"Our Lefty Military"

[spec4]

Well, its called "service" as in : I was in the service. I joined, did my time and left. I couldn't wait to get out, and knew they could do whatever they wanted to me except stop the clock. Some stayed and I later had a good friend who was a Command Sgt Major. It just wasn't for me. Did do a lot to help me grow up.

 

[Garb]

This isn't the first time it's been said and it won't be the last.

What is somewhat interesting is that he's trying to paint the military as a sort of entitlement program for lower income people.

I'm not trying to bash any soldier in any way by saying this. But I wouldn't entirely disagree with that statement. Like E5Ranger375 said, most of our military heroes were probably low income people. If the money in the military were being spent in the right place, they would spend it on more training and better equipment rather than trying to recruit every person that walks through the doors of the recruiters office. I remember an article on this forum (my google skills aren't revealing anything) about a guy who got shot and his legs were paralyzed because he didn't know how to do a quick reload. Really? We're sending guys into combat without teaching them that? I'm no expert, but imo, the military should be emphasizing individual skills rather than having the biggest military. We should have the best, but that doesn't mean we have to have the biggest.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Once again, your analysis requires analysis.

The military is not a socialist authoritarian system. It's a autocratic dictatorship. You are dictated to by your chain of command. Everyone in that chain has absolute power over you. Some people in that chain have mere mortal power. Others have godlike power. At some point, if you assimilate and do your job, you get promoted and you begin to gain dictatorial powers of your own over others. But there's a tipping point. As you rise in rank, the number of people with godlike power over you swell, to include not only those who are senior in rank to you, but also those subordinate. Rest assured, even if you reach the highest levels of military rank, you never achieve full god status. Our political system prevents it.

Now, it is so because it must be. You must have absolute loyalty and control in order to tell people to go do something that will likely lead to their death. You may not like or understand this, but for those of use that have been in the position of the dictator or the dictated, we know it is necessary.

It's a nasty world out there. That world is tamed by those that are willing to surrender themselves to a system that provides you with the comfort to live as you choose, and the right to say and think what you want. Those that don the uniform submit to the will of the system, if even for a short time, and willingly place themselves in harm's way for people that hide in mom's basement, unwilling to defend themselves or this great nation. I was once one of those people. I took it with great pride that Americans could call me babykiller, facist, king's men, and other disparaging names, because I secured the right for them to do so. Without our miitary, you would be unable to badmouth America as you do on a daily basis. You're welcome.

You think that it is so bad in America? I can list 50 nations off the top of my head where you would be summarily killed simply for questioning the government. Think what you like and try as you may, America, with all its faults and flaws, is one of the freest nations on the planet.

 

[adam]

Once again, your analysis requires analysis.

The military is not a socialist authoritarian system............

I edited so I didn't repost the whole thing again.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I'm not trying to bash any soldier in any way by saying this. But I wouldn't entirely disagree with that statement. Like E5Ranger375 said, most of our military heroes were probably low income people. If the money in the military were being spent in the right place, they would spend it on more training and better equipment rather than trying to recruit every person that walks through the doors of the recruiters office. I remember an article on this forum (my google skills aren't revealing anything) about a guy who got shot and his legs were paralyzed because he didn't know how to do a quick reload. Really? We're sending guys into combat without teaching them that? I'm no expert, but imo, the military should be emphasizing individual skills rather than having the biggest military. We should have the best, but that doesn't mean we have to have the biggest.

oh there are some real winners in there, let me tell you
the problem is that because our military has been stretched so thi all around gods green earth, you have non combat (MOS) jobs personell now fighting in combat. so they get a quick bum rush training program (they arent looking to see who gets it and who doesnt) and then they throw these young kids (and older men) into urban combat. thats why you see a lot of unnecessary deaths. also its not just some of the men who are poorly trained (but doing the best damn job they can with what they were given! bless the American soldier for our worse is still the worlds best) but its also the officers in these non combat units who are leading these guys. it gets about as tense as if you fell into a pit of vipers coming out of hibernation. we have National Guard soldiers fighting our wars for us. TOTALLY not what they should have to do, but they dont complain (well most dont). our military is stretched so thin, that its ridiculous.

 

[Garb]

oh there are some real winners in there, let me tell you
the problem is that because our military has been stretched so thi all around gods green earth, you have non combat (MOS) jobs personell now fighting in combat. so they get a quick bum rush training program (they arent looking to see who gets it and who doesnt) and then they throw these young kids (and older men) into urban combat. thats why you see a lot of unnecessary deaths. also its not just some of the men who are poorly trained (but doing the best damn job they can with what they were given! bless the American soldier for our worse is still the worlds best) but its also the officers in these non combat units who are leading these guys. it gets about as tense as if you fell into a pit of vipers coming out of hibernation. we have National Guard soldiers fighting our wars for us. TOTALLY not what they should have to do, but they dont complain (well most dont). our military is stretched so thin, that its ridiculous.

I agree, which is why we have to pull out of these wars. Yeah, we're undertraining soldiers before we send them into combat, but imo, unless the enemy is on American soil, there is absolutely no reason for that. Anyone who is deployed overseas should be fully prepared, have a specific mission, and when the mission is done, they should be able to come home. This endless war crap is taking its toll in a lot of ways. As for the guy who was paralyzed, I believe he is actually teaching carbine classes now, and is trying to persuade the military to teach this stuff before the troops are sent into combat. It's been awhile since I've read that article though.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I agree, which is why we have to pull out of these wars. Yeah, we're undertraining soldiers before we send them into combat, but imo, unless the enemy is on American soil, there is absolutely no reason for that. Anyone who is deployed overseas should be fully prepared, have a specific mission, and when the mission is done, they should be able to come home. This endless war crap is taking its toll in a lot of ways. As for the guy who was paralyzed, I believe he is actually teaching carbine classes now, and is trying to persuade the military to teach this stuff before the troops are sent into combat. It's been awhile since I've read that article though.

well at least the guys heart is in the right place still thinking of his brothers. its sad when you see stupid mistakes being made that get people killed. no its not just sad its negligent homicide on the part of our govt. these young kids (i was one once) join the military and FULLY give their lives, body, to the military. its the military's duty to properly train them. there are a lot of things I dont like about the marines as an organization (not gonna make this about that though) but I have to give them a hand in the sense that for the most part they dont put out pussies out of boot. the armys standards for boot are ridiculously low. basic is a joke. hell even having a Ranger "tab" is just a school (i didnt say easy). you dont truly learn what it is to be a Ranger unless your a bat boy and scrolled. then the REAL training begins.

 

[Garb]

well at least the guys heart is in the right place still thinking of his brothers. its sad when you see stupid mistakes being made that get people killed. no its not just sad its negligent homicide on the part of our govt. these young kids (i was one once) join the military and FULLY give their lives, body, to the military. its the military's duty to properly train them. there are a lot of things I dont like about the marines as an organization (not gonna make this about that though) but I have to give them a hand in the sense that for the most part they dont put out pussies out of boot. the armys standards for boot are ridiculously low. basic is a joke. hell even having a Ranger "tab" is just a school (i didnt say easy). you dont truly learn what it is to be a Ranger unless your a bat boy and scrolled. then the REAL training begins.

I agree. If I were to ever join the military for real, I would get some training before hand as well. And the guy that is doing that is awesome, I remember being really struck by the fact that he kept no chip on his shoulder whatsoever.

 

[steveh_131]

Once again, your analysis requires analysis.
Those that don the uniform submit to the will of the system, if even for a short time, and willingly place themselves in harm's way for people that hide in mom's basement, unwilling to defend themselves or this great nation. I was once one of those people. I took it with great pride that Americans could call me babykiller, facist, king's men, and other disparaging names, because I secured the right for them to do so. Without our miitary, you would be unable to badmouth America as you do on a daily basis. You're welcome.

You think that it is so bad in America? I can list 50 nations off the top of my head where you would be summarily killed simply for questioning the government. Think what you like and try as you may, America, with all its faults and flaws, is one of the freest nations on the planet.

Nobody here is badmouthing America or its soldiers. Questioning your government is not only a good thing, but it is a necessity for freedom to prosper.

It is a discussion of the system our military is based on and whether or not it is the best way. Since you ignored the actual post and proceeded to your irrelevant rant, I will repeat his intended discussion points:

Debate topic: Must it be? Some of our founders did not favor having standing armies that are constantly mobilized. Can America defend itself using a more individualistic, militia-style approach?

Personally, I'm not sure that we can from a purely tactical standpoint. It may have been possible in the days when enemy soldiers arrived on ships and took months to travel even short distances. With modern transportation, can small militias be organized and mobilized in time to defend properly? Without a proper hierarchy, how can they be brought together to defend against a unified invader?

 

[rambone]

Personally, I'm not sure that we can from a purely tactical standpoint. It may have been possible in the days when enemy soldiers arrived on ships and took months to travel even short distances. With modern transportation, can small militias be organized and mobilized in time to defend properly? Without a proper hierarchy, how can they be brought together to defend against a unified invader?

I don't disagree. However, somebody brought up the southern border, and I think that's the perfect place for militia.


Another debate topic (that was implied): Does this refute the idea that Socialism never works?

Perhaps this cannot be seriously argued since the military is not self-sustaining under its socialist principles.

 

[adam]

I don't disagree. However, somebody brought up the southern border, and I think that's the perfect place for militia.


Another debate topic (that was implied): Does this refute the idea that Socialism never works?

Perhaps this cannot be seriously argued since the military is not self-sustaining under its socialist principles.

The amount of training required to work some of our more complicated gear probably couldn't be met or maintained by a militia. Not saying it's impossible, it would just take some free time motivation to do so.

Highlighted in red would be my argument.

 

[hornadylnl]

The military can't exist as a democracy but the extreme that it is run is unnecessary. I don't need to stand at attention or parade rest to my civilian bosses to understand who's in charge. In a training or combat scenario, I see the purpose of it. I have a problem with all the little napoleons running around making life miserable for soldiers simply because they can and get their rocks off doing so.

 

[jeremy]

I have some comments to add in here, but not the time right now...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Nobody here is badmouthing America or its soldiers. Questioning your government is not only a good thing, but it is a necessity for freedom to prosper.

It is a discussion of the system our military is based on and whether or not it is the best way. Since you ignored the actual post and proceeded to your irrelevant rant, I will repeat his intended discussion points:



Personally, I'm not sure that we can from a purely tactical standpoint. It may have been possible in the days when enemy soldiers arrived on ships and took months to travel even short distances. With modern transportation, can small militias be organized and mobilized in time to defend properly? Without a proper hierarchy, how can they be brought together to defend against a unified invader?

My "rant" was a refutation of the premise that the military is socialist, that it is in fact an autocratic dictatorship, and that is is necessarily so. I also editorialized a bit on how the Hate America First crowd is able to exist because the military protects that right.

Which of those ideals offends you?

 

[steveh_131]

My "rant" was a refutation of the premise that the military is socialist, that it is in fact an autocratic dictatorship, and that is is necessarily so. I also editorialized a bit on how the Hate America First crowd is able to exist because the military protects that right.

Which of those ideals offends you?

I agree with both.

I don't agree with your insinuation that anyone critical of the status quo is a member of the "Hate America First" crowd.

 

[rambone]

I have a problem with all the little napoleons running around making life miserable for soldiers simply because they can and get their rocks off doing so.

But if you work hard, you can achieve godlike power.

 

[Garb]

My "rant" was a refutation of the premise that the military is socialist, that it is in fact an autocratic dictatorship, and that is is necessarily so. I also editorialized a bit on how the Hate America First crowd is able to exist because the military protects that right.

Which of those ideals offends you?

Right, and there are those, but there are also people who are genuinely critical of America and the American military because of the way they have acted in the past. What's to prevent them from doing it again? That would be what you call the Hate America First crowd. Honestly, I don't know of any people on this forum who actually hate America.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I agree with both.

I don't agree with your insinuation that anyone critical of the status quo is a member of the "Hate America First" crowd.

I didn't insinute that anyone critical of the status quo is a member of the Hate America First crowd. I am critical of the status quo, and I don't hate America.

There is a difference between taking a position of disagreeing with a policy and taking the position that America, American's, and the government of the United States (and the individual sovereign states) is and collectively are inherently evil. There are people on this forum that take that position.

Right, and there are those, but there are also people who are genuinely critical of America and the American military because of the way they have acted in the past. What's to prevent them from doing it again? That would be what you call the Hate America First crowd. Honestly, I don't know of any people on this forum who actually hate America.

Critical of the American military for acting how and doing what? Executing American diplomacy as rightfully directed by its civilian leaders?

There are people on this forum that are in the Hate America First crowd; who take every opportunity to twist and distort facts and events in an attempt to demonstrate how evil America is. It is their right to do so, just as it is mine to call it out.

 

[singlesix]

The military can't exist as a democracy but the extreme that it is run is unnecessary. I don't need to stand at attention or parade rest to my civilian bosses to understand who's in charge. In a training or combat scenario, I see the purpose of it. I have a problem with all the little napoleons running around making life miserable for soldiers simply because they can and get their rocks off doing so.

If you don't have any of these at you job, count your blessings.

 

[steveh_131]

There is a difference between taking a position of disagreeing with a policy and taking the position that America, American's, and the government of the United States (and the individual sovereign states) is and collectively are inherently evil. There are people on this forum that take that position.

I've not yet encountered one on this forum. But if that's who you chose to direct your ranting at, fair enough.