Why Haven't You Enlisted?

I was in shock when I was listening to President Bushler's press conference last night and he admitted publicy that there were no WMD's and the war was based on bad intel... and we still are expected to smile and support HIS cause for interferring with the affairs of another country that had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11.

So it brought up these questions for me.

1. If Bush wants to fight terrorists so badly, why doesnt he just send spec ops into these supposed Al Qaeda camps in Iraq and be done with it, why risk the possibility of nuclear war starting in the region, its already unstable enough over there.

2. where has the UN been through all this ? anyone please correct me if i am wrong but i understood the UN's role is supporting peace AFTER a war and the rebuilding of governments.


Grady.... if you truly are a vet, i think you would want to make your effort to help the young men and women thinking of going over there and show them everything they are sacrificing with that decision. to make the ultimate sacrifice for someone elses lies is just not acceptable to me.

My stepsons friend has been in Iraq for the past year and just recently came home through rotation, his unit is planning to go back within the next 4 months and he said to my stepdaughter the other day " I would kill myself before I went back"
I spent the better part of an hour talking to him and showing him reasons why he would not want to do that.

This kid just turned 20, has never fought anyone in his life, not even with his fists, did not even know how to use a gun before joining.

So for anyone that asks why I would not enlist, I have enlisted.
I was in the Navy from 1990 - 1998.
But i will not enlist in this war, and anyone else I can have the opportunity to save from going I will.

I am against THIS war with all my heart and soul, and I do not support anything Bushler and Co. do or say

Originally posted by Patriot36
I was in shock when I was listening to President Bushler's

Ah, a historically flimsy attempt to poison the well: the corner stone of any good persuasive argument. Or maybe persuasion isn't what you had in mind? So are you hoping to get a pat on the back from the wars opponents just by spewing the right catch phrases, or do you just want people to attack you as fodder for a persecution complex of some kind?

Granted there are obvious causes for debate in some of the current policies and sometimes failures thereof, but for dog's sake may I trouble you for a sound argument?

and we still are expected to smile and support HIS cause for interferring with the affairs of another country that had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11.

In all fairness, "HIS" cause was approved by YOUR elected representatives in 2003, and it's not as if all the hoopla only came up AFTER the 2004 election in which America chose NOT to take control of congress away from the hawks.
I'm don't even have to defend Iraq to counter your argument; if I were I might not be so willing to, but this particular line of "argument" (to give it a better name than it deserves) simply wreaks of disrespect for the democratic process. I'm the last one to call somebody unpatriotic for siezing their hard-won freedom to criticize the government, but I can dang well call it intellectually dishonest to attempt disowning the decision of the majority without disowning the government and its protections.

It's a fine distinction I understand, but take a cue from Lincoln's second inaugural address, in which despite opposition to slavery he could not disown in, and indeed owned the civil war as perhaps being divine retribution on North and South alike for the majority's prior tollerance of slavery.

1. If Bush wants to fight terrorists so badly, why doesnt he just send spec ops into these supposed Al Qaeda camps in Iraq and be done with it, why risk the possibility of nuclear war starting in the region, its already unstable enough over there.

What nuclear war? I thought you just embraced the admission that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, and I assume you wouldn't support a war in Iran, and if that war were to become a subject of debate you'd probably deny that they intend to use their nuclear program for weapons- so who's going to nuke anyone over Iraq???

As for the camps, we have to first decide if we accept the premise that such camps existed. If we accept the premise, then the answer is obvious: you don't cut a Hydra's head off without burning the stem, lest two spring up in its place.
If we reject that premise your question is dishonest and is merely an invitation to a tangent. The real question then would be what the real purpose of the war was. If that's the question you really want to ask, state your position and let's discuss.

2. where has the UN been through all this ?

In their respective countries (except their ambassadors, who are in New York). If by the UN you actually mean France and Germany, the answer is even better: They're in Europe, where it's safe (except of course for the odd Muslim riot every now and then, but I'm sure the real trouble will get to them once it's done with the UK)

anyone please correct me if i am wrong but i understood the UN's role is supporting peace AFTER a war and the rebuilding of governments

Actually the UN's original role, heavily sugar-coated with high-minded rhetoric, was to divide up the world between a fragile alliance of wartime victors in hopes that nobody would ever be strong enough to screw with them if they all stuck together. The problem is that they didn't stick together. It's still every nation for itself- Every single one of the permanent Security Council members, without exclusion, uses the position of extreme trust which they gave themselves after WWII to primarily advance their own national interests instead of those of the world.

Grady.... if you truly are a vet,

Low blow in my opinion. A man states what he is, and whether or not he is matters only to his own conscience and sense of dignity. No one on Earth can hold any position or achievement which makes them an absolute source of moral truth, and therefore debunking any credentials of experience from which a person derives his point of view is completely unnecessary to defeating his assertions. Therefore to question Grady's service, even if there was some reason for suspicion, which I certainly do not see, is just a petty personal jab of minimal bearing on the ability to affirm either side of the debate.

to make the ultimate sacrifice for someone elses lies is just not acceptable to me.

Then don't do it, or at least don't do it for that reason.
Nobody has made the ultimate sacrifice for anyone's lies in this war. Even in the most absurd hypothetical worst-case scenario- (for instance if it turned out that Bush had sold his soul to Satan for the ability to talk America into a war with the last bastion of justice on planet Earth), the defense of lies would not be the cause for which any of our servicemen made the choices they made. Some join to grow personally. Some join to support themselves or their families. Some join to help there fellow men. Those are the causes for which they put themselves in harms way. If they really felt they were about to go to war for lies, it was well within their power to desert- I know this because when I was at the School of Infantry I never saw even one weekend pass where every single Marine came back from weekend liberty. So what of the ones who stayed? Either they had a good cause, or else they were so evil that they were willing to kill for lies and didn't expect to die. Since I was friends with many of those who stayed I can tell you that most of them were not that evil type; they were just good guys- some in a little over their heads, who had good motives for their choices (a few sickos aside- I have said and still believe that to really thrive in the Marine Corps you've either got to be an overly violent person or an absolutely heroic idealist, but for the rank and file who aren't entirely either, I believe my statement is true.)

If a good man joins the Marine Corps because he thinks he's got what it takes to protect those who can't protect themselves, gets sent to Iraq, does everything he can to protect others, and dies protecting others- how did he die for lies? Suppose that this hypothetical Marine is an platoon leader who decides to assault an enemy position instead of calling for fire because there are civilians in surrounding buildings, and he dies in the assault. Did he die for lies, or did he die to protect the civilians who a lesser man might have had shelled?

Again we see that your argument falls short dramatically, and countering it does not even require that one embrace the war, because all you have offered so far is the same old emotional and/or partisan nonsense.

You have yet to strongly assert any position on why the war is actually being fought and why those ends, whatever you believe them to be, are unworthy.
That is the question, is it not? They key word is WHY. The word "why" is a request for reason. Reason- examine the word and note common interchangability with the word "logic". Where's the logic? It's all well and good to make your own decisions on an emotional basis, and I'll accept that answer if you say "I have made an emotional decision, which is my right, not to serve, even if I cannot justify my positon, because in America I am not required to provide justification for my personal choices". I'll simply then discourage you from making any kind of assertive argument as to how others ought to decide and ask that you respect their right to make whatever emotional or logical decision seems fit to them, since you really have no sound case to make for their consideration.

My stepsons friend has been in Iraq for the past year and just recently came home through rotation, his unit is planning to go back within the next 4 months and he said to my stepdaughter the other day " I would kill myself before I went back"

That's understandable, but it doesn't affect the situation. If you want to get technical it's called an Ad Misericodiam fallacy.
I've never been shot at- a friend of mine who lost a fair piece of his face in Iraq tells me that I wouldn't like it, and I take his word for it. Guess what- he still wants to be career Marine after taking one through the cheek.
I guess all that is really shown here is that some are cut out for the military and others aren't. It's not a natural thing; it's a sad necessity of the unnatural lifestyle humanity has chosen, without which none of the things that make our lives what they are would be able to exist.


Final answer: I'm not a huge fan of Bush these days, I reserve myself from unchecked opposition to the war in Iraq almost entirely because of strategic concerns which most parties to the debate never even consider, and I don't believe that civilians have a duty to participate in the volunteer military or to justify their choice not to.

I do however believe that when one elects to advocate a given position that they ought to be able to support it strongly, that a warrior's sacrifice should never be demeaned, and that disownership is a different and more sinister creature than dissent.

Therefore, I throw the book at you.
Merry Christmas

I'm one of those really strange characters that volunteered for service during the Vietnam era when all my buddies were scrambling to find some kind of deterent. Most of them ended up partying at some college or university. Before I was a senior in HS three of my friends had been killed in action, but I enlisted anyway. It was noticable then but even more so now that most young people have no sense of responsiblity to anything other than themselves. I am a babyboomer, we came along during a time of great excess and self indulgence. The Civic and National Pride that the
Greatest Generation relished was beginning to become boring and troublesome to my generation. I now have three sons and that same Civic and National pride, although willingly practiced by me, is completely lost on them. It use to bother me when the National Anthem was played and the guy in front of me wouldn't remove his cap, now they don't even bother to stand. My sons, although I love them to death, have no clue what it means to sacrifice anything. They have never had to do so and the concept is completely foreign to them. If a terrorist were to walk into their homes and blow it up and they survived, hell they would just move back in with me and complain about the amount of food in the house. America could cease to exist or be taken over by a foreign country and as long as it doesn't ruin their tee time, they could care less. I see this attitude everywhere and it has many faces. We live in a complacent society where the average American has never been touched by sacrifice let alone experience it first hand. Americans have not had to stand against an invading Army on her own soil since the War of 1812. Americans have become lazy, fat, arrogant and completely removed from anything they conceive as reguiring effort. This is easily proven in that the concept of defending freedom is such an abstract idea that it is seen as utterly ridiculous. One cannot place a value on something taken as common as the air we breathe. Sacrifice is not letting a car pull in line ahead of you in rush hour traffic. You cannot expect a goup to take up a concept they do not understand nor show any empathy to those that have sacrificed greatly. My one wish is that a time never comes when America needs another Greatest Generation to step up.
That would mean some would have to push aside their keyboards and step away from their computers, now that would take a sacrifice!

At a kneejerk i'd say that's a little cliche, but in all fairness you're right on target WHOFLUNGGUM.

I can't even pretend to have half the class or half the civic virtue that my grandfather did, but even with maybe the 1/3 of my decent upbringing that stuck, people my age look at me like I'm from some other friggin planet. That's kinda scary since especially in years past, and probably to a decent extent still, I'd have to count myself as part of the problem if I was going to be 100% objective.

You know, the same thing happened to Rome.
Towards the end the Romans got so self-indulgent that even the legions wouldn't train in full armor and the elite- the Praetorians, no longer saluted to the motto of "Integrity" as the regulars did, but instead to the name of Caesar.

I consider it a cosmic system of checks and balances. When a power degrades to the point that its preeminence is no longer a good thing, that same decline necessarily makes it unable to sustain its position.

Nothing lasts forever- all we an really hope for, whether it comes sooner or later, is that when the 7 fat years are exhausted, the 7 lean years will correct us and make us fit to rise again. That goes for individuals, nations, and humanity all.


Also, before anyone a little closer to my age pipes up, I'd like to point out that at least in my view (can't speak for anyone else) it's not such much symbols in and of themselves that I'm worried about. Taking off caps, burning flags, whatever other gesture we care to address- it's not the act itself, but the underlying attitude and its effect on actions of greater consequence. Granted that America doesn't rise or fall on taking off caps, nor did Rome rise or fall on the change in salutes, but if it says something about where one's heart lies and thus how he will act in a given situation, then it clearly is important.
Is a person more likely to risk his own neck for the common good who does not even identify himself closely enough with the whole to acknowledge the symbols of its unity? I think not.

Vagabond, I'm probably closer to your age. To me, I think this situation basically points out the need for us as a country to swallow our pride and start looking outside our own borders for a moment. The mistake we make is that we are so afraid of looking outside our borders and thus we forget that there is another world out there that we can learn so much from.

I think the rest of the world, especially developing countries, have a far better sense of what it is to be patriotic or serve one's country, because each of them do it every day. In countries like China or Iran, they may not have the same freedoms as us, but their nationalism is to an extreme point and these people are more than willing to do what it takes to hold up their country. Some people, like Bush and his followers, may percieve that as racism and xenophobia, but lets face it, we want the same from our fellow countrymen. I think in a lot of ways, it points out the shortcomings of our so-called "free society." In a society that allows people to live freely, its very difficult to convince people there are causes higher than you, simply because they are allows to live the lives that they wish to lead. It also makes you think twice before criticizing other countries or cultures; maybe they do have a point.

With that, it's gut check time. We always claim to love and uphold democracy and whatnot, yet it seems we are very dissatisfied by the results of it. In other words, it's the classic issue of wanting something but not wanting to pay for it. Grady, yourself, and many others want status quo to remain but for people to become more unified and more willing to sacrifice for the greater glory of the country, but we are seeing that's not possible in such a free society. All we can do is hope that there are people who want to make those sacrifices.

So, we are at a crossroads. What do you want?

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
In countries like China or Iran, they may not have the same freedoms as us, but their nationalism is to an extreme point and these people are more than willing to do what it takes to hold up their country.

I've never been to Iran or China so I don't know if your right or wrong. My impulse however would be that it's easy to be a nationalist as opposed to supporting a foreign power. I'm sure that most Iranians don't want the US to come in and "free the crap out of them" as Jamuhn's avatar puts it.

But is that to say that they starry-eyed patriots who are willing to own their nation's policies? If you've been there maybe you can tell me, because all I know is what I read in the news- sometimes it's Iranian students getting their teeth kicked in for wanting democracy- sometimes it's a bunch of old farts burning American flags and threatening to destroy Western Civilization. I believe however that on the whole nations where the majority is oppressed for the "common good" cannot possibly be a just or happy place.

I know that man invented government. I don't know what invented man, but I have reason to believe that whatever it was has a higher standing than man. Therefore I cannot make sense of the proposal that the good of the majority of men be subjegated to the good of government.

My take, with what knowledge I have, would be not so much that we need to be more like anybody else, but that we need to figure out who the heck we are and live for it. Americans don't seem to know who "we" are. They know who they, as individuals are (sometimes) or at the very least know what they as individuals want but it seems like America has lost a little bit of its sense of self. I suppose I'm not old enough to know that for a fact, but it's the impression I get. If that destroys us, we've asked for it by stagnating in a group which we no longer identify with. So we've either got to get busy living (figure out, as individuals and as a collective, who we are, what we want, and where best to get it (together, here- or elsewhere with other groups) or get busy dying (plan on falling the next time a major challenge comes along).

In a society that allows people to live freely, its very difficult to convince people there are causes higher than you, simply because they are allows to live the lives that they wish to lead.

But that's the beauty of it. A free society can only survive if it deserves to. Our nation was built on the idea that the government is responsible to the people. Of the people, by the people, for the people. Service to the government should constitute service to ones self by virtue of one's membership in society. Failing to serve the yourself through service to the government when it is needed is in effect a suicide attempt, though it can only be successful if embraced by a majority, or at least a near majority (a plurality perhaps). I believe in the right to commit suicide because I don't think a person who can't value life deserves to have it. If the majority of this nation elected to "commit suicide" in that way, then America would have the right, and in fact would deserve to die. But if the majority chose otherwise, those who weren't willing to serve themselves by service to the government would owe it to everyone else and to themselves to either compromise their position if it was worthwhile to them, or leave.

I think the reconciling point between your case for a more authoritarian government and my belief in popular sovreignty is that something that I have already asserted- dissent is ok, but if one disowns the majority decision- that is, if one cannot be convinced of the necessity of abiding by the laws that are adopted by the majority for the common good- then they have to leave.

A free society works fine, except in two cases. 1. When the law is not obeyed. 2. When it is so gravely ill that it will no longer make the decisions necessary to preserve its own life.

The second case is unfortunate, but to take action to stop such a society from dying would necessarily mean imposing the will of the minority upon the majority, which can only be beneficial to the minority if one accepts the premise that it is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

The first case is easily correctable. There's nothing wrong with enforcing democratically adopted laws.


I hope I have been at least reasonably coherent- I'm in the midst of changing my sleep schedule and am not all here.

BTW- I never would have figured you for the kind to join the military. Which force have you decided on? (and congratulations by the way- it's an experience- even if it did leave me a bit sore for a while

Originally posted by The Vagabond
My take, with what knowledge I have, would be not so much that we need to be more like anybody else, but that we need to figure out who the heck we are and live for it. Americans don't seem to know who "we" are. They know who they, as individuals are (sometimes) or at the very least know what they as individuals want but it seems like America has lost a little bit of its sense of self. I suppose I'm not old enough to know that for a fact, but it's the impression I get. If that destroys us, we've asked for it by stagnating in a group which we no longer identify with. So we've either got to get busy living (figure out, as individuals and as a collective, who we are, what we want, and where best to get it (together, here- or elsewhere with other groups) or get busy dying (plan on falling the next time a major challenge comes along).

And that's the biggest challenge of all - a sense of purpose. As much as some would hate to admit it, life is simply not worth living if you're just gonna stand there and not feel a thing. Life has to have meaning, a purpose, and if there is no purpose, we must find a purpose. The issue is, we each have so many purposes individually that the possibility of us ever deciding on one central purpose in life is very difficult.

I think the reconciling point between your case for a more authoritarian government and my belief in popular sovreignty is that something that I have already asserted- dissent is ok, but if one disowns the majority decision- that is, if one cannot be convinced of the necessity of abiding by the laws that are adopted by the majority for the common good- then they have to leave.

Ha ha, no, it's no case I made for a more authoritarian government. The point I was trying to make is that we are asking for a perfect world, the best of both worlds - a free society, yet unified. In a free society, where people are allowed to think whatever they please, you can't force unity. It has to come naturally, but the problem is that it doesn't. Yet in an authoritarian society, people are given a reason to be unified - the people. Since the entire society depends upon how well an authoritarian state works together as opposed to a free society, they must unite or the entire structure will fall. Its two different worlds, one promotes unity and the other doesn't care one way or the other if there's unity or not. Its very difficult to put the two together.

BTW- I never would have figured you for the kind to join the military. Which force have you decided on? (and congratulations by the way- it's an experience- even if it did leave me a bit sore for a while

Outta curiousity, why don't I seem like one to join the military? I may not be a Bush-lover or a Republican, but that certainly doesn't matter, right?

I'm planning to enter the U.S. Navy and become a Surface Warfare Officer. As much as I'd love to join the Army or the Marine Corps, the Navy was my first love, not to mention I do lack the physical qualities to be able to enter the Army or the Marine Corps. I'd probably make it as a woman, but I'm a man, so...

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The issue is, we each have so many purposes individually that the possibility of us ever deciding on one central purpose in life is very difficult.

We don't all need the same exact purpose, we only need a common root, an agreement that we must work together in certain respects to pursue whatever purpose we individually choose, whether that means short-sighted hedonism or some kind of incredibly complex spiritual journey.
It works like this-
OK everybody, if I may interrupt your lives for a moment, I'd like to inform you that this guy over here wants to take you away from your own goals and use you for his own ends- why don't we go kick the snot out of him so we can get back to our own lives.
or in a more realistic case...
Gents, can most of us agree that we can fulfill our goals with 50 bucks less income a month, since if we don't fund this new education initiative our economy will eventually stagnate and we'll be too busy with subsistence farming to have any real goals?

We're lacking the sense of common cause. People don't seem to acknowledge that everyone else around them is part of the apartus that makes their lifestyle possible, we've definately drifted apart from our government and lost a lot of trust for it, and the increasing complexity of economics, military affairs, etc have left a bit of ambiguity in the mind of the average joe as to exactly what threats we must address together.

That's not an easy thing to overcome, but I see it as do or die; I don't think authoritarism provides a viable thrid option.
(I'd use a different word in light of your objection if I could come up with one- but I think we are basically talking about a rather odd and counterintuitive authority or precedence of the all-inclusive greater good over the will of the majority and although I'm sure that if D'oh is in the dictionary that there must be such a word, I just don't know it.)

I don't think that the individual's fate is any less mixed up with societies in a free society. In either case I believe the individual sinks or swims with his countrymen. In a free society however, sinking is in fact an option if the majority should choose it, and I think that's OK because it is almost impossible except in the event that the people either have no reason to live or are simply not intellectually or morally developed enough to endure. In the later case, the destruction of our complex society would result and what was left would have to pick up and start again and repeat that cycle until we learned. Sounds a lot like learning to me- progress even.

Outta curiousity, why don't I seem like one to join the military? I may not be a Bush-lover or a Republican, but that certainly doesn't matter, right?

Politics weren't really the deciding factor, but unless I've gotten you confused with somebody else or misunderstood your argument in some past discussion, I seem to remember debating over pacifism with you. I don't know that I'd call it a negative thing, given the position I hold on the topic of this thread, I just didn't understand you to be somebody who approved of violence.

I'm planning to enter the U.S. Navy and become a Surface Warfare Officer.

That's cool. Somebody's gotta get the Marines there in one piece afterall. Speaking only for myself, this Marine is only down on the Navy until you remind him that the alternative is to hump it all the way to the war.

Somebody told me once that the airforce is the only one that's really got it right though- in the airforce, the men send the officers off to fight

Personally, if I hadn't gone into the Marines my next choice would have been the Army. Tired, sore, blistered, screamed at, beaten, etc etc is better than cold and wet any day. Just imagined how upset I was when I was reminded that the adjective marine literally means that it works in the water.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Somebody told me once that the airforce is the only one that's really got it right though- in the airforce, the men send the officers off to fight

My old OIMCD used to say something similar, the RAF is the smartest branch of the armed forces....send the officers to war , keep the men home.

When I was in college in the eighties, I wore a very small cloisonné purple heart lapel pin on my belt. One day, a friend of mine who had been in the Air Force for fifteen years asked me what it was. In disbelief, I asked him if he really didn't know. He said he didn't. When I told him, he said that they don't see many of those in the Air Force.

[edit on 2005/12/19 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
When I was in college in the eighties, I wore a very small cloisonné purple heart lapel pin on my belt. One day, a friend of mine who had been in the Air Force for fifteen years asked me what it was. In disbelief, I asked him if he really didn't know. He said he didn't. When I told him, he said that they don't see many of those in the Air Force.

[edit on 2005/12/19 by GradyPhilpott]

How often to you get shot down in the airforce?
Heres a better question, how many privates do you see flying F-18s?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Somebody told me once that the airforce is the only one that's really got it right though- in the airforce, the men send the officers off to fight

I like the way that this unnamed source excluded those that bail out them there air force officers when they do have mishaps, etc..




seekerof

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Patriot36- That Grady crack was uncalled for.
Vagabond- That was right on. I served in the Army under Pattons kid in the Second Armored Div. that describes it exactly. Specially the sore part man them tanks aint no fun. And when i joined instead of gettin drafted they sent me to Texas.....hot, sweaty, beaten.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
(I'd use a different word in light of your objection if I could come up with one- but I think we are basically talking about a rather odd and counterintuitive authority or precedence of the all-inclusive greater good over the will of the majority and although I'm sure that if D'oh is in the dictionary that there must be such a word, I just don't know it.)

Well there is no word, because again, I wasn't really making a case for anything. I was just stating that that's the way it is.

That's cool. Somebody's gotta get the Marines there in one piece afterall. Speaking only for myself, this Marine is only down on the Navy until you remind him that the alternative is to hump it all the way to the war.

The Navy is just very appealing to me. High-tech warfare, and the idea of commanding a battle from a CIC with all that tech around you is quite intriguing. Not to mention ships are awesome and we get the best traveling!!!

Personally, if I hadn't gone into the Marines my next choice would have been the Army. Tired, sore, blistered, screamed at, beaten, etc etc is better than cold and wet any day. Just imagined how upset I was when I was reminded that the adjective marine literally means that it works in the water.

Well, just remember, nobody takes on an infinite number of Aliens like a squad of Marines!!! (inside joke)

[edit on 19-12-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Originally posted by Seekerof

I like the way that this unnamed source excluded those that bail out them there air force officers when they do have mishaps, etc..

Sorry seeker, I forgot we had a member from one of those parts of the airforce which no dobt does know what the purple heart is for... and judging by their mission, probably is a more than a little familiar with how to get it.

As for the unnamed source. I don't recall his name. A guy I met from the Coachella Valley Airborne Association sprung that one on a friend of mine who wanted to join the airforce. In all fairness to my friend, he did go into security forces.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The Navy is just very appealing to me. High-tech warfare, and the idea of commanding a battle from a CIC with all that tech around you is quite intriguing. Not to mention ships are awesome and we get the best traveling!!!

I can see that, although personally I'd feel a little helpless inside most large machines, especially a ship- mainly because the ordinance aimed at me would be bigger and better guided.

As for Aliens... Glad that one never came up- I can't seem to remember what the immediate action drill for a UFO attack is. I remember that if you're a flying leatherneck you're supposed to fly through the grand canyon then throw a parachute at the alien craft to blind him, like in ID4- but other than that...

I'm apart of AROTC at my university and I hope to be an Army Aviatior. Its mostly in the blood as my dad was a master army aviator and his father served in the army in Korea. So no I haven't enlisted but I'm gonna commission.

My grandfather served in the Army in WWI

My father served in WWII (Navy: Pacific: Cruiser) and Korea War

I was in the 82nd Abn Ft. Bragg and Korea during the Vietnam era

And My daughter is in the Army in Korea now







[edit on 12/20/2005 by bodebliss]

Originally posted by devilwasp
Heres a better question, how many privates do you see flying F-18s?

FYI they are called "airmen" in the Air Force. Not privates. In addition Airman 1st Class John L. Levitow...Congressional Medal of Honor. Nuff said.

Originally posted by dbates
FYI they are called "airmen" in the Air Force. Not privates.

Sorry, my mistake at the rank structure..I'm not to good with AF ranks..

In addition Airman 1st Class John L. Levitow...Congressional Medal of Honor. Nuff said.

Aint having a go at the boys in blue , (Or light grey/blue over here) or thier courage just having a light jab, if its not welcome just say.