I'm pretty sure that Godwin's Law only applies in online arguments where all participants are American citizens? Especially when it comes to the US military, which apparently doesn't have a good global reputation, so good luck finding moderation on that subject by appealing to quirky web-enhanced concepts like the Nazi card. ;p

Don't quote me on this, I'll need to check the handbook that came with my internet service. It's a few pages after the Bechdel Test, I believe.

I'm in America so I can't really take a year off and teach English in Japan or Korea, or I would. I have no work visa, so I don't have any idea how I'd do that.

And no, guys, I don't think I'll be going into the military. I think my dad is budging on co-signing a loan. I'm a very passive and shy person and I really think the military is on the opposite side of the spectrum in regards to me.

In terms of business, that's still up in the air as my career. I'd like to maybe start a small business dealing with video games or something else I like, but obviously I have no idea. For medical, uh... well if I want to live in another country (which yes, I would like to) it's really shaky on the chances of getting anything.

Maybe if I show you my picture someday you can tell me if I'll be in medicine or business. That's how it works, right?

Passive and shy is probably not the best make up for a solider. Especially when thinking of the "disobeying illegal orders" part. It takes balls to tell your superior that, no, you won't pacify that village. The law may be on your side, but it may take a court martial to prove that, assuming your CO doesn't just shoot you for disobeying orders (well, not sure if they can still do that...).

Still, i think the violently anti-military views of some here are a little worrying. It's worth remembering that in the lead up to the Iraq war, there was a nearly even split between those who supported the war and those who didn't. Everyone who wore a uniform or had done so in the past was very against the invasion (I do not include Bush in this list). The only people who supported it were the chickenhawks. After the invasion seemed inevitable, the joint chiefs switched to pleading for at least an invasion force large enough to be able to conduct a proper occupation, with some ability to maintain the safety of civilians. They were denied. The civilians in charge were so confident the Iraqis would welcome the invasion force that they ignored all the advice from their military leaders.

Yeah, those stupid military guys. Thank god we've got civilian oversight!

zigmonty Wrote:Still, i think the violently anti-military views of some here are a little worrying. It's worth remembering that in the lead up to the Iraq war, there was a nearly even split between those who supported the war and those who didn't. Everyone who wore a uniform or had done so in the past was very against the invasion (I do not include Bush in this list). The only people who supported it were the chickenhawks. After the invasion seemed inevitable, the joint chiefs switched to pleading for at least an invasion force large enough to be able to conduct a proper occupation, with some ability to maintain the safety of civilians. They were denied. The civilians in charge were so confident the Iraqis would welcome the invasion force that they ignored all the advice from their military leaders.

Yeah, those stupid military guys. Thank god we've got civilian oversight!

Whoa, calm down, you're skewing this in an absurd way.

Yeah, the military leaders requested hundreds of thousands of more troops than were sent (the army initially requested 400,000 and we sent 140,000). But who was primarily responsible? Donald Rumsfeld. He completely ignored what the generals and the military in general wanted, so much so that he and Paul Wolfowitz basically fired Eric Shinseki, the army chief of staff who suggested at a Senate hearing that the number of people we were planning on sending was too few.

The guy primarily responsible for this was Rumsfeld, who's basically a gung-ho jingoist nutbag. And you're blamming the small amount of troops on anti-military sentiment? It has nothing to do with anti-military sentiment--the suggestions of the military didn't even really make it to congress because Rumsfled silenced them.

Rumsfeld took out stability operations from the original plan and made it ignore nearby areas and focus just on Baghdad. We all know that this turned out shitty--but it's got nothing to do with anti-war sentiment. Nobody knows why Rumsfeld thought it was a good idea. Whatever the reason, he was certainly wrong.

hah I just gave a quick scan of this thread... I am currently a Japanese Language & Literature major in AFROTC... I'll give you my personal opinion about it. The Air Force is cutting back drastically on it's Airmen. That includes both enlisted and officers... Not only that, but their funds are being dried up badly as well for scholarships. Even though I'm a second year AFROTC cadet I think I am switching to Army ROTC next year. Mainly because of their scholarship and job security. My Hope Scholarship already pays for all my classes and I can use the Army's scholarship to pay for my apartment. Army pays extra if you are studying foreign languages as well. You'll overcome any shyness issues quickly as you will be forced to.

And no, don't judge me for my thread writing skills. I don't English very often.

zigmonty Wrote:Still, i think the violently anti-military views of some here are a little worrying. It's worth remembering that in the lead up to the Iraq war, there was a nearly even split between those who supported the war and those who didn't. Everyone who wore a uniform or had done so in the past was very against the invasion (I do not include Bush in this list). The only people who supported it were the chickenhawks.

Where do you get this idea that the people in the military and veterans were against the Iraq war?

Hashiriya Wrote:hah I just gave a quick scan of this thread... I am currently a Japanese Language & Literature major in AFROTC... I'll give you my personal opinion about it. The Air Force is cutting back drastically on it's Airmen. That includes both enlisted and officers... Not only that, but their funds are being dried up badly as well for scholarships. Even though I'm a second year AFROTC cadet I think I am switching to Army ROTC next year. Mainly because of their scholarship and job security. My Hope Scholarship already pays for all my classes and I can use the Army's scholarship to pay for my apartment. Army pays extra if you are studying foreign languages as well. You'll overcome any shyness issues quickly as you will be forced to.

And no, don't judge me for my thread writing skills. I don't English very often.

From what my recruiters have been telling me, jobs are rather scarce in the Army as well, and it's not as easy to get enlisted nowadays, as opposed to the days when you'd walk into a recruiting office, tell em you wanna enlist, and you sign the contract a week later with no hassle.

One of the guys told me that the Army is currently at about 125% capacity and jobs were few and far between... whether that's true or not I don't know. They also tell me that sign-on bonuses are practically nonexistent, too. I remember when I was getting out of HS and people who were joining the Army were all so pumped because they'd get sign-on bonuses for just about anything.

Army is getting slightly full, but nothing near of what the Air Force is going through. They even have a blue to green program right now for Airmen who want to switch to the Army side.

Even if you didn't get an Army scholarship, they have a SMP program where you can serve in the reserves one weekend every month and gain money and experience while being in ROTC and taking classes at the same time. Once you graduate you can go active duty and will already have accumulated 4-years time in service in the reserves.

Tzadeck Wrote:It has nothing to do with anti-military sentiment--the suggestions of the military didn't even really make it to congress because Rumsfled silenced them.

Sorry, i should have been clearer. I wasn't suggesting the bad decisions in Iraq were due to anti-military sentiment. I was just trying to argue that the US military is not a bunch of war-mad, ignorant sadists and agreeing with the comment earlier that the military is a tool (albeit a pretty blunt one, surgical strike is an oxymoron) and misuses of it should be blamed on the civilians who authorized the operation. For an group whose job is to conduct operations of highly organized violence, the US military comes off pretty squeaky clean imho. And i'm not an American.

(I was also pretty calm when i wrote that... sorry if i came off otherwise.)

I still think the choice to join the military should not be taken lightly (i considered it and decided against it). Especially in this environment of insanely misguided wars. Defending one's country is one thing, the stuff going on these days... no thanks.

zigmonty, you think the populace just jumps up and suddenly wants to go to war?

America constantly uses political tactics to cause people to want war.

You say it as if American's are bloodthirsty and like war.

zachandhobbes Wrote:zigmonty, you think the populace just jumps up and suddenly wants to go to war?

America constantly uses political tactics to cause people to want war.

You say it as if American's are bloodthirsty and like war.

When did i claim the Iraq war was the American people's idea?? When i said "the only people who supported it were the chickenhawks", i was referring the politicians and Rumsfeld in particular, not the average guy on the street.

I fully subscribe to the view that the American people were lied to (so were the Australian people) and a lot was invested in manufacturing the public support required for war. I'm just trying to say don't blame the military for the boneheaded decisions of the politicians at the time.

Now, the boneheaded decision of the american people in electing and re-electing Bush... Well, that's the downside to democracy: you lose the right to disclaim all responsibility for the actions of your leaders. I still don't blame the American people for the war. It's probably not commonly known, but Australia was a minor part of the initial invasion (we were with the British down south i believe). We were sold the same horseshit you guys were.

Anyway, I *am* anti-war, i'm just not anti-military.

The three amigos (Bush, Blair and Howard) need to be convicted of war crimes.

thecite Wrote:The three amigos (Bush, Blair and Howard) need to be convicted of war crimes.

We lynched a few germans for "Starting a war of aggression", didn't we?

If America had used its military might the past 50 years preparing meals, building homes, treating the sick, and educating the poor of the world, we wouldn't have a single enemy in the world today.

It sounds naive, but it is not. I think it will be the future of a more evolved world.

As a start I would like to state that I did not join the military, so I do not speak from an insider position. I do not support killing people and I am not a supporter of war. However, I believe the military of functioning democratic states serve a necessary and useful function.

I am probably in the upper age range of the participants here, and I know a bit or two when it comes to career moves. In my life in engineering and general management I met quite a few people who spent some part of their life in the military. Those who “only” (no disrespect intended) served a minimum term as “normal” soldiers were not different than civilians, but many of those who spend significant time in officer positions had remarkable management and leadership skills. This applies independent of nationality.
You stated before that you are more on the shy side. You might want to work on this. Trying to get some officer experience may be a valuable development step for you.

In regard to your choice between business and health, please keep in mind that this is just a start. Nowadays education does not finish with your first degree (sorry to break the news). It is meanwhile quite normal to meet people with several different degrees, earned either through fulltime studies, or through part-time studies parallel to their work. Your first degree is just an entry step, development will not stop there. With this in mind I recommend to chose first based on your interest (as long as the field offers at least a reasonable chance of getting a decent job). The rest will come with your normal development. As such, I would not be surprised to see you first studying health (for example), and then a few years later you add a business degree. And then life may take a couple of more funny turns, and you may discover a long hidden interest in law. One never knows.