shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
You know, Kerry's joke could've gone either way. It's wording could just as easily been about troops or about being a stupid president.
But you know, Kerry's not the first person to talk about this. I remember in Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore did a little bit on how army recruiters will often go to the poorest neighborhoods in communities, picking up all the 'white trash' they can. They always seemed to get the dumbest teenagers with the least hope for a secure future to come and join them with minimal effort. And really, with the age for recruitment having dropped and the fact that during the Bush admin. they decided to let high-school drop-outs (no diploma or GED) join the armed forces, it really does follow that during the last 5 years, if you're a American, dumb male, your chances of getting stuck or killed in Iraq are statistically high.
And I saw a preview recently (last 2 months), though I can't remember what movie I was seeing and what this new documentary coming out is going to be called, about how hard it is for young people who have served their short terms in the army to find jobs and get back on their feet without the army's backing. It shows how many young man can't just go back to their parents' houses because the parents assume that they're ready for the 'real world' now, and they end up being hopeless and often, drunkards because of it. Yeah you can go to the army and get a college education, but most of these recruits end up being fanatic about being soldiers and study things that only apply to soldiers, then go home to find their overly customized educations aren't worth dick for living a life outside of the army which kicked them out on their asses.
furthermore, we keep referring to our troops as heroes by default. That's ********. The oaths soldiers take to uphold the Constitution of the United States, combined with the agreements of the Geneva Convention mean that soldiers are required to disobey and report orders that violate provisions against torture or any other violations of the human rights charter. Yet dozens, if not hundreds of soldiers did nothing of the sort at Abu Ghraib, and still do not do their duty at Gitmo and the many other 'secret' holding facilities. I'm willing to believe, if I see any evidence, that the army/navy/air-force/marines goes out of their way to make sure soldiers are ignorant of their duties under the Geneva convention go actively stand up against torture and other violations of human rights.
A hero the army does not make.
But you know, Kerry's not the first person to talk about this. I remember in Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore did a little bit on how army recruiters will often go to the poorest neighborhoods in communities, picking up all the 'white trash' they can. They always seemed to get the dumbest teenagers with the least hope for a secure future to come and join them with minimal effort. And really, with the age for recruitment having dropped and the fact that during the Bush admin. they decided to let high-school drop-outs (no diploma or GED) join the armed forces, it really does follow that during the last 5 years, if you're a American, dumb male, your chances of getting stuck or killed in Iraq are statistically high.
And I saw a preview recently (last 2 months), though I can't remember what movie I was seeing and what this new documentary coming out is going to be called, about how hard it is for young people who have served their short terms in the army to find jobs and get back on their feet without the army's backing. It shows how many young man can't just go back to their parents' houses because the parents assume that they're ready for the 'real world' now, and they end up being hopeless and often, drunkards because of it. Yeah you can go to the army and get a college education, but most of these recruits end up being fanatic about being soldiers and study things that only apply to soldiers, then go home to find their overly customized educations aren't worth dick for living a life outside of the army which kicked them out on their asses.
furthermore, we keep referring to our troops as heroes by default. That's ********. The oaths soldiers take to uphold the Constitution of the United States, combined with the agreements of the Geneva Convention mean that soldiers are required to disobey and report orders that violate provisions against torture or any other violations of the human rights charter. Yet dozens, if not hundreds of soldiers did nothing of the sort at Abu Ghraib, and still do not do their duty at Gitmo and the many other 'secret' holding facilities. I'm willing to believe, if I see any evidence, that the army/navy/air-force/marines goes out of their way to make sure soldiers are ignorant of their duties under the Geneva convention go actively stand up against torture and other violations of human rights.
A hero the army does not make.
crucial_fiction
Student
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 47
Oh wow, you just sit there in your armchair there General. I find it interesting that, you know, only about 2-5% of the eligible population of the US actually VOLUNTEERS to serve thier country to give the other 95-98% thier liberties they enjoy every day. I, for one, am PROUD and HONORED to serve with these men and women every day.
I agree with you that being a soldier/sailor/marine/airman, does not automaticly a hero make. But you, sitting at home, throwing out baseless accusations about the intelligence and background of those men and women that are willing to do what you WON'T does not noble make.
So if I were you, I wouldn't worry to much about us. You sit there in your home, enjoy your cheeseburger, sleep soundly in your bed knowing that I'm PROUD and HONORED to give my life so that you may continue to have a very nearsighted opinion about those of us in uniform.
-FC1(SW) Loren Grumbly USN Active
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Nominated
Well said, and seperately, Thank You, (ex)Spec5 L.W. (served in RVN some years ago)
No one should make generalizations about large organizations like militaries. The US recruited the same types of people in World War I and II, when the literacy rate was about 60 or 70 percent, and they didn't have much trouble defeating real armies (Iraqis don't have real armies).
No, I think it's something else. The leadership is what changes over time, not the profile of a soldier. The leadership during the Gulf War was pretty good, but these right now have severe deficiencies. It was Rumsfeld that pursued a plan of his own devising -- against the advice of almost everyone.
No, I think it's something else. The leadership is what changes over time, not the profile of a soldier. The leadership during the Gulf War was pretty good, but these right now have severe deficiencies. It was Rumsfeld that pursued a plan of his own devising -- against the advice of almost everyone.
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Appears that 'Grumbly' is her name AND her game.
crucial_fiction
Student
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 47
UserGoogol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,074
This has always seemed like a weak argument to me. There are lots of ways to defend liberty, so I don't see why the military is so special. Yes, people in the military have a very serious risk of either being killed, but just because something is dangerous doesn't make it better. (And of course, there can be further debate over the degree to which particular military actions contributes to liberty, but that's a seperate issue.)
crucial_fiction
Student
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 47
I do have to agree with the leadership statement. In this day and age, Generals and Admirals a like, are pretty much going in to any situation with thier hands tied by politicians. It can be good, but in a lot of situations that is a bad thing. When politicians are caring more about what thier own poll numbers are suggestion vice what commanders on the ground are saying there is definately a problem.
Todays political environment absolutely does not afford the flag officers to be the flag officers of old. IE Patton, Nimitz, McArthur where they'd look a congressman/woman and tell them to go screw themselves...
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
thats funny, Left Wing Religious leader Al Franken thought this current batch of soldiers quite succesful and called them "Clinton's Military" in his book Lies and the lying liars that tell them
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Yes talking smack on the internet is just as much of a sacrifice as putting your head in someone else's rifle sights
not
crucial_fiction
Student
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 47
So, if the US didnt' have the military it has, what other ways would we defend our liberty?
UserGoogol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,074
I'm not saying that a military isn't neccesary for liberty (I'm not entirely sure it is, but let's say it is to stay on topic) but there a lot of others things that are also neccesary for liberty. Most dictatorships have had fairly active militaries, after all. Militaries defend from outside attacks, but there are other factors that go into keeping a society nice and free. To say that the military consists of those brave few who are willing to defend freedom for everyone else seems to overstate its importance.
Last edited:
crucial_fiction
Student
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 47
Bolding Mine:
Not really. It's not an overstatement it's the truth. If those people are not in the roles they are in, who is going to do it? Everyday Joe with Everyday Jane, living in Anywhere, USA with the mini van and 2.5 kids? Don't think so.
Yes, but the diference between the US and those dictatorships is the US government DOES NOT use it's military to govern it's citizens. Maybe in times of severe crisis, yes, I can give you that one, but it's not 24/7 standard operating procedure.
UserGoogol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,074
Oh yes, I'm not equivocating the military of dictatorships with the American military, I'm merely saying that having a military does absolutely nothing to prevent Hitler from waltzing in and taking power, since he wasn't a foreign invader.
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
Excuse me for a moment while I distance myself from your remarks.
My point wasn't that our soldiers are idiots. My point was that we should be doing a better job of education and that it's unfortunate that we send people into battle without knowing much about the government of the country they're fighting for. And that instead of the ignorant partisan politics that followed Kerry's remarks, it would be better if instead our country could have a dialogue about them and maybe come to some constructive conclusions that would improve education in the U.S. One soldier's ignorance does not an army of idiots make. I would be willing to bet that, if you posed the question "Who has been the U.S. Secretary of Defense for the past six years?" to a group of young people in the Army, and a group of young civilians, you would probably find that the number of ignorant people in these groups is about the same. And that number is probably quite high.
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
This is propaganda. The military is rarely tasked with actually protect american freedoms. The military's job is to carry-out government policy.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Well why is the new recruitment slogan for the US military "ARMY STRONG" eh?
Grammar hard.
Grammar hard.
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
The Army is equal opportunity. Unfortunately they have to send the mentally challenged to the advertising department.