8 ms·

Honestly entire Army is a about being dumb. (In my opinion). And it is costing ton of money for us any ways. Instead having a good productive life where you en

Honestly entire Army is a about being dumb. (In my opinion). And it is costing ton of money for us any ways. Instead having a good productive life where you engage with society (Pizza and Netflix) and create value it is stupid to join a cult like Army where you are brainwashed into being a robotic human being fighting wars for old infirm men in Washington. Are we really supposed to feel proud about young soldiers dying in Syria, Afganistan or Iraq ? What for ?

Kluny 8y ago
What does pizza and netflix have to do with it?
- Karishma1234 8y ago
  That is a metaphor for enjoying life on your own terms instead what US army might force you to do. That is living life like as slave. You sit when they say sit you shit when they say you can shit.
  - fortythirteen 8y ago
    Sounds like a metaphor for wasting your life doing pointless shit. > That is living life like as slave. You sit when they say sit you shit when they say you can shit. Sounds like someone who flunked out of basic. That drill sergeant stuff ends after about 2 months in.
    - Karishma1234 8y ago
      I have not even tried to join Army because I saw them as people doing pointless shit to quote you. Wearing weird clothes, weird rituals, self importance and keeping the brain locked up at home is how I describe general the Army people. You cant smoke or drink until 21 but sure you can die lonely death in a middle eastern desert so some impotent old man in pentagon could show his dick is bigger than others. Again that is my opinion.
      - fortythirteen 8y ago
        > I have not even tried to join Army because I saw them as people doing pointless shit to quote you. So you have even less experience and are just pulling your strong opinions out of your ass. Got it.
        Karishma1234 8y ago
        Yes. I have made it very clear that it is my opinion right up in the first comment.
        fortythirteen 8y ago
        Right, and I'm making it clear that opinions born of ignorance should be avoided.
        Karishma1234 8y ago
        I think your opinion is irrelevant. My opinion matters to me and my kids and my friends so I use it to influence their choice and make sure they do not join Army. You are welcome to send you kids to Army though I wish they are never sent in wars that we should not be fighting in first place. (Tell me you will feel proud if your loved one is blown up in Iraq. Tell me you think it was a well spent life. )
        fortythirteen 8y ago
        I have comrades who have, and it's a mixed bag, like everything in life. You're giving a prime example of how binary thinking ruins the human mind.
Aloha 8y ago
The Military does add considerable value to society. Look at the technological research born from war, almost our entire base of modern technology was born out of wartime creations or funded by the defense establishment. Do I think we (as americans) should have less muscular foreign policy and a smaller military, yes - but the military remains important, its one of the many many elements that bonds a nation together as a whole - and adds a whole lot more value (in dollars and intangibles) than pizza and netflix.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Not to agree with the OP, but the military didn't develop that technology. Contractors did, and they could have been paid to do it any time. It doesn't make any sense to talk about spin-off war technologies when we could just as easily be getting them from the space program or whatever else we'd want to do.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    Innovation does not happen with a drive to make it happen. The vast sums invested in Radar, Nuclear Technologies, Computing, etc - never would have happened without war - while you're correct, they could have been paid to do so at any time - no one would take such grave technological risks without something driving them to do it.
    - ItsMe000001 8y ago
      Then we better find other ways to motivate humans. War is getting more risky with each technological advancement. We have not even seen the really dangerous stuff yet. We are lucky it requires a lot of expertise, equipment and raw materials to build a nuclear device. Chemical attacks, even though it can be done much more cheaply and by moderately educated people, has the disadvantage of any weapon in that it does not scale. If you only have half a ton of chemicals the danger only is local. Now, the real danger is when home-grown biology-tech becomes more and more feasible. Because you can do this in a basement - and, most important, it scales! Because that stuff replicates itself! You only need to create the "starter pack". In such an environment, the more people you piss off/make aggressive, the higher the chance of severe undesirable consequences. Right now it is still kept in check because of the amount of skills and organisation it requires, even the suicide attackers can't achieve all that much. But technology works without looking at who uses it, and biotech in particular, with its unique self-replication feature... Well, I think that making the world more peaceful might become a necessity at some point. If you are right and we as a species require war to achieve great progress we might be walking on a knife's edge because of escalating uncontrollable consequences. Or maybe I'm wrong and it won't be a big problem (on "mankind scale") and we can have our little and big wars so that people remain willing to spend money on R&D. I must say I agree that this seems to be the case - try to get the US to vote for a party that promises to spend a fuck ton of money on civilian R&D, or on the military. Civilian spending seems to be very hard to get accepted, but military spending works every time. So I blame the electorate, the politicians as far as I can see actually truly represent the wishes of the voters in this regard.
ferongr 8y ago
Is this some kind of parody account?
toasterlovin 8y ago
As a counter point: most young men I knew growing up (in a upper middle class, left leaning neighborhood) really could have used some time in the military. I know I could have. I ended up getting a similar-ish experience working construction. And that's just at the personal development level. As a society, I think some kind of compulsory service (not necessarily military, but military as an option) for young men and women would go a long way toward healing the political, class, and racial divisions in the US. It's hard to other a group of people when you've worked alongside and bonded with individuals of that group.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  As a counter point, since throughout history we have had plenty of states with a big role for the military, I don't think your theory that it helps "heal" the nation passes the test. I'm not sure, I'm far from being a historian, maybe somebody could offer an educated opinion on the subject... but my point is we don't need to wait, there should be plenty of data to look at.
  - watwut 8y ago
    One data point would be Germany prior WWII the other soviet russia. In Germany, the lower levels of government being composed of ex-soldiers was factor that made Nazi takeover easier (based on Evans books for example). As for eastern block, I knew personally people of older generation that have been through draft and their memories were not rosy. A lot of bullying, a lot of having to submit yourself to bullying or various abuse of higher ups or just stupidity. (Turned out smartest profesional soldiers were not the ones dealing with draftees). One was forced to steal, many learned to smoke and generally it was exercise on avoiding duty+doing minimum once you are after basic training. Army quality went up after all those people who really did not wanted to be there were not there. Israel has draft too, but it is real war going on there so it might be different. Switzerland has military duty, but they do shorter stints at time. I really don't think you can solve racial divisions by that. Racial divisons are a lot about ideologies and believes and legacy of history and so on.
    - 8y ago
alarge 8y ago
My military experience was in the Air Force rather than the Army, but I'm pretty sure there's crossover in this case. It sure appears to me like your opinion is informed by shallow media depictions rather than reality. You seem to be conflating three entirely different concepts: political will, basic training (aka boot camp), and military as a job. The purpose of the military and how it is deployed is a political question, not a military one. So comments about feeling proud (or not) of young soldiers dying in conflict have nothing to do with the military per se - they are completely about politics. The military doesn't get to pick and choose which conflicts they engage in. Their responsibility is to be ready and capable of handling any conflict they might feasibly be involved in - and then executing when they are involved. The military is a giant organization, a bureaucracy with many, many moving parts. To be able to operate with any degree of certainty and efficiency, they've developed systems where strategy and basic codes of conduct are determined and refined at high levels in the organization and are balanced tactical decision-making conducted further down in the organization. It's an incredibly difficult balancing act since it requires a level of autonomy and trust at fairly low-levels of the organization. To achieve this, we've developed two basic groups of personnel: * The enlisted corps. These are "individual contributors" of the organization - the experts at performing particular tasks. * The officer corps. These are the "leaders" of the organization - generally *not* as competent at task execution, but with a broader, higher-level responsibility (including unique legal responsibilities). The training for the two groups is different - officers are generally required to have college degrees and have additional education in management, military doctrine, and history. Enlisted personnel are trained (initially) to be cogs in a giant machine - executing their specific assigned tasks completely and efficiently. The popular media representation of the military often focuses on the enlisted basic training experience - where kids out of high school have to be taught how to be the cog in the machine - to execute orders without question, without being the 20% problem child that gums up the machine. It is intentionally a "break you down before building you up" experience. At that age and education level, you frankly don't have much to contribute to the organization except following orders. But it doesn't stay that way. Once you get on the job, you start gaining experience and expertise. Even if you aren't an officer, your contributions start to extend beyond yourself (just as with senior engineers who don't move into management). You never reach the point where you can say "f*ck off - I'm not going to follow that order", but every junior officer is highly encouraged to seek the input of their more senior enlisted personnel. Still, at the end of the day, the commander is the commander. They have to keep the train rolling (and have certain unique legal responsibilities), and have to develop their own systems for motivation and problem solving. Operational context and commander personality have a lot to do with how folks are treated, but nobody other than the most junior enlisted folks are generally treated like "robots".

Kluny 8y ago

What does pizza and netflix have to do with it?

Karishma1234 8y ago
That is a metaphor for enjoying life on your own terms instead what US army might force you to do. That is living life like as slave. You sit when they say sit you shit when they say you can shit.
- fortythirteen 8y ago
  Sounds like a metaphor for wasting your life doing pointless shit. > That is living life like as slave. You sit when they say sit you shit when they say you can shit. Sounds like someone who flunked out of basic. That drill sergeant stuff ends after about 2 months in.
  - Karishma1234 8y ago
    I have not even tried to join Army because I saw them as people doing pointless shit to quote you. Wearing weird clothes, weird rituals, self importance and keeping the brain locked up at home is how I describe general the Army people. You cant smoke or drink until 21 but sure you can die lonely death in a middle eastern desert so some impotent old man in pentagon could show his dick is bigger than others. Again that is my opinion.
    - fortythirteen 8y ago
      > I have not even tried to join Army because I saw them as people doing pointless shit to quote you. So you have even less experience and are just pulling your strong opinions out of your ass. Got it.
      - Karishma1234 8y ago
        Yes. I have made it very clear that it is my opinion right up in the first comment.
        fortythirteen 8y ago
        Right, and I'm making it clear that opinions born of ignorance should be avoided.
        Karishma1234 8y ago
        I think your opinion is irrelevant. My opinion matters to me and my kids and my friends so I use it to influence their choice and make sure they do not join Army. You are welcome to send you kids to Army though I wish they are never sent in wars that we should not be fighting in first place. (Tell me you will feel proud if your loved one is blown up in Iraq. Tell me you think it was a well spent life. )
        fortythirteen 8y ago
        I have comrades who have, and it's a mixed bag, like everything in life. You're giving a prime example of how binary thinking ruins the human mind.

Aloha 8y ago

The Military does add considerable value to society. Look at the technological research born from war, almost our entire base of modern technology was born out of wartime creations or funded by the defense establishment. Do I think we (as americans) should have less muscular foreign policy and a smaller military, yes - but the military remains important, its one of the many many elements that bonds a nation together as a whole - and adds a whole lot more value (in dollars and intangibles) than pizza and netflix.

whatshisface 8y ago
Not to agree with the OP, but the military didn't develop that technology. Contractors did, and they could have been paid to do it any time. It doesn't make any sense to talk about spin-off war technologies when we could just as easily be getting them from the space program or whatever else we'd want to do.
- Aloha 8y ago
  Innovation does not happen with a drive to make it happen. The vast sums invested in Radar, Nuclear Technologies, Computing, etc - never would have happened without war - while you're correct, they could have been paid to do so at any time - no one would take such grave technological risks without something driving them to do it.
  - ItsMe000001 8y ago
    Then we better find other ways to motivate humans. War is getting more risky with each technological advancement. We have not even seen the really dangerous stuff yet. We are lucky it requires a lot of expertise, equipment and raw materials to build a nuclear device. Chemical attacks, even though it can be done much more cheaply and by moderately educated people, has the disadvantage of any weapon in that it does not scale. If you only have half a ton of chemicals the danger only is local. Now, the real danger is when home-grown biology-tech becomes more and more feasible. Because you can do this in a basement - and, most important, it scales! Because that stuff replicates itself! You only need to create the "starter pack". In such an environment, the more people you piss off/make aggressive, the higher the chance of severe undesirable consequences. Right now it is still kept in check because of the amount of skills and organisation it requires, even the suicide attackers can't achieve all that much. But technology works without looking at who uses it, and biotech in particular, with its unique self-replication feature... Well, I think that making the world more peaceful might become a necessity at some point. If you are right and we as a species require war to achieve great progress we might be walking on a knife's edge because of escalating uncontrollable consequences. Or maybe I'm wrong and it won't be a big problem (on "mankind scale") and we can have our little and big wars so that people remain willing to spend money on R&D. I must say I agree that this seems to be the case - try to get the US to vote for a party that promises to spend a fuck ton of money on civilian R&D, or on the military. Civilian spending seems to be very hard to get accepted, but military spending works every time. So I blame the electorate, the politicians as far as I can see actually truly represent the wishes of the voters in this regard.

ferongr 8y ago

Is this some kind of parody account?

toasterlovin 8y ago

As a counter point: most young men I knew growing up (in a upper middle class, left leaning neighborhood) really could have used some time in the military. I know I could have. I ended up getting a similar-ish experience working construction. And that's just at the personal development level. As a society, I think some kind of compulsory service (not necessarily military, but military as an option) for young men and women would go a long way toward healing the political, class, and racial divisions in the US. It's hard to other a group of people when you've worked alongside and bonded with individuals of that group.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
As a counter point, since throughout history we have had plenty of states with a big role for the military, I don't think your theory that it helps "heal" the nation passes the test. I'm not sure, I'm far from being a historian, maybe somebody could offer an educated opinion on the subject... but my point is we don't need to wait, there should be plenty of data to look at.
- watwut 8y ago
  One data point would be Germany prior WWII the other soviet russia. In Germany, the lower levels of government being composed of ex-soldiers was factor that made Nazi takeover easier (based on Evans books for example). As for eastern block, I knew personally people of older generation that have been through draft and their memories were not rosy. A lot of bullying, a lot of having to submit yourself to bullying or various abuse of higher ups or just stupidity. (Turned out smartest profesional soldiers were not the ones dealing with draftees). One was forced to steal, many learned to smoke and generally it was exercise on avoiding duty+doing minimum once you are after basic training. Army quality went up after all those people who really did not wanted to be there were not there. Israel has draft too, but it is real war going on there so it might be different. Switzerland has military duty, but they do shorter stints at time. I really don't think you can solve racial divisions by that. Racial divisons are a lot about ideologies and believes and legacy of history and so on.
  - 8y ago

alarge 8y ago

My military experience was in the Air Force rather than the Army, but I'm pretty sure there's crossover in this case. It sure appears to me like your opinion is informed by shallow media depictions rather than reality. You seem to be conflating three entirely different concepts: political will, basic training (aka boot camp), and military as a job. The purpose of the military and how it is deployed is a political question, not a military one. So comments about feeling proud (or not) of young soldiers dying in conflict have nothing to do with the military per se - they are completely about politics. The military doesn't get to pick and choose which conflicts they engage in. Their responsibility is to be ready and capable of handling any conflict they might feasibly be involved in - and then executing when they are involved. The military is a giant organization, a bureaucracy with many, many moving parts. To be able to operate with any degree of certainty and efficiency, they've developed systems where strategy and basic codes of conduct are determined and refined at high levels in the organization and are balanced tactical decision-making conducted further down in the organization. It's an incredibly difficult balancing act since it requires a level of autonomy and trust at fairly low-levels of the organization. To achieve this, we've developed two basic groups of personnel: * The enlisted corps. These are "individual contributors" of the organization - the experts at performing particular tasks. * The officer corps. These are the "leaders" of the organization - generally *not* as competent at task execution, but with a broader, higher-level responsibility (including unique legal responsibilities). The training for the two groups is different - officers are generally required to have college degrees and have additional education in management, military doctrine, and history. Enlisted personnel are trained (initially) to be cogs in a giant machine - executing their specific assigned tasks completely and efficiently. The popular media representation of the military often focuses on the enlisted basic training experience - where kids out of high school have to be taught how to be the cog in the machine - to execute orders without question, without being the 20% problem child that gums up the machine. It is intentionally a "break you down before building you up" experience. At that age and education level, you frankly don't have much to contribute to the organization except following orders. But it doesn't stay that way. Once you get on the job, you start gaining experience and expertise. Even if you aren't an officer, your contributions start to extend beyond yourself (just as with senior engineers who don't move into management). You never reach the point where you can say "f*ck off - I'm not going to follow that order", but every junior officer is highly encouraged to seek the input of their more senior enlisted personnel. Still, at the end of the day, the commander is the commander. They have to keep the train rolling (and have certain unique legal responsibilities), and have to develop their own systems for motivation and problem solving. Operational context and commander personality have a lot to do with how folks are treated, but nobody other than the most junior enlisted folks are generally treated like "robots".