Why are or aren't you in the military.

[More Wise]

So, instead of thread jacking and insulting people for sharing my moral beliefs. (It's nothing personal, seriously)

Lets hear it.

Why are you overseas?

Why aren't you?

Explanations are helpful for this discussion.

Feel free to flame my inbox, but lets make an attempt to keep this discussion civil out of respect for each other as a whole.

Thanks.

[burnt]

I was actually going to join the Navy after I got back from an FBLA conference because I'd fucked my way through high school and had shit grades.

but I forgot that I'd signed up for a talent grant, mostly as a joke. and I won. so I chose free college instead.

I would probably have joined the military but I have a big problem with authority. if someone were to say to me "corporal burnt, take those sand niggers and pile them naked into a pyramid with battery cables stuck to their balls" - knowing me, I would have said "captain, thats got to be one of the most stupid fucking ideas I've ever heard. no, I'm not going to do that, I'm going to finish this original task then I'm going to clock the fuck out and go home"

then I would have been demoted to private and possibly beat up.

in civilian life, they promote you for having a shitty attitude like mine. ;)

[NeOmega]

its a very long story. In the end, the Marine Corps rejected me, but gave no reason, and I didn't ask, because by then, I didn't care. I was just starting to see the relationship between my political thoughts and the real world, and realizing I wanted no part of American foreign policy.

I was set on being in the military too in high school. I had taken NJROTC for 3.5 years etc.

[idoru]

I don't want to be told to fight for something I don't necessarily agree with. It's as simple as that. I'm not saying I do or don't agree with what's going on/gone on, but in general I prefer to pick and choose my battles. I also prefer to do "what I want, when I want." I want to be where I want to be, when I want to be. I don't want to be required to go overseas when I'd rather be somewhere else. I want to go out or stay in as I please.

Just too many restrictions, I guess.

I love the time one military recruiter called me. He was dragging me on and on, trying to convince me to do it. It ended like this...

Recruiter: "Well are you sure? I mean, you don't even have to go into combat. There are plenty of non-combat positions that we have."
Me: "I'm well aware of that, but I seriously doubt that you have anything pertaining to the things that interest me."
Recruiter: "Oh well you probably haven't looked too hard then. I can guarantee you that we have plenty of positions that are relevant to whatever hobbies you might have. What are you into?"
Me: "I DJ. Electronic music."
Recruiter: "Oh... *silence*"
Me: "Thought so. *hang up*"

Not necessarily relevant to the discussion, but I figured that while we're discussing the military I might as well mention my incredible distaste for military recruiters, especially those who come into my work in normal clothes, try to play it off as though they knew me from high school, then ask me if I've ever considered the military. Same guy tries it every three or four months.

Bunch of shady fucks, imo.

[B_tech]

Why aren't you?
My health history won't allow me to serve in the US military. When I was younger, I thought about serving in the Israeli military, because I CAN serve there, but I wasn't able to do so fast enough and I'm too old to serve there, now.

[burnt]

lol.

my friend in Ontario, this mormon girl... she had a marine hassling her, so she finally tells him "please don't tell my parents but after graduation I'm going to go to paris and become a nun"

totally stunned him.

he says "well..... if you change your mind!..." - and leaves his phone number. never called her again.

[RacergirlX]

I'm structurally unsound.

[Effendi]

Charlie Company 2nd Battalion 5th Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg North Carolina.

http://a194.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/84/l_df907083b17c543e2d9de8a42201c819.jpg

[Daz]

Something about getting shot really sounds unappealing to me.

Seriously. I'll come right out and admit it. It's mostly self preservation.

[ILYA]

taking stoopid orders from some dumb fuck that doesn't know himself what he's talking about? thanks, but no thanks

can you tell I have a few issues with authority? ;)

I even moved to the US cuz I didn't want to join the mandatory army for 3 years...

[Gucci Smoochies]

Originally posted by Effendi
Charlie Company 2nd Battalion 5th Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg North Carolina.

http://a194.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/84/l_df907083b17c543e2d9de8a42201c819.jpg

Hahahaa. Omg, you look so young there, babe! I'm sorry but I can't get over the 'stache. It's cracking me up more then it really should.

*ahem*

I have never had a desire to be in the military, ever. My dad was in the Navy and it paid his way through college. My brother was in the Air Force as well and it paid his way through college too. Me? No desire to go in. I'm not the "combat-type" and do not do well with people telling me what to do at all. I'm far too fiery and stubborn in that regard. Plus I'm pretty sure my temper would get me into a lot of trouble in bootcamp.

I'm one of those that can take a lot of shit for a long time but the moment someone starts talking ill of my friends or family (as they're apt to do in bootcamp to motivate you), I lose it.

[B_tech]

Originally posted by Effendi
Charlie Company 2nd Battalion 5th Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg North Carolina.

lol... back when gas was 79 cents a gallon. ;)

Love ya, old man!

[tr0llaccount]

i didn't join because it wouldn't work out for a number of reasons. part of me wishes it could have.

[quickster]

4 years? I was scared of commintment. I knew I wasnt stable or mature enough to ever go through with it.

Now I stay because I dont want to be away from the very few people i love/care about, that, and it doesnt pay as good as my job now does.

[Hollywood]

i broke my back one knee and I am nearly blind! they told me No!


Good thread dude....Seriously!

[Nukegrrrl]

Don't ask, don't tell.

[Jes712]

you know, i actually spent the better part of my life preparing to join the army. All through out jr high and high school, that was my goal. Then the moment 9/11 happened, and we all realized how dumb george w bush is, i decided my plans were worth changing.
I would still concider joining in the near future if world affiars ease up and it seems like a smarter thing to do. But for now.... yeah... no thanks.
My main reason for wanting to join? My dad was in the army for like 20 years, and he explained how benneficial it would be for me and my life. I would join mostly because of the money and the health bennefits. It pretty much sets you up for life, and i like that idea.

[Cethe]

i was in processing....my HWP wasn't quit right, but we were working on that...I wanted to go into an officer program stat...you had to have INCREDIBLE ASVAB scores...i had a friends funeral the day of the test...and BOTCHED it totally.
tried again & did better, but not good enough for the officer program...sooo....I didn't.
kidna glad I didn't i'd still be in and trying to not get my ass in trouble for hating what's going on now.

but like a good soldier, woulda done what was ordered & went to thereapy when i got home.

I have the utmost respect for those that do enlist.

[.-=PSYLON=-.]

Got a perfect score on the ASVAB. Was offered a position in OCS.

Was told that I would likely be too tall to fly a plane once I had finished growing. Told them thank you, but I'm not interested in doing anything else.

Apparently we can make a plane invisible to radar, but the lil lever under the seat...like in a volkswagon...yeah, that's still 50 years or so away.

[Andromeda.]

i thought about the air force a few repeating times over the years but not seriously. i would join because of the benefits, education, and potential career, and the air force is the best one for people with book smarts. i wouldn't join because i know i could not support any and every war the country gets into. and i'm afraid of flying lol.

[Kohei]

I prefer not to be a hired killer if I can help it.

[Jizosh]

I'm not in the military because...I read the news.

[Vixie]

My husband (then boyfriend) and I considered it just because we didn't really know what to do with ourselves, but then we ended up pregnant and decided to settle down and get married.
He could still technically join, but he'd be going for the benefits only and he just hates Bush too much to join a war he started.
My best friend's husband is in the air force and is living in Germany for 3 years with rent paid. She's about 4 hours from Paris and 8 hours from London. Frickin sweet, if you ask me!

[Cedwyn]

holy shit, effendi - i lived at ft. bragg as a kid. i wonder if you were there when my dad went back - 1995 or so.

anyhoo, i am not in the military precisely because i grew up in that life. no thank you, sir.

[RichPoor]

I love comments like "I prefer not to be a trained killer" Statements like that show complete ignorance. I have been a medic for 6 years. Does that make me a trained killer? Hey jackass, do you know that most of our satellites and such are launched by the Air Force. Do you realize that the freedoms that you enjoy today were paid for by the blood of american soldiers. I don't completely agree with everything we do but your blanket statements just piss me off. Not everyone in the military is there to be a "killer".

[Cedwyn]

not everyone is there to "be a killer," no. but it was your first training and remains your primary purpose.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by RichPoor
I love comments like "I prefer not to be a trained killer" Statements like that show complete ignorance. I have been a medic for 6 years. Does that make me a trained killer? Hey jackass, do you know that most of our satellites and such are launched by the Air Force. Do you realize that the freedoms that you enjoy today were paid for by the blood of american soldiers. I don't completely agree with everything we do but your blanket statements just piss me off. Not everyone in the military is there to be a "killer".

You may take it for granted that your particular world-view is universally held when it isn't. I think your viewpoint concerning freedoms is nonsensical (re: paid for by the blood..) and think that even by the US's own standards and definitions of terrorism - the US military on the whole fits the characteristics and qualities of a terrorist organization. I think people who disagree with participation in what has historically (to current) been almost exclusively a vessel for mass-murder, ethnic cleansing, oppression, and imperialism..justifiably recognize the inherent terrorism of military "service".

[djsteel]

Originally posted by Plerr
You may take it for granted that your particular world-view is universally held when it isn't. I think your viewpoint concerning freedoms is nonsensical (re: paid for by the blood..) and think that even by the US's own standards and definitions of terrorism - the US military on the whole fits the characteristics and qualities of a terrorist organization. I think people who disagree with participation in what has historically (to current) been almost exclusively a vessel for mass-murder, ethnic cleansing, oppression, and imperialism..justifiably recognize the inherent terrorism of military "service".

Congratulations...You said a whole lot about other people's answer and yet you dodged having to answer the question yourself.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by djsteel
Congratulations...You said a whole lot about other people's answer and yet you dodged having to answer the question yourself.

I enlisted in the Army when I was eighteen, and I will be forever ashamed because of it. I think that military participation is despicable, and I view my time in the Army as a despicable period in my own life.

[tr0llaccount]

Originally posted by djsteel
Congratulations...You said a whole lot about other people's answer and yet you dodged having to answer the question yourself.

par for the course for him.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by muzak
par for the course for him.

What does that even mean? Which threads have you seen me participate in where I "dodge questions" to talk about "other people's answer[s]"?

[Cethe]

and yet you still haven't answered the question of this thread......

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by RichPoor
I love comments like "I prefer not to be a trained killer" Statements like that show complete ignorance. I have been a medic for 6 years. Does that make me a trained killer?
did you not go through basic training? because, from what i've heard, in basic training they instruct people how to shoot guns and in order to kill other people. i know plenty of medics who didn't need combat training in order be one.

to the question...for me, a standing army is never one i want to join.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by Cethe
and yet you still haven't answered the question of this thread......

yes I did.

I enlisted in the Army when I was eighteen, and I will be forever ashamed because of it. I think that military participation is despicable, and I view my time in the Army as a despicable period in my own life.

and think that even by the US's own standards and definitions of terrorism - the US military on the whole fits the characteristics and qualities of a terrorist organization.

Doesn't it follow, that my perception of the US military as a terrorist organization and my prior "service" explain "why" I'm "not overseas"?

I thought I "answered the question" in my very first reply.

[Cethe]

my bad dude

[DJ DAMIEN D]

I've worked as an engineer for multiple military's for 12 years.
Currently Lead Engineer for the Army reserve North West.
70th RRC.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Roddimus
did you not go through basic training? because, from what i've heard, in basic training they instruct people how to shoot guns and in order to kill other people. i know plenty of medics who didn't need combat training in order be one.

Admittedly Rich's wording was poor, I think he meant more that he doesn't kill people as part of his job. Certainly all enlisted personnel are trained to defend themselves. Hell, I think most people should learn to defend themselves, whethey they are in the military or not. Useful skill.

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by HexRei
Admittedly Rich's wording was poor, I think he meant more that he doesn't kill people as part of his job.
in his day to day job yes, but at the drop of a hat he's still expected to kill if ordered to do so. at the end of the day, it's definitely part of his job.
if the military just wanted a medic they'd been contracting through kaiser permanente.

[B_tech]

Originally posted by Plerr
I thought I "answered the question" in my very first reply.
No, you said that you joined... not WHY. The question was WHY.

[Boyd Main]

Being a medic doesn't absolve you of being part of a killing machine. You might not pull the trigger regularly, but you repair the fingers that do.

I am not in the military because there's nothing worth actually fighting for these days. Plus I don't live in the country in whose military I would enlist.

Jizosh FTW!

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Roddimus
in his day to day job yes, but at the drop of a hat he's still expected to kill if ordered to do so. at the end of the day, it's definitely part of his job.
if the military just wanted a medic they'd been contracting through kaiser permanente.
still a far cry from the dramatic connotations most people assign to a "trained killer"

i mean by that definition, IM a trained killer.

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by HexRei
still a far cry from the dramatic connotations most people assign to a "trained killer"

i mean by that definition, IM a trained killer.
but YOU aren't legally required to kill people if told to do so.
there's a difference between someone who knows how to fight and use a gun and someone who knows how to fight and use a gun for a corrupt organization.
those "dramatic connotations" do have some footing in reality.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Roddimus
but YOU aren't legally required to kill people if told to do so.

I was. I did boot at Ft Jackson in 98. So even though I was linguistics, Im also a trained killer, I guess. though i never did kill anyone.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by B_tech
No, you said that you joined... not WHY. The question was WHY.

I answered: --- "why are or aren't you in the military" ---> I'm not in the military because I don't support terrorism.

Why I enlisted when I did is a separate question. When I was younger I was very nationalistic/patriotic and very passionate about American history, capitalism, and my sense that America was a benevolent force in the world. I think that I believed those things because I was utterly indoctrinated, propagandized, and unable/unwilling to disassemble the yarn of lies and hypocrisy that were the foundation of my world-view.

[burnt]

that argument makes me lol.

two drunk guys are in a bar, right? ready to throw down.

one of them has an epiphany, decides "maybe I shouldn't punch. maybe knowledge and intellect should run the day".

puts his guard down..... gets knocked the fuck out by the other drunk.

***
this is kind of my counterpoint to the whole "the US should stop being so military and imperialist". lol. if we don't, we'll get hurt by China, Russia, etc.

if ALL sides agreed to this, we'd have peace. but fuckers like Genghis Khan, Lord Oliver Cromwell, etc, etc, etc - have proven that every time the majority of humanity decides to embrace peace, some fucking evil prick is ready to put together an army of the minority to attack the majority and kick their pacifist asses.

arguing about whether the US or the Al Qaeda is responsible for the shit storm going on now is a little like arguing which came first the chicken or the egg.

fighting sucks. killing sucks. but surrounding yourself with people trained to do so is a necessary evil. imho, anyway...

[Plerr]

Originally posted by burnt
that argument makes me lol.

fighting sucks. killing sucks. but surrounding yourself with people trained to do so is a necessary evil. imho, anyway...

I disagree with your assumption that a standing military is the only viable method of defense, or necessarily safer. I think that the options are more broad than the false dichotomy you presented, between pacifism and belligerency.

[B_tech]

Originally posted by burnt
arguing about whether the US or the Al Qaeda is responsible for the shit storm going on now is a little like arguing which came first the chicken or the egg.

Hardly. THe US created Al Qaida. We funded them. We backed them (go see Charlie Wilson's War for a fun, satirical look at the whole process).

I'd say we're to blame. I'd be A LOT happier if the govt came out and said what we're REALLY doing: Cleaning up the mess we made during the Cold War.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Plerr
I disagree with your assumption that a standing military is the only viable method of defense, or necessarily safer. I think that the options are more broad than the false dichotomy you presented, between pacifism and belligerency.

It seems to me that you are presenting the false dichotomy- either a military solution to all problems, or no military at all. It is possible to retain a strong standing army and still attempt to find other solutions to international problems.

For instance, a situation wherein said army only acted to defend its own borders.

[Nukegrrrl]

Originally posted by RichPoor
Do you realize that the freedoms that you enjoy today were paid for by the blood of american soldiers.It is best to respond to this with...

Originally posted by RichPoor
your blanket statements just piss me off.
...this?

[NeOmega]

A military will always be essential. Militaries were created in response to raiders that would loot, burn rape, pillage and murder.

Human beings are violent creatures. It is innate.

It just suck when you realize it is your people doing the looting and murdering.

[RichPoor]

Originally posted by Nukegrrrl
It is best to respond to this with...


...this?
So your saying that freedom was not brought about by war? Our independence was won by bloodshed on the battlefield. Maybe I didn't get into to much detail but this is NWTEKNO. I am not trying to argue with people that are for or against the military. I have served proudly for my country and will continue to. That is my personal choice.It would be great if there was no war but who are we kidding. There is no Utopian society no matter how many drum circles you gather in.

[oneandoneisone]

My grandfather is a retired Navy Commander... he pushed really hard for some of the older grand kids to join the army and got 2 out of 10 of us to join. I got arrested this one time and when he came to bail me out he told me that if it ever happened again, I had to go into the navy... I never got arrested again.

My husband spent 6 years in the army as a tank driver/medic and it really gave him great structure and motivation in his life. He is very successful and I personally think that the military has helped him immensely.

I didn't join the military because I already had a lot of scholarships for college... It was just the start of a war time and I didn't really understand that it can actually help a lot of people out, giving them career training and then money for college afterwards...Now that I've gotten to know a lot of people my age who have served, it makes more sense.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by HexRei
It seems to me that you are presenting the false dichotomy- either a military solution to all problems, or no military at all. It is possible to retain a strong standing army and still attempt to find other solutions to international problems.

For instance, a situation wherein said army only acted to defend its own borders.

? I didn't present any dichotomy, false or otherwise. Nor did I suggest that diplomatic or peaceful conflict resolution was impossible with a standing army.

I said something completely different, and completely unrelated. I said that I don't agree that a standing army is necessarily required to meet self defense needs.

where did you read that I argued something to the effect of "either a military solution to all problems, or no military at all"?

[tr0llaccount]

Originally posted by RichPoor
So your saying that freedom was not brought about by war?

of course it wasn't.

ever hear of the boston tea party? what happened was the king of england, who was the founder of union jack productions, came over to boston and told paul revere he wanted to throw a sick ass tea party on his boat, and he needed help with promoting, and paul agreed to flyer for union jack productions, as long as he and his friends could get in for free. the king wasn't too stoked about that, 'cause the harbor that his boat was going to park at was already taxing him 30% of admissions, but he agreed to it anyways. so when the tea party went off, but the king was shady. he supplied totally bunk tea that tasted like it was made out of shitty harbor water, and to make matters worse, he couldn't even get hessian, his headliner, to show up, so he got a really bad name in the community (it was basically like the 'apocolypse' of the 1770's).

and that's why he never came back here to throw parties, and we're free.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Plerr
? I didn't present any dichotomy, false or otherwise. Nor did I suggest that diplomatic or peaceful conflict resolution was impossible with a standing army.

I said something completely different, and completely unrelated. I said that I don't agree that a standing army is necessarily required to meet self defense needs.

where did you read that I argued something to the effect of "either a military solution to all problems, or no military at all"?

because burnt never advocated a standing army as the only viable method of defense. he never said it solved all problems and he never said one either had to be pacifistic or belligerent. he was arguing for a standing defensive army as a deterrent to invasion.

since you chose to take his argument for the existence of an army as if he was arguing for "belligerency" , you have created the false dichotomy here, wherein a nation either is belligerent (and uses their standing army as a solution to all problems) or pacifistic (and has no military at all, using alternate solutions for every problem). burnt (and myself) both definitely believe in something in between.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by RichPoor
So your saying that freedom was not brought about by war? Our independence was won by bloodshed on the battlefield.

Some people believe that "freedom" is something people are entitled to regardless of state recognition, that's what "rights" are in the philosophical sense..they're a standard of entitlement and of interpersonal conduct.
From that perspective many might feel it's irrational to credit war, or government, or armies with "freedom" - when it is felt that they are not the source, and are often threats to it.

The argument you made is also the same argument virtually every terrorist group in recorded history has made, from the Romans to Hezbollah - which is that, they are the guardians of freedom and their existence alone is the only thing that keeps invasion and occupation at bay.
But that claim is predicated on the assumption that everyone's sense of freedom adheres to the type they force on everyone else, and that hypothetical threats are just as valid as real ones.


it would be great if there was no war but who are we kidding. There is no Utopian society no matter how many drum circles you gather in.

Utopia or war? those are the only choices we have?

[Plerr]

Originally posted by HexRei
because burnt never advocated a standing army as the only viable method of defense.

That's what I thought he was advocating, when he said: "but surrounding yourself with people trained to do so is a necessary evil."



he never said it solved all problems

when did I accuse him of saying this?

and he never said one either had to be pacifistic or belligerent. he was arguing for a standing defensive army as a deterrent to invasion.

He divided the world into two drunks at a bar: the pacifist who got clocked...and the belligerent who decked him. This is what I was addressing, that this is what I was disagreeing with. My objection was that I think societies have more options than choosing to be one of the two drunks.

re: puts his guard down..... gets knocked the fuck out by the other drunk.

since you chose to take his argument for the existence of an army as if he was arguing for "belligerency"

I was referring to the aggressive drunk in his example, when I mentioned "belligerency"

you have created the false dichotomy here

wherein a nation either is belligerent (and uses their standing army as a solution to all problems) or pacifistic (and has no military at all, using alternate solutions for every problem). burnt (and myself) both definitely believe in something in between.

I was commenting on the dichotomy burnt created in his analogy. I wasn't making my own. There were only two characters in his analogy...a belligerent drunk, and a pacifist drunk.

[Nukegrrrl]

Originally posted by RichPoor
So your saying that freedom was not brought about by war?Where in blazes did I say that?

Originally posted by RichPoor
That is my personal choice. So it was your personal choice but at every opportunity you have you're going to guilt trip other people into kissing your feet because they owe their freedom to you because of your personal choice?

Originally posted by RichPoor
There is no Utopian society no matter how many drum circles you gather in. Yes, because we all know how much I love drum circles.

[quickster]

Originally posted by RichPoor
There is no Utopian society no matter how many drum circles you gather in. I'm quoting this, because its SO TRUE!!!!111

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Plerr
That's what I thought he was advocating, when he said: "but surrounding yourself with people trained to do so is a necessary evil."

I'm curious as to how you interpreted that to mean "a standing army as the only viable method of defense." I took it to mean that a capable army should be one tool among many, and not one to be discarded in favor of all the other tools, no matter how much shinier they are.

when did I accuse him of saying this?

You explain that in the next paragraph, where you seem to assume the two drunks is a metaphor to explain the whole of international diplomacy (which I do not think it was).

He divided the world into two drunks at a bar: the pacifist who got clocked...and the belligerent who decked him. This is what I was addressing, that this is what I was disagreeing with. My objection was that I think societies have more options than choosing to be one of the two drunks.

re: puts his guard down..... gets knocked the fuck out by the other drunk.


I don't consider keeping a defensive posture when someone is throwin down at you to be belligerent. that's intelligent.

And did he really divide the whole world with that analogy? I thought he was representing a single given situation that could occur and has over and over through the ages- two parties disagree and one or both is willing to use force to solve the disagreement. Once again, you area creating the dichotomy here, i felt that burnt was just arguing that as long as this situation is a viable possibility, it makes sense to maintain one's defenses. the simple existence of those defenses can be a deterrent.

I hate to champion burnt's statement but its an analogy I might have made myself. One should never be caught defenseless. Humans can be ruthless. That is not to say that one cannot engage in diplomacy from behind their guard.

[burnt]

well then you misunderstood, hex. I wasn't advocating diplomacy, I was advocating belligerency. based on the age-old argument that "everybody else is doing it, too".

I advocate leaders gettin' drunk and nukin' each other.

in an era with power hungry men like Putin, Il Jong, Ahmadinejad and others, G W Bush just makes good business and sociological sense.

I advocate nukes because they burn hippies and catch them off guard in drum circles. which is important. because this manifests the lulz.



and without laughter, what a dull life we would all lead.

nukes = lulz.



think about it.

[DJ DAMIEN D]

Originally posted by Plerr

Utopia or war? those are the only choices we have?
What about Sweden? you forgot that one

[HexRei]

Originally posted by burnt
well then you misunderstood, hex. I wasn't advocating diplomacy, I was advocating belligerency. based on the age-old argument that "everybody else is doing it, too".


lol, correction noted ;)

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by RichPoor
So your saying that freedom was not brought about by war?
i doubt she was saying anything close to that.
but on the flip side, are you saying every war we've fought has brought about freedom?
because from where i stand, this war has done more to erode my freedom than ensure it. and it certainly isn't the first to do so.

[burnt]

Originally posted by DJ DAMIEN D
What about Sweden? you forgot that one

sweden doesn't need an army. they got rad slopes with fresh powder, and hot blonde bitches with gigantic tits. wtf is going to destroy THAT?!?! oh and I think they have drunk St. Bernards with whiskey staggering around the ski slopes too. I saw it on these cartoons this one time.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by HexRei
I'm curious as to how you interpreted that to mean "a standing army as the only viable method of defense." I took it to mean that a capable army should be one tool among many, and not one to be discarded in favor of all the other tools, no matter how much shinier they are.

The context of the conversation has been forgotten I think. When I said "a standing army as the only viable method of defense." I'm not implying that I think burnt is describing or advocating for a violence-first or military-first policy or that a standing army necessitates that.

What I meant was, that I don't think a standing army is always necessary for a quality (viable) defense. Which was what I thought his comment was asserting.

You're assuming I'm trying to make a point, or imply something..that I'm not.


You explain that in the next paragraph, where you seem to assume the two drunks is a metaphor to explain the whole of international diplomacy (which I do not think it was).

What was the point of the analogy then?

I don't consider keeping a defensive posture when someone is throwin down at you to be belligerent. that's [b]intelligent.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The "belligerent" person in the analogy attacked a pacifist.


And did he really divide the whole world with that analogy? I thought he was representing a single given situation that could occur and has over and over through the ages- two parties disagree and one or both is willing to use force to solve the disagreement. Once again, you area creating the dichotomy here, i felt that burnt was just arguing that as long as this situation is a viable possibility, it makes sense to maintain one's defenses. the simple existence of those defenses can be a deterrent.

At worst I misinterpreted burnt's analogy...but I didn't "create a dichotomy" at all, I was commenting on the one he made in the analogy.



I hate to champion burnt's statement but its an analogy I might have made myself. One should never be caught defenseless. Humans can be ruthless. That is not to say that one cannot engage in diplomacy from behind their guard.

No one is arguing that defenselessness is a good thing. The question was whether a standing military is necessary for defense.

[B_tech]

Originally posted by Plerr
No one is arguing that defenselessness is a good thing. The question was whether a standing military is necessary for defense.
It's not. The mere threat or alluding to forces is enough to maintain defense... as long as one backs up the words and alluding.

[burnt]

Originally posted by B_tech
It's not. The mere threat or alluding to forces is enough to maintain defense... as long as one backs up the words and alluding.

so when Elroy asserted that he was "crazy good at fighting" he needed more than teh internet to create intimidation? the strong arm diplomacy wasn't sufficient?

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Plerr
What I meant was, that I don't think a standing army is always necessary for a quality (viable) defense. Which was what I thought his comment was asserting.
So, in your theoretical nation without a standing army, what would be the procedure if another nation were to attack them despite diplomatic solutions (as does sometimes happen, and seemed to be the point of the analogy)?


What was the point of the analogy then?

...really? ...really plerr? i explained that like two sentences later, you even responded to it already. holy rhetorical question.


At worst I misinterpreted burnt's analogy...but I didn't "create a dichotomy" at all, I was commenting on the one he made in the analogy.

No, you interpreted it in such a way as to create a false dichotomy to attack. I have a tough time believing you seriously thought he meant the entirety of internation diplomacy was represented by a two-person drunken bar patron analogy, and that he wasn't just demonstrating the reason for maintaining self-defense as a contingency via metaphor. sometimes governments do act just like that belligerent drunk.

No one is arguing that defenselessness is a good thing. The question was whether a standing military is necessary for defense.

See my initial question...

[B_tech]

Originally posted by burnt
so when Elroy asserted that he was "crazy good at fighting" he needed more than teh internet to create intimidation? the strong arm diplomacy wasn't sufficient?
hahaha well played, sir. well played.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by HexRei
So, in your theoretical nation

My theoretical nation? many societies throughout history have responded to threats successfully without having maintained a standing military. In fact throughout most of human history, nations have relied upon call-up and militias to meet threats when they appear.
The United States began that way coincidentally, as a confluence of militia and volunteers
Also - any society regardless of a standing military, can find itself presented with a threat from stronger foreign adversaries. I don't think that having a standing military prior to attack is a requisite for repelling attacks.


without a standing army, what would be the procedure if another nation were to attack them despite diplomatic solutions (as does sometimes happen, and seemed to be the point of the analogy)?

If history is any measurement, typically societies begin recruitment when threats begin to materialize. I think that scenarios of over-night spontaneous surprise invasions are mostly paranoid fantasies..and that threats are typically foreshadowed and predictable.


...really? ...really plerr? i explained that like two sentences later, you even responded to it already. holy rhetorical question.

I don' t think your explanation of the analogy, fit the analogy. I guess what I should have asked, was what the point of having only two subjects divided into pacifist and aggressor was if the analogy alluded to a more subtle and broader context.



No, you interpreted it in such a way as to create a false dichotomy to attack. I have a tough time believing you seriously thought he meant the entirety of internation diplomacy was represented by a two-person drunken bar patron analogy, and that he wasn't just demonstrating the reason for maintaining self-defense as a contingency via metaphor. sometimes governments do act just like that belligerent drunk.

I think you're reading too much into it. I think that burnt's point was that the existence of belligerent nations require that other societies erect standing armies, less they end up like the pacifist on the floor. My objection was to the implication that a society can't defend itself properly without a standing army.
All this stuff about diplomacy and the more intricate foreign relations is stuff you added.

[burnt]

Genghis Khan and Lord Oliver Cromwell would disagree with your assertion, Plerr, that societies can mobilize quickly to attack a threat without proactively preparing for a threat or asserting themselves strategically to prevent a threat.

(and they would probably disagree while gleefully rubbing their palms together)


not to mention, the entire Native American race.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Plerr
My theoretical nation? many societies throughout history have responded to threats successfully without having maintained a standing military. In fact throughout most of human history, nations have relied upon call-up and militias to meet threats when they appear.
The United States began that way coincidentally, as a confluence of militia and volunteers

Yeah, that worked really well back when it took months or years to travel from one region of the world to another and inability to maintain supply lines prevented rapid expansion and holding of territory. In an era where a technologically competent military can airdrop a few hundred thousand troops + armor in a day or two (and keep them supplied indefinitely) it doesn't suffice. You can't just "call-up" average joes and train them in time to defend against a strike like that, especially when we're also talking about training personnel to operate anti-air batteries, anti-tank weapons, fly fighters and bombers, and engage in advanced battlefield tactics.

IMHO you at least need a system like the national guard and reserves where a group of people are regularly trained to maintain defense capability. The problem is that unless people are getting paid to maintain military knowledge and competence, you won't have anyone to train your militia and/or volunteers, especially if there has been a couple of generations between wars and you haven't even got any veterans left alive. There are certain skills that are difficult to learn from books and instructional videos.

Also - any society regardless of a standing military, can find itself presented with a threat from stronger foreign adversaries. I don't think that having a standing military prior to attack is a requisite for repelling attacks.


Not in every case, but in some.



If history is any measurement, typically societies begin recruitment when threats begin to materialize. I think that scenarios of over-night spontaneous surprise invasions are mostly paranoid fantasies..and that threats are typically foreshadowed and predictable.

You say "most", which seems to be an admission that sometimes attacks do manage to surprise a people. All it takes is one of those to fell your theoretical modern pacifist nation. Wouldn't it be nice to have at least some constant defense?


I don' t think your explanation of the analogy, fit the analogy. I guess what I should have asked, was what the point of having only two subjects divided into pacifist and aggressor was if the analogy alluded to a more subtle and broader context.

To demonstrate that sometimes the other guys just punches first. It's really easy to say in hindsight that past conflict was foreshadowed and no one should ever have been surprised when they were attacked, but it hasn't stopped a lot of societies from being totally unprepared to defend themselves in the past.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by burnt
Genghis Khan and Lord Oliver Cromwell would disagree with your assertion, Plerr, that societies can mobilize quickly to attack a threat without proactively preparing for a threat or asserting themselves strategically to prevent a threat.

(and they would probably disagree while gleefully rubbing their palms together)


not to mention, the entire Native American race.

I think you assume that preparation requires a standing army, and I disagree with that. throughout history defenses were often maintained by regularly drilled, yet not professional, members of a society.
Per Genghis Khan/Oliver Cromwell - I could point to many examples of standing armies being defeated despite their preparations throughout history. Defeat doesn't really prove much, as it happens to standing armies too..and because there's no real sure-fire method of maintaining a permanent military supremacy even with a standing army. So what's the relevance of Genghis Khan or Oliver Cromwell in this discussion? What do they do to contribute to your point?

I'm not arguing that standing militaries are a bad idea for defense. I'm arguing that they may not be necessary or worth it, that they inherently pose a threat to their own society as they mandate a degree of authoritarianism and the monopolization of violence. They pose a risk which may not be worth any potential benefits.

[djsteel]

This Thread is concrete proof that humans will find any stuipid reason to fight...This is the reason why there will always be wars, and always be militaries.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by HexRei
Yeah, that worked really well back when it took months or years to travel from one region of the world to another and inability to maintain supply lines prevented rapid expansion and holding of territory. In an era where a technologically competent military can airdrop a few hundred thousand troops + armor in a day or two (and keep them supplied indefinitely) it doesn't suffice. You can't just "call-up" average joes and train them in time to defend against a strike like that, especially when we're also talking about training personnel to operate anti-air batteries, anti-tank weapons, fly fighters and bombers, and engage in advanced battlefield tactics.

I'm not talking just about "back when", in modern conflicts hostilities and evidence of impending military action always precede the violence. I'm no historian, so if I'm missing a case or two in history you have to excuse me - but I can't think of any examples of an attack that was not foreshadowed - can you?
Also, I'm not suggesting that the preparation of standing armies, not be maintained in a different fashion. I think it's entirely conceivable that non-professional military groups which train regularly could provide sufficient coordination and defense, despite their non-standing nature.

Also, I think that standing armies pose several very serious problems to the security of the society they're purported to protect, as well as societies abroad. As well, I think that sometimes they can inhibit military advancements which could be beneficial to self-defense because of their nature's politically.


The problem is that unless people are getting paid to maintain military knowledge and competence, you won't have anyone to train your militia and/or volunteers, especially if there has been a couple of generations between wars and you haven't even got any veterans left alive. There are certain skills that are difficult to learn from books and instructional videos.

I'm not sure that the absence of wars is a bad-thing, but I get your point. I don't think that war is necessary for the retention of strategy or methodology.
I can imagine many different scenarios in which defensive preparations could be made without maintaining a standing army. I'm not making any specific argument yet for what I personally advocate - so all the problems of payment/motivation or recruitment depend on any of the number of variables that could be injected into this hypothetical.


You say "most", which seems to be an admission that sometimes attacks do manage to surprise a people.

attacks can surprise standing armies too, and they are not always prepared. There is nothing that says a society that has no standing army has to be any more/less surprised that societies with standing armies.

All it takes is one of those to fell your theoretical modern pacifist nation. Wouldn't it be nice to have at least some constant defense?

my "theoretical modern pacifist nation"? I'm not a pacifist, I'm not advocating for pacifism. I only said that I disagree a standing army is a requirement for self-defense.

I don't think societies would be under constant threat, without standing armies...so I don' think that there is a need for a constant defense. I think that defense should be maintained and matched to the threats that face a society, rather than the contrived hypotheticals that people use often to justify militaries today.
I think that standing armies pose risks and threats to society themselves, and pose a threat for as long as they exist. I don't think the cost/benefit of a standing army necessarily outweigh those of not having one.


To demonstrate that sometimes the other guys just punches first. It's really easy to say in hindsight that past conflict was foreshadowed and no one should ever have been surprised when they were attacked, but it hasn't stopped a lot of societies from being totally unprepared to defend themselves in the past.

I don't disagree that societies have been unprepared. My argument is that preparedness doesn't necessitate a permanent standing army.

[Plerr]

Originally posted by djsteel
This Thread is concrete proof that humans will find any stuipid reason to fight...This is the reason why there will always be wars, and always be militaries.

we're talking, not fighting. people don't have to fight, just because they disagree.

if anything, this thread is just proof that no matter where I post..I will unintentionally derail the original point of the thread.

[djsteel]

Originally posted by Plerr
if anything, this thread is just proof that no matter where I post..I will unintentionally derail the original point of the thread.

Which retard told you that was a good trait?

[Gucci Smoochies]

Originally posted by djsteel
Which retard told you that was a good trait?

This is Nwtekno. All variable tangents and the ability to meander from said topic are good traits. We're all a bunch of ADD and ADHD-riddled adults anyhow.

Plerr, I like your tangents. It's always interesting to see people argue their beliefs in a logical, emphatical, and intellectual manner, especially when debating with people like Peter (Jenney too). Smart people ftw!

[TeknoAXE]

I joined Active Army in the beginning of 1996. I have flat feet and, at the time, really poor vision, but I got in on a waiver. I landed myself in artillery, stuck around Ft. Drum till 1999, then became a National Guardsman for Washington. In March of this year, I moved to California to be an electronics engineer for the Naval Air Warfare Center at Point Mugu. Coinciding with this, I also swore in as a California Air National Guardsman last month, to work with some of the new C-130Js in avionics.

http://www.nbvc.navy.mil/airshow07/performers/images/m4_C-130JcoastCove_lrg.jpg

I initially joined the army for a multitude of reasons. I wanted to get out of Idaho, from which I'd graduated high school in. I figured the college money would be good. And, yes, I had some patriotic sense about me. I actually wanted to get deployed somewhere when I was in active service, because I wanted to go to other countries.

Joining the Washington Army National guard was a totally and completely different animal. In some respects, you really root for the team you're apart of, and I couldn't think of a better place to be than cruising around Yakima, guiding a bunch of Paladin howitzers to shoot at things. It was only after a few years that I discovered that Washington National Guard takes care of their soldiers going to school like no other.

When we got deployed, I had the option of quickly signing up for ROTC at WSU to get out of going. One of our soldiers did take that route, but I didn't. By that time, the Unit-Core-God-Country philosophy is firmly in place, and it's not as if I adopted this over night. But, you go with the people you train with, and loyalties lay with them. This is especially built in when you're on field training missions.

With my education, I figure now's my time to step up and help the military out where I really shine, both with my job and military service. With the Air National Guard, I stand a good chance of being deployed more, but in smaller chunks of time than the Army National Guard. But, a job at Channel Islands Air Force Base would be more relevant to my civilian job with the Navy, so it'd complement what I'm doing there.

As far as the debate for or against standing military, I believe that it can be a double edged sword. It's expensive to maintain and advance your capabilities. Sometimes military forces can be miss-allocated. Arms races can build up to pretty lethal proportions.

However, in this day and age, I believe it's really a good idea to have a standing force ready for things when shit hits the fan. We weren't ready for WWI. We weren't ready for WWII. We adapted and caught up at terrible prices.

And, even though this war may not be what you agree with, it's done quite a bit in bringing our tactics and technology out of the cold war era and into the 21st century. It's too bad we can't be proactive in adapting to these things in peacetime. As long as a soldier is killed in battle, there's always room to improve to make sure your guys survive.

Matt

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Plerr
I'm not talking just about "back when", in modern conflicts hostilities and evidence of impending military action always precede the violence. I'm no historian, so if I'm missing a case or two in history you have to excuse me - but I can't think of any examples of an attack that was not foreshadowed - can you?

I think this is impossible to prove because we are looking at it in hindsight. Certainly once an attack has occurred, its easy to point at threatening statements and actions and say "see? it was obvious" but the fact is that governments make threatening statements and actions all the time without actually turning it into a military conflict. It's called a bluff, and it takes advantage of the fact that some people believe that you can predict a person's next action based on their previous few- but you can't, not always. So whether its foreshadowed or not is irrelevant- an intelligent leader will use "foreshadowing" as a weapon all its own. Sometimes they're bluffing, sometimes they're not.

Also, I'm not suggesting that the preparation of standing armies, not be maintained in a different fashion. I think it's entirely conceivable that non-professional military groups which train regularly could provide sufficient coordination and defense, despite their non-standing nature.

What are you basing this on? Have you examined the length of the education programs involved in operating military hardware? How do you propose to have a non-standing army that can operate hundreds of pieces of advanced military hardware -planes, tanks, stationary guns, 3200-man aircraft carriers, ground troops, mechanics, sniper rifles that require trig just to determine drop and windage- a whole host of jobs, many of which have little or no application in civilian life- that require months of training just to learn how to operate a single task on in the first place, much less follow all the upgrades, improvements, and maintain that knowledge in competition with the rest of humanity who is historically amazing inventive when it comes to waging war?

I think you're complely underestimating the difficult and technical nature of a lot of these jobs. This isn't the days of muskets and cannons. They'd require a training and skill maintenance investment that would blur the line between a "standing" and "nonstanding" army. If you've got people training to operate this equipment year round you might as well have a standing army. And the government that IS putting in the time and money will have better and more prepared army.

Also, I think that standing armies pose several very serious problems to the security of the society they're purported to protect, as well as societies abroad. As well, I think that sometimes they can inhibit military advancements which could be beneficial to self-defense because of their nature's politically.

I agree with you here. Both of these are major problems.


I'm not sure that the absence of wars is a bad-thing, but I get your point. I don't think that war is necessary for the retention of strategy or methodology.

I'll respectfully disagree here. I'm not advocating waging war just to keep battle skills sharp, but experience is a valuable commodity. It's not absolutely necessary, but it doesn't hurt.

I can imagine many different scenarios in which defensive preparations could be made without maintaining a standing army. I'm not making any specific argument yet for what I personally advocate - so all the problems of payment/motivation or recruitment depend on any of the number of variables that could be injected into this hypothetical.

Err... ok.


attacks can surprise standing armies too, and they are not always prepared. There is nothing that says a society that has no standing army has to be any more/less surprised that societies with standing armies.

I guarantee you a nation without a standing army will have a tougher time than the one WITH a standing army. The fact that no single army is a guaranteed win against all attacks doesn't invalidate the point of having a ready defense force.


my "theoretical modern pacifist nation"? I'm not a pacifist, I'm not advocating for pacifism. I only said that I disagree a standing army is a requirement for self-defense.

I don't think societies would be under constant threat, without standing armies...so I don' think that there is a need for a constant defense. I think that defense should be maintained and matched to the threats that face a society, rather than the contrived hypotheticals that people use often to justify militaries today.
I think that standing armies pose risks and threats to society themselves, and pose a threat for as long as they exist. I don't think the cost/benefit of a standing army necessarily outweigh those of not having one.

I don't disagree that societies have been unprepared. My argument is that preparedness doesn't necessitate a permanent standing army.

I believe your understanding of what is required to assemble an army competitive to modern warfare is outdated. Obviously simply having paid fighters on hand at all times, while technically a standing army, is not whats required anymore. It's not so much about whether the army is paid 24/7, the problem is having personnel with the training to operate all this incredible machinery used for warfare today, and that requires a huge amount of training on a regular basis for each individual operator.

And it looks even worse if you consider the possibility that an attacker may have no interest in invading territory but might rather just render a significant amount of the population dead at a swoop and take them out of the international arena altogether. i dont care about the probability of this happening, i think its better to have an intelligent defense against it because its a possibility.

[More Wise]

interesting.

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by TeknoAXE
However, in this day and age, I believe it's really a good idea to have a standing force ready for things when shit hits the fan. We weren't ready for WWI. We weren't ready for WWII. We adapted and caught up at terrible prices.
it can also be easily argued that our country's government did everything possible to provoke our entry into those wars. not to mention outright faked an attack to get us fully into vietnam.
a strong national defense is vital, but standing armies almost always tend to tempt government into doing nasty things, which eventually lead to unforeseen, even nastier things.

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by Roddimus

it can also be easily argued that our country's government did everything possible to provoke our entry into those wars. not to mention outright faked an attack to get us fully into vietnam.
a strong national defense is vital, but standing armies almost always tend to tempt government into doing nasty things, which eventually lead to unforeseen, even nastier things. [/B]

You can argue that we provoked our entry into those wars, but we had a strong standing military for neither. In both cases, in the decades before, the masses were pushing for the United States to be isolationist. Even at the beginning of the Korean War, the forces that initially arrived were out of shape, ill-equipped and poorly trained. It wasn't until we realized that we were in the midst of the cold war staring each other down with sizable nukes that we realized we couldn't just let our military rot during peace-time.

Matt

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by TeknoAXE
You can argue that we provoked our entry into those wars, but we had a strong standing military for neither.
and yet we won both.
i'd also argue the US was non-interventionist before them, not outright isolationist.
Even at the beginning of the Korean War, the forces that initially arrived were out of shape, ill-equipped and poorly trained.
and korea was important...because? what? they were at the risk of falling to commies? if that was the case, the chinese nationalists got straight shafted.
again, entangling alliances lead to nothing but trouble. there's a reason why guys like washington and jefferson strongly warned against them (also standing armies).

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by Roddimus
and yet we won both.
i'd also argue the US was non-interventionist before them, not outright isolationist.


We won both because we had massive volunteering after, in WWI, german sank our boats, and in WWII, Japan attacked our borders.

But that still doesn't mean we didn't pay for it. A lot of blood lost in battles was because we didn't have a professional army.

and korea was important...because? what? they were at the risk of falling to commies? if that was the case, the chinese nationalists got straight shafted.
again, entangling alliances lead to nothing but trouble. there's a reason why guys like washington and jefferson strongly warned against them (also standing armies).

It's not the importance of the War I'm talking about. We could argue for days about why the Korean War happened. But as soon as we were faced with a formidable foe when the Chinese Army poured over the border, we crumbled, because our generals were inexperienced, the commanders on the field didn't know how to deal with their flanking maneuvers, and the troops were unprepared for the climatic and stressful conditions on the battle field.

Even our first encounter with the North Koreans, we got beaten badly in our first few rounds. We eventually adapted and held the lines at what is now the border between the North and Sound, but a good number of soldiers died due to a lack of a standing army.

Matt

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by TeknoAXE
We won both because we had massive volunteering after, in WWI, german sank our boats, and in WWII, Japan attacked our borders.
of course, that's my point. when an economic wildcat like the US brings itself to war, it usually ends up winning.
it was only after we set up standing armies that our government started bringing us to war, quite regularly.
It's not the importance of the War I'm talking about.
when it comes to an unnecessary war that our government brought us into, for me the importance of our army's standing strength isn't that...important.

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by Roddimus

of course, that's my point. when an economic wildcat like the US brings itself to war, it usually ends up winning.
it was only after we set up standing armies that our government started bringing us to war, quite regularly.
[/b]

Any shift you're referring to, I believe is not the cause of standing armies at bay, but result of presidents who deploy their troops without congressional consent. The more autonomy the executive branch has, the more that's going to happen. Bill Clinton certainly proved that in the 90s, as he had a tendency to order military action on his own.

when it comes to an unnecessary war that our government brought us into, for me the importance of our army's standing strength isn't that...important.

For you, but I'll respectfully disagree. Not only is it important for going overseas and kicking other people's asses, but we also need to be the biggest and baddest mofos in our own block as well. We have a bad enough time trying to police our own borders without our comrades to our north and sound sensing that we're getting weak.

Matt

[Plerr]

Originally posted by HexRei
I think this is impossible to prove because we are looking at it in hindsight. Certainly once an attack has occurred, its easy to point at threatening statements and actions and say "see? it was obvious" but the fact is that governments make threatening statements and actions all the time without actually turning it into a military conflict. It's called a bluff, and it takes advantage of the fact that some people believe that you can predict a person's next action based on their previous few- but you can't, not always. So whether its foreshadowed or not is irrelevant- an intelligent leader will use "foreshadowing" as a weapon all its own. Sometimes they're bluffing, sometimes they're not.

I think it’s pretty easy to erect a standard to apply evenly to historical situations, and we can look back at what people thought at a particular time to off-set hindsight. We can look at their statements and their actions and their justifications for what they’ve done. We can look at things like troops and equipment build ups, and how public they were. We can look at bellicose rhetoric and threats. We can even look at production trends.

But before we do that, I want to make clear that I’m not trying to sound like some history or military expert. It’s hard to discuss this topic without accidentally coming off as one, but I think that in a very general sense I can demonstrate that preparedness doesn’t “necessarily” require a standing army. Of course the capacity of any society to defend itself is going to depend on a whole litany of factors. We don’t really have to go into each one in detail in order to discuss the topic in a broader sense.

Also, it seems that what you’re suggesting are scenarios that seem unrealistic to me. You haven’t said it yet, but it almost seems as though you believe that a massive foreign invasion of the United States or most other countries…could happen overnight, and completely by surprise without the slightest comprehension of imminent hostility by the invadee. Logistically that seems nearly impossible to pull off without detection.

Supposing something like that were to happen, it seems to me that whether one has a standing army or a civil guard isn’t going to make a tremendous difference.

But I’m not a military expert, and my point is not to suggest that x, or y, is a more realistic scenario…I just think that there is a broad enough mutual understanding that we can agree that standing armies are not “necessarily” required for self-defense - even if they help.




What are you basing this on? Have you examined the length of the education programs involved in operating military hardware? How do you propose to have a non-standing army that can operate hundreds of pieces of advanced military hardware -planes, tanks, stationary guns, 3200-man aircraft carriers, ground troops, mechanics, sniper rifles that require trig just to determine drop and windage- a whole host of jobs, many of which have little or no application in civilian life- that require months of training just to learn how to operate a single task on in the first place, much less follow all the upgrades, improvements, and maintain that knowledge in competition with the rest of humanity who is historically amazing inventive when it comes to waging war?


Why can’t people be proficiently trained, or there be sophisticated and cognizant command/control applicable to defense just because these structures and this training isn’t permanent?
Just looking at the national guard of the United States, as well as other states. These groups are often highly effective despite their mostly-civilian life, and limited training. We find the same true for terrorist groups, and militias around the world.

I’m not suggesting a standing military is inferior, I’m questioning the necessity. And in a broader sense I’m questioning whether the potential advantages of a standing military outweigh the negatives.

I think you're complely underestimating the difficult and technical nature of a lot of these jobs. This isn't the days of muskets and cannons. They'd require a training and skill maintenance investment that would blur the line between a "standing" and "nonstanding" army. If you've got people training to operate this equipment year round you might as well have a standing army. And the government that IS putting in the time and money will have better and more prepared army.

maybe I am underestimating the difficult technicalities. But I think that enough real-life examples exist to prove my point.



I'll respectfully disagree here. I'm not advocating waging war just to keep battle skills sharp, but experience is a valuable commodity. It's not absolutely necessary, but it doesn't hurt.


Well, I’m not arguing that “experience” isn’t valuable in war. I’m arguing that it’s not worth war. It’s a value judgment.


Err... ok.

It’s a broad topic. The socio-political doctrine I subscribe to would require we tangent more if we were to discuss motivation and logistics.



I guarantee you a nation without a standing army will have a tougher time than the one WITH a standing army. The fact that no single army is a guaranteed win against all attacks doesn't invalidate the point of having a ready defense force.
I don’t disagree. But again, it’s a question of cost-benefit analysis. Do the threats a given society face justify the risks a standing army may pose?



I believe your understanding of what is required to assemble an army competitive to modern warfare is outdated. Obviously simply having paid fighters on hand at all times, while technically a standing army, is not whats required anymore. It's not so much about whether the army is paid 24/7, the problem is having personnel with the training to operate all this incredible machinery used for warfare today, and that requires a huge amount of training on a regular basis for each individual operator.

And it looks even worse if you consider the possibility that an attacker may have no interest in invading territory but might rather just render a significant amount of the population dead at a swoop and take them out of the international arena altogether. i dont care about the probability of this happening, i think its better to have an intelligent defense against it because its a possibility.

These two paragraphs *almost* sound like my point, in that a standing military could still largely be “take[n] out” by nuclear weapons or superior technology/forces. Conversely, the need for a standing military can be diminished by superior technology and nuclear weaponry.
So while I don’t disagree that they are useful, that they are even superior defensively in the face of an attack…I don’t truly agree that they are necessary to provide self-defense. I keep reiterating that, as it feels like I need to make it clear that I’m not arguing that a standing army is obsolete.

[NeOmega]

Iw as reading this article:

I just figured out why the Marine Corps rejected me.

They asked me if I had smoked Marijuana. I said yes. They asked me.. "didnt liek it much" I said, "actually, i thought it was really fun"

tehn I read today, here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_recruits_waivers

Pentagon to unveil new waiver process for recruits

Marines are known for their more strict waiver requirements, which result in a higher percentage of their recruits needing a special exemption to join. The most glaring difference is that one-time marijuana use warrants a waiver.

I kind of figured that might be why, but they never told me no reason was given.

Not that I am upset, I probably would have stayed. Would have had a lot more money, but also probably would have had to go to Iraq, and that would have pissed me off.

[hardnrghouse]

Thats kind of funny that you asked Jake , I finally finished my GED at age 28 and I had gone in to the beaveton recruiting office more than once but they wouldn't take me due to no GED or Diploma nt to mention that I had numerous warrents at the time...

anyway I just passed the GED here at clark college and the next thing I was gonna do is compare the srevices and make a valid decision based on the information provided.

NAVY?
Gaurd?
ARMY?

I don't know I guess it's whoever pays my family the most money monthly when I do croak or get shot , DIE even (like snaggle puss)

I need some inspiriation someone knows somethin about it and I do not want to hear more negativity. I hate this country, I even hate the people running it ...but they offer the most MONEY, thats what it comes down to right? I can grab my nuts and run into combat as long as my family gets taken care of.

p.s. Jake.. answer your own question please

[thatguy]

I joined because my mom was a fucking tweeker and I didn't want to end up that way........I needed direction in my life and had a lot of anger issues. The Army helped resolve the anger but in a positive way. I also learned that I alone have the power to change my life. It sucked ass most of the time but looking back on it now it was the best thing I ever did. I did a lot of growing and maturing in the service.

[B_tech]

Originally posted by thatguy
I joined because my mom was a fucking tweeker and I didn't want to end up that way........I needed direction in my life and had a lot of anger issues. The Army helped resolve the anger but in a positive way. I also learned that I alone have the power to change my life. It sucked ass most of the time but looking back on it now it was the best thing I ever did. I did a lot of growing and maturing in the service.
That's actually really cool to hear. I know a few guys that joined and it was the best thing for them, ebcause they would have ended up in prison or dead if they didn't. They got the direction and structure they needed and now have solid jobs/lives.

[Andromeda.]

Originally posted by Plerr
You may take it for granted that your particular world-view is universally held when it isn't. I think your viewpoint concerning freedoms is nonsensical (re: paid for by the blood..) and think that even by the US's own standards and definitions of terrorism - the US military on the whole fits the characteristics and qualities of a terrorist organization. I think people who disagree with participation in what has historically (to current) been almost exclusively a vessel for mass-murder, ethnic cleansing, oppression, and imperialism..justifiably recognize the inherent terrorism of military "service".

!!!!!

whaaaaat.

i agree that the whole "freedom through increased surveillance" is a crock of shit, but if you look at the OTHER side of that historical coin you just flipped, you'd also be aware of the fact that for every country that has used their military to conquer and destroy, there have been just as many who let their militaries snooze...assumed that they didn't have to watch their back in the slightest...and they in turn got conquesred and destroyed.

i'm not for running out and starting wars for no reason and people dying and crazy shit like that, but to say that militaries are useless "through historical evidence" is pretty stupid. vigilance and defense are not necessarily bad things by themselves.

i totally respect the fact that you went through four years of hell and want nothing to do with it anymore, though, i know i couldn't do it and i'd probably hate it when i was done too. i'm also not trying to defend the US's actions...we're on a ridiculous war / surveillance rampage right now that i don't think has shit to do with "protecting us", ha....

[More Wise]

i initially tried as a joke, i went in and told the guy i didnt mind killing people as long as they paid me. lol... they ran my juvenile record and told me no.

then out of desperation for college funding, vocational training, and possibly some work ethic/ discipline i genuinely tried, i was in a long term relationship that was very bad so i didnt really have much to lose and everything to gain... again juvenile record.

i tried a third time with the navy because i have a friend in the reserves. he kept going on and on about how he told them he used to do acid and la dee dah.. and all this shit about how they can pull a waiver...... no... they cant pull a waiver with me.

the stupidest part about it is what disqualifies me. my friend and i grabbed some sleeping bags from my house and crashed out in a house that was being built. we got woken up by the cops and charged with burglary.

but, now after listening to family members who are veterans, family members that are from the middle east, and now reading everyones responses to this i am very proud to say i am not serving.

what i find particularly interesting is the people that defend it so much are those that have succumbed. for being such big bad ass fighters you think they wouldn't give up so easy.

[Hukt On Wax]

the government doesn't trust me with firearms, tanks, classified documents or explosives go figure :D

[Andromeda.]

lol

[forrest303]

I joined the U.S Coast Guard Reserves in 2002. I've been in almost six and a half years and will probably stay in 20 years total.

I respond to oil and chemical spills in marine environments and work to ensure compliance with U.S environmental laws and regulations. I DON'T carry a gun and have nothing to do with weapons. A lot of my job is making sure fishermen don't get killed when they go out to sea. Safety inspections is a big part of my job. Its also fun to bitch slap snotty fishermen who get caught dumping oil into water and busting big corporations for spilling it (the fine per day for EACH infraction for dumping oil is up to $36,500 PER DAY, PER INFRACTION.)

I signed up because I was going in debt for school and they have paid all of my school expenses since then. I came in as an E-3 in rank and paygrade, have advanced to E-5 (Marine Science Technician, 2nd class) and will be making 1st class Petty Officer on January 1st of next year.

I love my job, and the flexibility of being a reservist. I get the benefits but lack the b.s. I tend to bunch up my drills and do them all at once and then not go in for about six months of the year.

I like my job and what I do. I like doing environmental protection work and working to keep toxins out of the water. Its a small part but I feel I am making things a TINY bit better and helping to keep people from dying out in the ocean is a good feeling.

[TeknoAXE]

The coast guard is perhaps one of the most under recognized services in the U.S. They were the main group helping out in Hurricane Katrina.

Matt

[GooglyMoose]

Geezz... I'm not even sure if I should respond to this.

So I guess I'll say exactly what was the deciding point for me.

I was considering it for quite a bit because I didn't have a good feeling that my college applications were going to get accepted. I had already gotten denied at 2 of the 3 schools that I had applied to and was pretty sure that the 3rd letter was somewhere along the way. My financial aide was also denied to a issue concerning my father's income (which is another story in it's self). I was taking Air Force JROTC in high school at the time and to get out of class early one day I decided to take the ASVABs because when I was done I was going to leave school early and hit up the record scores.

Well, one day I'm chilling at home on a snow day where our country back roads were iced over completely when I'm going to assume my ASVAB scores got released. A Navy recruiter called me up first and said he would make the 50 minute drive down to my house to come and talk to me for a bit. I said tough luck getting down here, but behold he made it. While talking to him I got calls from Marine, Coast Guard, and Army recruiters so I assume that was the day they got my ASVAB scores (which were a 99 if you were curious).

I decided to go in to MEPs and see exactly what type of jobs were out there that next Monday, but first was this big party that me and my friend Chris were going to go to. It was the first rave I had ever been to and decided to make the 1 1/2 drive up to Washington DC for this party. I think Give 3 was the name of the party.

Either way it was the first time for me to meet a lot of the message board guys I had been talking to online in person. I started chatting to this one guy who DJed under the name DJ Inergy that I knew from the boards and who promptly informed me that he was rolling his ass off and he thought it was so great that I could go to a party and not be on anything.

So later that night this DJ who's name I can't remember comes on and his hitting that whole party rocker cross genre vibe before it was all trendy. He played this Cassius track called 1999 that I had been dying to hear since I had just picked it up on vinyl a few weeks before and it was the peak of the night for me. DJ Inergy calls me over and promptly cuts a line of coke on a demo cd that he had been given. I told him I'm no and left it at that.

We stayed at the party until about 10 the next morning and found that my favorite drug addled DJ had been ditched by his ride at the party. After some consideration me and my friend gave him a ride back where he told us his whole life story. The worst thing was that a lot of things that he was saying really worried me as far as where my life was going and that we really were pretty similar. I could really see myself being some coke addicted kid who can't go out without getting wasted out of his mind and getting ditched at parties and the whole 9 yards.

I kind of got it in my mind that night that I really needed to get away from home for a while and that the Navy would be the perfect way to do it. It sounds stupid. I didn't join because of pride or any of that shit. I joined because I really couldn't see myself doing anything but fucking up at home. Of course there's more to it. I was in a horrible place with my family and all the normal childhood drama but that was pretty much the night that I decided to go and join the military.

I really don't regret it one bit even though I'm very very very bored with it. It's given me a lot. I'm not working to pay off student loans. I'm very close to my degree. I've advanced fairly quick so I have a decent amount of money to play with and I'm very proud of the fact that I'm a 22 year old home owner. It hasn't compromised my interests one bit (though deployments do make it hard to keep up the DJ bookings) and it's given me enough training that I can get a very good job when I'm finished with my 6 years.

So I guess that's my reason.

I do kind of take offense to the trained killer stuff. Though I guess I could totally beat everyone on this board to death with my awesome Navy ninja moves,

[Hukt On Wax]

Originally posted by GooglyMoose


I could totally beat everyone on this board to death with my awesome Navy ninja moves,

real ninja's don't use navy training DUH! :D

[GooglyMoose]

Originally posted by Hukt On Wax
real ninja's don't use navy training DUH! :D

damn it... their on to our secrets....