chuck salutes uncle sam?

I don't know what you want military training for, because you're 15 and will probably give up your gueirrla warfare dreams by the time your old enough to even join the military. No offense.

But as far as boot camp, it's pretty slowed down. 13 weeks of training, and it doesn't really turn a civilian into a killer. The army's basic training just includes rifle training, and you throw a few grenades and I shot an RPG.

They streched that out into 4 weeks. I could teach someone to shoot 300 yards with an M-16 in a week.

Hand to hand is nothing special. It was all just jui-jitsu, and they showed a few basic strikes. Marine corps UAC was even worse before 2002, relied to much on targeting pressure points. A little better know, they've incorparated some muay thai and jui jitsu, with some good throws. Marine corps UAC is better then the army's, but it's still not going to turn a kid into a martial artist.

The PT's nothing special, to graduate for me it was like 35 pushups and 43 situps in two minutes, which I doubled without straining myself. And a two mile run in like 15 minutes. Pft.

The only thing that might be usefull under basic that you couldn't fulfill under proper training and discipline elsewhere is some gueirilla tactics, camo, high crawl low crawl, and a little bit of survival and evasion, and how to use a compass. You can learn that other places too, but that would be more difficult.

It's like freaking camp. If you want to learn like the real warriors in the military, you'd have to become SF, or whatever the British equivelent is. Thats years of commitment, and after which, You'll have a new perspective on lots of things.

And have now doubt about it, a revolution may seem fun now, but are you really ready to kill someone for politics?

 

And Chuck, I don't know what you were thinking about doing in the military, but in the Army, you have a good chance going to the desert.

I didn't support the Iraq war when it started, not because I'm opposed to wars, but I felt there were more important priorites to global security then Iraq, and more important human rights concerns.

But Hussein did kill 2 million plus people. After that he seggregated communities such that starvation was common, and people lived in squalor. More people died due to sanctions put in place by the UN then did in the Iraq invasion. Now our prsence is preventing a civil war.

So it might not have been the best priority, but displlacing despots isn't really a bad thing either.

But if you due go to the desert, you may be shot at, and you'll need to shoot back.

My reasons for leaving the Army weren't just medical. I could have stayed in outprocessing and appealed it, and probably have gotten restarted.

But my drill seargent, an Airborne ranger, who's killed many people, said to me when I told him I didn't want to leave...

You're in great shape, and you'd make a great soldier, but are you prepareed to kill someone?

I almost answered yes out of military conditioning, and I thought about it.

He said in a situation where you're being shot at, you have the role to defend yourself. But in war it isn't always that simple.

Sure, most of the people their who fire on American soldiers maybe insane bathists, but there are some who maybe convinced that you are an Imperialist and they're doing the work of god.

Is it right to shoot them? I would, but later, I'm not sure I could handle it.

I could kill a person, but could I live with myself after that? I'm not sure. Iraqis aren't are enemies, but many of the enemies are Iraqi's.

Don't get me wrong, we are better then they. (insurgents) We want to set up a democracy there, and for the most part, they just want to spark ethnic revolts, and institue a theocracy.

But there is a lot of grey area there. Some are fighting for what they think is right, and our reasons for being there, while they maybe sound, aren't altruistic.

Can you kill someones brother and avoid looking at the grey area?

Because it may happen in the Army.

If you can Kill, then I can respect that. The purpose of war is to make peace, and yet, there will always need to be killers in war. If peace prevails, it isn't going to be by a rock song, it will be soaked in the blood of many.

The alternative, is statlessness, in which tribal conflicts would occur, and gradually devolve our species.

War is anything but simple, and anyone who says the Iraq war was for oil, or to defend america is verily oversimplifying a very complex subject.

What about the Navy? Physical conditioning is just as good in boot camp, and throught your carrer, more oppurtunities to get education while your still serving, and if you have a change of heart and do want to see some action you can always go out for SERE, or even SEAL's.

SEAL's are about as tough as they come. Almost up to green beret or FFL standards of warriors.

I admire all this, yet I see to much grey area to wan't to be a killer. Life is a grey area, and in the meantime, I don't want to have to take the life of anyone.

I maybe joining the Navy to work as a translator. If I pass this DLAB test, they'll send me up to California for a year and teach me Mandarin. Then I'll spend my time in 7th division, working mainly out of Japan.

I'm not rushing it though. My advice is for you not to either.

 

And Syra, if you want to get out, there are several ways. I'm not going to mention anything here, because you might be on a DOD computer, and if you do what I said and they had this conversation on record, they could fuck you over. I doubt they'd go through that much trouble, but it's possible.

There are ways to get a general discharge, which won't hurt you in your career in the future if you don't plan on joining again.

If you want, PM me, I can give you my phone number, and I can tell you what to do for them to give you the boot with a general discharge within a month.

Although I bet you can figure it out on your own. Either way I wish the best for you.

 

That is an interesting paragraph to discuss. Vietnam didnt achieve anything. Korea didnt achieave anything. World War 1 sure as hell didnt achieve anything. In my opinion World War Two is perhaps the only jsutafiable war, but I'm going to be bold and say. We still have genocide, E.g. Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, Sudan. We still have imperialit major powers inserting their values on the world. We still have people being tortured, even in "sivilized" society, by governments. And we are still frightened by the fact of nuclear war. We will always be able to find new enemies. I wonder what would happen if no one just did anything. Now, you might say then evil would dominate the world. Is that really any different to what is happening at the moment. Note: By calling the government evil, Im pretty sure Im breaking new anti terrorism laws.

Im not saying Im an pacifist or attacking anyone ( this time), Its just food for thought is all.

 

i like your sig

 

The withdrawl from 'Nam allowed the vietcong to start an active counter campaign of attacks causing thousands of deaths, to southen vietnamese and allowed the rise of the Khmer Rouge in neigboring Cambodia. The media seemed to stop caring about these attacks after 'our' soldiers came home. But peace didn't reign in Vietnam.

The Korean war effectivly halted Korea's expansion and isolated it. North Korea today is a despotic terror wonderland, while South Koreas a bugenoing vacation spot.

I'm not arguing for those wars either, but to say they were poinless is debatable. If you think world war two was righteous preventing the genocide of the Jews, that may be, I would certainly agree that stopping the holocaust was a good thing, but our major goal in World War 2 was not to stop the holocaust, it was due to the threat of attack and economic intrests of plundering postwar germany. In the new york times, there were 15,000 front page articles after the United States declared war on germany, and of those, only 6 involved the holocaust.

But a genocide was still haulted.

In Iraq most of the genocide was commited in the 80's, but still about a hundred people were murdered in major anti-shia campaigns around 1996. The Kurdish territory was sequestered geologically after the no fly zones we're institued, but still many people died to the lack of trade caused by the sanctions, of which I've read several reports of causilties being higher to lack of trade caused by these sanctions then in the midst of the Iraq war.

We do still have genocides. Darfur is happening right now, and they need immediate help. This pales in comparison to the Congolese civil wars which took place begging in 1998, and we're the deadliest wars in human history since world war 2. Over 5 million Africans lost their lives in 4 short years, and the media virtually ignored it.

You could say it's no business of ours to meddle in affairs of foreign lands, But I would prefer to live in a world without borders, and where human rights laws are inallaignable in every corner of the globe.

If the cost of preserving human rights involves military force, is it worth it?

It's a grey area, but it's one I would be glad to fight for.

I said earlier I wasn't sure if I could kill, yet if our military became more involved in halting the genocide in Darfur, stabalizing and rebuilding the DRC, protecting Zambian citizens from being abducted by their government, and preventing Slave trades to travel in Kazakhstan and other former soviet satellites, I would sign up to be a green beret tommorow.

Unfortunatly the US (and other military powers) goals are much less altruistic. They're primailly motivated by our need for resources. Is removing a genocidal tyrant largely for greed good or bad?

It's grey. So is everything in world affairs. One thing is clear to me though, nobody should have to life in terror of their governments militias to come rape and murder them.

The United States has a virtually unparraleled military, and an almost equally powerful economic force. I'm certainly not saying the military is a solution to every military problem, but having so much power in the world, it is essential that the US and it's allies do use leverage to protect people all over the world. This protection comes in many forms, but if the United States works with it's powerful allies, we can wipe the scourge of genocide from the face of the earth.

Apathy towards genocide makes us just as guilty as the people who commit it. In the UN genocide convention of 1948, it outlines that it is the resposibility of all permanent security council members to stop genocide whenever it takes place.

I don't know if you've ever seen Hotel Rwanda. If you haven't you should watch it. It's an incredibly moving film, but one of the most intreging lines is heard from a voice on the radio, amist the chaos, talking to from the UN to the press where the press has asked if genocide has occured, and the spokesman says, 'we do know acts of genocide have occured,' and the reporter asks if they were directed not to use the term genocide.

This basically reflects the negligance the west dealt with during the Rwandan civil war.

There are a lot of grey areas, but I think, for the US, negligance to world problems should no longer be an option.

 

yeah i agree with most of that. There are so many countries that need more help than iraq does, if you ask me

 

Another thing I thought of was the amzing amount of money that is spent funding that war in Iraq, and now the country is perhaps worse off. So its basically money down the drain that could have donea lot elsewhere

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

that will blow your minds

 

http://www.sundayherald.com/32522

thats a small amount of information.......i watched a whole doco on that abouta year ago........it really creeped me out ...until i forgot about it lol

 

Lodui, you're always the most opinated on here I think. (not that you're wrong or right. I'm just saying.. it amazes me you can always have so much to say)

 

Damn i thought i was the most opinionated.........jsut say anything and ill ahve an opinion on it........

 

I dont think I've ever seen Lodui not write in multiple paragraphs.

You dont do that..

And really a lot of your input in this thread was not constructive thought anyway.. no offense.

 

hahahaha.........oh well......ill take not having multiple paragraphs as having a life.........a haha

 

I leave that impression on a lot of people.

Am I rambling again? Feel free to kick me.

I can come off a bit ostentatious, but I'm really nice once ya get to know me

Have I mentioned you're very pretty? I'm being Very genuine.

 

Actually my day was really packed. I'd tell you about it, but it would take up 5 paragraphs.

 

why thank you

 

My age has really nothing to do with it. I have studied Marxism, and have invested a fair amount of my time into learning about it and its history. I doubt i will just give up on something that I spend much of my time on, and doubt it will happen even more if i remain politically active within the circles I am in.


I know that basic training is not going to have me completely clued up on a millitary basis, but it will give me a base knowledge that i would not previously of had. As it stands, i dont know how to shoot a rifle properly, throw grenades properly or at all how to shoot an RPG. You say it youself, there are bits of geurilla to be learned. I wouldnt do anything mroe though, as i can keep fit (well, first i have to get fit) without army training.


And who ever said anything about revolution being fun. I wouldnt revolt for the sake of revolting. It's the means of changing the power system, and if it came down to it, yes i would kill to do what in my opinion would benefit many many people, and create a far mroe just society. I dont really want to get into the communism Vs. capitalism debate right now (im sure you get just as bored with it as i do), but by my beliefs, i feel that it would be for the rgeater good.

 

just had to dig it up again......

 

dont be a ****



if you dont have something new to say


then nobodies got soemthing new to respond to

 

Actually we can join up at 14 in the country (I think....its either 14 or 15)