Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

It's 2013. Do you ever think America will wake up and realize we don't need to police the rest of the world? Guarantee you "our enemies" wouldn't care one iota for us if we didn't tell them how to live and occupy their lands. Just throwing it out there...

We don't need to be the World Police. Let our allies take some of the responsibility.

Ibanez wrote:We don't need to be the World Police. Let our allies take some of the responsibility.

That would be bad for business

FCS PATRIOTS wrote:It's 2013. Do you ever think America will wake up and realize we don't need to police the rest of the world? Guarantee you "our enemies" wouldn't care one iota for us if we didn't tell them how to live and occupy their lands. Just throwing it out there...

The American Military Industrial Machine is used primarily to secure resources...

The "defending the free world" and rousting out the nasty dictators ploy is a distraction
Think of it as "marketing brand awareness" creating pride and loyalty
Which is critical for drumming up more idiots to go die in the sand for Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell

this is not news

The American military-industrial regime is primarily a device to CONSUME resources....we are, after all, a consumption society and economy. If the military stopped consuming, this country would come to a grinding halt and the economy would be on its knees for decades to come.

FCS PATRIOTS wrote:It's 2013. Do you ever think America will wake up and realize we don't need to police the rest of the world? Guarantee you "our enemies" wouldn't care one iota for us if we didn't tell them how to live and occupy their lands. Just throwing it out there...

There are benefits for everyone for peace and stability. Sure, there are flareups all over the place, but nothing that's really earth shattering or game changers. Pax Americana is very similar to Pax Romana in it's time - everyone benefits. I like being able to travel to most parts of the world without real fear of danger.

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote:We don't need to be the World Police. Let our allies take some of the responsibility.

That would be bad for business

To provide jobs for the rural, uneducated, unskilled folks that tend to enlist.

Skjellyfetti wrote:To provide jobs for the rural, uneducated, unskilled folks that tend to enlist.

You're much of a stupid pencil neck to be an elitist like your idols John Kerry and Hillary Clinton so stop trying.

Oops.

Forgot that it was an issue where Republicans serve as the PC-police.

Skjellyfetti wrote:To provide jobs for the rural, uneducated, unskilled folks that tend to enlist.

Says the man who never served a day in his life. Please continue. This should be good.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:To provide jobs for the rural, uneducated, unskilled folks that tend to enlist.

Says the man who never served a day in his life. Please continue. This should be good.

He wouldn't make it through a week at AIR FORCE boot camp, let alone the other 3.

Well, I can understand saying we shouldn't be as interventionist as we are. If we were not we'd probably suffer a decline in our standard of living but I can understand arguing that it's best not to be like that.

But yes we need a military. If we had no military at all the risk of being invaded by foreign powers would be way too high. We have lots of natural resources. It'd be like running around in the worst part of New Orleans waving a handful of hundred dollar bills around. I think the odds that we'd get invaded if we didn't have a military are overwhelming.

Skjellyfetti wrote:To provide jobs for the rural, uneducated, unskilled folks that tend to enlist.

My bet would be that you're way off on the demographics. My bet would be that those in the military are more educated, on average, than the general population. Also, my bet would be that the majority of them are not from rural areas.

Not that there's anything wrong with rural areas. If I had to go through life again I'd sure as heck rather grow up in a rural area than in an urban area.

As for being unskilled: Most people are relatively unskilled when they are in the age range typical of those joining the military. They become much more skilled while they're in it. Part of what they're doing is becoming skilled. You can be 18 and decide to go to college and acquire skills that way. There are other ways as well. And one of them is to join the military.

I didn't do it. But there is nothing "inferior" about it.

Notice the two criticizing the military men are two of the most quivering vaginas on the message boards. They'd be sent home from Parris Island the first week for bedwetting.

JohnStOnge wrote:My bet would be that you're way off on the demographics.

My bet would be that those in the military are more educated, on average, than the general population.

This is just looking at Air Force, because they had the best demographic data I could find quickly. And, just going with stereotypes, I think Air Force and Navy would have the higher education %'s. I'd be shocked if the Army had 4x the % of bachelor degrees.

7.1% of those enlisted in the Air Force have a bachelor's degree
1.1% have a masters degree
http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforce ... aphics.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

30.4% of the general population has a bachelor's degree
10.9% have a masters degree
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/educa ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnStOnge wrote:Also, my bet would be that the majority of them are not from rural areas.

More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army, with an opposite trend in cities. Regionally, most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02528.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnStOnge wrote:Not that there's anything wrong with rural areas. If I had to go through life again I'd sure as heck rather grow up in a rural area than in an urban area.

The point isn't rural vs. urban. I much prefer rural life as well.

The point is that someone without an education is able to find a job much easier in a city than in rural areas.

Rural unemployment = 8.7%
National average = 7.3%
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/emb ... =2&tmplt=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

93henfan wrote:Notice the two criticizing the military men are two of the most quivering vaginas on the message boards. They'd be sent home from Parris Island the first week for bedwetting.

Are you suggesting that because they are "quivering vaginas" somehow that makes their posts incorrect..?
I'm not sure I get your point..?

Chizzang wrote:

93henfan wrote:Notice the two criticizing the military men are two of the most quivering vaginas on the message boards. They'd be sent home from Parris Island the first week for bedwetting.

Are you suggesting that because they are "quivering vaginas" somehow that makes their posts incorrect..?
I'm not sure I get your point..?

My only point is that you are a quivering vagina. I think you got it.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:My bet would be that you're way off on the demographics.

My bet would be that those in the military are more educated, on average, than the general population.

This is just looking at Air Force, because they had the best demographic data I could find quickly. And, just going with stereotypes, I think Air Force and Navy would have the higher education %'s. I'd be shocked if the Army had 4x the % of bachelor degrees.

7.1% of those enlisted in the Air Force have a bachelor's degree
1.1% have a masters degree
http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforce ... aphics.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

30.4% of the general population has a bachelor's degree
10.9% have a masters degree
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/educa ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hey genius, most people who serve in the military who get college degrees get them AFTER serving- ie the GI Bill.

How about comparing the percentage of vets in their 30s-60s who have college degrees versus non vets..

Skjellyfetti wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:My bet would be that you're way off on the demographics.

My bet would be that those in the military are more educated, on average, than the general population.

This is just looking at Air Force, because they had the best demographic data I could find quickly. And, just going with stereotypes, I think Air Force and Navy would have the higher education %'s. I'd be shocked if the Army had 4x the % of bachelor degrees.

7.1% of those enlisted in the Air Force have a bachelor's degree
1.1% have a masters degree
http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforce ... aphics.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

30.4% of the general population has a bachelor's degree
10.9% have a masters degree
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/educa ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hey genius, most people who serve in the military who get college degrees get them AFTER serving- ie the GI Bill.

How about comparing the percentage of vets in their 30s-60s who have college degrees versus non vets..

BDKJMU wrote:
Hey genius, most people who serve in the military who get college degrees get them AFTER serving- ie the GI Bill.

How about comparing the percentage of vets in their 30s-60s who have college degrees versus non vets..

I agree.

And, I didn't forget about vets and the GI bill because that wasn't my point. In fact... it reinforces my point.

The GI Bill is a great example of why the military is a good option for someone who might not be able to go to college otherwise.

Enlisting in the military is really one of the best jobs available to someone with a high school degree but won't be able to go to college. Without the military... the VAST majority of those people would not be able to find meaningful employment. Most would just end up on the dole.

So, again, one of the most important functions of the military is employing the rural, uneducated, unskilled folks.

I'm sorry if that offends y'all.

AZGrizFan wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Says the man who never served a day in his life. Please continue. This should be good.

He wouldn't make it through a week at AIR FORCE boot camp, let alone the other 3.

STOP IT!!! BE NICE

GannonFan wrote:

FCS PATRIOTS wrote:It's 2013. Do you ever think America will wake up and realize we don't need to police the rest of the world? Guarantee you "our enemies" wouldn't care one iota for us if we didn't tell them how to live and occupy their lands. Just throwing it out there...

There are benefits for everyone for peace and stability. Sure, there are flareups all over the place, but nothing that's really earth shattering or game changers. Pax Americana is very similar to Pax Romana in it's time - everyone benefits. I like being able to travel to most parts of the world without real fear of danger.

It was nice to have the US armed forces providing a stabilizing influence on the world after WWII, if you could call the Cold War a stabilizing influence, but what purpose does the US military, in its present numbers, serve the world today?

Surely Europe would not erupt into open warfare if the US withdrew from its bases. Perhaps China would make a grab for Taiwan...but all we'd need to do is to leave Taiwan with enough nukes to make them unpalatable. Asia, other than the above, which is containable, is about as stable as it has ever been or will be...and China/India intend to keep it that way. Pakistan is the only real problem, and really, WTF are we doing to "stabilize" Pakistan? Many would submit that our presence is more of a problem than a solution.

The Middle East? Yeah, we've done a great job there.

That place will eventually come to its solution...if Palestinians keep multiplying like rats, Israel will simply go the way of South Africa...perhaps with a few nukes, but why should we care? After they are done battling Israel, they will just continue eradicating themselves. Our best weapon would be to continue to drop some Korans emphasizing the differences between the Shiites and Sunnis and sit back and watch the fireworks.

South America? Who cares?

The only real local threat is the Mexican drug cartels. Big deal. Legalize the lesser drugs, and focus the military on our borders, with the occasional adventure to snuff out any direct threats, and we'd be doing ourselves and the world a favor. Instead, we have a bloated military that is spread out all over the word while doing no one, except certain businesses, any real favors.

Divert the military budget into developing our education system, and our industrial and technological base (not just for military applications) and we'd be much better off.

Cluck U wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
There are benefits for everyone for peace and stability. Sure, there are flareups all over the place, but nothing that's really earth shattering or game changers. Pax Americana is very similar to Pax Romana in it's time - everyone benefits. I like being able to travel to most parts of the world without real fear of danger.

It was nice to have the US armed forces providing a stabilizing influence on the world after WWII, if you could call the Cold War a stabilizing influence, but what purpose does the US military, in its present numbers, serve the world today?

Surely Europe would not erupt into open warfare if the US withdrew from its bases. Perhaps China would make a grab for Taiwan...but all we'd need to do is to leave Taiwan with enough nukes to make them unpalatable. Asia, other than the above, which is containable, is about as stable as it has ever been or will be...and China/India intend to keep it that way. Pakistan is the only real problem, and really, WTF are we doing to "stabilize" Pakistan? Many would submit that our presence is more of a problem than a solution.

The Middle East? Yeah, we've done a great job there.

That place will eventually come to its solution...if Palestinians keep multiplying like rats, Israel will simply go the way of South Africa...perhaps with a few nukes, but why should we care? After they are done battling Israel, they will just continue eradicating themselves. Our best weapon would be to continue to drop some Korans emphasizing the differences between the Shiites and Sunnis and sit back and watch the fireworks.

South America? Who cares?

The only real local threat is the Mexican drug cartels. Big deal. Legalize the lesser drugs, and focus the military on our borders, with the occasional adventure to snuff out any direct threats, and we'd be doing ourselves and the world a favor. Instead, we have a bloated military that is spread out all over the word while doing no one, except certain businesses, any real favors.

Divert the military budget into developing our education system, and our industrial and technological base (not just for military applications) and we'd be much better off.

Hey, I agree, there's plenty of fat to be cut in the defense budget and we should do that right away. But we're still going to have a sizeable military and I'd argue that we should. But yes, it does need to be reined in significantly in terms of cost.