BF2S Forums If you heard there was going to be a draft...

I would go, but I can't only son of a only son with no kids to keep the name.
I did try to get in to the marines but I'm to crazy. "His anger lies just below the surface and can exploded like a volcano at any moment" <<< The one line that keep me out of the service.

pirana6 wrote:

bobby177 wrote:

I choose Canada or Mexico

GGF0RCE wrote:

I'd flee to Canada.

Cobra4545 wrote:

I would run like hell, go dig a hole, and live in it

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'd join the enemy.

You guys should just do that now. We don't want you in our country if you're going to think like that and not do something when you're needed. Fighting is the price you pay for living in this country.

I choose Navy or CG, but wherever they put me is fine...

Brainwashed much?  Fighting is not the fucking price you pay for living in this country.

Fighting is a consequence we now face because we've elected a bunch of ignorant assholes who wouldn't know diplomacy if it hit 'em in the sack.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Fighting is a consequence we now face because we've elected a bunch of ignorant assholes who wouldn't know diplomacy if it hit 'em in the sack.

We now face?  I guess we were not in Bosnia, Somalia, etc................

id prolly go to west point.

It is very humorous and a little sad that you guys think you can pick where and what you want to do.

Mr.Surgeons wrote:

id go for general, piece of piss

I'd show you the paperwork for a general in the British Army.

But I'm not allowed. So..yeah


Put it this way, it's not a road trip.

Grow some nads girlz
 
You can be smart and enlist now while it's relatively peaceful -because when there's a draft it's already going to get ugly  

Already did my time - Air Force 5 yrs.

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

The only countries that won't send you back if you try to dodge the draft are North Korea, Iran and Cuba.

I'd go to Cuba. ¡Viva el presidente!

I was 5 seconds away from sniper school till I pissed off the wrong sergeant.  All you need is a certain rank, a high PT score and a high GT score.  I give snipers props, they are the shit.  But, theyre not that great.  Theyre dropping a lot of targets in Iraq but if you really wanna see the most action, regular line infantry probably sees it.

For myself im from the group that would like to be a sniper...dont know why always loved this! If i couldnt be a sniper i would be a regular infantry.

David.P wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Marlboroman82 wrote:

Ugh... all you idiots think being a sniper is some glamorous position. Fact is none of you probably possess the patients, the skill, or the wits. 90% of a snipers job is recon which means laying perfectly still for a few days at a time. need to take a crap don't bother getting up just shit on yourself.

Not to mention the amount of clearance that goes into a shot. They have to call their commanding officers, which call their commanding officers, which finalize with the company COs, and then radio back. By the time all the clearances are set, Johnny Q. Akmed has blown himself up in a market somewhere.

Shoot first ask questions later.

Our Snipers never had to call and get clearance to take a shot. If they had positive ID they could take the shot. (PID=having a weapon or em placing a IED)

Hurricane wrote:

but still, if they see say Kim Jong-Il in his scope shouldn't he pull the trigger ASAP?

but if they did that then they would have so much more difficulty finding approval for the next big deployment. and that would mean less big military spending. why sell a single bullet to win a war when you could sell million-dollar jets? this is nothing new, its now declassified that US troops were not allowed to attack key north vietnamese military targets during that decade. 80% or more of the bombs dropped in vietnam were dropped in south vietnam on the land we were "protecting." it is against our policy to establish and complete war-ending objectives in war because the war is the objective. many of our largest businesses would crash without war. Thats why we have either participated in a conflict or supplied arms for conflicts continuously for the last century. interestingly and sadly, our economy as a whole can still crash under the mountain of debt we have borrowed from china and international bankers in order to keep paying for our military industry.

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'd join the enemy.

if you did that then the council on foreign relations would find it that much easier to pitch the next attack. remember how much media attention they gave john walker the "american teen that joined the taliban?" Our government is quite prepared to use our high tech military forces on its own people. there is a swat team in almost every town in the US now, prisons built everywhere, FEMA concentration camps, and the military is doing drills to prepare for martial law in places like CO and TX. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/se … rdrill.htm The recent additions to our "patriot" act now include guidlelines issued to law enforcement leaders specifying that "people that make frequent reference to the constitution" should be regarded as terrorists. we already have the biggest prison population in the world (concentration camps anyone?) and all of the rioting and "terrorism" that will occur during the upcoming economic depression will be the final step in establishing the US as a new police state. And we are in so much debt to china that our nation will essentially be doing the bidding of china and the international bankers that own china. any number of chinese "police" can be added to our "police" for the purposes of converting our middle class society into the kind of highly productive and higly impoverished that exists in most of the industrialized "third world."

luckily for them most of you are so in love with our military that you wont react to any of their preparations. i bet a lot of you wish they would build a military base and a prison right in your home town so you could see all the cool hummers, soldiers and high-tech weapons for yourselves.

and the europeans reading this: this is not a uniquely american problem. europe and its euro are just as controlled by the small family of international bankers as we are. lets hope that they allow a middle class to persist in our countries because they obviously have not allowed this throughout most of the world.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-08-07 16:56:28)

Commie Killer wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

but still, if they see say Kim Jong-Il in his scope shouldn't he pull the trigger ASAP?

but if they did that then they would have so much more difficulty finding approval for the next big deployment. and that would mean less big military spending. why sell a single bullet to win a war when you could sell million-dollar jets? this is nothing new, its now declassified that US troops were not allowed to attack key north vietnamese military targets during that decade. 80% or more of the bombs dropped in vietnam were dropped in south vietnam on the land we were "protecting." it is against our policy to establish and complete war-ending objectives in war because the war is the objective. many of our largest businesses would crash without war. Thats why we have either participated in a conflict or supplied arms for conflicts continuously for the last century. interestingly and sadly, our economy as a whole can still crash under the mountain of debt we have borrowed from china and international bankers in order to keep paying for our military industry.

Do you really think people back home, the average Joe, would have supported a invasion of North Vietnam in 1970? Do you really think the USSR would have just sat around and watched? Do you think China would have done nothing(look at the Korean War for yours answers to this one).

Jesus I just re-read your entire post, the clicked on the links in your sig and I realized that I just wasted my time typing these things. You clearly are not going to change your mind.

we were literally attacking the people we claimed to protect. four million vietnamese were (quite secretly, considering the lack of war declaration) killed largely in south vietnam due to bombing. and you are saying that it was ok for us to wantonly kill this many friendlies because openly admitting that this slaughter was an invasion (which it certainly was) would not have been politically expediant and would have warranted consequences? of course a ridiculous argument such as yours does nothing to 'change my mind.' u essentially say that we had to wage that criminal war as a more subversive excuse for the criminal war we would have preferred. so not only did we fail to fulfill a useful objective but we spent more than 10 years involved in not fulfilling any such objective. quite profitable though.

are u criticizing the reuters feed i linked? or the link in my sig? most of those vids are simply interviews of various individuals, many quite well known. there are also some excellent documentaries there.

its time to reevaluate your 1970's conceptions of history and the political process.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-08-08 01:20:50)