise, which is 24-7. Also, I had Xmas dinner on my daughter's ship when I visited, the food was terrible.

Because the original purpose of the military (at least in america) was for defense. Its only in the past century that, the purpose has change to that of the world police. Its a bad idea not because you'll be fighting for our country. But because you'll be fighting in wars started by politicians for special interests and other petty reasons. Killing for no real reason. Like say defending the country.lol? The only 'Defensive' american wars of the 19th century I can think of are the Barbary wars and maybe the one of 1812, too. All others - aggression, combined with a healthy amount of territorial expansion. Oh, and when it went against brown people, usually a healthy amount of what'd today (Actually, back then, too. Just not when it was done to brown people) be considered rather heinous warcrimes, too.

Worth noting that the Barbary wars were fought abroad, though. Ya'know... Africa.

Ultimately, the modern US military - specifically, post-Vietnam military - is by far the most humane and restrained force the US has ever had.

lol? The only 'Defensive' american wars of the 19th century I can think of are the Barbary wars and maybe the one of 1812, too. All others - aggression, combined with a healthy amount of territorial expansion. Oh, and when it went against brown people, usually a healthy amount of what'd today (Actually, back then, too. Just not when it was done on brown people) be considered rather heinous warcrimes, too.

Worth noting that the Barbary wars were fought abroad, though. Ya'know... Africa.

Ultimately, the modern US military - specifically, post-Vietnam military - is by far the most humane and restrained force the US has ever had.

My kids, when they were in the Navy, were far more engaged with helping people than with any sort of warlike activity. My daughter's mandate now, as an Air Force Public Health Officer, is for humanitarian activity. She was on of the military people who was in Texas helping with the refugees from Hurricane Ike. The idea is that you can do as much to "win a war" by giving vaccinations, medical care and humanitarian aid as you can with guns.

Probably, as I don't intend on being a SEAL or a Seabee.

Don't forget that Corpsmen also run into direct combat.

Otherwise, yeah, you're pretty much going to be away from combat unless it comes to you while you're at a base.

This is why I could never join the military. Killing people might be interesting, and the thought of dying doesn't really bother me. The prospect of ironing my clothes or only being able to wear a shirt once before it has to be washed fills me with dread and horror.


Though not overly knowledgable about such things, I'm reliably informed that the ironing in the Foreign legion has had hardened men weep in frustration. And yes, they really do take a ruler to the creases.

lol? The only 'Defensive' american wars of the 19th century I can think of are the Barbary wars and maybe the one of 1812, too.

1812 war was caused by the U.S.A trying to invade what is now Canada.

1812 war was caused by the U.S.A trying to invade what is now Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

I was about to argue with you, but actually, you're at least partially correct. :(

I love being partially correct. :p

(I am not about to make an argument against joining the military. Please actually read this whole post before responding.)

As somebody who is trying to enlist in the U.S. military (navy), I have naturally gotten some arguments against my decision. I have observed that people commonly say that it's foolish to join the military in "this day and age." This statement confuses and irritates me. The purpose of the military never changes; it's main role always has been and always will be to go to war. If you join the military, you have to accept the fact that you may end up going to war. So, what is the point in just saying its a bad idea to join the military during a state of war? Why not just say its a bad idea period?

Most people tend to think that a young person is going to follow a fairly typical life path. Something along the lines of 'finish school, meet a boy or girl, get a job, maybe some college, settle down, family'. Or a model close to that.

Joining the armed forces, especially during time of war adds and subtracts. You might do the college... or you might end up dead in some foreign country. You might beet the girl or boy, or you might end up being tortured for information for the next five years. You might get that family... or you might leave a family with only one parent.

During prolonged peace, it's possible to act like the military is just a job, like any other. You can still see family and friends, be there to raise your kids, care for your mom when she's sick... that kind of stuff.

That's what lives behind the 'this day and age' argument.

I love being partially correct. :p

Except that controlling Canada would have been primarily a method of waging the war, not so much a reason for starting it.

Also, I thought this was amusingly ironic and hilarious:

The majority of the inhabitants of Upper Canada (Ontario) were either exiles from the United States (United Empire Loyalists) or post-war immigrants. The Loyalists were hostile to union with the U.S., while the other settlers seem to have been uninterested. The Canadian colonies were thinly populated and only lightly defended by the British Army. Some Americans believed that many in Upper Canada would rise up and greet a United States invading army as liberators. The combination suggested an easy conquest, as former president Thomas Jefferson seemed to believe in 1812, "the acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighbourhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent."

Dick Cheney, 1812 version!

Except that controlling Canada would have been primarily a method of waging the war, not so much a reason for starting it.

Also, I thought this was amusingly ironic and hilarious:

Dick Cheney, 1812 version!

Those who refuse to learn from the mistakes of history, are doomed to repeat them...

I say it depends on what country you are in before you consider joining any military, then decide if it is worth signing yourself over to serve that nation in its military forces

Dont join the USA military, it has a nice long history of war crimes, and even if you dont get into a war, the basic american people tend to mock those who join up

Besides, its the USA Navy that started those rumors about what the guys get up to while out at sea :D

Except that controlling Canada would have been primarily a method of waging the war, not so much a reason for starting it.

I kind of meant they declared war and attacked the northern areas at the same time (I could be wrong). I thought taking over the region was twofold; get some extra territory (from where the 'liberated' people lived) and to use the rest as ransom/bargaining chip against the English.

Dick Cheney, 1812 version!
You should see the 1991 version of Cheney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MePwb6TEk&feature=related

I kind of meant they declared war and attacked the northern areas at the same time (I could be wrong). I thought taking over the region was twofold; get some extra territory (from where the 'liberated' people lived) and to use the rest as ransom/bargaining chip against the English.

Something like that, I guess.

You should see the 1991 version of Cheney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MePwb6TEk&feature=related

Ah, the internet...possibly the worst threat to powermongerers ever.