Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Corvus wrote:I dunno. I'm not trying to start an inter-service flame war

But isn't that half the fun of being in the service?

I remember with fondness the M16s that had the Mattel logo stamped on them.

@Relapse- You got me to nostalgia-ing big-time with the M-16 Mattel logo comment. I remember the duece & half being tonkas and GI Joe sponsorship jokes those little logos inspired.

Ahtman wrote:

Corvus wrote:I dunno. I'm not trying to start an inter-service flame war

But isn't that half the fun of being in the service?

From what Ive heard and seen that seems true.

The AF gets gak for not being on the front lines, the marines get gak for being thick in the skull, the army gets gak for not being marines, and the navy gets gak for following the spartans relationship habits, especially the submariners who are often called "bubbleheads".

Marines= My A$$ Rides In Navy Equipment Sir
The "n" in marines stands for "knowledge". I got all of this from a Marine colonel, although he evens it out. My brother told the guy that he was going to join the airforce and the colonel said "Air Force, is that a branch?".

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
And as to weapons, we're still using a machine gun from 1933 (M2 Browning) so two can play at that game. The reason the AF is still operating the B-52 (which is being phased out slowly) is because of it's reliability and because it's inexpensive.

Interestingly, that's the same reason the M2 is still in service.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
According to my AF aircrew buddy those 135 airframes get rebuilt every year from the bottom up to ensure they have the best avionics and equipment available, so you can hardly call those Eisenhower era tools.

M2s are still being built, so there is no particular guarantee that the M2 you are using is actually 87 years old.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
Three words: Army Air Corps.

After 1935 the Army Air Corps was under the control of GHQ Air Force, and operated very much like an independent entity. Its telling that field elements of the Army only had authority over air power for 11 years.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
At the end of WWI the world began realizing that the air had become a third front in warfare, and that mandated the creation of a dedicated armed branches to deal with it. It is neither effective nor efficient to bloat the two into a single entity which then faces conflicting goals

You mean WWII, right?

But yes, if you do mean WWII, then the driving force behind considering the Air Corps as a component of the Army was the ease of creating a theater high command.

halonachos wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Corvus wrote:I dunno. I'm not trying to start an inter-service flame war

But isn't that half the fun of being in the service?

From what Ive heard and seen that seems true.

The AF gets gak for not being on the front lines, the marines get gak for being thick in the skull, the army gets gak for not being marines, and the navy gets gak for following the spartans relationship habits, especially the submariners who are often called "bubbleheads".

Marines= My A$$ Rides In Navy Equipment Sir
The "n" in marines stands for "knowledge". I got all of this from a Marine colonel, although he evens it out. My brother told the guy that he was going to join the airforce and the colonel said "Air Force, is that a branch?".

Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Expected

focusedfire wrote:@Relapse- You got me to nostalgia-ing big-time with the M-16 Mattel logo comment. I remember the duece & half being tonkas and GI Joe sponsorship jokes those little logos inspired.

I remember when we were first issued our rifles and the guys in my platoon looking at the logos on their weapons. Some of them were pretty upset and were commenting on who the @#$% expected them to go into war with a toy.
I read about this on Snopes and was amused to see Snopes got it wrong.

Ahtman wrote:

Corvus wrote:I dunno. I'm not trying to start an inter-service flame war

But isn't that half the fun of being in the service?

yeah but I figured that Dakka Dakka is not the place for it. Here we prefer inter-army flame wars about which Spehss Mehreens are better

dogma wrote:But yes, if you do mean WWII, then the driving force behind considering the Air Corps as a component of the Army was the ease of creating a theater high command.

WWII was when everyone realized it, but air commanders had realized it as a result of WWI. They just needed to convince everybody else they were right THe USAF got their wish in 1947 I believe? It may have been 48 I can't remember. Either way though they'd succeeded at the least in convincing everyone that they needed to be their own independent chain of command long before WWII.

EDIT: As to the M2 Browning, it's notable that one could argue the M2 was decades ahead of it's time as a weapon when it was invented in the 20's. One can make the case that it's the best machine gun ever made.

Joining the military entails surrendering your freedom of will and literally becoming a drone of the state... your soul purpose being pursuing national interest, the profit of business and all the while surrendering your right to morality.

And if you're joining the US military? You'll be taught to no longer value life, to want to "get some" and have a violent temperament encouraged... perhaps making it all-the-more likely that you'll be mentally scarred.

As for me? Sure, sometimes I've entertained the notion, it seems like a relatively "easy" career if one can abide by becoming a prisoner of the state and losing their home-life (and possibly their real one too)... but I like to think I've matured enough to see past the "glory" of "defending freedom" by muscling-in on third world nations pretending that we're still fighting the "good fight", aka... WWII. Conscripts won that war, not standing militaries.

Edit: This addition goes against my better instincts... but I also get the feeling that perhaps some service people (and certainly a large part of the general public) believe that joining the military affords you by default a certain level of respect... I would argue that isn't the case since one knowingly signs a contract saying "You may die." Thus even if one is not a willing participant in an immoral conflict, they should've taken that into consideration. Perhaps the soldiers I feel the most sympathy for are those forced into the military by an economic trap.

Henners91 wrote:Joining the military entails surrendering your freedom of will and literally becoming a drone of the state... your soul purpose being pursuing national interest, the profit of business and all the while surrendering your right to morality.

And if you're joining the US military? You'll be taught to no longer value life, to want to "get some" and have a violent temperament encouraged... perhaps making it all-the-more likely that you'll be mentally scarred.

As for me? Sure, sometimes I've entertained the notion, it seems like a relatively "easy" career if one can abide by becoming a prisoner of the state and losing their home-life (and possibly their real one too)... but I like to think I've matured enough to see past the "glory" of "defending freedom" by muscling-in on third world nations pretending that we're still fighting the "good fight", aka... WWII. Conscripts won that war, not standing militaries.

Edit: This addition goes against my better instincts... but I also get the feeling that perhaps some service people (and certainly a large part of the general public) believe that joining the military affords you by default a certain level of respect... I would argue that isn't the case since one knowingly signs a contract saying "You may die." Thus even if one is not a willing participant in an immoral conflict, they should've taken that into consideration. Perhaps the soldiers I feel the most sympathy for are those forced into the military by an economic trap.

I have to tell you, Tiger, it seems like you've seen one to many Rambo movies and just splashed it over into real life. Just one example I could use is Somalia. The bastards over there used civilians as shields, knowing the U.S. military wouldn't just start blasting everyone in the area. If there was no value to life as you state, a nice carpet bombing when the Blackhawks went down would have seen far less soldiers getting killed at the cost of quite a few innocent Somalis frying.
My niece just got back from Afganastan and would tell you the same thing over there is going on. If there was no value to life, it would be pointless for the Taliban terrorists to hide in with the civilians since everyone would be getting leveled.
I think anyone that signs that paper saying "You may die" earns a lot more respect than someone who sits on their ass safe at home talking about how a war should be fought based off what they see in a skewed media or at the movies when better men than themselves are out there putting it on the line.

If we're going to use examples... how about we talk about the wikileaks video of that Apache Gunship shooting civilians in Iraq? If I recall correctly the gunner, watching a wounded man dragging himself along the ground remarks something along the lines of "come on man, pull out a gun... do it"

Whereas I'm sure that carpet-bombing an area in which civilians are known to be present isn't something the US military would do (think of the bad-press!), the fact that soldiers are still taught to hate the enemy and to despise him really instills the wrong attitude.

Do I have to go put my life on the line for my opinion to count? Perhaps if I typed this whilst throttling myself with an ever-tightening rope, you might consider my points valid? It's interesting to think that one has to have a vested interest in the institution we're discussing to actually be allowed to talk about it. As far as I am concerned this topic was an invitation to voice an opinion on the subject... so I did so. I'm a Brit and I'm not in favour of our military. That's about it.

As for "better men", although, yes, I'm an unproductive student who has yet to create any wealth... There are Doctors, teachers and businessmen out there who share similar opinions... And to be honest, before a man who more than likely didn't do all-too-well in his education decides enlisting in the military would be the best route to success actually gets up and does so: HE is an unproductive slob lying on his sofa... but hey-presto, ship out and you're a hero.

Henners, I'm not exactly pro military intervention myself, but I don't think you're presenting a very balanced view of military life or soldiers. In the world as it is, military force is a nessicary evil. Obviously, it would be much better if we could get by without it, but we can't, really. Looking down on people who choose to do that job willingly because you think they're stupid for taking risks is a bit childish.

Henners91 wrote:If we're going to use examples... how about we talk about the wikileaks video of that Apache Gunship shooting civilians in Iraq? If I recall correctly the gunner, watching a wounded man dragging himself along the ground remarks something along the lines of "come on man, pull out a gun... do it"

Whereas I'm sure that carpet-bombing an area in which civilians are known to be present isn't something the US military would do (think of the bad-press!), the fact that soldiers are still taught to hate the enemy and to despise him really instills the wrong attitude.

Do I have to go put my life on the line for my opinion to count? Perhaps if I typed this whilst throttling myself with an ever-tightening rope, you might consider my points valid? It's interesting to think that one has to have a vested interest in the institution we're discussing to actually be allowed to talk about it. As far as I am concerned this topic was an invitation to voice an opinion on the subject... so I did so. I'm a Brit and I'm not in favour of our military. That's about it.

As for "better men", although, yes, I'm an unproductive student who has yet to create any wealth... There are Doctors, teachers and businessmen out there who share similar opinions... And to be honest, before a man who more than likely didn't do all-too-well in his education decides enlisting in the military would be the best route to success actually gets up and does so: HE is an unproductive slob lying on his sofa... but hey-presto, ship out and you're a hero.

I'm not saying that everyone out there is an angel, but you seem to be saying that everyone in the military are rotten bastards to a man, out to kill anything that moves. I figured you'd bring the bad press angle into this coversation, but seriously it only shows how trollish you're trying to be. You apparently ignore the fact that U.S. military personel have put their lives on the line to save civilians. My neice was a field medic over there and just about bought it several times helping people, but somehow that just doesn't make the papers happy to talk about that kind of thing.
If you're the kind that likes to throttle or do anything else with yourself while sitting at the computer, all I can say is that it's your perogative. I recall from my history classes and current events some fellow Brits took the initiative to make sure you had that freedom and fought in a few wars on your behalf.

It's not so much looking down on them as it is being a little befuddled by the respect it affords them... but that no doubt comes from my aforementioned opinions about them surrendering their free-will.

And yes, militaries are indeed necessary... I just don't see why the UK's can't be a little bit more like Sweden's...

filbert wrote:If you are concerned about spending time away from home now then I would humbly suggest a career in the Forces is probably not the best of choices.

It's not a career. It's a year-long program for people who have just finished their final year of school.

Henners91 wrote:It's not so much looking down on them as it is being a little befuddled by the respect it affords them... but that no doubt comes from my aforementioned opinions about them surrendering their free-will.

And yes, militaries are indeed necessary... I just don't see why the UK's can't be a little bit more like Sweden's...

By your statement,you equated all of people in the U.S military a bunch of murdering rejects. How is that "not looking down"? I don't know what strata of society in Britain you inhabit, but if that's not the kind of person the circle you travel in doesn't look down on, you must be one sick laddie.

Hey, I give that apache gunner credit. The guy with the "camera" leaning against the wall looked an awful lot like a RPG and not to mention the press agents were not wearing any clothing to distinguish them as members of the press.

Oh and some members of the group had weapons if my eyes are not deceiving me.

Relapse wrote:

Henners91 wrote:It's not so much looking down on them as it is being a little befuddled by the respect it affords them... but that no doubt comes from my aforementioned opinions about them surrendering their free-will.

And yes, militaries are indeed necessary... I just don't see why the UK's can't be a little bit more like Sweden's...

By your statement,you equated all of people in the U.S military a bunch of murdering rejects. How is that "not looking down"? I don't know what strata of society in Britain you inhabit, but if that's not the kind of person the circle you travel in doesn't look down on, you must be one sick laddie.

I think I understand what Henners is getting at, but feel that he is making his point in a very provacative manner.

It is true that many of the US enlisted tend to be both very nationalistic and "Gung-ho". When I served, one of the major reasons for negative opinion towards the US, as a whole, was caused by the arrogant and confrontational behavior US Military personel. Seriously, People are not going to like you or think well of your country when you knock-up their women, tell them that they need to speak english because their contry is now americas property and are in general dismissive to the customs/societal values/government of the host nation. It always grated on my nerves when some grunt would tell a german national to, "speak english dammit, this is our country". As soon as I'd hear these words I'd step in and have a "chat" with the individual anout not making things more difficult for the rest of us. Unfortunately, it was a prevalent thought cultural amoungst the Army guys when I served and didn't change much while I was in europe. Don't know if it has changed now, but I sure hope it has.

@Henners-As to the issue of respect. It has to do with the concept that these guys have volunteered to serve, train and lay down their lives so others don't have to. There is also the history of that shows one of the fastest way to move your family up a notch on the society social ladder is to have a successful military career. Whether you want to recognize it or not, there is also a long standing connection between successful political careers and the military. Most societies tend to equate success with respect.

Now, yes, there is a tendency to create a mindset or culture in the military that is overly aggressive. When such shows up it should be a wake up call to the nation that a dangerous nationalist culture is starting to take root. Thing is that this isn't trait specific to the US, it has been and still is a trait that appears in the armies of any powerful/dominant empire. I feel that you are being a bit unfair in your comments about this but you admitted as such so I just chalk it up to you possibly being provacative for some reason.

BTW, I would like to point out that there is a historical duality to how veterans are treated and revered. It is often easy to pay lip service to those that have served by calling them heros but when it comes time to take care of them, there is a history of failing to back up such promises that go back from current times all the way to ancient Rome.

Henners91 wrote:
the fact that soldiers are still taught to hate the enemy and to despise him really instills the wrong attitude.

Well gee, sorry for having such a negative attitude towards people who want to kill me and murder my people. Next time I'm in Afghanistan and I see a suicide car bomber detonate in the middle of a crowded street, I'll be sure to go tell him what a wonderful person he is.

What I wish more people would understand is that the people we fight are not some idealistic band of freedom fighters out to save their homeland from the oppressive Western imperialists. These are people who behead civilians for daring to vote in democratic elections, people who pour acid on girls' faces for going to school, people who provide aid and comfort to thugs who orchestrate mass casualty attacks on civilian targets. These are not freedom fighters. They are gangsters, motivated by greed, hatred, and religious fanaticism. They do not want to get along with us. They want to kill us. Period. End of story. Peace and love only works on people who want it.

Wow, talk about provocative. Henners, why do you feel guilty over things you either can't control or that happened hundreds of years ago? This self righteousness is incredibly toxic. If the UK is so bad why not leave? I'm sure Sweden wouldn't mind another conscript.

Corvus wrote:What I wish more people would understand is that the people we fight are not some idealistic band of freedom fighters out to save their homeland from the oppressive Western imperialists. These are people who behead civilians for daring to vote in democratic elections, people who pour acid on girls' faces for going to school, people who provide aid and comfort to thugs who orchestrate mass casualty attacks on civilian targets. These are not freedom fighters. They are gangsters, motivated by greed, hatred, and religious fanaticism. They do not want to get along with us. They want to kill us. Period. End of story. Peace and love only works on people who want it.

@Corvus-To be honest, the same description could be applied to the corporate driven war in the middle east and to the behavior of some of the GI's over there. Not nocking you, I am just realistic as to why were are involved in the area. We are in that part of the world for the same reason as the USSR was,... empire building. Nothing wrong in admitting such, but to buy into the propaganda that the enemy are animals not worthy of respect is probably our biggest roadblock to succeeding in the Afghan theater of operations. It is hard to win the hearts and minds of the poeple when you are calling their brothers and sister animals and thugs.

@Henners- The problem with teaching people to disassociate their feelings to the point of where they look at the enemy logically rather than emotionally is what is created. You end up with an unemotional logic based individual that kills the enemy for logical(albiet rationalized) reasons. That is a hallmark mental profile for another group of people. While it is likely that very few would ever become such cold calculated peace-time killers it is something to consider.

Mr. henners, whilst you are entitled to your opinion, I think perhaps you need to put a little more focus in your criticisms.

For example it's not just due to "bad press" that the USA -- and other/associated countries -- don't carpet bomb cities anymore. In general they do their best to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible, far more so than the guys we're fighting.

Of course mistakes happen and there will always be the proverbial "bad apple" whose actions taint and besmirch the reputation of the upstanding majority. For example we don't allow -- as it's complete BS-- sweeping statements along the lines of " all Muslims are murdering terrorists 111 " , the flipside of this being that we need, and expect posters to show the same level of nuance when discussing, for example, military personnel. Mr. Focusedfire, was, alas, quiet apt I suspect with regards to how some people experience military personnel. But in the same example he also demonstrated that this isn't the way that EVERY soldier/whatever thinks and acts and it isn't official policy or the way it should be. As long as we have a human element to our military, which I'd much rather have than not have ( as long we have to have an armed military force etc etc yadda yadda) in our soldiers, then we are always going to have to accept human failings.

Just like we do with every other element of the population.

Big thanks to those who took the comments in, I hope, the way they were intended and din't reduce this to a massive flame war.

Ah Henners.....

To horribly misquote, I love the smell of ignorance in the morning...

@ Cheese Elemental - My mistake, I was under the impression it was some sort of OTC arrangement. Usually when the forces offer a jolly to students, they usually want something in return (i.e. commitment).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, while I am on the subject, I particularly admire the way you insinuate that anyone who joins the military is a knuckle-dragging moron who failed at their education:

Henners91 wrote:
... And to be honest, before a man who more than likely didn't do all-too-well in his education decides enlisting in the military would be the best route to success actually gets up and does so: HE is an unproductive slob lying on his sofa... but hey-presto, ship out and you're a hero.

The regiment I served in was widely quoted as being in the top 3% bracket of intelligence scores within the army as a whole. I have an IQ of 146, which while not a valid yardstick for intelligence, should at least prove I am not a dribbling slow. Many of the blokes I served with had degrees, yet still served as common soldiers and not because they had failed at education and had no other option than to sign up. Nor did they sign up to be some sort of hero.

Before you start lumping everyone into your one-size-fits-all world view, try taking the time and effort to think about what you are saying. Not everyone joins the military to be a hero and shoot at things. Others see it as a stepping stone to a further career; others see it as a developmental life experience. And judging by your demeanour and attitude that has hitherto been exposed on these boards, a spell in the military would do you good.

Joining the military entails surrendering your freedom of will and literally becoming a drone of the state... your soul purpose being pursuing national interest, the profit of business and all the while surrendering your right to morality.

And if you're joining the US military? You'll be taught to no longer value life, to want to "get some" and have a violent temperament encouraged... perhaps making it all-the-more likely that you'll be mentally scarred.

Kind of ironic for you to consider military folks to be 'drones' when you seem to spout off decades old antiwar/antisoldier rhetoric which you seem to believe without question.

As for the 'no longer value life' comment, I hope some day you mature enough to realize how wrong and offensive that was.

Jake

halonachos wrote:Hey, I give that apache gunner credit. The guy with the "camera" leaning against the wall looked an awful lot like a RPG and not to mention the press agents were not wearing any clothing to distinguish them as members of the press.

Oh and some members of the group had weapons if my eyes are not deceiving me.

Sure, but it's quite another thing to be yearning for an unarmed wounded man on the ground to pull out a weapon... One should discount hindsight when judging those men but the transcript is actually quite sickening... I think they even laughed at a Bradley running over a corpse...

Corvus wrote:

Henners91 wrote:
the fact that soldiers are still taught to hate the enemy and to despise him really instills the wrong attitude.

Well gee, sorry for having such a negative attitude towards people who want to kill me and murder my people. Next time I'm in Afghanistan and I see a suicide car bomber detonate in the middle of a crowded street, I'll be sure to go tell him what a wonderful person he is.

What I wish more people would understand is that the people we fight are not some idealistic band of freedom fighters out to save their homeland from the oppressive Western imperialists. These are people who behead civilians for daring to vote in democratic elections, people who pour acid on girls' faces for going to school, people who provide aid and comfort to thugs who orchestrate mass casualty attacks on civilian targets. These are not freedom fighters. They are gangsters, motivated by greed, hatred, and religious fanaticism. They do not want to get along with us. They want to kill us. Period. End of story. Peace and love only works on people who want it.

And how about asking why these problems exist? Perhaps a fear of the westernisation of Afghanistan? The probability of a loss of what once was? As wrong as it is to us, the west literally represents a foreign imposition of alien values: I don't disapprove of those values, far from it when it comes to democracy and liberalisation... but we can't expect there to be no resistance and I might even argue that we can't expect a nation to successfully embrace these developments when they are artificially implemented... native agitators will always do a better job than a foreign military when it comes to securing change. I can understand why some Afghan who erroneously is proud of the nature of his country might take up arms against us, though please don't interpret that as an endorsement, but it's something that should be factored in rather than considering them a bunch of "towelheads", my guess is that perceiving them as ideologically-motivated human beings might just detract from the desire to kill them, however...

filbert wrote:

Henners91 wrote:
... And to be honest, before a man who more than likely didn't do all-too-well in his education decides enlisting in the military would be the best route to success actually gets up and does so: HE is an unproductive slob lying on his sofa... but hey-presto, ship out and you're a hero.

The regiment I served in was widely quoted as being in the top 3% bracket of intelligence scores within the army as a whole. I have an IQ of 146, which while not a valid yardstick for intelligence, should at least prove I am not a dribbling slow. Many of the blokes I served with had degrees, yet still served as common soldiers and not because they had failed at education and had no other option than to sign up. Nor did they sign up to be some sort of hero.

Before you start lumping everyone into your one-size-fits-all world view, try taking the time and effort to think about what you are saying. Not everyone joins the military to be a hero and shoot at things. Others see it as a stepping stone to a further career; others see it as a developmental life experience. And judging by your demeanour and attitude that has hitherto been exposed on these boards, a spell in the military would do you good.

To be honest, I used that illustration in a moment of "neurgh" toward the insinuation that those who don't join the military are "lesser" men; I'll admit I believe that demographic does exist within the military but as I've said, I'd be more inclined to feel sympathetic toward those who literally have nowhere else to go than those who willingly choose a career in the military... You can interpret that as a personal attack, I guess, you'd be quite well-entitled to do so, but that happens to be where my morality lies on this issue... I'm not a pacifist, I don't believe that war is wrong full stop, but I consider the surrendering of my right to judge and indeed, criticise and hold my government to account as a citizen is unacceptable: If a just war were to come around the corner then I would like to think I'd volunteer: It was an army of volunteers and conscripts that served us well in the Second World War, after all, not a professional one. I'm sure you had your reasons for signing up but I've simply broadcasted (a clearly unpopular opinion) my thoughts on joining a professional peacetime service and my frank abhorrence toward the militarisation of society.

CptJake wrote:

Joining the military entails surrendering your freedom of will and literally becoming a drone of the state... your soul purpose being pursuing national interest, the profit of business and all the while surrendering your right to morality.

And if you're joining the US military? You'll be taught to no longer value life, to want to "get some" and have a violent temperament encouraged... perhaps making it all-the-more likely that you'll be mentally scarred.

Kind of ironic for you to consider military folks to be 'drones' when you seem to spout off decades old antiwar/antisoldier rhetoric which you seem to believe without question.

As for the 'no longer value life' comment, I hope some day you mature enough to realize how wrong and offensive that was.

Jake

If an individual argues from an ideological position shared by likeminded people... it's pretty likely their arguments will end up sounding the same, why else do you think that once you've read one atheism vs religion (I know it's not relevant, but I'm just giving an example of a discussion beaten to death) argument on a forum you've read them all? Clearly we stand in different camps and you're familiar with my position... it would be arrogant for me to believe that I am arguing a viewpoint that nobody else has considered/argued for before. I arrived at my conclusions myself and of course read about issues just as I am sure you do; is it a wonder that I sound like previous anti-war advocates? If you like I can try use a Thesaurus and perhaps write my arguments in haiku? It might be a bit more original?

Granted my thoughts about the bloodlust of the average G.I. are a generalisation, but it's one I stick by, for now.

Starship Troopers (the film) quite nicely sums up my attitude towards the military

Bartali wrote:Starship Troopers (the film) quite nicely sums up my attitude towards the military

I'M DOING MY PART HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Henners, I think you have a bit of a distorted view of how modern military personel are trained. They don't get brainwashed into arab hating killing machines who thirst for blood, it just doesn't happen. Likewise, if they get given some sort of completely morally reprehensible order that would mean they would be committing a war crime (which is incredibly unlikely) they're not gonna actually DO it.
That's according to my brother anyway. He says he never hated any of the people he was fighting.

Apologies for a delay, I had actual work to do

focusedfire wrote:
1)What waggling? Walrus is talking nonsensical smack about one of the branches and you are criticizing me for correcting him.

Walrus gets his information about the military from the news and hollywood. As do a lot of the ignoramuses in this thread. the only thing you need to justify to those type of trolls is their utter lack of a valid opinion.

focusedfire wrote:
That is priceless, I suggest you go back and re-read the thread.

Aside from the few useful posts and the handfuls of blatent trolling, what have I missed?

focusedfire wrote:
2) As far as what the other services specialize in, I was in a TDY Combat Communications Group that over the course of 3 years of "peace-time" duty assignments had spent less than 6 months on base. 2 & 1/2 years on TDY supplying Combat Coms support for the Army, Navy and Air Force. Yes, it was a long time ago, but I am willing to bet that I have had more first hand joint service operations experience than some auxillary bilge pump from a ship tender. So please, take your uninformed insults elsewhere.

Well seeing as how I've been in a joint TSCOMM/ASCOMM for the past 3 years, I think I do know what you're talking about and I do have equal first hand experience. You still wanna place that bet?

focusedfire wrote:
3)Note, I have not talked smack about any branch. My comments have been geared to pointing out that the Air Force is not all Ice Cream and Cookies and for the OP to have realistic expectations. Your comment about my being ignorant of the other services specializations based upon what I have posted makes me think that you:
A) Might not have fully read the thread.
B) Might have the reading comp. levels that will necessitate your having to cross train into the Army(Sorry Army guys, I was Air Force and the rivalry is still there )
C) Might be attempting to troll
or
D) Might have spent to much time working around the old lead based paint on some of the older ships.

A) See above
B)

focusedfire wrote:3)Note, I have not talked smack about any branch.

C) If I am, then I'm successful
D) Those ships have been decommed years ago, any more uninformed insults?

focusedfire wrote:
Whichever it is don't let me get you into trouble with some futile reply when you are supposed to be swabbing the deck,

Later

Just make sure you don't leave any boot smudges on the desk when you wake up from your nap.

focusedfire wrote:
@OP-If your family has any connections with local judges or state level politicians see if you can get a letter of reference towards one of the government paid ROTC based educational programs. Now, if you are in a hurry just to get the heck out of town/ just want to be someplace else, Army is offering good signing bonuses. If your looking for real world skills for when you get out? Then I suggest the Navy. What it really comes down to is what are you looking for? A four year in and then pop out for education? A Life long career? Technical based skills and education? Future career in criminal justice or politics? Might get a more focused answer after posting what your personal goals are.

PS- Seeing as you are supposed to meet up with the recruiters soon I will make one firm suggestion. Don't feel pressured to sign anything. Think your options over and beg off to sign later if you have the slightest question. If the recruiter hits you with a line about this job may not be open for long then reply that you can wait a couple of months for it to open back up.

This without all the other gak is what OP wants to know about. Excellent work.