BF2S Forums Gruesome murder of Afghan civilians by US troops

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Has Canada ever been attacked?

What about Greenland?

Maybe you just don't have anything anyone would bother attacking you for?

Whoever is sitting on the ME oil wells is going to need to sell you their oil so thats hardly an issue either.

Anyway, on topic:

Dunno, is anyone addressing the quality of recruits, or is it the quality of their management once they're in?

didn't know Canada or Greenland was every our enemy.

Now then, ask me if Japan wold have ever attacked, or Germany.... They didn't seem to have much problem taking out countries ill prepared for their advancements.

We have not been attacked because we have a formidable military force. History has shown, even recent history, that countries without a strong military, or (allies with one to keep it current) get invaded.

the fact that you have two massive oceans either side helps, tbh. as i said before i'm not necessarily disagreeing with your above point but that, IMO, is a far bigger factor in why no one in their right mind has/would try to invade northern america from the outer.

Spark wrote:

Indeed but it means you don't exactly need a mindbogglingly powerful military to prevent invasion.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Has Canada ever been attacked?

What about Greenland?

Maybe you just don't have anything anyone would bother attacking you for?

Whoever is sitting on the ME oil wells is going to need to sell you their oil so thats hardly an issue either.

Anyway, on topic:

Dunno, is anyone addressing the quality of recruits, or is it the quality of their management once they're in?

didn't know Canada or Greenland was every our enemy.

Now then, ask me if Japan wold have ever attacked, or Germany.... They didn't seem to have much problem taking out countries ill prepared for their advancements.

We have not been attacked because we have a formidable military force. History has shown, even recent history, that countries without a strong military, or (allies with one to keep it current) get invaded.

Canada and Greenland have tiny militaries and yet they haven't been attacked.
Your argument that the US needs a huge military to deter attack fails.

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Indeed but it means you don't exactly need a mindbogglingly powerful military to prevent invasion.

you do when you are providing deterrence not only for an invasion of your land, but also the land of all of your allies.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

with the greenland example i c wat you did thar troll. who the fuck wants to invade greenland lol.

Who the fuck wants to invade America lol

Jay wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

well dilbert and vilham bash sources yet used what you said as the gold standard.  i find that funny tbh.  or typical.

Yeah, my little anecdote proves that soldiers are retarded monkeys that are unfit to live a normal life.

The only difference between the people I served with and the people we left at home was one was a group of cowards and the other wasn't. Everything else was pretty much equal. We had geniuses, retards, rich kids, poor kids, middle class kids, black people, white people, hispanic people, asians etc. Nice cross section of America as a whole. So yes, the argument is absurd.

HaiBai wrote:

no.

what do i get for serving in the military?  benefits of the GI bill?  self-discipline?  cool stories to tell to my grandchildren?

it's a waste of time.  i have many better and more constructive things to do then be cannon fodder

Dilbert_X wrote:

I understand the benefits, I'm asking who pays for it.
Jay is claiming its self-funding, I don't believe him.

Jay wrote:

deferred salary

. But here's the thing though: if you actually want the GI Bill you have your wages garnished for the first year you serve. They take out $100 a month for the first twelve months (out of our already meager $1200 a month minus taxes salary) of service in order to fund it.