JahManRed
wank
+646|6930|IRELAND

Yeah persuading kids to go and die to keep rich ppl rich must be tuff work.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7064

JahManRed wrote:

Yeah persuading kids to go and die to keep rich ppl rich must be tuff work.
or maybe they arent rich and need money for school and stuff.  dunno.  cant be that tough since they meet their numbers.  the biggest problem the army has right now is that the kids today are to fucking fat.  and thats a fact.
too_money2007
Member
+145|6610|Keller, Tx

usmarine wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

Marine, whatever. I'm not talking stupid.

1st. If I had gone into the military, I would've never met my wife and would've never had my kids.
2nd. It is my belief that something would've happened. That shit is just my luck.

I don't dwell on the past, just stating my opinion... but I forgot, that isn't allowed here or something.
you said it like fact.  and that is just plain stupid.  #1 may be correct, but #2 is way way off base.
Just curious, but how many jihads have you killed?
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7064

too_money2007 wrote:

Just curious, but how many jihads have you killed?
whats that matter?  and iraqi soldiers were not jihads...they were soldiers.  as for afghan....like i said, why do you ask?
Lai
Member
+186|6453

Dilbert_X wrote:

Theres a difference between potential and certainty.
Anyone smart would give it a year or two to settle down at least.
If you want to live happily ever after, and primairily stay out of harms way, you shouldn't enlist at all and get married like too_money2007 (though some will probably argue it is roughly the same thing ).

There's nothing wrong with the path too_money2007 took. It was his choice and in retrospective a very good one. However for someone else, it might not be. The point is that whatever path you choose, you shouldn't stray from it. If you want to enlist, than don't whine about the risks. In my opinion anyone that considers enlisting, but waits for the tide to calm, is a wussy that's in it only for the glory, but lacks the balls to get it.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7017|US

fermatx wrote:

This is why we took so many casualties in Iraq. Lower standards.

BUT this is a touchy subject. This is because many people talk about supporting our troops, and the fact that some troops probably shouldn't be in the Army is largely ignored.
Apparently, you have not heard that soldiers who required "moral waivers" actually have a slightly higher rate of earning medals for valor than the general Army...
Man With No Name
جندي
+148|5877|The Wild West

usmarine wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

Just curious, but how many jihads have you killed?
whats that matter?  and iraqi soldiers were not jihads
not the insurgents


one of the best moments ive had in iraq was a couple of weeks before redeployment, on one of our last patrols.  3 in the morning,  driving up and down MSR tampa for route security.  Lead track sees heat signature off the side of the road.  caughter some fuckers setting up an ied red handed.  we killed 2, captured 2.  It was around the same area where we lost one of our guys to an IED a couple months before.  We would like to think we got some of the same guys responsible for that one.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7064

Man With No Name wrote:

usmarine wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

Just curious, but how many jihads have you killed?
whats that matter?  and iraqi soldiers were not jihads
not the insurgents
yes but i was going back to my invasion days....

"invaders?  i like the sound of that." - quote
Man With No Name
جندي
+148|5877|The Wild West
I was a foreign occupier.
rdx-fx
...
+955|6893
"Invader?"

"Foreign Occupier?"

pfft.  Clinton's Army - I was just a "target"
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

Lai wrote:

If you want to live happily ever after, and primairily stay out of harms way, you shouldn't enlist at all and get married like too_money2007
I had assumed that most people joining up did want to live happily ever after, do a bit for themselves and do a bit for their country, not just risk their lives for lulz.

Anyone volunteering DURING Vietnam would have needed their head examined, volunteering to go fight in Iraq for who knows what reason likewise, hence the need for so many 'contractors'.
Obviously if you're already in the military thats different.
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lai wrote:

If you want to live happily ever after, and primairily stay out of harms way, you shouldn't enlist at all and get married like too_money2007
I had assumed that most people joining up did want to live happily ever after, do a bit for themselves and do a bit for their country, not just risk their lives for lulz.

Anyone volunteering DURING Vietnam would have needed their head examined, volunteering to go fight in Iraq for who knows what reason likewise, hence the need for so many 'contractors'.
Obviously if you're already in the military thats different.
Volunteering during any conflict is not a reason to have one's head examined. That's ludicrous.

The contractors are needed for duties that are normally performed by non-military security/support types, so the numbers of recruits has zero to do with the contractors you refer to.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lai wrote:

If you want to live happily ever after, and primairily stay out of harms way, you shouldn't enlist at all and get married like too_money2007
I had assumed that most people joining up did want to live happily ever after, do a bit for themselves and do a bit for their country, not just risk their lives for lulz.

Anyone volunteering DURING Vietnam would have needed their head examined, volunteering to go fight in Iraq for who knows what reason likewise, hence the need for so many 'contractors'.
Obviously if you're already in the military thats different.
...just because you may not understand their reasons, or even have the viewpoint capable of processing those reasons, does not mean that the reason a person may volunteer for the military in the middle of a conflict is invalid, or does it make that person insane. I know several people who have volunteered since 2003. 

I just think that your life experiences, value system, and belief structure make it very difficult for you to comprehend people that would do that.  That is not an insult, by the way; just an observation.  I do not have the experience, value system, or belief structure to understand some of the people on this forum, let alone in another country doing something I flat out think is insane.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Volunteering during any conflict is not a reason to have one's head examined. That's ludicrous.
Thats not what I said, I specifically mentioned Vietnam and Iraq, two pointless conflicts which had nothing to do with national interests.
The contractors are needed for duties that are normally performed by non-military security/support types, so the numbers of recruits has zero to do with the contractors you refer to.
Strange, those duties weren't performed by contractors in previous conflicts, they were carried out by military personnel.

I can understand people volunteering to do something for their country, not otherwise.
Fuck Israel
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5845|Toronto

Dilbert_X wrote:

Thats not what I said, I specifically mentioned Vietnam and Iraq, two pointless conflicts which had nothing to do with national interests.
Nothing to do with national interest? Do explain.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Lai
Member
+186|6453

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Volunteering during any conflict is not a reason to have one's head examined. That's ludicrous.
Thats not what I said, I specifically mentioned Vietnam and Iraq, two pointless conflicts which had nothing to do with national interests.
That is YOUR point of view. You are basically saying that people that do not share that view with you should have their head examined.

Is it possible for you to understand that others like myself, being the son of a Southern Vietnamese refugee, have a different view on one or both of said conflicts while still being in the possession of a perfectly normal head?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Volunteering during any conflict is not a reason to have one's head examined. That's ludicrous.
Thats not what I said, I specifically mentioned Vietnam and Iraq, two pointless conflicts which had nothing to do with national interests.
Your opinion. No matter how strongly you hold it, it doesn't make it fact.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The contractors are needed for duties that are normally performed by non-military security/support types, so the numbers of recruits has zero to do with the contractors you refer to.
Strange, those duties weren't performed by contractors in previous conflicts, they were carried out by military personnel.
Strange, you don't know what you're talking about. Those types of duties have been performed by civilians quite often in previous conflicts that required those types of duties.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
13rin
Member
+977|6781

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lai wrote:

If you want to live happily ever after, and primairily stay out of harms way, you shouldn't enlist at all and get married like too_money2007
I had assumed that most people joining up did want to live happily ever after, do a bit for themselves and do a bit for their country, not just risk their lives for lulz.

Anyone volunteering DURING Vietnam would have needed their head examined, volunteering to go fight in Iraq for who knows what reason likewise, hence the need for so many 'contractors'.
Obviously if you're already in the military thats different.
This post show a lot about you.  Is it that hard for you to fathom those that answer the call from their country?  Not everyone is all about him/herself.

Actually volunteering would have been the smart thing to do if you were trying to avoid combat during Vietnam.  Could join a branch that wouldn't see heavy combat like the Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard instead of being drafted to the Army.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7064

rdx-fx wrote:

"Invader?"

"Foreign Occupier?"

pfft.  Clinton's Army - I was just a "target"
ok..so i was an invader and a target.  maybe i should rejoin to get the last label.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX
Is it that hard for you to fathom those that answer the call from their country?
Depends if you think you're answering the call from 'your country' or 'your government' I guess.
Fuck Israel
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Strange, you don't know what you're talking about. Those types of duties have been performed by civilians quite often in previous conflicts that required those types of duties.
For example?
I'm not aware of a preious war which employed armed contractors/mercenaries on the scale of this one.
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Strange, you don't know what you're talking about. Those types of duties have been performed by civilians quite often in previous conflicts that required those types of duties.
For example?
I'm not aware of a preious war which employed armed contractors/mercenaries on the scale of this one.
They have been used both within and outside of war. They are called security firms and they work worldwide.

Your characterization of BW's role is simply incorrect. They were/are not mercenaries.

Examples of contractors working in "war zones": Third country nationals (TCNs) in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc... Those are all contractors doing things you would consider, in your underinformed way, military duties.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX
Since when were Saudi Arabia and Qatar war zones?
Bosnia and Kosovo, both sides had mercenaries, we are talking about the US here.
Just picking three sample articles, in how many wars have contractors been used 'to protect diplomats and defend bases, transport provisions and staff essential services such as providing food.'?
Pretty sure its just the two Iraq invasions.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … index.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/i … rce20.html
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Since when were Saudi Arabia and Qatar war zones?
Bosnia and Kosovo, both sides had mercenaries, we are talking about the US here.
Just picking three sample articles, in how many wars have contractors been used 'to protect diplomats and defend bases, transport provisions and staff essential services such as providing food.'?
Pretty sure its just the two Iraq invasions.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … index.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/i … rce20.html
Blackwater didn't do base defense...at least not for the military. Diplomatic protection is not a military function. Provision transport can be either or. Providing food (ie cafeteria) is not a military function. TCNs do that all over the world and have done it for decades.

As for your sources:

LA Times:
Sorry, the page you requested could not be found
Seattle Times:
The presence of thousands of private-sector security guards adds another component to the debate. Employees for Blackwater and other companies are engaging the enemy in combat, a sharp departure from previous conflicts.
Private-sector security guards. That's not a military function.

You're confusing the tens of thousands of contractors who have nothing to do with weaponry with the relative handful of armed security contractors (again, not military functions)...then you further take the actions of a true handful of that smaller subset and apply a label to the tens of thousands of contractors operating there. Great logic, that.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard