Why does the military shave recruits heads?

I agree with Mr_Truth. Good sentiment until the last paragraph.

 

Thank god we don't have people like you in charge of any soldiers.

The reason we have the strongest military in the world is because everyone who signed the dotted line to die for our country, WANTS TO BE HERE. Not some snow flake anti-war left wing sissy that wouldn't shoot back when a terrorist is firing at him.

 

See, I've never understood why we should take pride, gloat even if the idea we have "the strongest military in the world." Someone who had a responsible stance on the military would say instead of enlisting more human bodies, how do we compress the size of the military and replace human bodies with artificial intelligence?

Those are the questions we should be asking, not asking who should serve in the military or forbid, die for our country. Because robots don't have families.

 

Artificial intelligence can't raid a terrorist compound, take 6 goat ****ers into custody without killing them, and find important intelligence to stop a future attack on American soil.

 

I agree such technology is still developing, and is far from some of what you have described, however, if defense spending is necessary, then it should be necessary in developing technologies to raid terrorist compounds, assisting their human counterparts from afar.

 

The most important asset on the ground is the soldier. No AI can gather intel from a live enemy, AI can't liberate cities without devastation, boots on the ground is the queen of the battle.

 

You mean RIGHT WING pro war draft dodging sissy: http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks/

 

I'm sure many right wingers dodged the draft. Just like left wingers.

 

Yeah but the lefties never advocated in favor of war, profit from the military industrial complex, and then go around proclaiming themselves as patriotic heroes for endorsing wars they won't fight for themselves.

 

Ok, you're derailing. My post was just one example of why we shouldn't force people to serve in the military.

 

All militaries that are strong have largely volunteers, I didn't serve due to disability not lack of desire to, almost all my family do a tour in one service or another my mother was in her day a WAC, in my dads case he was a cold war draftee who stayed going career but that was a different time young men largely didn't mind and if you had objections the draft board knew them and would assign alternatives if needed. A Quaker convert in the family served his two years at a VA Hospital and it was fine. And after basic and training you can be more individual in hair style as long as its regulation for men and women although shorter hair is good a woman can secure hers to be fully within regulations. But you choose to join up in the modern armed forces and the various reserves.

And sorry my serving and former serving relatives smile a good deal but those who were in combat do change not doing so, you see men and women die and your ordered to take life is a solemn act if you like doing it there is something wrong with you either you mock it to stand doing it or you take a piece of you out and aren't the same. The good soldiers and other serving people get to treat it like a job - those tend to be the most solemn to them killing is like stepping on a cockroach you do it because it must be done. This from observation and knowing those who fight and did so in close quarters with an enemy. Sailors who pushed a button to fire missiles seem to not take it as badly since your not seeing the enemy die it might be that difference what you do in the services as much as the persons character.

 

Baloney. I am addressing your comment, "Not some snow flake anti-war left wing sissy that wouldn't shoot back when a terrorist is firing at him." Had you put in the word "right wing" you would have spoken the truth.

 

The right wing wasn't out in the millions protesting Vietnam, or Iraq. You're taking a comment made about something else and trying to tie it to Trump. It's called "trolling". Drink some water, relax dude. You're better than that.

 

No, it's you who is trolling. Those protesters were trying to protect American lives the way real patriots do. After all, the Pentagon Papers showed the government lied when it created the Gulf of Tonkin fake incident just like Bush lied and pretended Iraq was going to start WW III.

That's patriotism.

The politically correct right wing chicken hawks applaud war because it means high war profits for them. That is treason.

 

Ok so we're in agreement. It was the left wing anti war folks, not right wing anti war folks, that didn't want to go to war.

 

At the time I was drafted, that was prior to the start of training. In normal duty, we had longer hair.

My belief is the military wants unity. They will try to cram you out of civilian life into a rigid command structure that they can mold to the military purposes.

 

In case you didn't know it, all those colleges in the South were still racially segregated during the Vietnam war. Obviously, their campuses were filled with students who applauded the segregation, endorsed the war, but took full advantage of student deferments.


And, of course, today, the right wing chicken hawks applaud war while refusing to fight. Mitt Romney and Trump come to mind as people who happily applaud war but who never sent any of their sons off to war.

 

Ok. So once again,

It was the left wing anti-war snowflake protesting war. They were scared and didn't want to fight. Nothing wrong with admitting that half the country was ball-less

 

... with right wing snow flakes applauding war they wouldn't fight - hypocrisy of the worse kind

 

As a then Democrat, and one just out of the Army, at first I fully backed the military fighting the war. As a still loyal Democrat, one trained by infantry to know that what Johnson was doing was bull crud, not the way to win, and it took me several years to figure out Johnson, I then felt our troops were victims. So I never once marched or openly protested, I was anti the Johnson war in Vietnam.

If is bad enough men die in wars, to ruin all chances of them winning is criminal. And LBJ in my view qualified as a nothing burger leader. He was unfit for command.

The Bush situation was nothing like Vietnam. Bush had the Army General, Tommy Franks fully in command and he ran the war the best way it could be run. And he won the war.

Things get said about President Bush that are just wrong. I feel they are lies. But I like to reserve the word lie for a person who learned the truth and chooses not to tell the truth. Bush ran the war the right way. Bush never told any of us Saddam was about to start WW3. Bush always stated how Saddam is a grave and gathering danger. Make of that what you will, but those are his actual words. Bush also reported what the CIA told him. When Clinton charged Saddam as a very dangerous man, Democrats cheered. when Bush agreed with Clinton, suddenly they no longer liked the same words.

Compare today how the Democrats want war with Russia. Will Trump get blamed if he joins them?

For those wanting the actual history of the two wars during Bush 43, please, read Franks book, American Soldier. General Franks explains it all.

 

Bottom line is Bush lied, Americans died. The Middle East has suffered from horrible instability since then. The chaos that exists in that region with all those deaths are attributable to Bush crimes. He is a murderer, not a hero.

 

It may not have stopped us getting into the war, but it definitely caused us to get out of the war.
We later learned that the whole Gulf of Tonkin incident was a LIE.

 

This was all before President George W. Bush was even a President.

Remember, you voted for these war hawks.

 

I have already refuted that series countless times on this forum. See my posts from Hans Blix.

 

No you haven't.