I would have loved to serve. Too bad i fucked up in life.
[quote]Genocide_General wrote:
Unfortunately at one point I was one of those considered unfit to serve. Back in my younger years I got in trouble with the law which I hate to admit. Although I’ve worked hard, got the record expunged, started going to college and have just become an all around good guy. Now I just need a few more credits before I can join (GED), then I’m off to serve. 
So I guess what I’m getting at is this. If those 75% of people wanted to join, then they would find a way to shape up and do the honor of serving. But they obviously don’t, so who cares. I’d rather have an Army of 10 BAMFers over 100 douchebag slobs.
And a recruiter told me they get tons of fat asses trying to enlist, thinking basic will get them in shape. I guess they never thought of getting in shape prior to basic.[/quote]
Good for you, seriously.
I wish I could do something to remove my “unfit to serve” status (asthma). Unfortunately, not even years of triathlons made that go away.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
It doesn’t really matter. What matters is the “Will” to fight and how much balls you have. For instance we could take Afghanistan with a 1/10 of the soldiers we have now over there(and would have been done and back home long ago) if we let them fight an unrestrained war without all these B.S. Geneva convention and other laws and “rules of engagement”. The hell with all this B.S. “special ops” crap and “gathering intelligence” - blow them all the hell up and there isn’t anything you need to know about them and they will never cause any more problems again.
Fuckin’ Straight!
[/quote]
If your serious, you’re a fucking idiot too.
[quote]slippery_banana wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
It doesn’t really matter. What matters is the “Will” to fight and how much balls you have. For instance we could take Afghanistan with a 1/10 of the soldiers we have now over there(and would have been done and back home long ago) if we let them fight an unrestrained war without all these B.S. Geneva convention and other laws and “rules of engagement”. The hell with all this B.S. “special ops” crap and “gathering intelligence” - blow them all the hell up and there isn’t anything you need to know about them and they will never cause any more problems again.
Fuckin’ Straight!
If your serious, you’re a fucking idiot too.[/quote]
That fact has long been established around here.
lol
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
slippery_banana wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
It doesn’t really matter. What matters is the “Will” to fight and how much balls you have. For instance we could take Afghanistan with a 1/10 of the soldiers we have now over there(and would have been done and back home long ago) if we let them fight an unrestrained war without all these B.S. Geneva convention and other laws and “rules of engagement”. The hell with all this B.S. “special ops” crap and “gathering intelligence” - blow them all the hell up and there isn’t anything you need to know about them and they will never cause any more problems again.
Fuckin’ Straight!
If your serious, you’re a fucking idiot too.
That fact has long been established around here.
lol
[/quote]
I know, I just wanted to say that again.
It never hurts to keep calling out the dumbasses.
[quote]TNRANDY wrote:
I guess they’ll have no choice but to let the gays join now.[/quote]
LMAO!
[quote]hachi wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Matt wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Out of curiosity, what do you have to be able to do to sign up?
(Not planning on it, just curious if I’d be in the 75%)
Been many moons since I was in, but if I remember to get into the Marine Corps you had to do 1 pullup, run 1.5 miles in I think 30 minutes and can’t remember the situps. All easy shit. No felonies and must have a HS diploma.
All of which are waiverable.
Also you cannot be flat footed or have super bad eyesight (not sure what the exact specs are). I was planning on going into the Marines, figured with my high scores and going to college I could go into the officer program and become an Marine Officer. I passed all the above except the feet and eyes.
c. Refractive error (hyperopia (367.0), myopia (367.1), astigmatism, (367.2)), in any spherical equivalent of worse than -8.00 or + 8.00 diopters; if ordinary spectacles cause discomfort by reason of ghost images or prismatic displacement; or if corrected by orthokeratology or keratorefractive surgery. However, for entrance into a military academy or ROTC programs, the following conditions are disqualifying:
I’m at a 7+. [/quote]
I don’t know what that shit means, but I can shoot a cow elk through the spine (or heart depending on who I am talking to) at 400 yards with a 7mm magnum on sticks.
[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
TNRANDY wrote:
I guess they’ll have no choice but to let the gays join now.
LMAO![/quote]
You laugh, but I’ll bet you don’t walk around base talking about MMF.
LOL
[quote]cody.rauch wrote:
Marcus Aurelius spent the better part of his tenure trying to “pacify” the germanic tribes on the western front while at the same time fighting the persians in the east. Nice quote. Only problem is that it comes from a guy who indirectly killed more people then the wars in iraq and afghanistan combined. [/quote]
I wasnt saying that Marcus Aurelius wasnt involved in war. War in itself is not an unnoble thing to take part in. How you take part in it does matter though. The Roman Empire was being raided by Germanic tribes from north, and thus he had every right to “pacify” them in order to prevent further harm to his people. My history isnt superb, but I dont recall him ever ordering the slaughter of innocents. If every person who went to war was not worth listening to on these matters then Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, George Washington, and Sun-Tzu are people who’s wisdom we should dismiss as all of them were part of long and gruesome wars. Personally I think that would be foolish, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.
[quote]slippery_banana wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
It doesn’t really matter. What matters is the “Will” to fight and how much balls you have. For instance we could take Afghanistan with a 1/10 of the soldiers we have now over there(and would have been done and back home long ago) if we let them fight an unrestrained war without all these B.S. Geneva convention and other laws and “rules of engagement”. The hell with all this B.S. “special ops” crap and “gathering intelligence” - blow them all the hell up and there isn’t anything you need to know about them and they will never cause any more problems again.
Your a fucking idiot, and I’m serious man. Apparently you have never served in anything other than a Halo competition. It’s called morals and a conscious mind, and just being a good fucking human being. I’ve served for going on 6 years now in the Army, and I am cold to alot of things, but blowing them the hell up is just fucking stupid, and it shows just how stupid you actually are.
Time to grow up, and become just a tad more mature.
[/quote]
I’m going piss people off for this. But I’m kinda leaning towards agreeing with the first guy, but I want some feed back from people to see where my thought process is right and where it is wrong. If war was completely unrestrained, no rules, kill everyone etc. then wouldn’t there be less wars? It seems now that war has become a thing of politics, not of protection or necessity. If it become a thing of mass death, innocent or not, it would not only be horrifying, but it would destroy the countries building, roads and maybe even the economies of the countries taking part. With so many negatives, could maybe…after several painful experiences across the world, diplomacy become more likely? Could war become something to be feared so much that we will become more likely to work things out?
Please let me know your opinion
[quote]TNRANDY wrote:
I guess they’ll have no choice but to let the gays join now.[/quote]
As long as they don’t admit to it right?
[quote]Knight33 wrote:
slippery_banana wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
It doesn’t really matter. What matters is the “Will” to fight and how much balls you have. For instance we could take Afghanistan with a 1/10 of the soldiers we have now over there(and would have been done and back home long ago) if we let them fight an unrestrained war without all these B.S. Geneva convention and other laws and “rules of engagement”. The hell with all this B.S. “special ops” crap and “gathering intelligence” - blow them all the hell up and there isn’t anything you need to know about them and they will never cause any more problems again.
Your a fucking idiot, and I’m serious man. Apparently you have never served in anything other than a Halo competition. It’s called morals and a conscious mind, and just being a good fucking human being. I’ve served for going on 6 years now in the Army, and I am cold to alot of things, but blowing them the hell up is just fucking stupid, and it shows just how stupid you actually are.
Time to grow up, and become just a tad more mature.
I’m going piss people off for this. But I’m kinda leaning towards agreeing with the first guy, but I want some feed back from people to see where my thought process is right and where it is wrong. If war was completely unrestrained, no rules, kill everyone etc. then wouldn’t there be less wars? It seems now that war has become a thing of politics, not of protection or necessity. If it become a thing of mass death, innocent or not, it would not only be horrifying, but it would destroy the countries building, roads and maybe even the economies of the countries taking part. With so many negatives, could maybe…after several painful experiences across the world, diplomacy become more likely? Could war become something to be feared so much that we will become more likely to work things out?
Please let me know your opinion[/quote]
I know this sounds like an oxymoron but wars have rules for very good reason. If Americans did inhumane things during a war then life is a lot harder on us once the war is over, ie insurrection, peace negociations etc.
wait… hold on… let me dumb this down for Head Hunter. clears throat
Good guys don’t kill innocent civilians, (dramatic pause, wait for it) We’re the good guys.
[quote]Knight33 wrote:
slippery_banana wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
It doesn’t really matter. What matters is the “Will” to fight and how much balls you have. For instance we could take Afghanistan with a 1/10 of the soldiers we have now over there(and would have been done and back home long ago) if we let them fight an unrestrained war without all these B.S. Geneva convention and other laws and “rules of engagement”. The hell with all this B.S. “special ops” crap and “gathering intelligence” - blow them all the hell up and there isn’t anything you need to know about them and they will never cause any more problems again.
Your a fucking idiot, and I’m serious man. Apparently you have never served in anything other than a Halo competition. It’s called morals and a conscious mind, and just being a good fucking human being. I’ve served for going on 6 years now in the Army, and I am cold to alot of things, but blowing them the hell up is just fucking stupid, and it shows just how stupid you actually are.
Time to grow up, and become just a tad more mature.
I’m going piss people off for this. But I’m kinda leaning towards agreeing with the first guy, but I want some feed back from people to see where my thought process is right and where it is wrong. If war was completely unrestrained, no rules, kill everyone etc. then wouldn’t there be less wars? It seems now that war has become a thing of politics, not of protection or necessity. If it become a thing of mass death, innocent or not, it would not only be horrifying, but it would destroy the countries building, roads and maybe even the economies of the countries taking part. With so many negatives, could maybe…after several painful experiences across the world, diplomacy become more likely? Could war become something to be feared so much that we will become more likely to work things out?
Please let me know your opinion[/quote]
Are you willing to let that apply to you? i.e. if someone went in and killed everyone you knew?
[quote]Knight33 wrote:
I’m going piss people off for this. But I’m kinda leaning towards agreeing with the first guy, but I want some feed back from people to see where my thought process is right and where it is wrong. If war was completely unrestrained, no rules, kill everyone etc. then wouldn’t there be less wars? It seems now that war has become a thing of politics, not of protection or necessity. If it become a thing of mass death, innocent or not, it would not only be horrifying, but it would destroy the countries building, roads and maybe even the economies of the countries taking part. With so many negatives, could maybe…after several painful experiences across the world, diplomacy become more likely? Could war become something to be feared so much that we will become more likely to work things out?
Please let me know your opinion[/quote]
dood.
we dropped nuclear bombs on two civillian targets during war. and people still try to fuck with us and fuck with other countries.
war will never end.
As one of those people who was turned down, I find this really sad. I signed up to go to basic for the air force(yea, i know, be a marine, blah blah) and when they did my physical they told me i couldn’t join because ive had a knee surgery and a hand surgery.
[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
Knight33 wrote:
I’m going piss people off for this. But I’m kinda leaning towards agreeing with the first guy, but I want some feed back from people to see where my thought process is right and where it is wrong. If war was completely unrestrained, no rules, kill everyone etc. then wouldn’t there be less wars? It seems now that war has become a thing of politics, not of protection or necessity. If it become a thing of mass death, innocent or not, it would not only be horrifying, but it would destroy the countries building, roads and maybe even the economies of the countries taking part. With so many negatives, could maybe…after several painful experiences across the world, diplomacy become more likely? Could war become something to be feared so much that we will become more likely to work things out?
Please let me know your opinion
dood.
we dropped nuclear bombs on two civillian targets during war. and people still try to fuck with us and fuck with other countries.
war will never end.
[/quote]
This. It has has little or nothing to do with what we perceive to be right or moral. That is merely stage dressing to get young men to join in the excitement of becoming cannon fodder. Wars are generally about empire building or defending dressed up in pretty rhetoric. We have marched our boots across each others throats since the dawn of time and I don’t expect it will end any time soon. It’s our nature and always will be.
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
HolyMacaroni wrote:
Knight33 wrote:
I’m going piss people off for this. But I’m kinda leaning towards agreeing with the first guy, but I want some feed back from people to see where my thought process is right and where it is wrong. If war was completely unrestrained, no rules, kill everyone etc. then wouldn’t there be less wars? It seems now that war has become a thing of politics, not of protection or necessity. If it become a thing of mass death, innocent or not, it would not only be horrifying, but it would destroy the countries building, roads and maybe even the economies of the countries taking part. With so many negatives, could maybe…after several painful experiences across the world, diplomacy become more likely? Could war become something to be feared so much that we will become more likely to work things out?
Please let me know your opinion
dood.
we dropped nuclear bombs on two civillian targets during war. and people still try to fuck with us and fuck with other countries.
war will never end.
This. It has has little or nothing to do with what we perceive to be right or moral. That is merely stage dressing to get young men to join in the excitement of becoming cannon fodder. Wars are generally about empire building or defending dressed up in pretty rhetoric. We have marched our boots across each others throats since the dawn of time and I don’t expect it will end any time soon. It’s our nature and always will be.
[/quote]
Plus it’s profitable for some people.
[quote]Knight33 wrote:
slippery_banana wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
It doesn’t really matter. What matters is the “Will” to fight and how much balls you have. For instance we could take Afghanistan with a 1/10 of the soldiers we have now over there(and would have been done and back home long ago) if we let them fight an unrestrained war without all these B.S. Geneva convention and other laws and “rules of engagement”. The hell with all this B.S. “special ops” crap and “gathering intelligence” - blow them all the hell up and there isn’t anything you need to know about them and they will never cause any more problems again.
Your a fucking idiot, and I’m serious man. Apparently you have never served in anything other than a Halo competition. It’s called morals and a conscious mind, and just being a good fucking human being. I’ve served for going on 6 years now in the Army, and I am cold to alot of things, but blowing them the hell up is just fucking stupid, and it shows just how stupid you actually are.
Time to grow up, and become just a tad more mature.
I’m going piss people off for this. But I’m kinda leaning towards agreeing with the first guy, but I want some feed back from people to see where my thought process is right and where it is wrong. If war was completely unrestrained, no rules, kill everyone etc. then wouldn’t there be less wars? It seems now that war has become a thing of politics, not of protection or necessity. If it become a thing of mass death, innocent or not, it would not only be horrifying, but it would destroy the countries building, roads and maybe even the economies of the countries taking part. With so many negatives, could maybe…after several painful experiences across the world, diplomacy become more likely? Could war become something to be feared so much that we will become more likely to work things out?
Please let me know your opinion[/quote]
This isn’t intended as a flame of your opinion, but:
If one of the “Rogue States” (Iran/N Korea/whomever) decided that the US was the greatest threat to that country’s autonomy, and also supposing they were in an inferior position militarily, wouldn’t a surprise sneak attack employing nuclear weapons be the only method for them to “achieve military parity” with a superpower nation? would that be likely lead the US to engage in more pacific, touchy-feely diplomacy after an act like that? (hint: you can research what the US reaction has been historically to countries that try similar actions to the ones I’ve hypothesized)
The Real cynic in me strongly believes that if the US were to follow the kill’em all policy concerning combative nations, that there’d be no market left for Halliburton (sp) et al. defense contractors to sell their infrastructure rebuilding services to following a ‘conflict’
[quote]NvrTooLate wrote:
wait… hold on… let me dumb this down for Head Hunter. clears throat
[/quote]
Lol, HH really is a giant tool. Gives all of the armed forces a bad name, I don’t care if he’s exaggerating his point or not.
I was in Iraq as a contractor for 4 1/2 years, love and respect the troops but damn do some of the ones they got in need to be kicked the hell out!