US Army advertising

[foraker]

Gee, mattp, I thought the only point that I was making as that you should allow people to make their own decisions about joining the Army. I doubt very much I was being inherently 'pro-military'. The interesting thing here for me is how a 'certain section' of people (to use your phraseology) seem unable to disassociate those who join the military (who have their own reasons for wanting to join) and those who choose when and where to send the military. If you think that the military is an inherently evil organization (which you seem to), then I think you need to prove that point without referencing the current goat-fuckers in office. If you can't do that, all you're doing is projecting your hatred of said goat-fuckers onto another group of people whose job it is to obey the directives of those in office.

Now, if you want them out of Iraq, try convincing the other set of goat-fuckers to find the cojones to pull them out. Good luck with that.

 

Back to my original point, even back in the 70's, when I was a kid and had far less access to information than kids these days, we weren't under any illusion of what the military was about and what it meant if you enlisted. If you can't trust 18 y.o. kids to make an intelligent kind of decision like that, how can you trust them with anything important like college, career, getting married, having kids, drinking, driving, smoking dope, etc? Maybe you should just follow them around until they're 30 say 'Oh, don't do that. You don't know what you're thinking. You're not mature enough to make this decision'. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

[joblo7]

todays kids have access to an incredible amount of disinformation.they make worse choices and there is no dissent.protest. less freedom.

[Dechristo]

todays kids have access to an incredible amount of disinformation.they make worse choices and there is no dissent.protest. less freedom.

 

Man, you're too old... out of touch.

[mattp]

Sorry I got out of line there, Foraker. I have, as you put it in your first post here, no right to worry about what somebody else's kids might do. Bringing up the fact that Eisenhower warned us what was happening with our military fifty years ago (and that the present situation would probably be his worst nightmare) and mentioning that we tried a bunch of Nazi war criminals fifty years ago and said they can't just use the excuse that they were following somebody else's orders is really stretching things and doesn't belong in "your" conversation. I'll go back to my cage now.

[TyClimber]

I completely agree we must have a standing military, only someone suffering from extreme naivete would think otherwise. Not for wars of aggression fought for purely financial reasons or questionable ideology, but for national defense. I appreciate and admire those who choose to enlist. Without them the US would be in trouble.

 

However, I think the way the army goes after kids the second they step into a high school is seriously wrong. If someone makes an informed decision to join up that is one thing, if they are pushed into it by a recruiter looking to meet his quotas that is another. What cracks me is the fact that my 17 year old brother gets between 10 and 20 emails a week from the recruiter who hounds his school. He has repeatedly said he is not interested but the guy will not leave him alone. Its borderline harrasment.

 

Personally I think the armed forces should have a recruitment office in every town. If someone chooses to walk in and volunteer then more power to them. But I don't think recruiters should be allowed anywhere near high schools nor should they be allowed target children with free video games and manipulative advertising.

 

That said, I think the vast majority of those who frequent this site should be mature enough to make a decision without beind swayed by a free video game. Advertising directed at adults is fair game when it comes to raising a standing army, when those banner show up on myspace and other websites geared towards teens then I think we have a right to bitch about it.

[foraker]

Sorry I got out of line there, Foraker. I have, as you put it in your first post here, no right to worry about what somebody else's kids might do. Bringing up the fact that Eisenhower warned us what was happening with our military fifty years ago (and that the present situation would probably be his worst nightmare) and mentioning that we tried a bunch of Nazi war criminals fifty years ago and said they can't just use the excuse that they were following somebody else's orders is really stretching things and doesn't belong in "your" conversation. I'll go back to my cage now.

 

Is it even possible for you to stay on topic and not drift off into flights of irrevalency?? How did you make it through college? [handholding] Perhaps you ought to go back and revisit my original point and consider who the target audience is for the ad. [/handholding]

[foraker]

todays kids have access to an incredible amount of disinformation.they make worse choices and there is no dissent.protest. less freedom.

 

Please step away from the ganja.

[AlpineK]

Todays kids have even more information to make decisions from that I did. All I had as a kid was the nightly news with the VietNam war on TV and talking to people. I was able to make up my own mind about signing up. Today kids can see all the effects of the Iraq war on TV, but there are also thousands of sources from both sides of the debate out there.

 

An add on the internet will probably carry as much weight as the great Coca-Cola Pepsi debate.

[mattp]

You crack me up, Foraker.

 

The discussion started off with Cocoa's objecting to the recruitment add. If I recall correctly, he suggested that these adds are dishonest and that cc.com is at least in some measure supporting the war by running these adds.

 

Nobody is saying we shouldn't allow potential enlistees to make their own decision.

[AlpineK]

Those adds by McDonalds encouraging everybody to super size it really piss me off. I'm sure McDonalds must know the health problems caused by encouraging people to overeat.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

The best part about this thread is that after all the bitching, the ad is still there.

 

[JayB]

The cc.com equivalent of the "Free Tibet" bumpersticker.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The cc.com equivalent of the "Free Tibet" bumpersticker.

 

Interesting that you raise that example... I was thinking about Tibet's situation and the philosophy of pacifism that obviously permeated the POV of at least one participant in this discussion. A lot of good pacifism has done them, eh? And a lack of an army? I just watched Kundun a few days before this thread started, and that definitely made an impression on my mind set when this thread started.

 

 

[Dechristo]

The cc.com equivalent of the "Free Tibet" bumpersticker.

 

Interesting that you raise that example... I was thinking about Tibet's situation and the philosophy of pacifism that obviously permeated the POV of at least one participant in this discussion. A lot of good pacifism has done them, eh? And a lack of an army? I just watched Kundun a few days before this thread started, and that definitely made an impression on my mind set when this thread started.

 

 

My impression of the history of the Tibet/China conflict is that Tibet did raise an "army", but were vastly out-manned and out-gunned; in the end, pacifism, as a nation, was not practiced.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The cc.com equivalent of the "Free Tibet" bumpersticker.

 

Interesting that you raise that example... I was thinking about Tibet's situation and the philosophy of pacifism that obviously permeated the POV of at least one participant in this discussion. A lot of good pacifism has done them, eh? And a lack of an army? I just watched Kundun a few days before this thread started, and that definitely made an impression on my mind set when this thread started.

 

 

My impression of the history of the Tibet/China conflict is that Tibet did raise an "army", but were vastly out-manned and out-gunned; in the end, pacifism, as a nation, was not practiced.

 

Yes, they had a very small army, and some fought. The movie does touch on the "ethics" of fighting - is it justified "ever", and so on, and should the Tibetans fight/when is it appropriate. I disagree with your statement that "pacifism, as a nation, was not practiced". In that case, the culture of pacifism did have a huge role in the amount and nature of resistence, and history played out exactly as you would expect. I have no desire for the US to go that route, that's for certain.

 

[lI1|1!]

 

 

[No. 13 Baby]

In that case, the culture of pacifism did have a huge role in the amount and nature of resistence, and history played out exactly as you would expect. I have no desire for the US to go that route, that's for certain.

 

...as long as its not your ass overseas providing "resistence."

[ClimbingPanther]

...as long as its not your ass overseas providing "resistence."

 

If "being a human spell-checker" is what you call "publicly schooling," then you are indeed doing a terrific job.

 

You should revisit the use of the apostrophe in a contraction, by the way. "It's" pretty simple.

Edited October 1, 2007 by ClimbingPanther

[No. 13 Baby]

I'm only schooling Tucker because he recently bragged about his academic "credentials" and membership in Phi Beta Kappa. This, on top of his usual smug demeanor.

 

Seems as if his ego needs a little reality check. Think of it as a public service.

 

Nice touch "editing" your spelling lesson.

[ClimbingPanther]

I'M UR SPELL-CHECKER, CHECKIN UR WORDZ!!!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'M UR SPELL-CHECKER, CHECKIN UR WORDZ!!!

 

People sometimes ask me what an ass-clown is. I just refer them to No. 13 Crybaby on training wheels.

 

[pink]

[joblo7]

I AM NOT A PACIFIST.!!

I AM NOT A WARMONGER.

 

there is a lot of room between those positions.

 

[ivan]

"my psychologist says i swallowed a lot of aggresion as a kid...along w/ a lotta pizza!"

[sexual_chocolate]

 

My impression of the history of the Tibet/China conflict is that Tibet did raise an "army", but were vastly out-manned and out-gunned; in the end, pacifism, as a nation, was not practiced.

 

From what I've read, considerable debate arose regarding an "appropriate" response to the chinese invasion. It seems that the dalai lama was always against any violent response, whereas quite a few monks argued otherwise, even taking up arms.

 

There is an ethic of non-violence that runs deeply in the practice of Buddhism. Christianity has at its roots such an ethic also, but witness the bastardization of this by those who profess to speak for Jesus ("forgive them, for they know not what they do." can a person of violence utter these words when facing death at the hands of those who despise him?).

 

I see a strong similarity in the mindset/heartset that can say these words and really understand them, and the goals of a Buddhist practice. I'm reminded of a story that the Dalai Lama told, of a nun who had been taken prisoner by the chinese. They tortured her, and raped her repeatedly, over the course of years. When asked how she dealt with this situation, and if she ever became angry or wanted revenge, she said no, how could she? All she felt was pity and compassion for these poor men who were so lost, so lost that they could do the things they were doing to her.

 

As I understand the Dalai Lama's position, a victory through armed struggle and violence would be worse (and impossible, only bringing more hardship to the Tibetans) than the continuation of the present state, since it would be a victory for violence itself (always at best a temporary "solution").