RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

SultryItalian -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 4:14:35 AM)

Also, the military will not take you if you have allergies.



EbonyWood -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 4:22:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SultryItalian

Also, the military will not take you if you have allergies.


Well, I have this allergy to bullets...



lronitulstahp -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 6:21:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyWood

quote:

ORIGINAL: SultryItalian

Also, the military will not take you if you have allergies.


Well, I have this allergy to bullets...
Some Benadryl will clear that right up....but it may cause drowsiness.



Aneirin -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 6:58:26 AM)

I got refused enlistment in the Roral Navy because I at the time suffered from Hay Fever, I even got told my 'intellect' was what they sought for a role of Artificer, but the hay fever made it a no no. Fine I went next door and the Royal Air force saw hay fever as no problem, I got the equivalent of an Artificer with planes instead of ships. Now what always confused me over the hay fever issue, was the fact that there is no plants at sea, but there was lots of plants on air fields, yet the air force had no bar on people with hay fever. Hay fever at the time of my joining the mob, was not that common, it was pre everyone has an allergy thing.

Though allergies I believe to be a reaction to the constant chemical atmosphere we now live in and microbiologically clean to me is part of that cause, we need the bugs to develop immunity, we are becoming pussies in our enviroment, but hey the chemical and pharmaceutical companies are doing well out of it.

The Hay fever after 34 years has now gone completely, along with the 'allergy' to lactose and salicylic acid, I put that down to a seriously reduced chemical atmosphere, and a good Atlantic ocean wind that blasts across my present home.

But to remain with the topic on canon fodder, sorry professional armed personnel engaged in the service of the country, to me defence of the country, as if it were being attacked, is a whole different thing to being paid to fight for another's cause in foreign lands, this, to me, is a form of mercenary action, we will field our armed forces if you give us this kind of thing. Fighting for one's own country, that is your country is physicaly being attacked by forces known, then, I have zero problem with defending as that is my understanding of the purpose of armed force enlistment, anything else, is purely conquest.To note when a country is physically attacked, the professional soldier is redundant, as it is the will of the inhabitants to defend themselves, their families, their villages and countries from being wiped out or enslaved, fighting is done without pay, just food and water to live by.



HunterS -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:30:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

1812.

6,765 Causalties
2,260 Killed in Action


This would be in a war that we started...so that would be 6,765 casualties and 2,260 deaths not incurred defending America but incurred for some other reason.

H.



HunterS -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:35:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

While I'm not willing to concede all conflicts we were involved post Civil War...could not a case be made that Union soldiers were fighting to defend and preserve the Union?


That would only leave all of the dead Confederate Americans to consider.  Then of course there is the 3:1 ratio of death by disease vs. death by hostile action.

H: 



HunterS -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:41:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

I think you'd have to count World War II as well, but aside from that every other war we've fought in the last 200 years - including WWI - would be at best debatable and in some cases not even close. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, the current Iraq war... nobody in any of these conflicts was or is defending the United States. Defending our national interests? Sure. Defending our country? A whole different subject altogether.



Why would you include WWII?
"Our national interests"  ...I think you mean certain commercial   interests.

H.



DedicatedDom40 -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:42:36 AM)

I guess its time to tax soda and fast foods as a matter of national security.



Musicmystery -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:42:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

1812.

6,765 Causalties
2,260 Killed in Action

This would be in a war that we started...so that would be 6,765 casualties and 2,260 deaths not incurred defending America but incurred for some other reason.

H.

You really are incorrigible.

"To enforce its blockade of French ports, the British boarded U.S. and other neutral ships to check cargo they suspected was being sent to France and to impress seamen alleged to be British navy deserters."

"When the U.S. demanded an end to the interference, Britain refused."

"Britain maintained its blockade of eastern U.S. ports. A British force burned public buildings in Washington, D.C., including the White House."

Further, gee, somehow standing in a fort or a ship in my own country and firing at an invading army shooting at me strikes me as defending my country. Yeah, sure, there were war hawks in Congress fucking up rational thinking, then as now, but gosh, I'm pretty sure those soldiers figured they were defending their country (despite the unpopularity of the war).

If not, fine, enjoy your game. Hell, many wars are defined out of existence--police actions, or liberations, not really wars at all, just a lot of shooting at each other.

War of 1812




littlewonder -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:43:39 AM)

quote:

Interestingly, the Navy Recruiting Manual, COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8F, does not appear to contain any provisions which would make such applicants ineligible for enlistment. However, I've been informed by several Navy recruiters that the Navy will not accept applicants for service, as an alternative to criminal prosecution or other punitive sentence.


Being a veteran navy wife I can tell you that this is true. They will check to see if you have any kind of record. If you do then you can't join.



HunterS -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:44:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I will never understand the point of these "discussions."


The point is that American service men and women die to make rich people richer and not to defend our country.

H.



Musicmystery -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:48:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I will never understand the point of these "discussions."


The point is that American service men and women die to make rich people richer and not to defend our country.

H.


Ah. You might have said so, and constructed an argument accordingly.

That's true here and globally. Always has been.

Hell, Homer's Iliad starts with soldiers wondering why on earth they're fighting in Agamemnon's war.



HunterS -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:50:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

1812.

6,765 Causalties
2,260 Killed in Action

This would be in a war that we started...so that would be 6,765 casualties and 2,260 deaths not incurred defending America but incurred for some other reason.

H.

You really are incorrigible.

"To enforce its blockade of French ports, the British boarded U.S. and other neutral ships to check cargo they suspected was being sent to France and to impress seamen alleged to be British navy deserters."

"When the U.S. demanded an end to the interference, Britain refused."

"Britain maintained its blockade of eastern U.S. ports. A British force burned public buildings in Washington, D.C., including the White House."

Further, gee, somehow standing in a fort or a ship in my own country and firing at an invading army shooting at me strikes me as defending my country. Yeah, sure, there were war hawks in Congress fucking up rational thinking, then as now, but gosh, I'm pretty sure those soldiers figured they were defending their country (despite the unpopularity of the war).

If not, fine, enjoy your game. Hell, many wars are defined out of existence--police actions, or liberations, not really wars at all, just a lot of shooting at each other.

War of 1812





You were aware that we declared war on Great Britian. 
That would, by definition make us the aggressor not the defender.

H.



Musicmystery -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:53:34 AM)

This is good to know.

If the Taliban comes over here and attacks your house, you aren't defending it, as we invaded that country. You are the aggressor.

Say hi to Alice and the White Rabbit for me.



slvemike4u -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:55:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

1812.

6,765 Causalties
2,260 Killed in Action


This would be in a war that we started...so that would be 6,765 casualties and 2,260 deaths not incurred defending America but incurred for some other reason.

H.
Damm ,I need to go back and re-take my basic history courses....if I recall right there was something about stopping American merchant ships on the high seas and impressing American sailors to serve in the Kings Navy...they made it sound like there were some freedom of the seas issues going on....but since you say we started it....I will of course adjust my thinking.



HunterS -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 9:09:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

1812.

6,765 Causalties
2,260 Killed in Action


This would be in a war that we started...so that would be 6,765 casualties and 2,260 deaths not incurred defending America but incurred for some other reason.

H.
Damm ,I need to go back and re-take my basic history courses....if I recall right there was something about stopping American merchant ships on the high seas and impressing American sailors to serve in the Kings Navy...they made it sound like there were some freedom of the seas issues going on....but since you say we started it....I will of course adjust my thinking.


As of course you should. 
I have noticed that you have the ability to admit when you are mistaken.
Would you hazard  a guess as to what percentage of the men removed from American ships actully were British deserters?
When we board ships of other soverign nations that we are not at war with...how is that substantially different.

H.



slvemike4u -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 9:20:49 AM)

Please see all of Tims post's regarding this matter...and realise that when you suggest that a percentage of the men impressed were actually British deserters you allow for the fact that some percentage were not.....should America have accepted this as simply the cost of doing buisness in the early 19th century?
Or as a Sovereign State that had won its independance from a certain European Monarchy asserted its Statehood with a declaration of war?
Either way all these consideration are certainly above the pay grade of uniformed enlisted soldiers.....if they wear the Uniform and die in service of their country it is right and indeed proper to say that they died defending their flag...hence their country.
Thats my story and I'm sticking to it!



LadyPact -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 9:45:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

~FR

To answer the question about being given the choice of jail or military....

The Army addresses this issue in the Army Recruiting Regulation, Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 4-8b: "Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment.."

The Air Force Recruiting Regulation, AETCI 36-2002, table 1-1, lines 7 and 8, makes an applicant ineligible for enlistment if they are "released from restraint, or civil suit, or charges on the condition of entering military service, if the restraint, civil suit, or criminal charges would be reinstated if the applicant does not enter military service."

The Marine Corps Recruiting Regulation, MCO P1100.72B, Chapter 3, Section 2, Part H, Paragraph 12 states: "Applicants may not enlist as an alternative to criminal prosecution, indictment, incarceration, parole, probation, or other punitive sentence. They are ineligible for enlistment until the original assigned sentence would have been completed."

In the Coast Guard, enlistment prohibition is contained in the Coast Guard Recruiting Manual, M1100.2D, Table 2-A.

Interestingly, the Navy Recruiting Manual, COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8F, does not appear to contain any provisions which would make such applicants ineligible for enlistment. However, I've been informed by several Navy recruiters that the Navy will not accept applicants for service, as an alternative to criminal prosecution or other punitive sentence.


http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/joinprison.htm


Thank you for doing the research, tazzy.

I was literally in the recruiter's office yesterday with My son.  (Paperwork reasons.)  She received a phone call on this very matter while we were there.  She was very frank in telling whoever was on the phone that the 'jail or military' option no longer applies.



tazzygirl -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 10:09:27 AM)

Your welcome LP. [:D]

~FR to the rest

Out of curiosity, what would Pearl Harbor be but an attack on the US and a defensive response?



slvemike4u -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 10:14:46 AM)

Allow me to hazard a guess as to Hunter S's response here.....Japans suprise attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct result of America's attempt to curtail Japan's expansion in the Far East re: China and South East Asia.
Now as far as that comment goes he would be correct.....some could say an oil embargo is an act of war.....however I would still contend such geo-politcal considerations mattered not a whit to the young sailors and soldiers at Pearl that day....nor to the hundreds of thousands that flocked to recruiting stations as a direct result of that infamous attack.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875