Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
I was not aware that physical harm happens to 100% of the poeple that enlist in the military services to protect your freedoms. Hmm....Maybe you are not worth it.
There is no guarantee that you will not be killed, to join in and organization simple because you want to travel around or go to college is fine, but if you are sent into harms way and are killed is that really worth it. As far as protecting our freedoms, the military has not been used to truly protect our freedoms since the 2nd world war, every other confrontation since then has been for everything but really protecting our freedoms, protecting our freedoms is a slogan used to instill patriotism with the idea that you are joining for a reason, but believe me when the rounds start flying in and the your mates brains are laying in your lap, you start to think and wonder exactly what all that means, and how much BS there really is, and wonder why your even here.
Protecting our freedoms, I see the United States Government taking away more freedoms from the American people then any enemy is, so from your line of reasoning I would assume that the military should be used to over throw the Government. When you make a commitment to something that could cost you your life, you have to take into serious consideration as to what the reason is, and if it is worth it. Whether you like it or not, many Americans dont have a clue what their country does in other countries, they just go along with what they are told. You have to use your head and know what you are getting into before you make this sort of commitment because it is not easy to break once you make it. Bring it on down now.
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
I was not aware that physical harm happens to 100% of the poeple that enlist in the military services to protect your freedoms. Hmm....Maybe you are not worth it.
There is no guarantee that you will not be killed, to join in and organization simple because you want to travel around or go to college is fine, but if you are sent into harms way and are killed is that really worth it. As far as protecting our freedoms, the military has not been used to truly protect our freedoms since the 2nd world war, every other confrontation since then has been for everything but really protecting our freedoms, protecting our freedoms is a slogan used to instill patriotism with the idea that you are joining for a reason, but believe me when the rounds start flying in and the your mates brains are laying in your lap, you start to think and wonder exactly what all that means, and how much BS there really is, and wonder why your even here.
Protecting our freedoms, I see the United States Government taking away more freedoms from the American people then any enemy is, so from your line of reasoning I would assume that the military should be used to over throw the Government. When you make a commitment to something that could cost you your life, you have to take into serious consideration as to what the reason is, and if it is worth it. Whether you like it or not, many Americans dont have a clue what their country does in other countries, they just go along with what they are told. You have to use your head and know what you are getting into before you make this sort of commitment because it is not easy to break once you make it. Bring it on down now.
What line of reasoning are you talking about? All he did was bring up the fact that, although , yes, there's a chance you'll get hurt in the military (what a shocker) Not every enlisted man or woman is. Actually, the vast majority of our soldiers now are fine, and don't get shot in the head with their friend's brains splattered in their laps.
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
I was not aware that physical harm happens to 100% of the poeple that enlist in the military services to protect your freedoms. Hmm....Maybe you are not worth it.
There is no guarantee that you will not be killed, to join in and organization simple because you want to travel around or go to college is fine, but if you are sent into harms way and are killed is that really worth it. As far as protecting our freedoms, the military has not been used to truly protect our freedoms since the 2nd world war, every other confrontation since then has been for everything but really protecting our freedoms, protecting our freedoms is a slogan used to instill patriotism with the idea that you are joining for a reason, but believe me when the rounds start flying in and the your mates brains are laying in your lap, you start to think and wonder exactly what all that means, and how much BS there really is, and wonder why your even here.
Protecting our freedoms, I see the United States Government taking away more freedoms from the American people then any enemy is, so from your line of reasoning I would assume that the military should be used to over throw the Government. When you make a commitment to something that could cost you your life, you have to take into serious consideration as to what the reason is, and if it is worth it. Whether you like it or not, many Americans dont have a clue what their country does in other countries, they just go along with what they are told. You have to use your head and know what you are getting into before you make this sort of commitment because it is not easy to break once you make it. Bring it on down now.
What line of reasoning are you talking about? All he did was bring up the fact that, although , yes, there's a chance you'll get hurt in the military (what a shocker) Not every enlisted man or woman is. Actually, the vast majority of our soldiers now are fine, and don't get shot in the head with their friend's brains splattered in their laps. I agree with Rreka'al. And to J0kerr1, have you ever actually been in the military, or just speculating on the brains laying in someone's lap thing?
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
I was not aware that physical harm happens to 100% of the poeple that enlist in the military services to protect your freedoms. Hmm....Maybe you are not worth it.
There is no guarantee that you will not be killed, to join in and organization simple because you want to travel around or go to college is fine, but if you are sent into harms way and are killed is that really worth it. As far as protecting our freedoms, the military has not been used to truly protect our freedoms since the 2nd world war, every other confrontation since then has been for everything but really protecting our freedoms, protecting our freedoms is a slogan used to instill patriotism with the idea that you are joining for a reason, but believe me when the rounds start flying in and the your mates brains are laying in your lap, you start to think and wonder exactly what all that means, and how much BS there really is, and wonder why your even here.
Protecting our freedoms, I see the United States Government taking away more freedoms from the American people then any enemy is, so from your line of reasoning I would assume that the military should be used to over throw the Government. When you make a commitment to something that could cost you your life, you have to take into serious consideration as to what the reason is, and if it is worth it. Whether you like it or not, many Americans dont have a clue what their country does in other countries, they just go along with what they are told. You have to use your head and know what you are getting into before you make this sort of commitment because it is not easy to break once you make it. Bring it on down now.
What line of reasoning are you talking about? All he did was bring up the fact that, although , yes, there's a chance you'll get hurt in the military (what a shocker) Not every enlisted man or woman is. Actually, the vast majority of our soldiers now are fine, and don't get shot in the head with their friend's brains splattered in their laps.
Did you even read what I said, I did not say that a person when they join the military would be killed, I said that there is the chance that they could be or even wounded, that is after all what the military is about. Bring it on down now.
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
What line of reasoning are you talking about? All he did was bring up the fact that, although , yes, there's a chance you'll get hurt in the military (what a shocker) Not every enlisted man or woman is. Actually, the vast majority of our soldiers now are fine, and don't get shot in the head with their friend's brains splattered in their laps.
Did you even read what I said, I did not say that a person when they join the military would be killed, I said that there is the chance that they could be or even wounded, that is after all what the military is about. Bring it on down now.
That is what it sounded like you were implying with your original statement, by not using things like "worth the chance of being shot in the head" instead of "worth being shot in the head"
Know what you are in for... The next century of combat for US forces will center around not being wiped out by the chineese.
The US only has about thirteen divisions of ground troops (10 army and 3 marine,) two of which are in South Korea (ROK.) And it largely depends on force multipliers to devistate 'massed enemy' forces (eg. AF smart bombs - satellite targeting with a back-up of tac nukes.) Vietnam and Iran prove how ineffectual the US is at eliminating insurgant "terrorist" forces without wiping out "friendly" areas those insurgants blend with.
The US has ONLY targeted 3rd & 4th rate inferior military targets for the last seventy years and has come out with a tie in korea and a loss in vietnam since WW2. The US is in no position to wage 'conventional' war with the manpower military nations. Even Pakistan has over 2x the size of the US groundforces, DPRK (north korea) has 4x, Russia has 6x and China has 97x. The bankrupt US (ie. $7T debt) can not even stem the inflow of 2k illegals daily from mexico, (yea an Arizona fence will do it, eg. berlin wall) much less force it's will on the rest of the world (we all know how much the UN backs up the aims of the US.) The only thing preventing the realization of US's paper tiger status is it's naval fleets, strategic AF and 10k back-up nuclear arsenal. (The russians have 20k and the chineese have 500 nuks.)
The US relies heavily on expensive technology, that over 60% of which can be eliminated by EMP and bio surge instead of 'cheap' massed ground forces. The rest of the world goes for cheaper huge standing armies, fully expecting losses 50 to 70 %, but that remaining 30% will still be enough to slaughter the civilians. The US assumes it's distance from europe and asia means there never will be another occupational force in the US... overlooking the +30 million illegals here already... the only way to prevent those illegals becoming armed is to take away the arms from it's 'legal' citizens... in the name of preventing terrorism!
And then it will fall to the two or three surviving US Army and Marine divisions to provide domestic safeguard in the US, unless nuks have already made 70 to 90% of the US uninhabital for the next 50 years. The policy of the military for the next 100 years is train for urban combat, instead of antique massed field engagements. The days of what the US or west says goes, is over.
Beter learn chineese and actually understand what Islam means because neither of them care what the US says nor does.
Originally posted by bhug 06.11.01Know what you are in for... The next century of combat for US forces will center around not being wiped out by the chineese.The US only has about thirteen divisions of ground troops (10 army and 3 marine,) two of which are in South Korea (ROK.) And it largely depends on force multipliers to devistate 'massed enemy' forces (eg. AF smart bombs - satellite targeting with a back-up of tac nukes.) Vietnam and Iran prove how ineffectual the US is at eliminating insurgant "terrorist" forces without wiping out "friendly" areas those insurgants blend with.The US is no more ineffective than anyone else in the same situation. Name a country that has successfully stifled a terrorist force. The US has ONLY targeted 3rd & 4th rate inferior military targets for the last seventy years and has come out with a tie in korea and a loss in vietnam since WW2. The US is in no position to wage 'conventional' war with the manpower military nations. Even Pakistan has over 2x the size of the US groundforces, DPRK (north korea) has 4x, Russia has 6x and China has 97x. The bankrupt US (ie. $7T debt) can not even stem the inflow of 2k illegals daily from mexico, (yea an Arizona fence will do it, eg. berlin wall) much less force it's will on the rest of the world (we all know how much the UN backs up the aims of the US.) The only thing preventing the realization of US's paper tiger status is it's naval fleets, strategic AF and 10k back-up nuclear arsenal. (The russians have 20k and the chineese have 500 nuks.)What do you define as inferior? Less man power? That's a strict and inaccurate definition.Despite our debt, we are still the largest economy in the world.We really need more than 10,000 nukes...when the world has been bombed to hell a million times over that extra nuke will come in handy. The US relies heavily on expensive technology, that over 60% of which can be eliminated by EMP and bio surge instead of 'cheap' massed ground forces. The rest of the world goes for cheaper huge standing armies, fully expecting losses 50 to 70 %, but that remaining 30% will still be enough to slaughter the civilians. The US assumes it's distance from europe and asia means there never will be another occupational force in the US... overlooking the +30 million illegals here already... the only way to prevent those illegals becoming armed is to take away the arms from it's 'legal' citizens... in the name of preventing terrorism!If a large scale war breaks out, ground troops will not be an issue. Nukes will be employed. And then it will fall to the two or three surviving US Army and Marine divisions to provide domestic safeguard in the US, unless nuks have already made 70 to 90% of the US uninhabital for the next 50 years. The policy of the military for the next 100 years is train for urban combat, instead of antique massed field engagements. The days of what the US or west says goes, is over.Beter learn chineese and actually understand what Islam means because neither of them care what the US says nor does.Actually China does care deeply about the US, especially in imports/exports. Whether or not you care to believe me is a whole different story.
Thank you. Just to let you know, there are good officers, and bad officers. Ultimately, Captain Asshole got his. It seemed battalion noticed how our company was sending too many people on sick call with food poisoning. So, in one of my many trips to battalion for "unfitness" of duty, they started questioning me about the food served in my company. Well, for starters, it was marginally fit for human consumtion, the milk was sour, so the troops preferred water, the bread moldy, you ate around it, eggs green. you get the picture. The officers, 1st Sgt, and platoon NCOs always ate first, and we received fresh food, and ate at the "high" table. The troops got the crap, ate what they could, and threw the rest into the drums marked inedible food. Anyway, between the doctors questioning the troops, and battaluion questioning me, JAG (Judge Adjatent General) was called in. They arranged a stakeout on our mess hall. Every day at noon the mess Sgt would drive off post with a two and a half ton company truck partially loaded with the inedible food drums, and sell them to the local pig farmers. When he was arrested, he admitted that Captain Asshole was involved, and that he kept 25%, and Captain Asshole got 75%.
Captain Asshole soon disappeared forever from our company, and the food improved dramatically. Probably one of the reasons the Army now contracts out food service. Just to let you know, if you enlist, there are more games going on then just military preparedness and patriotism.
Originally posted by bhug 06.11.01 Know what you are in for...
The US relies heavily on expensive technology, that over 60% of which can be eliminated by EMP.....
This is what we were up against in West Germany during the Cold War. The US relied on our nuclear weapons as a deterrant from the Soviet Union, unfortunately Soviet doctrine neutralized these. I was assigned to the northern area, for the defence of Hamburg. Soviet doctrine called not for occupying Hamburg, but for moving in their command, control, and logistics in nice and tight. Same with US military bases. It seems they felt we would not nuke Hamburg and our own civilian dependants in our own military bases. The Soviets probably had a good point there, be awful hard to tell America you just nuked Reinmein Airforce base to get at the Soviet command structure. Anyway, a tactical nuclear airburst disrupts electronic impulses, computers don't work, guidances systems don't work, and all the fancy gizmos become useless junk. So we would have had to use a high airburst on Hamburg. Luckily, it also disrupts internal combustion engines, so substantial elements of mechanized forces don't work. Shielding is bulky and expensive, not tactically sound on soft vehicles used for resupply. So basically, once a nuke is used, it falls back to who has the most ground pounders with automatic rifles available. The Soviets had us there.
In the mid 1970's the Sino-Soviets almost went at it in a scenario we called "Mukden". To win, the Soviets would have to have employed tactical nukes, and, as an officer in Europe, I wanted to see how the Soviets acted after employing tactal nukes. Fortunately/unfortunately, we never found out, the Chinese and the Soviets backed down on their border war. So far, we have only some good hypothesis over the effect tactical nuclear airbursts would have on mechanized warfare, with no working model.
Oh, and by the way, just for the poster from Denmark, behind the Soviet Front that was to assault toward Hamburg was a second front that was supposed to swing north and occupy Denmark, so the Soviet Baltic Fleet could sortee. We never did figure out a way to save all your hard drinking, dope smoking, prostitute loving asses. Just something to think about next time you want us to lay down our lives protecting your way of life. Remember, that Baltic fleet still needs your asses neutralized to sortee out, though it looks like you're doing that for them
The US relies heavily on expensive technology, that over 60% of which can be eliminated by EMP and bio surge instead of 'cheap' massed ground forces. The rest of the world goes for cheaper huge standing armies, fully expecting losses 50 to 70 %, but that remaining 30% will still be enough to slaughter the civilians. The US assumes it's distance from europe and asia means there never will be another occupational force in the US... overlooking the +30 million illegals here already... the only way to prevent those illegals becoming armed is to take away the arms from it's 'legal' citizens... in the name of preventing terrorism! If a large scale war breaks out, ground troops will not be an issue. Nukes will be employed.
That's just the problem, Modjoe, it won't be done as a large scale war, it will be done bit by bit, piece by piece. China is currently milking the West/US for the manufacturing technology to mass produce armored vehicles, both tanks and armored personnel carriers (Ford, GM), and long range strategic bombers (Boeing), missiles, electronics and guidance systems. They have completed the manufacture of the sea lift capacity they need to jump the straits of Taiwan, but are still working on the airlift capacity for the initial jump and resupply if we close the straits. They have to prepare to fight an airwar against the US carrier forces, this means having alot of fighters/bombers to gain air superiority over the straits. You noticed that several years ago, when one of our spyplanes had problems and landed on a Chinese island, they gave the crew back and kept the plane. I bet they loved the electronics. When push comes to shove, is America going to be willing to sacrifice our way of life and go directly to Armageddon over Taiwan? Look around youself at the civilian population of America, their luxury homes, their luxury SUVs, their cable TV, their shopping malls, etc and answer that question....and then, in a couple of years, once again, will America die for South Korea?
Know what you are in for... The next century of combat for US forces will center around not being wiped out by the chineese.
The US only has about thirteen divisions of ground troops (10 army and 3 marine,) two of which are in South Korea (ROK.) And it largely depends on force multipliers to devistate 'massed enemy' forces (eg. AF smart bombs - satellite targeting with a back-up of tac nukes.) Vietnam and Iran prove how ineffectual the US is at eliminating insurgant "terrorist" forces without wiping out "friendly" areas those insurgants blend with.
The US is no more ineffective than anyone else in the same situation. Name a country that has successfully stifled a terrorist force.
Actually that would be incorrect assumption, take for example the United Kingdom, who were very successful in fighting Terrorist, Insurgents, inmilitary campaignsin countries like Malaya, Kenya, Borneo, Oman Dhofar, and etc .. There are other countries as well who have been very successful.
The US has ONLY targeted 3rd & 4th rate inferior military targets for the last seventy years and has come out with a tie in korea and a loss in vietnam since WW2. The US is in no position to wage 'conventional' war with the manpower military nations. Even Pakistan has over 2x the size of the US groundforces, DPRK (north korea) has 4x, Russia has 6x and China has 97x. The bankrupt US (ie. $7T debt) can not even stem the inflow of 2k illegals daily from mexico, (yea an Arizona fence will do it, eg. berlin wall) much less force it's will on the rest of the world (we all know how much the UN backs up the aims of the US.) The only thing preventing the realization of US's paper tiger status is it's naval fleets, strategic AF and 10k back-up nuclear arsenal. (The russians have 20k and the chineese have 500 nuks.)
What do you define as inferior? Less man power? That's a strict and inaccurate definition.
Less man power is a true, but I would have to say that US forces are trained different from many other forces around the world. US forces are trained very well in the technological warfare even their infantry are trained in these applications, they do train for hand to hand, weapons handling and also physical training but compared to other forces around the world their training in those areas are weak. Take for example the Falklands war, the terrain in the Falklands is some of the worst terrain you will ever see, it made the use of amour in any fashion virtually useless, the physical demands that were required of British forces to navigate and fight along the way in such terrain shocked many US military commanders who though that it would be very difficult if not impossible to navigate and fight such difficult terrain. Belizeis another example a country which has virtually the worst possible terrain I the world for fighting a successful battle.
Despite our debt, we are still the largest economy in the world.
It is easy to fall into the habit of believing that, but technically the USeconomy is notthe largest in the world anymore.
We really need more than 10,000 nukes...when the world has been bombed to hell a million times over that extra nuke will come in handy.
LMAO, Agreed, in all likely hood the amount of Nuclear weapons needed would only be in the range of 200, the radiation and other nastiness would do the rest, the thought that you nuked them first and they died first means you win, only to end up dropping dead months later from radiation poisoning is sort of funny in a way.
The US relies heavily on expensive technology, that over 60% of which can be eliminated by EMP and bio surge instead of 'cheap' massed ground forces. The rest of the world goes for cheaper huge standing armies, fully expecting losses 50 to 70 %, but that remaining 30% will still be enough to slaughter the civilians. The US assumes it's distance from europe and asia means there never will be another occupational force in the US... overlooking the +30 million illegals here already... the only way to prevent those illegals becoming armed is to take away the arms from it's 'legal' citizens... in the name of preventing terrorism!
If a large scale war breaks out, ground troops will not be an issue. Nukes will be employed.
Not really, there are different variations of Nuclear weapons and purposes for those particular Nukes, so in a conflict a large scale one; Nukes could be used in a limited fashion. What will the fall out be from that, well to be very honest and frank, very few Military leaders think that far ahead.
And then it will fall to the two or three surviving US Army and Marine divisions to provide domestic safeguard in the US, unless nuks have already made 70 to 90% of the US uninhabital for the next 50 years. The policy of the military for the next 100 years is train for urban combat, instead of antique massed field engagements. The days of what the US or west says goes, is over.
Beter learn chineese and actually understand what Islam means because neither of them care what the US says nor does.
Actually China does care deeply about the US, especially in imports/exports. Whether or not you care to believe me is a whole different story.
China does indeed care about the US,almost as much as the US cares aboutChina
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
Originally posted by nakedone How are those reasons unrealistic? My reason was, my parents weren't paying my way through college, I was told to move out when I finished High School, and I wanted to travel.
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
And your experience in this is?
Not everyone has to join the Marines. There's the Air Force as well; for you fragile types. I think there are more ways than just combat to lose life or limb. Watch the News lately in your home town? Not exactly safe to be a civilian either. But would you rather get shot working at Mcdonalds? Or shot protecting an idea? I had a friend that was killed at a car wash, washing his girlfriends' car. Is your life worth a car? That had nothing to do with him being a Marine. So explain that. Is my life at risk when I wash my car? Clearly it is. Do we need a video of the horrible things that happens at a carwash?
I'm disabled. Had nothing to do with combat. I still don't have hate for the military. I only got out because I couldn't keep up with the Marines I lead. The other reason is that I feel that liberal politics put the military in danger as seen in the Middle East (and I don't mean by sending us there, I mean by how we are used). I could write a book that would support that.
I, like many like me and before me and long into the future, are well aware of being hurt or killed in the military. But it beats the hell out of a crappy job or working 2 jobs. I've done more in those 9 years then most will do in 10 life times.
Oh, as far as school, I got my 2 year degree for 100% free while I was in. Now I'm going to school to get my 4 year degree and I get $1,300 per month just from the G.I bill. With my disablity check (which pays my truck payment) per month, claiming my school supplies on my taxes, working at the VA work study program, I don't have to work while I go to school. So the video is false. If those people didn't take advantage or the array of free money for school given to them while they were in, that's thier problem.
I'm not saying that there isn't bad times in the military but, it's the military, what do you expect? You mean to tell me that your job doesn't have a bad side?
Oh, and living in an apartment in La Jolla, CA 5 minutes from the beach and university with 2 cute girls for roommates and meeting all of thier friends was all paid for (actually had housing allowance left over each month) was a plus too.
I made the most of it. If I could, I'd do it all over again.
I'm willing to bet that those in the video made some poor choices during thier enlistment and are still bitter about it. But they're not telling you about that side of the story, are they?
But to answer your question, yes it was worth it. To me, it's better than saying "Welcome to Wal-Mart" for the rest of my life. Or paying back money that I barrowed to go to school for the next decade.
Originally posted by nakedone How are those reasons unrealistic? My reason was, my parents weren't paying my way through college, I was told to move out when I finished High School, and I wanted to travel.
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
And your experience in this is?
Not everyone has to join the Marines. There's the Air Force as well; for you fragile types. I think there are more ways than just combat to lose life or limb. Watch the News lately in your home town? Not exactly safe to be a civilian either. But would you rather get shot working at Mcdonalds? Or shot protecting an idea? I had a friend that was killed at a car wash, washing his girlfriends' car. Is your life worth a car? That had nothing to do with him being a Marine. So explain that. Is my life at risk when I wash my car? Clearly it is. Do we need a video of the horrible things that happens at a carwash?
I'm disabled. Had nothing to do with combat. I still don't have hate for the military. I only got out because I couldn't keep up with the Marines I lead. The other reason is that I feel that liberal politics put the military in danger as seen in the Middle East (and I don't mean by sending us there, I mean by how we are used). I could write a book that would support that.
I, like many like me and before me and long into the future, are well aware of being hurt or killed in the military. But it beats the hell out of a crappy job or working 2 jobs. I've done more in those 9 years then most will do in 10 life times.
Oh, as far as school, I got my 2 year degree for 100% free while I was in. Now I'm going to school to get my 4 year degree and I get $1,300 per month just from the G.I bill. With my disablity check (which pays my truck payment) per month, claiming my school supplies on my taxes, working at the VA work study program, I don't have to work while I go to school. So the video is false. If those people didn't take advantage or the array of free money for school given to them while they were in, that's thier problem.
I'm not saying that there isn't bad times in the military but, it's the military, what do you expect? You mean to tell me that your job doesn't have a bad side?
Oh, and living in an apartment in La Jolla, CA 5 minutes from the beach and university with 2 cute girls for roommates and meeting all of thier friends was all paid for (actually had housing allowance left over each month) was a plus too.
I made the most of it. If I could, I'd do it all over again.
I'm willing to bet that those in the video made some poor choices during thier enlistment and are still bitter about it. But they're not telling you about that side of the story, are they?
But to answer your question, yes it was worth it. To me, it's better than saying "Welcome to Wal-Mart" for the rest of my life. Or paying back money that I barrowed to go to school for the next decade.
There is a difference between knowing that you are going to make hamburgers at MacDonalds and Knowing that you are joining and organization that can call upon you to sacrifice your life at any time. When you join MacDonalds, you do not join to kill or be killed in mind, when you join the military, right from day one, you know what your job is, kill or be killed. I have found that there is a big difference between working at MacDonalds and joining the military. There is nothing at all wrong with joining the military, you can learn many things in the military, and you can get a great personal perspective on your own life in general, but you have to take stock of your life and weigh the pros and cons of such a commitment. Bring it on down now.
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
Comments
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
I was not aware that physical harm happens to 100% of the poeple that enlist in the military services to protect your freedoms. Hmm....Maybe you are not worth it.
There is no guarantee that you will not be killed, to join in and organization simple because you want to travel around or go to college is fine, but if you are sent into harms way and are killed is that really worth it. As far as protecting our freedoms, the military has not been used to truly protect our freedoms since the 2nd world war, every other confrontation since then has been for everything but really protecting our freedoms, protecting our freedoms is a slogan used to instill patriotism with the idea that you are joining for a reason, but believe me when the rounds start flying in and the your mates brains are laying in your lap, you start to think and wonder exactly what all that means, and how much BS there really is, and wonder why your even here.
Protecting our freedoms, I see the United States Government taking away more freedoms from the American people then any enemy is, so from your line of reasoning I would assume that the military should be used to over throw the Government. When you make a commitment to something that could cost you your life, you have to take into serious consideration as to what the reason is, and if it is worth it. Whether you like it or not, many Americans dont have a clue what their country does in other countries, they just go along with what they are told. You have to use your head and know what you are getting into before you make this sort of commitment because it is not easy to break once you make it. Bring it on down now.
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
I was not aware that physical harm happens to 100% of the poeple that enlist in the military services to protect your freedoms. Hmm....Maybe you are not worth it.
There is no guarantee that you will not be killed, to join in and organization simple because you want to travel around or go to college is fine, but if you are sent into harms way and are killed is that really worth it. As far as protecting our freedoms, the military has not been used to truly protect our freedoms since the 2nd world war, every other confrontation since then has been for everything but really protecting our freedoms, protecting our freedoms is a slogan used to instill patriotism with the idea that you are joining for a reason, but believe me when the rounds start flying in and the your mates brains are laying in your lap, you start to think and wonder exactly what all that means, and how much BS there really is, and wonder why your even here.
Protecting our freedoms, I see the United States Government taking away more freedoms from the American people then any enemy is, so from your line of reasoning I would assume that the military should be used to over throw the Government. When you make a commitment to something that could cost you your life, you have to take into serious consideration as to what the reason is, and if it is worth it. Whether you like it or not, many Americans dont have a clue what their country does in other countries, they just go along with what they are told. You have to use your head and know what you are getting into before you make this sort of commitment because it is not easy to break once you make it. Bring it on down now.
What line of reasoning are you talking about? All he did was bring up the fact that, although , yes, there's a chance you'll get hurt in the military (what a shocker) Not every enlisted man or woman is. Actually, the vast majority of our soldiers now are fine, and don't get shot in the head with their friend's brains splattered in their laps.
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
I was not aware that physical harm happens to 100% of the poeple that enlist in the military services to protect your freedoms. Hmm....Maybe you are not worth it.
There is no guarantee that you will not be killed, to join in and organization simple because you want to travel around or go to college is fine, but if you are sent into harms way and are killed is that really worth it. As far as protecting our freedoms, the military has not been used to truly protect our freedoms since the 2nd world war, every other confrontation since then has been for everything but really protecting our freedoms, protecting our freedoms is a slogan used to instill patriotism with the idea that you are joining for a reason, but believe me when the rounds start flying in and the your mates brains are laying in your lap, you start to think and wonder exactly what all that means, and how much BS there really is, and wonder why your even here.
Protecting our freedoms, I see the United States Government taking away more freedoms from the American people then any enemy is, so from your line of reasoning I would assume that the military should be used to over throw the Government. When you make a commitment to something that could cost you your life, you have to take into serious consideration as to what the reason is, and if it is worth it. Whether you like it or not, many Americans dont have a clue what their country does in other countries, they just go along with what they are told. You have to use your head and know what you are getting into before you make this sort of commitment because it is not easy to break once you make it. Bring it on down now.
What line of reasoning are you talking about? All he did was bring up the fact that, although , yes, there's a chance you'll get hurt in the military (what a shocker) Not every enlisted man or woman is. Actually, the vast majority of our soldiers now are fine, and don't get shot in the head with their friend's brains splattered in their laps.
I agree with Rreka'al. And to J0kerr1, have you ever actually been in the military, or just speculating on the brains laying in someone's lap thing?
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
I was not aware that physical harm happens to 100% of the poeple that enlist in the military services to protect your freedoms. Hmm....Maybe you are not worth it.
There is no guarantee that you will not be killed, to join in and organization simple because you want to travel around or go to college is fine, but if you are sent into harms way and are killed is that really worth it. As far as protecting our freedoms, the military has not been used to truly protect our freedoms since the 2nd world war, every other confrontation since then has been for everything but really protecting our freedoms, protecting our freedoms is a slogan used to instill patriotism with the idea that you are joining for a reason, but believe me when the rounds start flying in and the your mates brains are laying in your lap, you start to think and wonder exactly what all that means, and how much BS there really is, and wonder why your even here.
Protecting our freedoms, I see the United States Government taking away more freedoms from the American people then any enemy is, so from your line of reasoning I would assume that the military should be used to over throw the Government. When you make a commitment to something that could cost you your life, you have to take into serious consideration as to what the reason is, and if it is worth it. Whether you like it or not, many Americans dont have a clue what their country does in other countries, they just go along with what they are told. You have to use your head and know what you are getting into before you make this sort of commitment because it is not easy to break once you make it. Bring it on down now.
What line of reasoning are you talking about? All he did was bring up the fact that, although , yes, there's a chance you'll get hurt in the military (what a shocker) Not every enlisted man or woman is. Actually, the vast majority of our soldiers now are fine, and don't get shot in the head with their friend's brains splattered in their laps.
Did you even read what I said, I did not say that a person when they join the military would be killed, I said that there is the chance that they could be or even wounded, that is after all what the military is about. Bring it on down now.
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
What line of reasoning are you talking about? All he did was bring up the fact that, although , yes, there's a chance you'll get hurt in the military (what a shocker) Not every enlisted man or woman is. Actually, the vast majority of our soldiers now are fine, and don't get shot in the head with their friend's brains splattered in their laps.Did you even read what I said, I did not say that a person when they join the military would be killed, I said that there is the chance that they could be or even wounded, that is after all what the military is about. Bring it on down now.
That is what it sounded like you were implying with your original statement, by not using things like "worth the chance of being shot in the head" instead of "worth being shot in the head"
06.11.01
Know what you are in for...
The next century of combat for US forces will center around not being wiped out by the chineese.
The US only has about thirteen divisions of ground troops (10 army and 3 marine,) two of which are in South Korea (ROK.) And it largely depends on force multipliers to devistate 'massed enemy' forces (eg. AF smart bombs - satellite targeting with a back-up of tac nukes.) Vietnam and Iran prove how ineffectual the US is at eliminating insurgant "terrorist" forces without wiping out "friendly" areas those insurgants blend with.
The US has ONLY targeted 3rd & 4th rate inferior military targets for the last seventy years and has come out with a tie in korea and a loss in vietnam since WW2. The US is in no position to wage 'conventional' war with the manpower military nations. Even Pakistan has over 2x the size of the US groundforces, DPRK (north korea) has 4x, Russia has 6x and China has 97x.
The bankrupt US (ie. $7T debt) can not even stem the inflow of 2k illegals daily from mexico, (yea an Arizona fence will do it, eg. berlin wall) much less force it's will on the rest of the world (we all know how much the UN backs up the aims of the US.) The only thing preventing the realization of US's paper tiger status is it's naval fleets, strategic AF and 10k back-up nuclear arsenal. (The russians have 20k and the chineese have 500 nuks.)
The US relies heavily on expensive technology, that over 60% of which can be eliminated by EMP and bio surge instead of 'cheap' massed ground forces. The rest of the world goes for cheaper huge standing armies, fully expecting losses 50 to 70 %, but that remaining 30% will still be enough to slaughter the civilians. The US assumes it's distance from europe and asia means there never will be another occupational force in the US... overlooking the +30 million illegals here already... the only way to prevent those illegals becoming armed is to take away the arms from it's 'legal' citizens... in the name of preventing terrorism!
And then it will fall to the two or three surviving US Army and Marine divisions to provide domestic safeguard in the US, unless nuks have already made 70 to 90% of the US uninhabital for the next 50 years. The policy of the military for the next 100 years is train for urban combat, instead of antique massed field engagements. The days of what the US or west says goes, is over.
Beter learn chineese and actually understand what Islam means because neither of them care what the US says nor does.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
Thank you. Just to let you know, there are good officers, and bad officers. Ultimately, Captain Asshole got his. It seemed battalion noticed how our company was sending too many people on sick call with food poisoning. So, in one of my many trips to battalion for "unfitness" of duty, they started questioning me about the food served in my company. Well, for starters, it was marginally fit for human consumtion, the milk was sour, so the troops preferred water, the bread moldy, you ate around it, eggs green. you get the picture. The officers, 1st Sgt, and platoon NCOs always ate first, and we received fresh food, and ate at the "high" table. The troops got the crap, ate what they could, and threw the rest into the drums marked inedible food. Anyway, between the doctors questioning the troops, and battaluion questioning me, JAG (Judge Adjatent General) was called in. They arranged a stakeout on our mess hall. Every day at noon the mess Sgt would drive off post with a two and a half ton company truck partially loaded with the inedible food drums, and sell them to the local pig farmers. When he was arrested, he admitted that Captain Asshole was involved, and that he kept 25%, and Captain Asshole got 75%.
Captain Asshole soon disappeared forever from our company, and the food improved dramatically. Probably one of the reasons the Army now contracts out food service. Just to let you know, if you enlist, there are more games going on then just military preparedness and patriotism.
This is what we were up against in West Germany during the Cold War. The US relied on our nuclear weapons as a deterrant from the Soviet Union, unfortunately Soviet doctrine neutralized these. I was assigned to the northern area, for the defence of Hamburg. Soviet doctrine called not for occupying Hamburg, but for moving in their command, control, and logistics in nice and tight. Same with US military bases. It seems they felt we would not nuke Hamburg and our own civilian dependants in our own military bases. The Soviets probably had a good point there, be awful hard to tell America you just nuked Reinmein Airforce base to get at the Soviet command structure. Anyway, a tactical nuclear airburst disrupts electronic impulses, computers don't work, guidances systems don't work, and all the fancy gizmos become useless junk. So we would have had to use a high airburst on Hamburg. Luckily, it also disrupts internal combustion engines, so substantial elements of mechanized forces don't work. Shielding is bulky and expensive, not tactically sound on soft vehicles used for resupply. So basically, once a nuke is used, it falls back to who has the most ground pounders with automatic rifles available. The Soviets had us there.
In the mid 1970's the Sino-Soviets almost went at it in a scenario we called "Mukden". To win, the Soviets would have to have employed tactical nukes, and, as an officer in Europe, I wanted to see how the Soviets acted after employing tactal nukes. Fortunately/unfortunately, we never found out, the Chinese and the Soviets backed down on their border war. So far, we have only some good hypothesis over the effect tactical nuclear airbursts would have on mechanized warfare, with no working model.
Oh, and by the way, just for the poster from Denmark, behind the Soviet Front that was to assault toward Hamburg was a second front that was supposed to swing north and occupy Denmark, so the Soviet Baltic Fleet could sortee. We never did figure out a way to save all your hard drinking, dope smoking, prostitute loving asses. Just something to think about next time you want us to lay down our lives protecting your way of life. Remember, that Baltic fleet still needs your asses neutralized to sortee out, though it looks like you're doing that for them
That's just the problem, Modjoe, it won't be done as a large scale war, it will be done bit by bit, piece by piece. China is currently milking the West/US for the manufacturing technology to mass produce armored vehicles, both tanks and armored personnel carriers (Ford, GM), and long range strategic bombers (Boeing), missiles, electronics and guidance systems. They have completed the manufacture of the sea lift capacity they need to jump the straits of Taiwan, but are still working on the airlift capacity for the initial jump and resupply if we close the straits. They have to prepare to fight an airwar against the US carrier forces, this means having alot of fighters/bombers to gain air superiority over the straits. You noticed that several years ago, when one of our spyplanes had problems and landed on a Chinese island, they gave the crew back and kept the plane. I bet they loved the electronics. When push comes to shove, is America going to be willing to sacrifice our way of life and go directly to Armageddon over Taiwan? Look around youself at the civilian population of America, their luxury homes, their luxury SUVs, their cable TV, their shopping malls, etc and answer that question....and then, in a couple of years, once again, will America die for South Korea?
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
And your experience in this is?
Not everyone has to join the Marines. There's the Air Force as well; for you fragile types. I think there are more ways than just combat to lose life or limb. Watch the News lately in your home town? Not exactly safe to be a civilian either. But would you rather get shot working at Mcdonalds? Or shot protecting an idea? I had a friend that was killed at a car wash, washing his girlfriends' car. Is your life worth a car? That had nothing to do with him being a Marine. So explain that. Is my life at risk when I wash my car? Clearly it is. Do we need a video of the horrible things that happens at a carwash?
I'm disabled. Had nothing to do with combat. I still don't have hate for the military. I only got out because I couldn't keep up with the Marines I lead. The other reason is that I feel that liberal politics put the military in danger as seen in the Middle East (and I don't mean by sending us there, I mean by how we are used). I could write a book that would support that.
I, like many like me and before me and long into the future, are well aware of being hurt or killed in the military. But it beats the hell out of a crappy job or working 2 jobs. I've done more in those 9 years then most will do in 10 life times.
Oh, as far as school, I got my 2 year degree for 100% free while I was in. Now I'm going to school to get my 4 year degree and I get $1,300 per month just from the G.I bill. With my disablity check (which pays my truck payment) per month, claiming my school supplies on my taxes, working at the VA work study program, I don't have to work while I go to school. So the video is false. If those people didn't take advantage or the array of free money for school given to them while they were in, that's thier problem.
I'm not saying that there isn't bad times in the military but, it's the military, what do you expect? You mean to tell me that your job doesn't have a bad side?
Oh, and living in an apartment in La Jolla, CA 5 minutes from the beach and university with 2 cute girls for roommates and meeting all of thier friends was all paid for (actually had housing allowance left over each month) was a plus too.
I made the most of it. If I could, I'd do it all over again.
I'm willing to bet that those in the video made some poor choices during thier enlistment and are still bitter about it. But they're not telling you about that side of the story, are they?
But to answer your question, yes it was worth it. To me, it's better than saying "Welcome to Wal-Mart" for the rest of my life. Or paying back money that I barrowed to go to school for the next decade.
Simple is going to college worth being shot in the head, is traveling around the world worth having your legs blown off. If they are worth that, then by all means enlist. Bring it on down now
And your experience in this is?
Not everyone has to join the Marines. There's the Air Force as well; for you fragile types. I think there are more ways than just combat to lose life or limb. Watch the News lately in your home town? Not exactly safe to be a civilian either. But would you rather get shot working at Mcdonalds? Or shot protecting an idea? I had a friend that was killed at a car wash, washing his girlfriends' car. Is your life worth a car? That had nothing to do with him being a Marine. So explain that. Is my life at risk when I wash my car? Clearly it is. Do we need a video of the horrible things that happens at a carwash?
I'm disabled. Had nothing to do with combat. I still don't have hate for the military. I only got out because I couldn't keep up with the Marines I lead. The other reason is that I feel that liberal politics put the military in danger as seen in the Middle East (and I don't mean by sending us there, I mean by how we are used). I could write a book that would support that.
I, like many like me and before me and long into the future, are well aware of being hurt or killed in the military. But it beats the hell out of a crappy job or working 2 jobs. I've done more in those 9 years then most will do in 10 life times.
Oh, as far as school, I got my 2 year degree for 100% free while I was in. Now I'm going to school to get my 4 year degree and I get $1,300 per month just from the G.I bill. With my disablity check (which pays my truck payment) per month, claiming my school supplies on my taxes, working at the VA work study program, I don't have to work while I go to school. So the video is false. If those people didn't take advantage or the array of free money for school given to them while they were in, that's thier problem.
I'm not saying that there isn't bad times in the military but, it's the military, what do you expect? You mean to tell me that your job doesn't have a bad side?
Oh, and living in an apartment in La Jolla, CA 5 minutes from the beach and university with 2 cute girls for roommates and meeting all of thier friends was all paid for (actually had housing allowance left over each month) was a plus too.
I made the most of it. If I could, I'd do it all over again.
I'm willing to bet that those in the video made some poor choices during thier enlistment and are still bitter about it. But they're not telling you about that side of the story, are they?
But to answer your question, yes it was worth it. To me, it's better than saying "Welcome to Wal-Mart" for the rest of my life. Or paying back money that I barrowed to go to school for the next decade.
There is a difference between knowing that you are going to make hamburgers at MacDonalds and Knowing that you are joining and organization that can call upon you to sacrifice your life at any time. When you join MacDonalds, you do not join to kill or be killed in mind, when you join the military, right from day one, you know what your job is, kill or be killed. I have found that there is a big difference between working at MacDonalds and joining the military. There is nothing at all wrong with joining the military, you can learn many things in the military, and you can get a great personal perspective on your own life in general, but you have to take stock of your life and weigh the pros and cons of such a commitment. Bring it on down now.
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.