Im gonna wake up to a war so that’s real nice
SoOoOo0o0... Iran shot the plane down, probably by accident. Hopefully Trump doesn't figure out that he could use this as leverage, or at least he won't dare.
Just spitballing here: Iran has far more than twelve missiles. They could have hit a lot. Arguments that they "missed" are not particularly plausible, considering they managed to shut down a Saudi refinery second hand. Iran, for their part, is publicly playing up the bloodshed, while also saying "it isn't enough" while also pretty conclusively not blaming the US for either the Ukranian airliner nor the earthquake (because c'mon). The phrase the war nerds of Twitter keep using is "escalate to de-escalate" as in "here, we fired missiles at you, now you can calm down so we don't have to go to war." Note that this is the first time Iranian conventional forces have struck the United States, other than shooting down a drone (that was most probably in Iranian airspace). It's really not their style. It would break with centuries of precedent for Iran to get all troops-in-field over this one. Symmetrical response, from their point of view, would be murdering Giuliani. I don't think Iran is done, but I also don't think this was Iran starting. This, from my read, is Iran going "here's that response you were looking for, now settle in because by the time we've had our say you'll have forgotten how pissed we are and your people will have moved on." South asia does vengeance with remarkable patience. If Iran wanted to pop off a few missiles for the sake of popping off a few missiles they could have done it within a half hour of Suleimani being assassinated. This is something else and everyone pretending otherwise is eating the conventional narrative with a spoon.
LOL GPF 10 minutes ago: Here are the most significant aspects of Iran’s strikes: One, they were launched from Iranian soil, and Tehran made no attempt to maintain plausible deniability by retaliating through regional proxies. Two, Iran attacked with ballistic missiles rather than, say, rockets used by Iranian proxies in the past attacks. The Iranian ballistic missile program has made major strides in recent years; as with the attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure this summer, Tehran was once again attempting to demonstrate an ability to deliver heavy explosives from a distance to sensitive targets with a relatively high degree of accuracy – and to wreak major havoc across the region, including in Israel, which Hezbollah threatened to attack if the U.S. struck back. Three, damage is believed to be limited. It’s possible, of course, that Iran just missed its real targets on the other side of the (very large) bases – that Iranian missiles aren’t actually as accurate as claimed. But officials from both sides have told multiple outlets that this was intentional, and that the U.S. was warned (possibly via the Iraqi government) to batten down the hatches before the attacks started. If true, then Tehran was leaving open an opportunity for de-escalation. Indeed, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that unless the U.S. retaliates, Iran had “concluded” its “proportional” response. In other words, Iran has made its point and made a big show of force to satisfy hawks at home. (Tehran is claiming as many as 80 U.S. personnel were killed.) And the U.S. can point to what appears to be a measured response to justify standing pat. Still, even if the U.S. holds its fire, it’s doubtful that this thing is over altogether. As intimated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – which, unlike the government, said the attacks were merely the “first step” – the Iranian response was not proportional to the killing of Qassem Soleimani, and historically, the IRGC has always retaliated, often to the consternation of the government and its diplomatic and strategic goals. And when it does, it does so quietly, through covert action conducted months or years after a provocation, often via proxies and in a place far from the original battlefield. The threat of, say, an assassination will hang over U.S. and allied officials for some time to come, so the risk of further escalation between the U.S. and Iran can’t be ignored. The underlying sources of tension between Washington and Tehran have only stiffened. Tehran is still grappling with crippling sanctions, immense domestic anger over Soleimani’s killing, a security establishment capable of defying the government, unwavering imperatives compelling it to remain aggressive in the region, and a decision on whether and how quickly to resume its nuclear pursuits. For now, though, there’s a chance to avoid an immediate spiral toward all-out war. At least I'm getting good at parroting the thinking of the wonks I payIran retaliates. The dust is still settling after Iran fired an estimated 15 ballistic missiles at (at least) two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. forces early Wednesday morning. The Pentagon has yet to release an official damage report, but multiple sources have suggested no U.S. personnel were hurt and only minimal damage was inflicted on U.S. materiel. An unconfirmed number of Iraqi casualties have been reported. The veracity of these reports will, to some degree, dictate how the U.S. responds.
Trump’s live statements a few minutes ago were very much in the direction of de-escalation. He’ll start (re)negotiating another deal. IMHO, it seems more clear than ever that Trump’s qualms about the previous deal center around Obama’s signature.
He is a creature of the Id. The only thing he cares about is owning the libs because it gives him chants. The problem facing us all is he has surrounded himself with unqualified sycophants of questionable qualification. I don't remember who, but some columnist or other remarked on the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis that if the Bush administration were in office in October '62, Miami would have rung in the new year radioactive. What would you give up to have the Bush Administration right now?
Yeah. Again, like you once remarked, we’ve definitely entered the twilight zone when John Bolton is the voice of reason regarding foreign policy, at least for Ukraine. He probably would’ve been a proponent of the recent aggression towards Iran, though.
I wonder. Bolton definitely wants the Shah back. But I'll bet Bolton would prefer that we starve the Iranians some more and then overthrow them when they're overthrowable. This whole "hey we martyred the second most powerful guy in the country" thing likely strikes him as amateurish.
Noice. Sadly, the accountability of Twitter is uniquely appealing, shy of video footage, I guess, if only for now. Hey, maybe Twitter could be super into escalating deepfake technology, because it would elevate their platform as the forefront of authenticity/sourcing.
Yeah, that’s a big source of my discomfort. Not only is Biff our president but there’s a cast of people in positions they’re dangerously unqualified for. Bring back Condoleeza please.
Someone snarking on Twitter last night pointed out that the draft will never be reinstated in the United States, it's been replaced by institutional poverty. I mean, consider: we had to deal with a student who gave no fucks about her $80k education because her three years in the Coast Guard meant she didn't have to pay for a dime of it. With places with compulsory military service, it's much more about the necessity of civil defense and logistics than it is about imperialism (American military service is entirely in service of imperialism). We can't even really afford our troops anymore; imagine what WWII would like if for every dude landing at Normandy required two guys from Halliburton. American military force projection is a weird bastard child of old laws, old traditions and new corporate realities. This is why it largely interests the poor and the adventurers.
'People' are fucking children manipulated by a culture of hero worship and silver-tongued adults who have oriented their entire career around sending more poor, needy, directionless, or depressed teenagers to die in the sand than their coworkers. At the lowest points of my adult life (read: old enough to enlist), there has always been a military recruiter trying to convince me to join up. Military recruiters know when you graduate high school, and they know you’ll be feeling directionless and insecure. They know the same when you graduate college, but also that you’ll be in debt and could be feeling hopeless about not finding employment. I was texted by a military recruiter yesterday, telling me that the military could help with my student loan debt. I will be texted again within the month by someone else. They've added me on Facebook, they've followed me on Instagram, they've fucking mailed my house. You don't have to be 'fucking stupid' to fall for this, you just have to trust your government and make what looks and smells like a responsible, respectable decision. Re-examine your conclusion there, and remember that the kids you're talking about are seventeen and have been raised in a culture of Support Our Troops or "Join the military or go work at McDonald's." Military recruiting is fucking predatory, and recruiters are uniformly scum for talking vulnerable kids into an early grave.[I've concluded] the principle motivator is people are fucking stupid
Another counterpoint, but with more anger because fuck you for speaking evil on those you don't understand. Let's take a step back here and examine on how one becomes a recruiter. It's important. At some point midway through their career, almost all military NCO's must take up a "broadening assignment". At least in the Army, that entails either spending 2-3 years as a drill sergeant or a recruiter. Drill Sergeant positions are universally known as being absolutely miserable. Recruiters, on the other hand, often get to go back home! After years of spending time in the numerous shitholes the US military occupies, who wouldn't take up the opportunity to return home? By this point in your career, you've usually re-enlisted at least twice. You have an established career in the military, you're going for the full 20 years. You've probably just spent the past 6 or so years being shit on by higher-ups. After this assignments you'll be one of those higher ups, with an incredibly increased amount of responsibility. So you look forward to relaxing back home for several years, right? Fat goddamn chance. You see, the Army is just not making their numbers. In fact, they aren't anywhere close. And you know who's fault it is? It's the recruiters, for just not being able to reach these kids, get it? You don't make the quota of one recruit a month? Well then you're a piece of shit NCO and your performance record will reflect. And are you aiming for a promotion in a couple years? Better get a good report or you're shit out of luck. But you know what, sometimes it's ok. Because up till now, the military has treated you pretty well. You get a solid paycheck, health insurance, life insurance, dental, and education. You're better off for the army, so it makes you happy to help someone reach your status. So then, kingsmudy, what do you think these people's motivations are? Are they silver tongued adults tempting our youth to their deaths? Or are they just regular goddamn people trying to live good lives? I respect the recruiters I know a hell of a lot more than many of my highschool friends who went off to work at facebook and google. At least they believe they're helping people, the FB and google people tend to solely be in it for the money. And you know man, look at the numbers. KB already stated the death statistics. To add, well over half Americans killed in combat this year were Special Operation Forces. The majority of those were Green Berets. Those dieing in combat are looking for war. They are, as KB says, "adventurers". So for the majority of people the military is one goddamn good job. Remember-health care is free, you can get a bachelors and/or masters for free, you have disposable income, and you can travel the world. It's a fantastic opportunity for the majority of Americans. You delude yourself if you think that the military is only made of up of lost 17 year olds. In todays economy it's absolutely a way to make more of yourself.
Alright. Regarding the quoted death statistics: I agree that people who die in combat are often people who put themselves there, but it's undoubtedly true enlisting in the military carries some risk of a life of violence. But regardless of whether I'm off-base about inherent risk of violence (which I concede I might be, and I welcome correction on this), a long-term study on the health of 30,000 OEF/OIF Veterans and 30,000 Veterans from the same era who were not deployed (done by the National Health Study for a New Generation of U.S. Veterans) found that 10% of even non-deployed vets develop PTSD, and 13.5% of all OEF/OIF vets. To quote the abstract, "PTSD is a significant public health problem in OEF/OIF-era veterans, and should not be considered an outcome solely related to deployment." Next: So then, kingsmudy, what do you think these people's motivations are? Are they silver tongued adults tempting our youth to their deaths? Or are they just regular goddamn people trying to live good lives? I respect the recruiters I know a hell of a lot more than many of my highschool friends who went off to work at facebook and google. At least they believe they're helping people, the FB and google people tend to solely be in it for the money. I want you to know that I sympathize with recruiters, but this quote is exactly why I feel the way I do. The job as you describe it sounds like a nightmare. Their career is put on the chopping block, and only by pushing kids through the system can they avoid being a "piece of shit NCO" and maybe one day get promoted. If you find yourself in a struggling position through no fault of your own, what do you do? You find another kid. But you need this kid to join the military. What will you tell him to get him to enlist? Is it okay to mislead someone if you genuinely think your lies could help them? The gist of my opinion is this: I believe that most (if not all) recruiters truly believe the military is a good opportunity for young people. As you point out, most military recruiters aren't assholes, they're people trying to make ends meet. Nevertheless, they exist in a system that you correctly point out as brutal to their potential, endemically focused on number numbers numbers. I believe that this puts recruiters in a difficult position and incentivize dishonesty and manipulative behavior. Whether someone turns into the person the system seems to be (unintentionally) designed to create is up to their individual dispositions and the strength of their personal convictions. As a supplement to this position, I'm providing this excerpt from an article published by the Army Times, discussing a study about why soldiers join the military. To summarize, it found that primarily people had joined because of familial relationships and expectations, but that many soldiers felt misled by recruiters: The stereotype of the embellishing recruiter is alive and well, according to the study. ... “Many recruiters offered genuine help to soldiers seeking a job in the Army, but other recruiters (and recruitment materials) appeared to oversell an MOS and set overly high expectations for entering soldiers,” according to the study. “Though one-third of participants stated their MOS met or exceeded expectations, other soldiers were disappointed with aspects of their occupational specialty choices, complaining about boredom, about lack of field time, and about having to perform tasks unrelated to their occupations.” This without the acknowledgement that many of the kids who can be helped by serving are only in that position because our society offers them no better alternative - because they've been deprived of services that are basic rights in other parts of the world. So recruiters can lie to kids about what the military can offer them (and the recruitment system encourages them to do so for the sake of their career), or they can be honest with them. I fully believe that most are honest, but the benefits are things that those kids should have anyway. A 2017 Department of Defense poll of young people shows 49% of survey respondents indicated that if they were to join the military, one reason for doing so would be to pay for future education. “[Privileged people] have sufficient resources to meet their needs....They don't require joining the military to travel or learn a profession. They have connections to help them get into jobs that pay well and provide benefits. They don't need the military's medical insurance coverage that sometimes motivates low-income people to enlist.” None of this is the recruiter's fault. They're using the tools available to them to encourage kids to make a decision they think will benefit them. But this idea that they're offering a pathway out of poverty and deserve praise for that frustrates me because it shouldn't be necessary. Like I said to kleinbl00, "[Recruiters are] trying to figure out the best way to explain [how the military can benefit me], but those arguments end up being "Hey, you could escape poverty!" and while it's not the recruiters fault, it targets kids with little to no alternative. The military [is] a fantastic opportunity for those kids, but I wish there were more options for social mobility outside of enlistment, because a lot of them will be killed or crippled or mentally sundered by it. It sucks that they have to roll dice while I get to turn my nose up at in distaste, and maybe military recruiters just remind me of that inequality." And while they might enjoy some benefits while serving, I don't think it's heretical to suggest that our nation needs to treat veterans better. Here's an opinion piece that conveniently encapsulates my feelings specifically in the context of recruiting: Recruiters today are faced with convincing people to serve while dodging questions about American foreign policy, the divide between our military and political leaders, the chances that healthcare and education service members are promised might not come through and of course, the fact that after wearing a uniform for a while, there’s a greatly-increased chance you’ll find yourself in such a deep depression that you choose to take your own life. Recruiting isn’t going to get any easier as long as we see veterans as damaged goods, break our promises to them, turn on them as soon as it’s politically expedient, and expect service members to fight in conflicts that may start or end at any time based on politics, rather than direct threats to the nation’s security or an overarching strategy toward global stability. Right now, it doesn’t seem like we, as a nation, know what we’re doing. Why would young kids want to subject themselves to such hardship with no promise that it will benefit them or the country? Finally, here's an article written by a staff sergeant who shadowed a recruiter for two weeks ... So what was I supposed to do when parents told me to leave their family alone? You would think I could cross out that name on the list, or mention in the log that this one is a no-go. According to my recruiter, respecting someone’s wish not to be harassed is for quitters. Believe it or not, my recruiter told me that when parents say their kid isn’t joining the military, and refuse to let us speak to him, I am supposed to shame them for being overbearing control freaks. Something like “Isn’t that his decision to make?” or “You’re not him – I’d rather he speak for himself” comes to mind as the scripted response. I couldn’t summon my inner asshole to bully parents, so I didn’t. Recruiters obtain contact information through sketchy means, they use that contact information to harass families, insult parents and ignore their legitimate requests to be left alone, and then they try to make minors feel like terrible people for accepting their parents’ financial aid as they go through higher education. ... Just a word of advice to anyone considering joining the military: joining is a huge life decision that cannot be taken lightly, and you need as much information as you can get before deciding. Recruiters are not legitimate sources of this information. Do your own research. Talk to a diverse group of people who are in the service and pick their brains about their experiences. Recruiters are not there to help you make an informed decision. They are there to sign you up by any means necessary and will say anything to make it happen. They are not the gatekeepers, they are the ones who hunt people down and drag them to the gates. So, there it is. Military service is honorable, and it can help people. I don't like the system that recruiters exist in because it incentivizes the exact behavior they're accused of by people who serve. I don't like recruiters because the US Military built a system that encouraged the worst of their behavior, and in a just world their toolbox wouldn't include the basic rights that people should have access to without committing their livelihood to the government.You see, the Army is just not making their numbers. In fact, they aren't anywhere close. And you know who's fault it is? It's the recruiters, for just not being able to reach these kids, get it? You don't make the quota of one recruit a month? Well then you're a piece of shit NCO and your performance record will reflect. And are you aiming for a promotion in a couple years? Better get a good report or you're shit out of luck. But you know what, sometimes it's ok. Because up till now, the military has treated you pretty well. You get a solid paycheck, health insurance, life insurance, dental, and education. You're better off for the army, so it makes you happy to help someone reach your status.
“Many recruiters perform admirably, but others may paint an unrealistic picture of day-to-day soldier life, thereby creating unusually high expectations,” the study says. “A steady diet of World War II action movies may likewise leave a prospective soldier uninformed about modern life in the Army.”
The VA is a perpetual mess, GI bill payments stop coming at random intervals, and the closest we’ve managed to come to engaging with the veteran suicide issue is videotaping ourselves doing push-ups about it for Facebook.
Recruiters are unethical liars and manipulators by trade. Among military and probably even some civilian circles, recruiter dishonesty is nothing new or surprising, and is often a punch line or the center of a funny anecdote, like “I know a guy whose recruiter told him he could keep his long hair in the military, and he totally bought it!” or “My recruiter told me I would travel the world in the military. Ha!” However, the problem is far more sinister than that.
I really have nothing to add except to echo KB’s post. You obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this. I do not argue to blindly support recruiters and the military but to present a viewpoint not often seen on hubski. I agree with and have seen in reality many of the ideas you presented. You have taken the time to look at both sides and discover the ugly reality of the world. I appreciate that.
I appreciate the acknowledgement, and I'm thankful that you gave me the opportunity to walk back some of my previous vitriol. I don't have much more to add either, but I'm glad that the conversation got to this point after I started it like I did. I learned a lot about the life of a military recruiter, too, and I'm thankful that you caused that!
This is clearly a well-thought-out and researched post, one that comes from a place of deep introspection. You know why I'm such a cynical and bitter asshole? 'cuz the only logical response is Fundamentally? We have a volunteer army tasked with preserving empire that relies on adults at their youngest whose understanding of the tasks they face is obfuscated as a matter of course and there are people who funnel volunteers into the process through all approved means. Here's the thing about shitty systems. Every single operator within that system can be working from the purest motive. Lawful Good all around. And we still end up with the neighbor's kid, who thought he was learning how to fix helicopters and ended up guarding the stockade. We still end up with the kid I met on a Reddit field trip who thought he was learning to translate Arabic but ended up waterboarding folx on Diego Garcia. We still end up with Marissa who went from running 10ks to walking with a cane because her drill instructor didn't believe that she'd fucked up her knee until he saw the x-rays. It's that whole "banality of evil" thing. Arendt's point was that if you do nothing, evil wins. But when deciding what to do, what are you looking for? The thing that makes you feel the most virtuous? Or the thing that changes the most? Most people don't realize that nobody is the bad guy in their own movie. We're all shining superstars saving the world one day at a time. If you can figure out how your bad guy can be his own superhero, you're a lot closer to understanding how to align his crusade with your own. My parents were violently, virulently anti-military. Joined the Peace Corps to get free of Vietnam. Wrote angry screeds about my uncle, who did two tours in Korea and then had four kids to feed and the Navy told him they needed help building dams in the Southwest and within six months he was a SeaBee in Da Nang. That's definitely one of the things that kept me out of the military. But it's done some friends some real good. It's done some friends some real bad, for sure but it's also done a lot of good. We have a military. That's not going to change. It needs to be staffed. And until we switch to conscription, there will be recruiters (and if we switch to conscription Empire is Over). If it's a system that favors unethical behavior? I mean, yeah. It's going to attract the unethical. Or, those willing to put up with an unethical system. But I think we agree that it's not a black and white situation. I don't like the system that recruiters exist in because it incentivizes the exact behavior they're accused of by people who serve.
So this comment is going to be pretty useless, because it's just me announcing that I'm going to reply to you. I'm going to take a step back like Devac suggested and really consider my thoughts on this whole situation. I want to come at you with arguments and data, not the anger I showed in the comment you're replying to. I left bl00 a response that's a bit closer, but I want to get an even better response down because I think your reply shows that you care about this a lot and I don't want you leaving this conversation with the same impression of my position that you've had to enter it with. I want Hubski to be a place for thought-provoking conversation, and I don't have the bandwidth for that recovery just yet.
Counterpoint: Recruiters are commissioned salespeople with a potentially great product to sell. It's salary, room and board, adventure, college, and life-changing amounts of opportunity. It's also a potential lifetime of disability, PTSD or other problems but at peak? 169,000 troops were in Iraq and 6,900 have died. There are 1.4 million active personnel in the US military; statistically speaking, you're a lot better off in today's military than you were in say Vietnam, when there were 150 million fewer people in the country but twice as many active duty personnel (and nearly ten times as many US troops dead). You're required to surrender your autonomy, however, and even with the comparatively low staffing requirements we're having a hard time meeting quotas. The recruiter hounding you legitimately believes that a stint in the military would do you good; he's just trying to figure out the best way to explain it to you. This doesn't make him right but it doesn't make him scum. They also know a lot more about you than most people really know. It's a hell of a business: if one Marine is over $6500 in recruiting costs alone, what's the expense of actually fielding a dude to fix F-16s? Back in the Stone Age, there was a guy in some of my classes who was going through the undergraduate engineering program to get into flight school to fly tankers. Why tankers? Because he had no interest in blowing shit up and tankers were the most direct path to airline pilot he could find and that was a damn nice living. He told me that he was looking to get two million dollars worth of education for free. Somebody out there thinks you could be a hell of an asset to Uncle Sam. You don't have to be nice to him but it doesn't hurt you to consider them as people. I, too, had a recruiter who wouldn't leave me alone. All he needed to do was look up "mechanical engineering" and "grew up in Los Alamos, NM" which led him to "surrounded by people with Q clearances" and that dude? Twice a week for a year called me on the phone to convince me to train to be a nuclear engineer on a boomer. Did I want to tend to the reactor on a megadeth machine? Fuck off, Jack. But that woulda been a cushy goddamn gig. In retrospect I'll bet that recruiter would have gotten a new car out of my enlistment. I woulda been set for fuckin' life; they would have made me cut my hair, tho (and live underwater for months at a time) so I expressed my keen disinterest for months after graduating. but that made him persistent, not a scumbag. Somebody took that job. I hope they love it. They're probably still doing it.
It's worth mentioning that I've always been cordial with recruiters, and 'scum' might have been a bit of an embellishment on my actual feelings. I believe they think the military is a good opportunity for people, but their practices still feel predatory to me. They're trying to figure out the best way to explain it to me, but those arguments end up being "Hey, you could escape poverty!" or "It's better than trying to find a job!" and while it's not the recruiters fault, it effectively targets kids with little to no alternative. The military can be a fantastic opportunity for those kids, but I wish there were more options for social mobility outside of enlistment, because a lot of them are going to be killed or crippled or mentally sundered by it. It sucks that they have to roll dice that I get to turn my nose up at in distaste, and maybe military recruiters just remind me of that.You don't have to be nice to him but it doesn't hurt you to consider them as people.
I get it. I totally get it. They've got an office, a gameplan, a database, an advertising budget and a massive government bureaucracy with hundreds of years of experience and you've got a bum leg and a Facebook profile. And they can lie with impunity. They may not even know they're lying - they're selling you on what they know but it's not like they're your agent. They're onboarding you and then you're someone else's responsibility. It actually makes it easier - they're likely to hear back from the guys they've helped while the guys they've hurt aren't likely to call them up and bitch them out because if the military is a bad fit for you, there are people you're angrier at than the recruiter. It's also probable you're smarter than them. No blame on them - they joined the military and ended up in a sales career so they're in a strange corner case but regardless, they aren't the ones in the SCIF coming up with battle plans. Regardless, there are lots of people who don't see through it and there are lots of people whose expectations are exactly met. It sounds like you aren't one of them and I agree: the sooner the recruiters figure that out, the happier everyone will be. Totally agree. I knew a girl whose stint in basic landed her a permanent handicap permit simply because the drill instructor decided that she absolutely could run four days on a shattered kneecap. I just had lunch with three ex-navy guys, though, who frankly were not headed for great things. They're now job-holding kid-rearing society members. Takes all kinds and yeah - if recruiters annoy you you aren't the military type. I sure wasn't.I believe they think the military is a good opportunity for people, but their practices still feel predatory to me.
I wish there were more options for social mobility outside of enlistment, because a lot of them are going to be killed or crippled or mentally sundered by it.
You know, the last thing I ever wanted to be known for on Hubski was my military service. But for fucks sake, I guess I'm stepping in for the sheer idiocy of these posts. Have you ever actually interacted with someone who has recently served Nil? Have you asked them about their experiences? I can almost guarantee you haven't, because you know fuck all. First off, looking at work today, the US military is a decently paying job. It's east to look at the $20k salary and scream "WE AREN'T PAYING THEM ANYTHING". However what costs does an E2 in the military have? Healthcare is paid for, lodging is paid for, food is paid for, any classes they take are paid for. That $20k is solely expendable income. How many people you know, Nil, have $20k of expendable income a year? And that's as a 18 year old with zero life experience. Second, look at who is going to combat nowadays. Who died this year? Green berets were the majority of casualties. What troops were sent to Iraq in response to this Iran nonsense? The 82nd airborne. What do these forces have in common my friend? I'll go ahead and answer because I know you don't know. They all volunteer MULTIPLE TIMES. Anyone going to dangerous situations is actively trying to get there. If you want to talk surge times, sure, but that's a long fucking time ago. Stating that the military is life ruining is sheer ignorance. It speaks to a basic understanding of the lives of 99% of service members. Quite honestly, your entire posts reads like a vietnam-era diatribe against the man. I would suggest not speaking to something you know nothing about .
Alright man. Let's take a step back here. I am somewhat known at work for having a liberal perspective on many issues. I work hard to ensure that ideas such as those presented in this article are at least heard by my peers. However, it is an almost impossible task. These perspectives are drowned out by the radical sides. The media has no doubt propagated the extremes and rapidly spread the idea of 'libtards'. Those who blindly follow liberal ideas, screaming them from every platform without an actual idea of reality. I know this isn't a thing, you know this isn't a thing. However posts like these are exactly what exasperate the problem. Because I'm telling you right now Nil, you do not know what you are talking about. Remember that you are counting your anecdotes on one hand, while I am counting in years. But instead of debating, instead of learning from a perspective that you are not aware of, you insult me, you disrespect me, and you make wide presumptions of who I am and what I represent. Even so, despite your insulting rant, I would happily explain how my years of experience have led me to the conclusions that I hold. So ask yourself, how would you like to proceed in this conversation? As for your last question. Do not ever ask it again to another person in your life. More likely than not, your teacher pulled Skylar aside to explain the pain and intricacies associated with such a question. Give it some thought.
Bro. I know exactly how you feel and I know exactly where you're coming from. Trust me. I really, really do. I'm begging you though, please, sincerely, mercifully realize that there's real human hearts on the other side of that screen. This is a really important conversation to have, but it's a conversation that can only take place with measured and reasoned words, not anger and vitriol. Otherwise, instead of building bridges of understanding, all we're gonna succeed in is building walls of animosity and resentment. Please. I feel you. 100%. But trust me, this isn't the way to have this talk.
I can't speak for necroptosis but I can point out that arguing he's your former high school teacher is an ineffective rhetorical strategy. It's telling that you haven't discovered this yet. You often reframe arguments in terms of "my prior experience is this, it makes me very angry, answer for the crimes of the people in my past." If I were to describe your interactions on this website, I would say that the happy ones are you looking forward and the angry ones are you holding someone else accountable for your past. What's interesting is you often speak of your transformation in terms of the liberation it brought you but it takes effectively nothing to make you clutch your chains. Then, bonds-in-hand, you lash out like a caged animal at The Bad Man In Fourteenth Grade while pretending it's somebody here. You have been explicitly invited - numerous times, in an understandable spectrum of politeness - to reframe your arguments in the terms under discussion but, as is often the case, you self-righteously assert that your past is the only frame worth considering. So tell me Nil, who killed you? This angry ghost routine is not helping you process it. You refuse to see the real people around you in favor of the phantasms that haunt you still. You make your way towards happiness only to jump off the road, clutch your petticoat and shout at the evil monsters who touched you in a bad way - talk about PTSD, your life is like High School Groundhog Day. I understand why these discussions make you antsy - you had the world figured out, then you didn't, and you refuse to figure it out again until the world apologizes for lying to you. You're going to be disappointed in that, though, and I think you know it - if I had to guess, most of your anger is over the odious task of giving up on the apology and moving forward with your life. Can't help you with that, kid. None of us can. We're all interested in your contributions here in the physical plane, though, despite your regular need to shout at ghosts. Just recognize that the more you do it, the more we switch from "talking to someone with passion" to "talking to someone with a disability" and that probably doesn't feel great to you. Maybe you see this as a way to work through it. Take it from 20 years of anger issues: you gotta keep most of it on the inside or the inside is all you're left with. You know what helps me sleep at night? Progress.
Well look at that, I’ve been called a mass murderer. I feel like I’ve just checked a box in ‘The American military experience’
I didn't interpret his statement like that, but I understand where you're coming from. I'm very thankful that you decided to speak up and give your perspective. We needed to hear it. You should post more. You used to post much more, I think, and it was always enjoyable. :)
Naaah he's totally calling NC a mass murderer. That's the problem with relying on superheated rhetoric: someone's gonna get burned. At least you don't have to think much, you just open your mouth and the flamethrower comes out. It's a very cathartic way to live, albeit a lonely one.
Ahhh, yes. The "QQ", internet rhetoric's Crane Kick. Per canon law, I hereby acknowledge the 100% rhetorical, spiritual, metaphysical and factual correctness of your arguments, validate your every emotion and salve your savaged fee fees. A spirited debate, sir, but one in which you have CRUSHED. My hat tips in your general direction. Know that when the toddler behind your eyes finishes his tantrum, you are welcome back into the fold. You're a clever dude with much to add but we both know the argument you're having isn't with anyone here. And while I understand the appeal of sounding one's barbaric yawp across the roof of the world I will point out that you didn't actually do anything here. And I suspect your inability to actually do anything is one of the root causes of your self-loathing.
I'm super bummed to see you leave, man. We're a worse community without you. To say that I greatly admire your passion and idealism would be understating things.
Can we take a step back? From my outsider's perspective, it seems like both 'sides' are focusing on their extremes and will inevitably escalate this into a shouting match.College, four years after you were originally planning on going after you've been so institutionalized you can no longer function as an adult in society and can't make friends with normal people! Now you have to readjust to an academic setting full of LIBTARDS.
As someone who has lived both lives, this discussion is 100% necessary. For the same reasons Hatch wrote that article these ideas must be combatted. Ignoring it will do nothing but widen the divide
And starting arguments with shouts or insults isn't the way to do it, though it's not like I can't understand why this topic stirs emotion. Here's what I know/think I know, and I'd like your input: military gives discipline. You have to get fit, attentive and cease thinking in terms of selfish 'me me me', substituting it with teamwork. Rely on others, have others rely on you. Those are great qualities. Many of my peers (I'm 21, civilian and Polish) could use them, so could I in my striving to be a better person. All those other benefits sound fantastic, but there have to be some darker side to enlisting. It seems like there's only extreme pro and anti propaganda with next to nothing in-between. What would you say be the reasons against enlisting? In what ways military can be detrimental? What's to regret? I'm more interested in hearing about those from someone who served than didn't.
That is not a valid argument, nor is it the subject under discussion. If you wish to argue that the United States does not exist, therefore does not need a military, you must also argue why the United States (which does not exist) having a military is irrelevant. It's much easier to answer the original question; you have fewer tasks.
Got your ping, and was like "in a minute, coding", but then I just got this alert. The missile strikes might not be a big deal, I'm not sure there were any casualties. We just have to wait for more news to come in.
Saw one report specifying that it was Iranian AA that shot the plane down but I have a hard time believing that, you’d think that Iran would have a very good idea of the planes coming into and going out of Tehran right now.
Iranian Students News Agency (Iran state-run-ish news agency) says that it went down because of "technical problems", per the NYTimes. This could just be coincidence, and everyone on the ground is fine, in both the crash and the missile strikes. But I'd like to know now, plz. Edit: no, everyone on board the airplane has died. Still no intel about any U.S. Iraqi military base casualties.
Per CNN: Emergency crews have been dispatched to the crash site but cannot assist because the area is currently ablaze, Koulivand said on IRINN, a state-run media outlet. Edit: your edit beat me to it Most passengers on board the Ukraine International Airlines flight died, said Pirhossein Koulivand, head of Iran's Emegency Medical Services.
I have seen a video showing a constantly glowing (read: burning) plane descending, with burning pieces flying off, and then the plane reaches the ground and explodes. I won't link to it. Boeing 737s have had some technical/software issues, and although the problems do happen shortly after takeoff, they do not include blowing up while in the air. Edit: no, nope, it happens, but it's been a while. :(
We’ve seen the same video. Wish I hadn’t watched it. Also saw a preliminary report via The Jerusalem Post indicating US casualties in Erbil but not seeing that claim repeated anywhere else yet. Man oh man if 2020 isn’t going to be an anxiety ridden year... Edit: also the boing wasn’t a MAX even so...
Right, it was a 737-800. These things can happen, but yeah, it's gonna be a fuckin' nuts Wednesday. Try to get some sleep, amigo. Or work out, Netflix, take a night walk, if you can. We're gonna be alright.
I'm pretty goddamn sick and it's raining out so a walk is a no-go :( Comparing 50 mile training plans since that's a thing I'm doing in 5 months I guess. And watching You, since that seems like the hip show right now. It's okay.