Don't rule out the Army either, You have a much better chance of being a sniper, green beret, Delta, ranger in the Army just due to it's sheer size alone. The Army has more units that fall under SOCOM than anyone.
Doesn't he have to be an NCO to get into the green berets or delta?
Doesn't he have to be an NCO to get into the green berets or delta?
There taking guys right out of high school and sending them to selection. The logic is that you can make a civilian with no military experience a green beret much easier than that of a soldier that's been corrupted by the "regular" army. the whole thing has a lot of guys in the regular army who try out really pissed off. I think the programs only a few years old. One good thing Rumsfeld did was expand the green berets by 15000 troops, just by that it kind of makes it a little easier to get your foot in the door.
One caveat though, if you fail selection or get medically disqualified, then hello infantry!
i'm enlisting in the marine corps next year, so i'd like to know who else on here has served.
also, i can't believe the negative connotations that joining an armed service has these days. sure, the war in iraq is largely unpopular, but is that any reason to treat those who want to and are serving with disrespect? forgein policy is not up to them. be mad at the politicians, not the marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
i'm joining to be a part of something bigger than myself. i'm joining for the brotherhood, the experience, the discipline, and the life long honor. do i agree with all aspects of the war? no. am i going to let that stop me from joining something that has a long history of bravery, honor, loyalty and service? absoluetly fucking not. the qualities i aspire to and admire most are also the principles of the marine corps.
i can't help but think this is turning into another vietnam, where you can't wear your uniform in public for fear of being rediculed, spit on, and cursed at. if you have so much empathy (for the iraqies, etc.), why aren't you more understanding of americans who feel an obligation or need to serve their country?
i'm enlisting in the marine corps next year, so i'd like to know who else on here has served.
also, i can't believe the negative connotations that joining an armed service has these days. sure, the war in iraq is largely unpopular, but is that any reason to treat those who want to and are serving with disrespect? forgein policy is not up to them. be mad at the politicians, not the marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
i'm joining to be a part of something bigger than myself. i'm joining for the brotherhood, the experience, the discipline, and the life long honor. do i agree with all aspects of the war? no. am i going to let that stop me from joining something that has a long history of bravery, honor, loyalty and service? absoluetly fucking not. the qualities i aspire to and admire most are also the principles of the marine corps.
i can't help but think this is turning into another vietnam, where you can't wear your uniform in public for fear of being rediculed, spit on, and cursed at. if you have so much empathy (for the iraqies, etc.), why aren't you more understanding of americans who feel an obligation or need to serve their country?
I worked for a mid-sized American corporation who's owner believed all Americans should follow the model of some scandinavian countries and implement compulsory military service to our 17-21 year olds. I thought he was a kook, yet on the other hand if you think about it, there's nothing like serving one's country in such a manner that brings one immediately into the policies of one's own country. America needs to snap out of it's apathy that way. I take my hat off to you and your decision to partake. Semper Fidelis, and the best of fortune.
Everytime i hear about another American soldier dying in iraq I get angry at the people who concocted this bullshit war. Its one thing to fight for a noble cause, and have your dedication serve some greater good. Its quite another to take a bullet for a pack of lies, and to sacrifce your life for a testosterone-laden tangent.
Lets see.... I, the potential applicant, am to fight for a gov't that thinks nothing of putting me in harm's way, and for a cause that is marginally related, at best, to the defence of my country. More likely, i am the grunt who is fulfilling the wishes of a small band of ideologues in Washington who couldn't give a fuck about myself, my family, or our nations greater good. I am nothing more than an agent for their skewed selfish agendas, and a proxy for their crimes around the world.
What's so noble, patriotic or intelligent about that ?
Thanks for stopping by Hatemonger. Way to go. You truly never cease to amaze me with your ability to go off on your little tirade's. Why did you even bother posting in this thread, if you think he's neither noble, patriotic, nor intelligent? Way to piss on his back and then tell him its rain. You must be a ball at parties.
To the OP, good luck, god's speed, and thank you. Stay safe. Semper Fi.
i'm enlisting in the marine corps next year, so i'd like to know who else on here has served.
also, i can't believe the negative connotations that joining an armed service has these days. sure, the war in iraq is largely unpopular, but is that any reason to treat those who want to and are serving with disrespect? forgein policy is not up to them. be mad at the politicians, not the marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
i'm joining to be a part of something bigger than myself. i'm joining for the brotherhood, the experience, the discipline, and the life long honor. do i agree with all aspects of the war? no. am i going to let that stop me from joining something that has a long history of bravery, honor, loyalty and service? absoluetly fucking not. the qualities i aspire to and admire most are also the principles of the marine corps.
i can't help but think this is turning into another vietnam, where you can't wear your uniform in public for fear of being rediculed, spit on, and cursed at. if you have so much empathy (for the iraqies, etc.), why aren't you more understanding of americans who feel an obligation or need to serve their country?
I don't know where you get this idea that men and women in uniform are being ridiculed for their service. I'm sure you could pick out a few people, but it is a tiny fringe minority of assholes who doing that. It's nothing like the Vietnam days and from what I hear, the stories of troops being "spit on" were exaggerated. In any event, I have not heard ANY of such stories during this war. All the anger is directed towards the Bush administration, where it belongs.
I think it's the most noble thing ever to risk your life to protect others, however I also think it's a MASSIVE mistake to join the U.S. armed forces at this moment in time, given the current corruption of our government. To sign your life away to these assholes is to make yourself a pawn in a war for profit. The only "winners" in this war are the companies who get billions of dollars from no-bid government contracts. The Iraq War serves no purpose to the American people. If you want to save lives, join the police force or be a fireman.
Furthermore, if you get your arm blown off or go psycho because of what you see over there, don't expect to get the treatment you deserve.
I don't know where you get this idea that men and women in uniform are being ridiculed for their service. I'm sure you could pick out a few people, but it is a tiny fringe minority of assholes who doing that. It's nothing like the Vietnam days and from what I hear, the stories of troops being "spit on" were exaggerated. In any event, I have not heard ANY of such stories during this war. All the anger is directed towards the Bush administration, where it belongs.
I think it's the most noble thing ever to risk your life to protect others, however I also think it's a MASSIVE mistake to join the U.S. armed forces at this moment in time, given the current corruption of our government. To sign your life away to these assholes is to make yourself a pawn in a war for profit. The only "winners" in this war are the companies who get billions of dollars from no-bid government contracts. The Iraq War serves no purpose to the American people. If you want to save lives, join the police force or be a fireman.
Furthermore, if you get your arm blown off or go psycho because of what you see over there, don't expect to get the treatment you deserve.
The support for our military has never been stronger!
The only ones that seem to undermine that support are those who are saying the truth is bad for our military.
In voluntary enlistment the enlistee has a choice of MOS (Military Occupational
Specialty). So, you need to choose a contract which is Open or Guaranteed. They want you to take an Open enlistment (with the idea you can change it later) so they can choose what and when and where they want you to be. Choose a Guaranteed contract and they will still pressure you (often successfully) on your choices, but at least you may find a practical vocation to bring back to your civilian life.
Everytime i hear about another American soldier dying in iraq I get angry at the people who concocted this bullshit war. Its one thing to fight for a noble cause, and have your dedication serve some greater good. Its quite another to take a bullet for a pack of lies, and to sacrifce your life for a testosterone-laden tangent.
Lets see.... I, the potential applicant, am to fight for a gov't that thinks nothing of putting me in harm's way, and for a cause that is marginally related, at best, to the defence of my country. More likely, i am the grunt who is fulfilling the wishes of a small band of ideologues in Washington who couldn't give a fuck about myself, my family, or our nations greater good. I am nothing more than an agent for their skewed selfish agendas, and a proxy for their crimes around the world.
What's so noble, patriotic or intelligent about that ?
It is difficult, believe me I know, to take a philosophical look at this current Iraq situation, yet, as an intelligent thinker, you must.
There is a changing of the guard taking place in our nation's capital, and as pithy and pathetic as that may seem, I believe it is for the better. There is no effort implementable in this country that will dissuade those who will fight for joining in the defense of this country. And so it is.
I don't know where you get this idea that men and women in uniform are being ridiculed for their service. I'm sure you could pick out a few people, but it is a tiny fringe minority of assholes who doing that. It's nothing like the Vietnam days and from what I hear, the stories of troops being "spit on" were exaggerated. In any event, I have not heard ANY of such stories during this war. All the anger is directed towards the Bush administration, where it belongs.
I think it's the most noble thing ever to risk your life to protect others, however I also think it's a MASSIVE mistake to join the U.S. armed forces at this moment in time, given the current corruption of our government. To sign your life away to these assholes is to make yourself a pawn in a war for profit. The only "winners" in this war are the companies who get billions of dollars from no-bid government contracts. The Iraq War serves no purpose to the American people. If you want to save lives, join the police force or be a fireman.
Furthermore, if you get your arm blown off or go psycho because of what you see over there, don't expect to get the treatment you deserve.
So only join in peacetime? Or pick and choose what conflicts you want to partake in? It doesn't work like that. And you can definately argue that this war doesn't serve the American people. But what about other people that need our help? I didn't join the Army to be a humanitarian, yet through various humanitarian and reconstruction missions I participated in, I can say I made a difference and I feel really good about it. The kid wanted advice from Vets right?
there's nothing like serving one's country in such a manner that brings one immediately into the policies of one's own country.
The policies of ones own country? What the fuck are you on about? A country doesn't make policies, Governments make policies. And your present Government are a bunch of corrupt money-Nazis who care only about lining their own pockets and those of their rich buddies. Semper fi my arse!
The support for our military has never been stronger!
The only ones that seem to undermine that support are those who are saying the truth is bad for our military.
Your first sentence may be true. Your second sentence makes no sense. As for the 'truth', please explain what you mean.
I didn't join the Army to be a humanitarian, yet through various humanitarian and reconstruction missions I participated in, I can say I made a difference and I feel really good about it. The kid wanted advice from Vets right?
Strange place to seek advice from Vets. Anyway, as for humanitarian and reconstruction missions, we're not talking about that. We're talking about the prospect that he'll be sent off to Iraq or Afghanistan to fight, kill, and risk being killed. I wish him the best of luck. I also wish those civilians on the receiving end of the illegal occupation the best of luck.
Just because the particular govenment that happens to be in office at the time decides to invade a foreign country, doesn't make it right. War is hell, and changes people. And a war of occupation fought for spurious reasons invariably has the effect of brutalising those doing the occupying.
So only join in peacetime? Or pick and choose what conflicts you want to partake in? It doesn't work like that. And you can definately argue that this war doesn't serve the American people. But what about other people that need our help? I didn't join the Army to be a humanitarian, yet through various humanitarian and reconstruction missions I participated in, I can say I made a difference and I feel really good about it. The kid wanted advice from Vets right?
To anyone who has done the work you're talking about, I applaud you. But that is so far removed from Iraq and America's march to war that it bears no resemblance whatsoever. These two scenarios are poles apart.
It seems to me that if an individual is willing to give EVERYTHING he/she has as a human being, the very least a gov't can do is be honest and conduct itself with consideration for those who are about to do its bidding. That means never putting people into harm's way unless such circumstances dictate. The Bush admin. has fallen laughably short of that obligation. And coming out with meaningless rhetoric about how much the troops are appreciated is really just tokenism.
So only join in peacetime? Or pick and choose what conflicts you want to partake in? It doesn't work like that. And you can definately argue that this war doesn't serve the American people. But what about other people that need our help? I didn't join the Army to be a humanitarian, yet through various humanitarian and reconstruction missions I participated in, I can say I made a difference and I feel really good about it. The kid wanted advice from Vets right?
I simply don't think anyone should ever be forced to risk their life for something they don't believe in, or should have to serve under someone they do not trust.
I mean, shit... it seems pretty basic to me.
If you start something with the intention of helping people and find out you are no longer helping people, but making things worse... then there should be no law that can stop you from abandoning the mission. Soldiers should be able to quit at will, just like with any other job. This would make politicians think twice about starting bullshit wars.
If a war can't be won without respecting the free will of everyone involved, then it doesn't deserve to be won.
I simply don't think anyone should ever be forced to risk their life for something they don't believe in, or should have to serve under someone they do not trust.
I mean, shit... it seems pretty basic to me.
If you start something with the intention of helping people and find out you are no longer helping people, but making things worse... then there should be no law that can stop you from abandoning the mission. Soldiers should be able to quit at will, just like with any other job. This would make politicians think twice about starting bullshit wars.
If a war can't be won without respecting the free will of everyone involved, then it doesn't deserve to be won.
With all due respect, that's absurdity.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
The mere premise of being able to desert and disband simply because you don't like what you're doing or you don't agree with your commanders. That's the definition of chaos. You preach about the chaos that currently exist, well, with an army full of people like you... I'd rather not think about it.
Besides, this topic was resolved the minute the ink dried at the recruiting office. That isn't a disrespectful comment, that's just the way it is. Debating your feelings and emotions need to be done before you make the decision to become a part of the armed services.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
The mere premise of being able to desert and disband simply because you don't like what you're doing or you don't agree with your commanders. That's the definition of chaos. You preach about the chaos that currently exist, well, with an army full of people like you... I'd rather not think about it.
To bring up an example I used earlier, when the Scots fought for their independence from England during the late middle ages, they were not legally obligated to do so. They had the freedom to give up. Each individual had that freedom. But enough of them were pissed off to the point where they wanted to fight to set things back right. Their individual wills worked together as a collective to achieve this goal.
You assume people can't be trusted to fight for what's right. If this is the case, then what's right is meaningless. If people do not honestly support a cause, then there is no cause... there is only a dictation of leaders' desires and the follow through of people who are essentially automatons.
What I hear from you is that society should be based on lies - where people do what they have to, not what they honestly want to do. In my mind, this is the underpinning of chaos. It can sustain order for awhile, but eventually human nature cracks through... and because people from their birth had been taught to supress their free will, and never to develop it, they don't know how to behave as free people and you have chaos.
In the Middle East right now, the people have had the mind numbing dogma of Islam (the word literally means SUBMISSION) fused into their personhood and they don't know how to break this mode of operation. Their social order was preserved by dictators... because it had to be. I think in Iraq there is a signifcant minority of enlightened souls... however the mass of people are still brainwashed, and the breakdown of a strong unified government has caused fractions among them, creating the civil war and chaos we see now.
To bring up an example I used earlier, when the Scots fought for their independence from England during the late middle ages, they were not legally obligated to do so. They had the freedom to give up. Each individual had that freedom. But enough of them were pissed off to the point where they wanted to fight to set things back right. Their individual wills worked together as a collective to achieve this goal.
You assume people can't be trusted to fight for what's right. If this is the case, then what's right is meaningless. If people do not honestly support a cause, then there is no cause... there is only a dictation of leaders' desires and the follow through of people who are essentially automatons.
What I hear from you is that society should be based on lies - where people do what they have to, not what they honestly want to do. In my mind, this is the underpinning of chaos. It can sustain order for awhile, but eventually human nature cracks through... and because people from their birth had been taught to supress their free will, and never to develop it, they don't know how to behave as free people and you have chaos.
In the Middle East right now, the people have had the mind numbing dogma of Islam (the word literally means SUBMISSION) fused into their personhood and they don't know how to break this mode of operation. Their social order was preserved by dictators... because it had to be. I think in Iraq there is a signifcant minority of enlightened souls... however the mass of people are still brainwashed, and the breakdown of a strong unified government has caused fractions among them, creating the civil war and chaos we see now.
I absolutely see where your coming from man, and it may have been useful in the scots case, but what about our security? What about the defense versus the offense, If we only got together and only joined because of nobleworthy or what you think are "right" causes, then who'll keep us safe at night?
And there is no civil war in Iraq. There's sectarian violence, I equivalent it to a nasty fight between bloods and crips. There's no north or south in Iraq, unless your talking about kurds. Shiite and Sunnis and Armenians live amongst eachother throughout the various citys as neighbors day to day. I was in Baghdad for thirteen months and I can tell you that in no way was there an exclusivaley shiite or sunni neighborhood. You're seeing an extremely small percentage of fundamentalists duking it out. But it's not your fault at all, since I've been home I have yet to see a single news agency that hasn't spun or exaggerated the truth to an extent. That includes BBC and NPR.
According to the movie braveheart, the scots banded together and fought the english because they had one helluvah charismatic leader. We need an army that's going to follow orders even if those orders were being given by Barney Fife.
This isn't a situation where there's a few thousand guys with swords who are being led into battle by some guy on a horse. It's different when you have tens of thousands of troops who are making up a vastly complex military with a massive leadership hierarchy.
I think another point to consider is that the Scots rose up only after years and years of sickening abuse by the english. And this is again what I know from watching Braveheart. Each scotsman in that army probably had a very personal vendetta against the english stemming from something awful that may have happened to him or someone down the street from him. What we want to do is have a military that is ready to fight before it gets to that point.
As far as I know, the last time the US had a "fight at will" army was during the revolution. According to the movie The Patriot, the volunteer militia always ducked and ran when the going got tough. It was the conventional army that enforced a strict AWOL policy that got the job done. Even though that war was for our independence it took a conventional military code of enforcement to win it.
The average person does not know how to fight even when it means protecting his own safety or the safety of his neighbors. Most people would rather lay down and take whatever abuse before opposing an aggressor. This is why so many dictatorships are successful for years and years.
From what I hear, Iraqis were were happier under the ruthless dictatorship of saddam. They would rather live in fear than die without fear. They didn't have Mel Gibson to lead the way for them.
The one thing people do best is follow orders without thinking for themselves. This is why religion is so popular.
To bring up an example I used earlier, when the Scots fought for their independence from England during the late middle ages, they were not legally obligated to do so. They had the freedom to give up. Each individual had that freedom. But enough of them were pissed off to the point where they wanted to fight to set things back right. Their individual wills worked together as a collective to achieve this goal.
You assume people can't be trusted to fight for what's right. If this is the case, then what's right is meaningless. If people do not honestly support a cause, then there is no cause... there is only a dictation of leaders' desires and the follow through of people who are essentially automatons.
What I hear from you is that society should be based on lies - where people do what they have to, not what they honestly want to do. In my mind, this is the underpinning of chaos. It can sustain order for awhile, but eventually human nature cracks through... and because people from their birth had been taught to supress their free will, and never to develop it, they don't know how to behave as free people and you have chaos.
In the Middle East right now, the people have had the mind numbing dogma of Islam (the word literally means SUBMISSION) fused into their personhood and they don't know how to break this mode of operation. Their social order was preserved by dictators... because it had to be. I think in Iraq there is a signifcant minority of enlightened souls... however the mass of people are still brainwashed, and the breakdown of a strong unified government has caused fractions among them, creating the civil war and chaos we see now.
In my humble opinion, with these posts you have just established yourself as the smartest fella I've yet encountered on the M.T. Respect!
And there is no civil war in Iraq. There's sectarian violence, I equivalent it to a nasty fight between bloods and crips.
Or a nasty fight between Yankees and confederates, or between roundheads and cavaliers. Forgive my ignorance, but I fail to see what difference it makes. There are two opposing forces fighting each other and also fighting the occupation. The country has been broken up is is now in violent chaos. 'Civil war', 'insurgency', 'Armed insurrection'...call it what you like. It's a fucking mess. Attempts to sanitise the situation with fancy word-play makes no difference. It is what it is.
The one thing people do best is follow orders without thinking for themselves.
I refer you to all of the revolutionary struggles of the past. The Algerian fight for independence against the French, the Indian fight for independence against the British, the Cuban revolution, the Vietnamese struggle for independence against the french and Americans e.t.c, e.t.c, ad infinitum.
Shiite and Sunnis and Armenians live amongst eachother throughout the various citys as neighbors day to day. I was in Baghdad for thirteen months and I can tell you that in no way was there an exclusivaley shiite or sunni neighborhood.
You were in Baghdad for thirteen months? So that means that you were in the safe haven called the Green zone then.
New terror that stalks Iraq's republic of fear
by Patrick Cockburn
September 22, 2006
The republic of fear is born again. The state of terror now gripping Iraq is as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein. Torture in the country may even be worse than it was during his rule, the United Nation's special
investigator on torture said yesterday.
"The situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," said Manfred Nowak. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it had been in the times of Saddam Hussein."
The report, from an even-handed senior UN official, is in sharp contrast with the hopes of George Bush and Tony Blair, when in 2003 they promised to bring democracy and respect for human rights to the people of Iraq. The brutal tortures committed in the prisons of the regime overthrown in 2003 are being emulated and surpassed in the detention centres of the present US- and British-backed Iraqi government. "Detainees' bodies show signs of beating using
electric cables, wounds in different parts of their bodies including in the head and genitals, broken bones of legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns," the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq says in a new report.
The horrors of the torture chamber that led to Saddam Hussein's Iraq being labelled "The Republic of Fear", after the book of that title by Kanan Makiya, have again become commonplace. The bodies in Baghdad's morgue " often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing
skin, broken bones (back, hands and legs), missing eyes and wounds caused by power drills or nails", the UN report said. Those not killed by these abuses are shot in the head.
Human rights groups say torture is practised in prisons run by the US as well as those run by the Interior and Defence ministries and the numerous Sunni and Shia militias.
The pervasive use of torture is only one aspect of the utter breakdown of government across Iraq outside the three Kurdish provinces in the north. In July and August alone, 6,599 civilians were killed, the UN says.
One US Army major was quoted as saying that Baghdad is now a Hobbesian world where everybody is at war with everybody
else and the only protection is self-protection.
Iraq is in a state of primal anarchy. Paradoxically, the final collapse of security this summer is masked from the outside world because the country is too dangerous for journalists to report what is happening. Some 134 journalists, mostly Iraqi, have been killed since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The continuing rise in the number of civilians killed violently in Iraq underlines the failure of the new Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki installed in May after intense US and British pressure. The new government shows no signs of being more effective than the old. "It is just a government of the Green Zone," said an Iraqi official, referring to the fortified zone in central Baghdad housing the Iraqi government as well as the US and British embassies.
In an attempt to regain control of the capital and reduce sectarian violence, government and US troops launched "Operation Together Forward" in mid-July, but it seems to have had only marginal impact for a couple of weeks. The number of civilians killed in July was 3,590 and fell to 3,009 in August but was on the rise again at the end of
the month.
The bi-monthly UN report on Iraq is almost the only neutral and objective survey of conditions in the country. The real number of civilians killed in Iraq is probably much higher because, outside Baghdad, deaths are not recorded. The Health Ministry claims, for instance, that in July nobody died violently in al-Anbar province in
western Iraq, traditionally the most violent region, but this probably means the violence was so intense that casualty figures could not be collected from the hospitals.
Nobody in Iraq is safe. Buses and cars are stopped at checkpoints and Sunni or Shia are killed after a glance at their identity cards. Many people now carry two sets of identity papers, one Shia and one Sunni. Car number plates showing that it was registered in a Sunni province may be enough to get the driver shot in a Shia neighbourhood.
Sectarian civil war is pervasive in Baghdad and central Iraq. Religious processions are frequently attacked. On 19 and 20 August, a Shia religious pilgrimage came under sustained attack that left 20 dead and 300 wounded.
The Iraqi state and much of society have been criminalised. Gangs of gunmen are often described on state television as "wearing police uniforms" . One senior Iraqi minister laughed as he told The Independent: " Of course they wear police uniforms. They are real policemen."
On 31 July, for instance, armed men in police uniforms driving 15 police vehicles kidnapped 26 people in an area of Baghdad known as Arasat that used to be home to several of the capital's better restaurants. Gunmen dressed in police uniforms had also kidnapped the head of Iraq's Olympic Committee, Ammar Jabbar al-Saadi, and 12 others,
in the centre of Baghdad. Ransom demands were made. The US military suspected that Baghdad police's serious crime squad may have been responsible and stormed its headquarters to search vainly for the kidnap victims in its basement.
It has long been a matter of amusement and disgust in Iraq that government ministers travel abroad to give press conferences claiming that the insurgency is on its last legs. One former minister said: "I know of ministers who have never been to their ministries but get their officials to bring documents to the Green Zone where they sign them."
Beyond the Green Zone, Iraq has descended into murderous anarchy. For several days this month, the main road between Baghdad and Basra was closed because two families were fighting over ownership of an oilfield.
Government ministries are either Shia or Sunni. In Baghdad this month, a television crew filming the morgue had to cower behind a wall because the Shia guards were fighting a gun battle with the Sunni guards of the Electricity Ministry near by.
To the original poster: I've served in the Norwegian army. Now the choice weren't as active as the one you've made, since we have a draft after all. (although a bit less than half actually have to do it) But at the time, I was ready to serve big time. I even ticked off "infantry" on the form. Thank god they didn't put me there after all. So I was sent off to my 12 month army service as an artillery soldier in a camp in the far north of Norway. (look up Tromsø on a map, and then go south some 200 miles or so.)
But you know, the glory went out of it pretty quickly for me. Stationed up in one of the coldest inhabited parts of the world, where the sun leaves some time in october, and doesn't reappear until march. Being in such an authoritative environment filled with "because I said so and outrank you" bullshit, it got old real fast. You ever read "Catch 22"? If not, you should. It's humour, but damned if that isn't how the system works at times. You know what they say, there's the right way, the wrong way, and the army way.
So, while coming along nicely with a winter depression from not seeing the sun for months, I was trained in killing with various weapons, trained for a position on the artillery wagon, and drilled in the routines. I will have you know that Norwegian artillery draftees with 6 months of training, actually can outdo american professionals in terms of accuracy and speed up in the arctic environment. We were damn good. But what were we actually good at? There's always the pride of doing a task well. But what we really were doing came home to me, when after we (the battery of 6 wagons) had shot a particularly good series with devastating accuracy, our lieutenant happily announced over the intercom: "Great shooting guys! Enemy troop destroyed!". Which got me thinking about my troop, and how many we were, and that we just now theoretically had massacred that many people in 30 seconds. I remember that moment distinctly.
In the end, after ended service in the army, I have never been a greater pacifist or had greater scorn for authority than just afterwards. I actually used 6 months afterwards blowing off steam and drinking myself into a stupor at the start of my university education.
But there are some good things about the army, but those good things can be found elsewhere too. The people in my troop, or at least more than half of them were decent fellows, and I befriended many of them. Playing Vampire roleplaying games as long as we were allowed to sit up on weekends. (feels like camp or something, being tossed out of the room because it is bed.time) Horsing around in the wilderness and the cold, there were good times. And wearing a uniform brings a sense of pride at least at first. But unless you truly are army-material, will obey with mind-numbing precision any order, and enjoy the physical strain of the thing, I really wouldn't recommend it.
For me, I think I grew as a person on the experience, but I feel that was more in spite of than because of the system.
Anyway, you asked if others have served. Read this like you want to.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You were in Baghdad for thirteen months? So that means that you were in the safe haven called the Green zone then.
New terror that stalks Iraq's republic of fear
by Patrick Cockburn
September 22, 2006
The republic of fear is born again. The state of terror now gripping Iraq is as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein. Torture in the country may even be worse than it was during his rule, the United Nation's special
investigator on torture said yesterday.
"The situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," said Manfred Nowak. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it had been in the times of Saddam Hussein."
The report, from an even-handed senior UN official, is in sharp contrast with the hopes of George Bush and Tony Blair, when in 2003 they promised to bring democracy and respect for human rights to the people of Iraq. The brutal tortures committed in the prisons of the regime overthrown in 2003 are being emulated and surpassed in the detention centres of the present US- and British-backed Iraqi government. "Detainees' bodies show signs of beating using
electric cables, wounds in different parts of their bodies including in the head and genitals, broken bones of legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns," the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq says in a new report.
The horrors of the torture chamber that led to Saddam Hussein's Iraq being labelled "The Republic of Fear", after the book of that title by Kanan Makiya, have again become commonplace. The bodies in Baghdad's morgue " often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing
skin, broken bones (back, hands and legs), missing eyes and wounds caused by power drills or nails", the UN report said. Those not killed by these abuses are shot in the head.
Human rights groups say torture is practised in prisons run by the US as well as those run by the Interior and Defence ministries and the numerous Sunni and Shia militias.
The pervasive use of torture is only one aspect of the utter breakdown of government across Iraq outside the three Kurdish provinces in the north. In July and August alone, 6,599 civilians were killed, the UN says.
One US Army major was quoted as saying that Baghdad is now a Hobbesian world where everybody is at war with everybody
else and the only protection is self-protection.
Iraq is in a state of primal anarchy. Paradoxically, the final collapse of security this summer is masked from the outside world because the country is too dangerous for journalists to report what is happening. Some 134 journalists, mostly Iraqi, have been killed since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The continuing rise in the number of civilians killed violently in Iraq underlines the failure of the new Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki installed in May after intense US and British pressure. The new government shows no signs of being more effective than the old. "It is just a government of the Green Zone," said an Iraqi official, referring to the fortified zone in central Baghdad housing the Iraqi government as well as the US and British embassies.
In an attempt to regain control of the capital and reduce sectarian violence, government and US troops launched "Operation Together Forward" in mid-July, but it seems to have had only marginal impact for a couple of weeks. The number of civilians killed in July was 3,590 and fell to 3,009 in August but was on the rise again at the end of
the month.
The bi-monthly UN report on Iraq is almost the only neutral and objective survey of conditions in the country. The real number of civilians killed in Iraq is probably much higher because, outside Baghdad, deaths are not recorded. The Health Ministry claims, for instance, that in July nobody died violently in al-Anbar province in
western Iraq, traditionally the most violent region, but this probably means the violence was so intense that casualty figures could not be collected from the hospitals.
Nobody in Iraq is safe. Buses and cars are stopped at checkpoints and Sunni or Shia are killed after a glance at their identity cards. Many people now carry two sets of identity papers, one Shia and one Sunni. Car number plates showing that it was registered in a Sunni province may be enough to get the driver shot in a Shia neighbourhood.
Sectarian civil war is pervasive in Baghdad and central Iraq. Religious processions are frequently attacked. On 19 and 20 August, a Shia religious pilgrimage came under sustained attack that left 20 dead and 300 wounded.
The Iraqi state and much of society have been criminalised. Gangs of gunmen are often described on state television as "wearing police uniforms" . One senior Iraqi minister laughed as he told The Independent: " Of course they wear police uniforms. They are real policemen."
On 31 July, for instance, armed men in police uniforms driving 15 police vehicles kidnapped 26 people in an area of Baghdad known as Arasat that used to be home to several of the capital's better restaurants. Gunmen dressed in police uniforms had also kidnapped the head of Iraq's Olympic Committee, Ammar Jabbar al-Saadi, and 12 others,
in the centre of Baghdad. Ransom demands were made. The US military suspected that Baghdad police's serious crime squad may have been responsible and stormed its headquarters to search vainly for the kidnap victims in its basement.
It has long been a matter of amusement and disgust in Iraq that government ministers travel abroad to give press conferences claiming that the insurgency is on its last legs. One former minister said: "I know of ministers who have never been to their ministries but get their officials to bring documents to the Green Zone where they sign them."
Beyond the Green Zone, Iraq has descended into murderous anarchy. For several days this month, the main road between Baghdad and Basra was closed because two families were fighting over ownership of an oilfield.
Government ministries are either Shia or Sunni. In Baghdad this month, a television crew filming the morgue had to cower behind a wall because the Shia guards were fighting a gun battle with the Sunni guards of the Electricity Ministry near by.
Nice try but incorrect sir, I was there for the tail end of the ground war and initial occupation on an itty bitty forward operating base in the northwestern part of the city which is now closed down and given back to the Iraqi's.
You want to know who's at the green zone? The news agencies and reporters that give you your credible information. Sorry man, not everybody got a chance to put there feet up in Basra.
Nice try but incorrect sir, I was there for the tail end of the ground war and initial occupation on an itty bitty forward operating base in the northwestern part of the city which is now closed down and given back to the Iraqi's.
You want to know who's at the green zone? The news agencies and reporters that give you your credible information. Sorry man, not everybody got a chance to put there feet up in Basra.
So everything's hunky dory in Iraq now then? During the tail end of the ground war and initial occupation the sectarian violence and civilian insurgency hadn't yet begun.
Comments
Doesn't he have to be an NCO to get into the green berets or delta?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
There taking guys right out of high school and sending them to selection. The logic is that you can make a civilian with no military experience a green beret much easier than that of a soldier that's been corrupted by the "regular" army. the whole thing has a lot of guys in the regular army who try out really pissed off. I think the programs only a few years old. One good thing Rumsfeld did was expand the green berets by 15000 troops, just by that it kind of makes it a little easier to get your foot in the door.
One caveat though, if you fail selection or get medically disqualified, then hello infantry!
You got my respect and support.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Thanks for stopping by Hatemonger. Way to go. You truly never cease to amaze me with your ability to go off on your little tirade's. Why did you even bother posting in this thread, if you think he's neither noble, patriotic, nor intelligent? Way to piss on his back and then tell him its rain. You must be a ball at parties.
To the OP, good luck, god's speed, and thank you. Stay safe. Semper Fi.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I don't know where you get this idea that men and women in uniform are being ridiculed for their service. I'm sure you could pick out a few people, but it is a tiny fringe minority of assholes who doing that. It's nothing like the Vietnam days and from what I hear, the stories of troops being "spit on" were exaggerated. In any event, I have not heard ANY of such stories during this war. All the anger is directed towards the Bush administration, where it belongs.
I think it's the most noble thing ever to risk your life to protect others, however I also think it's a MASSIVE mistake to join the U.S. armed forces at this moment in time, given the current corruption of our government. To sign your life away to these assholes is to make yourself a pawn in a war for profit. The only "winners" in this war are the companies who get billions of dollars from no-bid government contracts. The Iraq War serves no purpose to the American people. If you want to save lives, join the police force or be a fireman.
Furthermore, if you get your arm blown off or go psycho because of what you see over there, don't expect to get the treatment you deserve.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21191/
The support for our military has never been stronger!
The only ones that seem to undermine that support are those who are saying the truth is bad for our military.
In voluntary enlistment the enlistee has a choice of MOS (Military Occupational
Specialty). So, you need to choose a contract which is Open or Guaranteed. They want you to take an Open enlistment (with the idea you can change it later) so they can choose what and when and where they want you to be. Choose a Guaranteed contract and they will still pressure you (often successfully) on your choices, but at least you may find a practical vocation to bring back to your civilian life.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It is difficult, believe me I know, to take a philosophical look at this current Iraq situation, yet, as an intelligent thinker, you must.
There is a changing of the guard taking place in our nation's capital, and as pithy and pathetic as that may seem, I believe it is for the better. There is no effort implementable in this country that will dissuade those who will fight for joining in the defense of this country. And so it is.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
So only join in peacetime? Or pick and choose what conflicts you want to partake in? It doesn't work like that. And you can definately argue that this war doesn't serve the American people. But what about other people that need our help? I didn't join the Army to be a humanitarian, yet through various humanitarian and reconstruction missions I participated in, I can say I made a difference and I feel really good about it. The kid wanted advice from Vets right?
The policies of ones own country? What the fuck are you on about? A country doesn't make policies, Governments make policies. And your present Government are a bunch of corrupt money-Nazis who care only about lining their own pockets and those of their rich buddies. Semper fi my arse!
That doesn't make any sense. As for defending America, what does fighting in Iraq have to do with it?
Your first sentence may be true. Your second sentence makes no sense. As for the 'truth', please explain what you mean.
Strange place to seek advice from Vets. Anyway, as for humanitarian and reconstruction missions, we're not talking about that. We're talking about the prospect that he'll be sent off to Iraq or Afghanistan to fight, kill, and risk being killed. I wish him the best of luck. I also wish those civilians on the receiving end of the illegal occupation the best of luck.
Just because the particular govenment that happens to be in office at the time decides to invade a foreign country, doesn't make it right. War is hell, and changes people. And a war of occupation fought for spurious reasons invariably has the effect of brutalising those doing the occupying.
To anyone who has done the work you're talking about, I applaud you. But that is so far removed from Iraq and America's march to war that it bears no resemblance whatsoever. These two scenarios are poles apart.
It seems to me that if an individual is willing to give EVERYTHING he/she has as a human being, the very least a gov't can do is be honest and conduct itself with consideration for those who are about to do its bidding. That means never putting people into harm's way unless such circumstances dictate. The Bush admin. has fallen laughably short of that obligation. And coming out with meaningless rhetoric about how much the troops are appreciated is really just tokenism.
I simply don't think anyone should ever be forced to risk their life for something they don't believe in, or should have to serve under someone they do not trust.
I mean, shit... it seems pretty basic to me.
If you start something with the intention of helping people and find out you are no longer helping people, but making things worse... then there should be no law that can stop you from abandoning the mission. Soldiers should be able to quit at will, just like with any other job. This would make politicians think twice about starting bullshit wars.
If a war can't be won without respecting the free will of everyone involved, then it doesn't deserve to be won.
With all due respect, that's absurdity.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Why?
The mere premise of being able to desert and disband simply because you don't like what you're doing or you don't agree with your commanders. That's the definition of chaos. You preach about the chaos that currently exist, well, with an army full of people like you... I'd rather not think about it.
Besides, this topic was resolved the minute the ink dried at the recruiting office. That isn't a disrespectful comment, that's just the way it is. Debating your feelings and emotions need to be done before you make the decision to become a part of the armed services.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
To bring up an example I used earlier, when the Scots fought for their independence from England during the late middle ages, they were not legally obligated to do so. They had the freedom to give up. Each individual had that freedom. But enough of them were pissed off to the point where they wanted to fight to set things back right. Their individual wills worked together as a collective to achieve this goal.
You assume people can't be trusted to fight for what's right. If this is the case, then what's right is meaningless. If people do not honestly support a cause, then there is no cause... there is only a dictation of leaders' desires and the follow through of people who are essentially automatons.
What I hear from you is that society should be based on lies - where people do what they have to, not what they honestly want to do. In my mind, this is the underpinning of chaos. It can sustain order for awhile, but eventually human nature cracks through... and because people from their birth had been taught to supress their free will, and never to develop it, they don't know how to behave as free people and you have chaos.
In the Middle East right now, the people have had the mind numbing dogma of Islam (the word literally means SUBMISSION) fused into their personhood and they don't know how to break this mode of operation. Their social order was preserved by dictators... because it had to be. I think in Iraq there is a signifcant minority of enlightened souls... however the mass of people are still brainwashed, and the breakdown of a strong unified government has caused fractions among them, creating the civil war and chaos we see now.
I absolutely see where your coming from man, and it may have been useful in the scots case, but what about our security? What about the defense versus the offense, If we only got together and only joined because of nobleworthy or what you think are "right" causes, then who'll keep us safe at night?
And there is no civil war in Iraq. There's sectarian violence, I equivalent it to a nasty fight between bloods and crips. There's no north or south in Iraq, unless your talking about kurds. Shiite and Sunnis and Armenians live amongst eachother throughout the various citys as neighbors day to day. I was in Baghdad for thirteen months and I can tell you that in no way was there an exclusivaley shiite or sunni neighborhood. You're seeing an extremely small percentage of fundamentalists duking it out. But it's not your fault at all, since I've been home I have yet to see a single news agency that hasn't spun or exaggerated the truth to an extent. That includes BBC and NPR.
This isn't a situation where there's a few thousand guys with swords who are being led into battle by some guy on a horse. It's different when you have tens of thousands of troops who are making up a vastly complex military with a massive leadership hierarchy.
I think another point to consider is that the Scots rose up only after years and years of sickening abuse by the english. And this is again what I know from watching Braveheart. Each scotsman in that army probably had a very personal vendetta against the english stemming from something awful that may have happened to him or someone down the street from him. What we want to do is have a military that is ready to fight before it gets to that point.
As far as I know, the last time the US had a "fight at will" army was during the revolution. According to the movie The Patriot, the volunteer militia always ducked and ran when the going got tough. It was the conventional army that enforced a strict AWOL policy that got the job done. Even though that war was for our independence it took a conventional military code of enforcement to win it.
The average person does not know how to fight even when it means protecting his own safety or the safety of his neighbors. Most people would rather lay down and take whatever abuse before opposing an aggressor. This is why so many dictatorships are successful for years and years.
From what I hear, Iraqis were were happier under the ruthless dictatorship of saddam. They would rather live in fear than die without fear. They didn't have Mel Gibson to lead the way for them.
The one thing people do best is follow orders without thinking for themselves. This is why religion is so popular.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
In my humble opinion, with these posts you have just established yourself as the smartest fella I've yet encountered on the M.T. Respect!
Or a nasty fight between Yankees and confederates, or between roundheads and cavaliers. Forgive my ignorance, but I fail to see what difference it makes. There are two opposing forces fighting each other and also fighting the occupation. The country has been broken up is is now in violent chaos. 'Civil war', 'insurgency', 'Armed insurrection'...call it what you like. It's a fucking mess. Attempts to sanitise the situation with fancy word-play makes no difference. It is what it is.
I refer you to all of the revolutionary struggles of the past. The Algerian fight for independence against the French, the Indian fight for independence against the British, the Cuban revolution, the Vietnamese struggle for independence against the french and Americans e.t.c, e.t.c, ad infinitum.
You were in Baghdad for thirteen months? So that means that you were in the safe haven called the Green zone then.
New terror that stalks Iraq's republic of fear
by Patrick Cockburn
September 22, 2006
The republic of fear is born again. The state of terror now gripping Iraq is as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein. Torture in the country may even be worse than it was during his rule, the United Nation's special
investigator on torture said yesterday.
"The situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," said Manfred Nowak. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it had been in the times of Saddam Hussein."
The report, from an even-handed senior UN official, is in sharp contrast with the hopes of George Bush and Tony Blair, when in 2003 they promised to bring democracy and respect for human rights to the people of Iraq. The brutal tortures committed in the prisons of the regime overthrown in 2003 are being emulated and surpassed in the detention centres of the present US- and British-backed Iraqi government. "Detainees' bodies show signs of beating using
electric cables, wounds in different parts of their bodies including in the head and genitals, broken bones of legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns," the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq says in a new report.
The horrors of the torture chamber that led to Saddam Hussein's Iraq being labelled "The Republic of Fear", after the book of that title by Kanan Makiya, have again become commonplace. The bodies in Baghdad's morgue " often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing
skin, broken bones (back, hands and legs), missing eyes and wounds caused by power drills or nails", the UN report said. Those not killed by these abuses are shot in the head.
Human rights groups say torture is practised in prisons run by the US as well as those run by the Interior and Defence ministries and the numerous Sunni and Shia militias.
The pervasive use of torture is only one aspect of the utter breakdown of government across Iraq outside the three Kurdish provinces in the north. In July and August alone, 6,599 civilians were killed, the UN says.
One US Army major was quoted as saying that Baghdad is now a Hobbesian world where everybody is at war with everybody
else and the only protection is self-protection.
Iraq is in a state of primal anarchy. Paradoxically, the final collapse of security this summer is masked from the outside world because the country is too dangerous for journalists to report what is happening. Some 134 journalists, mostly Iraqi, have been killed since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The continuing rise in the number of civilians killed violently in Iraq underlines the failure of the new Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki installed in May after intense US and British pressure. The new government shows no signs of being more effective than the old. "It is just a government of the Green Zone," said an Iraqi official, referring to the fortified zone in central Baghdad housing the Iraqi government as well as the US and British embassies.
In an attempt to regain control of the capital and reduce sectarian violence, government and US troops launched "Operation Together Forward" in mid-July, but it seems to have had only marginal impact for a couple of weeks. The number of civilians killed in July was 3,590 and fell to 3,009 in August but was on the rise again at the end of
the month.
The bi-monthly UN report on Iraq is almost the only neutral and objective survey of conditions in the country. The real number of civilians killed in Iraq is probably much higher because, outside Baghdad, deaths are not recorded. The Health Ministry claims, for instance, that in July nobody died violently in al-Anbar province in
western Iraq, traditionally the most violent region, but this probably means the violence was so intense that casualty figures could not be collected from the hospitals.
Nobody in Iraq is safe. Buses and cars are stopped at checkpoints and Sunni or Shia are killed after a glance at their identity cards. Many people now carry two sets of identity papers, one Shia and one Sunni. Car number plates showing that it was registered in a Sunni province may be enough to get the driver shot in a Shia neighbourhood.
Sectarian civil war is pervasive in Baghdad and central Iraq. Religious processions are frequently attacked. On 19 and 20 August, a Shia religious pilgrimage came under sustained attack that left 20 dead and 300 wounded.
The Iraqi state and much of society have been criminalised. Gangs of gunmen are often described on state television as "wearing police uniforms" . One senior Iraqi minister laughed as he told The Independent: " Of course they wear police uniforms. They are real policemen."
On 31 July, for instance, armed men in police uniforms driving 15 police vehicles kidnapped 26 people in an area of Baghdad known as Arasat that used to be home to several of the capital's better restaurants. Gunmen dressed in police uniforms had also kidnapped the head of Iraq's Olympic Committee, Ammar Jabbar al-Saadi, and 12 others,
in the centre of Baghdad. Ransom demands were made. The US military suspected that Baghdad police's serious crime squad may have been responsible and stormed its headquarters to search vainly for the kidnap victims in its basement.
It has long been a matter of amusement and disgust in Iraq that government ministers travel abroad to give press conferences claiming that the insurgency is on its last legs. One former minister said: "I know of ministers who have never been to their ministries but get their officials to bring documents to the Green Zone where they sign them."
Beyond the Green Zone, Iraq has descended into murderous anarchy. For several days this month, the main road between Baghdad and Basra was closed because two families were fighting over ownership of an oilfield.
Government ministries are either Shia or Sunni. In Baghdad this month, a television crew filming the morgue had to cower behind a wall because the Shia guards were fighting a gun battle with the Sunni guards of the Electricity Ministry near by.
But you know, the glory went out of it pretty quickly for me. Stationed up in one of the coldest inhabited parts of the world, where the sun leaves some time in october, and doesn't reappear until march. Being in such an authoritative environment filled with "because I said so and outrank you" bullshit, it got old real fast. You ever read "Catch 22"? If not, you should. It's humour, but damned if that isn't how the system works at times. You know what they say, there's the right way, the wrong way, and the army way.
So, while coming along nicely with a winter depression from not seeing the sun for months, I was trained in killing with various weapons, trained for a position on the artillery wagon, and drilled in the routines. I will have you know that Norwegian artillery draftees with 6 months of training, actually can outdo american professionals in terms of accuracy and speed up in the arctic environment. We were damn good. But what were we actually good at? There's always the pride of doing a task well. But what we really were doing came home to me, when after we (the battery of 6 wagons) had shot a particularly good series with devastating accuracy, our lieutenant happily announced over the intercom: "Great shooting guys! Enemy troop destroyed!". Which got me thinking about my troop, and how many we were, and that we just now theoretically had massacred that many people in 30 seconds. I remember that moment distinctly.
In the end, after ended service in the army, I have never been a greater pacifist or had greater scorn for authority than just afterwards. I actually used 6 months afterwards blowing off steam and drinking myself into a stupor at the start of my university education.
But there are some good things about the army, but those good things can be found elsewhere too. The people in my troop, or at least more than half of them were decent fellows, and I befriended many of them. Playing Vampire roleplaying games as long as we were allowed to sit up on weekends. (feels like camp or something, being tossed out of the room because it is bed.time) Horsing around in the wilderness and the cold, there were good times. And wearing a uniform brings a sense of pride at least at first. But unless you truly are army-material, will obey with mind-numbing precision any order, and enjoy the physical strain of the thing, I really wouldn't recommend it.
For me, I think I grew as a person on the experience, but I feel that was more in spite of than because of the system.
Anyway, you asked if others have served. Read this like you want to.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Nice try but incorrect sir, I was there for the tail end of the ground war and initial occupation on an itty bitty forward operating base in the northwestern part of the city which is now closed down and given back to the Iraqi's.
You want to know who's at the green zone? The news agencies and reporters that give you your credible information. Sorry man, not everybody got a chance to put there feet up in Basra.
So everything's hunky dory in Iraq now then? During the tail end of the ground war and initial occupation the sectarian violence and civilian insurgency hadn't yet begun.
wow. unbelieveable. I have to stop being amazed at the garbarge that comes out of your mouth