Info prior to speaking to recruiter?

[adam3176]

I served proudly for twenty years. That being said, there is no way I'd join the military now. I could not serve under this president, nor could I be a part of the kind of military he has turned it into.

Despite that, I find the comments of the poster above who hurled a vulgarity at any vets who might disagree with him on this point to be beyond contempt.

Just as contemptible is the vulgarity hurled back.

Can we rationally discuss hot topics without becoming vulgar little children?

Im sorry you feel the president runs this country. Thanks for serving.

 

[OC for ME]

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?

We do not know if his views on liberty would be translated into actions that defend a citizen's liberty while on the job as a cop. Whether he transforms into a rights abusing thug cop or simply does not stop obvious rights abuses he may witness as a liberty loving cop is unknown. But what I do know is reiterated below.

It is rare, very rare, to have thug cops outed by their fellow officers. You should know this to be true. Those in LE hold a dim view of snitches amongst their ranks.

 

[carolina guy]

We do not know if his views on liberty would be translated into actions that defend a citizen's liberty while on the job as a cop. Whether he transforms into a rights abusing thug cop or simply does not stop obvious rights abuses he may witness as a liberty loving cop is unknown. But what I do know is reiterated below.

It is rare, very rare, to have thug cops outed by their fellow officers. You should know this to be true. Those in LE hold a dim view of snitches amongst their ranks.

Guilty until proven innocent?

 

[sharkey]

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.

********. Stupid censor, Oh geez, BS

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...ainst-japan-to-contain-russian-ambitions.html

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.​

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]​

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

​

​

 

[OC for ME]

Guilty until proven innocent?

No law against that. Ask any cop.

 

[sharkey]

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.

Not that you'll read this since you have me on ignore but this article has a good point on killing innocents .... far removed from a battlefield. Especially double taps hitting rescue workers.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/united-nations-drones/

Emmerson told a press conference in London that he’s going to focus on 25 test cases, seemingly of drone strikes, primarily. (Drone strikes and targeted killings are distinct U.S. efforts — targeted killing often employs drones, but drone efforts go beyond the lethal strikes — that often get conflated.) The Guardian previously reported that Emmerson has expressed concern about so-called “double-tap” strikes, in which U.S. drones attack the debris of earlier strikes when people, including rescue workers, gather to investigate.
Drone critics are cheering the inquiry, which follows years of international-law experts warning the U.S. was dancing on the precipice of lawlessness. “Virtually no other country agrees with the U.S.’s claimed authority to secretly declare people enemies of the state and kill them and civilian bystanders far from any recognized battlefield,” said Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union. “To date, there has been an abysmal lack of transparency and no accountability for the U.S. government’s ever-expanding targeted killing program.”

 

[carolina guy]

No law against that. Ask any cop.

(*shrug*)

 

[Freedom1Man]

My personal opinion(s) aside...

Get EVERYTHING in writing. If it is not on your contract they will not honor it and even if it is on your contract make sure it's spelled out so you don't get burned.


That is my advice, the military will S-C-R-E-W you over if you let it.

Oh and if you talk about the Constitution that puts a target on you. Well it did while I was in. Who knows maybe it's better now. Good luck.

 

[AZRobert]

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 did 9 years in the CG, I loved it. The arguments being made against the military from the folks in this thread also don't really apply to Coasties. I don't think we have an ROTC program but you can do reserves or OCS.

When dealing with a recruiter remember that nothing, literally nothing they say is worth anything unless it's on a document signed by them.

 

[eye95]

IIRC, commitments incurred from ROTC can be completed in any branch of the service. You just have to be accepted by that branch. Check into that. If such a program is still in existence (and includes the Coast Guard), you can use ROTC to earn a commission and ask to serve your commitment in the CG. I'm sure that a Naval ROTC would increase the chance of the CG wanting you, as opposed to, say, Army ROTC.

 

[DWCook]

Whatever branch you decide to join I still salute you as a fellow member too! Everyone is entitled to there opinion. Prior Air Force, now Army Reserve 25Bravo!