"There is no force greater on this green Earth then the US Army"
I got chills, made me want to rush out and see a recruiter again. I will look for a link to it for you but if you have seen it you know what I am talking about. Awesome!
"Gain the strength not just to get yourself over, but to get over yourself."
Army Strong (edit) I showed this to my wife and she actually got so emotional she cried...
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
"There is no force greater on this green Earth then the US Army"
And as a non-American, that scares the crap out of me, I'll be honest.
I feel bad for all the kids who get suckered by that commercial.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
"Webster defines strong as having great physical power... The US Army defines strong as killing every last person who lives in a country that our President doesn't like.
Hey Webster, you got any tanks in that book? No, then shut the hell up."
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I feel sorry for whoever tells our soldiers they're "kids." Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Would you prefer we go back to,
"There is no force greater on this green earth then the Mongol hordes!"
"Gain the strength no just to get yourself over the great wall, but to get over the Rhine!"
Dislike America all you like, but perhaps its just the ocean stopping us, we have not been as empire based in our goals since we got power.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:"There is no force greater on this green Earth then the US Army"
How do you measure greatness?
In terms of raw energy produced, I'd argue that the atmosphere is significantly more powerful than the US Army. *Yawn* Wake me up when the Army spawns a hurricane.
In terms of power to affect people, I'd probably make the same argument.
Stupid slogan.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
As an American, I prefer we have the strongest military on the earth to someone else having it. It's a self-preservation thing. Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Will, when you're 18, fresh out of high school, and dazzled by commercials like that, you're still a kid.
Not all the soldiers in the US Army fit that description, but I do feel bad for the ones who do. And not that they stay that way for long.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Who else would you trust with so much power?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Who else would you trust with so much power?
I trust the US Army as far as I can throw them.
I mean, I'm glad they're on our side, and individually there are a lot of fine people, but the US War Machine is pretty freaky.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Who do you want to give the power to? It is a simple question, the UN? China? Canada? France? The EU? Who should have command of this power? (if not us)
Wanting to be part of something magnificent is the dream of youth. I think the children of other countries look with envy on the opportunity our youth has to become American Soldiers, I know that when we offer to let them join the ratio of recruits to slots available is over 300 to 1, yes they get to be American Citizens as well, a privilege they believe is more then worth fighting for, unlike many Americans.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The next Superpower will be the Mulim nations, probably Iran. Because of the West's innactions, I predict they will make the Soviet Union look like a simple bully.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The US Army defines strong as killing every last person who lives in a country that our President doesn't like.
Congrats. That's the most deliberately false statement I've heard all day.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
See how I even let it pass without comment, I am aloof. But tell me mr head, didn't the commercial give you chills?
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
That terrified me. Even though I'm American. I can't really put into words why it made me terrified...it just did.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I don't trust anyone with that much power.
I certainly don't trust a nation that glorifies it, boasts of it, says "we should have it because we're the best."
I have such a hard time reconciling commercials like those with Americans I know personally. People on Hatrack especially, who are generally sensible, level-headed, and not megalomaniacal. How the heck do you manage to produce commercials like that?
I just don't understand the disconnect between individual people, even individual soldiers, and the groupthink that the US Armed Forces generates. And it scares the crap out of me.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Sax, I doubt it did. But then, I wouldn't blame him. Anyway, Command of power is one thing. Knowing what to do with it is another. Bush is far from the first to be accused of any of this. An' he sure as heck isn't going to be the last. In fact, most people in general are guilty of it from time to time.
I will say this much: Some people need it, what the military can do for them that is. There are a lot of people that could use the structure and discipline that the army, and marines can offer.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'm in their target market (16, soon enough to be seventeen for it to count) and I do have to admit, the commercial is pretty dang powerful to me.
That's not to say I want to join the army from it, I just like the commercial. (Good music.) It's really kinda artistic.
Why go to the military when I can watch such a nifty commercial? More incentive to stay then go for me...
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I saw the commercial in the Commissary after a workout and thought it was internally broadcast propaganda.
I got chills. They're multiplyin'. It's going to cause kids to lose control. Of their minds.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
From what I understand, the other forces look down on the Army. But then again, I hear from a Navy LTCDR that the Air Force is somewhat laughed at, so maybe it's just rivalry.
quote: Will, when you're 18, fresh out of high school, and dazzled by commercials like that, you're still a kid.
I'd say the first two bits make you a kid. The last, not so much.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
We look down on the Army because of the way they're treated by the Army. We're looked down on because the majority of our jobs are done from chairs.
Yes. Chairs. Someone say it.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I got chills. They're multiplyin'. It's going to cause kids to lose control. Of their minds.
excellent Family Guy/Grease referencing.
Posted by Solo Wing Pixy (Member # 9489) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: We look down on the Army because of the way they're treated by the Army. We're looked down on because the majority of our jobs are done from chairs.
Yes. Chairs. Someone say it.
...Desk ...Jockey?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Ok, I just watched it and I didn't find it nearly as effective as most of the Armed Forces commercials. The wording crossed over the line from powerful into cheesy several times and the images didn't seem to go with what they were saying. They also crossed back and forth from grandiose to colloquial several times in a way that was really jarring.
Am I the only person who thinks it was badly done?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: We look down on the Army because of the way they're treated by the Army. We're looked down on because the majority of our jobs are done from chairs.
Yes. Chairs. Someone say it.
I'll bite the bait. Chair Force! Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Anyway, Command of power is one thing. Knowing what to do with it is another.
Understanding this truism, I think, is the first step in building a dignified society.
It's shocking how many people live and die and never undertake this issue. It's frightening how many politicians live from election to election and never think about this. It's astounding how many parents produce kids and never think about this. And this is the first step. And the problem, of course, is that if you spend all of your time with a rapacious appetite for amassing power, it's quite possible that you will not alot the required energy to figuring out what to do with it.
[ November 09, 2006, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: I certainly don't trust a nation that glorifies it, boasts of it, says "we should have it because we're the best."
We are the best because we have it, being the best nation gives us the resources to build the best Army. What young people get when they look at this commercial is a picture of what has been done for them, the young men and women of today are the ones that the soldiers of WW I, WW II, Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and OEF fought for. You are the future that was secured, now will you do less then they did?
For those that are not part of our nation, well if you get cracking now you can catch up in a century or so, but there are no shortcuts, give our tools to your soldiers and they will be sharply dressed, but no match for a century of continuous experience.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Am I the only person who thinks it was badly done?
There are better ones on the TV!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:being the best nation gives us the resources to build the best Army.
That's an interesting argument. Would you agree, then, that since the Imperial German Army was clearly the best fighting force in the world during the Great War, they also had the best country? And, man for man, the Wehrmacht was a damn sight better than any of the Allied forces. Same question.
quote:but no match for a century of continuous experience.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: I'll bite the bait. Chair Force!
Yeah, I fly my chair in circles around the office. I'm very glad not to have do deal with the stick actuators though. When things really get exciting, I get to ride the porcelain express.
I wonder if it makes me naive that I'd never heard of Chair Force before today. Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
No, Sax, the ones on the tv make me laugh out loud, not just roll my eyes.
The one for the air force with the kid on the street fixing someone's laptop, that was my favourite for a long time.
I also got a kick out of it when I saw a US Army commercial at the theatre. I mean... why would you even bother paying to have those silly things in a foreign country's movie theatres?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The US Army defines strong as killing every last person who lives in a country that our President doesn't like.
Congrats. That's the most deliberately false statement I've heard all day.
How much more hyperbolic is it than the ad itself?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I mean... why would you even bother paying to have those silly things in a foreign country's movie theatres?
Because US citizens aren't the only ones who join the US military? True. I went through basic with a guy from Brazil. On the west coast you will find a lot of Filipinos in the service. If there is a market they will try and tap it.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The German war machine WW II was the best man for man on paper that we ever beat. But they were beaten by a quality that must not be on the paper.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
True. But the weekday matinee for "Kull the Conqueror," in Canada?
(I was 13 at the time. Don't give my any grief over my movie choices.)
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
The German war machine wasn't beaten by Americans. It was beaten by Great Britian, Canada, Russia, and a whole bunch of others. One member of that group was the US. And we managed for several years before America showed up.
Now, my country's military is somewhat of a joke right now. But I won't have our past successes written off.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: The German war machine WW II was the best man for man on paper that we ever beat. But they were beaten by a quality that must not be on the paper.
Yep. It's what they call in technical, mil'try language "sheer numbers".
Also, there ain't nothing "on paper" about the statement that the Wehrmacht was better, man for man, than any Allied force; it's shown by them being outnumbered several times over and still managing to inflict rather more than equal casualties.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The US Army defines strong as killing every last person who lives in a country that our President doesn't like.
Congrats. That's the most deliberately false statement I've heard all day.
How much more hyperbolic is it than the ad itself?
Having not seen it, I cannot say.
But I do know that your statment was deliberately false. I can't imagine what could have been in the Army's ad that would justify that.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Necessary but not sufficient I agree.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Having not seen it, I cannot say
Please take a minute and watch it, that is the point of the post, while I know you are a concientious poster, why on Earth would you join the discussion without doing the minimum to inform yourself? (Hint: there is a link)
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Why push and make judgement like that?
He was not commenting on the commercial. He was commenting on someone's post.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The first point of the thread is to comment on the commercial, not to comment on the comments on the commercial, derailing a threat in the first fifteen posts seems less then thoughtful, call me sensitive.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
get used to it. It happens more often than not (sad but true). Heck, even I didn't make a comment on the video. I've just made comments to other posts.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Ok, I just watched it and I didn't find it nearly as effective as most of the Armed Forces commercials. The wording crossed over the line from powerful into cheesy several times and the images didn't seem to go with what they were saying. They also crossed back and forth from grandiose to colloquial several times in a way that was really jarring.
Am I the only person who thinks it was badly done?
Nope. And I usually like the US Armed Forces ads. This one was both jarring and chilling.
I did not like a lot of the linking/comparing bits. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers followed by a rampaging tank? Ugh.
And all the female soldiers were either:
sitting and listening (immediately followed by male soldiers doing something brawny and physical)
having trouble getting up a wall
being helped by a male soldier over said wall
Double ugh.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: The first point of the thread is to comment on the commercial, not to comment on the comments on the commercial, derailing a threat in the first fifteen posts seems less then thoughtful, call me sensitive.
Not according to local custom. Welcome to Hatrack! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The next Superpower will be the Mulim nations, probably Iran. Because of the West's innactions, I predict they will make the Soviet Union look like a simple bully.
Aw, are you telling a joke?
You think Iran can build a SUPERPOWER military with just oil revenues? From the RUSSIANS?
Bwahaha!
Oh that's funny. Whew. Need to catch my breath.
Anyway, as to the actual slogan.
"on this green earth."
Apparently no one in the army publicity department has opened their eyes and taken a deep breath lately. Ain't much green left.
And I don't see a problem with ads for the US army in foreign countries. It's publicity. It'd be different if it were the French Foreign Legion actively recruiting. Those guys scare the hell out of me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: The first point of the thread is to comment on the commercial, not to comment on the comments on the commercial, derailing a threat in the first fifteen posts seems less then thoughtful, call me sensitive.
Not according to local custom. Welcome to Hatrack!
Isn't there some law of Hatrack which says that the harder you try to keep a thread from derailing, the more it will derail?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Hatrack's First Law of Bloodymindedness, I think it's called.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Originally posted by MightyCow: Having not seen it, I cannot say.
But I do know that your statment was deliberately false. I can't imagine what could have been in the Army's ad that would justify that.
Tough to accurately critique my response when you don't know what I'm responding to.
Actually, I do feel that the US Military recruitment campaign is high propaganda. The US leadership does things like throw the military into a war that it's not prepared to safely get out of, it sends in troops under protected, it puts them in deadly situations which are poorly managed, and the troops have to try and survive in these seemingly hellish conditions, and lots of troops die.
Then it makes recruitment commercials that make it seem like being in the US Army is all about courage and honor and hugs and winning and GOD BLESS AMERICA, LAND THAT I LOVE!!!
People get up in arms because supposedly cigarette companies target the youth of America. The military does the same thing, but wrap it in an American flag and call it patriotism.
I support our troops. I'm glad that I live where I do, and that I have all the rights and freedoms and safety that our troops fight for. I don't think it's right that the US Government gets our troops into a messed up war, and since it can't get out, keeps trying to recruit more troops to feed the machine, by painting a picture of honor and freedom and growth and being a good person.
They need more troops because the ones we have keep getting killed and there's no end in sight.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
More likely it's not because of them dying, but because the war is causing so many to not want to reenlist.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Fair enough. If the conditions are bad enough that the people who have been there aren't willing to go back, isn't it shady to paint a pretty picture in an effort to get more people to take their place?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Tough to accurately critique my response when you don't know what I'm responding to.
I've seen it now, and yes, I think your satement is much more hyperbolic than the commercial.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Fair enough. If the conditions are bad enough that the people who have been there aren't willing to go back, isn't it shady to paint a pretty picture in an effort to get more people to take their place?
I honestly believe that the American population at this point has a pretty good idea about how bad things are over there. People join the military KNOWING what is expected of them, and either do it for the money (the high bonuses, the pay, the college being paid for, etc), or for some ideological reason.
I highly doubt anyone joins, gets there, and says "Holy crap, we're at WAR?"
Think of when Pippin joins the Citadel Guard in Minas Tirith. 'I suppose this is mostly for ceremonial purposes, they don't actually expect me to do any fighting...do they?'
I suspect most recruits are either in it for the money or they more closely mirror Merry. 'All my friends are going off to war, I would be ashamed not to.' 'I want to fight!'
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Army commercials always get the red-blooded boy inside me dreaming, but usually disturb my conscience. Especially that one, actually.
Turn on your patriotism circuits!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Tough to accurately critique my response when you don't know what I'm responding to.
I've seen it now, and yes, I think your satement is much more hyperbolic than the commercial.
Interesting. I would suggest that my hyperbolic statement is closer to the truth of the matter. The US Army is over in Iraq killing and being killed. The commercial paints a pretty picture about how awesome our military is, and conveys the impression that we're winners, we're strong, nobody can touch us!
How long have we been bogged down in Iraq? How many soldiers are dead from roadside bombs?
It's propaganda, and the worst part is that it's our own government trying to recruit our youth.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
The real question is...what's wrong with the government trying to recruit impressionable young people?
Does the army NOT give people a sense of purpose and belonging? Isn't that what they're offering?
Won't we finish in Iraq faster if we have more troops?
Aren't we fighting for a good cause?
If we leave, won't it just let the roadside bombers know that they won?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm not sure if our main stumbling block in Iraq is needing more troops.
I think it's obvious to almost everyone in the entire world that things in Iraq are being colossally mishandled.
All the images are teamwork, training, salutes, smiling, hugs. We're in the middle of a war. You notice they don't show the people in the field ducking bullets, the soldiers breaking down doors to root out the insurgents, the field hospitals.
Alcohol and cigarette companies at least tell you that you should drink responsibly and that smoking causes cancer.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I would suggest that my hyperbolic statement is closer to the truth of the matter.
The army's ad focused on one aspect of the truth, ignoring others.
Your statment was purposely false.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: I would suggest that my hyperbolic statement is closer to the truth of the matter.
The army's ad focused on one aspect of the truth, ignoring others.
Your statment was purposely false.
My statement was true in a Biblical sort of way.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The US Army defines strong as killing every last person who lives in a country that our President doesn't like.
[later]How much more hyperbolic is it than the ad itself?[/QB]
Far more. There is plenty to criticize about recruiting techniques, and tactics and strategies used in the Iraq War and other US wars, but stating that the Army kills entire countries is just silly, wrong, and pathetic.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My statement was true in a Biblical sort of way.
I can't think of any reasonable interpretation that makes this sentence true.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Me either.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:My statement was true in a Biblical sort of way.
I can't think of any reasonable interpretation that makes this sentence true.
In the same way that God killed every person on earth except Noah and his family, the US Army kills every person in a country that it doesn't agree with.
It's not literally true. It's an allegory, a cautionary tale. Read it as a reminder to people that when a super-powerful entity tells you to do something, and backs up their demands with deadly force, you might want to listen.
Seriously.
How does the phrase usually go? "On God's Green Earth." Nobody is strong enough to stop the US Army, and by implication God, since we have the backing from On High.
The commercial is frightening on many levels.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Ok, I just watched it and I didn't find it nearly as effective as most of the Armed Forces commercials. The wording crossed over the line from powerful into cheesy several times and the images didn't seem to go with what they were saying. They also crossed back and forth from grandiose to colloquial several times in a way that was really jarring.
Am I the only person who thinks it was badly done?
Nope. And I usually like the US Armed Forces ads. This one was both jarring and chilling.
I did not like a lot of the linking/comparing bits. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers followed by a rampaging tank? Ugh.
And all the female soldiers were either:
sitting and listening (immediately followed by male soldiers doing something brawny and physical)
having trouble getting up a wall
being helped by a male soldier over said wall
Double ugh.
I agree with both rivka and blacwolve. Plus, big ol' block o' cheese. Even if I agreed with the basic sentiment, other recruitment commercials that I've seen have been much more effective (particularly regarding word choice), and much less...well, cheesy.
Then again, seeing as how I'm a female liberal academic in her late twenties, I'm not the target audience for the commercial. Having never been the target audience for this commercial (18-20something males), I have no idea how effective it might be to them. *shrug*
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:They need more troops because the ones we have keep getting killed and there's no end in sight.
More so, they keep getting killed because we keep starting wars. And we keep starting wars because too many Americans have fallen under the mistaken impression that the military is the most powerful force on Earth and can get us whatever we want. It seems like a vicious cycle....
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: "Webster defines strong as having great physical power... The US Army defines strong as killing every last person who lives in a country that our President doesn't like.
Hey Webster, you got any tanks in that book? No, then shut the hell up."
Winner.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I should make the ads for the Marines:
quote:The Marines. There's a very good chance we'll let you shoot somebody.
I think that would be pretty effective.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: And all the female soldiers were either:
* sitting and listening (immediately followed by male soldiers doing something brawny and physical) * having trouble getting up a wall * being helped by a male soldier over said wall
Double ugh.
Yeah, they missed the horde of pregnant GIs manning the phone desk.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Please take a minute and watch it, that is the point of the post, while I know you are a concientious poster, why on Earth would you join the discussion without doing the minimum to inform yourself?
That was the point of the first post. Too bad he wasn't responding to that one, so whether or not he'd seen the link was immaterial.
You don't control the flow of discussion in any thread, whether you started it or not. You'll be much happier here as soon as you figure that out.
------
I can't believe no one's commented on the coolest part of the commercial -- it's voiced by one of my favorite actors.
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
Alright, let's get really semantic.
The ad said that the us army thinks it's really powerful.
The poster said that the us army thinks it's really powerful, and is going to use that power to kill everyone that Bush doesn't like.
Since it's going a step further, doesn't that mean it's inherently more hyperbolic?
***
My favorite military ad was one my high school biology teacher used to keep posted on the wall.
It showed a bunch of soldiers in Columbia standing around a big pile of some drug or other they'd set fire to.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I can't believe no one's commented on the coolest part of the commercial -- it's voiced by one of my favorite actors.
Isaac: Danny? Dan: Yeah? Isaac: You know I love you, don't you? Dan: Yeah. Isaac: And because I love you I can say this: no rich young white guy has ever gotten anywhere with me comparing himself to Rosa Parks.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wow this thread turned snarky...
I'd like to point out something that hasn't come up...
"The strength to obey."
*shivers*
I love our freedoms, I love the heart of this country, I respect people who put their life on the line for us...etc, but I couldn't turn myself into a weapon, to be aimed by others. Especially with this president, with this war.
Killing isn't always a sin, but you best believe that I want to be the deciding factor, not my CO, not a politician.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Um, is there a link somewhere that would allow me to see this commercial? I watch very little television, and I'd hate to pop into this particular discussion in ignorance.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
*awards porter +3 coolness points*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The German army was inflicting casualties of 3 AFV's for every one lost, if you compared German to Allied tank production they would need to have destroyed 5 for every one lost to break even.
German tank commanders were some of the best I've ever seen/read about, one particular commander in a Panzer III went up against a KV-1 Heavy tank and won, he shot the enym turrent 6 times to no affect (the KV-1's turrent was pointed in the wrong direction) so as the KV-1 was turning its turret around onto the Panzer the commander had his gunner shoot the KV-1's barrel disabling the tank.
A Panther commander shot up 21 shermans in 44' he shot the first and then the last one the shermans couldnt break out fo the column so he shot up the remaining ones.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Yeah, they missed the horde of pregnant GIs manning the phone desk.
Snarky, egregious, and completely lacking in a basis in reality. Is that the Hatrack trifecta?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, it's true and speaks to the logic of having women in the military in a fairly low-key manner.
I'll cop to the snarky bit, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Give me a break. There are plenty of women who can and do serve in combat positions. I'm not objecting that there were MORE men than women shown -- that reflects reality.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
My backhanded point was that having women in the military is a bad idea. They do serve, but their service creates enormous complications.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I would be against drafting women. But I have no problem with women who volunteer for the military. And I have to say, I'm kind of surprised that you do.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I would be against drafting women.
I've always wondered in current society why people are against drafting women?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I find it interesting that you wouldn't draft women but you would let them serve voluntarily. I'm actually the opposite. If the situation is that desperate that you have to resort to a draft, then by all means, get every single person you can.
I liked serving with women when I was in because they offered sexual availability and were nice to look at, but, from an objective viewpoint, they weren't as effective soldiers as men for obvious physical reasons, and their presence in a unit filled with young men was often very disruptive and not good for unit cohesion. Both these reasons are kind of touched on by my pregnancy jibe.
I recognize that this point could have been made more effectively, but sometimes that imp of the perverse has his way with me. Not that it excuses my snarkiness, but just to explain it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I would be against drafting women.
I've always wondered in current society why people are against drafting women?
Because Stormy has a point, to some degree. Women who are gestating have no business being in combat positions. So only women who are choosing not to have children (or not to have them for the next several years) should be signing up for the military. Forcing that choice on them is utterly repugnant, IMO.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
So Storm, if women who entered the military had to pass all the same tests men did and go through all the same training men did, would you be ok with women serving?
I ask because I really don't see, "men can't keep it in their pants" as a good reason for women not to serve.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Is equally repugnant to force the choice on men?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, it's less that men can't keep it in their pants than it is that neither party can keep it in their pants, but everyone has a job to do in the unit.
Even not actually having sex, just wanting to screw someone skews unit cohesion and dynamics.
As to the tests and training, it would make me feel better about it if you set the physical standards the same.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm curious -- how do you feel about "Don't ask, don't tell?"
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'd like to point out something that hasn't come up...
"The strength to obey."
*shivers*
I love our freedoms, I love the heart of this country, I respect people who put their life on the line for us...etc, but I couldn't turn myself into a weapon, to be aimed by others. Especially with this president, with this war.
Killing isn't always a sin, but you best believe that I want to be the deciding factor, not my CO, not a politician.
Then don't freakin join. It's not that hard of a decision is it?
The strength to obey, well, ok. In today's society a lot of people have problems with authority. Somehow, some still make it through basic with that problem. This causes multiple complications. At the base I work at that is all we have for retricted personnel (the druggies, AWOLs, what not). For some stupid reason they joined thinking they wouldn't have to be part of the military, or ever go to war. It's the military, you join thinking there is a possibility of going to war. I relate them to animal abusers that join PETA. It just doesn't make sense.
Mighty Cow, I'm failing to see your connection. The military doesn't kill everyone. Despite what you might think. But you have your mind set to that the military is just a bunch of genocidal murderers, so I'm not going to go further than this. It makes my head hurt.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
So our units are units are good when faced with the stress of combat, but high school sexual politics are just too much for them to handle?
I feel safe.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Is equally repugnant to force the choice on men?
Pretty sure an expectant father is just as physically capable of serving as any other man. Unless he's experiencing Couvade or something.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
phsyical standards before they dropped them in canada was about 19 push ups and situps for men and about 16 pushupos and sit ups for woman.
As if a whole 3 pushups makes a difference.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
On the other side of the conversation here, I am going to say that I have never had any urges like that with any woman in the service I have met. But then, I don't find a woman in uniform that appealing. I have no qualms with them serving. By all means, if they can do the job, let them. If they play any gender cards, that's it. Guys aren't always to blame for this kinda crap. Some women will use their body to get whatever, however they want.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I'm curious -- how do you feel about "Don't ask, don't tell?"
I knew a couple gay soldiers when I was in and it didn't bother me. I can't speak for other people. I think it would also be a different ball game if people were openly gay. So, I guess maybe I think it's a good idea.
quote: So our units are units are good when faced with the stress of combat, but high school sexual politics are just too much for them to handle?
I feel safe.
Not sure if this was directed at me. If so, I don't get it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I find a bit insulting the ad's implication that personal strength can only be found in the Army, or at the very least, that inner strength is better developed in people that have served in the Army than in those that have not served.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So our units are units are good when faced with the stress of combat, but high school sexual politics are just too much for them to handle?
I don't know what the modern army is like, but the situation you mockingly described seems very possible to me.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think the Army should be held to the same advertising standard as drug companies, that is, full disclosure of product information to consumers, including all side-effects and symptoms
“The Army is not for everyone. The Army may cause hostility, irritability, problems sleeping, anxiety, headaches, nausea, vomiting, swelling of the intenstines, and other minor complications. In particularly severe cases, death may occur. In the rare event of an erection lasting more than four hours, seek immediate medical help to avoid long-term injury. Ask your doctor if the Army is right for you! Individual results may vary.”
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I would be against drafting women.
I've always wondered in current society why people are against drafting women?
Personally I'm against drafting either men or women, as being too much of an interference with liberty. (Short of complete, all-out war with the space lizards, that is - and in that case, I don't care if you want to have kids, into the front line you go.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: (Short of complete, all-out war with the space lizards, that is - and in that case, I don't care if you want to have kids, into the front line you go.)
:lol:
That's pretty much my view.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: [qb]
quote:My statement was true in a Biblical sort of way.
I can't think of any reasonable interpretation that makes this sentence true.
In the same way that God killed every person on earth except Noah and his family, the US Army kills every person in a country that it doesn't agree with.
Um, God saying, "They hate their own blood." and applying it to all of humanity save Noah is a mite different then, "They all disagree with me!" Assuming the biblical account is to be trusted.
There are plenty of nations that disagree with the US's way of doing things, you do not see us rolling our tanks over their boundaries and annexing them. If we had the military might to do it, I doubt we would. Military in the hands of civilians FTW.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: I think the Army should be held to the same advertising standard as drug companies, that is, full disclosure of product information to consumers, including all side-effects and symptoms
Then, so should everyone else that advertises. Get real, that is a bit too extreme. It is a VOLUNTEER service. Yes there was a draft back in Nam. Now days it is almost 100% volunteer. I say almost because I have worked with a few where they were given a choice between jail or the military. To me that is not entirely volunteer, but at least they are given a choice.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Stan, I wasn't being serious. Perhaps a would have helped make that clear.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
ok, sorry about that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Is equally repugnant to force the choice on men?
Pretty sure an expectant father is just as physically capable of serving as any other man. Unless he's experiencing Couvade or something.
So we just don't draft pregnant women. How hard is that?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Great. Except that would mean required pregnancy tests, I assume? And presumably required birth control and/or abstinence while serving? Those are the parts I have problems with.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: A Panther commander shot up 21 shermans in 44' he shot the first and then the last one the shermans couldnt break out fo the column so he shot up the remaining ones.
You don't think that had more to do with the fact that the Sherman was a piece of crap?
I doubt they would have had the same success if the Pershing had entered service four years earlier than it did.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: Mighty Cow, I'm failing to see your connection. The military doesn't kill everyone. Despite what you might think. But you have your mind set to that the military is just a bunch of genocidal murderers, so I'm not going to go further than this. It makes my head hurt.
Stan, I don't literally think that the military kills everyone, nor do I think the military is a bunch of murders. I object to the commercial, and the way the US Government seems to believe that might makes right. The commercial seems to me like a warning to the rest of the world. Nobody can stop the US Army. Be afraid.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Great. Except that would mean required pregnancy tests, I assume? And presumably required birth control and/or abstinence while serving? Those are the parts I have problems with.
What's wrong with a pregnancy test? Both men and women in the service have to take a battery of tests before being medically cleared. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal at all.
I don't really know about the sex part, I'd imagine there'd be rules equal to what we have now, which are accepted. If it comes to a draft, you aren't going willingly, I wouldn't be either, so choice in the matter is really an interesting thing to argue about.
I suppose the most fair thing to do, would be to give women the same sexual rules that men get. To be honest, I don't really know rules regarding sexual relations in the military, especially for the enlisted ranks, someone would have to fill me in on that. But I think it's a little ridiculous for perfectly capable to women to say they want to be equal in every way possible to men in society, oh, except when it comes to something dangerous. Women are just as capable as men in performing service. Maybe the women are behind the lines, driving trucks, doing maintenance, doing whatever, but they most certainly have a place in the military.
They don't have to be frontline grunts, but the fact that they are biologically able to become pregnant isn't good enough to exempt them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: Mighty Cow, I'm failing to see your connection. The military doesn't kill everyone. Despite what you might think. But you have your mind set to that the military is just a bunch of genocidal murderers, so I'm not going to go further than this. It makes my head hurt.
The commercial seems to me like a warning to the rest of the world. Nobody can stop the US Army. Be afraid.
This jumped out at me for some reason. Personally, I don't see it that way, at least not for our allies.
Look at it this way. If Britain released an ad saying they had the most powerful military in the world, I'd be pleased as punch. We're Britain's stalwart ally, which means their army is on our side. If Iran released the same ad, I'd be nervous.
America is the best friend you can have, or the deadliest enemy, I have zero problem with that message. So if people who've done things to piss us off are afraid of that ad, it really doesn't bother me. It's a cheap price to pay for deterrence.
Beyond that, there's something to be said for trying to create pride in the youth of the nation. The military, beyond a place to serve, to get ahead through education or discipline, or whatever you might want to get out of the military, is a huge source of pride. When they say we have the most powerful military in the world, it's a source of pride. They aren't saying "Beware," to anyone, and I'm not even entirely sure such a message is implied. They're saying, "you should feel proud to serve in such an organization."
Pride, and a pledge to defend our allies. There's nothing wrong with that.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Well said Lyr, on both your posts.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Beyond that, there's something to be said for trying to create pride in the youth of the nation. The military, beyond a place to serve, to get ahead through education or discipline, or whatever you might want to get out of the military, is a huge source of pride. When they say we have the most powerful military in the world, it's a source of pride.
It's quite understandable for them to appeal to a person's sense of pride, but this borders on arrogance. They're telling you to join the Army, not so that you can have the power to make a difference in someone's life, but so that you can have more power than anyone else. And of course, people in the Army are not only more powerful than everyone else, they have more inner strength too. I would have no problem with this ad if it didn't seem so arrogant to me.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
But there is a truth to it. There is a lot of pride felt in being part of something much bigger than yourself. To do something that you believe in, or to just play with some cool toys. They have to appeal to something. It is an advertisement.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
The rule for sex in the military is: enlisted don't have sex with officers or people in their chain of command. The rule for officers is the same, but flipped.
I've heard pretty gross stories about Iraq and what a serious shortage of females can do to both genders of soldier. Ugh.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: But there is a truth to it. There is a lot of pride felt in being part of something much bigger than yourself. To do something that you believe in, or to just play with some cool toys. They have to appeal to something. It is an advertisement.
Obviously if the army did ads where they took stock footage and pictures of soldiers throughout history being killed in gruesome ways it would not really make for an effective recruitment protocol.
But nor would it be entirely honest, thousands of men and women have gained much from joining the army even in peace time. Should war come, they can step up and use their talents, if war does not come (even better) they can still modify their talents and use them when they work their next job. I know lots of people who joined the army and later utilized what they learned there to be successful in their own business.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I've heard pretty gross stories about Iraq and what a serious shortage of females can do to both genders of soldier. Ugh.
I don't even want to know.
However, I think women as a source of sexual sustenance for the men of the army probably isn't going to be the best argument for their use in the armed forces.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I see the commercials as not only daring for so boldly showing our pride and our strength, but as over due.
I can say that it plays very well to the youth I have asked about it. It is also very good at sorting out those who "support the troops but not the war" (Kerry and Co.) from the real patriots.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Does that mean Quakers can never be Real Patriots(tm)?
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: But I think it's a little ridiculous for perfectly capable to women to say they want to be equal in every way possible to men in society, oh, except when it comes to something dangerous.
I don't believe men and women are equal. Not if by equal you mean "same."
quote:Women are just as capable as men in performing service. Maybe the women are behind the lines, driving trucks, doing maintenance, doing whatever, but they most certainly have a place in the military.
If women are drafted into support positions only, then I have no problem. In Israel, women often do other types of service (known as Sherut Leumi, national service) in lieu of serving in the army. Some choose to serve in the army, but I'm pretty sure they are the minority. (I'll have to ask one of my cousins who did.) That sort of thing I have no problem with.
Sending a woman who might become pregnant (and given that some women have religious or other objections to BC, requiring it is not an acceptable alternative) to the front lines is what I was objecting to.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Caught the ad on youtube. Good production values, certainly. Nice heroic heavy-brass sountrack.
It's kind of funny to think about what the different army slogans reflect. "Army of One" never stuck me as a particularly effective or accurate slogan, as it seemed engineered to appeal to loners, not people who were willing to work as part of a team, take orders or sacrifice aspects of their individuality. The "strength to get yourself over/get over yourself" segment reflects nicely on that apsect.
The "strength to obey" still draws question marks over my head. I understand it in principle, of course, but part of me insists that if obediance is a virtue, it's a virtue of discipline, not strength. Of course, it's one of the aspects of the job that strongly suggests to me I'd be poorly suited for the armed forces.
I still think "be all that you can be" was a better slogan, in some ways, twisting together the notions of being part of a greater whole and self-improvement.
Still, I suppose if I was a young person without much idea what to do with my life after high school and no particular fear of being sent to Iraq, the advertisement would probably do the job.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Everyone in the military hated the Army of One campaign, it was patterned after the Marine Corps adds that were filling the ranks with the 'few and the proud' never taking into account the fact that the marines need a fraction of the man power.
This one is much more Army friendly/realistic.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I know I'm late to the party, but:
Holy carp!
Now kiddies, this is what war ISN'T like.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote: But I think it's a little ridiculous for perfectly capable to women to say they want to be equal in every way possible to men in society, oh, except when it comes to something dangerous.
I don't believe men and women are equal. Not if by equal you mean "same."
quote:Women are just as capable as men in performing service. Maybe the women are behind the lines, driving trucks, doing maintenance, doing whatever, but they most certainly have a place in the military.
If women are drafted into support positions only, then I have no problem. In Israel, women often do other types of service (known as Sherut Leumi, national service) in lieu of serving in the army. Some choose to serve in the army, but I'm pretty sure they are the minority. (I'll have to ask one of my cousins who did.) That sort of thing I have no problem with.
Sending a woman who might become pregnant (and given that some women have religious or other objections to BC, requiring it is not an acceptable alternative) to the front lines is what I was objecting to.
I don't agree with women as shock troops, they just aren't built for it. They aren't grunts.
But there are an infinite array of support positions they could do, sure. Other than that, women in same ways make better pilots than men, as their bodies handle G Force stress better than ours. Women could serve easily on naval vessels. I don't see a problem with female tank drivers or helicopter pilots. The only thing I think there'd be a real issue with is making women frontline combat grunts.
I really don't get what you mean by "sending a woman who might become pregnant." Do you mean that you don't think any women who might have sex should serve in any position that might be dangerous?
Why not? And a separate question I'd like answered: Why is it, that in a military, where self control and adherence to regulations is mandatory and necessary, that women or men, shouldn't be expected to abstain from sex, were it required of them?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I know I'm late to the party, but:
Holy carp!
Now kiddies, this is what war ISN'T like.
Really? What gave you that idea?
Only a couple of the clips in the commercial dealt with Iraq. The rest are training exercises, basic training, the coming home, or other. There really aren't any lies in the pictures. Maybe some shots that could be better left out (rivka's part of the conversation).
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Two obvious things, First: Pregnancy equal vacancy, the Army cannot risk babies in a combat zone and a woman can and often does skip deployment by becoming pregnant. Leaving a vacancy that needs to be filled.
Second: While soldiers can be expected to abstain from the most powerful urge in their nature left unfulfilled (breathing and eating being first) Why add the stress? What is the gain? Soldiers are fighting enough inner turmoil.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:There really aren't any lies in the pictures.
I never said there were lies.
More like... gaps in the story.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
There always will be. The full story is never told.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
No, I agree with you there.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I can say that it plays very well to the youth I have asked about it. It is also very good at sorting out those who "support the troops but not the war" (Kerry and Co.) from the real patriots.
How so? Has John Kerry issued a statement about this ad?
It seems to me that various litmus tests for "true patriotism" have failed dismally in recent days.
If this ad is one, perhaps that fact should be brought to the attention of the people so we can all line up and express our undying support for it to show what good Americans we all are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Army Strong" doesn't work for me; even in the best light, it's like a monosyllabic automobile ad. But I suppose "Army: you get to ride in vehicles when you aren't walking" isn't as compelling. Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:I don't agree with women as shock troops, they just aren't built for it. They aren't grunts.
Lyrhawn, you clearly haven't seen any anime.
"There is no force greater on this green Earth then the US Army"
Gravity/nukes. I believe those are pretty basic powers of attraction, yet I don't see any soldiers floating away.
The music isn't the greatest out of context, but it holds its own. It could easily be a decent film score. Reminds me of music from Batman Begins a little.
I believe the vid gets most of its power from combination of elements, the sepia text drifting in (suggesting heritage), the flag being the first image (although, who's flag is that?!), with the slow motion sepia and BW clips, the beautiful BW sky shots of the parachuter, the exagerated colors, the *many* attractive female shots ("We dont' discrimiate! Honest! And the girls here are cute!"), etc.
However, change the text to "Loyal Dogs", "Defending your home", "Loyal at the risk of their lives" and splice in videos of dogs barking, chasing their tails, catching frisbees, and tenderly helping a poor kitty cat swim ashore in a violent river and it will convince cats everywhere to hold still while the doggies slober all over them. And droves of people would go buy a puppy.
So yeah, the composition is very well done.
But to criticize the military as being some out of control monster out to destroy the world because of the video is premature. Since when has military not been full of propaganda? Do you know about Flags of Our Fathers? I've seen enough propaganda movies made by Holywood during the second world war, and they are... wow. Thick with it.
People didn't know about the Jewish concentration camps then, and of course the bombs hadn't been dropped yet, so I don't think everyone believed we should be in the war (where now it is understood that it "had to happen" and there was no way out). The movies appealed to an audience that viewed the war as if it were an unwelcome intrusion into their life and US didn't need to be there. Perhaps they could talk the wars away with diplomacy (sound familiar?). And so the movies were thick with anything geared to generate patriotism and to stiffle critisim of the war. (Lyrhawn would be a better expert on the validity of this paragraph, but I think I'm accurate.)
But how much can we fault them? It is easy to fault them after the enemy is gone and if you aren't accountable for current state of the military. But for the military, it is their job to be strong. They have to do something.
I'm glad they were able to come up with this ad. I'd rather have kids joining because of this ad then the Army of One ads. For one, it means the kid is more feeling oriented and isn't as much a thril seeker or egomaniac as the other ads appealed to.
This ad is perfect for promoting the Army's cause. Whether or not you agree with that cause is a totally different matter.
The ad obviously isn't an accurate portrayal of day to day events in the Army. Where is the screaming boot camp trainers, the incompetence that creeps into all large organizations, the crappy housing? And get real, how many Army vets work in suits in high rises? It is like science fiction movies. Nobody really expects the things they show to be real, only vaguely accurate. The sepia tones and exagerated colors say it loud and clear: "daydream".
But what have they done wrong? Not pushed recruits away? "No, you can't join the army!" Is that what we expect our army to do? Or do we want them recruiting only people who like to shoot things?
So, I'm not against it. But that isn't saying anything about how cheesy it is. If I were to make the commercial, I don't know if I would go that route. I would go for something to try to attract people who were a bit less feeling oriented and more brainy, hackers and tinkers who like to build things.
In fact, I don't like my feelings being manipulated this much by people I know are just pushing a cause, so I watch it with a very critical and analyzing eye. Try listening to it without the video. Then watch it without the music. Try watching it out of the corner of your eye while you post to a forum... It will do wonders.
In fact, watch all commercials without audio. The creapiest commecials on the planet are the depression drug commercials with the little bouncing "sad" thingy. The audio makes it less creapy and actually palatable. But if you watch it with no audio, you will wonder why people aren't screaming in agony and demanding the FCC ban it.
Well, there went a few hours. I really put effort into this post, I hope you read it!
Edit to add: the one thing I think they botched composition wise is "because there is nothing on this green earth that is stronger than a US army soldier." Logic flies out the window and gets eaten by an earthworm with that statement.
[ November 11, 2006, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: [QUOTE] The ad obviously isn't an accurate portrayal of day to day events in the Army. Where is the screaming boot camp trainers, the incompetence that creeps into all large organizations, the crappy housing? And get real, how many Army vets work in suits in high rises? It is like science fiction movies. Nobody really expects the things they show to be real, only vaguely accurate. The sepia tones and exagerated colors say it loud and clear: "daydream".
Well, they are only showing that you can have a job like that. Only thing is that you have to want it. I know a guy that used to work for me that is a civilian now who is making $120,000 a year. Not bad for a conventional mechanic. In fact, he's doing pretty dang good. I've been offered jobs that have a competetive package of benefits. Starting pay (starting) is no where near being under 50 grand. Just to have a desk jockey QA job is 85 grand starting pay.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Oh, I wasn't saying it wasn't possible. My brother was in the Air Force and he got a high paying job afterwards. Just that it may not be the most typical outcome.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I know, thats why I used the word can. I wasn't really arguing anything on you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0:
quote:I don't agree with women as shock troops, they just aren't built for it. They aren't grunts.
Lyrhawn, you clearly haven't seen any anime.
.....
But to criticize the military as being some out of control monster out to destroy the world because of the video is premature. Since when has military not been full of propaganda? Do you know about Flags of Our Fathers? I've seen enough propaganda movies made by Holywood during the second world war, and they are... wow. Thick with it.
People didn't know about the Jewish concentration camps then, and of course the bombs hadn't been dropped yet, so I don't think everyone believed we should be in the war (where now it is understood that it "had to happen" and there was no way out). The movies appealed to an audience that viewed the war as if it were an unwelcome intrusion into their life and US didn't need to be there. Perhaps they could talk the wars away with diplomacy (sound familiar?). And so the movies were thick with anything geared to generate patriotism and to stiffle critisim of the war. (Lyrhawn would be a better expert on the validity of this paragraph, but I think I'm accurate.)
But how much can we fault them? It is easy to fault them after the enemy is gone and if you aren't accountable for current state of the military. But for the military, it is their job to be strong. They have to do something.
I've seen a lot of anime. While I think there are a ton of strong female characters in anime, I've yet to see (which by NO means there aren't any) a strong female character that was fit for grunt duty. Gundam Wing's strong female characters were pilots. Lieutenant Noin was strong, skilled, and brave in battle, but she was a pilot of a Mobile Suit, she didn't have a fifty pound pack on, twenty pounds of armor, and ten pounds of ammo/weaponry. And she didn't have to hike dozens of miles every day with that on. Trigun had strong female characters in Millie and Meryl, but they weren't frontline soldiers, they were cops at best. To say nothing of the fact that anime isn't exactly approaching an accurate portrayal of reality
As for Flags of Our Fathers as propaganda, meh. While I don't disagree that there are propaganda movies out there (Rocky IV anyone? Midway, Tora Tora Tora, The Longest Day), the majority of the ones we think of today were made after the war was over. Which isn't to say there weren't tons of pro-war movies during WW2, there were.
Flags of Our Fathers the book was published well before the war even started, and regardless of that, James Bradley has been researching it for years and years. It's not even a particularly good propaganda book. Iwo Jima isn't the story you want to tell if you're trying to convince someone to join the military. You want to tell a story where the hero and his buddies live, not where thousands die in a brutal slaughter. I've read the book, haven't seen the movie yet, but I imagine it's gruesome, and very good at showing the "war is hell" truism. I think it would have been made even if there wasn't a war going on.
As for your comments regarding the homefront and WW2: Not even close to being similar to this war. There was a smallish vocal minority that protested the war. But they were by far and away outvoiced by those clamoring to support it, and this even before Pearl Harbor. Dissent didn't have to be quashed by the government, the people saw to it themselves. But FDR did speak to the concerns of those that didn't want to be in this conflict:
quote: Some of our people like to believe that wars in Europe and in Asia are of no concern to us. But it is a matter of most vital concern to us that European and Asiatic war-makers should not gain control of the oceans which lead to this hemisphere. One hundred and seventeen years ago the Monroe Doctrine was conceived by our government as a measure of defense in the face of a threat against this hemisphere by an alliance in Continental Europe. Thereafter, we stood guard in the Atlantic, with the British as neighbors. There was no treaty. There was no "unwritten agreement." And yet there was the feeling, proven correct by history, that we as neighbors could settle any disputes in peaceful fashion. And the fact is that during the whole of this time the Western Hemisphere has remained free from aggression from Europe or from Asia.
Does anyone seriously believe that we need to fear attack anywhere in the Americas while a free Britain remains our most powerful naval neighbor in the Atlantic? And does anyone seriously believe, on the other hand, that we could rest easy if the Axis powers were our neighbors there? If Great Britain goes down, the Axis powers will control the Continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, Austral-Asia, and the high seas. And they will be in a position to bring enormous military and naval resources against this hemisphere. It is no exaggeration to say that all of us in all the Americas would be living at the point of a gun -- a gun loaded with explosive bullets, economic as well as military. We should enter upon a new and terrible era in which the whole world, our hemisphere included, would be run by threats of brute force. And to survive in such a world, we would have to convert ourselves permanently into a militaristic power on the basis of war economy.
Some of us like to believe that even if Britain falls, we are still safe, because of the broad expanse of the Atlantic and of the Pacific. But the width of those oceans is not what it was in the days of clipper ships. At one point between Africa and Brazil the distance is less than it is from Washington to Denver, Colorado, five hours for the latest type of bomber. And at the north end of the Pacific Ocean, America and Asia almost touch each other. Why, even today we have planes that could fly from the British Isles to New England and back again without refueling. And remember that the range of the modern bomber is ever being increased.
During the past week many people in all parts of the nation have told me what they wanted me to say tonight. Almost all of them expressed a courageous desire to hear the plain truth about the gravity of the situation. One telegram, however, expressed the attitude of the small minority who want to see no evil and hear no evil, even though they know in their hearts that evil exists. That telegram begged me not to tell again of the ease with which our American cities could be bombed by any hostile power which had gained bases in this Western Hemisphere. The gist of that telegram was: "Please, Mr. President, don't frighten us by telling us the facts." Frankly and definitely there is danger ahead -- danger against which we must prepare. But we well know that we cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads.
And that speech was BEFORE Pearl Harbor. They were gung ho after it.
I actually talked about this with my grandpa the other day, before he went south for the winter (old folks are like geese ). I asked him flat out what he thought when he knew he was going, and if they knew about the Jews and concentration camps. He said they didn't know anything about it, and didn't know until well after they got there. All they knew was that the British were in trouble, they were our buddies, and we had to go help them out, and so he, and his four brothers, all serving in the army in Europe, did just that.
No one had to be convinced, in the way Bush is always trying to, that it was a war for freedom, they KNEW it was. And they knew what complacency would bring them. They'd watch Europe break into war during the first world war, and they'd stood idly by until the end, doing nothing. The wake of pacifism and avoidance that sprung up after that conflict is what allowed Germany to grow into a looming, unchecked threat. They knew that appeasement and diplomacy led to the invasions of Poland, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It was time for action, the enemy was knocking on Britain's front door, and we'd better get our butts over there. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and Hitler's subsequent declaration of war against the US, combined with an emphatically powerful leader like FDR (sometimes words CAN move nations, even from a man in a wheelchair), meant that everyone was willing to sacrifice for the war. Women went to work in factories, companies actively competed with each other to see who could turn out ships the fastest. People rationed food, and rubber, and steel for the war effort, and planted victory gardens.
The man, whose name escapes me at the moment, who controlled two of the biggest shipyards, the ones that made Liberty Ships, cheap, insanely fast to produce cargo ships that Uboats couldn't sink fast enough even when they were unprotected, that supplied Germany during the Battle of Britain and beyond, held a contest between his two main yards. There was no reward involved, it was all about the pride of being the best, and serving their troops and their nation. The crews kept besting each other, building a Liberty Ship in a month, then 2 weeks, then one week, then 72 hours, and finally, using three crews and non-stop work, completing a ship the size of a destroyer or a baby flattop in 24 hours.
Movies were entertaining sure, but they didn't need to be convinced. Trouble was knocking at their door, and their President asked everything that they could give, and more, and they complied.
Now if you want to make that claim about World War ONE, then you've got a lot of weight to throw around. World War II saw an EXPLOSION of patriotism, and unlike what happened here in 2001, it wasn't temporary, and it wasn't just created that day. It was already there, and it never wavered until years after the war, at the prospect of a never ending cold war and dampening spirits prevailed. Little kids saw their daddies go off to war and they wanted to grow up and be just like them. Wives worried about their husbands, but many joined the service as nurses, and those that didn't stayed home and held down the fort, or they made tanks, or planes, or ships.
I honestly believe that half the problem with support for this war is that Bush more or less continues to give us the impression that it isn't a big deal, and that we shouldn't disrupt our lives for it. Ridiculous. It's expensive, and it's the first war in our history that we haven't raised taxes to pay for, on the contrary, the man has cut billions from our national income. There's been no rationing (not that any is necessary), no war bonds that people flocked to buy, no massive volunteering (certainly not on the order of the millions, literally millions, who volunteered for, and lied their war into WW2). We aren't being involved, and when the President looks all aloof and frankly, unconcerned about the situation over there, and everyone else painting a VERY different picture, we feel powerless, and the only thing we might have the power to do is end the war entirely.
Stick with WW1 James, it cements your argument much better . Woodrow Wilson ran on the "he kept us out of war" platform. We REALLY didn't want to be in that one.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
So to get the patriotism we need we have to wait for the culmination of our fears about the Middle East to turn into a war machine that does threaten us and our allies. Then we can discover the truth too late again, and millions of Jews will be dead... Are we so foolish that we have to repeat history even though we see it coming?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Is that even close to a reasonable expectation though? The people of Iraq can't even work together within their single country.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No, I don't think it is a reasonable expectation at all.
Islamic extremism isn't Nazi Germany slowly creeping up on Poland, on Silesia, across the Rhine, over into Czechoslovakia...
That was a declared threat, by a foremost power in the world, by multiple foremost powers in the world. Though maybe FDR was right about OUR situation when he said of his own:
quote:they would unite in ultimate action against the United States. The Nazi Masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world. It was only three weeks ago that their leader stated this: "There are two worlds that stand opposed to each other." And then in defiant reply to his opponents he said this: "Within this world we cannot ever reconcile ourselves."
So maybe there are more parallels between that war and this one than we might like to think. Certainly the rhetoric is the same. The difference is that this war is insidious. Without tanks rolling into Paris, we don't SEE what is coming at us. But we AREN'T at war. We support moderates in the Middle East that themselves support Wahhabist schools of fundamentalist Islam. If we were WW2 serious, we'd cut off ALL purchasing of oil from the Middle East, ALL of it. But we aren't. If we were serious, we'd cut off ALL arms sales to the Middle East, but we don't.
Truth of the matter is, it isn't that the people aren't serious, it's that their government isn't really giving them enough proof that they need to be. This half-assed war isn't good enough.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
This war has been run very well, the goal is simply to break up the possibility of a new Caliphate dedicated to Islamic Fascisms.
Religious intolerance, sexual inequality, racial intolerance, child abuse, institutionalized corruption from judges to department nepotism, the list of inequities institutional in Islamic rule is so long that the litany become surreal. George Bush knows this and has known from the beginning that we need to raise this generation of Iraqi children from scratch to change the country.
The EU is trying to do the same thing with this generation of Turks. We all agree that the rising tide of numbers and discontent in the region is a threat not only to Israel, but to Europe and India and south east Asia. If we based policy on giving a real damn about black Africa we would already be at war with Islam.
The problem is that we will give them this generation. Developments in energy production and conservation, utilization of electricity in personal transportation and UN sanctions will put a strangle hold on wealth going into the middle east, exacerbating matters rather then helping. Poverty will breed discontent and hatred, the immigration that we will generously allow into Europe and America will create hostile enclaves in our own nations with representatives in our governments.
There is no population check, there is no incentive to reform and there is no love of fellow man to build on. The only think that held this problem back in the last century was internal strife, the two victories by Israel and Ronald Reagan pitting the Soviets against Afghanistan and Iraq against Iran and encouraging a stalemate as a matter of policy. (incidentally bankrupting the Soviet Union and so depleting the manpower of Iraq and Iran that we handled Iraq like a tiger mauling a kitten twice without having to worry about Iran mounting a military campaign of any significance.
Now Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan all set on the tipping point, Syria and Iran are our enemies and even the Saudis certainly will change once we invent the cure for oil.
Our leadership sees all this shaping up, with Al Queada in Pakistan, the only Arab country we know has Nukes, with a coupe in Thailand and in Somalia, and Iran faking a nuclear program to cover the ones they want to buy from North Korea, we have new domino effect in play that has tentacles in France, Germany and Russia from bribery of officials to violent minorities.
Yet we cannot point to Islamic Jihad and call it a force for global evil. Not yet, not until Tel Aviv is in ruins, and Buddhists and Christians and Hindus all start dying by the hundreds and thousands at the hands of Muslims.
Then we may be allowed to call it evil and bring forth the will to stop it. That is the hell we are heading towards, that is the hell we are trying to stop now, that is the history we are trying not to repeat.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If this was our intention, invading Iraq was one of the stupidest things we could have done.
It tempered one of the most divisive conflicts among Islamic states in the middle east -- between Iran and Iraq.
It gave Iran a huge foothold in Iraq for after our withdrawal or effective withdrawal (which even Bush sees hurrying near, sadly -- we are far from done with the responsibilities we took on, there).
It gave Iran a huge foothold (by being able to point at US aggression) with smaller nations, and Iran is using this quite successfully to block attempts to oppose them on the international stage.
It greatly agitated Turkey, what with the problem of the Kurds.
Of course, handing Afghanistan back to the druglords and other militant forces after we justly toppled the government is hardly a great piece of strategy, too. We hold a few cities, but most of Afghanistan is not under our control. However, it pales in comparison to amount we have increased the power and influence of Iran by invading Iraq, when before the presence of Iraq had been a huge negative for Iran.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: A Panther commander shot up 21 shermans in 44' he shot the first and then the last one the shermans couldnt break out fo the column so he shot up the remaining ones.
You don't think that had more to do with the fact that the Sherman was a piece of crap?
I doubt they would have had the same success if the Pershing had entered service four years earlier than it did.
While this is eminently true, it kind of misses the point. The discussion is 'who had the best army, man for man', and that includes the equipment. If the good American equipment was late to the dance, then it's quite irrelevant. In any case, if you're going to move the American equipment up by four years, you'd have to do the same for the Germans; I doubt Eisenhower would much have cared for invading a Normandy defended by the King Tiger and jet aircraft.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Actually, I meant Flags of Our Fathers as showing propaganda back then. Ok, I haven't seen the movie or read the book, only heard about it. The idea is that the picture of the soldiers raising the flag become a powerful propaganda force, and the actual soldiers in the picture were treated badly by the government. Or something.
On the other stuff. I've been very afraid of extremist terrorist nuclear attack and that last quote by FDR speaks straight to why I am for the war in Iraq. However, I readily admit my support is based on fear or something invisible and not logic. I have no idea if my fears are based in anything other than fantasy.
Bruce Scheier speaks a lot about perceived risk vs real risk. Parents are afraid to send their children to homes where there are guns, but have no fear of sending them to a house with a swimming pool, even though swimming pools have killed far more children than gun accidents. And adults are afraid to fly but don't fear driving on highways, even though highways kill far more people than commercial flight.
I also agree about what we would do if we were serious. I know OSC said this last election was about the war, and that we shouldn't have voted for anyone who wanted to set a timetable. But now that the Demos have control of congress, I get the impression the Republican congress was part of the Iraq problem. Just an impression, and I'm not sure what I'm pointing at, but it seems like they have been completely out of touch with reality. Sort of like they had too much to loose by being practical, so they refused to be, and lost everything anyway. The Demos have too much to loose by ignoring reality, so we are going to be better off no matter what. I hope.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Shermans and their drivers were excellent for the role they were meant for and filled -- using their smaller need of logistics to cripple German ability to keep their military supplied, particularly their part and fuel hungry tanks.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I think the Air Force and Navy might dispute that claim. An M-16 is scarry, but a Nuclear Sub or a smart bomb are even scarier.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
It is a bit foolish to speak of Iran having increased its power when they are now neighbors with 225,000 troops from the US and around the world. Dropping artillery shells in hasty roadside holes and whining and posturing on the world stage is only effective if you are addicted to CNN, soldiers think it is weakness so great that their own country is becoming hard to hold onto.
They try to posture on the gulf, claim to have torpedoes they do not, claim to have a nuclear weapons program, try to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan, try to make progress in Iraq. In other words they have the kind of schizophrenic policy that a cornered rat might develop.
We hear a great deal about how we do not have enough troops in Iraq, but it takes far fewer troops to crush an army and demolish a regime like Iran then it takes to patrol an entire country as a police force, do logistical support, construction and secure a half dozen airfields. We could destroy the ability of Iran to rule a large city block let alone a country. The question would be what is going to replace the Iranian government after we neutralize it and decimate its military and send them scurrying out of there uniforms and home to bury their weapons. If we wanted to be really irresponsible we could go back to Iraq and Afghanistan and then watch the civil war to follow and roast marshmallows while the the oil wells burned.
That is Iranian reality now that we are in the Gulf, I hope that it helps you understand the advantages of the Bush policy in Iraq. The part that is badly managed is that we have run out of quick interim goals that can give us optimistic news every few months. Creating artificial goals is a stop gap, what we need is five years for the economy to grow and stabilize, for the infrastructure to be repaired and for the security situation to settle into a steady state and the oil checks to start to flow to those who jump through the hoops of becoming registered citizens with home addresses and official standing.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Ummm, you have obviously not seen what Iran has. They just tested some weapons systems not too long ago. They are not cavemen over there. They do have stuff that can do some damage. I don't recall any touting of a nuke weapon program. We thought they were (and they actually might). However, they have stated that it is for electrical power means. Don't get the who's who mixed up here.
They do have a navy, but it's quite different than any other. Actually, their navy is a joke, but I've read some stuff that kinda delineates that one just a bit.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
GS: how long do you think we're going to be in Iraq? One or two years in the future isn't all that matters.
As for Iran being like a cornered rat, keep in mind that they're getting almost exactly what they want, currently: ability to pursue their nuclear weapons program (which is rather more advanced than Iraq's ever was, coincidentally, though still in its infancy) and no significant increase in sanctions. The US has been able to get almost nothing they want in relation to Iran.
As for your scenario of an invasion of Iran, the Iranian army has over 350k men. And you are quite mistaken about the number of coalition forces in Iraq, current numbers are 150k to 170k. Many of these are from the national guard. We could likely do incredibly damage in Iran with a conventional force deployed from Iraq, but it would hardly be a cakewalk. Heck, at minimum they have and have used chemical weapons, though if we were lucky they would refrain from those in the hope we would not use tactical nuclear weapons.
This would, of course, involve removing our forces from nearly every position in Iraq, which would take a good bit of time and given Iran plenty of warning, not to mention conceding most of Iraq to militants.
We will be out of Iraq well within five years, sadly. Even if we are technically present then, we will have conceded all but central cities to militant control, just as we have in Afghanistan, another of our failed occupations. Of course, this administration will have little to contribute over the first two of those years even if we stay in for five years. The horrible failure of most of the major civil projects in Iraq -- reopening oil production, preparing a national police force, et cetera, and in many cases in ways directly traceable to the appointment of politically connected incompetents -- has amply demonstrated this administrations inability to fulfill the responsibility we took on to the Iraqi people.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I think you are failing to count the 75,000 in Afghanistan, they also are 'next to' Iran, but I forgive you for thinking I had miscounted. Just look at a map next time.
As for the responsibility we have to the Iraqi people... I do not see it as extending to managing their government for them, incompetent corrupt government and construction is their own fault, not ours, they are not children to be forgiven while their parents are blamed, it is time we tried them as adults.
As for leaving Iraq in the hands of insurgents, I think we might find Iraq to be a fine ally if we were in the process of thrashing Iran.
As for the effectiveness of the Iranian military, well we have air superiority, naval superiority and the ability crush their armor, navy and infrastructure. Their Oil industry is fantastically vulnerable, their power grid, ports of entry, truly we could lay siege to the nation and paralyze it, and stop anything they want to throw at the Iraqi or Afghan border, so where does that leave the Iran? Burning and starving in the dark. Do it in the winter and the soldiers would be burning the citizens to stay warm. (the parts the were not eating)
Okay so Iran would have food but how much fight will they have left.
As for staying, I think the job will take a generation. Five more years is just the start.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: As for the responsibility we have to the Iraqi people... I do not see it as extending to managing their government for them, incompetent corrupt government and construction is their own fault, not ours, they are not children to be forgiven while their parents are blamed, it is time we tried them as adults.
We came in and disrupted everything they knew. They didn't make an overthrow mind you. We have to make sure they have a stable government in hand before leaving. It is a responsibility of ours.
quote: As for leaving Iraq in the hands of insurgents, I think we might find Iraq to be a fine ally if we were in the process of thrashing Iran
Don't you think after us, their country has had enough war? I wouldn't want to drag them into Iran.
quote: As for the effectiveness of the Iranian military, well we have air superiority, naval superiority and the ability crush their armor, navy and infrastructure. Their Oil industry is fantastically vulnerable, their power grid, ports of entry, truly we could lay siege to the nation and paralyze it, and stop anything they want to throw at the Iraqi or Afghan border, so where does that leave the Iran? Burning and starving in the dark. Do it in the winter and the soldiers would be burning the citizens to stay warm. (the parts the were not eating)
This does not paint a good picture of you. I know some of my ideals are sick (compared to most), but this takes the cake. you definately could have kept your fingers off the keyboard for the last part of this.
quote:Okay so Iran would have food but how much fight will they have left.
More than you can ever know. We are fighting an enemy who will never give up. We are fighting an enemy that honestly believes that God is on his side. In fact, they believe they are doing the work of God (Allah). Their is no logic here. It is beyond that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: A Panther commander shot up 21 shermans in 44' he shot the first and then the last one the shermans couldnt break out fo the column so he shot up the remaining ones.
You don't think that had more to do with the fact that the Sherman was a piece of crap?
I doubt they would have had the same success if the Pershing had entered service four years earlier than it did.
While this is eminently true, it kind of misses the point. The discussion is 'who had the best army, man for man', and that includes the equipment. If the good American equipment was late to the dance, then it's quite irrelevant. In any case, if you're going to move the American equipment up by four years, you'd have to do the same for the Germans; I doubt Eisenhower would much have cared for invading a Normandy defended by the King Tiger and jet aircraft.
To be fair, Pershings and other American heavy tanks would have been on the field to deal with the King Tiger, which was plagued with technical problems, and consumed fuel like the French consume perfume, and both for good reason, they stink.
But both of those matter even less. If you advance the toys by four years, the the US gets F-80 Shooting Stars, which beat the Russian MiG in air-to-air kills in Korea, and we get the B-36 Peacemaker jet bomber. If we had those kinds of assets, to say nothing of missiles, Dday, I daresay, would have been easier, not harder.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I think the Air Force and Navy might dispute that claim. An M-16 is scarry, but a Nuclear Sub or a smart bomb are even scarier.
I can't imagine fighting in a war where you've heard stories of combatants on your side exploding for no apparent reason. At least IEDs are semi-expectable and not all that accurate. Air strikes come out of nowhere, and don't miss all that much.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sax -
I think OSC war right in one thing in his last world watch. All of that isn't necessary. We can strategically bomb Iran's oil assets, and blockade their ports. We don't NEED to invade them. Oil is their blood, we block it off, they die.
We then ask for Europe to help pay for food drops if they need them, we aren't murderers, besides we want their people on our side. Not that I'm recommending we do this, but if we do, our first step is to cripple their economy for the short term, and that's easily done. The price of oil will skyrocket, but we won't really have supply problems. We already don't buy from them.
If we're serious about combating fanatics and hostile governments in the Middle East then let's GET SERIOUS. Like fugu has suggested in the past, send more troops to Iraq. If we're not serious, let's leave, if we ARE serious, then let's do it right dammit. Stop buying oil from the Middle East, or any nation that has ties to the Middle East and terrorist organizations, which mostly leaves us with Mexico and Canada probably, which is nothing to shake a stick at, but it's not enough at the moment.
If we're serious then let's stop dealing with governments that REALLY aren't our friends. Let's stop propping up dictators. Playing kingmaker and picking our choice of US friendly evils has NOT served us well historically. If we oppose extremism and terrorism everywhere then let's really oppose it EVERYWHERE.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: This does not paint a good picture of you. I know some of my ideals are sick (compared to most), but this takes the cake. you definitely could have kept your fingers off the keyboard for the last part of this.
What do you think War is? I once saw a Pomeranian run out of its yard and attack Rotweiler, the results were predictable and informative and very natural. They where gruesome as well. Was that the Rotweilers fault?
quote: More than you can ever know. We are fighting an enemy who will never give up. We are fighting an enemy that honestly believes that God is on his side. In fact, they believe they are doing the work of God (Allah). Their is no logic here. It is beyond that.
The 'Will' you speak of is a carefully constructed myth, and a joke to servicemen. We have seen the result of the 'God is on my side' crowd attacking us. It clears out the believers pretty quick. The result is what we have now, a pragmatic insurgency that does not take risks, that buys surrogates to do its work and hides in the population. They also target soft objectives that give them a body count instead of risking themselves against our secure strong points.
The problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the result of devotion to a religion, Shara law is the problem that the people in those countries suffer under, it is not a source of unity for the opposition. The opposition is united by criminal activities, profits, tribal affiliation and an addiction to the belief in the good life without any work to earn it or limit to indulgence once it is achieved. That is not a strength of character that we will ever need to fear. It is moral weakness we have to deal with every day. It is also the source of defeat for them over and over.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: I can't imagine fighting in a war where you've heard stories of combatants on your side exploding for no apparent reason. At least IEDs are semi-expectable and not all that accurate. Air strikes come out of nowhere, and don't miss all that much.
I know that Tank crews in Iraq simply abandoned their tanks as 'the most dangerous place in the world to be' the devastation our air power reaped on the retreating Iraqi Army as it fled Kuwait would have prompted a war crimes trial had we lost.
quote: If we're serious then let's stop dealing with governments that REALLY aren't our friends. Let's stop propping up dictators. Playing kingmaker and picking our choice of US friendly evils has NOT served us well historically. If we oppose extremism and terrorism everywhere then let's really oppose it EVERYWHERE.
I tend to agree, war is clean in its way compared to politics. I realize that people hear this as cliché but it is true, killing a man is more dignified for him and less debilitating to the soldier doing it then trapping a man with manipulation or hunger or fear into serving you against his will. As for ending our dependence on foreign oil it is beyond time, for God's sake we have had since Carter was President to break this addiction and have know the danger for that entire period. You left out Utah as a new source of oil! Changes the meaning of the LDS prophet too profit!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Shermans and their drivers were excellent for the role they were meant for and filled -- using their smaller need of logistics to cripple German ability to keep their military supplied, particularly their part and fuel hungry tanks.
Right; sheer numbers for the win! Not to mention the rather callous attitude; smaller logistical need is fine for the generals, but the crews are getting blown up! Again, though, this just feeds into the 'man-for-man' argument I'm making. If the Germans had had numbers even remotely equal to the Allies, no way they'd have lost.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I know that Tank crews in Iraq simply abandoned their tanks as 'the most dangerous place in the world to be' the devastation our air power reaped on the retreating Iraqi Army as it fled Kuwait would have prompted a war crimes trial had we lost.
I think that was probably A-10s. I understand you not only see, but hear those suckers coming, and shooting at a titanium underbelly as depleted uranium is being squirted at you doesn't make evolutionary sense. Running away, though, does.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: What do you think War is?
Funny that a civilian is trying to tell me what war is. I must have completely forgotten the part where we launched jets and "dropped warheads on foreheads, killing commies for mommy." I was referring to the burning of civilian bodies. You seem to think that they have no technology. True, they are on the low side of it, but they do have some. Maybe I'll just dump everything I do know, and let you tell me how to do my job from now on .
quote: The 'Will' you speak of is a carefully constructed myth, and a joke to servicemen. We have seen the result of the 'God is on my side' crowd attacking us. It clears out the believers pretty quick. The result is what we have now, a pragmatic insurgency that does not take risks, that buys surrogates to do its work and hides in the population. They also target soft objectives that give them a body count instead of risking themselves against our secure strong points.
I didn't realize that dieing was a joke. None of this is a joke to servicemen, or maybe I didn't get that memo. Of course they hit the soft spots. Especially when their are big numbers involved. That part does make sense. Buy surrogates? Far from. Maybe you missed the memo of this being a holy war? I think so. Because even if we don't call it that, they do.
I'm done with this pie-hole, my head hurts too much.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Warthogs FTW. I saw some of those today at Wright-Patt.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote: The 'Will' you speak of is a carefully constructed myth,
I thought that said 'Wii,' and I almost burst into tears.
-pH
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
You are mistaken if you think I am a civilian, as for knowing they use surrogates, I assure you that most of those we caught putting in IED's were nothing more then poor teenage kids and unemployed men or a retarded man once doing it for drugs, money or both. A few others did it because they had a family member hostage. Only one was a 'holy warrior' and he was so stoned he did not even run after blowing the bomb fifty feet too soon he just stood there mumbling prayers and waiting to die.
We traced the money men and they were so far from the action that they could pretend to be respectable, Doctors, Police Chiefs, Shieks... I speak from direct knowledge and experience so believe what you will, the courage of the Holy Warrior looks like cowardice to me, even if it is sensible given the usual outcome.
We laughed at them all the time. No memo needed, just a sense of humor that is a bit on the dark side.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: And a separate question I'd like answered: Why is it, that in a military, where self control and adherence to regulations is mandatory and necessary, that women or men, shouldn't be expected to abstain from sex, were it required of them?
Rather than using logic to answer this question, I will just say:
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Storm -
Religion requires people to restrict their sexual actions accordingly, and the army's rules and requirements are in many times just as cumbersome, and they're expected to be followed the same way. It might not be the wrath of God that comes down on you for violating, but it's the next best thing.
Second, I'm really just curious as to why women's lack of sexual control is more a reason than men's for why they shouldn't serve. So fine, you separate them. You tell them they'll get a dishonorable discharge if they get pregnant. I don't really care what the rules end up being, I just know that it's silly to say "Oh women? no they can't be drafted, they might get pregnant." Ridiculous. Why do we let women serve in the military AT ALL then? Other than the fact that WOMEN DEMANDED IT.
Furthermore, I don't think telling them they can't have sex for awhile is unquestionable. Is it too much to ask that married men and women in the service not have sex while they are away? It's a matter of will power and duty.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But not everyone in the service is married. And that's asking people whose religions DON'T require them to abstain from sex to cut themselves off from a large part of their lives, if they consider sex to be a part of a relationship/dating. Yeah, let's make 'em all a militant, monastic society. That's a good idea.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So the opposing decision is that religious folk, who want to have unmarried sex, but think that birth control is against their religion (wow, now THAT makes sense), should be able to skip out on military service?
And there's a gender bias.
That's a GREAT idea.
And by the way, celebate and monastic are two different things. Don't pin something on my argument that I didn't put there.
A serious question too, to the military people here: Do you find you have ample time for dating when on a combat post?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I thought we were talking about the duration of their military time. I can conceivably see how people at combat posts wouldn't really have the opportunity for sex. But if another one of the issues is women becoming pregnant to avoid being deployed (as someone mentioned here at some point), avoiding sex during combat isn't going to help all that much.
-pH
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Combat post? Like a fortified area where gunfire and mortar rounds are heard? Because if that's what you're talking about I have no idea.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If there's a draft, it's probably because we can't come up with enough boots on the ground, and NEED the help to make up for the losses. When my grandpa was drafted for WW2, he wasn't sent to an office, he was sent to training, then combat. Women aren't going to get the chance to get pregnant, unless they get their draft letter and then find the first hot blooded man they can, just to get out of the military. Heading to Canada would be easier.
I'm curious when there's going to be time for dating during all that.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Canada recently announced that they would not harbor any Americans seeking to avoid the draft.
--j_k
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
OK, here's what I know. People have managed to have sex in Basic Training, but it's always either an affair with a TI or random people doing it in random places. The random places will go unmentioned.
In tech school, of the group that I left Basic Training and traveled to tech school with (7 females tops, 14 total), two are married and have children, and at least two are married without children. We have all been in the military a little bit over 3 years. The first pregnancy happened about 4 months after we got to our tech school and the second about 15 months into tech school. Both pregnancies resulted in a discharge (initiated by the females in question) from the military. All of the marriages mentioned above happened before training was completed.
Is that something like the answer to your question?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: But not everyone in the service is married. And that's asking people whose religions DON'T require them to abstain from sex to cut themselves off from a large part of their lives, if they consider sex to be a part of a relationship/dating. Yeah, let's make 'em all a militant, monastic society. That's a good idea.
-pH
You know, for actual fighting efficiency, it might really be a good idea. Anyway, how is it different from the situation in, basically, every war of the twentieth century? You got drafted, you weren't going to get laid - except maybe for a cheap whore once a month - for the duration.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the argument is supposed to be, that if women get drafted to fight near men, it's unreasonable to expect them not to give into temptation, therefore we should solve the problem by keeping women at home, and by keeping men surrounded by other sexually frustrated men.
Let's keep all the men at home, and only send women into combat. Then they can't get pregnant.
(I'm kidding of course, but what would be the non-reproductive argument against that?)
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: (I'm kidding of course, but what would be the non-reproductive argument against that?)
Don't really think that there is one, at least not from me. If women are just as efective as men as fighters in war time situations than it would solve the pregnancy problem. However, any real discussion matter would always come back to the fact that women are the child bearers.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Let's keep all the men at home, and only send women into combat. Then they can't get pregnant.
Apart from the fact that women on average will be much less effective soldiers, (the current combat kit is the heaviest ever) It should be obvious that women would also enjoy two other disadvantages, one: the misogynist societies that we are engaged with will not yield or surrender in the face of female soldiers, forcing us to kill many more of them, two: female American soldiers, unlike men can expect rape to be part of any capture or interrogation.
This is a move that is ridiculous, can soldiers find time to have sex? Yes, anywhere you put a man and woman together some fraction of them will be having sex. More infidelity, more pregnancy, more STD's, more hard feelings, more breakups, more murders over girls, more rapes and incidence of harassment, more gaps in the line from pregnancy. In other words the presence of women, even if 98% of all men are honorable will give the command fifty times the headaches.
"Ladies, enjoy it while you can, cause when you go home you'll be ugly again..."
Quote from a porta john in Iraq.
The inside the wire units that have had women for years are set up for them, and where the ratio is high, then there is less of a new problem set. (still a problem) However even they range out on base to the Infantry and other combat units that do not accept women. So there is no avoiding the problem on the big bases, Liberty, Green Zone, and so on. Putting women in the Infantry (and therefore in the Rangers, and other elite forces that only take Infantry MOSQ) is just going to blunt the tip of the spear.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
MOSQ essentially means "job qualified" for those that aren't career acronym translators.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
What was that movie with the female Ranger? John Travolta, Samuel Jackson... shudder. You would think they would do at least enough research to realize there is no such creature.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The only movies I can think of are the General's Daughter and GI Jane. And some really old school one about creepy illegal training on some island somewhere.
-pH
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
It was about drugs in South America.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
People don't care about accuracy as much anymore. It's now about what the writer wants to be true and using artistic license as an excuse. That's one of the reasons I canceled my pre-order of Empire.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
If it did not go to Sand Hill (Benning) it is not an Infantryman, (though they are setting up mini schools now all for troops going over at several points to get National Guard troops MOSQ as infantry)
the think I like about Galactica, SG 1 and Atlantis is the effort they put out to make things authentic.
Last week on CSI NY the top three CSI's in the city where standing around a body that might have died from a bio threat without Haz Mat suits, without masks, without even roping it off. "CDC is in route." It was such a huge gaff that I had to leave the room or spoil the show for my wife.
On the other hand it is disturbing to see Hollywood invent crimes and bombs and methods to circumvent security and show our latest and greatest systems in every new film. I think that using creativity to show the sickos what to do is irresponsible. It is a fine line.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They need more troops because the ones we have keep getting killed and there's no end in sight.
Thank you for revealing your ignorance so clearly for everyone to see, MightyCow.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Lyrhawn--
There's no answer I can give you that will satisfy you. Let me just say that in many instances in the military, already, soldiers aren't supposed to be screwing their buddy, but they are. Kind of like sex ed that relies on abstinence only as practical, the real world doesn't show that it works for many people.
Read what airman4 wrote. I can back that up with stories of my own--people having sex in dumpsters, stairwells in basic, a time when they're not supposed to have sex and they are segregated away from each other in different barracks.
Even when soldiers aren't having sex, the social dynamics between men and women are such that mixing sexes on a team does, imho, lower that team's efficiency and introduces more chaos into the system. Seen it, however this could be subjective as other people swear up and down it's not a problem.
A military unit isn't supposed to function as many people seperately but a bunch of people as a unit, a team, a band of brothers. When one part of the team isn't focusing on the objective, the whole team suffers. When one part of the team is weaker than another part, the whole team suffers. The whole objective of a military unit is that all members are strong and capable of functioning well together. Throwing women into the mix complicates and weakens the team socially and physically.
I am going to go out on a limb that you, the general you, can't point to other social models in existence in America to really support the idea that men and women, strangers, can function as a team 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as a tight unit as they are required to in the military. Nothing in society prepares men and women for it. Morever, nothing in society prepares men and women to think of each other as non-sexual creatures. This isn't even getting into the biological drives of healthy young people.
Yes, you have instances where men and women work together as a team, but at the end of the day, they go home. They can quit. Other people can be brought in to replace them. They have access to other people outside the team for sexual release. And they don't have to work together as closely as many military units. Plus, and this is absolutely huge, you're talking about freaking 18, 19, and 20 year olds in their sexual prime.
Can it be done? Sure. The modern military points to this. I'm not saying it can't be done at all.
My point is that the military doesn't function as well when you mix the sexes.
One of the obvious rebuttals is that you can have WACs, WAVES, and whatever the other branches had. That is, all female units.
I'm not as opposed to this as just mixing people together, and I think it might mitigate many problems that mixing the sexes brings up. However, the fact that the units are seperate does make it so that you have a group of soldiers that can't be integrated in with other soldiers. Ideally, this should not be the case.
Also, as the basic training examples show, this will still probably not stop soldiers from seeking each other out.
There are other aspects I haven't mentioned as to why mixing male and female soldiers together wouldn't work, but I think the above hits most of the basic highlights, though I didn't mention a couple for reasons of my own.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Women have served in most aviation posts since the early 90's. Statistical rates of operational losses due to pregnancy are very low. In other words, more than 10% of the military is made up of women in non-frontline, but still many combat and support roles, and to this point, pregnancy has not be a significant factor in reducing military readiness.
If a soldier REALLY wants to have sex, he's going to have it if women are there are not. Whether with his fellow male soldiers, or with the local nightlife, if there is any.
As I said before, I don't think women should serve on the front lines, but the numbers I think back me up on women in support roles, and in aviation. If they aren't going to be able to cut it, then don't put them there, otherwise cutting out a potential resource doesn't make sense to me. The only way there will be a rash of pregnancies is if women were to purposely impregnate themselves for the purpose of escaping duty.
What was the procedure for men who wanted to escape military service in Vietnam by claiming to be gay?
Two other things:
1. Blacks weren't integrated into the military for the longest time, and we all know why. They said it would disrupt unit cohesion. And it did. But they got over it. I don't think the military should be an instrument of social change, but then, allowing women to serve, and even allowing gays to serve, isn't social engineering, it's allowing something that should've been allowed a long time ago to finally happen.
2. I'm almost positive that if a draft were allowed for men again, it'd be allowed for women as well, from a legal standpoint. If Dag is reading this and can contradict or support me, I'd appreciate his words eitherw way. But Originally women weren't drafted because women weren't allowed in combat positions. It isn't that way anymore.
Edit to add: Storm, just wanted to clarify that I recognize you probably have more knowledge on the military in general than I do, at the very least, you certainly do when it comes to knowing what being in the military is ACTUALLY like.
I don't claim to know more. If it turns out that mixing up the sexes just doesn't work, then I'll look at the numbers and if they bear that out, I'll change my position, that's how I work. The main thrust of my arguments thus far have been, that just because a woman is biologically able to become pregnant, that isn't enough to exclude them from mandatory service. But many of the numbers I've looked at show that women perform their duties fairly well, and when with you exempt pregnancy leave, actually have better attendence (for lack of a better word) records than the men do.
To whoever else said it, I realize that captured women are subject to sexual abuse. But if you've ever seen a story about Abu Ghraib, I'd say it's pretty easy to prove that men aren't exactly exempt from that.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Having your little pee pee laughed at is not being repeatedly violated by grunting laughing stinking...
I won't say it.
I think that a coed bathroom is cool on Ally McBeal, but look at Newsweek, with amputee women on the cover, look at Iraqi snipers seeking to grease women in particular to create more of a shock.
Because we care more about women and children they can hurt us more by killing them, we give them more rope to hang us with. When we go in, men can be more independent, we need fewer facilities, we can get by for longer until the showers and a PX full of sanitary napkins. I once went a month without a shower with two uniforms and bottle of gold-bond... but who hasn't.
In no world will there be as many women who passed through the infantry training successful as men so the result will always be a small number of women to men. That makes the situation even more disruptive.
In a pinch blacks and whites can use the same showers and toilets without a problem, they can share tents and rooms. They can swap uniforms and gear around. In other worlds there is a fault in the analogy between a non difference (skin hue) and a very real difference (gender).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
First of all, "having your little pee pee laughed at" is a vast understantement. Try having your pee pee attached to jumper cables and zapped for awhile. Maybe you're okay with that though, given some of your more offensive positions here recently, I wouldn't be surprised if torturing men wasn't a big deal to you.
Snipers primarily pick off soldiers when they are on patrol. I'm not suggesting women as front like troops, so your point is moot.
And I'm sure women will LOVE your inference that men are rough and tumble but women couldn't survive in a rough situation without SANITARY NAPKINS. How offensive.
Again, you're speaking as if I were advocating women as basic infantry, I'm not. Please speak to my actual arguments, and do not use strawmen.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
You are not aware there were snipers specifically targeting women inside the wire doing support activities? You do not know that we tasked some of our best snipers to hunt them so the women freaking out on post and refusing to do guard duty on the fence could go back to work? Hmmmm
We already have women 'not as front line troops' so you are advocating the status quo? Daring...
I can get by without underwear or with one pair for a month, I am not sure what women you hang with but I have never met one that could say the same, I guess we could put tampons in the MRE's... (I got peanut butter!... I got Jalapeño Cheese!... I got Skittles... Oh I got wings!)
I think the incidents you are talking about where prosecuted as crimes, they were aberrations. Raping women prisoners is not the exception, it is the rule for our enemies. Just one more way we are different.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Tampons don't have wings...
Edit: I can see how sanitation could be an issue simply because of the whole urinary tract/kidney infection thing, which is a lot more likely in women than men and can be a serious issue. Maybe men have an equivalent sanitary problem with "down there," but I don't know.
-pH
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Well, they're not supposed to, but....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: You are not aware there were snipers specifically targeting women inside the wire doing support activities? You do not know that we tasked some of our best snipers to hunt them so the women freaking out on post and refusing to do guard duty on the fence could go back to work? Hmmmm
We already have women 'not as front line troops' so you are advocating the status quo? Daring...
I can get by without underwear or with one pair for a month, I am not sure what women you hang with but I have never met one that could say the same, I guess we could put tampons in the MRE's... (I got peanut butter!... I got Jalapeño Cheese!... I got Skittles... Oh I got wings!)
I think the incidents you are talking about where prosecuted as crimes, they were aberrations. Raping women prisoners is not the exception, it is the rule for our enemies. Just one more way we are different.
Until you can prove you know how to read, and that you are able to debate against MY ACTUAL ARGUMENTS honestly, I'm done talking to you, in this thread anyway.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Women on the Depo Provo shot can go for three months without their period. Women on some of the new pills can go for as long as they're taking them. Menstrating does not have to be an issue. I would imagine the shot would be preferably in this situation, as you wouldn't have to carry around and remember to take pills, but still, a six month's supply would take up about the same space as a CD case.
Please note that I'm not saying that women should be drafted. I don't think they should be, for the age old reason that a man's essential contribution to reproduction takes 15 minutes and a woman's 9 months plus. If we are in a situation where we need a draft, exposing the generation of women of childbearing age to the mortality rate that will be likely to necessate a draft is unwise. I'm merely pointing out that some of General Sax's reasons are particularly asinine.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
ElJay, that brings up the previous issue of some women being opposed to birth control. Plus the possibly severe side effects of depo (or any hormonal birth control, for that matter).
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
And like I said, pH, I'm not supporting women being drafted. I would assume that women volunteering to serve in conditions that might mean they wouldn't have access to normal shower facilities for long stretches of time would be prepared to deal with it, one way or the other.
Also, most women who are morally opposed to birth control are opposed to it for religious reasons, which usually tie in with being opposed to pre-marital sex. Those people usually are not opposed to taking hormonal birth control for other reasons, as long as they're not having sex. (As even a married woman probably wouldn't be on deployment.) So I would imagine that such a woman could discuss it with her religious advisor, and would probably decide that surpressing her period to allow her to better serve in her post would not be against her ethics.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I know you're not saying women should be drafted. I'm just saying birth control isn't necessarily a good idea. And even if it's not a religious thing, it could be a medical thing. However, I also don't think Sax knows as much about the female anatomy as he thinks he does, so I don't think any of his objections would relaly take these things into account.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Women on the Depo Provo shot can go for three months without their period. Women on some of the new pills can go for as long as they're taking them. Menstrating does not have to be an issue. I would imagine the shot would be preferably in this situation, as you wouldn't have to carry around and remember to take pills, but still, a six month's supply would take up about the same space as a CD case.
Please note that I'm not saying that women should be drafted. I don't think they should be, for the age old reason that a man's essential contribution to reproduction takes 15 minutes and a woman's 9 months plus. If we are in a situation where we need a draft, exposing the generation of women of childbearing age to the mortality rate that will be likely to necessate a draft is unwise. I'm merely pointing out that some of General Sax's reasons are particularly asinine.
For the sake of curiousity.
The male to female ratio in America is pretty much 1:1.
If we were to draft say 2 million boys, and send them over to Iraq, in front line combat positions and say 500,000 died, that puts women a half million over the equality mark. That's a half million sources of '15 male contribution' that no longer exist, and in American culture, where monogamy is treasured, on the whole, that means a half million women who don't get husbands.
If we drafted 1.9 million men, and a hundred thousand women, I really don't think the future of a 300 million person strong nation is really hanging in the balance, especially when the majority of that hundred thousand would most likely be in hospitals, logistical support, or administrative. The number of women drafted would be drastically less than men, for the same reason that women weren't drafted at all during Vietnam, Korea, or the World Wars: Because the majority of the spots that needed to be filled were front line combat positions, which women still aren't eligible for.
People who argue that women as breeding stock are infinitely valuable to a nation are right, in a cold hard analysis. But that argument held a LOT more sway 200 years ago, when national populations numbered in the hundreds of thousands, or under ten million. It's a harder argument to make stick in a nation of a 150 million women.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
pH, the number of women who have medical issues with taking birth control for a few years are way, way smaller than the number who don't. So again, I'm not saying it should be required. I'm just saying that there are options there for making deployment a whole lot easier and more pleasant short of putting tampons in MREs.
Lyrhawn, I didn't realize you were advocating drafting significantly less women then men, you didn't mention that part anywhere. Your "equality" speeches made me think you were talking about making it, you know, equal.
If you're talking about dropping gender requirements for drafting to support positions, are you also going to drop age and other physical requirements? If we're talking about hospital and office workers instead of grunts, why wouldn't we draft able-bodied people of both genders into their 40s or 50s? Might get more experienced people that way who'd be more valuable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry Eljay, I probably didn't articulate my argument the way I should have.
I'm not talking about quotas, or setting a limit on the number of women that can be drafted, I'm saying that the number of women drafted will be AUTOMATICALLY less, based on the reduced number of positions. Congress considered drafting women in the second world war, but it never really became necessary, besides, they were performing vital roles at home. Congress didn't really consider drafting women for Vietnam, because the main shortage was for troops in the jungles fighting up close, which women were, are, and probably ought to be barred from doing. There are thousands of positions that could be filled in today's armed forces, but there are many, many more than men only are currently allowed to fill, meaning that no matter what, there will always be less women than men serving.
15% of the current active duty army (as of 2004) (non-reserve troops) are women. If the size of our armed forces were doubled, again that's our active duty troops, which is what, roughly 1.5 million men and women? If that doubled, and the percentage of women remained the same, or even bumped up to 25%, that's 375,000 women. Of the appx 150 million women in America (though sure, some of them are over what we'd consider child bearing age, but then by Eljay's own question, some roles could be filled by older people, but that presents other problems), that represents 0.25% of America's women. Even assuming ALL of them die, which is a ridiculous assumption, that still isn't going to effect our nation's reproductive rates in any real, damaging, long lasting way.
Eljay, on your other points, it'd be something to look into, but I think it'd fall into a last resort. Women in their late teens or early twenties are going to be able to do a lot more, even in support positions, than a 50 year old women would. Besides, you have to weigh the role these people play in society vs. the role of young people. Taking an 18-25 year old isn't going to noticeably hurt much of anything, they aren't VITAL to the economy like many of the older workers in the nation are. You have to be able to keep up the homefront while producing new soldiers, which I think is the main reason you usually see them taking the young before the old anyway. The old are raising families, they are working, they are keeping America at the status quo. Younger Americans have yet to impact the nation, it's easier to pluck them out. You'd almost have to automatically exempt those raising families or working in vital roles. I think they'd be considered, but for any war we have to fight these days, I don't think we'd ever get to the point where we'd really need to, short of world domination.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Everything you people are saying against the army and this commercial is such utter nonsense. What is the army supposed to say in their commercials, "Come join the army, the second strongest military force in the world?" No, this is the U.S. army advertising for people to join its ranks. Someone said something about the armies recruitment policies and targeting the young. What are they supposed to do? Target the middle aged? Young people are the most physically tough and able to recover from injury of course they are going to target the young. How this offends people is beyond me and to compare it to cigarette advertising is ludicrous. To say that it is insulting that the Army declares itself the toughest and strongest is a ridiculous statement.
Someone said, " I object to the commercial, and the way the US Government seems to believe that might makes right"
No the commercial does not say this. It is saying that the Army is the strongest and can overcome the problems it faces and you can help. There is so much animosity towards the military in this thread it is disgusting. A person should have pride for his or her country and that is not something to be ashamed of as many seem to think.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Promethius: A person should have pride for his or her country
Why?
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Because of the ideals it stands for. Because of what it has done in the past to help others. Because of the freedoms it promotes. Does this really need an explanation?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Women have served in most aviation posts since the early 90's. Statistical rates of operational losses due to pregnancy are very low. In other words, more than 10% of the military is made up of women in non-frontline, but still many combat and support roles, and to this point, pregnancy has not be a significant factor in reducing military readiness.
Women have been serving in support roles in the military for much longer than the early 90s.
If you're saying that at 'aviation posts' statistical losses due to pregnancy are low, that's a possibility. I'm not sure that it would translate to the rest of the military. When I was rotating into Germany, and they gave everyone 'the talk', the rate that I remember is 30% of women will get pregnant in the first...year, and seemed to be borne out subsequently. That doesn't seem insignificant to me.
It would be nice to get some stats. I'm not sure why you don't share them, rather than just reference them. Last time I looked for it, when we had this conversation a few years a go, I couldn't turn up anything.
In any case, it doesn't refute the rest of my post.
quote:
If a soldier REALLY wants to have sex, he's going to have it if women are there are not. Whether with his fellow male soldiers,
Man, what! Kind of reaching, aren't we? Maybe a few, but as a general rule, I doubt it.
quote: or with the local nightlife, if there is any.
In a lot of instances, you don't have access to 'local nightlife', ie Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Even when there is access in friendlier countries, there is a language and cultural barrier to overcome that makes things difficult. There's also the fact that in a lot of countries where GIs are based, GIs are viewed with...ambivalence. There's also the fact that the people you work with are right there, looking good, and ready to go. Why look off-base? Also a problem with American women dating non-Americans. Not sure why, but very, very, very few women did that that I saw. Like, maybe one.
quote:
As I said before, I don't think women should serve on the front lines, but the numbers I think back me up on women in support roles, and in aviation.
I gather you've done some research on pregnancy. Lay it out there.
In any case, as I said before, doesn't negate the rest of what I said.
quote: If they aren't going to be able to cut it, then don't put them there, otherwise cutting out a potential resource doesn't make sense to me. The only way there will be a rash of pregnancies is if women were to purposely impregnate themselves for the purpose of escaping duty.
*pat pat* Yes, that's right, Lyrhawn.
quote: What was the procedure for men who wanted to escape military service in Vietnam by claiming to be gay?
Er...I...don't know. Point being?
quote: Two other things:
1. Blacks weren't integrated into the military for the longest time, and we all know why. They said it would disrupt unit cohesion. And it did. But they got over it. I don't think the military should be an instrument of social change, but then, allowing women to serve, and even allowing gays to serve, isn't social engineering, it's allowing something that should've been allowed a long time ago to finally happen.
If you're just going to ignore what I write and make false analogies, hey, be my guest. I've layed out, specifically, the problems with women in the military.
quote: Edit to add: Storm, just wanted to clarify that I recognize you probably have more knowledge on the military in general than I do, at the very least, you certainly do when it comes to knowing what being in the military is ACTUALLY like.
Even if you don't know what the military is like, do you not know what young people are like, being a young person yourself? Your posts have this flavor of unreality to them that is just...weird to me.
quote: I don't claim to know more. If it turns out that mixing up the sexes just doesn't work, then I'll look at the numbers and if they bear that out, I'll change my position, that's how I work. The main thrust of my arguments thus far have been, that just because a woman is biologically able to become pregnant, that isn't enough to exclude them from mandatory service. But many of the numbers I've looked at show that women perform their duties fairly well, and when with you exempt pregnancy leave, actually have better attendence (for lack of a better word) records than the men do.
A lot of the stuff I'm telling you isn't going to be in numbers. Sorry. Again, pregnancy is just one of hte issues.
quote: To whoever else said it, I realize that captured women are subject to sexual abuse. But if you've ever seen a story about Abu Ghraib, I'd say it's pretty easy to prove that men aren't exactly exempt from that.
Your logic is bizarre. While it is certainly true that men might be sexually abused in some fashion for fun, the fact that in a pow situation, the captors are going to almost certainly be men, and probably attracted to women and not men, makes the odds of rape of women much higher. You are reaching.
Oh,
quote: Again, you're speaking as if I were advocating women as basic infantry, I'm not.
As Sax mentioned, and Iraq proves, the only way women won't see combat is if they are kept stateside.
.....................................
One of the things that really has underlined that men and women are different creatures and don't mesh well is this forum. All the things I'm saying I made to some degree several years a go when I first had this conversation. Nothing has changed except that, as I've gotten to really know women on this forum, it's become more and more clear that men and women really don't understand each other and have fundamental differing viewpoints on reality.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:
If a soldier REALLY wants to have sex, he's going to have it if women are there are not. Whether with his fellow male soldiers,
quote:Man, what! Kind of reaching, aren't we? Maybe a few, but as a general rule, I doubt it.
Hey the Romans and the Greeks did it, why not? I doubt it too. That wasn't the gist of my point, you'll see.
quote: or with the local nightlife, if there is any.
quote:In a lot of instances, you don't have access to 'local nightlife', ie Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Even when there is access in friendlier countries, there is a language and cultural barrier to overcome that makes things difficult. There's also the fact that in a lot of countries where GIs are based, GIs are viewed with...ambivalence. There's also the fact that the people you work with are right there, looking good, and ready to go. Why look off-base? Also a problem with American women dating non-Americans. Not sure why, but very, very, very few women did that that I saw. Like, maybe one.
Alrighty then. So, men don't have sex with each other. Men don't have sex with the locals. If there are no American women, the men will abstain. If there ARE American women, the men will take advantage of them as a sexual resource. Making rules to ban sex between personnel apparently doesn't work, because sex drives overrule punishment. That much I can agree with. Do what we did during WW2. Commanders said don't have sex with the locals. But if you DO have sex with the locals, don't be a fool, wrap your tool.
quote: There were 350,000 American women who served during World War Two and 16 were killed in action², they gained in total over 1500 medals, citations and commendations.
quote:During the Korean War of 1950-1953 many women served in the Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals, with women serving in Korea numbering 120’000 during the conflict.
quote: The 1991 Gulf War proved to be the pivotal time for the role of women in the American Armed forces to come to the attention of the world media. A senior woman pilot at the time, Colonel Kelly Hamilton, commented that ‘The conflict was an awakening for the people in the US. They suddenly realised there were a lot of women in the military.’ Over 40’000 women served in almost every role the armed forces have to offer, however while many came under fire, they were not permitted to participate in deliberate ground engagements. Despite this, there are many reports of women engaging enemy forces during the conflict
My point? It's been done before, and it worked. Unless your contention is that sexual escapades are more rampant today than they were then (meh, possibly, but I'd call the decrease in stringent morality negligible for the sake of the argument), I'd like to see numbers to back it up .
quote: If they aren't going to be able to cut it, then don't put them there, otherwise cutting out a potential resource doesn't make sense to me. The only way there will be a rash of pregnancies is if women were to purposely impregnate themselves for the purpose of escaping duty.
*pat pat* Yes, that's right, Lyrhawn.
Not entirely sure what you're being sarcastic about there, could be a number of things. So I'll take the most obvious route and assume you're mocking my assumption. That's just mean
quote: What was the procedure for men who wanted to escape military service in Vietnam by claiming to be gay?
Er...I...don't know. Point being?
Hm, not quite sure what my point was. Might have been idle curousity. Might have been wondering what the punishment was for men who lied to get out of the military. In otherwords, what disincentives are there to control behavior of drafted military personnel?
quote: Two other things:
1. Blacks weren't integrated into the military for the longest time, and we all know why. They said it would disrupt unit cohesion. And it did. But they got over it. I don't think the military should be an instrument of social change, but then, allowing women to serve, and even allowing gays to serve, isn't social engineering, it's allowing something that should've been allowed a long time ago to finally happen.
If you're just going to ignore what I write and make false analogies, hey, be my guest. I've layed out, specifically, the problems with women in the military.
quote: Romantic relationships and pregnancies also concern many experts. The argument is that romance may undermine espirit de corps and that pregnancies will hurt readiness. Although pregnancy is a major concern of many, statistics show it has little bearing on military readiness. In fact, women on the average spend a mere one fewer hour per month at work than their male counterparts. When one excludes pregnancy leave, women have a lower rate of lost time at work than their male counterparts (Minerva Spring 1994).
quote: Wow! I remember why I joined the AF now. I didn't join the Army because my husband was AD Army and I thought they treated their people as though they needed a babysitter all the time. I didn't join the navy. I never received any adverse treatment while I was pregnant. I worked 12 hour rotating shifts until I was 36 weeks pregnant with my first child. I would have stayed with my crew for 12 hour shifts with my second child if not for my squadron commander ordering me to leave crew when I had worked eight hours. I intentionally scheduled my appointments for when I was on crew rest and I never asked for special treatment. I had a commitment to my crew and to my country. I went remote and left my kids when they were 4 and 2 and went through a divorce at the same time. I didn't like it and I didn't want to go, but Leavenworth wouldn't have looked good on a resume.
Now, for all you navy guys who "never wanted women on ships anyway," keep your pants zipped or use a condom. Do your part to control the baby population or keep your mouth shut and suck it up when you have to "do more with less."
quote:Although only women face the issue of pregnancy, male soldiers have higher rates of substance abuse and disciplinary problems and thus men as a class are actually less reliable than women in terms of their combat readiness. Again, I admit that my data is limited but I think it is useful to recognize that we can't just leap to the conclusion that combat readiness is more of a problem for women than for men.
Granted that last article was referring only to the Navy. My point, is that it's been done successfully for the last 50 years, and I've found several, and referenced few here, examples of women and men working side by side together, and that pregnancy is not necessarily an overarching problem that should preclude women from serving. I never thought to ask, but do you think ALL the women currently in the service should be removed?
quote: Edit to add: Storm, just wanted to clarify that I recognize you probably have more knowledge on the military in general than I do, at the very least, you certainly do when it comes to knowing what being in the military is ACTUALLY like.
Even if you don't know what the military is like, do you not know what young people are like, being a young person yourself? Your posts have this flavor of unreality to them that is just...weird to me.
This must be what Pelegius feels like, except it's more my reasoning than my posting style being attacked. Yeah I know what I'm like. I know what the desires of a 18-22 year old guy are. But that doesn't mean I'm stupid, or that I can't control myself. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that young guys somehow literally cannot control themselves. Sure there are insane pressures on them, but they are still responsible for their own actions. I accept that young guys will make mistakes, but I don't accept that there's an inherent lack of responsibility, especially in a MILITARY organization, automatically attached to them.
quote: I don't claim to know more. If it turns out that mixing up the sexes just doesn't work, then I'll look at the numbers and if they bear that out, I'll change my position, that's how I work. The main thrust of my arguments thus far have been, that just because a woman is biologically able to become pregnant, that isn't enough to exclude them from mandatory service. But many of the numbers I've looked at show that women perform their duties fairly well, and when with you exempt pregnancy leave, actually have better attendence (for lack of a better word) records than the men do.
A lot of the stuff I'm telling you isn't going to be in numbers. Sorry. Again, pregnancy is just one of hte issues.
Let's seem them then. The other numbers. I'm not being combative, I know you can't tell from just reading it so I'm telling you. I honestly want to see the opposing numbers so I can judge for myself.
quote: To whoever else said it, I realize that captured women are subject to sexual abuse. But if you've ever seen a story about Abu Ghraib, I'd say it's pretty easy to prove that men aren't exactly exempt from that.
Your logic is bizarre. While it is certainly true that men might be sexually abused in some fashion for fun, the fact that in a pow situation, the captors are going to almost certainly be men, and probably attracted to women and not men, makes the odds of rape of women much higher. You are reaching.
Sorry, I should've been more clear. I wasn't referring to men being sexually abuse via forced oral sex or penetration, those being the only two methods of sex I can think that'd be forced on a man. I was thinking more along the lines of torture involving genitalia. Or hell, why be specific, torture IN GENERAL. I'm fairly sure it isn't your argument that it's okay if men are tortured of if jumper cables are latched onto their testicles and the switch is thrown we're okay with that, but if women are raped, that's just unacceptable. I know we live in a society that treasures the safety and well being of females above males, but arguing that women may be violated, and saying that's not okay, but it's certainly okay for the guy that takes her place to be violated....that seems bizarre to me. I don't want the women in that position, I don't want the MAN in that position either. You can reduce the liklihood that she'll be there, but you can't eliminate it. But let's not forget that the underpinning discussion here is about the military, and war. You have to expect that a ruthless enemy is going to do something like that in a combat situation.
Oh,
quote: Again, you're speaking as if I were advocating women as basic infantry, I'm not.
As Sax mentioned, and Iraq proves, the only way women won't see combat is if they are kept stateside.
As I've said before, women dying in combat isn't sufficient as a reason to keep them out of the military. At least, not by my argument. I said before that women shouldn't perform roles that they can't perform as well as men, that's what I was referencing when I said they shouldn't perform basic infantry roles, not that they might die.
quote: Women have served in most aviation posts since the early 90's. Statistical rates of operational losses due to pregnancy are very low. In other words, more than 10% of the military is made up of women in non-frontline, but still many combat and support roles, and to this point, pregnancy has not be a significant factor in reducing military readiness.
Women have been serving in support roles in the military for much longer than the early 90s.
If you're saying that at 'aviation posts' statistical losses due to pregnancy are low, that's a possibility. I'm not sure that it would translate to the rest of the military. When I was rotating into Germany, and they gave everyone 'the talk', the rate that I remember is 30% of women will get pregnant in the first...year, and seemed to be borne out subsequently. That doesn't seem insignificant to me.
It would be nice to get some stats. I'm not sure why you don't share them, rather than just reference them. Last time I looked for it, when we had this conversation a few years a go, I couldn't turn up anything.
In any case, it doesn't refute the rest of my post.
If you don't take the quotes I referenced at face value, many of them cite sources in the larger articles. And again, I really would benefit from seeing numbers from the other side, something concrete than anecdotal evidence, as apparently these numbers WIDELY vary depending on which branch of the service you're in, and where you're deployed to.
There's probably a lack of coherence to some of this, as it took me forever to get the quote boxes to somewhere near what I wanted (and yet still so far...), and I haven't been to bed yet from yesterday, so feel free to pick it apart and I'll get back to you later on whatever I might have miscommunicated.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: My point? It's been done before, and it worked. Unless your contention is that sexual escapades are more rampant today than they were then (meh, possibly, but I'd call the decrease in stringent morality negligible for the sake of the argument), I'd like to see numbers to back it up [Smile]
Your post doesn't speak to any lack of sexual escapades. It doesn't say that women in the military, comparatively to all male units, don't cause more problems. It just says that a lot of women have served in the military, which I don't dispute.
I'm also pretty sure that the vast majority of women in WW II worked stateside, and FWIW, women were not actually 'in' the military until 1948.
quote: Not entirely sure what you're being sarcastic about there, could be a number of things. So I'll take the most obvious route and assume you're mocking my assumption. That's just mean
I think your previous post assumes a level of control and discipline amongst young people that is idealistic for people in the military. Sorry for being snarky in previous post, but a lot of your stuff seemed to me to be 'kitchen sink' kind of stuff that you were just throwing out there just to make an argument.
Mostly against, with pointers to sources that are completely against. Gives a rate of pregnancy of almost 10%, but this is low range, as other articles below point out.
Yes, I concede that there are many out there that are 'for'. I'm not claiming that my belief is clear cut.
quote: My point, is that it's been done successfully for the last 50 years
It's been done. I and others believe it's not being done as well as well as it would be with an all male military.
Also, I'm not basing what I'm saying off of numbers. I'm basing what I'm saying off of experience. Thus,
quote: A lot of the stuff I'm telling you isn't going to be in numbers. Sorry. Again, pregnancy is just one of hte issues.
Let's seem them then.
I don't have numbers for my experience. However, I do emphatically grant you that there is stuff out there that contradicts what my experiences are. I accept this, but given that other people come to the same conclusions I did, it doesn't make me think I'm crazy.
In any case, I've provided some links.
quote: This must be what Pelegius feels like, except it's more my reasoning than my posting style being attacked. Yeah I know what I'm like. I know what the desires of a 18-22 year old guy are. But that doesn't mean I'm stupid, or that I can't control myself. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that young guys somehow literally cannot control themselves. Sure there are insane pressures on them, but they are still responsible for their own actions. I accept that young guys will make mistakes, but I don't accept that there's an inherent lack of responsibility, especially in a MILITARY organization, automatically attached to them.
It's fascinating that everyone focuses on guys.
Read what I wrote, Lyrhawn. What you are talking about in the military in a lot of instances is men and women cohabitating together for long periods of time. If you think most single young men and women can live together for extended periods of time and not notice each other as sexual creatures and, further, not have sex, then why? What leads you to believe this? To me it seems to fly in the face of human nature, never mind my experience.
quote: Sorry, I should've been more clear. I wasn't referring to men being sexually abuse via forced oral sex or penetration, those being the only two methods of sex I can think that'd be forced on a man. I was thinking more along the lines of torture involving genitalia. Or hell, why be specific, torture IN GENERAL. I'm fairly sure it isn't your argument that it's okay if men are tortured of if jumper cables are latched onto their testicles and the switch is thrown we're okay with that, but if women are raped, that's just unacceptable. I know we live in a society that treasures the safety and well being of females above males, but arguing that women may be violated, and saying that's not okay, but it's certainly okay for the guy that takes her place to be violated....that seems bizarre to me. I don't want the women in that position, I don't want the MAN in that position either. You can reduce the liklihood that she'll be there, but you can't eliminate it. But let's not forget that the underpinning discussion here is about the military, and war. You have to expect that a ruthless enemy is going to do something like that in a combat situation.
You make a good point, however I still contend that the sexual desire of women by their captors is going to make their captivity worse than it would be comparatively for men.
Also,the point that you bring up is not trivial from a public policy perspective. If even a vaguely significant number of women were ever captured and raped, you can expect public support for women to be put anywhere near harm's way to drop to zero.
quote: As I've said before, women dying in combat isn't sufficient as a reason to keep them out of the military. At least, not by my argument. I said before that women shouldn't perform roles that they can't perform as well as men, that's what I was referencing when I said they shouldn't perform basic infantry roles, not that they might die.
Actually, my point for mentioning that isn't that they could die, but that they would need to perform a role of infantry which, clearly, they aren't as physically (and I would argue mentally, but we won't go there as that will just muddy the waters) suited for as men. Sorry for being unclear.
To answer your question, in general I think women shouldn't be in the military, but I'm open to stateside, all-female units as an alternative to mixed service.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hey I'm open to compromise.
On your first link, it talks about the number of women in the Navy that are held back from deployment due to pregnancy. One of my links above references that page, and says that men, due to administrative separation and drug abuse problems, actually have higher numbers of being held back from deployment than women.
The numbers in your second link suggests a large majority of pregnancies could be eliminated by the use of contraceptives. What about a crackdown? Since we're talking about the age group, female teen pregnancies are at their lowest rate in twenty or thirty years, because of easy access to, and cultural acceptance of, contraceptives for women, and increased pressure on women to make sure their men use contraceptives (and on men to actually BE men and provide them). If the goal is to reduce pregnancy, more than to reduce acts of sex, then let's target it. That seems to be the position of your third work cited.
Your fourth source I've already said a half dozen times that I agree with. Women shouldn't do jobs or be put in positions where they might need to have the physical attributes of men.
The fifth reads as more of an editorial, which is fine.
quote:It's fascinating that everyone focuses on guys.
Read what I wrote, Lyrhawn. What you are talking about in the military in a lot of instances is men and women cohabitating together for long periods of time. If you think most single young men and women can live together for extended periods of time and not notice each other as sexual creatures and, further, not have sex, then why? What leads you to believe this? To me it seems to fly in the face of human nature, never mind my experience.
Alright. I give. Young folk are going to have sex regardless of what we tell them. Your numbers bear out that the grand majority (varies depending on age range and time in the service) of pregnancies are unintended. Push contraceptives. Half of those unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Push contraceptives.
Furthermore, I know a few dozen guys and girls who live with members of the opposite sex on a daily basis, they're called college students. The majority of my friends don't sleep around. And the ones that do, use contraceptives. Of the maybe fifty or sixty friends that I have away at school right now, only one has become pregnant, or gotten someone else pregnant, and that was because they failed to use contraceptives. My argument of personal responsibility, and an expectation of responsibility in men AND women I still think is valid.
quote:You make a good point, however I still contend that the sexual desire of women by their captors is going to make their captivity worse than it would be comparatively for men.
Also,the point that you bring up is not trivial from a public policy perspective. If even a vaguely significant number of women were ever captured and raped, you can expect public support for women to be put anywhere near harm's way to drop to zero.
Probably. But like I said, I'm up for compromise. I don't think women need to be strictly stateside, but I think there's a big middle ground in there where we could maybe come to an agreement.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, I think we've pretty much exhausted the dialogue here, eh? I know I've pretty much said what I have to say. It's probably one of those agree to disagree things.
The bottom line is really that the social impetus is such that women are by and large here to stay in the military. Nothing is really going to stop the forward tide of progress.
Perhaps I've been too harsh. Perhaps women in the military will be the shock troops for the sexes more objectively seeing each other. Maybe if men and women work together closely as a team for months and years at a time, they'll be able to transmit new socially adaptive ways of dealing with each other. It's possible, I suppose.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We'll get together again in a decade to see how it's going .
If I had to settle for the absolute minimum, women in the draft for stateside only positions, I'd take it. That's likley still going to be thousands of positions that need to be filled.
There's a lot of details to be looked at. In the end, I don't think that total integration or total exclusion are the best answer.
We managed to keep a healthy dialogue civil though, that's a success right there.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Or is it? You're both men after all Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I knew a couple where the guy was in the Navy and his wife was dead-set against women filling positions on-board ships. Basically, her thinking was that the guys would have sex with the women and a bunch of happy homes would be broken up.
Seemed like a sad commentary on several things.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I saw that ad yesterday It does not make me want to join the Army, nor does it give me chills. I do not want to join the Army. They would take one look at me at not let me in anyway. Plus I despise authority.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)