American force's recruiting problem

Razor

Razor

Spy
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
4,314
Reaction score
0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-5_26_05_RN.html

Seems like less and less American's are willing to put their lives at risk in war. I see this not really of a problem of more American's being cowardly and not wanting to die but more a problem of American's, and the whole of the western world for that matter, wanting to fight for something that they believe in and feel would be worthwhile, and many American's don't see Iraq as being worthwhile anymore, when Iraq never posed a threat to America.
 
Exactly.

I ain't gonna get myself killed for some bullshit war or just to help fill some corporations pocket books.
 
I can understand that - Most people in any country will say they'd only fight if it was a cause they strongly believed in.
 
Razor said:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-5_26_05_RN.html

Seems like less and less American's are willing to put their lives at risk in war. I see this not really of a problem of more American's being cowardly and not wanting to die but more a problem of American's, and the whole of the western world for that matter, wanting to fight for something that they believe in and feel would be worthwhile, and many American's don't see Iraq as being worthwhile anymore, when Iraq never posed a threat to America.
Click to expand...

Most Americans also thought Afghanistan posed no threat either.
 
Well this means that America will either have to stop going to war, or bring back the draft...
 
DeusExMachinia said:
Yeah, I don't die for oil sorry.
Click to expand...
lol
I agree. Don't get me wrong, I was heated after 9/11, unfortunately I was not qualified for service at the time, but I've cooled down.
My recruiters turned me off. I asked for more time in making a decision and their "Shut up kid, sign the papers" attitude turned me off." It's not for everyone.

Remember you don't need to be on the team to support it.
 
GiaOmerta said:
lol
I agree. Don't get me wrong, I was heated after 9/11, unfortunately I was not qualified for service at the time, but I've cooled down.
My recruiters turned me off. I asked for more time in making a decision and their "Shut up kid, sign the papers" attitude turned me off." It's not for everyone.

Remember you don't need to be on the team to support it.
Click to expand...

Lol. Most recruiters get paid for how many people they get signed on, and they also get bragging rights for it too, so I can see thier attitude as being the typical, sign the papers damnit, and don't ask questions.
 
I htink Afghanistan was justified, I dont think Iraq was justified however.

I mean Afghanistan was basically al-Qaeda's training base. Clinton sent over a few cruise missiles in the 90s but nothing to stop them really.
 
I see that the American people are tired of all of this...great job!! :thumbs:

What might happen though if the government WANTS more people and they start to recruit people without their consent?? Could that ever happen (I mean if it gets out of hand)??
 
It certainly will be interesting to see how all this turns out, because although many wars in the past have been started with 'questionable' motives, this is the most controversial in recent times, and deep in the information age. Now people all over america read about the Iraq war being for oil on the interenet. Or get different countrymen's views on the morality on it through satalite feeds on the news. Go back a few decades people relied on the TV or newspapers for the story behind the war, and like it or not it will be, to certain extents, bias propaganda aimed at making people WANT to sign up for war.

Now we can get different sides of the story just by changing channel or logging on to the computer - maybe this is why so many people aren't signing up, they have information to fuel their fears that they'd just be used as pawns in, essentially, a buisness (I'm not saying that this is true).

Or maybe the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were just really messed up compared to other wars. Who knows, not I.
 
CptStern said:
they didnt ...Osama is saudi
Click to expand...
Because country of origin makes all the difference, you think the US should have attacked Saudi Arabia?
 
Interesting, though not unexpected. The numbers always go down during war time becuase people realize that if they enlist they could die. The only exception in this was during WWII, but there i don't feel an explination is nessesary.
 
Everyone who voted for Bush should be sent to Iraq. Seems fair to me. :thumbs:
 
Every conservative should conserve by:

* Giving up their SUVs and Large Trucks for oil conservation

* Become anti war, anti sanction, and propose cuts to dfense to feed the poor and hungry for conservation of life.

* Conserve the constitution and the American Idea by getting rid of the patriot act.

And if they aren't already doing all this.. Then where is the compassion?
 
CptStern said:
isnt that what he's implying?
Click to expand...

What I'm implying is that even though the general populous thinks that a country is harmless, it could still be a major threat. Nowhere did I say that we should attack the country a one terrorist came from.
 
Dag said:
What I'm implying is that even though the general populous thinks that a country is harmless, it could still be a major threat.
Click to expand...

you implied that afghanistan was the threat
 
did you guys here about that getto recrutments, where they go into poor neighborhoods and do their magic?
 
seinfeldrules said:
Where were the bases? It doesnt matter where Osama was born, it matters where he operates.
Click to expand...
i don't think Bush ever wanted to get Osama, they needed a face to put on the terrorist, so they chose him, but didn't really try to find him
 
seinfeldrules said:
Where were the bases? It doesnt matter where Osama was born, it matters where he operates.
Click to expand...

No, it matters what countries are helping him. Afghanistan was a big pro of Osama. And to iyfyoufhl, that sounds a little far-fetched. We did go after him, and he was a big player in 9/11. (Amazingly.) But yes, he did need a face, because any ordinary bunch of people, with proper planning, training, and weaponry, can carry out an attack like that of 9/11. We went into Afghanistan, more or less, to uproot the government there, because they were huge terrorist/anti-US supporters.
 
Dag said:
No, it matters what countries are helping him. Afghanistan was a big pro of Osama. And to iyfyoufhl, that sounds a little far-fetched. We did go after him, and he was a big player in 9/11. (Amazingly.) But yes, he did need a face, because any ordinary bunch of people, with proper planning, training, and weaponry, can carry out an attack like that of 9/11. We went into Afghanistan, more or less, to uproot the government there, because they were huge terrorist/anti-US supporters.
Click to expand...


watch these documentaries, and get back to me


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104powerofnightmares.htm


you need to install realplayer to watch them
 
I don't have real player. Do they come in any other format?
 
dont think so ...download real player ...the documentaries are worth it
 
For those who want a clearer and fairer view on recruiters, go here.

Go to the bottom of the page, and watch some of the 'Sallinger investigation' videos.
 
Its a matter of not being able to support a war that was founded on no fact, no threat, and has since shown to be completely mismanaged. Hence the likelihood of being maimed or killed in the name of a farce is not an appealing cause.
 
Tr0n said:
I ain't gonna get myself killed for some bullshit war or just to help fill some corporations pocket books.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that people don't think this all the time and never join the military, wartme or not. It's certainly my mentality, regardless of what the military is up to.
 
There are compelling reasons to join the US Military, like further study, world travel, the first class training/skills learned, etc. ...

There is allot of good that military forces can do, for instance peace keeping, humanitarian work, civil defense work, probably more.

Ultimately its the government that sets out what its going to tolerate, so take them to task and there would be a flow on effect.
 
MjM said:
Its a matter of not being able to support a war that was founded on no fact, no threat, and has since shown to be completely mismanaged. Hence the likelihood of being maimed or killed in the name of a farce is not an appealing cause.
Click to expand...

Fact- Saddam had some powerful weaponry, and he was very Anti-US. How do we know this? We sold them to him. So yes, we did go in on solid facts.
Threat- Any Anti-US country with enough weaponry or money is a threat to the US. Afghanistan being a prime example.
Mismanaged?- How so? Because of Frequent terrorist attacks? The same thing happened in Nazi Germany during the end of WWII. When the Iraqi people fight for themselves, then we will pull out. (Though I am doubtful we will ever pull, even if there is stable government. ;) )
 
Very scary Dag.

FACT: For starters where were those WMD's?

Threats: Does it mean you have to go to war on them. As far as conventional forces go, they had squat that could be called a threat to the US. What they did have is a disaffected bunch of chaps willing to fly planes into buildings. how exactly has that been remedied post 9/11. Do you think they like the fact your army is now in Iraq and Afghanistan humiliating and brutalising the population on a regular basis?

Mismanagement( First post):
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82229
 
The mark was only missed by numbers like 32, etc.

I read a great article by a marine the other day on this subject, about how it's not really a 'bad' or 'good' thing. Reason being that less are joining just out of "Oh I'll get X benefit and such to do this" and instead people nowadays people are joining KNOWING they'll likely be sent to fight, and knowing they're doing so in a volatile war time.

It's not a bad thing because of the numbers- it's being met essentially. Being missed by that much the difference isn't big enough to have an impact. It also means more benefit incentives for current servicemen to reinlist and better bonuses.

Missing the mark isn't good, but it's not bad yet. When it's being missed by a number large enough to even mentally have an effect, then we'll have a problem.
 
MjM said:
Very scary Dag.

FACT: For starters where were those WMD's?

Threats: Does it mean you have to go to war on them. As far as conventional forces go, they had squat that could be called a threat to the US. What they did have is a disaffected bunch of chaps willing to fly planes into buildings. how exactly has that been remedied post 9/11. Do you think they like the fact your army is now in Iraq and Afghanistan humiliating and brutalising the population on a regular basis?

Mismanagement( First post):
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82229
Click to expand...

Fact- He did not have WMD's. He had the potential to create them, but did not have them.

Threats- Better to stop a threat before it starts, right? When Saddam had the potential to move into most of his neighboring countries, and subdue them, and gain more military might, kind of like he did in the Gulf War, and launch attacks against the US, is that enough reason for attack? No, probably not for you, but then again, you don't live here. If we would have just let him go about his business, things might have turned out all right, but then again, he could have built those WMD's and used them on US soil. A good example of this is the appeasment of Hitler in the Second world war. Had the Allies stopped him before he became a threat, he would not have started that huge war. Had we not gone into Iraq, we might have ended up in a war that would kill millions of US citizens.

Mismanagement- Have you actually talked to a majority of soldiers from Iraq? Not just Marines, but techs, cooks, pilots, anyone? Had you have, you might have known that the situation isn't like that throughout Iraq. In some parts, I wouldn't doubt it. But in most places, this is not the case. Most soldiers have to interact with the populous on a daily basis, even if it is only to find out where terrorists are hiding. How many British officers were talked too in that article? 3, 4, maybe 5? And this reflects on the whole of American forces? Meanwhile, the British haven't done a single thing wrong? They ****ed up Ireland, Jesus. Don't believe all the gossip on the Internet, most the stuff on it is wrong. Am I saying America hasn't done horrible things? No, they have killed kids, civilians, ect. But you make it seem as if the actions of these soldiers are the US governments fault.
You people get offended at this, and say we are doing horrible things to the Iraqis-
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/powabuse.html
(I know most people who read this will go "OH MY GOD, THATS TEH HORRIBLE!") But you know what? Go to a college frat house, or Marine Boot Camp, or even ****ing club initiations, the same thing happens there. Get some real info, from real people, not internet gossip from "Independant Newspapers" before making those statements.
 
Dude can i have some links to real info from real people, i wish to be enlightened. Save me from the internet.

Dude in all seriousness you seem like a moron. yes the British ****ed up in Ireland, they are trying to convey to the US what they learnt from Ireland, and from that article it seems the case that the US commanders are ignoring them.

How can you reasonably ask, 'have i talked to a majority of the forces'. That is lunacy, for a starter, i doubt you have, and it says that I'm from NZ! Of course i haven't, i put my faith in the accuracy of articles i read from what i consider reputable news sites. If you beg to differ feel free to point me to a site with information to the contrary, then i can decide if that is factual. So what the ****??

Based on your rationale, a Chinese "coalition of the willing" is completely justified in attacking the USA without punitive action from the UN, because there exists the possibility that one day the USA might attack China.

I hope you see the stupidity in that example, the preemptive rationale is fuct.

Iraq was a million miles away from anything nearly capable of being considered a threat to the US, any level headed spook/military analyst could tell you that, plus it would seem that measures put in place post '91 had worked in terms of preventing weapons proliferation in the Iraqi Military. So said Hans Blix who needed 6 months to fully fulfill his mandate, but wasnt extended the time. He would have found the same in terms of there being nothing chemical, biological or nuclear that was in existance or development that was a threat to the USA, Israel or whoever ... So you see it didnt require war.

If you want to read the opinions (sorry, dirty internet gossip) of a real person in Iraq who is islamic, feel free to drop by http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Omnomnick
Dota 2 "Dark Rift" Update Adds Underlord
Replies
0
Views
16K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Back
Top