I’ve read several threads today where somebody has said something negative about the US Military? What is the overall opion from the general public about today’s armed forces??
I hate that they have to do the worlds dirty work.
I hate that there seem to be some pretty serious bureaucratic issues that put undo risk on those that do the actual work. There also seems to be a good chance of rape or sexual assult if you are a female.
Other than that I like them quite a bit.
I think that they get the blunt end of the stick so to speak. If something bad happens, it’s usually 50% their fault, 50% politician fault when really they have absolutely no say in what goes down. I support our military no matter what. Sometimes I won’t support thier cause, or their politician, but I will always support the military.
[quote]musicma1n1 wrote:
Sometimes I won’t support thier cause, or their politician, but I will always support the military.[/quote]
thank you.
Yeah, I feel that way too. They do get the raw end of the deal. I support the soldiers, not the “military” though.
As much as people hate to admit it, a lot of them make the world a safer place.
I really don’t understand why so many people hate us because whenever things get ugly the first thing people want to do is send the military to do somthing that they themselves won’t do. Kinda like Darfur. I would have no problem with doing a deployment over there but have you ever noticed how its the liberals who hate the military are the ones that want us go there???
I will always support brave souls doing the dirty work of a politician bent on impressing daddy.
[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
I will always support brave souls doing the dirty work of a politician bent on impressing daddy. [/quote]
So when someone in power decides to kill a few thousand people and he has trained killers at his command to carry out his wishes you support them?
Would you also support the Manson family?
And to those who say they got the short end of the stick, well no, they grabbed it and they are fully responsible for that decision.
If you decide to kill someone you never met, because someone else tells you to, hiding behind a flag and a uniform will not do, because both are essentially nothing but glorified pieces of cloth.
[quote]SkinAndBones wrote:
I’ve read several threads today where somebody has said something negative about the US Military? [/quote]
And it is interesting in and of itself that you needed to come to this site PWI forum for that.
[quote]
What is the overall opion from the general public about today’s armed forces??[/quote]
Whatever the MSM tells them.
[quote]orion wrote:
And to those who say they got the short end of the stick, well no, they grabbed it and they are fully responsible for that decision.
If you decide to kill someone you never met, because someone else tells you to, hiding behind a flag and a uniform will not do, because both are essentially nothing but glorified pieces of cloth.
[/quote]
They don’t decide to kill somebody they’ve never met. That decision is made for you. That person chooses to pick up arms and become an enemy of the United States.
[quote]orion wrote:
SkinAndBones wrote:
I’ve read several threads today where somebody has said something negative about the US Military?
And it is interesting in and of itself that you needed to come to this site PWI forum for that.
We’ll I’m currently not in a place where I hear a whole lot of Military Bashing, Ever.
[quote]SkinAndBones wrote:
orion wrote:
And to those who say they got the short end of the stick, well no, they grabbed it and they are fully responsible for that decision.
If you decide to kill someone you never met, because someone else tells you to, hiding behind a flag and a uniform will not do, because both are essentially nothing but glorified pieces of cloth.
They don’t decide to kill somebody they’ve never met. That decision is made for you. That person chooses to pick up arms and become an enemy of the United States.
[/quote]
Really.
Only those that chose to pick up arms. The percentage of civilian casualties in modern asymetric warfare is what?
Because I am pretty sure they teach that wherever it is where one does not find to many anti- military individuals.
[quote]orion wrote:
SkinAndBones wrote:
orion wrote:
And to those who say they got the short end of the stick, well no, they grabbed it and they are fully responsible for that decision.
If you decide to kill someone you never met, because someone else tells you to, hiding behind a flag and a uniform will not do, because both are essentially nothing but glorified pieces of cloth.
They don’t decide to kill somebody they’ve never met. That decision is made for you. That person chooses to pick up arms and become an enemy of the United States.
Really.
Only those that chose to pick up arms. The percentage of civilian casualties in modern asymetric warfare is what?
[/quote]
I don’t know. Ask OBL, as a matter of fact didn’t he issue a fatwa saying it was ok to kill innocent civilians?
[quote]jawara wrote:
I don’t know. Ask OBL, as a matter of fact didn’t he issue a fatwa saying it was ok to kill innocent civilians?
[/quote]
The thing is, when the US government kills innocent civilians it might as well be carrying out OBL’s orders.
[quote]orion wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
I will always support brave souls doing the dirty work of a politician bent on impressing daddy.
So when someone in power decides to kill a few thousand people and he has trained killers at his command to carry out his wishes you support them?
Would you also support the Manson family?
And to those who say they got the short end of the stick, well no, they grabbed it and they are fully responsible for that decision.
If you decide to kill someone you never met, because someone else tells you to, hiding behind a flag and a uniform will not do, because both are essentially nothing but glorified pieces of cloth.
[/quote]
SO there are a lot of implications in your analogy there. You are saying that our commander in cheif enters into power with the same goals/credentials as Charles Manson. Does that sound like an accurate description of ANY US president. Their decisions have no always been right especially on whether to enter into several wars or not, but I have never believed they intended to cause death, destruction and killing like Charles Manson.
Memebers of the military serve in reconstruction, defense and training, to limit them into being nothing more than hitmen is a gross oversimplification.
There are times when they need to make decisions for themselves and take respondibility for decisions they make, i.e. Abu Ghraib. But for the most part a military requires/needs and demands that its men and women trust and follow those above them
[quote]orion wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
a flag and a uniform will not do, because both are essentially nothing but glorified pieces of cloth.
[/quote]
I also venture to say that no one who joins the US military believe that our flag and the uniform they wear stand for nothing, have no symbolism, no meaning and are just pieces of cloth.
[quote]orion wrote:
SkinAndBones wrote:
orion wrote:
Really.
Only those that chose to pick up arms. The percentage of civilian casualties in modern asymetric warfare is what?
[/quote]
You are right there are civilian causalities, but how many times has the US military chosen civilian targets, attempted to and intended to kill civilians in retribution for past attacks or as a way to spread fear.
Intention is key here, there have been many reports of U.S. friendly fire. One example being the killing of Pat Tillman, but does this mean that this is the goal, or intention of the U.S. military of even that specific unit? No those are unforeseen and unintended consequences.
The U.S. and I hope any military should take every precaution to prevent and avoid civilian causalities, but they will happen. The difference is that the U.S. does not intended for them, terrorists aim for them.
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
orion wrote:
SkinAndBones wrote:
orion wrote:
Really.
Only those that chose to pick up arms. The percentage of civilian casualties in modern asymetric warfare is what?
You are right there are civilian causalities, but how many times has the US military chosen civilian targets, attempted to and intended to kill civilians in retribution for past attacks or as a way to spread fear.
Intention is key here, there have been many reports of U.S. friendly fire. One example being the killing of Pat Tillman, but does this mean that this is the goal, or intention of the U.S. military of even that specific unit? No those are unforeseen and unintended consequences.
The U.S. and I hope any military should take every precaution to prevent and avoid civilian causalities, but they will happen. The difference is that the U.S. does not intended for them, terrorists aim for them. [/quote]
One more,
It’s lost on them. Some ignorance but mostly fear and contempt.
You are spot on by the way.
[quote]hedo wrote:
OneMoreRep wrote:
orion wrote:
SkinAndBones wrote:
orion wrote:
Really.
Only those that chose to pick up arms. The percentage of civilian casualties in modern asymetric warfare is what?
You are right there are civilian causalities, but how many times has the US military chosen civilian targets, attempted to and intended to kill civilians in retribution for past attacks or as a way to spread fear.
Intention is key here, there have been many reports of U.S. friendly fire. One example being the killing of Pat Tillman, but does this mean that this is the goal, or intention of the U.S. military of even that specific unit? No those are unforeseen and unintended consequences.
The U.S. and I hope any military should take every precaution to prevent and avoid civilian causalities, but they will happen. The difference is that the U.S. does not intended for them, terrorists aim for them.
One more,
It’s lost on them. Some ignorance but mostly fear and contempt.
You are spot on by the way.
[/quote]
Case in point: we don’t even use laser guided bombs anymore. Why? Because they aren’t ACCURATE enough. If we didnt care about civilian’s getting killed we wouldnt bother with doing the research and development for a gps guided artillery round.
[quote]orion wrote:
Really.
Only those that chose to pick up arms. The percentage of civilian casualties in modern asymetric warfare is what?
Because I am pretty sure they teach that wherever it is where one does not find to many anti- military individuals.
[/quote]
Yo Orion.
Do you hate all militaries in general or just the US?
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
You are right there are civilian causalities, but how many times has the US military chosen civilian targets, attempted to and intended to kill civilians in retribution for past attacks or as a way to spread fear. [/quote]
Nukes, dioxin-laden Rainbow Herbicides, cluster bombs, etc.
Yes. But let us please distinguish between the propagandized official line and the more elusive (but closer to the truth) intent.
That could make sense had the US not been engaged in wars of aggression.
You can’t really claim “unforeseen and unintended consequences” when you are the one starting the fight. Responsibility must be acknowledged at some point.
Not if you don’t go around bombing and invading countries, they won’t.
So the US military is better than “terrorists”? Glad we cleared that up.
I maintain that had those “terrorists” had F-16s, tanks and bombs, they wouldn’t be targeting civilians either. But that’s conjectural.