Thinking about joining the armed forces

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

gipper, what's your opinion of soldiers who would work in a purely defensive army? they would also be involved in the same kinds of activites that you are calling out as dispicable.

dude, maybe i'm wrong, but you seem to miss a point. soldiers make the choice to do what soldiers do. becoming a solider is a choice that doesn't have to be made.

i'm not missing that point, i think it's a silly point. a soldiers role is not to pick the mission, it's to execute the mission. i understand and can see how our long record of imperialism causes people to question why someone would want to be involved with that kind of thing but that doesn't change the things our military has done and will do that don't fit that bill. are you guys forgetting that seals saved people from pirates recently, killed bin laden, etc... pretty sure i saw a lot of military vehicles involved in katrina and you know if someone does attack us they would be the same people that would come to our rescue.

it feels to me that you are missing the point that being the richest nation in the world means we have to have a military and that the soldiers don't pick what the military does.

Your hypothetical question is the equivalent of "But what if the army only played rock paper scissors when they went to war?" They don't, our army is not purely defensive, nor does it ever intend to be.
Please cut the bullshit about soldiers not choosing the war. We went over that already. There is no draft, almost every soldier in the army today knew exactly what wars they were signing up for when they signed up for service. They know what we've used our Army for in the past, and none of them are old enough to remember a defensive war. They are legally protected murderers.  Your argument perfectly translates to defending Nazi aggression by the way.

Oh, and fighting for our freedom? FUCK that. Our freedoms are constantly stripped for war purposes, and only war purposes. Without war, our freedom wouldn't be threatened.

[jay]

gipper, what's the better alternative? are you really for no national defense? that's fine if you are but it definitely frames your arguments in a "unrealistic ideal utopia" way.

i agree fully with Hate's point about it's not the military but the policies, as it's the same point i made before. it's us the citizens that can change that. the soldiers are just doing what soldiers do.

"You don't understand, you aren't from around here, the streets are real! If we don't kill them they'll kill us..." I'll take it you are pro-gang, considering that you think that logic sticks? Or is it only ok if its a government sponsored turf war?
You do realize that 99% of the world is safe without an imperial army right? .Maybe we can copy them. Just have a defensive army and stop putting outposts all over the world and attacking those who don't let us put them up. Its not all armies that are evil, its OUR army that is evil. The same way 99% of communities don't have gangs in them, but the people who support the gangs in the communities that do think the idea that a gang not being on the block would be crazy and unsafe, then justify the murder and terror that takes place in its name.

Also, don't give me that "just following orders" bullshit in regards to a volunteer army. The same argument you put up could EASILY be used to defend Nazi soldiers. The idea that soldiers aren't a vital necessity in the mission to take over the world is ridiculous. People who volunteer for the army allow the machine to run uninterrupted. You can't be neutral as a soldier.

I think you and a lot of other people in this thread take for granted this whole "99 percent" of the world is safe without an imperial army.  It's like you discount centuries of history and only see the world post-fall of the Berlin Wall.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe majority of states now don't need large armies precisely because the U.S. has an army that stretches across the globe and can deploy into any situation?  Europe, a continent that has been host to the bloodiest wars in history, is all of a sudden peaceful since the end of WW2.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe that's because of the huge U.S. military presence in Europe for the past 65 years?  Some goes with Japan post-WW2.  Do you truly believe the world would be safer if the U.S. withdrew every military outpost in the world and vowed only to fight in defence of it's own soil? (by the way, that Ron Paul-esque line of thinking has long since become obsolete in foreign policy relations)  Say what you want about the U.S. and its involvement is world affairs, but it is BY FAR the most altruistic of any global hegemon in the history of civilization.  To say that the U.S. fights wars only for profit is ignoring all the other reasons the U.S. fights.  I agree that there's always an element of national self-interest, but that goes for 99 percent of all conflicts- get over it (there's actually a large body of academic work that argues against intervening in conflicts if there's nothing to gain in the national interest- more often than not, the conflict is simply postponed to a later date).  Post WW2, every conflict the U.S. has been involved in has been to combat communism/spread democracy, come to the aid on an ally, or intervene in a humanitarian crisis.  I'm not going to get into the conduct of the U.S. in some of these conflicts, I'm sure you could come up with 10 pages of questionable practices and I'm not saying that every intervention was a good idea, but you cannot say the motivation is only to further so-called imperialistic goals. 

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

jay, are you actually retarded? like actually?

Since the end of the cold war, the U.S. has directly SUPPORTED the most brutal dictators in defence of 'the market'. Look up Indonesia under Suharto. Over 200,000 (edit: official Indonesian estimate is 500,000. Independent estimates range from 700,000 to 1,000,000.) innocents killed in purges of the Indonesian Communist party (the largest self-determined communist party in the world at the time), and over 100,000 killed in the invasion of East Timor, which pretty much any non-retarded will tell you was a GENOCIDE. That's just one instance for your tiny brain to comprehend.

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

Also, one of the only military actions of the second half of the 20th century that be considered anything close to 'altruistic' was undertaken by 'Communist' Vietnam against a dude named Pol Pot. Not sure you would have heard of him though because you are retarded.

[HATE!]

Yeah, we do seem have a knack for making friends with someone and then hating them about...... I don't know, does about 25 years later sound right? 

God, I fucking hate politics.  I vote, but the only ones I really get worked up on are local elections and platforms because those are the only ones where I actually feel like the impact will be worthwhile. 

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

gipper, what's the better alternative? are you really for no national defense? that's fine if you are but it definitely frames your arguments in a "unrealistic ideal utopia" way.

i agree fully with Hate's point about it's not the military but the policies, as it's the same point i made before. it's us the citizens that can change that. the soldiers are just doing what soldiers do.

"You don't understand, you aren't from around here, the streets are real! If we don't kill them they'll kill us..." I'll take it you are pro-gang, considering that you think that logic sticks? Or is it only ok if its a government sponsored turf war?
You do realize that 99% of the world is safe without an imperial army right? .Maybe we can copy them. Just have a defensive army and stop putting outposts all over the world and attacking those who don't let us put them up. Its not all armies that are evil, its OUR army that is evil. The same way 99% of communities don't have gangs in them, but the people who support the gangs in the communities that do think the idea that a gang not being on the block would be crazy and unsafe, then justify the murder and terror that takes place in its name.

Also, don't give me that "just following orders" bullshit in regards to a volunteer army. The same argument you put up could EASILY be used to defend Nazi soldiers. The idea that soldiers aren't a vital necessity in the mission to take over the world is ridiculous. People who volunteer for the army allow the machine to run uninterrupted. You can't be neutral as a soldier.

I think you and a lot of other people in this thread take for granted this whole "99 percent" of the world is safe without an imperial army.  It's like you discount centuries of history and only see the world post-fall of the Berlin Wall.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe majority of states now don't need large armies precisely because the U.S. has an army that stretches across the globe and can deploy into any situation?  Europe, a continent that has been host to the bloodiest wars in history, is all of a sudden peaceful since the end of WW2.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe that's because of the huge U.S. military presence in Europe for the past 65 years?  Some goes with Japan post-WW2.  Do you truly believe the world would be safer if the U.S. withdrew every military outpost in the world and vowed only to fight in defence of it's own soil? (by the way, that Ron Paul-esque line of thinking has long since become obsolete in foreign policy relations)  Say what you want about the U.S. and its involvement is world affairs, but it is BY FAR the most altruistic of any global hegemon in the history of civilization.  To say that the U.S. fights wars only for profit is ignoring all the other reasons the U.S. fights.  I agree that there's always an element of national self-interest, but that goes for 99 percent of all conflicts- get over it (there's actually a large body of academic work that argues against intervening in conflicts if there's nothing to gain in the national interest- more often than not, the conflict is simply postponed to a later date).  Post WW2, every conflict the U.S. has been involved in has been to combat communism/spread democracy, come to the aid on an ally, or intervene in a humanitarian crisis.  I'm not going to get into the conduct of the U.S. in some of these conflicts, I'm sure you could come up with 10 pages of questionable practices and I'm not saying that every intervention was a good idea, but you cannot say the motivation is only to further so-called imperialistic goals. 

Ladies and gentlemen,  I present to you an ignorant American idiot! The rest of the world fucking hates us because of our military presence around the world. They HATE us. Nobody wants another country to be  "taking care" of them. Its the classic paternalstic imperial attitude
Its hillarious how you claim there are tons of other reasons we go to war besides profits, but can't name an example of one!
Read some fucking history you moron.
By the way, the idea of altruistic hegemony had me laughing my ass off. You are aware of how stupid that sounds right? Thanks for the laugh.

[HATE!]

Sorry, dude.  That's only one of many reasons why they hate us.  YOU hate the military so YOU blame that.  They hate us because of Hollywood, George Bush, the amount of money we spend on things (and sometimes they hate us for not spending it on them), our self-centeredness, Capitalism, how much we care about sports, Reality TV, our simultaneous prudishness and our brazen openness, our simultaneous puritanical code of ethics and religion while we contradict ourselves in every other way....

AND

The simple fact that we brag about, have to be and are #1 (though that last one is now debatable.)

That's (a part of) why we are hated.  You can debate that ALL fucking day, but I've been in over 40 countries across four continents (only the southwest Asian ones were in the military), was in 18 schools both in AND out of Europe (both secondary school and university in both continents) and firsthand experience dealing with several European/southwest Asian governments and militaries via a professional working relationship. 

They all (I can't stress the ALL enough) have a love/hate relationship with us.  We are intriguing to them as we are exciting, offensive and interesting.  Military occupation DOES factor in- but you can't paint it so black and white.  NOTHING except for mathematics is ever black and white.  You're a fucking teacher.  You should know better than that.

[jay]

gipper, what's the better alternative? are you really for no national defense? that's fine if you are but it definitely frames your arguments in a "unrealistic ideal utopia" way.

i agree fully with Hate's point about it's not the military but the policies, as it's the same point i made before. it's us the citizens that can change that. the soldiers are just doing what soldiers do.

"You don't understand, you aren't from around here, the streets are real! If we don't kill them they'll kill us..." I'll take it you are pro-gang, considering that you think that logic sticks? Or is it only ok if its a government sponsored turf war?
You do realize that 99% of the world is safe without an imperial army right? .Maybe we can copy them. Just have a defensive army and stop putting outposts all over the world and attacking those who don't let us put them up. Its not all armies that are evil, its OUR army that is evil. The same way 99% of communities don't have gangs in them, but the people who support the gangs in the communities that do think the idea that a gang not being on the block would be crazy and unsafe, then justify the murder and terror that takes place in its name.

Also, don't give me that "just following orders" bullshit in regards to a volunteer army. The same argument you put up could EASILY be used to defend Nazi soldiers. The idea that soldiers aren't a vital necessity in the mission to take over the world is ridiculous. People who volunteer for the army allow the machine to run uninterrupted. You can't be neutral as a soldier.

I think you and a lot of other people in this thread take for granted this whole "99 percent" of the world is safe without an imperial army.  It's like you discount centuries of history and only see the world post-fall of the Berlin Wall.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe majority of states now don't need large armies precisely because the U.S. has an army that stretches across the globe and can deploy into any situation?  Europe, a continent that has been host to the bloodiest wars in history, is all of a sudden peaceful since the end of WW2.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe that's because of the huge U.S. military presence in Europe for the past 65 years?  Some goes with Japan post-WW2.  Do you truly believe the world would be safer if the U.S. withdrew every military outpost in the world and vowed only to fight in defence of it's own soil? (by the way, that Ron Paul-esque line of thinking has long since become obsolete in foreign policy relations)  Say what you want about the U.S. and its involvement is world affairs, but it is BY FAR the most altruistic of any global hegemon in the history of civilization.  To say that the U.S. fights wars only for profit is ignoring all the other reasons the U.S. fights.  I agree that there's always an element of national self-interest, but that goes for 99 percent of all conflicts- get over it (there's actually a large body of academic work that argues against intervening in conflicts if there's nothing to gain in the national interest- more often than not, the conflict is simply postponed to a later date).  Post WW2, every conflict the U.S. has been involved in has been to combat communism/spread democracy, come to the aid on an ally, or intervene in a humanitarian crisis.  I'm not going to get into the conduct of the U.S. in some of these conflicts, I'm sure you could come up with 10 pages of questionable practices and I'm not saying that every intervention was a good idea, but you cannot say the motivation is only to further so-called imperialistic goals. 

Ladies and gentlemen,  I present to you an ignorant American idiot! The rest of the world fucking hates us because of our military presence around the world. They HATE us. Nobody wants another country to be  "taking care" of them. Its the classic paternalstic imperial attitude
Its hillarious how you claim there are tons of other reasons we go to war besides profits, but can't name an example of one!
Read some fucking history you moron.
By the way, the idea of altruistic hegemony had me laughing my ass off. You are aware of how stupid that sounds right? Thanks for the laugh.

Well, I thought I named three main reasons but I suppose you missed them- combat communism/spread democracy, aiding an ally and humanitarian.  I guess I forgot retaliation (Afghanistan) but anyways there they are again.  You're a big history buff so I'm sure you can figure out which reason applies to which conflict.  I think the main points of my post were:

Did you ever stop to think that maybe majority of states now don't need large armies precisely because the U.S. has an army that stretches across the globe and can deploy into any situation?  Europe, a continent that has been host to the bloodiest wars in history, is all of a sudden peaceful since the end of WW2.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe that's because of the huge U.S. military presence in Europe for the past 65 years?  Some goes with Japan post-WW2.  Do you truly believe the world would be safer if the U.S. withdrew every military outpost in the world and vowed only to fight in defence of it's own soil?

Which you didn't really address at all.  But hey, I don't blame you, those kinds of questions are had to answer when you have the kind of world view that you do.

[Tardvark]

yea good thing we fought communism, its not like 90 percent of our shit is manufactured by a communist nation or anything. its mind blowing that people still believe that "fighting communism" was the reason for the vietnam and cold war

[HATE!]

yea good thing we fought communism, its not like 90 percent of our shit is manufactured by a communist nation or anything. its mind blowing that people still believe that "fighting communism" was the reason for the vietnam and cold war

True.  At least back then people thought hiding under a desk was also a valid escape from nuclear fallout.  No excuse for that kinda stupidity now. 

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

gipper, what's the better alternative? are you really for no national defense? that's fine if you are but it definitely frames your arguments in a "unrealistic ideal utopia" way.

i agree fully with Hate's point about it's not the military but the policies, as it's the same point i made before. it's us the citizens that can change that. the soldiers are just doing what soldiers do.

"You don't understand, you aren't from around here, the streets are real! If we don't kill them they'll kill us..." I'll take it you are pro-gang, considering that you think that logic sticks? Or is it only ok if its a government sponsored turf war?
You do realize that 99% of the world is safe without an imperial army right? .Maybe we can copy them. Just have a defensive army and stop putting outposts all over the world and attacking those who don't let us put them up. Its not all armies that are evil, its OUR army that is evil. The same way 99% of communities don't have gangs in them, but the people who support the gangs in the communities that do think the idea that a gang not being on the block would be crazy and unsafe, then justify the murder and terror that takes place in its name.

Also, don't give me that "just following orders" bullshit in regards to a volunteer army. The same argument you put up could EASILY be used to defend Nazi soldiers. The idea that soldiers aren't a vital necessity in the mission to take over the world is ridiculous. People who volunteer for the army allow the machine to run uninterrupted. You can't be neutral as a soldier.

I think you and a lot of other people in this thread take for granted this whole "99 percent" of the world is safe without an imperial army.  It's like you discount centuries of history and only see the world post-fall of the Berlin Wall.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe majority of states now don't need large armies precisely because the U.S. has an army that stretches across the globe and can deploy into any situation?  Europe, a continent that has been host to the bloodiest wars in history, is all of a sudden peaceful since the end of WW2.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe that's because of the huge U.S. military presence in Europe for the past 65 years?  Some goes with Japan post-WW2.  Do you truly believe the world would be safer if the U.S. withdrew every military outpost in the world and vowed only to fight in defence of it's own soil? (by the way, that Ron Paul-esque line of thinking has long since become obsolete in foreign policy relations)  Say what you want about the U.S. and its involvement is world affairs, but it is BY FAR the most altruistic of any global hegemon in the history of civilization.  To say that the U.S. fights wars only for profit is ignoring all the other reasons the U.S. fights.  I agree that there's always an element of national self-interest, but that goes for 99 percent of all conflicts- get over it (there's actually a large body of academic work that argues against intervening in conflicts if there's nothing to gain in the national interest- more often than not, the conflict is simply postponed to a later date).  Post WW2, every conflict the U.S. has been involved in has been to combat communism/spread democracy, come to the aid on an ally, or intervene in a humanitarian crisis.  I'm not going to get into the conduct of the U.S. in some of these conflicts, I'm sure you could come up with 10 pages of questionable practices and I'm not saying that every intervention was a good idea, but you cannot say the motivation is only to further so-called imperialistic goals.

Ladies and gentlemen,  I present to you an ignorant American idiot! The rest of the world fucking hates us because of our military presence around the world. They HATE us. Nobody wants another country to be  "taking care" of them. Its the classic paternalstic imperial attitude
Its hillarious how you claim there are tons of other reasons we go to war besides profits, but can't name an example of one!
Read some fucking history you moron.
By the way, the idea of altruistic hegemony had me laughing my ass off. You are aware of how stupid that sounds right? Thanks for the laugh.

Well, I thought I named three main reasons but I suppose you missed them- combat communism/spread democracy, aiding an ally and humanitarian.  I guess I forgot retaliation (Afghanistan) but anyways there they are again.  You're a big history buff so I'm sure you can figure out which reason applies to which conflict.  I think the main points of my post were:

Did you ever stop to think that maybe majority of states now don't need large armies precisely because the U.S. has an army that stretches across the globe and can deploy into any situation?  Europe, a continent that has been host to the bloodiest wars in history, is all of a sudden peaceful since the end of WW2.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe that's because of the huge U.S. military presence in Europe for the past 65 years?  Some goes with Japan post-WW2.  Do you truly believe the world would be safer if the U.S. withdrew every military outpost in the world and vowed only to fight in defence of it's own soil?

Which you didn't really address at all.  But hey, I don't blame you, those kinds of questions are had to answer when you have the kind of world view that you do.

kind of like you completely ignored my point, retard?

[brycickle]

and that company, that supplies food, fuel and ammo (dont know the name in english).

Logistics

[managuense]

its actually a good choice for some people but know what the fuck youre getting into its gonna suck dick the whole time

[steve]

Also, one of the only military actions of the second half of the 20th century that be considered anything close to 'altruistic' was undertaken by 'Communist' Vietnam against a dude named Pol Pot. Not sure you would have heard of him though because you are retarded.

the invasion of Cambodia was nothing close to altruistic. Khmer and Vietnamese have lived side by side in resentment for ever. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, while no longer the official ruling party, had plenty of clout. Really, until 1998, the KR were still running shit. For Vietnam to "liberate" Cambodia was totally an economic power play. Hun Sen has been in power since and it's a disaster.

It's interesting that you bring Cambodia into the equation and mention altruism. the government of Cambodia has received over 4billion US dollars in foreign aid and the people still live in total poverty. In 1992, the UN went in and named Cambodia a protectorate state. Elections were set up and... nothing was followed through with. The international community at large quit.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Also, one of the only military actions of the second half of the 20th century that be considered anything close to 'altruistic' was undertaken by 'Communist' Vietnam against a dude named Pol Pot. Not sure you would have heard of him though because you are retarded.

the invasion of Cambodia was nothing close to altruistic. Khmer and Vietnamese have lived side by side in resentment for ever. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, while no longer the official ruling party, had plenty of clout. Really, until 1998, the KR were still running shit. For Vietnam to "liberate" Cambodia was totally an economic power play. Hun Sen has been in power since and it's a disaster.

It's interesting that you bring Cambodia into the equation and mention altruism. the government of Cambodia has received over 4billion US dollars in foreign aid and the people still live in total poverty. In 1992, the UN went in and named Cambodia a protectorate state. Elections were set up and... nothing was followed through with. The international community at large quit.

You realize that it was the U.S. that went into Cambodia and destabilized it so the Khmer Rouge took power as part of the "parrot's beak" strategy to win the war in Vietnam right? And that we went into explicitly went to vietnam for "Rubber, Tin, and oil" as written in state department policy papers revealed in the pentagon papers, right? There is no altruism there at all. We caused a genocide to get basic resources for profits for just a few people.

[Smell Good]

Best friend of mine just signed up for 8 years in the Navy. 

[Zurg]

pretty harsh. i can see the point there but calling people who make the ultimate sacrifice suckers really shitty. they don't pick the wars, they just fight them and they do are selfless in ways that most civilians aren't capable of.

You're a fucking idiot if you believe that. Tons of people join the military for completely selfish reasons, and the typical soldier is not some idealist who believes in his country, he's a meathead asshole who likes the feeling of authority, the status it gives him, and is in the military because he has no other options.

Obviously not true of all people, but please remove your head from your ass and spare us the propaganda.

Kab, all your post really piss me off! How old are you?
I grew up in a military Family (my dads a navy pilot, pretty high up) and spent my childhood surrounded by all sorts of military personal.
While stationed in Norway AFNORTH headquarters I met US, Canadian, Scandinavian Soldiers, and you know what? Shit comes in every color, most of those dudes were fucking awesome.
Don't just go around pointing fingers and speaking your mind on things you clearly have no clue about!

You come off as an asshole. It was probably your upbringing around meathead assholes who like the feeling of authority that makes you feel the need to force people to shut up if you don't agree with them though, so I don't blame you.

How is that Gipper?
I was not raised around meatheads, that is my whole point!
My Dad is now one of the leading experts on viking history in Denmark/Northern Germany,how is that for a meathead?
All the dudes I met while affiliated with the army were good people, really good people.
Even the marines ( surprisinlgy enough).
I never joined the army but chose civil service, and all the "meatheads" I was brought up around were really supportive!

All I am saying is that
a) Kab writes stupid shit all the time.
and b) there is no way to say that all soldiers are stupid meatheads.
Hell, I've even met nice cops, or teachers ( imagine that )

But yes I'll give you that one, he didn't say ALL soldiers, he said the majority,...
I just hate these stereotypes.

Vikings were the original meatheads

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

Also, one of the only military actions of the second half of the 20th century that be considered anything close to 'altruistic' was undertaken by 'Communist' Vietnam against a dude named Pol Pot. Not sure you would have heard of him though because you are retarded.

the invasion of Cambodia was nothing close to altruistic. Khmer and Vietnamese have lived side by side in resentment for ever. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, while no longer the official ruling party, had plenty of clout. Really, until 1998, the KR were still running shit. For Vietnam to "liberate" Cambodia was totally an economic power play. Hun Sen has been in power since and it's a disaster.

It's interesting that you bring Cambodia into the equation and mention altruism. the government of Cambodia has received over 4billion US dollars in foreign aid and the people still live in total poverty. In 1992, the UN went in and named Cambodia a protectorate state. Elections were set up and... nothing was followed through with. The international community at large quit.

Altruistic was the wrong word choice. By definition, a state can't be altruistic. I'd still argue that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia had the residual effect of stopping major atrocities and therefore could be justified on grounds that pretty much every U.S. intervention cannot.

[Locbrew]

I've been thinking about joining the Coast Guard for a couple of months now.

[ige]

Nice story Ige, i can relate to alot of stuff you said there.
Service is mendatory where i live aswell, spent 3 years as a combat medic and i'm glad its behind me!
Also, alot of the training you went through sounds similar to what we have here, even some of the gear is the same.
tons of experiences and stories to tell, when i look back it was an amazing time but as i went through it i wasnt having too much fun.

I'm guessing you're from Israel, since you have 3 years of service. We have the same weapons, since we got Galil's from you guys. We also use the swedish AK-4, which is bigger, heavier and the elbow support isnt adjustable. And an AK-4 magazine can only hold 20 bullets. Cant even imagine how tedious it is, to change your magazine all the time. The only plus side of it is, that it takes 7,62mm bullets.

Most of our equipment is new and made specially for us. Our Defence Forces are about 20 years old, so we actually had to use second hand swedish combat gear for a while. We actually still use swedish water bottles, flashlights, tent camoflage etc. The helmets are from the US, as are flac jackets.

Damn, i actually do miss my weapon and the thrilling exercises involving combat and shooting.

I did forget to acknowledge ige's post.  It's always interesting to read about another country/culture's way of doing things.  I do a lot of liaison work and that has definitely been my favorite part of my job.

Thanks! If you're interested, you can check this video out. It's a bit satirical, but i think it really sums up the mandatory service here (press CC for english subtitles:

Kiivrid ja Lihased

[Upgrayedd]

Come work for The Home Depot.


THE HOME DEPOT. WE HAVEN'T BOMBED A COUNTRY

[gutterhead.]

Sorry to bump an old thread but whatever.

I took the ASVAB the other week and have been researching jobs that i qualify for, and now that i know a little more about everything i'd like to get more specific advice. For those that don't know, i'm enlisting in the Air Force, and got an AFQT of 80. 78-Mechanical, 88-Administrative, 70-General, and 82-Electric. so far the AFSC's i'm leaning towards are...

1. Unmanned Aerospace Systems
2. Space Systems Operations
3. Weather
4. Fire Protection
5. Air Traffic Control
6. Nuclear Weapons

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Wow! Nuclear Weapons! Now if The U.S. kills millions, including a high percentage of civillians in one fell swoop, or takes away our civil rights due to the possibility of weapons they made being in "the wrong hands" you can claim that you helped!
What a life you are preparing to have!
Why don't you just sell crack on the corner. Less people die, less risk to you, you'll make more money, and you can quit whenever you want. I know it sounds shitty, but think about it this way, its better than your current plans.

[chockfullofthat]

Sorry to bump an old thread but whatever.

I took the ASVAB the other week and have been researching jobs that i qualify for, and now that i know a little more about everything i'd like to get more specific advice. For those that don't know, i'm enlisting in the Air Force, and got an AFQT of 80. 78-Mechanical, 88-Administrative, 70-General, and 82-Electric. so far the AFSC's i'm leaning towards are...

1. Unmanned Aerospace Systems
2. Space Systems Operations
3. Weather
4. Fire Protection
5. Air Traffic Control
6. Nuclear Weapons

1.  Definitely a good choice if you like videos games, monster energy drink, the movie Toys, and not having to see accidental civilian casualties "up close and personal."  Post-Military Career Options:  Few.  I hear you can make a lot of money selling gold in games like Diablo though.

2.  Space is totally boring, unless you are playing golf on the moon or having zero gravity sex with some hot alien chick.  Stay away from this.

3.  Weather is unpredictable so you don't have to be good at your job.  I recommend this if you plan on going to war in the middle east.  All you have to say is that is will be sunny and dry.  When you come back to USA though, people are going to be pissed off at you when they cancel their tee-times because you said it was going to fucking rain, asshole.  Ironically, you'll deal with more hostiles at home in this case.

4.  You want to join the airforce to learn how to become a fireman?  WTF?  Whatever happened to people wanting to be like Iceman and Maverick?

5.  This seem like a smart enough choice, but i've noticed that those little towers at airports seem pretty small so I don't think you'd get a job as a civilian too easily.  Unless you could offer them something most couldn't, like maybe you'd work under minimum wage and would bring your own coffee...idk.

6.  Nukes eh?  Everyone is talking about reducing the nuclear stockpile so maybe you should focus your efforts on turning that discussion in the other direction.  Maybe we can get Russia AND China to starting threatening us with those big boys again.  Wouldn't that be nice?

[gutterhead.]

FYI that nukes thing was kind of a joke, and becoming a pilot was my original intent, until i found out the first Pre Req is to have a bachelor's degree. If anything, if i decide to do the whole military career thing, i can get my degree at an Air Force Academy and eventually become a pilot, but it's not an entry level job.

[brycickle]

ARFF

[KoRnholio8]

I find it very comforting that people in Slovenia who choose to serve in the military, become police officers or who work in customs are basically college (or high school) drop-outs who basically aren't qualified to do shit (not even to work at a cash register) - protect and serve, just as long I don't need to do shit but abuse my authority.

Seems to me, USA is kinda on the same page. And that is lame. Abolish military and establish a competent police force and other emergency services.

[gutterhead.]

Listen, I'm not a meathead, and im not a retard. i graduated high school in 2009 with a 3.9 GPA, and got into various (california) state universities, but i'm in that weird middle class where college was too expensive for me, yet i don't qualify for any financial aid. So i got a couple jobs and have been working for the past couple years after high school, which pretty much threw me all off course for saving up and going back to school and what not. The way i see it, i enlist, serve my time, come back home and have the government pay for my schooling, all while getting paid and having full medical and dental coverage. Now i know that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and i know most everyone on slap is going to, or already has given me and the military a ton of shit in this thread, and i dont really care, but your post Kornholio, was incredibly uninformed and outright stupid.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

fill out a fafsa, take out some loans, write a few essays and try to get some scholarship money. You can get college money.

[Strike A Pose]

fill out a fafsa, take out some loans, write a few essays and try to get some scholarship money. You can get college money.

I would strongly advise against this.

Unless you have a good plan in place to pay your dues.

+Have you considered looking into a cheaper university? The military shouldn't be used as a tool to pay for your schooling if you aren't truly committed to service. That's how I see things, at least.