Accurate with regards to the threat, but do you expect the Marines to fight that battle? It's going to be a little awkward deploying platoons into state courts, American mosques, the NYT and WSJ, and the intarweb.
Eff Berkeley
- Thread starter manimal
- Start date
How many hookers does it take to spread a freedom?
I think it depends on the exchange rate.
my point being: the war on islamic extremism has many fronts. marines - and the rest of the armed forces - will handle the military one.
one of my recruiters was an ass, he asked my, then fiancee, out on a date while i was deployed 
but they are a necessary evil and their job is not an easy one, especially in this day and age where the only place civilians feel the effect of a war is in their pockets at the pump. it's like we're all plantation owners sending some slaves off to do the dirty work in our stead without giving them a second thought while they're gone.
and i agree, BS...i met a lot of idiots in the corps and heard a lot of, "man, i'm gonna smoke the fattest bowl when i get out...." comments. i'd say that most joined because of the job opportunity side of it rather than the patriotic 'serving my country' bit but there should still be a level of respect for those who are actively serving; a respect rarely given in the capitol of self, berkeley.
but they are a necessary evil and their job is not an easy one, especially in this day and age where the only place civilians feel the effect of a war is in their pockets at the pump. it's like we're all plantation owners sending some slaves off to do the dirty work in our stead without giving them a second thought while they're gone.
and i agree, BS...i met a lot of idiots in the corps and heard a lot of, "man, i'm gonna smoke the fattest bowl when i get out...." comments. i'd say that most joined because of the job opportunity side of it rather than the patriotic 'serving my country' bit but there should still be a level of respect for those who are actively serving; a respect rarely given in the capitol of self, berkeley.
Well, just by virtue of the fact that the DOD is controlled by the highest level of gov't., they can put a recruiting station pretty much anywhere they want to...and no local government is going to be able to usurp that. I mean you can't tell the federal Fish and Wildlife Service to get off your local lake or the IRS to get off your taxes so I dont know WTF these guys are even thinking. But as for hoping that people who live in Berkeley are going to have some kind of respect for the military... that's going to get nowhere. I mean, if we're going to lump them all in as pacifist, extremely liberal hippie types, we shouldn't really be surprised by things like this. Good thing is they'll get nowhere with it.
I agree that we should respect those who are actively serving.
Please explain how not wanting recruiters to work in my neighborhood is disrespectful to the troops.
I'm afraid a lot of people bought the classic GW Bush "you're not a patriot" crap hook line and sinker on this one.
it's like trying to ban sex in order to stop abortion.
i suppose that the nonacceptance of the recruiting process carries a social pompousness of "we're too good for you and your methods." yes, most recruiters do suck big monkey balls when it comes to looking out for your best interest but they are necessary as long as we have a volunteer military. there are a lot of people that don't want or need military service and that's fine but there are also a lot of people who are interested in the job. i was told straight up that i would be trained well in a lot of areas but i was first and foremost a marine rifleman and would be required to fight if needed. i joined for money, training and a new start but i knew full well what i was getting into. i don't think it's the recruiters fault when some college boy gets pissy because he has to deploy to a combat zone once in a while....you signed the contact! there are misconceptions in a bunch of jobs including mine. we make new hires endure the 16 week field training portion for a reason as it helps weed out the people who think the job doesn't really require going hands on with people.
i guess it boils down to the perception that if you dislike the recruiters because they may be dishonest or misleading about the job then that correlates into an assumption that anyone who was "recruited" into the military must be a moron because they didn't "see through the lies" like you did.
i suppose that the nonacceptance of the recruiting process carries a social pompousness of "we're too good for you and your methods." yes, most recruiters do suck big monkey balls when it comes to looking out for your best interest but they are necessary as long as we have a volunteer military. there are a lot of people that don't want or need military service and that's fine but there are also a lot of people who are interested in the job. i was told straight up that i would be trained well in a lot of areas but i was first and foremost a marine rifleman and would be required to fight if needed. i joined for money, training and a new start but i knew full well what i was getting into. i don't think it's the recruiters fault when some college boy gets pissy because he has to deploy to a combat zone once in a while....you signed the contact! there are misconceptions in a bunch of jobs including mine. we make new hires endure the 16 week field training portion for a reason as it helps weed out the people who think the job doesn't really require going hands on with people.
i guess it boils down to the perception that if you dislike the recruiters because they may be dishonest or misleading about the job then that correlates into an assumption that anyone who was "recruited" into the military must be a moron because they didn't "see through the lies" like you did.
I think there is something else you need to consider: living in San Francisco, very often I and most of the rest of people here feel so out of touch with the rest of Republican America, that we are spinning our wheels with peace protests.
Now, the Marine Recruiting office might not be the best representative, but considering our president is afraid to visit this city, the recruiting office will have to do.
They aren't saying "you can't have sex". They are saying "We don't appreciate you having sex on our living room furniture".
I think it's fine to protest in front of the recruiting office, but I dont see how they can legally demand it to leave. It's a federal operation.
wow, i couldn't have proven that point better myself. San Francisco is like that kid in kindergarten who wanted to eat the glue paste to "try it out" because it was different even though everyone told him it was a bad idea
if people who would join the military are so moved by patriotism and altruism for their common citizens then they should volunteer in their own communities, become a police officer (like manimal) or even a volunteer firefighter (like eric strtrtrtrt61234).
the act of joining the military proper, especially when commanded by a hawkish nutjob like bush, gets no respect from me. until proven otherwise it's a refuge for people who had no job prospects in the real world.
it's the ultimate refuge from capitalism, in fact, a not-so-little socialist micro-society carved out within america where concerns about efficiency and the budget are belittled, as the overriding nebulous goal of national security trumps all.
the act of joining the military proper, especially when commanded by a hawkish nutjob like bush, gets no respect from me. until proven otherwise it's a refuge for people who had no job prospects in the real world.
it's the ultimate refuge from capitalism, in fact, a not-so-little socialist micro-society carved out within america where concerns about efficiency and the budget are belittled, as the overriding nebulous goal of national security trumps all.
How much of the US military action of the last 50 years has involved a genuine threat to the country? Unless you count loss of prefential trading interest as a threat, not much.
I'll tell you what I understand about islamic extremism in the UK; it's minimal. Islamic moderation is rife however. Moreover the effect on UK society just doesn't live up to the government's hopes.
And you know what? The primary driver for the minimal degree of Islamic extremism in the UK is the presence of British troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, and the government's continued support for an US-led illegal and immoral war of aggression.
Now what was that about self defence?
I would say 95% of the time, this is no longer the case for the past 2 years now. The reason most of the people joining now is either the economy is so bad there isn't another way (based on what recruiters are selling kids), or they have a record that prevents them from getting something else.
I have seen this in my own neighborhood and my old National Guard unit. The good soldiers are getting out and being replaced buy guys like my old mail man who got fired for fraud.
Even some (not all, but quite a few) of the hardcore Bush supporters are starting to see what a nutjob he is. A lot of the ones who are staying are only doing so because it HAS to get better next year.
here we go again.
it seems to me you're minimizing the problem like how some here do with our gang problem (several hundred thousand members strong), which very much has an effect upon society.
here's what i see from over here, & i hope you'll understand how i arrived at the conclusion that you have a not-so-insignificant problem over there:
- al-queda's white army of terror ("HUNDREDS of British non-Muslims have been recruited by al-Qaeda to wage war against the West")
- Police to brief Muslims before terror raids ("POLICE have agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests.")
- Secret report: Terror threat worst since 9/11 ("The terrorist threat facing Britain from home-grown al-Qaeda agents is higher than at any time since the September 11 attacks in 2001")
- Britains Anti-Semitic Turn ("According to the Community Security Trust, last year saw nearly 600 anti-Semitic assaults.")
- Islamic extremists infiltrate Oxbridge ("Leading universities including Oxford and Cambridge have been targeted by Islamic extremists who remain widely active on campuses")
- Jail hardening terror convicts. ("Al-Qaeda prisoners in UK jails are being hardened instead of reformed")
and then there's the polling numbers among the moderate muslims which clearly show their allegiance to their faith to the exclusion of britain (you cannot serve 2 masters). i cannot see how purposing to remain unassimilated can be healthy for your society.
oh, sure, i have to agree with that. but this is very much like the annoying neighbor on whom i call the cops, then they decide to crap on my lawn, throw rocks through my windows, and generally blame me for their woes. the fact is i never made them into assholes, but gave them a target for their institutionalized & rationalized aggression.fluff said:
i suppose you could take the "enlightened" tack that france has, and wait until there are no-go zones for the cops in their ghettos, all the while coddling them & hoping they'll just play nice. did i mention the welfare handouts just for the asking?
$tinkle, quoting that post made my eyes go funny, and as I'm looking after the sprogs this week I cannot do a detailed response. However, consider this, I live in the UK and spent a not insubstantial amount of time working in London (sure it ain't Bradford but it's a better barometer of the UK overall than Bradford is).
If I were black I'd be in greater danger of attack than if I were Jewish. A cursory glance at the City Journal article you linked shows that is pushing a particular angle, and the Times and Telegraph are right-wing sensationalist rags that bear little resemblance to the (relatively) balanced quality broadsheets they once were.
Do you not think that each and every extremist Islamic attack and plot is given maximum exposure, and yet there are few reported. Race killings in the last few years have been almost wholly white-on-black.
And as for your neighbour comparison, what did Afghanistan and Iraq do to the US again?
If I were black I'd be in greater danger of attack than if I were Jewish. A cursory glance at the City Journal article you linked shows that is pushing a particular angle, and the Times and Telegraph are right-wing sensationalist rags that bear little resemblance to the (relatively) balanced quality broadsheets they once were.
Do you not think that each and every extremist Islamic attack and plot is given maximum exposure, and yet there are few reported. Race killings in the last few years have been almost wholly white-on-black.
And as for your neighbour comparison, what did Afghanistan and Iraq do to the US again?
is this like our "pretty white girl goes missing" media obsession?
do you believe it's simply race-based, or are the blacks seen as muslim terrorists by reactionary whites?
outside of harboring terrorists & allowing them to train & plot, afghanistan did absolutely nothing. as far as iraq, our governments (as agreed by a majority of all parties) observed they weren't turning their music down after a dozen notices, and the home owners' association took note & razed their house.
that's how we roll.
many do go on to support their community but i think that your west coast irrationalism has assisted you in believing that there is no need for any form of military in this country. propoganda war aside, there is a vital need for an active and well trained military. yes our current missions lean toward the imperialistic nature of governments but without the military and those so called idiots who join, we would be the ones experiencing an occupation by another soveriegnty. it's fun to sit and e-speculate about the woes of imperialism, capitalism, war and corruption but someone still has to be out there making sure that someone doesn't try and steal your way of life; regardless of how unaware, selfish, and ungrateful you are.
It is easy to dismiss San Francisco as some kind of freak show, out of touch with the rest of America. I would have to agree.wow, i couldn't have proven that point better myself. San Francisco is like that kid in kindergarten who wanted to eat the glue paste to "try it out" because it was different even though everyone told him it was a bad idea
Here I see people saying what they want, doing what they want, with consideration for others.
The other thing I see here is that people express how they feel about the war, and they do something about it.
Your town is probably like a lot of other towns. This war is about apathy. Soldiers go off to Iraq, and people vote in Bush again and again. What I think is sad is apparently only the hippies and the freaks are against the war.
I think a HUGE majority of the country is against the war.
What's sad is, most of the electorate is too hung up on who's a democrat, who's a republican, who's a liberal, who's a conservative, to actually make any decisions based on issues and facts. So we end up in a perpetual war against a country that never attacked us.
might want to let zogby, et. al., in on the breaking newz
i'm pretty sure we brokered peace against the germans, & italians already.Echo said:
Is your view of sh*t really that black and white? Do you really view this as an apathy vs. against-the-war faceoff?
What I think is "sad" is the stance of the supposed "bleeding hearts" who are demanding an immediate troop withdrawl to "put an end to the violence."
It's one thing to want an end to violence, but it's quite another rationally believe that somehow, with US troops pulling out, that all of a sudden the Iraqis are going to be in a better situation. Who do you think is stopping an all-out sh*tfest at this stage? Sure, our presence there may have not been warranted from the beginning, but that doesnt mean we just leave it in shambles. It's not a for vs. against issue at all. It's a complex cultural, political, religious, military and strategic sh*tstorm that needs some semblance of balance before we can cut bait.
Edit: The argument for and against invasion came and went, and we know, all too well, who won. The argument now has to be, what is the right thing to do? Is it "right" to leave a power vacuum that will undoubtedly lead to untold thousands more deaths? Sometimes the "right" thing is just more costly, but you have to do it anyway.
"Huge Majority" using PinkBike units...
Well, do a quick search for "race attack" on the BBC website and look at the news results.
Harbouring terrorists, eh? Hmm, weren't the 9/11 attackers mainly Saudis? Didn't the US help to fund the training camps in Afghanistan when it was their proxy battleground with the USSR? Of course if you actually define terrorism then the US is as guilty as anyone of harbouring & financing it. 'Cept they'd be freedom-fighters, no doubt.
And what music was it that Iraq was playing? You took their sound-system away, they had nothing to play with. There really was no just cause for an invasion.
saudi citizens != saudi gov't
taliban == rulers of afghanistan
taliban == 9/11 plotters
while you're making the 'blowback' argument, why not also mention the terr'ists were trained in the u.s., flying planes made in the u.s.? we really should give ourselves a good talking to.
20/20fluff said:
No doubt. But how large does that military need to be? Canada has about the same coastline and landmass to cover... how big is their military? India has more civilians, more borders, and is closer to more threats. How big is their military?
If our military was purely defensive, and not serving offensive or economic interests (and I use that loosely, as those economic interests seem to cost more than they create or protect), it could be far far smaller.
oh come on... we all know you are smarter than that.
Delete that rubbish and make an honest argument.
-pretty bad when i have to say that... LOL!
a tenth our population, and about a tenth the size of our military
2nd biggest in the world, obviously china is the biggest.ohio said:
wft is wrong w/ you? been listening to indie rock?ohio said:
No bleeding heart here. I know withdrawing now will cause more civil war and a reversal of the last 6 months progress (or "progress"). I still want us out. Full withdrawal.
We can't afford this war. In numerous senses of the word.
Nothing will end the violence, anyone who has been paying attention knows that. But we need to back out as quickly as possible while we still can.
Being there for another 4 years will do nothing but reduce our military resources to nothing.
i like to think of it as a 'full phasing of civilian contractors'
Not to mention the cost of DOD contracts with Blackwater and other firms. Talk about bleeding the system dry! If the DOD would pay contractors directly, it would cost half as much as it does, but the agency gets an awful large cut of the deal.
In expense?
Apparently "progress" is being made. Either way, I feel morally obligated to fix the situation as best we can, since we broke it. "Best we can" doesnt involve skipping out now. Violence there was quelled under Saddam, to say "nothing will end the violence" is just an opinion that isn't supported by history. Maybe you are right, but we owe those people whatever we can reasonably give.
I understand your point and to some degree I agree with you. But what makes more sense:
Stay until it's fixed regardless of $$$ and resources?
Phase out while there are still parts to pick up?
I have a sinking feeling we can't do both. So who is more important then? Iraqis, or US citizens?
I just think when we feel they are finished and we leave, there will be nothing left for "the next time" because we all know there will be a next time.
That's all I'm saying.
experts say we are half way in to the counterinsurgency operation... 10-12 years is usually what it takes to prevail.
And we have neither the personnel nor the equipment to support another 4.
X2 fronts.
Study: U.S. Unprepared For Homeland Attack