|
I don't drink, but if I start I'm at least comfortable in the knowledge that there's never been a better time to do so.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:No one in the thread is mad at veterans, the only opinion being presented is that whether the is job dangerous or not, getting cut a check in exchange for advancing (often dubious) American foreign policy interests should not entitle one to lifelong adoration, job preferences, and healthcare at public expense while much larger swathes of workers are being actively poo poo upon. I'll argue for universal healthcare or post-secondary education with no exclusion for veterans any day, it's the idea that signing up to be the paid enforcement arm of (again, regularly less than idealistic) policy should give someone priority to these basic human rights that bothers me. It's part of their compensation, though? I mean, say what you will about whether or not the military is a job like any other (Which, as we've seen from personal anecdotes in this thread, not to mention a stroll through GiP, can vary wildly from "It was pretty neat, made money, sat around at base half the time" to "I got shot at every day and watched friends die"), but the fact of the matter is that those are benefits are a part of a serviceman's compensation. That part literally is like any other job, and is to help attract people to start a career where their experience can vary from, again, "It was pretty neat, made money, sat around at base half the time" to "I got shot at every day and watched friends die". You may as well start arguing about the benefits anybody else in public service earns. Should everybody else get healthcare and schooling from the government? Perhaps, but complaining that soldiers get that after their enlistment isn't exactly the way to go about it. Also, it's probably worth mentioning that veterans aren't exactly given job preferences after they get out-far from it. There's a reason why the veteran unemployment rate is significantly greater than the overall rate. Edit: computer parts posted:Note that your Bachelor's degree doesn't have to be in anything related to law enforcement. I seem to recall reading in the GiP cop thread that having a degree in Criminal Justice is actually less likely to get you hired, since everyone applying to be a police officer has one of those and most departments would prefer to have someone with experience in IT. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 22:53 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Weren't the American deaths during the police action most of the reason public sentiment turned against Gulf War II? Using drones for policing would have eliminated that. I'd be worried we'd still be involved there, and we'd have a bunch more dead Iraqis in our ledger.  I feel that some of the people in this thread have forgotten what a drone is. They're not terminators, they're oversized RC planes with anti-tank missiles strapped to them. Their main advantage over conventional aircraft, and the reason why the military uses them, is because they're cheaper than typical aircraft and have a long loiter time. That's it. Now, they're extremely useful in those regards, but it is physically impossible that they're going to be doing anything more than conducting strikes or supporting ground troops before the year 20XX. And even with the drones we have now, it's not as if we can just choose a country and start blowing up weddings at will. Drones still require airbases, support facilities, and maintenance staff, same as any other aircraft. There's also the simple fact that while drones are good at blowing things up, the ability to blow things up is one of the least important aspects of conducting a counterinsurgency. Even if the US had an entire fleet of drones over ever square mile of a country's air space, you would still need ground troops to interact with locals and regional authority figures, secure and hold areas of strategic interest, and move supplies throughout the country. No drone outside of a science-fiction novel can do any of those, so unless you start seeing crates labeled "T-600" being shipped to Afghanistan, I wouldn't be concerned about the drones themselves. Now, the actual policy of conducting those airstrikes, that's a thing to be concerned about, but that's a different matter entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
naughty_penguin posted:Somebody made a good point in the google glasshole thread (Don't read the thread it's poo poo) that complaints against google glass users really belied an underlying concern about advances in technology affecting how we live our lives. I feel like complaints about drones are about the same thing. I don't want people recording me at dinner, and I know it can happen with a phone or camcorder just as easily as with google glass, but glass makes it easier and more constant. I disagree with a lot of the airstrikes we make using normal planes or cruise missiles or whatever, but drones make the argument different because you don't have the wedge issue of ARE TROOPS and their safety to argue against the use of air strikes. The drones aren't the issue as much as the willingness to use drones vs the willingness to put actual (American) people at risk. Who cares if we lose an RC plane? There was always an argument to be made that losing American lives was not worth bombing some third world shithole that really didn't deserve it anyways. Drones take away that argument, and it makes it harder to humanize the issue of war to all those assholes who think we should turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot because the people who live there are different and don't matter. That's true, to an extent, but just because the drones don't have pilots there in the cockpit doesn't mean that troops are out of harm's way. Like I said, you still have to have airbases and support facilities in-country so the drones can land, refuel, and rearm, and those bases aren't exactly invulnerable to attack. Not to mention that, if anything, the planes that the drones have replaced are those that are LEAST vulnerable to ground fire, which are typically fast-moving and high-flying attack jets. So, they've reduced the human risk factor, but not nearly to the extent that many people believe they have.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
The draft didn't exactly prevent the US from getting involved in Vietnam. Or Korea. Or the Second World War. Or the First. Or the Spanish-American War. Or cease our involvement in the Civil War. When opposition to those wars occurred, the draft was a factor, but a far, FAR greater factor was the sheer number of people getting killed. Remember, we lost over 50,000 people in Vietnam, and 400,000 in the Second World War. Iraq and Afghanistan have only accounted for 5,200, which while not insignificant pales in comparison to the losses the US suffered in previous wars. That simple fact is a far greater reason why we haven't seen Vietnam-level protest movements, not the lack of a draft. Also, as an aside and speaking as a 21-year old, every time I hear someone say "We should bring back the draft" for whatever reason, for SOME REASON they're typically not of draft age. Just saying.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Anyone who calls him a hero is most likely not in possession of all the facts. Anybody calling for his head or saying that he should have been left behind, however, should be ashamed of themselves. In the past 150 years, only a single person in the United States Armed Forces has been shot for desertion, and that was under extraordinary circumstances during some of the heaviest fighting the US Army has ever seen. What makes this man's crimes so great that he should be left imprisoned a world away from home? It's a sad example of the piss-poor state of affairs in this country that bringing home a POW, no matter the circumstances of their imprisonment, is somehow controversial.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 05:46
|
|