posted
Kwea, you got that right about the idiots and @$$holes in the military. Also, I should clarify what I meant by better educated. About 88% of civilians 18-44 have high school diplomas or the equivilent, compared to about 99% of all soldiers. And of military officers a whopping 97% have a four year degree, compared to about 55% of civilians 18-44 who have at least some college experience. Also, of all those who try to join the military, I think it's something like 30% who get in.
One more thing: just because you never served in the military doesn't mean your feelings about issues that concern soldiers are invalid. The same argument holds for people who think that only a black person can honestly criticize racism. Or that Cindy Sheehan gets a free pass to say whatever she wants becasue she lost a son in combat. No one has a monopoly on understanding.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know that Democrats are more likely to reduce funding to the Armed Services, and that could put them at risk, so Republicans have a built-in advantage in that regard. Countering them is the Republican's tendency to cause soldiers to NEED that equipment, so it probably balances out.
See this is one of the things that I don't think is really fair (not like that matters, heh) about funding. Republicans of late overfund everything, then Democrats call for either spending cuts or taxes, and get hit either way. Republicans double the funding of the military since Bush took office, so now if the Democrats cut ANY military spending, they look weak on defense. But if they try and raise taxes to actually PAY for those increases, they get jumped on for that.
Why is responsibility a BAD thing in government now?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the reason a lot of people go into the Armed Forces is the GI Bill, it makes sense. What it doesn't tell you is their GPA's, course of studies, or how many of them were bullies BEFORE the Armed Forces armed them. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or that Cindy Sheehan gets a free pass to say whatever she wants becasue she lost a son in combat.
See, I think that losing a son gets you a free pass to say whatever she wants, but as to the rest of your post, you are right. ONe more thing, this:
quote:And of military officers a whopping 97% have a four year degree.
Doesn't mean much unless you talk about what percentage of the military are officers.
Well, she can say whatever she wants, but there are people who believe that because she lost a son, no one is allowed to criticize what she says(David Letterman, for instance.) She shouldn't get a free pass to say absolutely treasonous things either, which she has (like calling the terrorists who have killed soldiers --like her son-- "freedom fighters")
And I think the percentage of officers who make up the military is around 15%. But the reason it is significant is that they are the ones who are making the decisions. Also, the ones near the top usually have at least on advanced degree, and many officers went to much tougher schools than your average college kid (like West Point).
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: As someone who was in the military, I can say that the large majority of the military (with the possible exception of the Air Force) support Republicans, mainly because they are conservatives. The pay is not being cut, it is being raised every year, surpassing the rate of inflation. The benefits are very good and the VA is excellent. Now I will be inflammatory because I am in the mood (deal with it)
Recent statistics about the intelligence level of the military have been released as a result of that idiot John Kerry ("I meant to say 'or you will end up getting *us* stuck in Iraq. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?!?!!!?!? {this is true}). Anyways, it seems that the education level of the average soldier is well above that of the average civilian, and the education level of the average officer is FAR above that of the average civilian (within the same age ranges for both). Entonces, military personel are more likely to be republican because they are...
...smarter.
HAHA!
Uhhhh. When did the Air Force become the liberal service?
The statistics involving the education of officers and enlisted is misleading. I believe at least 95% of applicants to the officer corps must have BAs to be eligable, and the only reason military members have more high school diplomas, on the average, is because the military was only accepting high school grads until recently. So if you take the average education of someone in the military, officers and enlisted as a group, you probably come out a little below average. That's not taking into account once you get to a certain rank you don't get "stuck" anywhere you don't want to be. Those are the really educated guys.
My recruiter discussed with me at one point his willingness to talk to some of my teachers if it looked like I wasn't going to pass. I didn't take him up on it, but I imagine I wasn't the only person a recruiter has ever made that offer to.
The dumbest people I've ever met have been in the military, and I spent four years at a public high school in NJ. That's saying something.
posted
You can also put me in the camp as having met some of the stupidest people on the planet in the military. I look at it, at least when talking about enlisted, as kind of a combination prison/fraternity.
Keep in mind, though, that I was peacetime non-combat arms. Combat arms is kind of the 'real' military where people go who actually want to be in the military for the military. Everything else, with a couple exceptions, is for people who need money for college, or can't hack it in the real world. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The statistics involving the education of officers and enlisted is misleading. I believe at least 95% of applicants to the officer corps must have BAs to be eligable, and the only reason military members have more high school diplomas, on the average, is because the military was only accepting high school grads until recently.
Totally true, by the way, but I think it's more like the vast majority of officers in the military are either rotc or academy of some kind, which means by definition they have degrees, versus OCS.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those statistics are not misleading. It is because there are educational requirements for entrance in the mililtary that the percentages are higher. And I have met some pretty dumb people in the military, to be sure. But now that I am out it seems more likely that any given person I meet is a total moron. (There is probably a correlation there with the increased likelyhood that anyone I meet is a raging liberal. HAHA!)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those statistics are not misleading. It is because there are educational requirements for entrance in the mililtary that the percentages are higher.
And I have met some pretty dumb people in the military, to be sure. But now that I am out it seems more likely that any given person I meet is a total moron. (There is probably a correlation there with the increased likelihood that anyone I meet is a raging liberal. HAHA!)
And I don't know that there are more liberals in the Air Force. I just think that of all the branches, the one most likely to be more liberal is the one with the most p***ies.
quote: Those statistics are not misleading. It is because there are educational requirements for entrance in the mililtary that the percentages are higher.
And I have met some pretty dumb people in the military, to be sure. But now that I am out it seems more likely that any given person I meet is a total moron. (There is probably a correlation there with the increased likelihood that anyone I meet is a raging liberal. HAHA!)
And I don't know that there are more liberals in the Air Force. I just think that of all the branches, the one most likely to be more liberal is the one with the most pussies.
Resh,
Just a friendly suggestion and you're welcome to take or leave it. You might want to post in not such an 'in your face' manner. The over the top insults are just kind of petty. I'm not liberal, but it really doesn't do anything positive when you call them names.
Edit: Well, you might call me liberal since I'm probably more liberal than you. Most people that self-identify as liberals though would probably call me moderate to moderately conservative.
posted
I think there are a number of minimum requirements to be in the military (age, athletic ability, HS diploma, passing a drug test, presumed heterosexuality and ASFAB minimum) there are far fewer to be able to vote.
So that the fact that an attempt to thin out the really big pieces results in a larger number of conservatives and Bush supporters is interesting. I know that anecdotal evidence would have us believe that there is just as much liberal support in the military (I know this guy, my friends all say, I personally am a vet and a democrat... ad nauseum) but the real numbers are 3-1 in favor of the current administration, numbers do not lie. So the question is a valid one, why do these people, arguably the best of us in America throw in with this administration?
Could it be that they just do not get enough liberal news over there? Don't they know we are losing and cannot win...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I don't know that there are more liberals in the Air Force. I just think that of all the branches, the one most likely to be more liberal is the one with the most pussies.
Ladies, ladies, I found a real gentleman for you.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So the question is a valid one, why do these people, arguably the best of us in America throw in with this administration?"
I'm not sure how you can argue they are the best america can offer. They might, on average, have a higher education then the average american.
But if you want to say they are the BEST, you have to show how they are smarter then not the average american, but the best americans who DON'T go into the military.
And I can't think of a standard to measure by where that ends up being true.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A very wise man said that when a man takes it upon himself to place his body between those he loves and the horrors of war, he cannot have greater love. Taking responsibility for all of us is what a soldier does.
It is a shame that we do not require this level of committment to the body politic, a willingness to die to protect it, as a condition of franchise. This is what makes soldiers the best...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or that Cindy Sheehan gets a free pass to say whatever she wants becasue she lost a son in combat.
See, I think that losing a son gets her a free pass to say whatever she wants, but as to the rest of your post, you are right.
Now I'm not an American, but I had the impression that she has the right to say whatever she wants because she is a US citizen. Losing or not losing sons is not relevant to that.
quote:
quote:And of military officers a whopping 97% have a four year degree.
Doesn't mean much unless you talk about what percentage of the military are officers.
Yes it does, in that officers are the ones who make the decisions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"A very wise man said that when a man takes it upon himself to place his body between those he loves and the horrors of war, he cannot have greater love. Taking responsibility for all of us is what a soldier does.
It is a shame that we do not require this level of committment to the body politic, a willingness to die to protect it, as a condition of franchise. This is what makes soldiers the best..."
On the other hand, their JOB is to kill, not to die. And there's nothing worse then killing. So those kind of balance...
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A very wise man said that when a man takes it upon himself to place his body between those he loves and the horrors of war, he cannot have greater love. Taking responsibility for all of us is what a soldier does.
You are right. God bless those suicide bombers. Their courage and sacrifice is an inspiration to us all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And of military officers a whopping 97% have a four year degree. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't mean much unless you talk about what percentage of the military are officers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does, in that officers are the ones who make the decisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure how appropriate that line of thinking is. I'd liked to know the person firing the gun can be trusted to think for him/herself.
posted
General Sax: Minimum age 18 (17 with parent's permission. yes it happens). Be able to have athletic ability (basic training will get you in shape). HS diploma, or GED (Navy still does the diploma only). Of course, yes, you have to pass a drug test. ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) score....there is a minimum, and it changes by branch. Army is the lowest. Navy's lowest score to get in is 33 (I'm a category 2 at a 92. almost a category 1). Those ones don't usually get too far (33's that is). They can though.
As a vet, do you agree to just giving up? I don't like to think of myself as being on the losing team. No one really does. Besides, it is still a war able to be won.
I wouldn't call us the best of America, but we sure do come close, eh?
Paul: I have a standard I could say, but it may upset a few people. No use saying it in this kinder, gentler America we live in.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure how appropriate that line of thinking is. I liked to know the person firing the gun can be trusted to think for him/herself.
They can think for themselves. However, in a time of battle, you don't want them to. Too much going on. With all that is going on you need a central core of leadership. Someone to take the directive and run with it. There is a method to the madness here. I don't expect you to understand. This is not to say that I think you are stupid. I am just saying that you have no experience in it.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well this is sure a friendly thread. It makes me want to spend more time on Hatrack, what with all the mutual respect and all that. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I wouldn't call us the best of America, but we sure do come close, eh?"
From my experience, no... not really. The military people I've met are like most americans, but more violent.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
eh, true that, Icarus. I'm just wasting time right now. Waiting for a friend to call once she gets done grocery shopping. Glad you didn't post in this besides the two comments you made ?
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You are right. God bless those suicide bombers. Their courage and sacrifice is an inspiration to us all
I do not know many of you, is this person just generally ignored as a silly hysteric or is this comment supposed to be taken seriously?
I started to answer but there is so much, all so obvious I wonder if I really need to.
Sorry Stan, I got those extra points, however I am too absent minded to remember it is V not F, so do not miss them too much...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When did it become wrong to kill people? When did violence become wrong per-sae?
Murder is wrong, killing the correct people is a public responsibility, all creation involves destruction, the DVD destroyed vinyl. Violence of action with control and style is the most rewarded capability in our society, it is the essence of masculinity.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul: Try the inner cities. You will meet plenty of violent people. Especially at night. If you think the military is violent, those guys on the streets are brutal. I may like my old hometown of Detroit, but I don't want to live there again for a reason.
Oh I forgot to add this to my earlier post: General Sax: It is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. The sexuality of the member does not matter so long as they don't act upon it. It is not a requirement to be hetero to join. Because you know...heaven forbid that nonstraight americans fight to protect their country .
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: When did it become wrong to kill people? When did violence become wrong per-sae?
Murder is wrong, killing the correct people is a public responsibility, all creation involves destruction, the DVD destroyed vinyl. Violence of action with control and style is the most rewarded capability in our society, it is the essence of masculinity.
That is a disturbing premise, and it's part ofwhat's gotten us into the mess we're in in the first place on a historic level. Survival of the fittest among human beings really needs to die.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, I try Ic. Most times I'm just a prick. I'll admit to that. But most people don't mind the level of it that I stick to.
Syn: It would be great to end all war and to have peace on earth. then the population could really get out of control. Really though, I wouldn't mind an end to war. We could center our thinking on expanding the race to space and move out of this hole that we live on.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"When did it become wrong to kill people? When did violence become wrong per-sae?"
About 3200 years ago? Killing people doesn't work... we're trying that tactic in iraq, and there are now MORE people who want to kill us then there were 4 years ago.
"Paul: Try the inner cities. You will meet plenty of violent people. Especially at night. If you think the military is violent, those guys on the streets are brutal. I may like my old hometown of Detroit, but I don't want to live there again for a reason."
I LIVE in the inner city. Dorchester. Its one of the worst parts of boston. The gang bangers around here are violent, yup, but just about on the level of the several hundred military people I know, too... and the thing is, the gangbangers are a small minority of the inner city population, while military people are 100% of people in the military.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Murder is wrong, killing the correct people is a public responsibility, all creation involves destruction, the DVD destroyed vinyl. Violence of action with control and style is the most rewarded capability in our society, it is the essence of masculinity.
Or would you like door number two, ladies.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I LIVE in the inner city.
Ok, wasn't aware of that. Now I am. Thank You. Nothing more to say. I will leave my comment, but give you the win on it.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami: Thing is, that GS made some good points (imo) in this topic. Now, yes, I may not agree with the Masculinity killing comment, but your comment on it was pot and kettlish.
quote:The gang bangers around here are violent, yup, but just about on the level of the several hundred military people I know, too... and the thing is, the gangbangers are a small minority of the inner city population, while military people are 100% of people in the military.
Granted, I only know the gangbangers I've been present for the arrest of or seen being prosecuted in court, but those have generally been much more violent than the hundreds or thousands of military men I've met.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Killing people doesn't work... we're trying that tactic in Iraq, and there are now MORE people who want to kill us then there were 4 years ago
I think that you are like the uninitiated sitting down to watch a football game and seeing only random violence.
It is silly to say that we are trying to 'kill people' in Iraq, I assure you from experience that most of our effort in Iraq is spent in trying to not kill people or hurt people, or let them hurt or kill each other. Our ROE list grows every season. If we wanted to kill lots of people we could leave scorched earth for a city block around every attack against our troops with far less effort then we put into carefully separating the very bad from the just normally bad and the actually innocent and taking them into comfortable, well fed, and cared for custody (often releasing them in only a few months)
Yes a few naked pyramids and some hilarious pointing at inadequate masculinity occurs but the same thing happens in American High Schools.
It is a failure of imagination to think that we are engaged in anything like wholesale slaughter.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thought I'd share some of the fun I had to go through. This video is fairly similar to what I had to do last month for security training. However, instead of using a gun, we used batons (practice ones for safety). LINKY.Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard an amusing story out of a marine base in California, some 'gang bangers' got all drugged up and shot at a Marine guarded gate with pistols or machine guns. The Marines signaled their overwatch and the 240B shreaded the car and killed them as easily as a cat terrier kills a rat.
The difference between the military violence and that of 'gang bangers' is not just one of skill but also control. In New Orleans the units from Iraq quelled the 'gang bangers' in a very brief time.
Better violence, unleashed for a purpose, under the control of our body politic through our elected leaders.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am willing to bet that that is almost certainly a myth, but am willing to be proven wrong.
Regarding political affiliation in the military, I only had a couple political discussions in the military. No one ever asked me what party was in, and I didn't care what party anyone else was in. No one ever asked me to vote, for that matter.... So, my impression is that, as a whole, the military tended to be (used to be?) pretty politically apathetic, at least as far as the enlisted went.
For the record, I am pretty Democratic.
An interesting point about military and Democrats--I think that the number of Iraq veterans running this election cycle is in favor of the Dems. I know there are a large number out there.
Another point about spending. When people talk about spending for military, they often point at Clinton. Cato has some interesting articles on Clinton's military spending that I found quite illuminating.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I just came across this thread and want to add my 2 cents.
As for intelligence, I will wager that the soldiers in all of the platoons I was in whilst serving have a much higher education level than that of the general population (note that I am talking all enlisted here). Over 50% had Undergraduate degrees (BA or BS) and probably 10-20% had advanced course work. (I should note that I was in Military Intelligence units in platoons of linguists so we were above average for the military)
As far as political leanings, the large majority of the soldiers I talked to about politics were leaning Republican as far as presidential races went. I started after clinton was elected the second time so the only elections I was in for were the last two but none of the guys wanted either Gore or Kerry in office. Now if the Democrats could put up a decent candidate that person may get more support from the military.
As for supplying the military (body armor and the like), no one expected the kind of war we are fighting. In traditional warfare only your combat arms guys needed body armor. Now we don't have front lines and even the cooks need it and the supply vehicles need to be armored. You really can't fault the administration for that screw-up. You might say they were too slow or that the pentegon screwed that one up but the administration isn't responsible for everything that happens in the world (though they will take credit for it if it is positive.) We wont even talk about a previous administration sending troops to Mogadishu(sp) without their armored vehicles (Abrams and the like).
As for the quality of the troops, I have found none better in the world. (Once again I was not in a traditional unit).
Sergeant
Edited to mention Somalia
Posts: 278 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
GS, prove it. You can't, because it didn't happen.
Most people in the Army were pretty normal people. You had some people, usually a larger proportion than in usual society but still a small minority, who were very gun ho, but most of them you wouldn't have known they were in the Armed Forces...except for the fact that they all walk in sync with each other.
It is like saying that since some football players are bullies, the entire school is violent. Most people in the Army would be completely content to not ever fire a weapon in battle...and a ton of them never will, even in wartime.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should passing on an 'amusing' story awaken a need for a police record search to 'prove' it happened, I have no idea if it is a true tale, but there is undeniable truth in it...
Can you prove the story of the good Samaritan? No, the tale has its lesson even as this one does. I believe you were in the military? It is likely you went to basic training with a few of the morally challenged inner city youth. Did you find them to be skilled weapons handlers or as I did find them to be blustering fools who needed their hands held until they finally understood that there was no short-cut, no special treatment, just practice until you get it. Dime and Washer, point of aim, weaponeer practice and drill on the range.
We had three gangsters in our line, all three needed full magazines to qualify.(20 extra rounds in a 40 round qualification) Others have spoken of similar experiences to me. The real shooters are the boys from the Midwest and South and Oregon and Utah, who learned weapons from men who treat them with respect and use them as tools, not as props.
A single marine with an M-16 and a combat load along with a grenadier and a distant support by fire position stopped three truck bombs meant to sequentially over run a position, with the last, a dump truck, exploding in the chow hall. The windows were bullet proof, the drivers wore vests, all were dead and full of .556 rounds. That is a story I can point you too if you do not remember it, that should underline the difference between P-Diddly Whoever and a soldier.
(Anticipating the demand for the article, I went out and found out a similar case had happened just recently, again Marine Guard stops suicide attack the other one is older and , a couple years back perhaps so I may dig it up but if anybody else knows where, feel free...)
[ November 03, 2006, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why should passing on an 'amusing' story awaken a need for a police record search to 'prove' it happened, I have no idea if it is a true tale, but there is undeniable truth in it..."
So it is OK for you to fabricate a story if it proves your point? If so, you should make that your tag. I didn't find the wannabe gangsters any less proficient than the hillbillies who couldn't get their mind around the fact that an M-16 isn't a deer rifle, and that they weren't shooting gophers or rabbits anymore.
I was a great shot, better than most of my instructors, but when it came time to qualify, they MADE me load the rifle with the "bonus shots" left for me by the guys ahead of me.....and I barely qualified, because each and every "extra" bullet was a dud, and caused me to miss all my 50 m targets...something I had NEVER done in practice.
When I tried to say I didn't want (or need) the "extra" rounds, the instructor hit me in the head, and made me load them. After, he pulled me aside and "smoked" me in front of everyone else, because I had questioned him on the shooting line. Never mind what he made me do was cheating, and had not worked. Never mind that I had shot a 38 or 40 the first time I shot an m-16, and had recorded 3 perfect rounds during practice shoots.....and had only scored a 34 of 40 qualifying that day.
Just because someone has more experience than you, or bigger and better guns, doesn't make them right, or just. It doesn't make then anything...other than dangerous....to you, and to others.
Although I am sure you can just fabricate another story to illustrate your obvious intellect and moral superiority and prove me wrong.
I could quote you real events....you know, the ones that actually happened outside of "some guys once told me that their cousin thrice removed once heard that..." ...that show how effective even limited weapons, in the hand of enemies lesser trained then ours, where a simple hand made bomb defeats all of our efforts to protect ourselves.
It happens every day in Iraq.
Violence may be necessary at times, but if your whole world view is based on it, as it seems to be, then I am glad I barely know you.
posted
Are you really a soldier? A simple hand-made weapon defeats all our efforts? A sharp rock can kill a man and has done so millions of times, but only one in a thousand 'hand made' bombs in Iraq kills an American soldier. I would call our efforts pretty effective and getting more so.
If you can shoot a gopher, a man sized pop up target is a joke, however I am more amused that you seem to harbor some sort of resentment over a smoking that sounds justified to me, a range is no place to lip off.
Anybody can be smoked too failure, in two minutes you can do all of the push-ups that your body will perform and you are done, in twenty minutes you can be so exhausted you can't crawl. The only thing you learn from a smoking is who you are, any Sergeant can break your stamina, but only you know when it broke, only you carry the baggage of self discovery that comes with it. It sounds like you did not like what you found out about yourself.
I have seen DI's miscount push-ups, full load magazines, DQ PT studs, and smoke soldiers from other lines to win the bragging rights of best platoon. I was cheated out of a 325 PT score because our platoon was in the lead (we won anyway because our DI's were just as big a bunch of cheats) but it is a joke to me now, I do not cry about it.
I also assure you, if the story of the San Diego drive by is an Urban Legend it did not start with me...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Violence may be necessary at times, but if your whole world view is based on it, as it seems to be, then I am glad I barely know you
This seems personal, I do not know why you think a clear understanding of violence is a world view based on violence. I also have a clear understanding of software but I do not base my world view on that either. I am sure you have clear views on many things but only a fool would hear you discuss one of them and assume you are a whatever you happened to speak about at that time.
I have had scores of years to marinate in vice and virtue, so it does not a behoove a thinking person to believe they know my world view based on a two minute reading of what I have written. It would be like me looking at your ear ring and assuming you were gay...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I don't know that there are more liberals in the Air Force. I just think that of all the branches, the one most likely to be more liberal is the one with the most p***ies.
Ladies, ladies, I found a real gentleman for you.
I think you were confusing the adjective version of "p***y" with the noun. And I think you were confusing my sarcasm with seriousness. I just think you are all around confused.
And for BaoQingTian, lighten up. My over-the-top, in-your-face style is only petty if I actually mean what I say. If you go to the thread "The Only Election Issue That Matters" on the other forum, you can see how I am when I'm talking about something serious.
posted
I am not sure but I think that the anglo-saxon slang for primary sexual traits is a no-no here, I am sure that the Papa Janitor will have rude things to say about it if you do not edit a bit.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so we're clear, I don't doubt that Marines can do damage when they need to. That's pretty obvious. I just seriously doubt the story about gang members wandering up and shooting at a Marine post just because they were on drugs, plus them sticking arond long enough for the Marines to get the overwatch to come around and shoot the car up with machine gun fire, plus I wonder about the fact that the car was off-base. Can military units on U.S. soil just kill civilians when threatened? Is that part of their mandate?
Note that none of the above means it couldn't have happened. It's just a weird, suspicious story to me.
Bob knows Marines have done plenty of heroic things, but that doesn't mean that untrue stories can't get around. Please don't think it's anything personal, GS.
By the way, I did guard duty for the base at Monteith, Germany and I didn't get any ammunition to guard the base with. In order to get the ammunition, I hade to get (as in find) the NCOIC to unlock the key box that had the key to the weapons cage, then he had to unlock the ammo boxes. True story. I menaced the communist world with "Halt! or I'll say Halt! again!"
Understand, of course, that the base was protected by a chain link fence with single-strand barbed wire at the top, so any terrorists or whatnot using the entrance (Which had no real roadblock or gate or anything. I just waved people through.) would just be doing so out of politeness, I'm sure. :/
Then there was the company next door who was, theoretically, the chemical spill clean-up guys or something. This company had what I think special needs woman in uniform. I think her I.Q. might have been about 80. Maybe 90.
Anyways, one night, apparently she got drunk, passed out and, if rumors were true, had a train performed on her.
Then there was the colonel of the brigade I was in who got transferred because he screwed too many of his drivers/secretaries.
Did I mention that most of the base took massive amounts of drugs? And of course it goes without saying that people drank until they passed out most weekends.
Let's see. What else. Of all the people I knew, I wsa the only person who had bothered to learn any German at all. I think I was one of the few who read for pleasure. Most of the guys stuck to McDonalds or known military hang-outs.
And there is more, but, hey, you get the picture. Peacetime military. Loads of fun for the whole family. Send your youth to hte Army, American, and watch them come home pillars of the community. /salute
Now, were there intelligent enlisted? Absolutely. Everyone is intelligent, really. It's just that so few people in the military really were what were charmingly referred to as 'book smart'. In case people don't know, book smart is what the military terms people who know a lot from books but don't know the real picture.
For the most part, people who are book smart tend to be the ones who, I don't know, learn stuff in school and progress, because they like to read.
So, it's kind of funny to me when I hear the military held up as some kind of bastion of honor and virtue, the cream of American youth.
And if you think I'm holding myself up as better than anyone else, trust me, I know I'm not. I joined the military not because it was any kind of dream of mine but literally on a whim. I would say most of the people that I knew were like that. Though, again, this is rear support, not combat arms.
I had a great time in the Army and met some great people, but in my mind the Army will be more Joseph Heller than Tom Clancy.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Marine Barracks that were destroyed were hit by a van that sped through the Concrete Weaver and refused to stop. The Officer in charge had accountability issues with ammo so the live rounds were in the drawers with tape over the tops...
Since then guards, even in Germany, carry live ammo and are amber (weapon loaded but not charged) on guard duty.
Germany does seem to be a better place to bed your Eastern European nanny then too soldier, did you here the story about the guy and the chicken...
Still better a country where you can heave into a gutter and sleep it off on the train then one that periodically tries to take over Europe...
The Central Asian theater under Rumsfeld has really maintained high morals(no alcohol, fraternization rules enforced, etc). The army has CID men even in Germany and Korea stopping soldiers from frequenting the perfectly legal brothels (the little brown sisterhood actually protested bless their hearts...) so it is clear that much of the Peacetime antics are no longer allowed.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
?
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
