Stumble This | You should also watch “The Cannibal Corpse video they don't want you to see” |
Comments 
who voted for this video
seeknowsage
- benjee
- blackout
- Fiver2
- dw1117
- Gervaise
- atara
- theo47
- giger
- raddishs
- mauz15
- Dr.Conspiracy
- Farhad2000
- sometimes
- lordnull
- meow
- mysdrial
- NTB
- bizinichi
- drforeverclear
- Lucefin
- mlx
- Krupo
- noodle
- brendotroy
- BoneyD
- IntoTheOblivion
- SlipperyPete
- qruel
- julianj
- bamdrew
- messenger
- raven
- Ivegotthebends
- skforty
- vampirebear
- blue_beastie
- calvados
- sbchapm
- arsenault185
who voted against this video
Wumpus
who has this post bookmarked
blue_beastie
- 5amurai
Before You Enlist - What Military Recruiters Don't Tell You Related Videos
 Ramones - I Don't Want You (Live 1978) |  The Marines employ a strict "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy | The Cannibal Corpse video they don't want you to see |
If a kid needs this video to think "Geee... I could die there, maybe I shouldn't go", then he's probably a runner up on a darwin award.
I don't mean this just for the american army, I mean it for EVERY SINGLE army in the world.
Soldiers are trained assassins/killers. I don't care if they think they're gonna start a new democracy, or save someone, it's irrelevant. They are all trained killers. Not a good think to support. I support no one who thinks being trained to kill is a good way of living.
With regards to supporting the troops I agree that it's stupid but for very different reasons. Mainly that saying "I support the troops" has absolutely no meaning or impact on anything. It mostly just seems to be a way for people to avoid the guilt of not having to share the danger and sacrifice of being a soldier, or having a family member who is a soldier.
With regard to your reasons I wanted to make a couple of comments. First off, you emphasize that soldiers are killers, certainly true, which seems to imply that you find the act of killing repugnant in all situations. This in turn would imply that you believe the most important thing a person has is his or her life. Is it though? Couldn't a persons dignity or virtue of conduct be more important than more time in a life that is eventually going to end anyway? What I'm getting at is that there are lives that arn't worth living. Hitler is a prime example. Lets ignore all of the evils he was responsible for and just focus on him. Do you think Hitler lived a good life? Do you think he was happy? By all accounts he was a pretty unhappy and miserable man, perhaps he himself (nevermind the world) would have been better off had he died young. My point with all of this isn't that killing is necessarily right, but there are things more imporant to a person than his or her life and therefore a premature death is not always morally wrong.
With that established lets look at the profession of arms. All societies need security in order to function, without it life devolves into a Hobbesian state of nature (although not exactly an issue of security look at what happened in New Orleans for an example of how quickly society breaks down). This is frequently hard to believe for most Americans and Europeans simply because life for us has always been really good. That society could ever be seriously threatened for without or fall apart from within, does not seem to cross most Westerners mind. Therefore the need for security frequently seems superfluous, and the institutions that provide security a relic of an older time. Is security superfluous though? I hate to bring it up simply because it's so overused by politicians I have little respect for and has been used to justify things that it does not justify, but I would think 9/11 demonstrates that security is capable of breaking down and when it does life is all the more terrifying and unpleasant. There may be a day where the world community comes together and the need for a true army will disappear. The need for security will not however, and therefore law enforcement institutions will continue to exist. Since weapons cannot be uninvented it will always be necessary for security forces to possess weapons. Otherwise how would they provide security from a threat that possesses weapons? Given how essential security is to a functioning society, having a group of trained killers as you put it to provide security is at the very least the lesser of evils if not in some ways a good thing.
This one's going for the top 15, straight up!
About your post.
I know that my way of thinking is very lyrical and utopian. However I do believe it.
For example, the Hitler case. Just because he was a monster doesn't mean others should stoop to his level. What should have happened in WW2, instead of that coward killing himself, he should have been captured, trialed in a just court, and sentenced to life in prison.
Of course I think it would have been better if he had never been born, but it's different thinking that, and killing someone.
Until humans can stop killing each other like some demented primates, we are no better than any irrational animal.
My 2 cents
First, the whole "lying to cover a drug incident" I find a little hard to believe from my own experience. I was denied entry into the service simply because, over the phone, I "self adjudicated" myself by (jokingly) answering honestly that I was "arrested" as a minor for pulling change out of a water fountain (seriously). Now, tell me again how they are lying about felonies, just to make quota...
The contract is NOT unilateral. The contract states what it states, and within that contract it give the government the right to do those things. Now, if you sign a contract in which the contract states that it may be changed on a whim... it was your decision to sign it, therefore, NOT UNILATERAL.
Stop Loss is pretty much written into military contracts as well. Going in, you ARE informed of your active duity status and inactive duty responsibilities. Why in GOD'S NAME would they have an "inactive" duty, other than to keep you on in case of the need for redeployment in times of war. That's a gimme, folks.
And, as for the Montgomery GI Bill... Oh, you mean you can't use it when you are in the service? You can't use it when you are active duty in a battlefield? Wow... what a shock... IDIOT!
So, the majority of the military is of working class or lower. Hmmm... Do I blame McDonalds for having to employ the less educated and unhireable? Why? Because you don't need a degree to flip a burger or pull a trigger. McDonalds is a fast food company, the military is? People? That's right, the military; used for defense, not for quantum physics.
So, the female soldiers feel that they must come back and be more watchful in the military, than they do walking down the street? I think not. The numbers they give, only point out that there is a .02% difference between the military and general public, when it comes to reported sexual assaults. (But, this is sort of hard for people to understand, when they can't even comprehend the fact that the military isn't McDonalds).
(200,000+/- cases reported annually out of nearly 300,000,000 population nationally (.06%). 2,374 reported in 2005, out of a military force of almost 3,000,000 (.08%)).
It's like... not only can they not figure out that guns kill, but they can't even use their brains for higher level functions such as research.
And... the kicker... "Oh, you mean, we might DIE or get wounded if we go to war?"
This not so much a video vilifying the recruiters, but giving reason to increase the age of legal adulthood in the US. If you are telling me that they cannot comprehend this... raise the age.
uhhh...., morons and those not, but not that bright, in any discipline, if they do not constantly adapt and move with the dynamic of the world they exist in, will find themselves confused and bewildered by their experiences. The predictable response from a number of those folks, is to blame, and complain, rather than......Pick up,Dust Off, Start Over-which is where everyone ends up, everyday, making us all the same whether flippin' boigas, or learning to walk with a prosthetic limb.
Whiners-Know the stakes....then make a decision based on the information, and the process the lord gave ya! Hopefully, it will all work out.
What military recruiters don't tell you.....You Should Already Know!!! Jesssus!
-
And apart from what they tell you in the video I am 100% convinced that a 18 year-old CAN make this decision. I knew PERFECTLY well that if I join the army they will hand me a gun, train me in handling it and chances are that they want me to use it. Also I knew that I could DIE on duty if i join. And most important: As you might know Germany did not engage in any wars until lately, so it was VERY implausible back then that I would ever be part of a real battle. But anyway, i knew there COULD be the chance.
And I was only 18 years old. Sorry but I devoutly believe that these thoughts could be made by any young man or woman. If you are not aware of that than you are just plain IGNORANT.
However, this video is misleading. The contract extension is not something the military "springs" on recruits. When I signed up (Feb '91) the contract plainly stated that I was agreeing to four years active duty and four years inactive duty. The inactive duty obligation means the military can call you back to duty for four years after you have been discharged OR keep you on active duty. It's not a secret. It's plain as day on the front page of the contract. If you don't read your contract, you are a moron. Signing your life away without reading what your signing is complete stupidity.
A better argument would be that the government has slashed VA funding for years. The budget to take care of disabled soldiers has significantly decreased (budget slashed for five years then--I believe--a small increase this last year. Of course, the government money allocated to the VA didn't actually get paid for nearly a year). That, I find disgusting more than anything.