US Army using Six Flags attraction to entice children

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
If the military were really to be honest about life in the services, they’d make potential recruits read Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 just to get a real feel of the absurdity of military bureaucracy and the arbitrary lack of fairness of combat–and nobody would join except for the Clevengers and Scheisskopfs of the world, and Og knows that there aren’t enough of them to populate a military.

Stranger
[/QUOTE]

Totaly agree. Also anyone wanting to work in the corporate world should read that book and understand that the corporate world works in much the same way. Generaly speaking, if you start out an enlisted grunt in the corporate world, you are most likely going to spend you life at that level. Pretending the military has worse red tape than civilian life is either misguided or simply ignorant.

-Eben

62

As much as I hate dictionary citations, the Random House definition 2: " people considered as readily available and of little value: cannon fodder" is at odds with the monetary investment of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars made in training and equipping each and every soldier.

63

[QUOTE=iwakura43]
As much as I hate dictionary citations, the Random House definition 2: " people considered as readily available and of little value: cannon fodder" is at odds with the monetary investment of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars made in training and equipping each and every soldier.
[/QUOTE]

What do the leaders care about that? It’s not their money. The fact that they’re willing to spend those lives to boost Halliburton stocks tells us exactly how little the neocons think of them.

64

Just to be clear, this isn’t a Six Flags attraction per se it’s a traveling recruitment “experience”.

It’s still misleading and glamorizing what’s either drudgery or horror.

http://vae.americasarmy.com/

65

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What do the leaders care about that? It’s not their money. The fact that they’re willing to spend those lives to boost Halliburton stocks tells us exactly how little the neocons think of them.
[/QUOTE]

Cannon fodder would be a good description of the Australian troops at Galipoli. Iraq hardly compares to that, and I’m not even going to get into the Halliburton nonsense…

66

[QUOTE=Burton]
It’s still misleading and glamorizing what’s either drudgery or horror.
[/QUOTE]

Moreso than GI Joes or John Wayne movies?

67

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What do the leaders care about that? It’s not their money. The fact that they’re willing to spend those lives to boost Halliburton stocks tells us exactly how little the neocons think of them.
[/QUOTE]

As you increasingly have to handwave, make exceptions and generally attempt to spin this anyway you can to make it come out the way you want you should see that…well, you are wrong. Sheesh DtC…just admit you are wrong already, apologize and get on with the discussion. Or, more realistically just let it go. You are wrong. American troops are basically the exact opposite of cannon fodder. No one, including Bush et al, sees them that way…with the exception of you and whoever else (probably Der Trihs and his crowd) is so blinded by your anger against the war that you aren’t thinking rationally.
Anyway, I think Stranger On A Train summarized my own views pretty well a bit up thread. This is no different than what recruiters have done since the first army was formed. I have no particular problem with it. Basically if anyone, even a kid, is dumb enough to join the army because they think it will be like a video game, and their parents aren’t willing to expend the effort to show them better…well, there are worse things that can happen to them. I joined the military right out of high school…as have countless others. And I didn’t even get to play a cool video game first!

-XT

68

On a funny personal note…

I had a 1SG that absolutely hated video games. He rutinely gave speeches about how they were ruining the army. Perhaps the people who are in marketing should consult with him regarding the types of people to target in recruiting!

-Eben

69

[QUOTE=xtisme]
As you increasingly have to handwave, make exceptions and generally attempt to spin this anyway you can to make it come out the way you want you should see that…well, you are wrong.
[/quote]

What am I handwaving at or making exeptions to?

I’m not wrong and have nothing to apoliogize for. If anyone is owed an apology it’s me for being piled on with this “why do you hate the troops?” Ann Coulter style garbage.

Not in the eyes of the Bush administration.

If Bush didn’t see them that way, they wouldn’t be there. The fact that he has been so willing to waste their lives on his personal agenda is proof, in itself, of his contempt for them.

70

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What am I handwaving at or making exeptions to?
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: I gave you an example in my last post. It’s the LEADERS who think that way (handwave). It’s only Bush who views it in this light (exception). Blah blah blah. You have as yet provided zero basis for this assertion. Common sense shows that Bush et al may be a lot of things…but they are VERY sensitive to casualties of US forces. Oh, it’s for political reasons, to be sure, and I have no idea how they REALLY think about it. For all I know they could care less or even be happy with casualties on a personal level (though I doubt both). But politically the reality is that ANY US politician is sensitive to US casualties. On has but to look at the total number of casualties in this vicious war that has now stretched over half a decade to realize that US troops aren’t considered cannon fodder by any but the lunatic fringe.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I’m not wrong and have nothing to apoliogize for.
[/QUOTE]

Sure you have…and you’ve been told exactly why it’s insulting to. You just refuse to acknowledge it. C’est la vie.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
If anyone is owed an apology it’s me for being piled on with this “why do you hate the troops?” Ann Coulter style garbage.
[/QUOTE]

Horseshit. You were told exactly why it’s insulting…and the fact that you know now that it IS insulting yet still take this tact indicates you want it to be insulting. The only reason the pile on isn’t bigger is that you targeted a group of people based on what they do instead of race…and you did it here where the armed forces are pretty much a neutral subject at best.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Not in the eyes of the Bush administration.
[/QUOTE]

You keep saying that but have thus far offered no explanation as to why anyone should be convinced. Straight logic pretty much disproves your assertion…in 6+ years we have taken less than 5000 casualties. If the administration was spending troops like in, say, Vietnam, then we’d be at something like 25k dead and gods know how many wounded at this point. And even in Vietnam, with conscripted soldiers, they weren’t using as cannon fodder. The North Vietnamese used THEIR troops in that fashion. And the North Koreans and Chinese during the Korean conflict. Only by a tortured, convoluted view (standing on your head with one eye closed and the other squinting just right) can one equate American soldiers (in or out of Iraq) as cannon fodder. Only one of the faithful would think that this isn’t an insult to folks who served/serve their country.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
If Bush didn’t see them that way, they wouldn’t be there. The fact that he has been so willing to waste their lives on his personal agenda is proof, in itself, of his contempt for them.
[/QUOTE]

Again, horseshit. If Bush thought it was important to go there then he would send them. That he is and was wrong is beside the point here. Bush really thinks it’s important for the US to be in Iraq. He is and was fucked in the head, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t think the way he thinks. I would think that would be apparent to anyone who has been following along. Bush doesn’t care what anyone else thinks…that’s part of his problem and what makes the man so fucking scary. He does what he thinks is RIGHT…and doesn’t bother with folk who disagree with him.

You are riding your entire argument on YOUR conception of a man you obviously both hate and don’t have the first clue how he thinks. And then you are upset when you insult people in the service as simply cannon fodder (while obviously not understanding what the term actually means)…then you whine about getting the Ann Coulter treatment.

And then you just won’t let it go. Well, I’ll let it go at this point. It’s just a stupid hijack and there is really no fighting ignorance if it doesn’t want to be fought.
-XT

71

[QUOTE=xtisme]
:rolleyes: I gave you an example in my last post. It’s the LEADERS who think that way (handwave). It’s only Bush who views it in this light (exception). Blah blah blah. You have as yet provided zero basis for this assertion.
[/quote]

That’s what I’ve been saying fom the start. That’s not handwaving. I’ve been trying to make that clear in everypost.

No they aren’t or we wouldn’t be in Iraq.

I have not insulted the troops. You know it, I know, the American people know it. I am lamenting the fact that our troops are being used as cannon fodder. It’s no insult simply to recognize that their lives are being wasted like so much bung wipe. It isn’t their fault and it’s childish to keep pretending It’s somehow insulting to them to observe that their President thinks they’re dogshit.

I didn’t insult any troops. I absolutely reject any allegation that I have done so, and I believe the accusations that I have are mistaken at best and dishonest at worst. I believe I deserve an apology.

It’s pretty simple math. There has never been any reason to risk a single life in Iraq. Any President who knowingly puts miltary personel in harm’s way – and leaves them in harm’s way – without just cause, is showing contempt for their them and demonstrating a clear belief that their lives are expendable.

5000 Americans killed for no reason. That means Bush has killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden and for no better justification.

If Bush didn’t see them as expendable, they wouldn’t be in Iraq. It’s just that simple. You don’t throw people in front a train if you think their lives have value.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good one. he thinks it’s important for his oil buddies for the US to be in Iraq. he’d have to be a complete moron to think it serves the interest of the US. He certainly knows our actions in Iraq haven’t protected us from anything.

I’m commenting on what he does. I don’t care what he thinks.

I didn’t insult anyone in the service. I agreed with another poster about how Bush and Co view them and treat them. The continued pretense that I insulted the troops is patent Coulterism and I am offended by it.

Being falsely accused of insulting US miltary personel is not something that I can let go. I did know no such thing. I can’t can’t force anyone to apologize but I will not suffer the accusation without protest either.

72

I should probably reiterate that I’m not the one who brought that phrase into the thread. I just agreed with the OP that such is how the troops are viewed and treated by the current adminstration. I do not need a santimonious lecture about what it “means.” I know what it means, I know what I meant and you don’t get to decide what definition is controlling anyway.

73

All military troops are cannon fodder. That the ex- and current military here on the Dope don’t see this, says more about the military’s ability at brainwashing than it does about the quality or lack thereof of the troops referenced. More [del]“America! Fuck Yeah!” bullshit[/del] American exceptionalism.

74

Sorry if I lead this thread off the tracks.

75

As to the OP, It’s nothing more than the latest propaganda. Every country does it, so don’t feel too bad.

As to the rest of the thread.

For the record, I’m ex- USAF (out in 2005) and I agree with DTC. The current administration does not value the lives of it’s soldiers highly enough. It views them as a number that must be kept within a range of acceptability. Now, when you are fighting a war, you have to think in this detached, chilly way; but it’s been shown that we’ve been led astray in starting this conflict. The fact that the administration did so, and continues to underfund and supply the troops in the region demonstrates a significant lack of caring on the part of the administration. I don’t see anyone taking pay cuts, or canceling pet programs to gather additional funds.

The armed forces so not have any sort of claim on a higher morality due to their profession. It is made up of a cross section of America and contains a lot of honest, earnest, intelligent people; and a lot of dumb, mean, bigoted bullies as well. Just like any other profession that has to do a difficult and shitty job, they are deserving of out respect, but are not sacrosanct. When the administration uses them poorly, then DTC’s term usage is fully correct.

76

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
All military troops are cannon fodder. That the ex- and current military here on the Dope don’t see this, says more about the military’s ability at brainwashing than it does about the quality or lack thereof of the troops referenced. More [del]“America! Fuck Yeah!” bullshit[/del] American exceptionalism.
[/QUOTE]

You haven’t the slightest clue as to what you’re talking about. Now go hang out with DerTrihs with this circle-jerking bullshit.

77

As to the OP: so people have a problem with a voluntary experience at an amusement park (meaning you get in line and wait to do it) for a volunteer military (which, speaking from experience, involves even MORE hurrying up and waiting!)?
:dubious:

78

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
All military troops are cannon fodder. That the ex- and current military here on the Dope don’t see this, says more about the military’s ability at brainwashing than it does about the quality or lack thereof of the troops referenced. More [del]“America! Fuck Yeah!” bullshit[/del] American exceptionalism.
[/QUOTE]

And your personal experiance with the US military is exactly what again?

79

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
All military troops are cannon fodder. That the ex- and current military here on the Dope don’t see this, says more about the military’s ability at brainwashing than it does about the quality or lack thereof of the troops referenced. More [del]“America! Fuck Yeah!” bullshit[/del] American exceptionalism.
[/QUOTE]

Military personel aren’t brainwashed. It’s a conservative culture, for sure, but they’re not programmed zombies. There is some routine rah rah stuff during training, but most people recognize it for what it is. The ones who are super gung ho almost always came in that way. Believe me, there is plenty of skepticism and critical thought. There are morons too, but they’re just as easy to recognize in the military as outside it.

80

Maybe “Brainwashed” is too strong a term, I’ll concede, DtC. But certainly, as far as I can tell, the ones berating you in this thread have “bought into the culture” (is that better?) of exceptionalism that says there’s something different or special about American troops, merely because they are more high-tech or have more money spent on them.

All combat troops exist to be possibly put in harm’s way - to my lights, that makes them all cannon fodder should their commanders will it - which they have. Perhaps “IED fodder” may be better.

As to the others who addressed me - ad hominems do not a counter-argument make. What I know of American troops are what I see on the news and the posts by the military and ex-military on this board. Certainly, you can’t argue that no-one in this thread has said that US troops are less cannon-fodder than their opponents because of what it costs to train them? So, too, might the French knights have thought of themselves at Agincourt. There’s your game of semantics, bleeding in the French mud like a stuck pig.