-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Info prior to speaking to recruiter?
- Thread starter theaero
- Start date
77zach
Regular Member
I'm just internally consistent. I'm a strong libertarian and also relatively well read by today's standards. This can be a very painful condition to live with. No living vet has ever "served" my freedom in any way. My views were first introduced to me by my grandfather who "served" in WW2 on a battleship in the Pacific. He is now ashamed of that "service". Standing armies hurt my liberty and enhance the power of the state. Military "service" in this country at this time is no different than serving in the German military in the 30's and 40's. I've tried to warn the OP, and encourage him to do something productive, which admittedly is getting more and more difficult to do because of the growth of the warfare/welfare state.
Peace.
Peace.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Theaero,
I am a former US Marine, so I have some standing to comment. I too would advise to look closely before joining the military.
It was no fun, years later, to realize everything I thought I was doing was just so much cover story designed to make me feel all good and patriotic.
It starts with the federal government. There is a very important distinction to be made. The fedgov is not our country; it is not our nation. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the president or his advisers are the leaders of our society. The people in the fedgov are supposed to be our servants.
Their predecessors created an empire. True, it was more of an economic empire, but it is an empire nonetheless because our military has bases spanning the globe. And, the people currently in the fedgov are continuing to operate that empire.
Politicians lie to us routinely and daily about domestic matters. There is no reason at all to believe they suddenly develop angelic truthfulness when it comes to foreign matters.
Our military is no longer used to protect our interests. It is used to protect and promote the interests of the politicians. And, since there is a close symbiotic relationship with the largest banks and the large defense contractors, the military is used to promote the interests of these two groups, also.
This has been going on for many, many years. Some quick examples. You can find on-line for free a booklet called War is a Racket. The author is a USMC general named Smedley Butler. He wrote it after he retired in the (1930's?) He came to realize the Banana Wars in central America were all about protecting US business interests in central America. He realized he and his troops were used as a highly paid enforcer by the business interests.
During the Viet Nam era, a certain incident called the Gulf of Tonkin was used to justify getting the US more deeply involved in Viet Nam. Several years ago, then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara expressly admitted the Gulf of Tonkin incident never occurred as reported. There was a brief encounter between a US warship and a couple N. Vietnamese patrol boats. McNamara finally came clean admitting the incident was blown all out of proportion in order to justify vastly increasing US military involvement in Viet Nam. Some 58K Americans were killed in that war.
In Iraq, nobody ever proved more than a few chemical weapons in Saddam Hussein's possession. Certainly, nobody came close to proving nuclear weapons. And, certainly, there was no Al Queda. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed or had their lives ruined.
Regarding Afghanistan, how was Osama bin Ladin finally finished off? A raid? So, why the massive war? Why not just a raid back in 2002?
More recently, numerous Pakistani civilians have been killed in drone strikes. The US government has all but said that if you are near a terrorist, then you are probably a terrorist, too.
The government's justifications seem to make sense on a superficial level. But, a few questions starts crumbling the government's case.
What's the official count of US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan? 40K wounded, many with legs and genitals blown off? (Oh, yes. You never hear that discussed. When a mine blows off your legs, it sometimes, perhaps often, destroys your genitals.)
Now for a quick example of how callous these people are. After the first Gulf War, the US pushed for sanctions on Iraq. Hussein, being a criminal, predictably diverted what resources he had away from his citizens. The upshot was a UN report that half a million Iraqi children died because of the economic shortages caused by the sanctions. US Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked about it in an interview. She said the 500K dead Iraqi children was worth it. Now, think about that for a second. She did not dispute the UN figures. She did not question the UN methodology of the study, nor question their motives. She said it was worth it. Half a million children.
And, a quick example of how stupid these people can be. Not long ago there was an alleged plot "uncovered" to harm the ambassador of an oil ally. The alleged killer turned out to be a Mexican used car salesman or something. The whole government story was so stupid, the media didn't just criticize it--they laughed at it. The matter was quickly dropped.
Our military is not "serving our country." It is serving the interests of the people in the fedgov, the profitability of defense contractors whose lobbyists are always promoting their biggest and best new toys for killing, and the largest banks because vast amounts of the military spending is supported by loans (federal debt). And, while the military is busy not serving our country, it is killing thousands of human beings overseas.
Now, that we're at the other end of my little discussion, I fully acknowledge that some, most, or all of what I wrote may be a little difficult to accept. I would leave you with one thought. Some of the other commenters above are also former military like myself. Even if you cannot accept what we've written at face value, you can ask yourself whether the question is important enough to do more research before getting yourself maimed or killed, or helping to maim or kill some poor joe in another country who's maybe just trying to get the foreigners out of his country. Or, worse, help maim or kill a man, woman, or child who wanted no part of the violence. There is a lot available on-line. Its less common because its not the official government story. And, the media doesn't push that kind of information; but its not hidden. A good place to start is that booklet I mentioned, War is Racket by Smedley Butler. Another good source is the libertarian website at the Mises Institute. Also, videos on YouTube by Ron Paul and Dr. Thomas Woods.
You can still serve your country. Just realize that your country is the 330 million citizens, rather than the government. The man who goes to work in the morning and produces some new computer code, or rebuilds a transmission, or delivers a UPS package is serving his fellow citizens.
I am a former US Marine, so I have some standing to comment. I too would advise to look closely before joining the military.
It was no fun, years later, to realize everything I thought I was doing was just so much cover story designed to make me feel all good and patriotic.
It starts with the federal government. There is a very important distinction to be made. The fedgov is not our country; it is not our nation. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the president or his advisers are the leaders of our society. The people in the fedgov are supposed to be our servants.
Their predecessors created an empire. True, it was more of an economic empire, but it is an empire nonetheless because our military has bases spanning the globe. And, the people currently in the fedgov are continuing to operate that empire.
Politicians lie to us routinely and daily about domestic matters. There is no reason at all to believe they suddenly develop angelic truthfulness when it comes to foreign matters.
Our military is no longer used to protect our interests. It is used to protect and promote the interests of the politicians. And, since there is a close symbiotic relationship with the largest banks and the large defense contractors, the military is used to promote the interests of these two groups, also.
This has been going on for many, many years. Some quick examples. You can find on-line for free a booklet called War is a Racket. The author is a USMC general named Smedley Butler. He wrote it after he retired in the (1930's?) He came to realize the Banana Wars in central America were all about protecting US business interests in central America. He realized he and his troops were used as a highly paid enforcer by the business interests.
During the Viet Nam era, a certain incident called the Gulf of Tonkin was used to justify getting the US more deeply involved in Viet Nam. Several years ago, then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara expressly admitted the Gulf of Tonkin incident never occurred as reported. There was a brief encounter between a US warship and a couple N. Vietnamese patrol boats. McNamara finally came clean admitting the incident was blown all out of proportion in order to justify vastly increasing US military involvement in Viet Nam. Some 58K Americans were killed in that war.
In Iraq, nobody ever proved more than a few chemical weapons in Saddam Hussein's possession. Certainly, nobody came close to proving nuclear weapons. And, certainly, there was no Al Queda. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed or had their lives ruined.
Regarding Afghanistan, how was Osama bin Ladin finally finished off? A raid? So, why the massive war? Why not just a raid back in 2002?
More recently, numerous Pakistani civilians have been killed in drone strikes. The US government has all but said that if you are near a terrorist, then you are probably a terrorist, too.
The government's justifications seem to make sense on a superficial level. But, a few questions starts crumbling the government's case.
What's the official count of US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan? 40K wounded, many with legs and genitals blown off? (Oh, yes. You never hear that discussed. When a mine blows off your legs, it sometimes, perhaps often, destroys your genitals.)
Now for a quick example of how callous these people are. After the first Gulf War, the US pushed for sanctions on Iraq. Hussein, being a criminal, predictably diverted what resources he had away from his citizens. The upshot was a UN report that half a million Iraqi children died because of the economic shortages caused by the sanctions. US Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked about it in an interview. She said the 500K dead Iraqi children was worth it. Now, think about that for a second. She did not dispute the UN figures. She did not question the UN methodology of the study, nor question their motives. She said it was worth it. Half a million children.
And, a quick example of how stupid these people can be. Not long ago there was an alleged plot "uncovered" to harm the ambassador of an oil ally. The alleged killer turned out to be a Mexican used car salesman or something. The whole government story was so stupid, the media didn't just criticize it--they laughed at it. The matter was quickly dropped.
Our military is not "serving our country." It is serving the interests of the people in the fedgov, the profitability of defense contractors whose lobbyists are always promoting their biggest and best new toys for killing, and the largest banks because vast amounts of the military spending is supported by loans (federal debt). And, while the military is busy not serving our country, it is killing thousands of human beings overseas.
Now, that we're at the other end of my little discussion, I fully acknowledge that some, most, or all of what I wrote may be a little difficult to accept. I would leave you with one thought. Some of the other commenters above are also former military like myself. Even if you cannot accept what we've written at face value, you can ask yourself whether the question is important enough to do more research before getting yourself maimed or killed, or helping to maim or kill some poor joe in another country who's maybe just trying to get the foreigners out of his country. Or, worse, help maim or kill a man, woman, or child who wanted no part of the violence. There is a lot available on-line. Its less common because its not the official government story. And, the media doesn't push that kind of information; but its not hidden. A good place to start is that booklet I mentioned, War is Racket by Smedley Butler. Another good source is the libertarian website at the Mises Institute. Also, videos on YouTube by Ron Paul and Dr. Thomas Woods.
You can still serve your country. Just realize that your country is the 330 million citizens, rather than the government. The man who goes to work in the morning and produces some new computer code, or rebuilds a transmission, or delivers a UPS package is serving his fellow citizens.
Last edited:
77zach
Regular Member
You stated reality far better than I could ever have done. If I may ask, how long after you left the "service" and/or what age did you uncover the red, white, and blue Matrix? Did you do it before the internet or after?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
No offense, John. But, I think you miss the mark.
Years after my service, but before I discovered my complicity in empire, I met a very high-ranking officer in the course of my job. He was retired. I had several opportunities to talk to him. At one point, I thanked him for his service and keeping the peace. He made a subtle odd expression on his face. It was only later that I realized he knew.
In his biography, Marine!, Chesty Puller doesn't bash the military, but he does let the cat peek out of the bag, by exposing the natures of high-ranking officers who forced him into retirement.
Curtis LeMay was willing to risk WWIII during the Cuban Missile crisis. And, he killed vast numbers of German and Japanese civilians with his saturation bombing missions.
And, none of those officers fell from the sky right into a uniform with eagles or stars on the collar. Every one of them started out as a fresh-faced lieutenant, his nature and inclinations already there.
It would be foolish to think the rest of the ranks do not contain similar men, and in quantity.
Even the newest, lowliest private cannot escape rejection of a Nuremburg Defense. His culpability may be lower, but its not non-existent. The troops know this, too. Wanta take odds on why the suicide rate is so high in the US military?
I am former military; I don't care if someone insults me because I know he's right. If he's off-base or overly harsh, its merely a matter of degree. He's more right than wrong.
Please abandon this PC intolerance of harsh criticism for the military. Other forum members will make a critic support his statements, will point out where he paints with too broad a brush.
carolina guy
Regular Member
Have you considered the local rescue squad, fire or police departments?
carolina guy
Regular Member
77zach,
I think it is safe to say that the military and political landscape of the world are a bit different today than in years past...the military could take the time needed to provide basic infantry training when our enemies would take weeks or months to mobilize and cross the oceans...not so much anymore. It would be nice to see our country a bit less entangled in the affairs of other countries abroad, but I don't think that justifies a blanket criticism of all who have been and currently are in the military.
That said, it is worthy to question the motives of our political leadership and those who influence them...and some very notable military and political leaders have suggested the same:
Now if you want to talk about "opportunity costs" of maintaining and using a large military:
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Oh, my story starts right here on this forum. Which in a way only makes sense.
OCers tend to be a pretty freedom-minded bunch. We arrive here with our pre-existing patriotism inculcated in Boy Scouts, school, the military, etc., believing in baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie.
Then we start running into things. For example, a belief that cops are heroes in blue taking personal risk to selflessly protect society ran smack into lots of cops willing to violate what little is left of the Fourth Amendment, or willing to ignore and/or coverup for those who do.
It takes a pretty hardy soul to maintain his pre-existing ideas about the wholesomeness of government in the face of discussions on this board, I can tell you.
I was already leaning heavily toward freedom after a little while on this board. Nothing special; call it an instinct in that direction. But it was just an impulse, undefined not well thought out.
Then a forum member sneaked one in on me: he recommended I read Second Treatise on Government by John Locke. Well, that did the business--pushed me right over the edge, because now I had definition and principles giving shape to that impulse for freedom.
And, the rest is just learning along the way. I'm not the brightest bulb. I'll connect and evaluate information, but I find it faster to read the writings of those who went before and/or are smarter than I, and can devote more time to their thinking on the subject than I can. Bhudda, Jesus, Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Spooner, Mises, Hayek, Herman-Hoppe, Rothbard, Paul, Rockwell, Wood.
The ideas of freedom hang together and align much, much better than the lies and justifications put forth by government and the statists who support it.
Last edited:
77zach
Regular Member
Makes perfect sense to me. I read Locke, heard the media castigating Ron Paul, then read The Creature from Jekyll Island. Not long afterward I decided to buy a pistol, now I have a new hobby complete with lots of scary black rifles. In the course of reading about guns I found OCDO in 2007. I enjoy reading this forum more than any other. Not sure why considering my slavers say I "can't" in Florida.
theaero
Regular Member
Actually yes. I just inquired about volunteer firefighting in Bellevue a few weeks ago. This week I've had midterms, so I haven't followed up, but plan to.
However, I am not looking for a career. There is a lot I don't like about many PD. Do they offer volunteer programs?
carolina guy
Regular Member
Quite a few departments do have volunteer programs, and it looks like BPD does as well:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/police-employment.htm
This one has more information on all the volunteer positions:
http://www.bellevuewa.gov/vol_police_admin.htm
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Thanks.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Which paled in comparison to what the imperial japanese did to territories they occupied. furthermore by the time japan was being saturation bombed the Japanese government knew they were going to lose the war without a doubt, but they refused to surrender until the atom bomb. Japan coulda surrended to the United States in 1943 and avoided all that. they knew there were losing anyway and chose to allow their people to be killed. who's fault is that? certainly not LeMay's.
eye95
Well-known member
Ya know, that whole "They killed civilians" crap is the same kinda of emotional argument you expect to get from leftist antis, not the rational one I expect here.
When a nation goes to war, it does so with the approval of its citizenry. At the very least that approval is is tacit. If the People don't rise up and remove the leaders, they are approving the war in which death and destruction are being wrought in their name--and risking personal death and destruction as a natural consequence.
So, while, IMO, it is evil to deliberately target civilians, the expectation that all strikes be surgical, ensuring only that the military target be taken out without civilian casualty is irrational and evil. Being careful of civilian casualties should be a strategic decision, not a tactical one. A force should choose to be extraordinarily surgical when it suits their purpose, such as to win the hearts and minds of the population.
We all know the only reason that Germany and Japan did not come over here, visiting death and destruction on the US. It had nothing to do with any moral superiority of not causing civilian casualties. The only moral motivation, once your in it, is to win it. More lives are saved by vanquishing an enemy quickly than by trying to do so carefully. And, most importantly, it is lives on your side of the front that are being saved by quick and decisive victory.
Let's be rational in our arguments. Let's leave emotion to the leftists.
When a nation goes to war, it does so with the approval of its citizenry. At the very least that approval is is tacit. If the People don't rise up and remove the leaders, they are approving the war in which death and destruction are being wrought in their name--and risking personal death and destruction as a natural consequence.
So, while, IMO, it is evil to deliberately target civilians, the expectation that all strikes be surgical, ensuring only that the military target be taken out without civilian casualty is irrational and evil. Being careful of civilian casualties should be a strategic decision, not a tactical one. A force should choose to be extraordinarily surgical when it suits their purpose, such as to win the hearts and minds of the population.
We all know the only reason that Germany and Japan did not come over here, visiting death and destruction on the US. It had nothing to do with any moral superiority of not causing civilian casualties. The only moral motivation, once your in it, is to win it. More lives are saved by vanquishing an enemy quickly than by trying to do so carefully. And, most importantly, it is lives on your side of the front that are being saved by quick and decisive victory.
Let's be rational in our arguments. Let's leave emotion to the leftists.
OC for ME
Regular Member
United States Coast Guard. More difficult to get in, but definitely worth the effort. In retrospect the USCG would have been the better choice.
I would like to point out that this country is not populated by 330 million "producers", but a number that is likely less than that and shrinking. This country is not chock-full-O-producers and I suspect that you know this.
This is a terrible suggestion. Ambulance (rescue squad) and firefighters are usually the first on the budgetary chopping block when a politician is thinking about his future political employment. The "entitled" are a far greater voting block than those who are employed as "first responders." Secondly, the surest path to creating a anti-liberty thug is recommend that a citizen become a police officer. A great many police officers compromise their principles to ensure continued employment.
Re
It seems that OCDO has ruled that "bashing" the military and vets is a Rule 9 violation. However, the bashing of politicians and the federal government is not a Rule 9 violation.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
The evil done by Japanese military in now way legitimizes the evil done by our government and military.
Read deeply on LeMay. You'll find he was very destructive personality who seemed to love war and killing. His advices to Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis was the frosting on the cake--he wanted to risk WWIII, while others in the administration were bending over backward trying to find a solution that avoided his risks.
The government always comes up with good or plausible rationalizations for its games.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Actually yes it does, we weren't involved in World War Two until the japanese attacked pearl harbor, and in a coordinated attack, attacked British and Dutch territory as well as Wake Island, Guam, and the Philipines. If you want to play ball with the big boys don't cry when you get hit in the face with a fast pitch.
This is like saying "well it was evil to rape and kill that woman, but it doesn't legitimize executing the offender" well actually... yes it does.
an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the cornerstone of Hammurabi's code, which is the earliest system of codified statute that I'm aware of.
As far as LeMay, I really don't care what he advocated as a solution to the cuban missile crisis, he was a professional officer who provided professional advice to the president. actually LeMay was quite the progressive, his biggest regret was being labeled a racist for running with George Wallace althought that's a different story.
77zach
Regular Member
Ah, yes, the collectivist mantra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEJ4OJTgg8
I want secession from your borg cube.
carolina guy
Regular Member
This is a terrible suggestion. Ambulance (rescue squad) and firefighters are usually the first on the budgetary chopping block when a politician is thinking about his future political employment. The "entitled" are a far greater voting block than those who are employed as "first responders." Secondly, the surest path to creating a anti-liberty thug is recommend that a citizen become a police officer. A great many police officers compromise their principles to ensure continued employment.Originally Posted by carolina guy
Have you considered the local rescue squad, fire or police departments?
Not so much when one is volunteering. But, since he has said he is not looking for a career...this would not seem to be a problem, eh?
So...someone who shares a view of liberty should not become a police officer? (*puzzled look*) Wouldn't it be good to have MORE police officers that are NOT elitist thugs?
eye95
Well-known member
Isn't it nice to blame the nebulous "government," instead of taking responsibility for standing by and letting them do what they will?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>