[Pau11y]

Ummm, Pakistan? We've never invaded Pakistan...

Perhaps you're thinking of Afghanistan?

I appreciate your thoughts, but if you're going to give an impassioned rant on a subject, you might want to make sure you have a clue as to what you're talking about.

In any case, this thread has already made the slippery slide from talking about the military and media/social aspects of this video to a general ranting about the origins of war in Iraq...which is, as Paully points out, quite a can of worms.

But don't blame the guys with the 30mm cannon for being sent their to do their jobs.

MD

Yup, I'm sorry on that one, I meant Afghanistan.

 

[JMAC]

Has anyone ever thought that some countries are better run by a dictatorship rather than be democratic...This is the problem with american and western thinking. I have this theory that ancient cultures like that of Iraq, traditionally had dictators or a monarchy type thing going. I think certain cultures work better having a ruler with absolute power. Wasn't it Hobbes or Machiavelli who said that not one form of government is perfect everywhere. Like the west tends to believe. Or maybe that was aristotle anyway one of those crazy old guys.

 

[The Kadvang]

No i don;t want american soldiers to die....fact is I don;t want anyone to die...this pointless war pisses me off incredibly. I've happily said that to a friend who;s now a US marine and will be going to Iraq in June.

Through I sympathize with your views, your hypocritical attitude really pisses me off.

...what morons I honestly wouldn;t be to sad if some iraqis shot down the apache. :nuts:

Right buddy.

 

[Pau11y]

Through I sympathize with your views, your hypocritical attitude really pisses me off.

My biggest bone is how badly we treat each other, as humans. Remember what Arnie said in T2, "You humans are the only species that naturally kill each other; it's inevitable you will destroy yourselves" or something close to that. I mean, step back and take a good look at humans vs. say, another social pack animal - wolves. We are arguably the MOST advanced beings on this planet, yet we behave more poorly than even wolves. Wolves will eventually accept another wolf from another pack, but we, as of yet have learn to accept the differing races.

 

[JMAC]

Through I sympathize with your views, your hypocritical attitude really pisses me off.



Right buddy.

EVERYONE is a hypocrit at some point. I was pissed so and said that in response. Also if a soldier goes out of his way to kill someone when he's not in danger himself...than yes maybe he is a worthless person. To me it looked as though those Iraqies were harmless to the pilots of the apache. :nuts:

 

[The Kadvang]

EVERYONE is a hypocrit at some point. I was pissed so and said that in response. Also if a soldier goes out of his way to kill someone when he's not in danger himself...than yes maybe he is a worthless person. To me it looked as though those Iraqies were harmless to the pilots of the apache. :nuts:

To extend your line of reasoning, a soldier should not kill an enemy who is pointing a gun at one of his squad? Or I shouldn't kill someone who is threatening my family? Sure, the crew of that apache was not in danger- but it is almost a certainty that those weapons would have been used, sometime, to maim and kill American troops. War is not fair... it is the job of those pilots to kill the enemy with all the tools at their disposal.

 

[Big_Papa1080]

WOW yeah geeezzz thats some huge weaponry. I;m really glad they killed those guys. They could have done soooooo much with 3 ak47 and an rpg. Really wow I have to hand it to the 101st airborne, they really are doing a great job at protecting the world from those Iraqis. what morons I honestly wouldn;t be to sad if some iraqis shot down the apache. :nuts:

shut up canadian.

 

[jon cross]

I've thought about us as a society a lot lately, about how destructive and aggressive we are (I'm a double major poli-sci and behavioral sciences undergrad, this is what I am most interested in academically). I think it's mostly about how crowded we are and how we are forced, by our dependence on a global economy and technology, to interact with others every moment of our lives. If 200 wolves lived on the same acre of land I would imagine that they too would become very destructive amongst themselves.
And JMAC, I'm not even going to bother responding to you after this. It's a war, they killed the enemy, job done.

 

[MikeD]

Here's my beef w/ this kind of thinking. Extreme and overwhelming fire power saves lives, our soldiers’ lives. This is true, proven here as well as in WWII w/ the use of nukes on Japan. But with our end goal of "winning", are we willing to achieve this by any means? Say this is not a dirt poor nation we're in conflict w/, and it's someone also w/ nuke tech, say someone like N. Korea. Does this escalate till both our nations are standing at the Big Red Button daring each other? In this instance the sledge on the fly worked. But follow this to the logical conclusion here:
we take their little pawn, they take our knight, we take a town, they take out a base, we take out an entire city, they booby trap the city and kill thousands of our troops as the city is occupied, what's next? Do we sterilize the nation, 'cause no one like to loose...
I hear the term, "a measured proportional response". I'm thinking ok, maybe a 3 on 3 w/ some Seals. But this risks lives, our soldiers’ lives.
The guy who worked me before was right, this IS war and it's not fair. However, keep this in mind. There's a fine line between a terrorist and a revolutionary. We are to them, an invading empire, as they are to us, the enemy. So the question comes down to this: Who is in the wrong and why exactly is it that we're there?

Pre-dinner rant over. I promise I won't do this again...tonight.

Edit: sorry, forgot to run it thru spellcheck

Paully, I just don't get your analogies. You're mixing up an "unfair fight" with "proportional response." Proportional response does mean that you measure the collateral consequences of your actions...don't use artillery in a potentially civilian populated area to try and take out a sniper, or don't use a tank to fire at a precious cultural treasure. It doesn't mean you have to fight symmetrically, i.e., with the same weapons with which you're faced.

If a 3 man team had killed them, they'd be just as dead, so it's a moot point. If you think the team's potential to recieve their possible surrender is a mitigating factor, well, I'm glad you're not making military policy. This isn't a "fair fight" or a game where you go out of the way to give the enemy quarter. You kill the enemy, and continue killing him until the war is over.

The only issue I have with the air power is that an insurgent enemy often lacks respect for use of these weapons, and sees it as a sign of weakness that we don't kill man-to-man when we have other means. I wouldn't fret over it if the aggressive use of supporting arms was accompanied by rapid and violent ground action (in a larger scope; this engagement is too small-scale an action to compare, and the Army uses air power differently than we Marines tend to...).

Killing 3 at a time and proudly giving video and body counts and proving we're killing more of them than they are of us, though, is not a recipe to win a war. Wars are won by cracking the enemy's will and/or ability to fight, not by attriting his numbers haphazardly. Attack the center of gravity, not his numbers.

You'd have thought we'd have learned that lesson after, say, Vietnam, but here we are again, lording our technical superiority over perceived inferiors while failing to make real headway against their movement.

Lesson #1: You can't win fights abroad against insurgents in their own land cleanly or cheaply, and the cost of it often outweighs the benefit. We taught this to the British in the 1770s; you'd think we'd remember how it's done.

Lesson #2: Don't get into fights you can't win cleanly.

MD

 

[MikeD]

To me it looked as though those Iraqies were harmless to the pilots of the apache. :nuts:

So you should never attack an enemy by ambush? You should walk around the battlefield, wait to be fired upon, then clearly identify the target, request permission to shoot, and then return fire with the identical weapons your enemy is using, just to make sure he's got a fair chance?

An enemy who's not actively firing on you isn't an enemy?

The very idea and practice of war (on the tactical level) is to attack first and give your enemy as little chance to kill you as possible by killing him. By the rules of engagement given to our fighters, anyone possessing crew-served weapons (like that RPG) is by definition an enemy combatant, and can be engaged. Those pilots were EXCEEDINGLY cautious and actually respectful of the lives of those enemies; they took a hell of a long time to assess the situation and even got permission from above to shoot.

You can argue against war as a political phenomenon, fine, but you're getting absurd by trying to apply anti-war theories at the tactical level.

 

[JMAC]

An enemy who's not actively firing on you isn't an enemy?

Think about this Iraq never threatened the US. They never did therefore Iraq should have never been an enemy.

 

[JMAC]

shut up canadian.

You're really brilliant, at least everyone else can come up with fair arguments to shut me down. From the way you type it sounds as if you're a 13 year old american, who has no real understanding of the world outside your suburban town.

 

[MikeD]

Think about this Iraq never threatened the US. They never did therefore Iraq should have never been an enemy.

Oh, right, that's what the pilots should be thinking.

Again, you're confusing the political side of the issue with the military side of the issue. I understand you don't like seeing images of death, because you don't agree with the war, but that's a different conversation from whether these helicopter pilots should have engaged the enemy as they did when they were in combat.

Arguing about whether the war is just or not pre-empts any discussion of the conduct of the war at the tactical level.

I also see this thread being sent to the political forum really quickly.

MD

 

[JMAC]

Oh, right, that's what the pilots should be thinking.

Again, you're confusing the political side of the issue with the military side of the issue. I understand you don't like seeing images of death, because you don't agree with the war, but that's a different conversation from whether these helicopter pilots should have engaged the enemy as they did when they were in combat.

Arguing about whether the war is just or not pre-empts any discussion of the conduct of the war at the tactical level.

I also see this thread being sent to the political forum really quickly.

MD

OK you're right, I am mixing with the political side. Though you'll never get me to say what the soldiers did was right. I do understand perfectly why technically what they did and you could even say morally it was right what they did but I hate war.

 

[Pau11y]

I've thought about us as a society a lot lately, about how destructive and aggressive we are (I'm a double major poli-sci and behavioral sciences undergrad, this is what I am most interested in academically). I think it's mostly about how crowded we are and how we are forced, by our dependence on a global economy and technology, to interact with others every moment of our lives. If 200 wolves lived on the same acre of land I would imagine that they too would become very destructive amongst themselves.

You're right on the 200 wolves per acre, hell, maybe even 10 acres. But this doesn't hold water for humans. It's true we are breeding ourselves into smaller and smaller spaces but that's not really so in this country. There is space to spare here. Like the stats from Michael Moores Bowling for Columbine, this nation has 100 times (2 magnitudes!) more deaths by guns than the next closest nation. And compared to the worlds most crowded nations (ie China and India), the murder rate in the US vs those countries is even greater than the above example. There definitely are issues w/ the growth of the human population in terms of famine or disease. But there must be something else, and more so in this country than others, that's bringing on this "short fuse" thing we're seeing more and more in the daily news.

On a lighter note, I think between the 4 of us, we've successfully hijacked this thread...hehe

 

[JMAC]

On a lighter note, I think between the 4 of us, we've successfully hijacked this thread...hehe

I thought that's what we were supposed to do.....on RM

 

[Spunger]

I downloaded and watched that video.

I didn't see anything wrong, enemy had weapons, for all they knew they were going to be shot down, so they took them out. No different then the xbox games I play with military stratigy.

Everyone always cries about how many people die etc.... It is WAR. What do you think happens in WAR. People die, innocent, guilty, kids, children, everyone. It's just what happens. If they wanted to bring 3 AK's to a Apache they deserved to die.

Like MikeD said, the enemy doesn't respect using tanks/aircrafts to fight. I dunno about you or me, but if I saw a helicopter like that I think I'd think twice about throwing a RPG in the desert.

No one likes war or death. I don't like the idea of war, but I understand and respect that it's either them getting killed or the enemy. They took a while to decide to take them out. That was like the bad guy's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chance to give up but they were retarted and look what happened.

There's nothing political about that video. It is what happens in war. Maybe I'm one of a few normal non-military people that get this idea and subject. War is never pretty, nothing ever comes good out of it (well not all the time) but there's death. I was watching the news how that guy got 10 years for making the people they were holding play with themselves and such and I agree 100% that is wrong. He was just a stupid hick and his team there wasn't much smarter. That's just plain stupid. Now the solider they showed maybe a month or so back who shot a person when he walked in and got all this press for it is retarded too. I'd shoot anything that moved, I'd care less. What if he was strapped with granades or something explosive and a iraqi man decided to blow himself up as they seem to do? You can't afford to let your team go to waste over that. It drives me nuts when everyone is like "what if that person was just hurt" or "he didn't have anything". Well the tard reporter didn't know that until after a marine cleared the room. Oh well. Like I said, people die and it's not always for the right reason but he either killed a hurt, innocent person OR he killed a possible threat of his entire team.

I am ranting, I guess this just makes me irritated. The U.S has never tried to genocide their own nation as many other's oversea's have. You talk about the death rate in the U.S from guns/drugs whatever vs how many countries kill their own people. Guns do NOT KILL PEOPLE, people kill people!!!. That stupid bowling for columbine movie and that director need to understand this. I know what happened at columbine was a tradgedy but those kids had something wrong with them and had guns and killed people. I know people with guns sometimes kill people, but it's sad to say that it is the guns fault. We have no where near as many people died due to genocide in other countries. They are in the millions. We might loose X number of people each year but that will never change. Atleast our leader isn't telling us all to drink tainted kool aid.

Maybe it's playing war games, maybe it's playing war like video games, maybe it's just understand the nature and behavior of war itself. Like I said, I don't like the idea of war but I understand what needs to be done. They got the job done. End of story.

 

[MMike]

shut up canadian.

Nice avatar. Isn't Baltimore north of the Mason Dixon line?

 

[Barbaton]

Guns do NOT KILL PEOPLE, people kill people!!!.

"And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that… ( imitates gunfire noises ) I think they should just try that, you know."

"Because guns don't kill people, it's just that certain noise they make. It's just a bullet ripping through peoples' bodies. That's what kills people! Yeah, have guns but don't allow any ammunition. There! We got it! We got it sorted! And they just go ( mimes throwing gun in frustration ) So, yeah."

--the inimitable Eddie Izzard, excerpted shamelessly from the Cake or Death website.

 

[scottishmark]

Here's my beef w/ this kind of thinking. Extreme and overwhelming fire power saves lives, our soldiers’ lives. This is true, proven here as well as in WWII w/ the use of nukes on Japan.

sorry bud, but the Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped! but we're all as bad as each other, we basically did the same to Berlin but decided fire bombing the place night after night and day after day was a better way to do it...........and of course we invented the atom bomb...


ANd to the Canada haters.......they have some nice nuclear powered weapons too...........we sold them to them (incidently one nearly sank straight after)

 

[Skookum]

aaaaahhhhh now you guys have done it.....

made this thread too serious now look where it's at.

 

[JMAC]

sorry bud, but the Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped! but we're all as bad as each other, we basically did the same to Berlin but decided fire bombing the place night after night and day after day was a better way to do it...........and of course we invented the atom bomb...


ANd to the Canada haters.......they have some nice nuclear powered weapons too...........we sold them to them (incidently one nearly sank straight after)

To true....I think our nukes are actaully in the US. We figured it would be better for you guys to watch over them for us.

 

[chicodude]

Sooo... you're still a tard lol. The only water buffalo in Iraq are domestic aka not wild. So your an idiot because you can have any kind of animal all over the world domestic that is. Please don;t try and act like I don;t know anything about wildlife....my dad is one of the top marine biologists in the world and my mom is an envriomentalist who works all over the world...both have lifed in Africa where water buffalo are wild. :nuts:

Just because your parents are smart doesn't mean you are, asshat...............

 

[Damn True]

It's not so much having a conscience because the things I'd like to do to those beheading bastards....
It' more like the ability think outside the box and judging for yourself what is true and isn't. To me, there's nothing legit about this administration. I mean, just look at the Pell student aid deal. Promised during election: $5K+, actual after the election: $4.5k+. Ok, ok, it's only $500.00/year, but this is status quo for this tardo asshat of a pres.
Sorry, didn't mean to get started again.

Ok, basic civics lesson.

Executive branch
Legislative branch
Judicial branch

If you think GW wrote the pell bill or decided the terms of it you are more daft than JMAC.

You don't like the terms of the bill contact your Senator or Congressman and tell them.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So you want American soldiers to get killed while their fighting for that right of yours to bash them whenever you want? Why dont you come on down to Fort Benning and say that to my face.

haha, dont be ridiculous. marines are not out there getting killed to defend any US-er right to bash.

they are out there PAID by the US, to protect US interests, which are basically the interests of lobbies. they are barely government backed mercenaries. killing, obbeying and risking they lives because they make a few bucks that way, and because they are poor kids who want to get the college money. its their job.

no romantic crap plz. its the same to be a marine in an offensive war, or to be a paid soldier, or to be a bodyguard, or to be a mercenary. the only difference is who signs your check.

 

[Damn True]

Just because your parents are smart doesn't mean you are, asshat...............

Well, you wouldn't expect him to say that his father is a "somewhat below average marine biologist" would you? How do they rank the worlds marine bioligists anyway? Is there a system like the quarterback rating?

BTW, how much time do marine bioligists spend studying watter buffalo? Is the connection the use of the word "water"?

 

[Pau11y]

The U.S has never tried to genocide their own nation as many other's oversea's have.

Your kidding right? Did you graduate high school? 'Cause if you did, I'm sure you have gone thru an American History class. Let's just assume you called in sick that day and go over this point for your benefit. What the settlers of this nation did to native Americans was nothing less than genocide. You won't read that word associated w/ this nations past in any book because, guess what, those books were written in this country. Infact what your founding fathers did was even more cruel than outright killing of the Indians, they took the Indians' food supply away and starved them into submission. And when they finally surrendered, they were put in interment camps called reservations in the middle of the worst and useless spreads of land in this country. Ironically, as Karma would have it, some of these reservations ended up sitting on some of the largest gold and oil deposits in this nation.
Watch this one, I'll bet, if it hasn't already been tried, the Fed Gov is gonna have said reservations moved by claiming "eminent domain".
So what's the matter Spunger, suffering from a little myopia when it comes to examining your own nation?

Guns do NOT KILL PEOPLE, people kill people!!!. That stupid bowling for columbine movie and that director need to understand this.

What are you the poster child for the NRA? Re-read my post and see what exactly it is I'm trying to point out. Here, I'll quote it for you:

...Like the stats from Michael Moores Bowling for Columbine, this nation has 100 times (2 magnitudes!) more deaths by guns than the next closest nation. And compared to the worlds most crowded nations (ie China and India), the murder rate in the US vs those countries is even greater than the above example. There definitely are issues w/ the growth of the human population in terms of famine or disease. But there must be something else, and more so in this country than others, that's bringing on this "short fuse" thing we're seeing more and more in the daily news.

As for the rest of your rant, not bad. I agree w/ most of it, but not all. Still, not bad.

Edit: dammit, keep on forgetting to run it thru spellcheck

 

[Damn True]

haha, dont be ridiculous. marines are not out there getting killed to defend any US-er right to bash.

they are out there PAID by the US, to protect US interests, which are basically the interests of lobbies. they are barely government backed mercenaries. killing, obbeying and risking they lives because they make a few bucks that way, and because they are poor kids who want to get the college money. its their job.

no romantic crap plz. its the same to be a marine in an offensive war, or to be a paid soldier, or to be a bodyguard, or to be a mercenary. the only difference is who signs your check.

..and your insight into the US military is based on exactly what?

You clearly couldn't fill your hat with what you know about the background, character or motivation of the US Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman.

For further referance you should avoid speaking of which you know nothing about because it makes you look like JMAC.

 

[Pau11y]

If you think GW wrote the pell bill or decided the terms of it you are more daft than JMAC. You don't like the terms of the bill contact your Senator or Congressman and tell them.

So are you saying GW isn't responsible for his campaign promises and that it's the fault of the Senate and Congress that it came in $500.00/year less than his promise? If he's not deciding the terms of the bill, then didn't he just outright lied about the terms in his campaign promise?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

..and your insight into the US military is based on exactly what?

You clearly couldn't fill your hat with what you know about the background, character or motivation of the US Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman.

For further referance you should avoid speaking of which you know nothing about because it makes you look like JMAC.

i talk militaries in general. what i described is not only limited to the US.

the little i know from the US military motivation (or brainwashing should i say), is what i learned from all the ROTC kids i met in school.
hell!. one of my best friends and roomate for 3 semesters was an ROTC scholar, son of a US airforce pilot who fought desert storm, who now teaches in pensacola. and i gotta say, its all a cover-up for the real motives. being a soldier is not truly about defending your nation. its a job, you get paid to do whatever you are told at whatever risk. its up to the boss. if they tell you to kill you kill.
and basically in all cases i noticed the motivation was the college money and the prospective of a career.

and i gotta admit they think they do stuff for their country and all that nice marketing thing you get on tv. in reality EVERY PAID SOLDIER in the world (minus those who fight voluntary defense fights, like the poles in wwii for example) goes by the same structure.

Nations and governments basically obbey lobbies. armies obbey their government. thus, lobbies indirectly control the national armies. there is no romantic stuff in there if you get paid. being a soldier is no different than to be a bodyguard. you kill, you die. you do what you are told. just the same as a bodyguard or a mercenary.
but in the case of the soldier he gets paid by the government to do (in offensive wars) what lobbies want. just the same as a drug mercenary. because in both cases the motivation for the soldier is the money. the "defend our nation" is a romantic idea, a marketing trick by those "army of one" ads.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

if you dont think the TRUE motivation for US soldiers is money.... then why do you think the US has such an aggressive marketing and recruiting? and offers lots of benefits, and the number of soldiers is declining?

if money is not the biggest motivation for US soldiers.... then why is a direct link between army enrollment? and the money and benefits??? even the US army, navy and air force knows that, and tries to raise the benefits to attract more people...

 

[Damn True]

if you dont think the TRUE motivation for US soldiers is money.... then why do you think the US has such an aggressive marketing and recruiting? and offers lots of benefits, and the number of soldiers is declining?

if money is not the biggest motivation for US soldiers.... then why is a direct link between army enrollment? and the money and benefits??? even the US army, navy and air force knows that, and tries to raise the benefits to attract more people...

It couldn't have anything to do with honor, duty or tradition?
I spent eleven years in the military and worked closely with people from all branches. The men and women serving this nation are THE finest people I have ever met and represent the best of this Nations values.

Things are different in this country young fella. There are people here that serve their Nation because it is an honorable thing to do. It is a way to repay your Nation for the freedoms you and your family enjoy. The military (both officer and enlisted) is filled with degreed, intelligent people from good backgrounds who are there because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Being from South America I don't expect you to readilly understand this. Nations in your neck of the woods change Governments more often than their socks. Revolutions, exhanging one for another with little to distinguish between them other than the offshore bank accounts being filled with the spoils of corruption.

First, the ROTC is not the military.
Second, second hand info from one or two people hardly represents an accurate picture of the military as a whole.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

It couldn't have anything to do with honor, duty or tradition?

.

yeah, sure those motives are far more important than the mighty coin....
specially when your gvmt tries to raise the benefits to turn around a decline in military enrollment. (which means in the eyes of your gvmt there is a direct link between enrollment and how much the troops get paid)

the honour, duty and tradition is a marketing trick. in fact, i dont blame all the people that swallow that. is really hard not to, when you are a young US-er bombarded by those "army of one" ads.

even then, there is no way you can make a link between how much "honour, duty and tradition" count in the enrollment decision. on the other hand, you see the gvmt openly saying they are gonna raise the benefits to attract more people..... intersting, isnt it????

i lived in the states for 4 years, or almost 20% of my life. i know a thing or two about the states, probably more than you know of south america.
rotc might not be the whole military, but at least most rotc are bound to end up in the military at some point. and most of them are there FOR THE COLLEGE education.

 

[MikeD]

Where's all this money? I want some of it!!!!

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Where's all this money? I want some of it!!!!

goarmy.com, a whopping 30k for college education!!!!!! plus neat stickers to put on your moms civic.
just have to surrender your soul for eternity in exchange.
:devil:

 

[MikeD]

goarmy.com, a whopping 30k for college education!!!!!! plus neat stickers to put on your moms civic.
just have to surrender your soul for eternity in exchange.
:devil:

While it's true I got my college for free (4-yr ROTC scholarship), that wasn't really my motivation to become a Marine...my academic record could have gotten me into several ivy-league schools on grants alone without the military. And the pay, now that I am a Marine, isn't really that great, even for us officers.

Then again, it's gonna pay less when I'm out next month, lol...

MD

 

[Damn True]

4 whole years? Wow, and in that time you were in college right?

So your exposure to the US is limited to the fantasy world of academia. The same world that thinks their viewpoints are representative of the majority of the populace. A point which recent elections disproves. But I digress...

Yeah the military does things to make service more attractive from a financial standpoint. Honor is one thing, but being able to support you family is another thing entirely. They have to raise pay and benefits to keep military service an attractive enough alternative to the private sector. That said, people in the service don't do it for the money. They get paid enough to get by, but nobody gets ahead.

To give you an idea how little people in the military are really paid....an E-5 stationed in San Diego with a spouse and two children qualifies for food stamps. That is below the poverty level my friend.

Again, please try to have some understanding of a subject before you opine about it.

 

[Damn True]

goarmy.com, a whopping 30k for college education!!!!!! plus neat stickers to put on your moms civic.
just have to surrender your soul for eternity in exchange.
:devil:

Its a matching fund. In order to get that, you have to pay 1/10 of your salary into the fund for the four years of enlistment.

The company I used to work for offered tuition assistance that if I took full advantage of it would far exceed that figure over four years.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

To give you an idea how little people in the military are really paid....an E-5 stationed in San Diego with a spouse and two children qualifies for food stamps. That is below the poverty level my friend.

yeah, but little is still better than nothing, isnt it?

in a way you can make the generalization that most people go to the army, because its their best option in life.

i mean... i remember somewhere i read the % of homeless people who were in the US military is much higher than in the regular population....

while there are some bright minds, and wealthy ivy leaguers in the military, the homeless fact is an indirect pointer on the relative abilities of those who enroll in the army at the foot soldier level, and their options in life.

 

[MikeD]

i remember somewhere i read ...

...the homeless fact ...

I remember something I read somewhere, too, and it proves I'm right.

So there.

MD