Should i join the military?

[brandon]

YouTube - Universal Soldier

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Nice vid right there ^^

 

[warcolour]

life is not payable; never ever!!!

 

[oyarde]

life is not payable; never ever!!!

Welcome to the board .

 

[Pericles]

My Dad ( Korean war vet ) tried to talk me out of it . Think I listened ?

Or, maybe you already knew that only the dead have seen the end of war.

 

[Acala]

yes

Or, maybe you already knew that only the dead have seen the end of war.

Yes, only when human consciousness changes will we see an end to war and I don't expect to live to see that day. But we can dramatically reduce the amount of war Americans see by letting go of our pathologically arrogant belief that we are somehow authorized and qualified to police the world, attacking countries that don't behave the way we think they should. Like North Korea. Right Pericles?

 

[bkreigh]

Of course, but he asked our opinion. Saying "it's up to you" isn't giving him an opinion. It is refusing his request.

If you read the rest of my post i gave him my opinion. In the end its up to him and him only.


He is talking about the SEALS. I'm not an expert but I am thinking that SEALS generally end up shooting people.[/QUOTE]

I understand he was thinking about joining the SEALS and i understand what they do. Instead of telling him "hell no" or whatever else why not give him some other options inside the military?

 

[DFF]

If your goal in life is to die in war, and/or be maimed for life...

Then Yes.

Otherwise...

F**** NO!!!

 

[oyarde]

Yes, only when human consciousness changes will we see an end to war and I don't expect to live to see that day. But we can dramatically reduce the amount of war Americans see by letting go of our pathologically arrogant belief that we are somehow authorized and qualified to police the world, attacking countries that don't behave the way we think they should. Like North Korea. Right Pericles?

We will not attack North Korea that I could imagine .

 

[Acala]

North Korea

We will not attack North Korea that I could imagine .

It would be a horrible mistake, but, nonetheless, is supported by Pericles.

 

[Pericles]

It would be a horrible mistake, but, nonetheless, is supported by Pericles.

Once again, I have never advocated any attack on N. Korea, and my position is that as long as we have a treaty to defend S. Korea, we honor the treaty and respond to an attack on S. Korea as required by the treaty.

Is the treaty a good idea under present circumstances? Only to the extent we prevent S. Korea from being able to develop nukes in order to maintain the balance of power is my opinion..

 

[Acala]

Sorry

Once again, I have never advocated any attack on N. Korea, and my position is that as long as we have a treaty to defend S. Korea, we honor the treaty and respond to an attack on S. Korea as required by the treaty.

Is the treaty a good idea under present circumstances? Only to the extent we prevent S. Korea from being able to develop nukes in order to maintain the balance of power is my opinion..

My apologies.

Let's be clear, you advocate defending South Korea against North Korea using military force as needed.

And you support the existing treaty to defend South Korea as a way of balancing power.

So you believe the US should intervene in the affairs of foreign nations that are no threat to us in order to maintain YOUR view of the proper balance of power on the other side of the planet. Correct?

I think you also believe in the use of covert means - spying, assassination, and other such skullduggery - to help mold the world. Am I correct?

So it is essential for your interventionist foreign policy that you have a continuous supply of people like the OP to help force the world to behave the way you think they should, correct?

 

[Pericles]

My apologies.

Let's be clear, you advocate defending South Korea against North Korea using military force as needed.

And you support the existing treaty to defend South Korea as a way of balancing power.

So you believe the US should intervene in the affairs of foreign nations that are no threat to us in order to maintain YOUR view of the proper balance of power on the other side of the planet. Correct?

I think you also believe in the use of covert means - spying, assassination, and other such skullduggery - to help mold the world. Am I correct?

So it is essential for your interventionist foreign policy that you have a continuous supply of people like the OP to help force the world to behave the way you think they should, correct?

George Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements was good advice and I wish that advice was followed. It has not, and the US has entered into military alliances with other countries (NATO, SEATO, S. Korea, and ROC). There has not been the claim made that such treaties have not been ratified by the Senate or are incompatible with the Constitution of the United States.

Thus, I obey those provisions as the supreme law of the land, having sworn to support and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the the same.

It must be that I have lived in Europe too long, and no longer am able to communicate in comprehensible English.

 

[Acala]

?

George Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements was good advice and I wish that advice was followed. It has not, and the US has entered into military alliances with other countries (NATO, SEATO, S. Korea, and ROC). There has not been the claim made that such treaties have not been ratified by the Senate or are incompatible with the Constitution of the United States.

Thus, I obey those provisions as the supreme law of the land, having sworn to support and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the the same.

It must be that I have lived in Europe too long, and no longer am able to communicate in comprehensible English.

First of all, treaties can be refudiated (hehe) with the stroke of the President's pen. There ends ALL the treaties that supposedly support the world empire, including our half-century stay in Korea.

Did you think that once you enter a treaty you can NEVER get out of it? Did you think that we are FOREVER bound to the world empire?

Besides, you said that the treaty with South Korea is good "to the extent we prevent S. Korea from being able to develop nukes in order to maintain the balance of power is my opinion.. " which is a convoluted way of saying that you support our intervention in Korea as a matter of manipulating the affairs of foreign nations.

But let's cut to the chase here: do you support ending all foreign entanglements immediately and bringing all our troops home?

Do you support ending all of our covert attempts to interfere with the business of other nations and people?

 

[Acala]

So

George Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements was good advice and I wish that advice was followed. It has not, and the US has entered into military alliances with other countries (NATO, SEATO, S. Korea, and ROC). There has not been the claim made that such treaties have not been ratified by the Senate or are incompatible with the Constitution of the United States.

Thus, I obey those provisions as the supreme law of the land, having sworn to support and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the the same.

It must be that I have lived in Europe too long, and no longer am able to communicate in comprehensible English.

Just wondering, when the US signs the small arms control treaty, are you going to help them go house to house collecting guns?

 

[Pericles]

Just wondering, when the US signs the small arms control treaty, are you going to help them go house to house collecting guns?

Incompatible with the Constitution - not a valid treaty.

Can the President refudiate (sic) [maybe you mean repudiate] the Constitution with the stroke of a pen as well?

Unlike the ACLU, I support the whole Constitution - not just the parts I like.

Enough of the if you don't agree with me on X, then you must believe Y argument - I have more respect for you than that. It would be like me accusing you of being opposed to the Constitution based on you statements in this thread, which even if true, are for you to so state, not for me to automatically assume.

 

[Acala]

Incompatible with the Constitution - not a valid treaty..

Where in the Constitution is the President granted power to police the world?

Can the President refudiate (sic) [maybe you mean repudiate] the Constitution with the stroke of a pen as well?..

Of course not. (Refudiate is a Sarah Palin joke) But treaties with foreign nations are not the Constitution. They are temporary alliances. They come and go with the changing tides. They are certainly not permanent, binding obligations.

Enough of the if you don't agree with me on X, then you must believe Y argument - I have more respect for you than that. It would be like me accusing you of being opposed to the Constitution based on you statements in this thread, which even if true, are for you to so state, not for me to automatically assume.

Then come out with it. You make coy comments and oblique references and then disappear when it comes time to make youself clear.

So answer the question: is it a proper function of the US government to use the military to EVER intervene in the affairs of nations that are no immediate threat to us?

Should the US government withdraw from all entangling alliances?

I believe you support an interventionist foreign policy. If you don't, say it straight out and I will apologize.

 

[Pericles]

Where in the Constitution is the President granted power to police the world?



Of course not. (Refudiate is a Sarah Palin joke) But treaties with foreign nations are not the Constitution. They are temporary alliances. They come and go with the changing tides. They are certainly not permanent, binding obligations.



Then come out with it. You make coy comments and oblique references and then disappear when it comes time to make youself clear.

So answer the question: is it a proper function of the US government to use the military to EVER intervene in the affairs of nations that are no immediate threat to us?

Should the US government withdraw from all entangling alliances?

I believe you support an interventionist foreign policy. If you don't, say it straight out and I will apologize.

You are obviously an interventionist because you want to extend the Constitutional rights of US citizens to everyone else in the world which can only be done via the US government extending it to the rest of the world.

See how easy it is to make the accusation?

 

[muzzled dogg]

no

 

[Acala]

lol

You are obviously an interventionist because you want to extend the Constitutional rights of US citizens to everyone else in the world which can only be done via the US government extending it to the rest of the world.

See how easy it is to make the accusation?

Hahahaha! And again you avoid answering a straight question.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking you a question. Here is the question, yet again - do you support the US government using military force to intervene in the affairs of other nations that are no immediate threat to this country?