Unfit to Serve, 75% of Young Americans

Off Topic
61

[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:
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

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]

I highly doubt another nuclear bomb will be dropped, a nuclear war would be certain to follow… or at least imo

62

I’ve done a few tours over there, and here’s me $.02:

The civilians are what win the war. We need them on our side. In an area like where we’re fighting now, and especially considering the counterinsurgency operations, winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and Afghani people is very important.

Back to the topic: I was raised to believe that serving this country is a privilege, not a duty. There was no way I was going to risk what was really my only shot at a decent life on stupid shit like drugs, obesity, or proving Darwin right.

63

My morals would not ever let me kill’em all.

Concerning the gays, don’t ask don’t tell really was the best policy.
When is doesn’t matter anymore, they are seriously gonna get the shit beat out of them.

Maybe when that happens, I’ll be a major or higher and have my own shower.

64

[quote]slippery_banana wrote:
My morals would not ever let me kill’em all.

Concerning the gays, don’t ask don’t tell really was the best policy.
When is doesn’t matter anymore, they are seriously gonna get the shit beat out of them.

Maybe when that happens, I’ll be a major or higher and have my own shower.[/quote]

It’s not gay. It’s just two men admiring each other’s strength.

65

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Isn’t recruiting through the roof this year? I think I read that the other day. [/quote]

They have very little they are recruiting for in the Navy. Mainly special forces and Nukes, maybe a few others but most are closed.

66

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
slippery_banana wrote:
My morals would not ever let me kill’em all.

Concerning the gays, don’t ask don’t tell really was the best policy.
When is doesn’t matter anymore, they are seriously gonna get the shit beat out of them.

Maybe when that happens, I’ll be a major or higher and have my own shower.

It’s not gay. It’s just two men admiring each other’s strength.
[/quote]

…uhhhh…okay.

Whatever you say.

67

[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]

Those were called the World Wars, Crusades… so no. Present day, imagine the family of 4 that lives next to you being blown up because they look like everyone else on same street. Makes sense right? Don’t get it twisted, you don’t trust a soul over there for the same reason, but not trusting them and lighting them up because they wear man dresses is different. The root of the problem is religion in general but that’s another can of worms that I don’t touch.

Army EOD

68

[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 think no matter how terrible a war becomes if a profit can be made through it, our Rulers/Elites will propagate ethnocentricism and dehumanization compaigns of our enemies, the horrible acts will be justified. It is always possible through religion, economy, government and the media to turn a certain ethnicity into something that cannot be tolerated. Our best bet as a human race to end wars would be to completely restructure RELIGIONS, family values, the economy and our governments that stratisfy anything that isn’t a replica of ourselves. Evolutionary theorists believe this is an echo from a past when humans needed to quickly distinguish friend from foe - but this is no longer the case - IT IS PERMANENTLY INGRAINED IN OUR INSTITUTIONS.

69

I hear Canada isnt much better than the US when it comes to people not being fit for the military. They still have their shitty IQ test but got rid of the fitness requirements. Now anyone can join and be sent on their BMQ without doing so much as a pushup. Though whether they pass the BMQ is another story.

EDIT: people who arent in shape cant seem to hit the targets with our spears, and cant throw rocks hard enough.

70

i agree with malonetd

71

[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]

well since your not flaunting a flase bravado like the first “blow everything the fuck up” guy was, ill join this discussion. keeping this specific to afghanastan, fighting an unrestrained war would make absolutely no sense. god this is opening a huge can of worms first id challenge anyone to tell me exactly why we are in afghanastan. if the answer is “bin ladin killed our people” then id like to ask you why you think that.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

the initial reports dont exactly read that way. because a tape comes around with a binladin looking man claiming responsibilty we are ready to go to war with a nation? im sorry but i never bought this. 9/11 did not receive the type of formal investigation it should have to give full respect to the lives lost. instead all the metal from the planes and from the buildings were collected and promptly melted down. fucking bizaare investigation to bring peace to our fallen heros huh?

still im going to assume our government has no secret agenda and everything is as they tell us (mother fucking lusitania anybody?). we ALREADY REMOVED THE FUCKING TALIBAN. what else do you want? at this point you know who is blowing themselves up in the streets? CIVILIANS WHO ARE FUCKING TIRED OF US IN THEIR COUNTRY. if another nation invaded my beloved america(a fucking pain we know NOTHING of) id be killing all the fucking invaders i could. we took out the taliban we should be gone. because they are still resisting does not mean there is any more war to be fought. at this point we are merely sustaining a war with NO clear purpose.

why aren’t we fighting an unrestrained war? THERE IS NO FUCKING ENEMY. who is the enemy in afghanastan? some mother fucker in a car waiting to blow us up? thats hardly a standing army. we are done in afghanistan, its over.

my sincerest apologies to any soldiers or families of soldiers i might have just offended. i know you all love our country and so do i. im just asking questions that not many others are willing to ask.

not an asshole just a little confused.

72

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
HolyMacaroni wrote:
TNRANDY wrote:
I guess they’ll have no choice but to let the gays join now.

LMAO!

You laugh, but I’ll bet you don’t walk around base talking about MMF.

LOL

[/quote]

I originally started this post with “Could you imagine HM’s unit?” then realized what a faux pas that would be.

But sriusly,
“No way in hell am I bunking down with the Louie! I already did on Tuesday.”
“Sorry Fish, you drew the short straw again.”
“Aw man…” (rubs hands, and chuckles evilly.)

73

[quote]young n wrote:
i agree with malonetd[/quote]

LOL!

I originally posted something about my enlistment, but then decided against getting that personal. As far as getting in, it’s generally not hard to get a waiver for something that would normally disqualify someone. I have flat feet, a criminal record, and was a high school drop out and I still got in the Marine Corps.

To be honest, I would argue that 75% of the current troops are unfit to serve. Articles like this mean nothing to me. There’s plenty of shitbags already in the military.

74

[quote]slippery_banana wrote:
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

I know, I just wanted to say that again.

It never hurts to keep calling out the dumbasses.[/quote]

It should also be mentioned that the hardcore sons of bitches that we do send into combat would all most likely want to kick this guys ass up to his neck for thinking any military would ever work this way.

75

You can blame the top brass for this. They want to have high standards on an underdisreable job, and they’re moral judgements are just insane.

If you have been treated for depression, or any other mental disorder in your youth, then kiss enlistment good bye, yet if you were a gangster crip 44ing homeys and raping women, as long as you didn’t get to caught for too much, COME RIGHT IN.

The NEW values of society are incongruent with those held by the army, in our own school system mental illness is basically encouraged if not required, there are places where you have to be screened for ADD and if you get diagnosed on their ‘test,’ it is considered abuse for your parents to refuse you treatment. The whole pharma industry is so deep in our system that in this generation and the next, I’ll be a suprised if 90% of young men are ineligible just because of that.

We need to do something, soon, big time.

76

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
You can blame the top brass for this. They want to have high standards on an underdisreable job, and they’re moral judgements are just insane.

If you have been treated for depression, or any other mental disorder in your youth, then kiss enlistment good bye, yet if you were a gangster crip 44ing homeys and raping women, as long as you didn’t get to caught for too much, COME RIGHT IN.

The NEW values of society are incongruent with those held by the army, in our own school system mental illness is basically encouraged if not required, there are places where you have to be screened for ADD and if you get diagnosed on their ‘test,’ it is considered abuse for your parents to refuse you treatment. The whole pharma industry is so deep in our system that in this generation and the next, I’ll be a suprised if 90% of young men are ineligible just because of that.

We need to do something, soon, big time.[/quote]

I agree with you on that. The military needs to access someone on an individual basis, not “Oh you did this in your youth? Go fuck yourself.”

I know tons of guys who got in a little trouble back in their childhood days and they can’t join now because of it. And these are really good guys now. They lightened up on tattoos because they realize everyone and their grandma has one. So they need to rethink their moral requirements, because in this generation it’s pretty much the norm that we all made a dumb mistake as children, or we went through some fucked up ordeal.

77

Yeah, I enlisted last month(I’m 17) into the ANG(11b infantry). Out of the 30 or so guys I was with going through MEPS, only about 8 of us passed everything. Most of them got dq’d over small things like flat feet or protein in their urine, a few didn’t pass the asvab.

78

[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:

You laugh, but I’ll bet you don’t walk around base talking about MMF.

I originally started this post with “Could you imagine HM’s unit?” then realized what a faux pas that would be.
[/quote]

come on now, how do you think i motivate my troops on a PT run?

“goddamit private, if you don’t hurry the hell up you’re gonna be on MMF duty tonight”

“who’s going to be the female sir?”

“Spc. Jones over there is gonna tuck it in for a little bit, don’t worry, you’ll barely notice the diffence”

damn if that kid doesn’t take off sprinting

79

[quote]Genocide_General wrote:

I agree with you on that. The military needs to access someone on an individual basis, not “Oh you did this in your youth? Go fuck yourself.”

I know tons of guys who got in a little trouble back in their childhood days and they can’t join now because of it. And these are really good guys now. They lightened up on tattoos because they realize everyone and their grandma has one. So they need to rethink their moral requirements, because in this generation it’s pretty much the norm that we all made a dumb mistake as children, or we went through some fucked up ordeal.[/quote]

x2 man.

80

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Latest report, 75% of Us citizens those between ages 17-24 do not meet the basic requirements to serve in the armed forces. Why? Unfit - either obese or just not physically able, lack a high school degree, or have had problems with the law.

Sad state of affairs[/quote]

Not to change the subject but is there a large high school drop out rate in the US? I’m just curious as a friend of mine is a teacher in Northern Alberta and she was saying there’s a 40% drop out rate for aged kids 15 and above…so basically once they figure they can go make money working grunt jobs in the oil patch, they quit school. Before hearing this I had always thought people had enough common sense to at least finish high school.