Interesting read of an interview with an Arab

masta man

Member
here is an age link:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...lstandards.htm
sorry it was 17 with parent consent.
people would like to join because usually the pay is .5% higher than civilian pay wages. If people are stupid enough to go 10,000's of dollars into debt they will do anything to pay it off. Heres a link http://www.dfas.mil/army2/militarypaycharts.html
this is about the advertisements that get people to join also
http://www.military.com/recruiting/b...-bonus-update-
And reefreak I live in Indiana, in one of the most conservative county's in the nation, and I am out of school. What teacher does any kid talk to after school?
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
If I had Bin Laden's Resources and money, I don't think it would be easy to find me if I didn't want to be found. People forget, Bin Laden isn't the a typical terrorist. He doesn't perform acts. he isn't intermixing with common "soldiers/terrorists". This guy communicates through two or three other guys. He can hide forever and all we will ever catch are those just underneath him in the power chain delivering his orders and messages.
Jimmy Hoffa has been dead/missing for years and still no one knows where he is, alive or buried....
JFK...with all of our Technology you would think someone could tell us for sure if Oswald acted alone or had help or a scapegoat.
James J. Bulger has been onb the FBI top ten list since the 1980's yet no trace of him has been found....and He lived in the U.S.A....and part of a Boston Crime family...
IF YOU HAVE THE MONEY YOU CAN HIDE INDEFINITELY!
I disagree, Hoffa is dead and buried somewhere. JFK was a different time, and in this case the gov't/cia or whoever probably knows who did what and why, and this is top secret info that may come out 50 years from now.
Bin Laden is different from these people you mention because the military is looking for him, not FBI. His assets were frozen and his money streams have been compromised. He should be difficult to find, but we should be able to find him if he is still alive.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I disagree, Hoffa is dead and buried somewhere. JFK was a different time, and in this case the gov't/cia or whoever probably knows who did what and why, and this is top secret info that may come out 50 years from now.
Bin Laden is different from these people you mention because the military is looking for him, not FBI. His assets were frozen and his money streams have been compromised. He should be difficult to find, but we should be able to find him if he is still alive.
Assets frozen? The FBI and U.S. government only have the authority to freeze assets in U.S. banks....not in other countries...I am also willing to bet his money is in other accounts under different names......The insurgents in Iraq and Al Qaeda followers are being funded still other wise they wouldn't have the weaponry they have. So you can't tell me he is penniless.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Masta Man
here is an age link:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...lstandards.htm
sorry it was 17 with parent consent.
people would like to join because usually the pay is .5% higher than civilian pay wages. If people are stupid enough to go 10,000's of dollars into debt they will do anything to pay it off. Heres a link http://www.dfas.mil/army2/militarypaycharts.html
this is about the advertisements that get people to join also
http://www.military.com/recruiting/b...-bonus-update-...
Those links don't back up anything you said about our military. You said 16 year olds were being recruited and once the signed on the dotted line they couldn't go back. Now you're saying it's 17 with parental consent.
You said recruitment was off and people were not aware of what was going on in Iraq. Your links backed up neither of those points. Furthermore you failed to address the high Re-enlistment rate of soldiers VOLUNTEERING to go back to Iraq.
Please don't suggest our military troops are ignorant, ill-informed or too stupid to go to college or get other jobs...
 

masta man

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You said recruitment was off and people were not aware of what was going on in Iraq. Your links backed up neither of those points. Furthermore you failed to address the high Re-enlistment rate of soldiers VOLUNTEERING to go back to Iraq.
Please don't suggest our military troops are ignorant, ill-informed or too stupid to go to college or get other jobs...
I would first like to say I never said our troops were ignorant or stupid. And for one thing that everyone knows is that the army after serving gives you 4 years of college education. Many inner city or people whose parents can't pay for college might feel the only way to go to college is to go through the army. Say both of your parents never went to college, and you have no clue about scholarships. You also don't want to be paying student loans for the rest of your life. And the recruiter at school is always talking about the great times in the army. Could you possibly think that joining wouldn't come to mind.
And to cover the reenlisting thing many soldiers like their lifestyle and the discipline. read this link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s01-usmi.html
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Sure you EARN money for college and it is taken out of your pay and set aside for you at a reduced tax rate...if memory serves correctly. Now I need to find where I posted the compared pay to civilian lifestyle and show how it is not a better option for the "poor". Also further more, the majority (over 70%) of those that enlist come from middle class to upper middle class families...not the lower class. As soon as I find my comparrison I will repost it.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Your chart shows the average pay increase....take notice officers actually have a higher percentage increase than the average soldier. To be an officer you have to have prior education before hand...so this is not something someone that is poor and looking for an education would be shown as an option. Now let's compare the average out of highschool soldiers pay based on rank, the first few years in..
The average on the ground soldier that is enlisted (not officer rank as that requires prior education and shows money wasn't an issue) makes an average of 1600 dollars per month.
This is the equivalent to working a forty hour work week at 10 dollars an hour. Now we all know (or I hope you know) Our military personnel put in far more than 40 hours a week. So essentially an infdividual could get a 7.50 an hour job, work 50 hours a week and make the same pay. Last I checked, McDonalds highers at 7.50 an hour.....so what jobs couldn't they get and why couldn't they save some of their own money for college (like you do in the military)
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Housing, yes but a single person gets to stay in a barracks with one room and a kitchen. Food is not provided, neither is transportation other than work purposes. However the argument is people getting money for college. The people could live at home and work at MCdonalds and save money for college just the same....without the risk.
 

masta man

Member
But working at McDonalds you still have to pay the cost of living plus all those taxes and it goes on and on. There for if someone working 7.50 an hour for 50 hours a week... 19500 a year... say income taxes 25%... making it 14625 a year... now I may be young but not stupid, living on 14625 a year is hard with food and other expenses. I would say if someone really saved they might be able to save maybe at most 3000 a year. I live in IN so I will compare IU, it is about 12000 a year undergrad. That is 16 years of extreme saving and with absolutely no money to spend on yourself. That would drive me mad. So I don't see your reasoning on how easy it is to save for college.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Did I say it was easy saving for college? I don't recall that, I just stated it was close to the same if they just got a job and lived at home while saving.
When entering armed services you are told one thing....You are being trained to fight and risk your life in war. That is up front. So if you want the "easier" college money that is a risk you take. If you want a loan or grant type option, you pay it back...if you want safe and interest free you find a way to work and save for college...and you don't have to go to a top university such as IU to get a degree in a technical field.....there are cheaper routes for further education after high school. So don't give me the standard line that this is the poors only option.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Or hey, here is a truly novel idea...get a part-time job while in high school and instead of using the money for a car, gas, girls, clothes video games or what ever else kids in high school these days spend money on, save it for college.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Masta, you're all over the map.
You said people join the military because they didn't try in high school and they couldn't get a job over minimum wage.
You said armed forces were having trouble recruiting.
You said the military was talking 16 year olds into signing up and once they signed there was no going back (you later corrected this to say 17 /w parent.)
Can you back up any of this?
 

jovial

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Housing, yes but a single person gets to stay in a barracks with one room and a kitchen. Food is not provided, neither is transportation other than work purposes. However the argument is people getting money for college. The people could live at home and work at MCdonalds and save money for college just the same....without the risk.
To support this.
And very few barracks rooms include kitchens, depending on the paygrade most are at least 2 man rooms with a refridgerator and for the junior guys 4 to a room is the norm. When ever the military receives a pay raise everything else goes up in cost correspondinly, for example. Tricare rates increase each time the military receives a pay raise, slowly the benifits are being eroded.
 

masta man

Member
Originally Posted by Masta Man
here is an age link:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...lstandards.htm
sorry it was 17 with parent consent.
1JourneyMan I gave you a link to the age requirement... the military is having trouble recruiting because no one wants to be in a hel_hole like Iraq... and about the high school and minimum wage thing. No offense but people who have a plan and don't do frivolous things during high school and save for college don't usually end up in Iraq usually. I am saying this because I know 2 of my friends signed up one cause he wanted to spite his mom and now he is stuck in basic training, he was going no where fast. And myother friend needed the constant discipline of the military because he couldn't control himself.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Masta Man
1JourneyMan I gave you a link to the age requirement... the military is having trouble recruiting because no one wants to be in a hel_hole like Iraq... .
That link and statement CONTRADICTS what you previously said... That's my point.
Furthermore I can't say this enough: THE MILITARY IS NOT HAVING A HARD TIME RECRUITING.
 

jmick

Active Member
Further evidence that the war in Iraq is wrecking the U.S. Army: Recruiters, having failed to meet their enlistment targets, are now being authorized to pursue high-school dropouts and (not to mince words) stupid people.
This year the Army set a goal of recruiting 80,000 active-duty soldiers, but it wound up with just 73,000—almost 10 percent short. As a result, the Army Times reported this week, the Pentagon has decided to make up the difference by expanding the pool—by letting up to 10 percent of new recruits be young men and women who have neither graduated high school nor earned a General Equivalency Diploma.
More than that, the Los Angeles Times reports today that 4 percent of recruits will be allowed to score as low as in the 16th to 30th percentile—a grouping known as "Category IV"—on the U.S. Armed Forces' mental-aptitude exam.
As of 2003 (the last year for which official data are available), just 6 percent of active-duty Army soldiers lacked a high-school diploma or a GED. Just 1 percent scored in Category IV on the aptitude test.
 

pontius

Active Member
here is where the US problems in mid-eastern countries begin......the US wants oil. instead of drilling our own oil fields or actually putting real research into alternative fuels, we allow US oil companies to deal with these middle eastern countries. this makes the oil companies rich and it makes those in control in those countries rich. but it does nothing for the citizens in those countries. so the resentment begins when the leaders of say, Saudi Arabia, are billionaires and the average Saudi makes barely enough to feed his family. so they could oust their own government, which would be the right thing to do. but if they try it, or if a crazy Iraqi leader comes calling, then our government will step in to protect the interests of the oil companies and the billionaire oil owners. and the creates even more resentment and hate. people seem to forget, before 1990 Saddam and Bin Laden were both US allies. Saddam felt that Kuwait rightfully a part of Iraq, so he invaded. Bin Laden wanted the Saudi government to allow AL Qaeda to force Iraq out, but he was not taken seriously. so he felt double betrayed because he wasn't taken seriously and because he, a muslim leader, was taking a backseat to the Americans even in the middle east. so he started recruiting and brainwashing poor muslims to hate the US and commit terrorist acts. not trying to defend terrorists in any way, but it is unfortunate that we've allowed our government to build this monster.
as for Iraq, there's no doubt that Saddam was a mad man. but the fact is that both Shiites and Sunnis sides appear to be completely irrational. while no one should condone what Saddam did, at the very least, he kept the peace in the country. and as an added bonus, he kept Iran in line. now he violated UN sanctions, there's no doubt about that. but that should've been for the UN as a whole to deal with. I agree with anyone who says that the UN is lax and maybe a bunch of wusses. but at least they may have the foresight to have seen the consequences of removing Saddam from power. Bush was too quick to want to go to war. some of it may have been good intentions, but for the most part I think he wants to protect these rich companies' business interests and get a little revenge for his father. and this is where it's brought us. we're in the middle of a full blown civil war and Iran is licking their chops for us to leave so that they can take over.
the point with this war is maybe a more eloquent way of what Seasalt101 was saying......when a civilized nation goes to war, there are rules that have to be followed. but when you're fighting an enemy that follows no rules and is willing to use women and children as targets....there's no way to fight a war with someone like that unless you're willing to stoop down to their level.
as far as Iran, they actually used to be tight allies with the US. but even back then in the 70s, the US government corrupted Iran's leadership and built animosity up amongst the Iranian people. so when the Ayotollah was able to take over, the hated us and have hated us ever since. Ryan asked about Iran's leadership in a much earlier post. Iran is run by a kind of "board of trustees" that are a group of Ayotollahs (basically, extreme Islamists) and the president, Ahmendinijad or whatever is name is, is kind of the spokesman for the group.
I won't even touch on the Israel/Palestine issues as I've gone on very long. I'm pro-Israel. I'm not trying to take up for muslim extremists in anyway, but I think all those relations and fighting should be handled with care. and I don't think Bush and his cronies were the ones to lead us to war.
****
now, I saw someone say that the Old Testament is just as violent as the Quran. if you can point out any part in the Old Testament where the Christian God calls on man to kill in His name, please point it out. I can remember severals parts where God forbids man to kill in His name.
I believe the book of Revelations says that Armageddon will be fought between Iran/Russia vs Israel/"a western power". so given the state of current affairs, things don't look good. I believe Israel will attack Iran if Iran gets nuclear weapons. and if that happens, I think Russia will come to Iran's aid and we'll take Israel's side. I think very dark days are coming.
 
Top