I highly doubt it. There's several units/bases that haven't even been once. It's just piss poor planning on the parts of people way the hell higher than me.
Politics before troops, yet again.
- Thread starter Tim
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I highly doubt it. There's several units/bases that haven't even been once. It's just piss poor planning on the parts of people way the hell higher than me.
-
33Replies
-
819Views
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
So by this logic, if you don't join the military you don't support America? That is the biggest pile of shit I have heard in a while.
The recruiters aren't able to pull in enough people because the majority of American realize that this is a war for Bush and his Oil buddies. Why would anyone want into that mess with the track record we have so far? The government isn't taking care of the guys that are serving now, (body armor, UAH's, etc.) why would we expect a line at the recruiters office?
N
NightWarrior
Guest
No what I am saying is that there are not enough people who will honor this country in this way. Bush and his oil buddies? Seriously? This is for America's interest in oil. We consume most of it. So, if you like driving around in your big SUV or any car for that matter, you should be happy we are trying to protect our interest in it. Survival of the fittest.
You don't go to war for your oil... you buy it on the open and free market, just like the rest of the world.
China is going to need a lot of oil. Would we stand back and allow China or any other country go to war to get theirs? This is a very dangerous road we are traveling on right now. We can't go to war over every resource we need, we are better than that. Oil won't last forever, it's a finite resource that we will have to abandon eventually. When this happens, we must have alternate forms of energy. Why not work harder to acquiring these alternatives now? Why not invest in our future and break the oil dependency? We need oil and we cannot function as a nation without it, but we need to start the change now. This isn't something we can do without hurting us economically unless we do it gradually over many years. But if it's done right, we could be oil free (basically) and save ourselves money in the long run, but we have to focus on the future now and quick looking for the instant gratification.
As far as it saving the planet... I've said this before and I'll say it again. We think way too much of ourselves as a species if you think we can hurt the planet. If we were to wipe out ALL of humanity today, within a thousand years the earth would renew itself completely as though we were never here, the earth will do just fine with or without us. We don't need to do this to save the planet, we only need to keep the earth clean enough for our continued existence.
China is going to need a lot of oil. Would we stand back and allow China or any other country go to war to get theirs? This is a very dangerous road we are traveling on right now. We can't go to war over every resource we need, we are better than that. Oil won't last forever, it's a finite resource that we will have to abandon eventually. When this happens, we must have alternate forms of energy. Why not work harder to acquiring these alternatives now? Why not invest in our future and break the oil dependency? We need oil and we cannot function as a nation without it, but we need to start the change now. This isn't something we can do without hurting us economically unless we do it gradually over many years. But if it's done right, we could be oil free (basically) and save ourselves money in the long run, but we have to focus on the future now and quick looking for the instant gratification.
As far as it saving the planet... I've said this before and I'll say it again. We think way too much of ourselves as a species if you think we can hurt the planet. If we were to wipe out ALL of humanity today, within a thousand years the earth would renew itself completely as though we were never here, the earth will do just fine with or without us. We don't need to do this to save the planet, we only need to keep the earth clean enough for our continued existence.
N
NightWarrior
Guest
We are not going to run out of oil. This is a fallacy that they would like us to believe. There are places we haven't even touched that have more oil than we know what to do with. Besides, it is a renewable resource. This isn't even talking about the fact that we can get oil from Shale, the Rockies are full of it. I said it once, I'll say it again. Survival of the fittest.
You're right, we will never run out of oil. It will just become too expensive as a viable energy source once the easily obtainable reserves are depleted in this century. It's a matter of simple economics, when the oil becomes harder to extract it will go up in price forcing us to change over to alternative energy forms.
My point is that even though this is 50-75 years away, it will take at least that long to change over a nations infrastructure to use alternative energies. So we should be looking at that now and not later.
Oil is not renewable. The oil we are using now was created over millions of years. It was created by the lush vegetation (trees, plants etc. with waxy 'hydrocarbon coatings') that once covered the earth being trapped in the muds and pressed into the earth by glaciers and forced into the bedrock. Then it takes millions of years for the oil to leach from that bedrock and into the reservoirs where we can collect it.
My point is that even though this is 50-75 years away, it will take at least that long to change over a nations infrastructure to use alternative energies. So we should be looking at that now and not later.
Oil is not renewable. The oil we are using now was created over millions of years. It was created by the lush vegetation (trees, plants etc. with waxy 'hydrocarbon coatings') that once covered the earth being trapped in the muds and pressed into the earth by glaciers and forced into the bedrock. Then it takes millions of years for the oil to leach from that bedrock and into the reservoirs where we can collect it.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Um, no. Oil is not a renewable resource. The definition of a renewable resource is one that can replenish itself, and oil can't do that.
In the absolute definition... yes it's renewable, but not for millions of years and many ice ages from now providing we all die off and allow the earth to be covered in vegetation once again. Which does us no good
Are you kidding? I love trees! :tongue:
N
NightWarrior
Guest
It is along as we keep stealing it.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Yeah, thats what makes oil not considered a renewable resource. It takes too long to replenish itself.
But, as we all know, oil and its natural process that takes millions of years to accomplish is a lie of the devil because everyone knows the Earth is only a few thousand years old. DUH.
And when there is no more to steal?
IntruderLS1
Active Member
I can see wanting something like this to pass, but I would have to vote against it too. 
We cannot put artificial limitations on our military like that. This isn't a new idea. We're better at giving our guys rest than military in history. Think of those poor guys in the old days that were gone for half of their lives to do the hard work. Even in our recent history, WWII, guys were gone for years at a time.
To me this falls under the same idea as setting a "timetable for withdrawal." If the enemy knows exactly when and where deployments are going to end, and when and where they can expect to see unit X again, that is a tactical advantage that can be used against us.
I was deployed every year I was in the service, and fully expect to do so again when I go back in. It's just part of the life. I know it's hard on families, but it's what we do, and we do it by choice. Four years at a time. ... The military isn't complaining. Only people who hate Bush.
We cannot put artificial limitations on our military like that. This isn't a new idea. We're better at giving our guys rest than military in history. Think of those poor guys in the old days that were gone for half of their lives to do the hard work. Even in our recent history, WWII, guys were gone for years at a time.
To me this falls under the same idea as setting a "timetable for withdrawal." If the enemy knows exactly when and where deployments are going to end, and when and where they can expect to see unit X again, that is a tactical advantage that can be used against us.
I was deployed every year I was in the service, and fully expect to do so again when I go back in. It's just part of the life. I know it's hard on families, but it's what we do, and we do it by choice. Four years at a time. ... The military isn't complaining. Only people who hate Bush.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
I've heard plenty of marines/army complain. Some of them I know.I can see wanting something like this to pass, but I would have to vote against it too.
We cannot put artificial limitations on our military like that. This isn't a new idea. We're better at giving our guys rest than military in history. Think of those poor guys in the old days that were gone for half of their lives to do the hard work. Even in our recent history, WWII, guys were gone for years at a time.
To me this falls under the same idea as setting a "timetable for withdrawal." If the enemy knows exactly when and where deployments are going to end, and when and where they can expect to see unit X again, that is a tactical advantage that can be used against us.
I was deployed every year I was in the service, and fully expect to do so again when I go back in. It's just part of the life. I know it's hard on families, but it's what we do, and we do it by choice. Four years at a time. ... The military isn't complaining. Only people who hate Bush.
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members