Going in the Army

337

September 29, 2006 08:12 AM

Quote:Original post by T1Oracle
Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish
Quote:Original post by T1Oracle
Not that I am surprised but there is a great deal of ingorance in this thread.

Is that so? A great deal? Then I'm sure you can quote us two examples of this ignorance
*ungrateful whining*

I can quote plenty but I'm too busy serving my country at the moment.

Bullshit. You've got time for replying - you've made, what, six replies already in this thread? - so don't tell me you don't have time to review the two pages before your first post for a mere two examples of ignorance when you claimed that the thread was full of ignorance.

"ungrateful". "too busy serving my country". "I hope you enjoy your freedom of speech". And that's just in one reply to me. It's clear you're that here for little more than an ego boost, practically demanding that we kiss your ass. Where's the honor in telling people that they're ignorant and then folding when challenged to back it up without apology? There is none. You disgrace your uniform.

So, two specific examples of ignorance prior to your first post and an explanation of how you corrected this ignorance, or an apology. Which is it?

IronGryphon

324

September 29, 2006 08:54 AM

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish
Quote:Original post by IronGryphon
Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by T1Oracle
I hope you enjoy your freedom of speech.

What do you mean by that? Do you think that you're defending freedom of speech? The greatest threat to the Bill of Rights these days is the current administration and it's Congressional lap dogs, not OBL et al. Just this very day the GOP Congress passed a bill that essentially abolishes the writ of habeas corpus.

Now you may or may not agree with the mission of the military but we do still defend the rights of Americans. Yes, the ENTIRE House of Representatives are doing their best to sell our rights away to the highest bidder but that is another topic. If you believe there are not countries out there that want to see the U.S.A. under a pile of burning rubble, you are not looking. The ONLY thing that prevents them from attacking this country (and allies) in a full scale military action IS the military. Threat of force has always been key. Which is why that little thing we had for a few decades back was called a "cold" war and not WW3. That being said, I will defend your right to disagree with my with my last breath. I truely hope you enjoy your freedom of speech, it is paid for in full.

You appear to confuse physical safety with freedom. Do murderers get charged with infringing upon their victims right to free speech?

I am sure you mean well, but I didn't follow what you are trying to say. The military defends the Constitution from foriegn and domestic enemies at the behest of the civilian authority. I stated that yes the military defends your rights as Americans and that is true. Not sure where you were going with the murderers train of thought. Oh, and I don't confuse physical safety with freedom, I see them to be connected. If you don't have one, you can't have the other. Also, if you don't have the freedom to disagree with me, you don't have freedom. Thanks for the reply.

SDBradley
CGP
"A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read." ~Mark Twain

IronGryphon

324

September 29, 2006 09:01 AM

Quote:Original post by maximAL
Quote:Original post by IronGryphon
If you believe there are not countries out there that want to see the U.S.A. under a pile of burning rubble, you are not looking. The ONLY thing that prevents them from attacking this country (and allies) in a full scale military action IS the military.

the countries that honestly want to destroy amercica have no reasonable military whatsoever. are you claiming iran would attack us homeland? the national guard alone would be enough to fight back any possible enemy.
nothing wrong with a defense army, but the US army isn't anything like that. it's there to secure US' superiority over the rest of the world.

Who said anything about Iran? There are other countries that history shows, if had the chance would more than be willing to trade places with the U.S. at the top of the military power. The former Soviet Union used all of their resources to try. I like China but they have the largest air force in the world. North Korea wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. fall. Quite a few of the European countries view the U.S. with contempt. I am not saying that ANY of the countries in the world ARE or WANT to attack the U.S. I the military is a DETERENT force. Just like the police, they are only important to most people AFTER something bad has happened. Thanks for the reply.

SDBradley
CGP
"A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read." ~Mark Twain

Luhz

109

September 29, 2006 09:26 AM

If you weren't aware, the Cold War had nothing to do with army strength: the Soviet Union was unquestionably the dominant force in that respect. The Cold War existed because both sides knew that Nuclear Weapons dominated, and all you needed was a few people in underground bunkers pushing a few buttons to annihilate a nation, not thousands of regular soldiers.

sakky

100

Author

September 29, 2006 09:27 AM

Quote:Original post by Dmytry
Quote:Original post by LessBread
Quote:Original post by sakky
LessBread, screw off!!! All you have is negative things to say. My spelling may not be that good, but who cares. Name calling is not appropriate and neither is your smart ass remarks. Do you think your better then me?

All I have to say is negative? Do you think that because I said you would likely end up in Iraq? Or because I thought the Air Force offered better opportunities? Clearly, I'm better than you at spelling. In the end, you probably should go into the army so they can thicken up your skin against jabs about your spelling skills.

as i've said. OP wanted people saying how cool he is for considering joining army and for coming up with some rhetorics. It didn't happen (and it's 100% obvious that it wasn't going to happen), hence the disappointment.
re: insults used without having idea what them means. i also didn't know what these means, but i don't use insults without knowing meanings. And if i would i wouldn't mind 10% warning level.

You are absolutely wrong! I didn't make a thread about joining the Army just to look cool. I made the thread to because I was excited for joining the Army and wanted to express that excitement. Instead, all I get are more negative replies that are not really about "We care about you, make sure you are making the right choice". They just rant on about other's liberal views.

Most people in life I come across applaud me for joining the Army. Most think it's a good idea because of the benefits. They also see the risks, but.... life involves risks. I'm so tired about hearing "What about Iraq? What about Iraq?"! Screw your Iraq I'm tired of hearing about. It is NOT definite that I would go there.

Quote:Original post by Shai
Quote:Original post by sakky
Are you also Christian? I assuming so because of "Your brother in Christ". That's cool. I have many reasons for joining the Military. The main one is to fight for what I believe in. As a Christian, I would proudly lay down my life for my Lord and Saviour. I prayed, and asked him "If it is you will Lord, allow me to join the Military".

good thing then that you never read the Ten Commandments

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God.
Remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house.

but wait, God spoke to you, so that's alright

seriously, I don't care if you join the army or not, just don't hide behind your faith - especially when it's really damn clear about the issue of killing people

I'm not hiding behind my faith at all. Why would you think I'm hiding? I said I wanted to face those fears and challenges in hopes to over come them. How does that imply hiding behind ones faith? Are you are refereeing to what I said about god speaking to me? Hmm... I'm still not hiding. I know the 10 Commandments. But there is more then just 10. Remember, judge not unless you be judged your self.

Take back the internet with the most awsome browser around, FireFox

CoffeeMug

852

September 29, 2006 09:45 AM

Quote:Original post by sakky
Instead, all I get are more negative replies that are not really about "We care about you, make sure you are making the right choice". They just rant on about other's liberal views.

No. We just posed questions that every mature adult should answer for himself before making a life-altering decision. You were unable to answer any of those questions. You keep reiterating the same rhetoric (much of which is clearly biased) and when we ask to clarify your statements (for example, what exactly is the mechanism by which you'll be protecting rights and freedoms) you're unable to do so. The truth is, you're not ready to join he army. In fact, if our army was the idealistic enterprise it likes to pretend it is, it wouldn't accept you.

Quote:Original post by sakky
Most people in life I come across applaud me for joining the Army.

Most people in Germany supported exterminating the Jews in 1942. Most people listen to Britney Spears. Most people use Java. Another words, most people are idiots.

defmacro.org

IronGryphon

324

September 29, 2006 09:45 AM

Quote:Original post by Luhz
If you weren't aware, the Cold War had nothing to do with army strength: the Soviet Union was unquestionably the dominant force in that respect. The Cold War existed because both sides knew that Nuclear Weapons dominated, and all you needed was a few people in underground bunkers pushing a few buttons to annihilate a nation, not thousands of regular soldiers.

I have to agree to disagree with you my friend. The cold war had everything to do with military might. Our nuclear arsenal IS part of our military might and a deterrent of aggression. The arms race that bankrupted the Soviet Union was the reason for the end of the cold war. Thanks for the reply.

SDBradley
CGP
"A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read." ~Mark Twain

necreia

793

September 29, 2006 09:45 AM

While I agree that a strong and powerful military is required in order to protect our country, I don't aggree with using it's power to attack other countries unless it really is to prevent an attack. That being said, I don't approve of the current war nor the involvement of people in it, and don't agree with the people who say that they are doing it to protect my freedom of speech-- there is a bigger (political) war at home that's attacking it, not the people we are attacking in the middle east.

Sakky, don't get the wrong impression from my view, I respect what you're doing. Be proud that you can stand up and join the ranks of the military, and be a tool that may some day be used to keep this great nation free. While I don't think that you'll be doing that with it's current action, there may come a time where you will be.

And that is invaluable.

Michalson

1,657

September 29, 2006 09:59 AM

Quote:Original post by maximAL
Quote:Original post by IronGryphon
If you believe there are not countries out there that want to see the U.S.A. under a pile of burning rubble, you are not looking. The ONLY thing that prevents them from attacking this country (and allies) in a full scale military action IS the military.

the countries that honestly want to destroy amercica have no reasonable military whatsoever. are you claiming iran would attack us homeland? the national guard alone would be enough to fight back any possible enemy.
nothing wrong with a defense army, but the US army isn't anything like that. it's there to secure US' superiority over the rest of the world.

Actually, due to the war in Iraq, a country that didn't pose a threat (and in fact was the one Middle Eastern country besides Israel that was actually a stronghold against Islamic terrorists), the US National Guard has been greatly depleted, to the point that they can no longer fufill their regular obligations (like Katrina aid). The Iraq blunder has actually made this the best time in over 100 years for a military strike against the US (the chance that such a strike would succeed are variable - with the exception of China none of America's enemies really have the capability to mount a strike, let alone an occupation of the American mainland. North Korea could lob a nuclear tipped ICBM at a US city, or one of the South American countries that where victims of US funded death squads could mount some kind of gorilla/terrorist war, but the US is simply too large for a country besides China or Russia to actually occupy, much less bring to order)

BerwynIrish

337

September 29, 2006 09:59 AM

Quote:Original post by IronGryphon
I stated that yes the military defends your rights as Americans and that is true.

Ideally speaking, this is true when there is a military threat to the Constitution. Currently the military is not actively engaged against any such enemies. For example, none but the most whacked-out righties would articulate how Saddam was a threat to American freedom - he was not going to occupy the White House and rule America - he was sold as a threat to our safety. Yet most Iraq hawks insisted that the war was a protection of our freedoms. Even if the absurd fantasy of Saddam supplying the WMD for an attack on the U.S played out, this would not change the Constitution one iota.

Practically speaking, military service is nothing more than protection of the interests (or expansion of the interests) of those in power against military-type threats. Now, in a healthy democracy, these interests could possibly include such noble ideals as "feedom", but the mission of the military changes with a change in the status quo.

Quote:Oh, and I don't confuse physical safety with freedom, I see them to be connected. If you don't have one, you can't have the other.

I was going by your "pile of rubble" remark. Even the most abusive dictatorships protect the homeland from becoming a pile of rubble.

You have acknowledged the internal threat to the Constitution, so I'm not saying that you're guilty of intentionally conflating safety with freedom, but you have nonetheless adopted the rhetorical framework of those who do. And to make it clear: I'm not saying that there are no circumstances under which the military could be a protector of liberty, but the internal threat has been and will be the greater threat, and it's up to all Americans to guard against this, whether or not they wear a uniform. We all share in the responsibility, blame, and credit.

[Edited by - BerwynIrish on September 29, 2006 10:59:11 AM]

Going in the Army

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Going in the Army

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines