Americans don't want to fight for their country anymore
Americans don't want to fight for their country anymore
The military is struggling to recruit, amid an apparent disconnect with the younger generation. But it is a complex picture.
You're viewing a single thread.
Two things not mentioned it that article:
-
Why would anyone want to fight for a country that is so callously disinterested in the welfare of it's citizens?
-
In the last quarter-century it has become extremely apparent that the US Military is not the "global force for good" that it wants to portray itself as. Most young people probably aren't interested in joining up to commit war crimes in the name of making money for the military industrial complex.
- Every branch of the military has become increasingly toxic, cutting things like training and cleaning up black mold in favor of new uniforms every 2 years
@kvasir476 @throws_lemy Suggested edit: After "In the last quarter-century" insert "I've finally noticed".
Butler saw the scam first-hand, 100 years ago. Every generation seems it must relearn the lessons of our grandparents.
As for young people not enlisting for wars of convenience - exactly. That's partially why a draft was around, and why it was so unpopular. And why the money each service pays for college benefits goes way up when there's a shooting war and goes down in peacetime.
My time in the Navy overlapped with the VEAP program, which would give me a 2-to-1 match for college - up to the maximum contribution of $2700. What a joke.
Compare that to the current GI Bill plus extra money each service pays directly.
\3. Pay hasn't kept up with civilian work.
\4. They stopped offering student loan repayment as a benefit.
- They stopped offering student loan repayment as a benefit.
What really? That was the biggest reason anyone joined when I was in. Wow. So the headline should be "Military reduces benefits of service, less people willing to serve"
Never has been the global force for good
I mean... defeating the Nazis?
After Germany declared war on them? They didn't defeat them out of good will, in fact, I'd say America and South Africa were the closest things to Nazi Germany outside of the Reich
Really? Closer than Russia which actually did invade its neighbors? Go back to lemmygrad.
Should I remind you of the land the USA originally had and what they did to the people who lived in the lands they conquered?
You can if you want to pretend that Russia didn’t do the same thing and that it somehow makes the comparison better for you!
It did, but the natives are more than 1% of the Russian population
Is it good to beat the shit out of the school bully after he picks a fight with you so he learns to stop picking fights with people? I would say so.
Not if you're quite similar to that bully
There's a difference between being a good country and being a global force for good. In helping to defeat the Nazis, the U.S. was a global force for good regardless of what else they did, had done or will do. The same with Stalinist Russia.
stopped clocked fallacy.
the united states is in so many wars, they were bound to achieve one somewhat correctly.
The U.S. military also defeated the Confederacy. So that's two.
thats 2!
shut it down, shut this all down!
Helping end genocide in the Balkans would be a third example...
Ok...? Does that dispute the point? Original comment said they were "never" a force for good
Global force for better
Good would’ve involved them allowing Spanish civil war vets to fight
You know that was more so Russia right?
I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn't liberate Paris though.
We would be living in a better world if they did
It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice
The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa.
But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so.
He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part.
Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory.
Not really, no. And let’s ignore the part where the only reason they even fought is because Russia wanted to conquer some of the same land as Germany 😂
Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad
Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war?
Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before…
The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made.
What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t.
Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that.
"made a deal with Hitler"
What the fuck do you think appeasement was?
In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe.
It’s ok keep working on your English!
-