Soldiers or Ex-Soldiers look here!

[Regex]

True. But referring to America, the only way one can actually recieve a higher rank in (in the E class), is to start out with ROTC in high school. Which a few of my friends completed, and they entered in the military as E-3's.

That isn't true.

To rank up in the US Military, you just have to have enough justification, and the recruiter can put you up to as high as E3. Common reasons are ROTC, college credit, Civil Air Patrol, etc.
But in many cases, you can just go and say, "I'll join if you put me in as E3" and they'll eventually do it.

However, that's not enough to get you a rank of general. You need a college degree to be an officer. And in my opinion, that's a terrible criteria. We find things like people who have been enlisted for 15 years have to take orders from a fresh out of college lieutenant just because the lieutenant went through college first before joining, not because he actually is more qualified for a leadership position.

[Sagat]

That's not the point. There is a path to "playerdom" that skips being a pawn. All you really need is good machiavellian skills (not necessarily reflecting your competence as leader), as I laid out in my democracy vs. rhetorics thread.

That is never going to get you to become a high ranking officer like a General ... and if by a grace of God it did, your men would never respect you and you would have no power base at all.

[Eris]

That is never going to get you to become a high ranking officer like a General ... and if by a grace of God it did, your men would never respect you and you would have no power base at all.

As I said, (in the US) you can outrank a general (become commander in chief) without ever touching as much as a pointy stick.

[Piper]

That isn't true.

Uh.. You just agreed with me, somewhat. So you mean "That's not true completely." But okay.

Anyway.

As I said, (in the US) you can outrank a general (become commander in chief) without ever touching as much as a pointy stick.

Okay you keep saying that. But please, I'd like to hear why you feel this way. Elaborate too.

[Lady Rain]

i say blame bush.

LOL! Wow ... Bush hater I take it? ^^;

[Sagat]

As I said, (in the US) you can outrank a general (become commander in chief) without ever touching as much as a pointy stick.

Ah, gotcha. No different than a defence minister, though most have previous military service.

He is partially correct, since the military is controlled by the civlian body, those politicians control us. Those politicians can rise to the top of the chain without even touching a rifle.

[Regex]

Uh.. You just agreed with me, somewhat. So you mean "That's not true completely." But okay.

The part that wasn't true was when you said "The only way to one can actually receive a higher rank is to start out with ROTC in high school."

Okay you keep saying that. But please, I'd like to hear why you feel this way. Elaborate too.

The Commander-in-Chief is otherwise known as the President of the United States.

[Piper]

The part that wasn't true was when you said "The only way to one can actually receive a higher rank is to start out with ROTC in high school."

But this is half correct. Because you CAN enter a higher rank with ROTC. So it would make it true, just not completely.

The Commander-in-Chief is otherwise known as the President of the United States.

That's not the answer I was looking for. And also, this question was for Dieselmannen. And I'm still waiting for it.

[Eris]

This is why I don't discuss the Swedish army. It's virtually non-existant (yay for us!). It's a bunch of guys sitting in moose towers (do a google image search if you don't know what that is) along the Finnish border. I do however discuss the ideology behind the American army, much the way I would discuss the ideology behind the third reich's military would this be the early 1940's.

What affects the US very much affects the rest of the world, the EU in particular, since it seems to want to be the US, and imports every crappy decision that is made by the US. I wouldn't be so vocal about this, if what we're seeing the beginning of in the US today hadn't already happened in Europe, not just once, but several times.

Be especially thorough comparing American domestic security policies, with those of the DDR. You're not there yet, but the noose is tightening by the day.


---

I keep saying that because you insisted that the American army didn't work that way (that it was impossible to becomme a player without previously being a pawn).

[Piper]

This is why I don't discuss the Swedish army. It's virtually non-existant (yay for us!). It's a bunch of guys sitting in moose towers (do a google image search if you don't know what that is) along the Finnish border. I do however discuss the ideology behind the American army, much the way I would discuss the ideology behind the third reich's military would this be the early 1940's.

What affects the US very much affects the rest of the world, the EU in particular, since it seems to want to be the US, and imports every crappy decision that is made by the US. I wouldn't be so vocal about this, if what we're seeing the beginning of in the US today hadn't already happened in Europe, not just once, but several times.

Be especially thorough comparing American domestic security policies, with those of the DDR. You're not there yet, but the noose is tightening by the day.


---

I keep saying that because you insisted that the American army didn't work that way (that it was impossible to becomme a player without previously being a pawn).

That's the answer I was looking for. But it still requires much knowledge on Political Science. And although a vast majoirty of people can learn this, you still need to at least have experience with what you are doing, and our current president has shown those attributes.

Not only that, but you need to win over the country that you are planning on being the president of. So although yes, you can become a commander in cheif without picking up even a rifle, it requires just as much energy and work and belief into it, as if you did.

[Eris]

That's the answer I was looking for. But it still requires much knowledge on Political Science. And although a vast majoirty of people can learn this, you still need to at least have experience with what you are doing, and our current president has shown those attributes.

Not only that, but you need to win over the country that you are planning on being the president of. So although yes, you can become a commander in cheif without picking up even a rifle, it requires just as much energy and work and belief into it, as if you did.

But, and this is important, it doesen't make you someone's pawn in the process. You're always in control of yourself. You never take orders, and even if you do, it's only a brief tactical maneuver (that doesen't jeapordize your life).

Even more important than the skills you listed is machiavellian skills and rhetorics. Becoming president isn't as much about being the guy foro the job as convincing people you're the guy.

[Piper]

But, and this is important, it doesen't make you someone's pawn in the process. You're always in control of yourself. You never take orders, and even if you do, it's only a brief tactical maneuver (that doesen't jeapordize your life).

Okay, in one way I agree. But you have to remember, there is going to be death in the military, regardless how carefully prepared you are. And like a friend of mine told me (who is currently stationed in Iraq); "The media is making it worse than it sounds. Yes there are soldiers dying, but some of them are dying because they didn't follow orders."

No, I'm not saying ALL soldiers that are dying refused to follow orders. Some did. But like I said, you can't expect there to be a death toll of zero in war, especially in another country where they do not care for us. And those troops will be receiving an honorable funeral. They deserve it, regardless how they died. But unfortunately that's the cost at achieving victory.

Following orders is something you have to learn to do, regardless if you are in the military or not. For civilians, it's following the law. It's all authority.

[Eris]

Okay, in one way I agree. But you have to remember, there is going to be death in the military, regardless how carefully prepared you are. And like a friend of mine told me (who is currently stationed in Iraq); "The media is making it worse than it sounds. Yes there are soldiers dying, but some of them are dying because they didn't follow orders."

No, I'm not saying ALL soldiers that are dying refused to follow orders. Some did. But like I said, you can't expect there to be a death toll of zero in war, especially in another country where they do not care for us. And those troops will be receiving an honorable funeral. They deserve it, regardless how they died. But unfortunately that's the cost at achieving victory.

Following orders is something you have to learn to do, regardless if you are in the military or not. For civilians, it's following the law. It's all authority.

If you (to continue with the chess analogy), play without sacrificing pieces, you will loose. Why? Because your opponent will sacrifice pieces. To win, you must always stoop as low (or lower) than your opponent. This is why there is mustard gas, nuclear weapons, and all sorts of unpleasantries. Soliders are always going to die in a war, especially infantry. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You don't send expensive mortar equipment to the front line. They're less expendible than regular infantry. This is basically what you said, with a jigger of cynical perspective.

The difference between following orders and following the law is that you're not a pawn as a civilian (at that level in any case, you may be someone's pawn in another game - say buissness or politics), and if you're not a pawn, you're less likely to be expendible, therefore following the law (probably) isn't going to get you killed.

All I'm saying is that if you want to be alive and in control of your life (which is sort of a little goal of mine), avoid being expendible. That is easiest to avoid by not being someones pawn.

I really don't feel any sort of loyalty for my country. It's not like I chose where I was born. It shackled me to it's laws, without ever asking if that was what I wanted. Nationalism is just a silly relic from the 19th century.

[~*~Hikarun~*~]

I have just noticed somehting!


I was talking to my sister's boyfriend which now is in the Navy as a piolet. And then his best friend started talking to me and saying girls can't join the army. I think all army guys are now sexist or soemthing. Or when they retire they become all fat and perveted and stuff. But I'm still joining the Navy.



" Rocket is so much better when you use real rockets"- US Navy

[Storm Strife]

I was talking to my sister's boyfriend which now is in the Navy as a piolet. And then his best friend started talking to me and saying girls can't join the army. I think all army guys are now sexist or soemthing. Or when they retire they become all fat and perveted and stuff. But I'm still joining the Navy.

Your friend's best friend is an idiot. In most countries, women are allowed to join the Army, but cannot become an infantry soldier. Over here in the UK women cannot be infantry soldiers, but they can go into a trade, such as the Royal Corp. of Signals or the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.

Anyway, on topic....I've been thinking about joining the Army and going into the Royal Corp. of Signals. I decided from a young age that if I did go into the army I wouldn't become an infantry soldier.

[Sagat]

Girls can join the army, at least in ours. Hell, Canada recently lost a female Artillery Captain in Afghanistan (last week actually). Amazingly not related to an IED, but a brutal gunfight involving RPG's.

[Ollie]

I really hope you're not being serious and that I was completely wrong about you.

Yes I was joking, and I have no clue if you're wrong about me because I never thought too hard about your opinion on me anyway. P:

But from what little I know, much of Canada's military action [like soldiers sent to Vietnam as assistance] weren't really meant for combat. That, or the media pays no attention whatsoever to it, 'cos y'know, Canada comes second to the USA aaaaalllways. IIRC, according to something I saw on BBC, Canada had some 50 years of peace until a few years ago.

Also, to those of you talking about women, there's a lot of reasons for why women can't go into the army. I'm reeeally not that comfortable with discussing it though, mainly due to my own lack of knowledge in the area, but you can find a lot of info on it online [like with all else].

I also suggest reading Jarhead, or watching the movie if you feel impatient. Good book and good movie, and from what I've heard from [both former and non-] Marines it does a good job of depicting how ugly it can really get.

[Sagat]

But from what little I know, much of Canada's military action [like soldiers sent to Vietnam as assistance] weren't really meant for combat. That, or the media pays no attention whatsoever to it, 'cos y'know, Canada comes second to the USA aaaaalllways. IIRC, according to something I saw on BBC, Canada had some 50 years of peace until a few years ago.

Also, to those of you talking about women, there's a lot of reasons for why women can't go into the army. I'm reeeally not that comfortable with discussing it though, mainly due to my own lack of knowledge in the area, but you can find a lot of info on it online [like with all else].

I also suggest reading Jarhead, or watching the movie if you feel impatient. Good book and good movie, and from what I've heard from [both former and non-] Marines it does a good job of depicting how ugly it can really get.

Much of Canadian action.. before. Keyword: Before.

I feel the need to clear this up. General Hillier, our CDS, has said publicly "our job is to kill people." Our previous, weak minded and horribly corrupt Liberal government promulgated this belief that Canadians are just peacekeepers, that we do not fight wars like the "evil US" blah blah. In reality it was merely a justification to cut our military funding into near red levels, and the public bought it.

Now, with the change in our Gov't, and with a great CDS like Hillier, the public is coming around to our true objectives. It's called the three block war, an idea from a US Marine commander. We still function as peacekeepers .... after we kill the people causing the problem. The military has long been rather upset as a whole about being seen as a peacekeeper. Finally, the truth is being known that Canadian military does kill people. It kills people who would torment it's own state, spread terror and trample the rights of others.

I am no fan of US foreign policy, and I can say proudly that our military sets out to do what the US military often convinces itself it is doing but is not really is. Sorry if that offends you US soldiers, this isn't a direct knock or insult at you, I have respect for American soldiers .. but not the policies. I don't think for one second you guys are in Iraq to free it from terror, find WMD's and liberate the country, although you may all be trying your earnest to do so.

Now about Jarhead ... well, I hated it. So the guy goes to Iraq and some stuff happens, oh boo frickity hoo. He never even sees real combat. He freaks out in such a poorly imitated Pte Pyle scene that I laughed out loud in the movie theatre. The movie, and the guy it is based around has been highly criticized from soldiers on both sides of the fence (US/Canada) and even the British soldiers who may be posting on both of the forums (well, Canada has army.ca, the US has a few for its different big units but there is still a general concensus of dislike for the movie).

Yes I was joking, and I have no clue if you're wrong about me because I never thought too hard about your opinion on me anyway. P:

Please ... I know you care so much that it hurts. It hurts so bad you're only comfort is a delicious can of HaagenDaz caramel ice cream. Mmmm..

[Cless Alvein]

I don't think for one second you guys are in Iraq to free it from terror, find WMD's and liberate the country, although you may all be trying your earnest to do so.

Well, I can only speak for one person, and that's myself. My reason for being
here is to save the lives of innocent people, plain and simple.

With that purpose in mind, I don't care if I have to spend a few years being
treated like a pawn. I can bare the misery of waking up every day 6,000
miles from my friends and family, knowing that they are safe. I don't care
if nobody thanks me, and I know that lots of people think I'm fighting for
a corrupt cause, but all I can do is shrug my shoulders and disagree.

And if I must die because I dared to stand up and fight for the right of innocent
people to live and be happy, so be it. Let my sacrifice be an example to those
who would do nothing. The soldiers here in Iraq know what we're fighting for,
and it really hurts that nobody *else* seems to be getting it, no matter
how many of us pay the ultimate price for it. It's a sad thing, yes. Nobody
wants to die. But it's a risk I'm willing to take for fighting for the future and
happiness of 26 million people.

[Piper]

Well, I can only speak for one person, and that's myself. My reason for being
here is to save the lives of innocent people, plain and simple.

With that purpose in mind, I don't care if I have to spend a few years being
treated like a pawn. I can bare the misery of waking up every day 6,000
miles from my friends and family, knowing that they are safe. I don't care
if nobody thanks me, and I know that lots of people think I'm fighting for
a corrupt cause, but all I can do is shrug my shoulders and disagree.

And if I must die because I dared to stand up and fight for the right of innocent
people to live and be happy, so be it. Let my sacrifice be an example to those
who would do nothing. The soldiers here in Iraq know what we're fighting for,
and it really hurts that nobody *else* seems to be getting it, no matter
how many of us pay the ultimate price for it. It's a sad thing, yes. Nobody
wants to die. But it's a risk I'm willing to take for fighting for the future and
happiness of 26 million people.

THAT, my friends. Makes a true hero. Lance, you just earned yourself an admirer.

PS:
Come back home, safe.

[German_Sniper9]

my uncle was in vietnam
my great grand father was a german soldier in wwii
my grand father was a american air born in wwii & vietnam
my other grand father was in vietnam and (wii i think)
my dad was in the navy
and as for me i was in rotc and im planning on joining the army after i gradutate from highschool

[Sagat]

Well, I can only speak for one person, and that's myself. My reason for being
here is to save the lives of innocent people, plain and simple.

With that purpose in mind, I don't care if I have to spend a few years being
treated like a pawn. I can bare the misery of waking up every day 6,000
miles from my friends and family, knowing that they are safe. I don't care
if nobody thanks me, and I know that lots of people think I'm fighting for
a corrupt cause, but all I can do is shrug my shoulders and disagree.

And if I must die because I dared to stand up and fight for the right of innocent
people to live and be happy, so be it. Let my sacrifice be an example to those
who would do nothing. The soldiers here in Iraq know what we're fighting for,
and it really hurts that nobody *else* seems to be getting it, no matter
how many of us pay the ultimate price for it. It's a sad thing, yes. Nobody
wants to die. But it's a risk I'm willing to take for fighting for the future and
happiness of 26 million people.

And I don't doubt for one second that or your comrades are. It's the Bush Administration that I was talking about in regardless to distrust and the reasons you're all in Iraq.

But, this isn't something I'd wish to debate to be truthful with an active duty soldier. Just know that I think you guys are doing good, you guys as in the soldiers, the people on the ground over there. Stay safe and for the love of god keep an eye on the sides of the roads.

Bido: That's quite the military family you got going there, mine is quite similar. Great grandfather was in WW2 as infantry, other great grandfather in the same war as an artilleryman. Grandfather was also a Gunner, other grandfather a sailor .... my father is a sergeant-major and my mother just recently became a nursing officer.. and my sister is currently joining up in the Navy.

Glad to see you want to join the army ... wait you sure you want to join the ARMY? Anyhow congrats for wanting to join the military. Joining up as ..?

[Raven]

I am the first female in my family to join the military, the first in mydirect line to be in the Army (dad and mom's dad navy, dad's dad.. I'm not sure, but he was a gunner in ww2) We'll be going to Iraq in 1 1/2 month, I'll be going to sgt school to get promoted, and for the most part, I don't belive females should be in the army. Have you heard the crap that goes on overthere? Prostitute rings, rapeing, std's, ..annd, I just don't geta long with too many females, but that's just me.

And now, back to your discussion

[Storm Strife]

Also, to those of you talking about women, there's a lot of reasons for why women can't go into the army. I'm reeeally not that comfortable with discussing it though, mainly due to my own lack of knowledge in the area, but you can find a lot of info on it online [like with all else].

http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=29

Air Defense Tactical Operations Center Operator/Maintainer - found by searching for jobs only open to women and the keyword Computers.

http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=102

Armament Repairer - found by searching for jobs only open to women and the keyword Artillery.

http://shared.armyjobs.mod.uk/JobDes...msEngineer.htm

Information Systems Engineer - notice the gender says Male/Female

http://shared.armyjobs.mod.uk/JobDes...GunnerAs90.htm

Gunner AS90 - notice the gender says Male/Female

[Ollie]

*scratches head*
Sorry, I think I wrote the wrong thing down. More like why many believe women shouldn't go into the army.