well let's just say it ends with the following tribute(or at least did prior to 9/11):

"This film is dedicated to the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan"

Rambo basically joins them in their Jihad against the Soviet occupation. It's a lot of fun.

  Read it again.

now go read the rest and report back about what those two specific threats he was referring to are.

I never suggested that terrorism should be simply ignored or trivialized, just that the response should be measured and appropriate. By all means 'nip things in the bud'. But you don't blow a garden to craters to take out a few weeds. Things have to be dealt with in a way that doesn't exacerbate the situation.

 

I will Netflix it! It takes about a month to get here, so my account isn't really worth it, but getting those red envelopes just cheer me up so much I don't care if it's expensive.

I met a buncha Russians in Haiti, and it was weird, knowning that my dad spent most of his career planning on how to kill them, and there I was standing in Haiti bullshitting with them.

There's no intellectual disconnect for me here. I don't like the people I'm fighting. When they become our friends, I like them! It's very easy for me.

 

So now you're connecting the Mujahideen we supported to 9/11?

He's not talking about a technocracy, he's talking about bureaucracy. The effect of money and contracts creates a divide between the citizen inventor and the government scientist, favoritism. He's still talking about costs, government being used to bolster certain people at the risk of the rest of society, and so on. Scientific-technological elite is not being used in the context of a technocratic group of oligarchy. And in no way shape or form is he channeling the memory of Nazi scientists. He's bringing to light that the people need to make sure that the things the government has recently been involved in - military industry instead of improvisation, agricultural research instead of agrarianism, scientific elites instead of shop-owning tinkerers. The theme is a change in government and society, and guarding against government-caused problems in the future.

He's saying don't get caught up in it, don't take things for granted, and keep an eye on things because *unrealistic* programs and *elites* are not necessarily great. As for the two threats, agriculture is mentioned right before that alongside science and industry, so it goes without saying that it should be considered part of the "scientific elite" of the second "threat". He calls agricultural programs unrealistic and warns of making flashing scientific researching too influential by the government. It all comes back to government.

Oh ok, so we only kill after they've killed. Gotcha. So I guess the proper response to Pearl Harbor would've been to target only 3,000 Japns instead of the entire Empire. It's only exacerbated in the eyes of people that are unwilling to get things done. We dropped nukes on Japan. We bombed the *fuck* out of Dresden. We destroyed morale and lives. You don't beat an enemy by treating war like a game of tag.

 

Cobalt Agent, you should hang out with Neal Boortz. You two have a lot in common, specifically, loving war despite never being in it.

But don't get me wrong, I'm totally on board. I LOVE war.

 

Neal Bortz is a libertarian. No thanks.

 

I'm not going to comment on anything else because I don't like to talk about things that I'm not particularly educated in or knowledgeable of but, uh, multiple nukes (i.e. more than one) and bombing Dresden were kinda bullshit and unnecessary. And that's not just hindsight.

I don't think anyone is suggesting some kind of eye for an eye kill count. Pearl Harbor was a totally different situation anyway. Also, "Japs?" Really?

 

So twue. I told my recruiter I was joining to be a better man for my family and he was like" Sooo, why do you want to join again?"

At the time I thought that was the right answer.

 

I haven't read ever post in this thread but just want to give my  

I did the early entry into the Army in '96 between my junior and senior year in high school. I had some dental problems at the time from face planting into the pavement while riding my skateboard (long story for another time) but when I was considering going in the recruiter told me my dental problems would not hinder my entry, but maybe delay it a little as while I would be a processing they would probably pull them all and give me dentures...that didn't bother me at all. So I sign up, go my senior year of high school doing all the Army stuff I was supposed to do between then and the time I graduated, all the time the recruiter is telling me everything is still on course. Well I get to Fort Jackson South Carolina, go thru the shots, processing and medical tests passing with flying colors. Then comes the day to go to basic and I get called to the higher ups office and told b/c of my dental problems they were sending me home.

Needless to say I was upset, I wanted to make my family proud and serve my country but yet I rejected b/c the recruiter lied to me plain and simple to get my name on that piece of paper and get his commission. My family had contacted the Governer here and he was actually going to pull strings to get me to stay but after being rejected once I didn't want to force my way in or beg for them to take me.

I am now 32 years old and don't regret not staying and can't tell you how many times I still get recruiters walking past me ask me if I ever thought about serving...they don't like the answer that I give them lol...but if you do decide to join any service my only bit of advice is don't believe the recruiters, and this is just from my own personal opinion so take it what you will.

(on a side note---not tyring to offend anyone here by my post just sharing my experience)

 

Agreed. This thread is making me ill now.

 

Wow, a WTC burning pic and this thread is still up? Wow!

Joining the military? What is Walmart not hiring?

You better be damn sure you are up to the job of defending my freedom! Some times I will just flush a whole unused bowl of freedom cause I know it will refill again. One time I was spraying freedom all over my victory garden and was like. "Pancakes would be nice!"

Why am I not discussing if you should join the military or not, well that's an easy one. When you are all by yourself staring up at the ceiling wondering if you are going have to kill someone or even worse laying on a bed thousands of miles away from home after just helping take a man's life (pushing a button counts you know), there should be no doubt in your mind why you did it. No one in the recruiting office and sure as hell no one on a message board for collecting toys should be the one to sway your decision to join or not.

It's a deeply personal life changing event and YOU need to figure this out for yourself. There will be no one to blame but you in that case.


(bonus points if my AV made you read this in Brad Pitt's voice from Inglorious Bastards)

 

Well the job I signed up to do was carpentry and masonry which I thought would be a great thing to do b/c it would teach me how to build stuff and give me expereince in something so when I got done I would have a career to fall back on.

But yeah I totally agree not all are bad but just don't believe everything they tell you. If I could go back and change things and fix the problems I had before going I would but woulda coulda shoulda ain't going to change anything at this point.

 

Yes, reallly. They did do fucked up shit to the rest of the world before attacking Pearl Harbor.

 

TD:

It's not a bad thread. I was in a thread once (elsewhere, offsite) in which a poster in the military expressed some sadness that he couldn't get home to see his children more often, and it quickly devolved into a repulsive festival of unsympathy and vilification of the poster for his choice of career.

Now that made me feel ill. Doesn't matter what someone thinks, intellectually...you don't take it down that road.

In an atmosphere like that, there would be no hope for this thread, but at TFW it's being answered. The answers are probably raising more questions for the OP than they settle, but that's a good thing.

 

How do you go from saying you don't feel comfortable speaking on history you aren't educated about -- to drawing conclusions about very significant bombing campaigns that had major impacts on the war?

Look, I'm not omniscient; I don't know everything. But I would consider myself a student of history. And while going by consensus isn't always good, most historians will at least acknowledge that the bombing of Japan saved more lives than it took. The Japanes ewere not going to go down without a fight, and we knew this from the Pacific island campaigns. Not to mention the fact that even the civilian populace were prepared to take the lives of our soldiers and their own lives if need be. If you knew the propaganda the people believed you'd know why it had to be done. People literally threw their kids to their deaths off cliffs because they thought they'd be tortured and raped by marines and soldiers despite the fact that we went around giving those people water and aid. The Japanese government wouldn't surrender on our terms, and we did what we had to do. It's generally agreed that invading mainland Japan would have costed millions of American and Japanese lives. Foresight proved right and in retrospect it was the lesser of two evils. And on top of that, everyone always focuses on the civilian casualties but ignores that there were legitimate military targets where we bombed. I'm just saying. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is. That second nuke broke Japan's spine, and got us their unconditional surrender.

I think that's exactly what's been proposed. And other than the victims being mostly military personnel in Pearl Harbor, what difference does it make? 3,000 Americans died in both attacks. Both were attacks on our country. If anything it's more outrageous what happened at the WTC because it was civilians that bore the brunt; they weren't wearing uniforms and didn't sign up for what they got. That's far more dangerous than military against military. As for the second point, I intended to write Japanese. I tend to type fast so if I spot errors I'll correct my spelling. You'll notice though that I capitalized the J; I intended on writing the proper noun, not a slur. I since tried to go back and edit the post proper and could only get an n to show up. Let's not take this where it doesn't need to get taken.

 

Army Suicides Hit Record in July



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2e4wQ01M6E

 

Well, what about:

So, high for the Army, but you might actually be less likely to kill yourself than if you stayed a civilian?

 

Okay look, I'm sure you're a fine person but, a little reading comprehension might be in order. I'm not asking to be swayed and you can bet your ass that some faceless mass of text isn't going to make me decide yea or nay any more than anyone else. I'm asking for -experience-, I'm asking for the people who are in to share -why- they joined and what they wanted to go in for. To share the -real- story that isn't glamorized in the movies. I'm very much aware that it's a monumental commitment but, I've wanted to since I can remember. Why wouldn't I try to get some first hand stories and do my research beforehand?

Guys, come on, let's stay on topic. If you want to debate war or whatever then please do it somewhere else. Unless it's a personal story or something similar, then I welcome it but, I'm not here for someone's soapbox moment.