|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Feb 19, 2006 0:15:47 GMT -5
send the poor people to die in iraq.  wow so is there a secret draft or something I dont know about and is the deathcount like in the hundreds of thousands cause it would take that many to influence the homownership stats. |
|
|
|
Post by shytothebone on Feb 19, 2006 3:50:05 GMT -5
There isn't nobody sending anyone anywheres. It is an all volunteer army. I highly doubt that being poor has anything to do with it. It might be an option for low income kids coming out of high school so they can pay for school but that is going to be the only statistic anyone finds that has anything with people being in the army because they are poor. Besides look at all the rich family's sending their kids to places like West Point and VMI. Yeah they might be officers but they all bleed the same way and god bless them for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by reddragon on Feb 19, 2006 3:52:54 GMT -5
There isn't nobody sending anyone anywheres. It is an all volunteer army. I highly doubt that being poor has anything to do with it. It might be an option for low income kids coming out of high school so they can pay for school but that is going to be the only statistic anyone finds that has anything with people being in the army because they are poor. Besides look at all the rich family's sending their kids to places like West Point and VMI. Yeah they might be officers but they all bleed the same way and god bless them for it. sounds like someone who has never spent a day wearing the uniform!!! |
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Feb 19, 2006 9:49:51 GMT -5
send the poor people to die in iraq. wow so is there a secret draft or something I dont know about and is the deathcount like in the hundreds of thousands cause it would take that many to influence the homownership stats. Yeah, i think people exagerate the death toll in Iraq. To date, some 2500 American soldiers have died, out of an estimated 300,000 Americans sent there over the last four or so years. What i don't think people really think about is the number of Iraqis and other Arabs that are killing each other in the name Islam. I don't know the exact numbers, and i'm not going to estimate either if i don't know something for sure. But the Sunnis and Shiites' competition and violence is getting out of hand, and in my opinion is absurd in the first place. Protestants and Catholics laregly don't kill each other anymore; by this same logic, to kill others in the name of religion seems really stupid to us in the 21st century in Western society. I'm sure that to the Muslims, it seems justifiable to some extent. What i do not understand is the one sided nature of the media's coverage of the violence. They will cover a car bomb explosion in Baghdad, but they will not cover a story about hundreds getting raped and tortured in the Sudan for being either Christians or Athiests. The media will not cover the number of muslim radical rallies held in theocratic states like Uzbekistan or Kazahkstan, where thousands get together and promise to bring down either Christianity or to nuke Israel off the face of the earth. CNN and FOX and BBC are covering it now, but it makes me wonder why it took them so long, since some of this had been going on for decades.  During Hussein's trials, the media also will not recount on how brutal the man's regime really was, and that he could be held accountable for the deaths of nearly half a million Arabs alone, and the displacements of many more from their lands and homes. So we all have to ask ourselves; what is all this needless killing really about? Is it about expansion of a Western state into the third world? Is it about one branch of Islam rising over another? What about the number of totalitarian dictators ruling in these largely Muslim countries, either now or in the recent past. When does all that end? How many more people will get tortured or brutualized in the MidEast by terrorists of one faction or another simply by being different? I gotta tell you, you guys; all this violence is starting get to me. It bothered me even before the war began in 2001, where i would read stories of women being raped and beaten by their husbands simply for disobiedence in countries like Turkey and Syria. If we're gonna talk about human rights abuses, why have we not brought up the subject of females' rights and health abuses in these countries? I have seen pictures of young women having been beaten for not wearing an Islamic veil. How crazy is that?  A few months ago, we had a speaker here at our school from Saudi Arabia; she was a medical doctor who had migrated from Iraq during the early nineties with her family. She gave a presentation of how badly treated women are in the Muslim world, going by her own personal experiences to illuminate her examples. I was horrified to see pictures of what had happened to young children at the hands of Hussein, and even more shocked to know what they had done to her and her sisters. Not that it was much better in Saudi Arabia, she said. She spoke out against the war in Iraq, but not of US intervention. She spoke out against the Muslim radicals, rallying support among their ignorant masses to march to the govt embassies and kill the officials there, for being representatives of heresy and infidelity to the word of Muhammed. And she very heavily criticized the UN's lack of intervention in dealing with Hussein, for allowing all these crimes to go unpunished and undocumented. If yall really want a clear cut picture of what's going on in the Mideast and in the Muslim world, talk to some Muslims that lived over there, during the regimes of maniacs like Hussein and Qaddafi and Arafat and Nasser. Your eyes will be opened to the horrors of what one society can do to its own. So we have to ask ourselves: when will all this end? When will these peoples learn to respect each others' differences and learn to live in peace? And when will women be accepted for equals there, and not treated like inferiors? When will their horrific nightmarish existences cease? |
|
|
|
Post by shytothebone on Feb 19, 2006 20:08:31 GMT -5
There isn't nobody sending anyone anywheres. It is an all volunteer army. I highly doubt that being poor has anything to do with it. It might be an option for low income kids coming out of high school so they can pay for school but that is going to be the only statistic anyone finds that has anything with people being in the army because they are poor. Besides look at all the rich family's sending their kids to places like West Point and VMI. Yeah they might be officers but they all bleed the same way and god bless them for it. sounds like someone who has never spent a day wearing the uniform!!! Nope I havent. Have you Reddragon? If so did anyone make you do it? I can already awnser that one for ya. No. |
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Feb 19, 2006 22:11:19 GMT -5
sounds like someone who has never spent a day wearing the uniform!!! Nope I havent. Have you Reddragon? If so did anyone make you do it? I can already awnser that one for ya. No. I think a lot of men that join the army don't quite realize what they're getting into; there's always the possibility of dying. Thing is, the US Army at least tries to sugar coat military service with all kinds of benefits, so as to hide that small but very real risk which goes to the core of any servicemen. In my opinion, soldiers should get a lot of respect, but i think civil servants should get more. Police, in particular. They keep us safe and enforce our laws every day, and are always risking their lives against an enemy that is all too difficult to detect; citizens gone bad. |
|
|
|
Post by shytothebone on Feb 20, 2006 0:22:46 GMT -5
Nope I havent. Have you Reddragon? If so did anyone make you do it? I can already awnser that one for ya. No. I think a lot of men that join the army don't quite realize what they're getting into; there's always the possibility of dying. Thing is, the US Army at least tries to sugar coat military service with all kinds of benefits, so as to hide that small but very real risk which goes to the core of any servicemen. In my opinion, soldiers should get a lot of respect, but i think civil servants should get more. Police, in particular. They keep us safe and enforce our laws every day, and are always risking their lives against an enemy that is all too difficult to detect; citizens gone bad. I don't know about sugar coating but I know the army from what I have seen on TV really doesn't give a good dose of reality of what to expect like the Marines do. Those people have their shit together in my opinion. All I can say is if a person is in a bad position in life weather they are in trouble or have a family to support or are poor and bad off. The military gives them an opinion they normally wouldn't have. They can better themselves for a little bit and get it together on a VOLUNTEER basis no matter what people think of the bullshit about sending the poor. Everyone has options no matter what their situation. |
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Feb 20, 2006 13:34:03 GMT -5
on a side note the military recuiting is picking back up and ive heard they have met recruitment goals as of late.
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Feb 20, 2006 19:08:35 GMT -5
I think a lot of men that join the army don't quite realize what they're getting into; there's always the possibility of dying. Thing is, the US Army at least tries to sugar coat military service with all kinds of benefits, so as to hide that small but very real risk which goes to the core of any servicemen. In my opinion, soldiers should get a lot of respect, but i think civil servants should get more. Police, in particular. They keep us safe and enforce our laws every day, and are always risking their lives against an enemy that is all too difficult to detect; citizens gone bad. I don't know about sugar coating but I know the army from what I have seen on TV really doesn't give a good dose of reality of what to expect like the Marines do. Those people have their shit together in my opinion. All I can say is if a person is in a bad position in life weather they are in trouble or have a family to support or are poor and bad off. The military gives them an opinion they normally wouldn't have. They can better themselves for a little bit and get it together on a VOLUNTEER basis no matter what people think of the bullshit about sending the poor. Everyone has options no matter what their situation. I'm not criticizing the military, or the soldiers in it. I'm just saying that young men who join up don't quite realize what they're getting into, that's all.  Military service should be a very serious and well thought out decision, not one made on a lark. |
|
|
|
Post by nats on Feb 20, 2006 19:13:50 GMT -5
i don't know if this is anything to do with the topic but the soldiers in this country certainly don't know what they're gettnig into.
The area I live in is one of the worst in britain, really really poor area. And I heard army officers recruiting one day, they promise these young boys amazing adventures, brilliant lives. Promise they won't go to iraq or war for years, that they'll get sent to hot sunny countries. And this is to boys with no money, who worry about the future cause there's nothing else left for them, so they go for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Feb 20, 2006 19:33:45 GMT -5
i don't know if this is anything to do with the topic but the soldiers in this country certainly don't know what they're gettnig into. The area I live in is one of the worst in britain, really really poor area. And I heard army officers recruiting one day, they promise these young boys amazing adventures, brilliant lives. Promise they won't go to iraq or war for years, that they'll get sent to hot sunny countries. And this is to boys with no money, who worry about the future cause there's nothing else left for them, so they go for it. Yeah, i imagine that's how recruiters work in most countries. The US army is generally very picky about who they take in peace time. Now, in Iraq, they have mostly national guardsmen along with some volunteers. I thought it was like that with the Brits too, but i guess not. Hey!! Is it still policy not to have a standing army in UK? |
|
|
|
Post by nats on Feb 20, 2006 19:37:47 GMT -5
don't even know what a standing army is
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Feb 20, 2006 19:53:39 GMT -5
don't even know what a standing army is Well, that answers that question. A standing army is one that operates at home, in it's country of origin. For example, in the US, we have military bases all over the country, fully staffed and ready for situations where they might be needed. Like the US, Britain has an operating navy, but ever since the 1680s' they have had no standing army, except for an officer corps. I'm told the Brits are scared and untrustworthy of standing armies at home, based on their own native experiences with the Stuarts and Cromwellians. |
|
|
|
Post by shytothebone on Feb 21, 2006 0:35:50 GMT -5
I don't know about sugar coating but I know the army from what I have seen on TV really doesn't give a good dose of reality of what to expect like the Marines do. Those people have their shit together in my opinion. All I can say is if a person is in a bad position in life weather they are in trouble or have a family to support or are poor and bad off. The military gives them an opinion they normally wouldn't have. They can better themselves for a little bit and get it together on a VOLUNTEER basis no matter what people think of the bullshit about sending the poor. Everyone has options no matter what their situation. I'm not criticizing the military, or the soldiers in it. I'm just saying that young men who join up don't quite realize what they're getting into, that's all. Military service should be a very serious and well thought out decision, not one made on a lark. I suppose ther age has a lot to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Samantha on Feb 21, 2006 12:32:23 GMT -5
I'm told the Brits are scared and untrustworthy of standing armies at home, based on their own native experiences with the Stuarts and Cromwellians. lol who on earth has had experience of the Stuarts and the Cromwellians? That was rather a long time ago Russ ;D I think for most people any decision comes down to money. We don't need a standing army, so the money would be better off spent on things like health care and education. Well when I say 'spend' I mean wasted by incompetents but hey. |
|
