PDA

View Full Version : Serving in the Army: A Job or a Duty?



grazny
Saturday, April 29th, 2006, 08:32 PM
Now people see the army like a job and not like a patriotic duty. I've seen a lot of documentaries of American soldiers in Iraq and they all saying the same think: "It's a job". I mean where are the days when one would fight for his country? When people start seeing the army as a job, this will make them cut and run when their lives are in danger (this is happening right now when a lot of American soldiers want to go home). When one will see the army as a duty he will be more willing to fight.. and not cut and run...
This is my opinion.....
Dunno if anybody noticed it but my poll sux.. :))))):lmfao:

Prince Eugen
Saturday, April 29th, 2006, 08:39 PM
You're right!I don't believe to the modern mercenaries armies!I believe strongly that all people male and females must be training to protect their own Fatherland!In the Modern declain Western World army is a career task in the Traditional World Army Service is the Noble duty ,and right,of the Free People when warrior cast is the true Aristocrats!

Jäger
Saturday, April 29th, 2006, 08:54 PM
If you ask an american soldier why he joined the army, 9 out of 10 answeres would be something like: "I wanted to travel the world" or "They pay my college/apprenticeship" etc.

Patrioten
Saturday, April 29th, 2006, 11:46 PM
It's a patriotic duty for sure, and what a noble duty it is. I can't help but admire those who are willing to defend their country with their own lives. The foundation of a nation's defense however must be a sheer love for folk and country, gold is not a good source for motivation.

Here in Sweden our rulers are trying to flood our already weak military with racial foreigners and cleanse out as many Swedes as possible which is just a recipe for disaster. They want Sweden to be "defended" by negroes and arabs and just about every other ethnicity except Swedes. But of course this is just another measure of turning Sweden into a multi cultural dream society, making Swedes second class citizens in their own country. We'll soon be looking out over Sweden from behind bars in a zoo if this is allowed to continue.

Wōdanaz
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 12:05 AM
I think, the military service should be a duty for all men and women! Even if we will be in ZOG armies then, it“s more than nessecary to learn how to handle weapons und so on... With us in their lines, they piss on their own feet! :D

I enjoyed my army-time and won“t miss it...
I met good comrades there, we have contact till today ( i was in the german Bundeswehr around 1996). I learned a lot, had much fun...

Well, I know, that I“m a "military-fetishist"... But I think, everyone should have the experience of beeing a soldier!

Greetings from once great Deutschland,

Kraffti

Ahren_
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 12:06 AM
Personal duty and adherence to commitment until death isn't necessarily related to the defence of the country, especially in our time. It may be for the purpose of continuing the noble legacy of the bloodline and people, but also because a warrior is out to learn from life the fundamental truths and overcome hardships to improve himself mentally, spiritually and physically.

Ęmeric
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 12:12 AM
If you ask an american soldier why he joined the army, 9 out of 10 answeres would be something like: "I wanted to travel the world" or "They pay my college/apprenticeship" etc.
The U.S. has had an all volunteer military for over 30 years. To get people to enlist the military uses several sales pitches such as "job training" "paying for college" "opportunity to travel". "Its not just a job it's an adventure!" use to be one of their slogans. They also emphasize the benefits of military duty, like full medical & dental, a pension at 50% of base pay after 20 years.
Part of the problem with the U.S. military is that it has become just another branch of the civil service but with uniforms. I served in the military 25 years ago & some of the problems then were people who were lifers, individuals who were staying in for at least 20 years just to get the pension & lifetime medical/dental coverage. Some of these people were lazy & incredibly incompetent, especially those ranked E-5 & E-6. And there was affirmative action which gave non-Whites extra points in advancement. It's amazing how well the U.S. Military can function with all the lazy morons within it's ranks.

grazny
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 01:03 AM
Well I think that it should be a duty. A duty to defend the motherland/fatherland and a duty to invade another country for its resources. For a country to develop it needs resources. One country should do whatever is necessary to get those resources, from trading to military action. In defense of my position I will say that a country that has resources and is not using them, it's like wasting them. But a country that is in full economic, scientific, medical etc.. progress, those resources are vital to the advancement of that country and of the humanity itself. If it wasn't for the colonies to fuel the European industries then the progress would be slower... Think of all that oil from middle-east that is in the hands of some camel-riding punks...

Patrioten
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 01:19 AM
But there has to be a greater goal than just a constant economic boom, i'd prefer to see a small but stable economic progress where resources are used carefully and not spent unnecessarily. A country should strive to take care of the basic needs of its citizens, food on the table, roof over their head, law and order in the streets and a job to go to.

grazny
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 01:50 AM
A country should strive to take care of the basic needs of its citizens, food on the table, roof over their head, law and order in the streets and a job to go to.

Well a lot of governments don't do that and that's why we have immigration. Some people instead of trying to FIX the country will decide to take the easy step and that is going to Europe or North America.

Georgia
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 03:23 AM
Many of the young men and women join right out of school for economic reasons. Some have already signed up before graduation.
Georgia

http://www.goarmy.com/nfindex.jsp (http://www.goarmy.com/nfindex.jsp)

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 07:40 AM
The U.S. has had an all volunteer military for over 30 years. To get people to enlist the military uses several sales pitches such as "job training" "paying for college" "opportunity to travel". "Its not just a job it's an adventure!" use to be one of their slogans. They also emphasize the benefits of military duty, like full medical & dental, a pension at 50% of base pay after 20 years.
Part of the problem with the U.S. military is that it has become just another branch of the civil service but with uniforms. I served in the military 25 years ago & some of the problems then were people who were lifers, individuals who were staying in for at least 20 years just to get the pension & lifetime medical/dental coverage. Some of these people were lazy & incredibly incompetent, especially those ranked E-5 & E-6. And there was affirmative action which gave non-Whites extra points in advancement. It's amazing how well the U.S. Military can function with all the lazy morons within it's ranks.

Exactly! These are professional soldiers. Besides this class of soldier we have "weekend warriors", reservists who train one weekend per month. They get a monthly check, every month, war or peace.

The United States has a professional military, not citizen soldiers, not poor draftees. There is absolutely no reason to feel sorry for these guys. These are adults who knew exactly what they were doing when they ENLISTED. Hey, THEY TOOK THE MONEY. This situation is not like the Vietnam experience of a draftee army. There is no reason for the constant calls to support the troops. This is not a high school football game. You support a high school football team but you buy season tickets to a professional football team. The citizens of the United States have bought the season ticket. We can leave the hype at home.

signofthehammer
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 12:21 PM
the fact is that hundreds and hundreds of years of christianity, capitalism, and modern political thought make soldiering as a patriotic duty nigh impossible. States are no longer living, ethnic entities, i.e no longer nations. The modern state is a completely political entity, and I'll be damned if they want to make me fight their wars. Although I'm living in the UK now I'm also an American Citizen as well, and I can promise you if there's ever a draft in the States you can bet I'll be barricaded in my house shooting at the draft officers. That's my patriotic duty as an American - to not let the government tell me what to do!

Jäger
Sunday, April 30th, 2006, 12:29 PM
It's amazing how well the U.S. Military can function with all the lazy morons within it's ranks. How do you measure this?
I have been in the german military (conscript) and I experienced some trainings with american soldiers, and at least the infantry performed rather poorly. (Army Infantry, Marines were quite good, not as good as we were though :D)
It's been a while since the US army really got tested, don't you think?

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006, 06:55 PM
military service should be seen as a duty.

J.B. Basset
Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 01:08 AM
For many years being a soldier has been seen and considered as a job. A job that has to be learnt, a technique that has to be mastered to get a result. It is not till the revolutionary France that serving in the army was a duty as the result of the consideration that the defence of the Republic was a question of the whole nation (citizens) but it is not till the First World War that the mass draft is imposed all over Europe, in any case the Faulkland War showed the world how a professional, well paid army knows how to do things facing a draft army.
Every technique/arxņs must be mastered by a technician, not an amateur which is trained for several weeks and thrown into the grill. Of course there are exceptions but few, the problem of a professional army is not the competence of its individuals but the competencence of itself to resolve clean, quick and satisfactory a problem wherever, whenever and whatever it be. You are paid to do a job, and this job faces the very much probability to be killed, hurt or handicapped, something you assume when you sign up to be paid to do your duty.

Rothhammer
Thursday, August 18th, 2011, 11:02 PM
I personally think it should be mandatory that ever male in the US physically able to complete basic training be required to serve for atleast a few years, whether as and enlisted or an officer. For all I've heard on here in the time I've been reading prior to registration I don't understand why more people here aren't of like minds. I've read complaints on the forum about gang activity. It's a known fact gang members have been joining the military to learn squad tactics, so why shouldn't Germanics be encouraged to also join? If for nothing else, we should join to learn the same skill sets for ourselves as a defensive tactic. I've read complaints on how the diversification of the military is ruining it. Well it would only make sense that it would then become our duty as proud Germanics to flood recruiting stations with our presence and join to make ourselves a greater presence, strengthening the military with our work ethic, efficiency, and sense of duty.

People have said that most recruits are only joining for the college money or a job. I can't deny that. That was why I originally enlisted. At first I even resented the Army for not all-around meeting the standards of conduct and efficiency I was brought up to believe it represented. Then I realized that it was never going to get better unless someone did something about it. I may not make the biggest splash in the pond, but if not even one individual were to try, there wouldn't be even a ripple. I've gone off on a tangent, but as far as the benefits go, of course new recruits join for the benefits. Of course some people stay for the benefits also. If the military didn't offer them they wouldn't get recruits cause so many of those that can, and have this idea military service should be for the right reasons, refuse to join and defend the choice with rationalizations. Atleast with they can reel in people with the benefits long enough to possibly change their minds. To make them see the military as an honorable thing. If you want soldiers to serve for the right reasons, and you know what those reasons are and are eligiable to join, do so.

If I came off as spiteful, it wasn't my intention. I see far behind the military service's bs a system. A system that was set up by one our own. The Prussian, Baron Von Steuban. It's made to be something good. If it's gotten muddy over the last 200 years, then it's up to us to clean it off and make it something good and respectable again. We could make it the wonder of the world. We could influence the Army of tomorrow, and with it the nation of tomorrow. We just need to step up to the plate.

Lew Skannon
Thursday, August 18th, 2011, 11:19 PM
As it is today it is a job. Duty applies only to the comrades in your platoon or company.
In a just society it is an absolute duty.
In Germany under NSDAP every german was born as a "Staatsangehörig" and not a full citizen. Only after completion of school followed by military sevice would he be eligable to become a "Staatsbürger". The same principle applied to the old spartan society. Its a good principle!

Gardisten
Thursday, August 18th, 2011, 11:59 PM
Serving in the military nowadays would be beneficial in certain respects since the state is essentially paying one to learn how to use weapons and various combat and survival skills. To use the US as an example, the down side is that the military is now too heterogenous and the common soldier usually ends up becoming a degenerate, fallen person. Widespread alcoholism, drug use, homosexuality, and increasing suicide rates. I watched a doc some time ago, Restrepo, about soldiers in Afghanistan. They're all whiners and druggies. The one Sergeant was killed in a firefight, and one of the other Sergeants started balling like a baby when there were still Taliban in the area. Talk about pathetic. On top of that, the American soldier that gets wounded or leaves the service is treated like crap. I hate to say it, Canadian soldiers are not much better. There was guy who went to Afghanistan and when he came back beat the sh*t out of his kids; his defense: he had PTSD because he was a rampie, while all of his friends got to go out on combat ops...

Lew Skannon
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 12:13 AM
I have PTSD, but I never raise a fist against anyonethat didn't diserve it. PTSD as an excuse for abuse is a second crime!

PTSD sucks bigtime, but it doesn't make you a monster or a thug. If that happens you were one from start, its got nothing to do with your condition.

Schneider
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 02:15 AM
Now people see the army like a job and not like a patriotic duty. I've seen a lot of documentaries of American soldiers in Iraq and they all saying the same think: "It's a job". I mean where are the days when one would fight for his country? When people start seeing the army as a job, this will make them cut and run when their lives are in danger (this is happening right now when a lot of American soldiers want to go home). When one will see the army as a duty he will be more willing to fight.. and not cut and run...
This is my opinion.....
:

As a young man I could not bear the thought of getting old and not having served in the military. So I joined the Army National Guard, Infantry. I chose infantry over armor as I preferred the idea of bleeding out while laying on the soil under the sky, to the thought of burning to death in a tank. I did not want to serve in the rear.

In the National Guard you are assigned to a local unit. All of the soldiers are from the area. The area I lived was mostly white. Our units ranks reflected that(There are very few blacks in the US infantry, two in our battalion). The people in my unit all volunteered for the Infantry. I would not want to serve with draftees. Pay in the National Guard is minimal. Mine covered my travel expenses. All soldiers go through the same basic and advanced training along with the regular army troops. Monthly training in very minimal to maintain skills and paperwork. Then we train for a few weeks in the summer. Additional schools and duties are available to those who volunteer and qualify.

Our Battalion has deployed overseas for 3 times since 2001, and will be going again soon. Each deployment is @3 months training and 12 months in theater. This makes it very difficult to attain and keep good civilian employment with out a (very)patriotic employer. Support of the local community help greatly with this.

As to service in the U.S. military being a job, it is. Those who join thinking they are going to ride a white horse into battle and destroy the evil enemy are sadly disappointed. We are involved in police actions that we know have little affect on defending the country. Yet we still serve. We know they are not the type of wars that are "won". Yet we still fight.


`Forward the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.




Patriotism, Duty, and yes it is also a job. Jobs are important to Americans of traditional upbringing. We are given a task and we complete it well. We take pride in our work, and reputation.

American soldiers are very aggressive. They do not "cut and run". As to soldiers complaining, they are humans, humans complain.

Schneider
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 02:40 AM
Exactly! These are professional soldiers. Besides this class of soldier we have "weekend warriors", reservists who train one weekend per month. They get a monthly check, every month, war or peace.

The United States has a professional military, not citizen soldiers, not poor draftees. There is absolutely no reason to feel sorry for these guys. These are adults who knew exactly what they were doing when they ENLISTED. Hey, THEY TOOK THE MONEY. This situation is not like the Vietnam experience of a draftee army. There is no reason for the constant calls to support the troops. This is not a high school football game. You support a high school football team but you buy season tickets to a professional football team. The citizens of the United States have bought the season ticket. We can leave the hype at home.

Yes, they get paid. We do want our professional soldiers to raise successful families.

Yes, most know what they are getting into when they volunteer to serve in the armed forces of their country, at least they have seen the movies.

No, I do not feel sorry for them or myself. They do need our support. We need to honor their service, some of them are taking great risks to protect our country. Yes, cheer them forward, like a football team. Celebrate in their victories, and share the sorrow of their defeats. Remember the great ones and tell stories of their gallantry to your children.

I am very happy to have served in an all volunteer army. We all wanted to be there. (Well, really we just all wanted to shoot machine guns and blow things up and they don't let us do that at home.)

Austin
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 03:29 AM
How can you expect any person to honestly care about notions of nationalistic honor when they live in a multicultural hell?

Those nationalistic days are long gone in most individuals minds. If you talk to the average under 30 Army/Navy or even Air force member they'll tell you they are doing it to pay for university or just as a job for future contacts in security sectors. Nobody says anything along the lines of patriotism or notions of nationality. It's about economic need. Truth be told most in the military wouldn't be there if they didn't have to be for socioeconomic reasons.


Anyone who has any notions that the military isn't corrupt, you're wrong. There's tons of corruption at the highest levels. Generals with contracting corruption, payoffs, multimillion dollar villas in third world countries, tons of that stuff on every level, and most of it is looked over. It's an industry on a global level and has nothing to do with honor or nationality and hasn't since post WW2.

Rothhammer
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 08:51 AM
Then do something about it. Don't act like you care that our team sucks when you won't go play with them, let alone go watch the game. It's not that we don't all acknowledge the problems. Some of us are just caring to fix it. Why don't you?

Austin
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 10:29 AM
Then do something about it. Don't act like you care that our team sucks when you won't go play with them, let alone go watch the game. It's not that we don't all acknowledge the problems. Some of us are just caring to fix it. Why don't you?

Why should anyone be interested in dying for a system that actively rapes them?

I would never die for the current system in any form. I know many nationalist types who feel the same way and are equally sickened by it. I'd never risk my life for some scumbag bureaucratic asshole in the pentagon who has illegitimate revenue streams from corrupt contracting deals. That system (industry) interests me not. It does not serve me. It serves it's multicultural, consumerist hive-hell and works to eliminate those remaining factions in the world that are not subject to that consumerist hive-hell yet.

Would I or should I feel an obligation to die for that multicultural entity which would have my future daughter raped by some Jamal ghetto fuck? No thank you. That system and it's sub-systems can employ in the meat-grinder the less enlightened ones. I'll sit back and watch in putrid disgust.

The Horned God
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 10:32 AM
The poll doesn't make sense.

Anyway, joining the army must be a duty because it certainly doesn't pay enough to be considered a reasonable long term career.

Fiona
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 10:45 AM
Can you please change the way the poll is worded so that it makes sense

Sigurd
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 11:29 AM
I'm going to give this question a very pragmatic answer:

In a peacetime situation, it is a job like any other: That is the whole point of entertaining a standing army - you pay a bunch of folks to safeguard the country's defence and order, in return they get payment, security and accomodation.

To entertain a professional army during those times (rather than a conscript one) might also give youngster otherwise pretty hopeless for a career to make something out of their lives; the way the conscript army works in Austria is that they're more interested in destroying than making careers, it has now become standard practice to draft folks into the army in the middle of their studies or apprenticeship.

For those of our political convictions, they tend to also block applications for service beyond conscript service. For those that are conscripted, it's almost a waste of half a year (a period too short, if anything, anyway) and basically you learn no skills you couldn't otherwise have acquired. It is filled with Turks, and the army is so ridiculous that a group of semi-intelligent folks could break into our barracks: They're guarded by ill-trained recruits, and are commanded by grossly overweight officers.

In a wartime situation, it is evidently a duty, and not just for those that would normally be considered apt for military service: Any man should be ready to jump to defence of his fatherland as long as he knows how to hold a gun the right way around lest his physical health otherwise does not allow (you can't send the blind or wheelchair-bound man to the front, you're better off employing them in other ranks of use).

That being said, it is good we have soldiers, even in peacetime situations. A working folk community needs all types of people: The mothers, the children, the builders, the growers, the thinkers, and yes - the soldiers. Those that do choose a career in the armed forces have my greatest respect, but it is not for me: I am more use to furthering my folk via other means, and in the current system I also see more feasible options to physically defend my folk (in the streets, security jobbings, younameit).

Finally, I'm not prepared to swear an oath to serve a country which I don't even formally accept as having a right to exist. My nationalistic pride as a German sees no point in serving an Austrian state. ;)

Sigurd
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 11:35 AM
On popular demand, I have also altered the poll options to make more sense, and also to allow for other options (the "both" and "neither/other" option having been added).

I also reset the voting counter to zero for either of the options. If you were one of the 16 people that cast their vote thus far for one of the existing options, please inform me via the reputation system which option you chose (or which alternative option you would like to choose on the extended poll) and I will amend the counter for you accordingly. :)

SpearBrave
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 11:42 AM
I personally think it should be mandatory that ever male in the US physically able to complete basic training be required to serve for atleast a few years, whether as and enlisted or an officer. For all I've heard on here in the time I've been reading prior to registration I don't understand why more people here aren't of like minds. I've read complaints on the forum about gang activity. It's a known fact gang members have been joining the military to learn squad tactics, so why shouldn't Germanics be encouraged to also join? If for nothing else, we should join to learn the same skill sets for ourselves as a defensive tactic. I've read complaints on how the diversification of the military is ruining it. Well it would only make sense that it would then become our duty as proud Germanics to flood recruiting stations with our presence and join to make ourselves a greater presence, strengthening the military with our work ethic, efficiency, and sense of duty.


This is the very reason why our young men should join the military. Our people need leaders for what may or may not come. We also will need soldiers. It is one thing for someone to say " I will defend my folk " and another thing for them actually being able and trained to do so.

As far as fighting for the "right" cause, soldiers are people they are not brainwashed machines otherwise former soldiers would not be on the watch list by the US homeland security.

I don't know about today's military, but back in the 80's most of the combat units were made up of at least whites if not Germanics. Most of the other jobs were filled by racial others back then.

Not only that I met other Germanics there and we remain loyal friends to this very day.

Rothhammer
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 12:12 PM
Sigurd, I'm too green to send personal messages; I don't have fifteen posts. My vote goes to duty, obviously. Haha. Could you please make the poll reflect that choice?

Ocko
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 05:07 PM
My allegiance is to myself, my family, my clan (though there are exceptions), my tribe, my race. There it stops.

I have no allegiance to a jew-manipulated state.

I have trouble to defend people who are brainwashed by Jews.

For me it boils down to always defend my family and the people who believe in the same idea as I do.

With others I see what I can do, but I would not wholeheartedly defend them. (Depends on the enemy though, racially others attacking the lands of white people is differently)

I served in the german Army as generations of my ancestors before me. I would not do it today but look for better means to serve my people.

Austin
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 08:11 PM
In college when I'd go drinking at bars with friends we'd always talk to off-duty army guys back from Iraq or Afghanistan.


We'd give them cigarets to get them talking, and basically they'd just sit there and bitch about how much they hated their officers and how the brass never did anything and made them do stupid things that served no purpose.

Certainly there was no mention of patriotism. They were fast to insist they were doing it for a job or to get in the door with a security contractor. Most frankly speaking were extremely troubled individuals. They'd have a young wife or a handful of ex-wives hanging around.

Military guys are notoriously terrible for a community. They absolutely wreak holy hell and then some on the local under 25, female populace. The govt. gives them some form of tax breaks or financial incentive if they have a wife so all these young guys marry what can only be called the most impressionable young women on earth. They marry them, get them pregnant, cheat on them, divorce them, and do it all over again with another 19 year old. Having a military base in ones community is literally a terrible, terrible thing for the young, uneducated women of that community.

SpearBrave
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 08:37 PM
In college when I'd go drinking at bars with friends we'd always talk to off-duty army guys back from Iraq or Afghanistan.


We'd give them cigarets to get them talking, and basically they'd just sit there and bitch about how much they hated their officers and how the brass never did anything and made them do stupid things that served no purpose.

Certainly there was no mention of patriotism. They were fast to insist they were doing it for a job or to get in the door with a security contractor. Most frankly speaking were extremely troubled individuals. They'd have a young wife or a handful of ex-wives hanging around.

Military guys are notoriously terrible for a community. They absolutely wreak holy hell and then some on the local under 25, female populace. The govt. gives them some form of tax breaks or financial incentive if they have a wife so all these young guys marry what can only be called the most impressionable young women on earth. They marry them, get them pregnant, cheat on them, divorce them, and do it all over again with another 19 year old. Having a military base in ones community is literally a terrible, terrible thing for the young, uneducated women of that community.

^So is the opinion of many that cannot or will not face the challenges or the strength of being a soldier. Many times I have heard such things from individuals who find it so easy to sit back and play armchair politics yet most of it is talk and not action. The left has long been breeding such resentment for the military or persons who are in the military. Some will even call themselves preservationist yet lack the skill or courage to face the adversity that it takes to be in the military. Factually put until they have been in the military those people should not even attempt to make statements like the one above, otherwise they are just spouting off the things they were conditioned to think.

Many times I have seen young men marry in the military and they are still married twenty years later to the same woman. Another point is that they are at least getting a woman and having children. Ever think these young girls are impressed by the fact that the men in the military are at showing signs of being a man, much more than most college guys do at the same age.;)

Austin
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 09:01 PM
^So is the opinion of many that cannot or will not face the challenges or the strength of being a soldier. Many times I have heard such things from individuals who find it so easy to sit back and play armchair politics yet most of it is talk and not action. The left has long been breeding such resentment for the military or persons who are in the military. Some will even call themselves preservationist yet lack the skill or courage to face the adversity that it takes to be in the military. Factually put until they have been in the military those people should not even attempt to make statements like the one above, otherwise they are just spouting off the things they were conditioned to think.

Many times I have seen young men marry in the military and they are still married twenty years later to the same woman. Another point is that they are at least getting a woman and having children. Ever think these young girls are impressed by the fact that the men in the military are at showing signs of being a man, much more than most college guys do at the same age.;)


Not really. I do however see the pregnant 17-19 year old's who have to go to their parents and explain how they married an army guy who left on a tour only to find out that upon returning he slept with another 19 year old who he met at the bar and now wants a divorce.

These young women's lives are decimated by these idiots. The child is raised in poverty and is usually into every vice one can imagine because it has no father and it's mother was just a child and still is.

I agree some military guys do do it right. The problem is they are not the majority. They are the vast minority. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/12/27/military-divorces-continue-to-increase/

SpearBrave
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 09:43 PM
Not really. I do however see the pregnant 17-19 year old's who have to go to their parents and explain how they married an army guy who left on a tour only to find out that upon returning he f**ked another 19 year old who he met at the bar and now wants a divorce.


This happens just as much and maybe even more so in civilian life as it does in the military, it is part of the downgrade of our society caused by the left.



These young women's lives are decimated by these idiots. The child is raised in poverty and is usually into every vice one can imagine because it has no father and it's mother was just a child and still is.


No more than they are decimated by those that are not in the military, really this is mute point you are making as these things happen to girls that don't get involved with military men. Actually it probably happens more in civilian life as far as numbers go. At least with the man being in the military she could get support payments as he has a income to pay such payments. In fact there is a number of girls who wish trap military men for that very reason, some have wish full thinking they will be taken care of for life by these means.




I agree some military guys do do it right. The problem is they are not the majority. They are the vast minority. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/12/27/military-divorces-continue-to-increase/

This just compares divorce rates from year to year within the military, not military compared to non-military rates. So there again it is not good comparison. Yes divorce is high in the military mostly due to the fact of deployment. Often times when men are deployed 'Jody' comes sniffing around and wrecking families. In this case it is not always the fault of the soldier.

Ęmeric
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 10:08 PM
In college when I'd go drinking at bars with friends we'd always talk to off-duty army guys back from Iraq or Afghanistan.


We'd give them cigarets to get them talking, and basically they'd just sit there and bitch about how much they hated their officers and how the brass never did anything and made them do stupid things that served no purpose.

Certainly there was no mention of patriotism. They were fast to insist they were doing it for a job or to get in the door with a security contractor. Most frankly speaking were extremely troubled individuals. They'd have a young wife or a handful of ex-wives hanging around.You can find people like you just described hanging at any bar, the fact that they hang out at bars drinking & talking too much says more about them then the fact they were military.


Military guys are notoriously terrible for a community.Some communities welcome them because of the money they spend.
They absolutely wreak holy hell and then some on the local under 25, female populace. Ah, that is it, the competion for female attention.;) Yeah, there is a sexual inbalance in communities with military bases in the 18-25 age demographic.


The govt. gives them some form of tax breaks or financial incentive if they have a wife so all these young guys marry what can only be called the most impressionable young women on earth. The military provides a housing allowance but if you have no dependents the military keeps the allowance inexchange for your bunk shipboard or in the barracks, though men with dependents get the same accommodations & the housing allowance. I knew several men in the navy who married Filipinas, who needed a greencard, to get the allowance. Others married barflies or naked dancers in a marriage-of-convience.


They marry them, get them pregnant, cheat on them, divorce them, and do it all over again with another 19 year old. Having a military base in ones community is literally a terrible, terrible thing for the young, uneducated women of that community.These girls sound like they were going to make bad choices anyway. Many times it is the military men who get screwed over in these marriages, they get snagged by these predatory females looking for a meal ticket.

Austin
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 10:13 PM
This happens just as much and maybe even more so in civilian life as it does in the military, it is part of the downgrade of our society caused by the left.



No more than they are decimated by those that are not in the military, really this is mute point you are making as these things happen to girls that don't get involved with military men. Actually it probably happens more in civilian life as far as numbers go. At least with the man being in the military she could get support payments as he has a income to pay such payments. In fact there is a number of girls who wish trap military men for that very reason, some have wish full thinking they will be taken care of for life by these means.




This just compares divorce rates from year to year within the military, not military compared to non-military rates. So there again it is not good comparison. Yes divorce is high in the military mostly due to the fact of deployment. Often times when men are deployed 'Jody' comes sniffing around and wrecking families. In this case it is not always the fault of the soldier.


Yes I don't blame military guys honestly, I blame the women more for as you said they do very much try to abuse these young guys incomes and it usually doesn't turn out well for the woman as the guy just does what the court orders him to do payment wise then splits. If military guys can get easy access to immature 18 year old's out of some female nostalgia of a soldier then good for them, better they get some of that over the non-white alternative. I do actually like it in a sense that military people do have children more often and it is a good thing ultimately. However there is a lot of social chaos in-between that nice little scenario, though it undeniably does create a lot of white children that would never exist otherwise, albeit through what might not constitute exactly logical long-term decisions.

Austin
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 10:27 PM
Some communities welcome them because of the money they spend.Ah, that is it, the competion for female attention.;) Yeah, there is a sexual inbalance in communities with military bases in the 18-25 age demographic.



Let me assure you the women the average under 25 military guy generally marries are not exactly what most guys are competing for one might venture to say (lol that could be a very big understatement).

We're talking girls right out of high-school who aren't even 20 yet. These aren't realistic unions. I'd deem them "ignorance marriages" and that would be putting it charitably.

Žoreišar
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 11:46 PM
I have nothing but disdain for people killing merely for the money, or by some absurd conviction that mindlessly following their overlord's orders in itself is somehow a virtue. I don't understand how that makes anyone more of a 'man'. If anything, it makes you a weakling.

SpearBrave
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 12:02 AM
I have nothing but disdain for people killing merely for the money, or by some absurd conviction that mindlessly following their overlord's orders in itself is somehow a virtue. I don't understand how that makes anyone more of a 'man'. If anything, it makes you a weakling.

Being in the military does not make one weak or a weakling, as I said earlier soldiers are not mindless robots they are human with there own thoughts. It is very easy for someone who has not served to say it makes you a weakling when they have not been though things like that. How do you know who the weakling is if you did not serve. I don't know where such ideas come from other than movies or leftist propaganda that has been conditioning people for decades.

Who ever said being in the military is killing for money, if that were true the pay would be much greater. Sure there are soldiers of fortune but they are not regular military. Besides that they are few compared to regular military forces.

Lew Skannon
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 12:04 AM
I have nothing but disdain for people killing merely for the money, or by some absurd conviction that mindlessly following their overlord's orders in itself is somehow a virtue. I don't understand how that makes anyone more of a 'man'. If anything, it makes you a weakling.

Obey the just lord, but kill the unjust lord.
Tore Hund knew this principle..

Rothhammer
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 12:07 AM
Not really. I do however see the pregnant 17-19 year old's who have to go to their parents and explain how they married an army guy who left on a tour only to find out that upon returning he slept with another 19 year old who he met at the bar and now wants a divorce.

These young women's lives are decimated by these idiots. The child is raised in poverty and is usually into every vice one can imagine because it has no father and it's mother was just a child and still is.

I agree some military guys do do it right. The problem is they are not the majority. They are the vast minority. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/12/27/military-divorces-continue-to-increase/

Oh you mean the same guys you said go to the bar and talk all night about how bad their officers are? I like how you used their opinion on that as if they're a credible source, then point all the flaws of your source? Good job.

Those "soldiers" that weaseled their way into the military are the bain of the Army. Those types of guys are the types that wreek hell on their chain of command with serious incident reports and such.

As previously stated, it's more than easy enough for them to secure child support payments if their pour choice of baby's daddy is a piece of crud. Army leadership put that reg in place btw ;)

Don't act like the only victims are your town. Half the women or more that end up with soldiers do so to manipulate them for benefits, and wait til they've saved up enough of beefy deployment pay to run the bank account dry and leave them before they get home. They takes all their things with them, to include the kids. Local businesses will pump out "deals" for payments on things from cars to jewelry to scam soldiers with things like the L way clause. Army posts don't exist without a close town thriving off the manipulation of soldiers.

I see you ranting on and on through out this thread, leaving comments based on limited knowledge and personal experiences drinking at bars with the scum of the service. I know why I continue this. I'm a proud soldier trying to make this Army better, and shut up an overgrown child that wants to trash talk a great institution's flaws without spending any time in service trying to fix said flaws. I think you're trying to act like you're above it so you can avoid facing the fact you're letting our military slip into the hands of our nations trash. History shows whoever controls the military controls the nation. Thanks for helping our nation slip into the gutter by standing idoly by. I can't help seeing you more negatively than others on this board cause I don't know the situations of the other nation's military represented on this board. Their military's world is foreign to me. What I do know as an American soldier is enough that I can testify to what I'm talking about when debating with an American child about the merits of service, flaws of the system, and actions to be taken to fix said flaws, along with the will power to fix them. That's why I reenlisted.

Žoreišar
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 12:40 AM
Obey the just lord, but kill the unjust lord.
Tore Hund knew this principle..I only obey ętt and tjod.

Austin
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 12:55 AM
I have no problem with the military or ex-military contractors retiring people of non-European descent. We need more of that. I personally am of the opinion that soldiers weapons need to do more area of effect damage, there's just not enough enemy populaces dying because the weapons are too precise.

Lew Skannon
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 01:00 AM
I only obey ętt and tjod.

Sure, but both require leadership. If the leader acts in the best interest of the people, obey him, if not, kill him..

No effective defense against injustice and opression was ever mustered without solid leadership and people prepared to follow! The masses arent even able to take care of their own interests without leadership. If they were we wouldn't be in the predicament we are today.

Without leadership the world would still be flat..

Žoreišar
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 01:04 AM
Sure, but both require leadership. If the leader acts in the best interest of the people, obey him, if not, kill him..Leadership, of course. Lordship, never.

Perhaps I'm only nitpicking here, but I think there's a vital difference between the two.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 01:29 AM
Serving in a Militia is a Duty.

Serving in the "Army" is a Joke! :thumbdown

And these days a fools bet.

Schneider
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 01:49 AM
The U.S. Army is what we make of it.


An untrained militia is useless.

A militia with members who have Infantry training(combat experience a plus) might work, with the right people.

Paint ball teams are not militia.

I have yet to meet a militia member who I would want to clear a house with.

I would like to serve in a well regulated militia.

SpearBrave
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 01:59 AM
Serving in a Militia is a Duty.

Serving in the "Army" is a Joke! :thumbdown

And these days a fools bet.

So I guess we should rely on untrained people to defend our folk if necessary?

Really does that make sense to let racial others get trained in the use of weapons and tactics to be further used against us in the future, even if it is threat of use.

The fools bet is to even think that members of our own folk should not be trained. I know more than a few Militia members, while some are good folks most are not. They are poorly trained if at all.

Austin
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 04:58 AM
Oh you mean the same guys you said go to the bar and talk all night about how bad their officers are? I like how you used their opinion on that as if they're a credible source, then point all the flaws of your source? Good job.

Those "soldiers" that weaseled their way into the military are the bain of the Army. Those types of guys are the types that wreek hell on their chain of command with serious incident reports and such.

As previously stated, it's more than easy enough for them to secure child support payments if their pour choice of baby's daddy is a piece of crud. Army leadership put that reg in place btw ;)

Don't act like the only victims are your town. Half the women or more that end up with soldiers do so to manipulate them for benefits, and wait til they've saved up enough of beefy deployment pay to run the bank account dry and leave them before they get home. They takes all their things with them, to include the kids. Local businesses will pump out "deals" for payments on things from cars to jewelry to scam soldiers with things like the L way clause. Army posts don't exist without a close town thriving off the manipulation of soldiers.

I see you ranting on and on through out this thread, leaving comments based on limited knowledge and personal experiences drinking at bars with the scum of the service. I know why I continue this. I'm a proud soldier trying to make this Army better, and shut up an overgrown child that wants to trash talk a great institution's flaws without spending any time in service trying to fix said flaws. I think you're trying to act like you're above it so you can avoid facing the fact you're letting our military slip into the hands of our nations trash. History shows whoever controls the military controls the nation. Thanks for helping our nation slip into the gutter by standing idoly by. I can't help seeing you more negatively than others on this board cause I don't know the situations of the other nation's military represented on this board. Their military's world is foreign to me. What I do know as an American soldier is enough that I can testify to what I'm talking about when debating with an American child about the merits of service, flaws of the system, and actions to be taken to fix said flaws, along with the will power to fix them. That's why I reenlisted.


I respect what you say on a general-level, yet I have lived in a 'base-city' (San Antonio Texas) enough to know the true toll military men under 30 take on a community, especially it's young, uneducated, impressionable women. It isn't pretty and if anything my statements are extremely charitable compared to the realities which are almost too grim to go into on a societal-destruction level.

We're talking multiple thousands of white single mothers who literally are shafted for life, as are the children. In San Antonio Texas it isn't uncommon to meet twenty year old army guys with two ex wives and two kids from one and two kids with the other while he's working on the third 18 year old wife and has the fourth in his eye. That guy will never be able to pay all that child support. Those children and those women are going to live a life of poverty seeing as no eligible guy will get with them. They are ruined as is ironically the guy because whatever money he earns in life gets chopped up to these women and their children so he gets to spend his life moving around trying to hide his earnings in an impossible scenario financially that he created. The base commanders then protect him and support him in his next drunken marital adventure.

Schneider
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 05:38 AM
Yes, our culture/society is failing in that area. It has nothing to do with military service though.

Young uneducated woman? Are these girls innocent victims? If so their parents are to blame.

Lew Skannon
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 08:16 AM
Leadership, of course. Lordship, never.

Perhaps I'm only nitpicking here, but I think there's a vital difference between the two.

Good point. Semantics is important.

Rothhammer
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 02:21 PM
Now it comes out. You live in San Antonio. Those aren't even real Soldiers. They're kids still in the training environment. You've got Fort Sam Houston and an Air Force base in town pumping out new Army medical kids and Air Force basic trainies. Those pent up new Army kids get out of basic, go down to San Antonio and get released to bs in the free time starting out with a bank account full of saved up dough from basic and go nuts. All the schools on Fort Sam Houston are 4 months to a year, the whole time making up for all the partying they couldn't do at basic. Nearly all of them have never been outside of the training environment before arriving in San Antonio.

Oh wait! I almost forgot the fact San Antonio is upwards on the list of gang infested towns the Army is unfortunate enough to put up with. They mug soldiers left and right, centering such attacks around our painfully predictable pay days twice a month. They target indescriminately. They don't differentiate between the newbie trash or the Soldiers that work towards a better Army. They just want that regular paycheck they know they Soldier has.

BritishLad
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 02:50 PM
I believe its a duty, serving in the military means yoor defending yoor homeland. This is obviously more than a job.

The Aesthete
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 02:56 PM
I see it as a duty

Capable adult males should undergo some military training

As an army is there to defend its people

Unfortunately when the army doesn’t represent those people or is misused then it no longer applies

Žoreišar
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 03:21 PM
I believe its a duty, serving in the military means yoor defending yoor homeland.Really? Which armies in the Western World has contributed to defending their homelands the last, say, 5 decades? If anything, our armies of today are only contributing to the unfortunate development we've been following the last couple of generations.

SpearBrave
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 03:35 PM
^ I can think of few times that the US and England has defended it citizens on more than one occasion. Also I very distinctly remember the US defended it allies within its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere from Communism in the last 25 years.

Žoreišar
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 03:44 PM
^ I can think of few times that the US and England has defended it citizens on more than one occasion.Granted, although the Falklands War is the only incident that comes to my mind...


Also I very distinctly remember the US defended it allies within its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere from Communism in the last 25 years.Hmm...Do you mean the Marshall plan?

SpearBrave
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 03:51 PM
Hmm...Do you mean the Marshall plan?

No I mean Granada, Honduras, El Salvador, Cost Rica all of these countries are U.S. Allies and were under direct threat from Cuban/Soviet communism. Also there were U.S. citizens in direct threat is some of those places. I guess the leftist media does not like to talk about places and times where Communism was beaten back, I wonder why?

btw- After we were done we left those countries to govern themselves, so it was not imperialism.

Žoreišar
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 04:20 PM
btw- After we were done we left those countries to govern themselves, so it was not imperialism.Sure, but it still fails to dispel my initial claim that Western armies have done next to nothing in defending their own homelands.

Rothhammer
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 04:27 PM
Sure, but it still fails to dispel my initial claim that Western armies have done next to nothing in defending their own homelands.

Cause the USSR wasn't using any of those countries for a foot hold in our hemisphere and a potential launch pad for nukes, right?

Žoreišar
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 04:55 PM
Cause the USSR wasn't using any of those countries for a foot hold in our hemisphere and a potential launch pad for nukes, right?They already had Cuba, DDR and China for that purpose. Some backwater countries and islands in and around the Caribbean would be irrelevant in this respect.

BritishLad
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 06:42 PM
Really? Which armies in the Western World has contributed to defending their homelands the last, say, 5 decades? If anything, our armies of today are only contributing to the unfortunate development we've been following the last couple of generations.


Just because they aint fightin dont mean their not defending their homeland, their ready to fight to defend their homeland which to me is defending their homeland -by disencouragin anyone from startin.

And besides Teri Taliban is on the rocks which makes it much, much harder for them to do terrorist actions.

SpearBrave
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 07:03 PM
Sure, but it still fails to dispel my initial claim that Western armies have done next to nothing in defending their own homelands.



They already had Cuba, DDR and China for that purpose. Some backwater countries and islands in and around the Caribbean would be irrelevant in this respect.


Well I guess you should maybe ask someone who was there and not listen to the leftist media thought conditioning. Like I said before the leftist don't talk much about what went on in Central America, they don't want people to hear about their defeat and they don't want people to know actually how brutal they are when it comes to human and national rights.

The USSR was funding all the communist activity in and around Central America in the 1980's and before. Most of the weapons came from the USSR via Cuba. Their idea was to create more communist countries closer to the US. If you look at a map most of those countries are on the Western side of Central America, it would have given the USSR almost a surrounding effect for North America. They wanted to establish military bases closer to the American homeland. Besides that China and the USSR did not always get along when it concerned America and the Western Hemisphere. China was very much afraid of what could and should have happened to them- grain embargo. The US president at that time ( Reagan ) very much liked to use food as weapon.

Again maybe you should ask someone who was there fighting if they were doing " next to nothing " oh but of course you think they are weak from what I gather from your earlier statements. The only weak ones are the ones not willing to fight and to sit back and play armchair philosopher.

Erlkönig
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 09:56 PM
The "official" political motives for war are irrelevant, for three millennia human nature has not changed; the only thing that galvanizes men towards greater feats of ingenuity and progression is the desire for self preservation, which is assured by expanding or defending borders.

All instruments within society improve as a result of war, the only reason this discussion is being made is analytical vs normative statements. From a normative perspective war causes death and destruction, therefore it is ugly, from an analytical perspective most modern technology derives from some form of weapons research, therefore it is attractive.

Like Heraclitus said, War is the Father of all things.

Žoreišar
Sunday, August 21st, 2011, 09:47 PM
Well I guess you should maybe ask someone who was there and not listen to the leftist media thought conditioning.Don't worry, I can think for myself, thank you very much. ;)


Again maybe you should ask someone who was there fighting if they were doing " next to nothing " oh but of course you think they are weak from what I gather from your earlier statements.I didn't mean their actions in itself was 'next to nothing'. Putting one's life on the line is certainly a very high sacrifice. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it benefits the security of their homeland and its people.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Sunday, August 21st, 2011, 11:23 PM
Right now I'm waiting on a waiver that when signed will prove to the national guard that I don't have a mental illness that I know that I don't have. :|

Anyways it is both a job and duty, you do it to serve your nation. I have been freelance publishing a horror and adventure novel and going to college but I cannot wait to be pushed to my limits in bootcamp this fall.

SpearBrave
Sunday, August 21st, 2011, 11:45 PM
Don't worry, I can think for myself, thank you very much. ;)


Given by what you posted before it sure does not sound like it. So far you have yet to prove nothing but that you buy into the whole idea from leftist that soldiers are not people and incapable of thinking on their own. Most of what you have posted is just a regurgitation of what the left has conditioned you to think, almost like a sense of elitism with more words than action.



I didn't mean their actions in itself was 'next to nothing'. Putting one's life on the line is certainly a very high sacrifice. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it benefits the security of their homeland and its people.

Umm, lets see a foreign communist power wants to set up military and naval bases in your back yard, I guess that in some twisted way you figure that stopping them is not protecting your country. I guess liberating citizens of your country from a hostile power is not either. Very strange logic indeed, that you carry.

This discussion reminds me something.... This forum is based on free speech of Germanic people. I wonder if it the hosting country of this forum would have free speech if there were never soldiers to protect that free speech. So given that free speech and thought have to be protected I guess all those men who gave everything they had or would ever have also protected your ability to speak and think freely. The sad thing is that these men risked their lives and put their lives on the line so you to could have freedom of thought and speach, yet they are called the weak ones by those who will not risk anything.

Žoreišar
Monday, August 22nd, 2011, 12:14 AM
Given by what you posted before it sure does not sound like it. So far you have yet to prove nothing but that you buy into the whole idea from leftist that soldiers are not people and incapable of thinking on their own. Most of what you have posted is just a regurgitation of what the left has conditioned you to think, almost like a sense of elitism with more words than action.Defamation by association...Clever. Typical redneck logic.


Umm, lets see a foreign communist power wants to set up military and naval bases in your back yard, I guess that in some twisted way you figure that stopping them is not protecting your country.Well, they already had Cuba for that, so what did the US military really achieve? All in all, I think the aggressive military actions of your country has inspired more threats and enemies towards its people than it has secured the people's safety.


I guess liberating citizens of your country from a hostile power is not either. Very strange logic indeed, that you carry.What are you on about?


This discussion reminds me something.... This forum is based on free speech of Germanic people. I wonder if it the hosting country of this forum would have free speech if there were never soldiers to protect that free speech. So given that free speech and thought have to be protected I guess all those men who gave everything they had or would ever have also protected your ability to speak and think freely. The sad thing is that these men risked their lives and put their lives on the line so you to could have freedom of thought and speach, yet they are called the weak ones by those who will not risk anything.Free speech has never been a cause of the military, but that of the citizenry.

SpearBrave
Monday, August 22nd, 2011, 12:57 AM
Defamation by association...Clever. Typical redneck logic.


Well name calling really gets you no where, it only proves that you cannot debate the point. Besides that I would rather be called a Redneck than a tool from the left as in truth the term is actually is of respect for someone who works hard and is independent if you care to look up where the word comes from, it was only until new speech did it become a slightly supposed bad word.



Well, they already had Cuba for that, so what did the US military really achieve? All in all, I think the aggressive military actions of your country has inspired more threats and enemies towards its people than it has secured the people's safety.


I guess you did not look at a map like I asked you to earlier when I explained things to you about Central America, but yet you know everything since you have read so much in the media or the history they put out. Like I said the soviets were backing communist revolutions in our back yard against our allies. I was there for a extended period of time, I seen these things with my own eyes. I also seen USSR weapons stockpiles we destroyed with my eyes. I also seen invading forces from other countries with my eyes. All of this and you somehow know more than I do about what was going on in Central America more during the 1980's, wow[sarcasm alert] I wish I would have just been born twenty years later and been told what happened by a leftist propaganda machine[sarcasm over]. I guess then I would have all the answers.:oanieyes

I am very proud to have served and would do so again, even if that means protecting the rights of people who have no clue. Even though they are clueless they still should have those rights to speak for themselves even if they are not speaking for themselves.:)



What are you on about?


On the island of Granada there were US citizens being held by Cuban forces, that is the reason we liberated these citizens it the first place, we could care less about the island itself.

First off I could care less what other nations think about our military actions or our country, they all seem to come begging for help when they are in trouble. Secondly ever think that it is leftist propaganda that feeds the unpopularity you see so much of. Then there is the subject of food the US produces more of it than any other country, maybe we should not be so generous in terms of trade.

I understand you are young and most likely being spoon fed daily doses of media and the " oh war and the military is so evil " idea , however did you ever think there will always be wars and there will always be soldiers needed to fight these wars. Yes, I will admit the US is a very war like nation, but we do far more peaceful things than we do war like things you just don't hear about the good things as much.




Free speech has never been a cause of the military, but that of the citizenry.

Free speak and free thought and the protection have always been the cause of the soldier first and foremost in the US, in fact we swear a oath to protect it.

Schneider
Monday, August 22nd, 2011, 02:27 AM
I have nothing but disdain for people killing merely for the money, or by some absurd conviction that mindlessly following their overlord's orders in itself is somehow a virtue. I don't understand how that makes anyone more of a 'man'. If anything, it makes you a weakling.

I have never met any one in the army who even had the opportunity to kill for money. The rules of engagement are strict in the US military. It is made very clear to soldiers that they will face criminal charges if they do not follow the ROE.

At times our ROE stated we were not to fire even if we were being fired upon, unless we could prove they were shooting at us and not at someone else, or maybe they mistook us for someone else.

Our company went 5 months and lost 4 soldiers before we even had the opportunity to kill the enemy. This was perhaps the most difficult part of the mission(aside from sleeping while being shelled). Many times we stood there and talked with or even ate with the people who were killing US soldiers. We simply weren't allowed to do anything about it.

No, we were not blindly following orders. The orders made sense, and the enemy knew our ROE. A weak person would not have been able to resist firing at a triggerman in a crowd, knowing that they would be his target again in the next few weeks. A weak man would find a way to avoid going out on another mission.

Luckily for me, the men in my company instinctively moved toward the sound of the guns.

Not a trait I associate with the weak or those with money on their mind.

Fiona
Monday, August 22nd, 2011, 03:47 AM
Our company went 5 months and lost 4 soldiers before we even had the opportunity to kill the enemy. This was perhaps the most difficult part of the mission(aside from sleeping while being shelled). Many times we stood there and talked with or even ate with the people who were killing US soldiers. We simply weren't allowed to do anything about it.

I couldn't stand that.

Žoreišar
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011, 01:07 AM
Well name calling really gets you no where, it only proves that you cannot debate the point.Then get to the bloody point yourself and stop speculating about the origins of my thoughts.


All of this and you somehow know more than I do about what was going on in Central America more during the 1980'sI never said I know more about the factual occurances and the history at large than you do. I'm saying that I have a different view of the mechanics of the military and the people serving in it.


I understand you are young and most likely being spoon fed daily doses of media and the " oh war and the military is so evil " idea , however did you ever think there will always be wars and there will always be soldiers needed to fight these wars.Uhm, yes, quite obviously.

Žoreišar
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011, 01:20 AM
I have never met any one in the army who even had the opportunity to kill for money. The rules of engagement are strict in the US military. It is made very clear to soldiers that they will face criminal charges if they do not follow the ROE.Well, if one joins the army to earn a living (instead of joining by conviction of the cause itself) and engage in military operations (and killing in the process), one has by definition 'killed for money'. Such people are to be regarded as simple mercenaries, in my opinion.


No, we were not blindly following orders. The orders made sense, and the enemy knew our ROE. A weak person would not have been able to resist firing at a triggerman in a crowd, knowing that they would be his target again in the next few weeks. A weak man would find a way to avoid going out on another mission.

Luckily for me, the men in my company instinctively moved toward the sound of the guns.

Not a trait I associate with the weak or those with money on their mind.That certainly is highly respectable, and those people are certainly not the kind of people I was referreing to as 'weak', if your characteristics of them are correct.

I do seriously doubt, however, that most soldiers, with his means of living and future career prospects on the line, would refuse to follow orders in the heat of battle, even if they went against his core values and principles.

Wittmann
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011, 01:54 AM
I heard word that since the Bundeswehr ended conscription, they have been discussing the idea of allowing foreigners into the military. Is that true? And if so, what time will it be implemented, I'd be very interested in signing up for that right after college, become an officer, if it works the same way as I imagine.

Schneider
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011, 02:18 AM
1. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
— UN Mercenary Convention[1

Thorwald
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011, 02:34 AM
American foreign policy is more about defending Israel and corporate interests than it is about defending America.

No way I'm taking a bullet for that. This isn't about patriotism. It's about which master you really serve. I'm not being the goy that defecates in his own fox hole while Abraham BergManStein stays home and gets rich off his investments.

SpearBrave
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011, 03:28 AM
Then get to the bloody point yourself and stop speculating about the origins of my thoughts.


The point is you do not know what you are talking about and you cannot carry on debate based on facts.



I never said I know more about the factual occurances and the history at large than you do. I'm saying that I have a different view of the mechanics of the military and the people serving in it.


Then why do you continue to post things you know very little about. You can't have a view of the mechanics of people who serve in the military because you have never served, the only logic you have is second hand at best. Therefor when you say people in the military are weak you are just spouting nonsense based on ideas that you have been conditioned to think. I wonder who the weak one really is?

I really think you put your foot in mouth so to speak when you called people in the military weak. You have no basis of facts for your statements, only leftist instilled rhetoric. In essence you insulted people who serve just so you could sound intellectual or whatever, but just as most elitist intellectuals your thinking is not based on experience or facts.





Uhm, yes, quite obviously.

They why do you call the military or people in the military weak for protecting you, yes they do protect you just by being there even if they never have to fight.

Austin
Friday, August 26th, 2011, 02:55 AM
This line that you have to support the military in non-critical, foreign-based wars is simply illogical at best.

They are not protecting anyone save for the military industrial complexes orders and shipments and revenue streams. The soldiers are doing a job. They are mere contractors for hire to a consumerist-global-hive. For this I respect them, just as I respect the janitor or the mailman for doing their job nobly so.

Yet I do not see the soldiers defending against some all-powerful foe in some foreign land. They are merely serving the consumerist overlord-hive to which I am member of, that is all. The hive is not in danger and has not been for some time. 9/11 was a random attack, it posed no critical danger to the overall hive and never did. I care not about the wars. They are what they are. I am not against or for them. They have their purposes in many ways seen and unseen and I care not either way. Nor does the average soldier. They do it for the paycheck.

SpearBrave
Friday, August 26th, 2011, 03:11 AM
This line that you have to support the military in non-critical, foreign-based wars is simply illogical at best.

They are not protecting anyone save for the military industrial complexes orders and shipments and revenue streams. The soldiers are doing a job. They are mere contractors for hire to a consumerist-global-hive. For this I respect them, just as I respect the janitor or the mailman for doing their job nobly so.

Yet I do not see the soldiers defending against some all-powerful foe in some foreign land. They are merely serving the consumerist overlord-hive to which I am member of, that is all. The hive is not in danger and has not been for some time. 9/11 was a random attack, it posed no critical danger to the overall hive and never did. I care not about the wars. They are what they are. I am not against or for them. They have their purposes in many ways seen and unseen and I care not either way. Nor does the average soldier. They do it for the paycheck.

This sounds all cute and everything, until you realize that if we did not have a military your 'hive' would certainly already have been destroyed. Simple fact is any nation whether the are peace loving or war loving needs a standing trained army present to defend itself.

Besides if the soldiers were in it for just a pay check, they would be doing something else, as the pay is not that great. In fact most trash collectors make more than most military personnel.

* remember as I already stated by you posting this somebody is protecting your right to do so, and has been protecting you and you don't even realize it.

Schneider
Friday, August 26th, 2011, 03:17 AM
You seem to have a rather romantic view of war.

I see Military service as doing something that is in the best interest of the country, and likely not in your best interest. But you do it anyway.

American service men get paid a living wage. Spending money for education of military veterans is also in the best interest of the country.

There are many negative aspects to serving in the military. It is not a "Good Job" compared to civilian work if you do not appreciate serving your country.

Contractors on the other hand make 4-5 times as much money and have much more freedom in their actions.

Austin
Friday, August 26th, 2011, 10:06 PM
Besides if the soldiers were in it for just a pay check, they would be doing something else, as the pay is not that great. In fact most trash collectors make more than most military personnel.

* remember as I already stated by you posting this somebody is protecting your right to do so, and has been protecting you and you don't even realize it.



No that's completely wrong on even the most basic of levels no matter the argument.



Most people who enter the military do it based on socioeconomic realities of their life from an early age. Certainly not all who enter this applies to, but a good majority it certainly does. Upwards of 75% of military personnel are people from poor socioeconomic situations who entered the military because they had no means of support to get an education or a job. That's reality and it isn't an insult unless you choose to take it as such.

None of the wars we are in have anything to do with the national defense of the domestic U.S. as an entity. Every current conflict is simply a defense of the U.S. global influence in various regions, that is all. I care not either way, as every empire did and does this, but to argue that Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, all of Europe for that matter, and the dozens upon dozens of other places with U.S. bases are somehow all critical military installations in defense of my ability to type this is nonsense and brainwashing of the ignorant.

An empire has nothing to do with the host nations safety, it is about keeping the global neighborhood in line, with a bat if necessary. To this reality I have no problem at all with the military, I enjoy this. Yet I understand that the entire function of an empire throughout history has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with offensive gains. To say otherwise is simply lying or ignorance.

Schneider
Friday, August 26th, 2011, 11:05 PM
I wasn't in the active army so I can't say from experience why they serve.

From my experience in the Army National Guard, people joined to serve in the military and for educational benefits. Many who joined the guard were coming directly out of active duty and wanted to continue to serve while still being able to get a decent job and enjoy life without all the hassle of active duty.

I was in an infantry unit and served with an airline pilot, small business owners, GM employees, police, construction workers,students and I was worked in the maritime industry. It is difficult to maintain a civilian job and serve in todays National Guard. Some lose their jobs, other jobs are never offered because of scheduling difficulties employers face with Guardsmen. I was not hired back on in my former captains position after a deployment because I was still in the Guard. This is common.

National Guard pay is minimal, about enough to cover my travel expenses. With the exception of one or two bums, these guys were there to serve in the military.


Clearly we disagree on this. I believe the question was is it a duty or a job to serve in the military. I believe the intent of this question is to ask if you feel people are serving in the military due to a sense of duty, or just to provide an income. Anyone joining for the money gets out ASAP, and they should as they have made the wrong decision.

SpearBrave
Friday, August 26th, 2011, 11:29 PM
No that's completely wrong on even the most basic of levels no matter the argument.


Really, I would like to read how that is so.




Most people who enter the military do it based on socioeconomic realities of their life from an early age. Certainly not all who enter this applies to, but a good majority it certainly does. Upwards of 75% of military personnel are people from poor socioeconomic situations who entered the military because they had no means of support to get an education or a job. That's reality and it isn't an insult unless you choose to take it as such.


That to me sounds much like something John Kerry said, he was wrong and I am guessing so are you. I would like to see this wonderful social data then compare it to what actual soldiers say.


None of the wars we are in have anything to do with the national defense of the domestic U.S. as an entity. Every current conflict is simply a defense of the U.S. global influence in various regions, that is all. I care not either way, as every empire did and does this, but to argue that Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, all of Europe for that matter, and the dozens upon dozens of other places with U.S. bases are somehow all critical military installations in defense of my ability to type this is nonsense and brainwashing of the ignorant.


Yet, what you state is your opinion. Ever think for one the military does more than just fight combat wars? Also there is much thought that it is better to fight a battle someplace else than your homeland.

I have read many things about what you are trying to say, but if you read, it is your opinion that you are stating and not factual evidence.

I am not insulted nor do I take things such as this a insult, however what you have written below is another story.



An empire has nothing to do with the host nations safety, it is about keeping the global neighborhood in line, with a bat if necessary. To this reality I have no problem at all with the military, I enjoy this. Yet I understand that the entire function of an empire throughout history has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with offensive gains. To say otherwise is simply lying or ignorance.

Well I'm saying otherwise....now are you calling me ignorant or a liar?

I want to ask which country in the last 50 years has the US colonized? Sure we have military bases around the world, so do a lot of other countries, I know I have seen them.

Austin
Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 12:28 AM
Really, I would like to read how that is so.




That to me sounds much like something John Kerry said, he was wrong and I am guessing so are you. I would like to see this wonderful social data then compare it to what actual soldiers say.


Yet, what you state is your opinion. Ever think for one the military does more than just fight combat wars? Also there is much thought that it is better to fight a battle someplace else than your homeland.

I have read many things about what you are trying to say, but if you read, it is your opinion that you are stating and not factual evidence.

I am not insulted nor do I take things such as this a insult, however what you have written below is another story.



Well I'm saying otherwise....now are you calling me ignorant or a liar?

I want to ask which country in the last 50 years has the US colonized? Sure we have military bases around the world, so do a lot of other countries, I know I have seen them.



I'm going off my time growing up in a military-based city. Nobody joined unless they needed their education paid for or had messed up their lives so horrendously that the military was their only option. Apparently the U.S. military can make a lot of blemishes on ones record disappear if you join and serve. It IS true that the poor serve. It is a direct LIE to say otherwise. I am not denying people do lie about it though or claim otherwise. Of course they do. Yet to say the middle and or upper class even represent 5% of enlistee's is just plain false. Why do you think so many blacks and alien spawn join the military? They are it's bread and butter now for recruitment. I saw it every day. Military recruiters don't even go to white communities anymore. They go straight to the black and Mexican high schools. They don't even bother at the white ones.

Also on the insistence that such bases and conflicts have no economic purpose/motive and are "domestic defense struggles in foreign lands".

Go here:http://www.lockheedmartin.com/

News

08/26: U.S. Air Force And Lockheed Martin Sign 5-Year Tri-Mode Seeker Cooperative Agreement
08/25: Lockheed Martin to Integrate TRADOC Architecture Under New $26.1M Contract
08/24: Lockheed Martin Delivers Third Production C-5M Super Galaxy To U.S. Air Force
08/24: Superior Security Rating Achieved For Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Fort Worth Facility

SpearBrave
Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 03:34 AM
I'm going off my time growing up in a military-based city. Nobody joined unless they needed their education paid for or had messed up their lives so horrendously that the military was their only option. Apparently the U.S. military can make a lot of blemishes on ones record disappear if you join and serve. It IS true that the poor serve. It is a direct LIE to say otherwise. I am not denying people do lie about it though or claim otherwise. Of course they do. Yet to say the middle and or upper class even represent 5% of enlistee's is just plain false. Why do you think so many blacks and alien spawn join the military? They are it's bread and butter now for recruitment. I saw it every day. Military recruiters don't even go to white communities anymore. They go straight to the black and Mexican high schools. They don't even bother at the white ones.


Of course many lower income people join the military, also though plenty from the middle class. I was middle class when I joined and so were most that I served with. Keep in mind in the years right after Sept. 11 patriotic spirit and many join to serve out of honor. In fact enlistment was so high in some branches that they were turning people away. All walks of life join the service from rich to poor actually on economical level it is a good representation of America. The recruiters that go to the negro and hispanic schools are lazy and either need to fill their quotas quickly or they are under orders to go there. Just a quick glance at the media and see what color the troops are that are serving in combat units, most are white.



Also on the insistence that such bases and conflicts have no economic purpose/motive and are "domestic defense struggles in foreign lands".


Of course they are there protecting US interest, does not mean that is their only purpose there. Often times the military was there first, the corporations followed.

One thing should noted why we have bases around the world is for lighting quick response times. Do you remember when the Somali pirates held US citizens? The S.E.A.L team was dispatched very quickly and rescued those America citizens, if they were stationed state side they would not have made it there so fast.

Austin
Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 08:11 PM
Of course many lower income people join the military, also though plenty from the middle class. I was middle class when I joined and so were most that I served with. Keep in mind in the years right after Sept. 11 patriotic spirit and many join to serve out of honor. In fact enlistment was so high in some branches that they were turning people away. All walks of life join the service from rich to poor actually on economical level it is a good representation of America. The recruiters that go to the negro and hispanic schools are lazy and either need to fill their quotas quickly or they are under orders to go there. Just a quick glance at the media and see what color the troops are that are serving in combat units, most are white.



Of course they are there protecting US interest, does not mean that is their only purpose there. Often times the military was there first, the corporations followed.

One thing should noted why we have bases around the world is for lighting quick response times. Do you remember when the Somali pirates held US citizens? The S.E.A.L team was dispatched very quickly and rescued those America citizens, if they were stationed state side they would not have made it there so fast.


I know I know. But I am saying the U.S. military is a national, corporate-like entity. IF you serve you are doing it for the money, the benefits, and the education and or credentials it provides to earn more money.

The modern U.S. military is not a "patriot force", it is a "monetary force". When you people say they don't do it for the money you're all wrong, they do, and for what comes with the money.

As a U.S. military personal you get free housing or can become eligible for it, you get extreme on-base discounts on all sorts of food and products, all the major brands and companies are there, and it's all tax-free. The U.S. military housing has private-maid service, it has private yard services, it has private-contracted everything. U.S. military personnel get their education subsidized or get very lenient loans, they get much or all of their meals paid for, and all this is tax free. All this is huge to someone who can't afford college or has no parental and or familial support to fall back on. I am not ribbing any of this, I see it as a good thing ultimately. Most military people are good people. I am just saying it is what it is. The military is its own world, it has Wendy's, it has GAP stores, and they are all tax-free and discounted. The U.S. military is easily the largest form of socialism the world has ever had in existence, with a corporate twist of sorts.

WsVcRf
Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 10:43 PM
even though I voted "always a Duty"... for every man/citizen, let me qualify


I don't mean the "gun toting uniform wearing mindless obey-er"...


rather I mean someone who is willing to learn how to control; the currency, immigration, and diplomatic relations... and preferably with an emphasis on subtly and non-violent means

Schneider
Sunday, August 28th, 2011, 02:15 AM
I know I know. But I am saying the U.S. military is a national, corporate-like entity. IF you serve you are doing it for the money, the benefits, and the education and or credentials it provides to earn more money.

The modern U.S. military is not a "patriot force", it is a "monetary force". When you people say they don't do it for the money you're all wrong, they do, and for what comes with the money.

As a U.S. military personal you get free housing or can become eligible for it, you get extreme on-base discounts on all sorts of food and products, all the major brands and companies are there, and it's all tax-free. The U.S. military housing has private-maid service, it has private yard services, it has private-contracted everything. U.S. military personnel get their education subsidized or get very lenient loans, they get much or all of their meals paid for, and all this is tax free. All this is huge to someone who can't afford college or has no parental and or familial support to fall back on. I am not ribbing any of this, I see it as a good thing ultimately. Most military people are good people. I am just saying it is what it is. The military is its own world, it has Wendy's, it has GAP stores, and they are all tax-free and discounted. The U.S. military is easily the largest form of socialism the world has ever had in existence, with a corporate twist of sorts.

It seems you have never lived on a military base. They suck. Plain old government buildings, very strict rules and regulation and they are not laid out well for those on foot. The stores you speak of, one is basically a Walmart and the prices are no better, one has stuff only someone in the military would need and one is a grocery store. Yes, they have junk food restaurants. Yes, just like living in an apartment, someone else mows the lawn, they use contractor as the military has downsized and no longer has such positions. Who benefits from the US military "contracting everything", the local community.

You said "IF you serve you are doing it for the money, the benefits, and the education and or credentials it provides to earn more money." Why is it you think you know why others serve? I already told you why I did. I don't understand your refusal to believe that some serve in the military because they feel it is their duty, and an honor to have the opportunity to do so.

SpearBrave
Sunday, August 28th, 2011, 02:26 AM
I know I know. But I am saying the U.S. military is a national, corporate-like entity. IF you serve you are doing it for the money, the benefits, and the education and or credentials it provides to earn more money.

The modern U.S. military is not a "patriot force", it is a "monetary force". When you people say they don't do it for the money you're all wrong, they do, and for what comes with the money.


Not true by a long shot, this is coming from someone did serve, even the guys who say they are doing it for college money, still they have a sense of duty about them. With all the federal grants available for college, discounts for the poor, and so on one does not have to join the military to go to college or find a better paying job.



As a U.S. military personal you get free housing or can become eligible for it, you get extreme on-base discounts on all sorts of food and products, all the major brands and companies are there, and it's all tax-free. The U.S. military housing has private-maid service, it has private yard services, it has private-contracted everything. U.S. military personnel get their education subsidized or get very lenient loans, they get much or all of their meals paid for, and all this is tax free. All this is huge to someone who can't afford college or has no parental and or familial support to fall back on. I am not ribbing any of this, I see it as a good thing ultimately. Most military people are good people. I am just saying it is what it is. The military is its own world, it has Wendy's, it has GAP stores, and they are all tax-free and discounted. The U.S. military is easily the largest form of socialism the world has ever had in existence, with a corporate twist of sorts.

They should get more, just at any moment they can to be called away, risk there lives, be torn from there families, and much worse all for defending other not willing to risk anything for what they take for granted.

The military should be its own world it should be self sufficient and be able to take care of its self. One the major things wrong with today's military is that more and more they are relying on private contractors who charge way too much for there services.

Actually the stores do charge tax just not as much, and of course military personnel should get housed after all the are in the military remember what I said about taking risk and who they are taking these risk for.

I don't know where you get the idea that the military is socialism, you get nothing for free you earn your keep and you are responsible for your actions, that is not socialism.

Hagendorf
Sunday, August 28th, 2011, 11:52 AM
It“s a patriotic duty, imho. I cant help but thinking of this quote when i saw this thread:

"Den som undandrager sig att fullgöra värnplikten och endast vill njuta av fosterlandets gåvor utan att gälda dess krav,
han är ovärdig att nämnas bland fria svenska män. Att svika Konungen och Fäderneslandet har aldrig varit svenskmannased."

Roughly translated by Google:

"Those who withdraw themselves to perform military service and only want to enjoy the rewards of his country but to repay its requirements,
he is unworthy to be named among free Swedish men. To betray the King and Fatherland has never been "a swedish way"."

Falcon
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 10:05 AM
Bundeswehr is a piece of shit when it comes to fighting wars...
Not even a shadow of the Wehrmacht
French Foreign Legion, your own American Special Forces might be a better bet..
IE unless you want to go to army just for money