It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why join the Army, Navy etc.?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
idealists or patriots ?




posted on May, 15 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I joined up because I needed a job, loved my country, and yes, was willing to kill people or get killed for the sake of America.

My problems with that came later.

Yes, i would kill "innocent" men women and children for America, provided that the country they lived in was a credible threat.

Iraq wasnt. So, i dont believe in that war. I would, however, be willing to attack saudi Arabia. they have not attacked us upfront, but have been doing so behind the scenes. Yes, Id go over and fight in saudi Arabia.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Messedup annie, you are really messed up you know...


Oh that was original


No terrorism....you are kidding right? I guess you feel safe up there in Canada, since nothing has happened there....yet. Maybe if they had blown up 3,000 of your people you would still want to do nothing and wait until another 3,000 or more are killed. What's 3,000 people, that's nothing, its ok, terrorists don't exist.....


Funny I don't recall saying that terrorists don't exist. Did the leader of Iraq kill 3000 people somewhere? I must be really messed up for having missed that. Or perhaps they can't show that on our TV because we're too busy trying to hide.


Tell you what, we do not give up easily ever tracking any idiotic Islamic extremists, be that Iraq or anywhere else.


So you're racist?

[qoute]You want to lay down, hide in Canada and let things happen, be my guess, but it is not an option for us to do that.

*guest
Of course it's not an option for you, bullies start wars.


We are not going to wait for these idiots to kill more Americans or attack any other civilians


You already did when you sent your men over there


Maybe we could make an exception and let those Islamic extremists that are still alive go to Canada. Then you can open your arms to them and love them all you want, see if that changes them.


Contrary to popular belief, we aren't all that loving here. In fact, I'd probably make sure you got your ass kicked if you ever came here
Besides, don't you watch hockey?


There are many reasons why we join the military. The U.S military has done a lot of good


Thank you, that's what I was looking for without all the ignorant comments about me sympathizing with terrorists ... I must be getting more messed up as this thread gets bigger because I don't remember saying that either.


Civilians die in war, its something we can't avoid, and yes we are attacking extremists if you haven't figured that out, we are not attacking any civilians knowingly.


Is this from your personal experience? Are you in Iraq right now?


And since your post wreaks of stereotypes, how about I play that game as well?
I hope you've enjoyed the the reply you nascar watching redneck racist.


Now go educate yourself ... www.canada.com...

[Edited on 15-5-2004 by MessedUpAnnie]



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MessedUpAnnie
Me personally, I would not join. I wouldn't be used as a pawn to go kill people for oil or whatever the reason is that the US gives these days .... oh right, terrorism.


I guess that quote from you up there didn't mean anything then. Rolling your eyes because we are fighting terrorism, instead of sitting down and waiting for more people to get killed.

We went to Iraq for many reasons, one of the reasons is because we know that Iraq/Saddam had helped many terrorists, we had to start somewhere and Iraq was showing signs once more of build up and that they had adquired WMD, and since in the past Iraq "invaded" Kuwait, alongside the truth that Iraq is right in the middle of the Middle East...a good strategic point to find and root out any terrorists.

Also perhaps you missed it, but many dissidents from Iraq were requesting for the U.S to go there and take care of Saddam, there were many hearings before we started the war and iraqis that live here were presenting their cases and showing information from people that are still living in Iraq.

We never said Iraq is the only country that harbors terrorists, and that the war on terror ends there, but for the above reasons and probably some more we went there first.

Am I racist against Islamic extremists or anyone that sends kids with bombs strapped to their chests, or put up bombs and make other acts like 9/11 and 3/11 to kill civilians? You bet, I don't give a crap if they are white, black chinese or whatever race, they could be an alien race from another planet for all i care.

BTW, you are asking if Saddam killed 3,000 people? lol...where have you been? Saddam has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and those that oppose him. Gasing and killing entire villages.

"With Saddam gone, an international group led by a California couple, one a native of Iraq's marshes, hopes to begin restoring things as they once were.

Just 20 years ago, 450,000 people lived at what some believe was the site of the biblical Garden of Eden. The Madan civilization, also known as the "Marsh Arabs," traced their roots back 5,000 years to the Sumerians.

Today, an estimated 10,000 residents remain in the marshes but tens of thousands are believed to want to return.

"There are 70,000 refugees staying in Iran, waiting to come back," said Azzam Alwash, a native of southern Iraq who now lives with his wife Suzie in Fullerton, Calif. "When they come back, they want to have their marshes back."

Ancient Culture Ravaged

Many Marsh Arabs were driven off after the 1991 Gulf War when a vengeful Saddam, angered by U.S.-encouraged uprisings, began draining the marshes and killing members of the population.

Some of the Iraqis who rebelled against Saddam took refuge in the marshes after the uprisings failed. "Saddam could not follow them up with the tanks and armored weapons, so instead he set about drying the marshes," Alwash told ABCNEWS affiliate KABC-TV in Los Angeles. "He deprived them of a way of life and the ability to live in our forest."

Human rights groups have called the assault on the marshes and its people genocide, and have said it could be among the charges if Saddam is ever prosecuted for war crimes (see sidebar, at bottom).


Before Saddam drained the wetlands, the Madan lifestyle flourished. Residents would pole past reed banks and islands in long carved boats, fishing, farming rice or harvesting dates for food and trade. Villages with humble homes and bigger arched bamboo meeting halls dotted the marshes that extended over an area roughly half the size of Ohio.
The Alwashes are working to restore what they call Iraq's Sherwood Forest. They've formed the "Eden Again" project, and next month will team up with scientists from around the world, who will look for ways to saturate the area so the Iraqis who fled can one day return.

The former wetlands are expected to take years to saturate, because the land covers thousands of miles.

But besides the cultural reasons for restoring the land, it also has historical significance.

"It's the birthplace of Abraham," says Suzie Alwash. "It is where [the ancient myth] The Epic of Gilgamesh was enacted. It's very important for a number of religions and for humanity." "

Excerpts taken from.
abcnews.go.com...
This post on the Command-Post leads to this article, "Regime sucked life out of marshes" (flash! Saddam's regime sucks!), on Gulf News. Upshot of the story? Saddam deliberately destroyed one of the world's great wetlands in an effort to destroy the Marsh Arabs, who had opposed him. The wetlands was reduced from over 200,000 square kilometers to ten percent of that size. 210,000 of the people who had lived in those marshes for thousands of years were killed or relocated."

Excerpts taken from.
tnor.org...



"February 18, 2004

BOB EDWARDS, host: The US military has issued a new list of Iraq's most wanted. The 32 names include key suspects in the post-Saddam insurgency against the US occupation. Of the 55 names on the military's original list, all but 10 have been killed or captured. Number one on that list was Saddam Hussein. Iraqi authorities say they plan to put the captured former leader on trial as early as the summer for mass murder and other crimes against the Iraqi people. A trial would reveal details of Saddam's nearly 25-year regime and give the dictator a chance to defend himself before a worldwide audience. NPR's Christopher Joyce reports that the trial also could reveal more about the social and political conditions that lead to genocide.

CHRISTOPHER JOYCE reporting:



Genocide is a 20th century word. It was invented during the Holocaust to describe the annihilation of a group by the state, but Old Testament stories and Homeric epics suggest the practice is ancient. What is new is that people are now tried for it under international law. Human rights groups say there's abundant evidence the Iraqi government committed genocide against the Kurds in Iraq in the late 1980s. They say persecution of Shia Muslims in the south in the 1990s could constitute crimes against humanity: widescale murder, though not an attempt to wipe out a whole population.

Besides Saddam's guilt or innocence, a trial could also dwell on the question of: What caused his government to commit mass murder? It's a subject that preoccupies Gregory Stanton, who runs a group called Genocide Watch. Stanton helped create the international tribunal for the Rwanda genocide in 1994. He says certain cultural risks heighten the risk of genocide, the way fault lines mark an earthquake zone. "

Excerpts taken from.
www.genocidewatch.org...


Perhaps you don't even know what his two sons did for fun?
They enjoyed to torture people, one of his sons was a soccer player and if his team lost he would kill them, the other son if he saw a woman he liked and she had a boyfriend, he would kill the boyfriend and have the woman as long as he wanted to. Good men his two sons were huh.....

BTW......You want to kick my ass, or send others to do it?
That's a good one.


The Rwanda genocide...we had nothing to do with it, we actually were helping the resistance against the oppresor, who was being helped by none other than the French... What?? the French helping in a genocide of hundreds of thousands of people? Yep, the same way they sided with China to show military muscle in taiwan before the "free elections".

Clinton was in office at that time, and much like so many people in here that don't want us to do anything against "terrorism" and whould prefer we stayed away trying to root out extremists....that's exactly what Clinton did, he didn't want to be involved in anything. He did nothing when we were attacked in the U.S Cole and other terrorist attacks that were done against us.

If it was Bush in office, he would have done what he did in Haiti, I guess everyone is forgetting about that.... We stopped bloodshed in haiti by doing what the people wanted done.

BTW on February 26th 1993 the WTC was attacked, so the extremists were planning to do this for a long time.


[Edited on 15-5-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   
MessedupAnnie, I am a little confused as to why you would make such a post. Kind of like asking somebody why they're alive.

Vagabond said it the best, we join the military because it provides a safe haven of many respects. A way of life, money, support, etc. Vagabond is right, just about everyone in the military is an idealist of sorts, but none other have the same depth as the U.S. Marine Corps. People of other services (like the Army) are full of rednecks who believe any non-white non-Christian is a worthless and dangerous threat to society, but ask a Marine and they tell you a different conviction. And that conviction is exactly that the world in general is so messed up, somebody has to fight to keep some sort of order around. That's what the U.S. Marine Corps are all about. That's why they don't go for catchy advertising and moral appeal. They say "Join the Marines, be the elite, and kick some ass while you're at it." In the end, the Marine will realize he is there to fight for survival, not for the material things of life. But one thing that doesn't change is what he believes in. He believes that the world is better off without a certain type of people, and will do his best to make sure they don't survive. The Marine will fight because that's the way you survive. They are the modern-day incarnation of the Japanese Samurai. Wisdom is their best weapon.

That is why I embraced the Corps and I am planning to join the USMC. It makes me sick to see all the propoganda being flayed out by the U.S. Army and then see their stupidity unfold regarding prisoners and combat. Then the Marines, who can actually fight and who try so hard to convince the brass not to negotiate with terrorists and warlords, eventually have to pay the biggest of prices because the Army is full of losers and the brass is hypocritical and worthless. And when it comes to debacles and crime in the military these days, it's no surprise the Marines aren't even in the picture anymore. Ever wonder why Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England aren't Marines? They weren't good enough.

So to answer your question, Annie, I want to be a part of the U.S. Marine Corps because I like the idea of being the guy who gives somebody else a chance. That's what it's all about, survival. And nothing wrong with kicking ass!



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Muaddib ... I'm sorry you had to spend so much time typing something that was irrelevant. (I only read half of it anyway)


When I said that I didn't believe this war was about terrorism, I didn't mean that I don't believe in terrorism. It just means that I don't believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Please don't twist my words around yet again. No, I don't think Saddam is a good guy, no I don't 'sympathize' with him, yes, he is a jerk of the most massive kind.

But one should remember where he got his weapons to attack Kuwait.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. In my opinion the US is a terrorist too.

But this post isn't really about that.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
People of other services (like the Army) are full of rednecks who believe any non-white non-Christian is a worthless and dangerous threat to society, but ask a Marine and they tell you a different conviction. And that conviction is exactly that the world in general is so messed up, somebody has to fight to keep some sort of order around. That's what the U.S. Marine Corps are all about.


That was interesting thanks. I learned something there.

I just asked the question because I genuinely wanted to know, perhaps have my mind changed about the whole idea.
I mean I was dead set against it before I posted this thread, especially with this particular war. But slowly the other side of the picture is unfolding.

I hear a lot of people make such statements as 'well he deserved to die, he was on another persons soil'. I don't think any soldier who is fighting for his country deserves to die, but I do think that if we would all just stay on our own soil, things would be a little bit better. Unfortunately, one can only do that when the others are playing nice.

So I asked the question to be enlightened. So far, I think it's working



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Well, your question was why we would become cannon fodder for American foreign policy. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't see it as a foreign policy. I see it as human nature. Somebody has to do the dirty work, and I think the dirty work is pretty cool.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MessedUpAnnie
Muaddib ... I'm sorry you had to spend so much time typing something that was irrelevant. (I only read half of it anyway)


Ya...that tells me how willing you are to listen to the other side of the story, a good way to learn the truth.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Interesting question. I've wondered the same thing myself. On thing that our government does is target young people who are not really old enough to make informed decisions. The recruiters are right there waiting for the high school kids. AND, some of the most likely to sign up are lower income minorities who have limited resources for a college education. The military is also glorified here - be all you can be, see exotic loca- les, travel, be a hero - its all indoctrination, and our young people are sadly susceptible to it (a fact that the US government counts on.)



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
top three reasons americans join the military

in no particular order

1. Money for college
2. Technical Training (U2U me if you wanna know more about this one)
3. Seeing the world. or in my case the rest of the US

[Edited on 5-16-2004 by KrazyIvan]



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by MessedUpAnnie
Muaddib ... I'm sorry you had to spend so much time typing something that was irrelevant. (I only read half of it anyway)


Ya...that tells me how willing you are to listen to the other side of the story, a good way to learn the truth.



Maybe you should read this and become enlightened ... www.cbc.ca...



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   
(I am PolskieWojsko, apolgize for my background, you can't see my name, and I can't change it, heh)

All citizens of this country should be morally obligated to somehow serve the common good, wether it be through charity, donations, civil service, or military service. You grew up in a country that (probably) allowed you to live, breath, and succeed based on the sacrafices of others made before you. Without them, you would not be here today. You could be speaking German right now, or not at all...

I don't believe that all who join the military do it just for money, because let's face it folks, our military men get paid peanuts; especially the lower ranks.

Many of them make less than a new full time employee at McDonald's. How are these men expected to fight and die for their country when they cannot even feed their own families?

As for the gentlemen who said that the Marines were the best, I would have to disagree. I'm sorry but I can't stand it when servicemen put down other branches of the military. They are all supposed to work together, why are they always competing with each other? I'm sure there were instances of pride getting in the way of military progress(E.G. Dolittle sinking the German Battleship with a Bi-plane).

All forces should be united in my opinion, or at least brought somewhat closer together.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Well im in the royal navy and when someone asks me why did you join and go to war i say nothing because i know they wont understand



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Well to put it simply, the data is public about depleted uranium and vaccines, so what about the science?

A preponderance of evidence suggests that you are subjecting yourself to danger far beyond the random factor of casualty percentages. You are 100 percent exposed to cancer viruses in the vaccines they give you in the military and high mercury contamination. Just the heavy metals part of depleted uranium ordnance once deployed in combat, is enough for you to avoid any military service in combat areas, but again, the vaccines are 100 percent bad for your health.

So read the journals, parse the internet, and compare notes. No one in their right mind would want to subject themselves to any of this voluntarily. Now think, are you going to volunteer once you know, while your as low as 90 IQ brain even studies the elementary news and science articles on this?

So here comes the draft, and it demands you expose yourself to the above dangers, will you "step forward?" Don't even think about going to Canada, they have already set up cooperative agreements for the FBI to pull you back faster than you can click your heels saying "there's no place like home."



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I joined up because I needed a job, loved my country, and yes, was willing to kill people or get killed for the sake of America.

My problems with that came later.

Yes, i would kill "innocent" men women and children for America, provided that the country they lived in was a credible threat.

Iraq wasnt. So, i dont believe in that war. I would, however, be willing to attack saudi Arabia. they have not attacked us upfront, but have been doing so behind the scenes. Yes, Id go over and fight in saudi Arabia.



same reasons as stated by sadki. i also get a free college education after it and i get a bigger salery when i become a commisioned officer. i also would join the fight against saudi arabia. altough that would be a hard fight.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Muaddib - Way to go, nice comments


Reading some of these comments almost makes me wish Saddam resided in Canada...



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
Their absence in Rwanda speaks to this.


Beg your pardon, but wasn't Rwanda the one where our allies, namely the Belgians, lead a UN rush for the exit, which compromised the US position and forced us to leave as well? Maybe it wasn't Rwanda but I clearly remember hearing about such a case in one of our African "peacekeeping" missions.
At the same time, I can hardly argue that American politicians are as idealistic as the forces at their disposal, nor are many American civilians.

I know Marines who were in Somalia, and they were very angry that they weren't unleashed on the militias and allowed to bring order to that country. The funny thing is, the ones who actually would have made the sacrifice are the only ones who were OK with it. The civilians were uneasy about it, and that made the politicians even more so. I don't believe that America has to be all things to all people, but I do believe that we'd get a lot farther in this world if we'd help where it's needed, not just where it helps us back. We fight the really big fights for hundreds of billions of dollars, like afghanistan, and we throw billions of dollars piece meal into weak relief efforts. If we can do all that essentially for nothing, why can't we stick it out in places like Somalia and Rwanda for less expense, and concentrate those billions in aid on one country at a time to build this world up in a meaningful way? In the big picture, it's not even really charity. Afterall, the political party that does something meaningful for Africa is going to reap serious benefits in the elections (especially if its the republicans, who at this point can't appeal even to conservatives in the black population because of the percieved lack of respect). Beyond that, the nation which begins dealing with Africa in a fair way is going to gain a vast new market and a large community of allies in the future, some of whom have large muslim populations. This could revolutionize American diplomacy. The only problem is that it's more than 10 years away, so it will never be considered. Congress only appropriates large sums of money to a 20+ year project if it's destined to produce an obsolete piece of military hardware, such as the Commanche.

EDIT:
I just read a few other comments worthy of response.

What about science?: I was very well informed about the Gulf War Syndrome. I knew all about the NAPPS system, the DU, the bad vaccinations, the flaws of MOPP, and the early arthritis. So what? I was prepared to stand my ground in front of an oncomming juggernaught, like the Marines at the Pusan Perimeter. What do I care about something that lets me live another 10 years before i die?

Inter-service rivalry: I don't look down on the Army as heavily as that aspiring devil-dog who was running them down, however there are MAJOR differences in culture between the services. It is a FACT that each service has unique strengths and weaknesses.

The Army will invariably have newer gear, better technology, and more support. This large force varies in organization and is can not be trained as intensively as a small one. Their officers study doctrine intensively. The army will bear down on you slowly and arrive with shock and awe, inspiring retreat and surrender, and punishing those who do not. Unfortunately, a crafty enemy will be able to inflict losses on this slow moving giant.

The Marines will often be armed with older or even less advanced equipment, and will not have as much support in quantity as the Army. This small force will be fanatically aggressive as a product of rigorous training. Marine officers are bold and independent, and work within the best-instituted combined-arms teams in the world (MAGTFs). The Marines will advance quickly and aggresively, and react to you with shocking speed and intensity. They have a historical ability to turn the enemy's assured victory into an utter debacle.

In WWI, the German's classified the Marines as shock troops- a distinction they shared with no other American force.
At Pusan in Korea, Marines relieved a battered Army and pushed the advancing Chinese back nearly 100 miles before being called back to consolidate the defenses.
At Chosin Resevoir, the Army retreated in disarray, leaving wounded and functioning equipment behind. The Marines made an orderly (if violent) breakout from their surrounded position, bringing both their own and some army men and equipment out safely.
In Vietnam, the Marines manuever-based counter-insurgency wisdom which dates back to the publication of the Small Wars Manual near the turn of the century made them far more effective than the attrition-minded Army.
In Granada, a general (Chairman, JCOS?) accused an entire Airborne division of "sitting on its butt" while two companies of marines were "running all over the island".
In Beruit, a token force of US Marines was able to restrain the same Israeli Army that had shattered the entire Syrian army only a few years earlier.
In the Gulf War, Iraqi forces were paralyzed by fear of the Marines, who they called Angels of Death. The belief that Marines would spearhead the American offensive, as well as the pentagon's ability to trust that a thin line of Marines could hold the line while the Army manuevered, was chiefly responsible for the success of the Hail Mary.
In Somalia, when the Marines arrived, the warlords stood down. The fighting did not resume until the Marines withdrew.
Taliban troops in Afghanistan were ORDERED as a general rule to only stand and fight against the Army. Taking on the Marines was simply throwing away troops.

It is a FACT that Marines are a better indoctrinated and therefore more motivated and aggressive force than the Army. By pressing leadership to the lowest ranks, continuing to develop the MAGTF, and continuing a tradition of manuever warfare, the Marines have made themselves the most tactically agile force in the world.
MARINES SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THEIR ENEMIES. They are all too often rumored to be brainwashed extremists, murderers, and even cannibals. They are, perhaps, the most prolific force in history. How can you defend any other force against a reputation like that?

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   


Maybe you should read this and become enlightened ... www.cbc.ca...


I have read this before and the connection is extremely vague in my opinion. Since the Bushes dabbled in oil, of course they have had dealing with the Saudis. They are one of the most powerful oil states and if you don't have dealings with them then you are nothing in the oil business.

As for the Bin Laden connection? Pretty vague too. It's funny how they try to relate ALL the bin Ladens to the crimes that a brother commited. How quick they can put the blame on the innocent people of the family. How desperate can an article be? It was the son, Osama, who blew the fuse and decided to run off and fight jihad. This is like blaming OJ Simpsons kids for killing Nicole Simpson just because they are family. Every family has a few bad seeds and some of the others may be guilty of crimes too, but hey, I am sure you get my point.

I joined the military (the Navy) when I was 20. I was going to UCLA, doing well in school, but something was missing. I really wanted to get out and see the world and leave California for a long time. I did and enjoyed every minute of it. I lived in the UK for 3 1/2 years and had a great time.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by WarBUCKs]



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Why not? It's a nice paycheck, full benefits, lots of entitlements when you get out, veterans preference on job applications, free college, VA home loans, etc. Why wouldn't you join?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join