I like Indonesias "strenght'' part of that wikipedia page: Republican Army: 183,000 Pemuda: Estimated 60,000 Former Imperial Japanese Army volunteers: 3.000 British Indian Army defectors: 600
Someone who takes up arms is not a civilian anymore. I am talking about those that do absolutely nothing - go about their business and then get run over, shot or bombed by invaders. Not that it would be much better when their own leaders do it.
Yeah, excuse me that was bad grammar. I was short on time. I meant to say that they were fighting for a sovereign America during their presidencies. Here is an Abraham Lincoln line. "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. [As a most undesirable consequence of the war...] Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." —Abraham Lincoln JFK tried to issue executive order 11110. He wanted to empower the government and weaken the financial institution. He wanted to change from federal reserve notes (not backed) to US treasury notes (backed). This would have prevented the financial institutions from making money out of thin air and would have cleared US debt. You know what happened to those 2. President Jackson fought for a nation free from financial institutions. There were more than 1 assassination attempts on Jackson. President Jackson - If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. -Andrew Jackson Thomas Jefferson - If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Napoleon Bonaparte-When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain. Then a guy like Woodrow Wilson signs the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Then he says "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." I can post more but you get my point.
humans are humans. sure it'd be nice if we could just all talk about our differences and get over them with words. but humans are humans. The worst imo are those soldiers that will actively kill because they are just psychopaths with a military license, which I describe them as the simple ********. No fun to gun down a helpless civvie who did nothing, I don't understand it since there is no real challenge to overcome there. but ******** are ********.
I basically agree, but how it is about the challenge? It is about violating the basic human rights and the judical foundations of the civilian you kill. When you fight a fighter killing him is (most often) a matter of self defense as much of aggression, but killing a civilian just means murder ... Or collateral damage, if you wish to avoid harsh words.
probably used the wrong words there, but it's just more or less how I think I'd try to convince someone else to not aim for the civvies and be a man
I'm not very educated in this topic but maybe someone could enlighten me. Aren't soldiers paid to fight? It's not like they woke up one day and decided to run out and fight for their country or freedom or whatever. And I know plenty of people who signed up for the army simply because they had no other option. They couldn't make it through school or get a decent job so they joined the military. Now, I'm not trying to troll military men/women because I've met absolute geniuses and sweethearts who joined the military because it genuinely interested them. I just really don't understand why respect for them is demanded at such a high... a high... I don't know how to say it. In fact, I've met veterans who were far from humble. They themselves would shout out things like "I'm a veteran!" and "I fought for this country!" And in my head I'm like "He must have really not wanted sesame seeds on that bun." ^Bad example I know. But respect for them is demanded, and if you don't give it then you're just an ignorant civilian or terrorist or just a plain bad and ungrateful person. At least in my experience. Again, this is jus something I could never understand.
You can make more at McDonalds than you do in the military. By the time I was 5 years in the USMC, I was extremely highly trained (est. $250k in training) and the rank of Sgt, I was making roughly 38k/year. I got out and went to work at Lockheed Martin for $16.00/hr. My first year on the job with just some brief on the job training I made about 42k. That was 2003, when I quit after finishing school in 2007 I was making $23.50ish/hr and I think I made about 60k that year up until August so I still had more of the year to work. So no, you don't do it for the money. They do pay you, but how else would you take care of your family? If anyone tries to join for the money I'm pretty sure they'd wash out pretty quickly. From a small child I had a strong desire to serve. My father wasn't in the military but a few of my uncles were and both my grandfathers served in WWII and the Korean War. We were always patriotic but we never went overboard. I'd ask my grandfathers for war stories and they might tell me some if no women were around, but other than that I had no encouragement to join. In fact, I don't think they wanted me to join but once I did they were extremely proud. The evening I went to enlist I told my father, but not my mother, and he gave me money for the bus but wouldn't drive me. It had to be my own decision.
I'll save the judgement, but I do not understand your motivations or culture. It is wildly foreign and bizarre to me.
it's worth noting that the guy that joins the army is getting a lot of training in a decent number of practically applicable things, as well as a sheet of benefits i don't really know that much about (i've never aspired to join my nation's FINE-ASS ARMY) if you compare to the guy that works at mcdonalds, depending on the city you might get all of that (better stability if you think about it) and even a lower risk of death pretty good tradeoff for Bane Shift money either way, i guess? (also, mcD's doesn't pay room and board- i'd assume the armed forces might help out with that)
I was making a point. I followed that up showing you how I made more at an unskilled factory position at Lockheed (Aircraft Painter) in the first year than I did at a highly trained position in the USMC after 5. Benefits at Lockheed are better than Mili. Also, your quality of care in Military is very low. Edit, if you live on base you don't get BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) and if you are married you don't get meal ticket, instead you get Food Allowance, both of those cover maybe 60% of what they are meant for.
I plan on signing up for the Army or Air Force after High School. Dunno if I want to go to college though, I'll make up my mind after/while I serve my term.
Interesting topic and a nice read. Interesting to see such different points of views collide in a mostly polite manner; kudos for that to Baskitkase and Boozha and everyone else participating in the conversation. I'll try to shed a little light on the German mindset. Let's have a look at one of Baskit's posts: For Baskit, it is the warrior who stands up and fights that which opposes freedom. But Germany learned from its history, that most soldiers, even those who did not share the ****-mindset, did not oppose the regime. They followed. The result is, that it is hard to celebrate soldiers as the defenders of freedom. In addition, the United States are seen as warmongers by many Germans. Therefore the idea of celebrating those who follow orders they believe should be refused is to be refuted itself. Just take the first line of the German Wikipedia entry to the Iraq War as an example: "Der Irakkrieg (auch Zweiter Irakkrieg oder Dritter Golfkrieg) war eine völkerrechtswidrige Invasion des Irak durch die Streitkräfte der Vereinigten Staaten sowie des Vereinigten Königreichs, unterstützt von der sogenannten Koalition der Willigen." It begins with the statement that the Iraq War was an invasion by the US and UK and that it was violating international law. From a German point of view: How could one celebrate the warriors who break international law and begin a war? Aren't they warmongers? And how can one celebrate warmongers? Moreover: Shouldn't they have refused to participate in such an atrocity? (I'll write more later; I got to go now; my personal point of view is that it's complicated; maybe I will write more about that later as well)
If I shared that perspective that where war happens is the warriors responsibility then it would be hard to celebrate. But no warrior ever "stands up to its regime". That's not how it works. There are small examples of that here and there but a warriors part is not the reasoning of war, it's the doings. I don't believe in the whole "spreading peace" rhetoric. Why aren't we helping Africa? It has to do with what Imperialism can be legally done. Everyone is out for themselves. Everyone who can. But I have no control or influence at that level and make none of those decisions. Still, the reason I take up arms for my country has nothing to do with that. It ends with me giving myself. That's what I have done. If it's shown that people with power to make those abovementioned decisions did wrong them so be it. America still needs her defenders. You don't know what's going to happen when you enlist. Is Russia going to attack us (prob not). Are we going to attack XYZ? Dunno. I'm not concerned with that, or that I believe, in the end, that I'm part of a wonderful nation and I want to give myself to her and doing so is an honor. That's what I celebrate. And me and my brothers carry the ones who were asked of everything and did not return, I celebrate them doubly. I also think that if we were all socially responsible blowhards and no one joined the ranks in fear that they might offend some other country, America would have long since been ran over and would be flying some other flag. It's the policy makers that make bad decisions, but it's the warriors that keep her free.
