Thread: Joining a Foreign Army

Originally Posted by tommo

You would appear to be a good fit for the army. You can't spell for shite and have no idea about other countries. They'll take you in a heartbeat.

Don't insult the armed forces.

Or what?

Originally Posted by Raspberry

There are plenty of tests for mentality. To see whether you can mentally cope with everything that will be thrown at you. For example:

During my brothers marine test before he started training, they had to run for miles in a certain time limit, which pretty much wiped them out completely. When they're sitting in the wagon preparing to drive back, the sergent comes in and tells them they're going to be running back and who's up for it. No one actually thought they could do it, but most of the guys got up anyway. One of my brother's friends stay seated and stated there was no way he could do it and that he wouldn't. In the end, none of them actually had to run back, it was a test to see who were determined to try. The guy got sent home because he failed the test.

Well, I think that anyone who would try to run the distance again that they only just barely ran would be fairly stupid. That's exactly the kind of mindless obedience the army wants.

Originally Posted by Raspberry

I took your first comment quite personally as you pretty much said everyone in the army are dumb and can't think for shit. They also get tests to see if their education is to a decent standard in the U.K. I don't know about the U.S, but I don't know how they'd get through the training if they were how you described.

Maybe the U.K is different. But I know the U.S army didn't get enough people passing the test one year so they just made it easier the year after.
I don't even know about Australia's army tbh, nor any other country's. Except Sweden and some other countries (heaps but can't remember them all) have mandatory military service.
The only reason I know about America's is because of shit I've seen on TV (not movies or series lol)

Originally Posted by tommo

Or what?

It's not my fault i cant spell very well.
i was in The T.A aswell as 3 years of college now

I do 30 mins run every day and other physical exercise and i work

and you dont know shit!! you need to be physically fit in the forces and definatly need to have a strong metality to get you through the tests
Like the 10 mile tabs up to 30mile tabs

im just worried that the application process is going to be alot slower and fewer intakes for certain jobs :/

Originally Posted by tommo

Or what?

It wasn't a threat, so I won't do anything. It is just rude to insult the armed forces, wether they are The U.S.A. or Canada. People join the armed forces to be able to defend thier nation in a time of crisis. They would lay down they're lives so you can sit on your computer and have the freedom to insult them.

Originally Posted by Ish

They would lay down they're lives so you can sit on your computer and have the freedom to insult them.

How.... what's the word? Stupid.

BTW it's "their" not "they're".
I'm noticing a pattern here.

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm noticing a pattern here.

What is this pattern, I am intrigued.

BTW it's "their" not "they're".

It's called a typo, I apologize.

You still spelt it wrong.

Originally Posted by tommo

You still spelt it wrong.

I know, it was a typo? I just admitted that?

Originally Posted by tommo

You still spelt it wrong.

So you base your opinions soley on the media and not your personal experience or experience from people you are close to? Hmmm....

And now you're just being picky. Calling someone out on a typo isn't a legitimate arguement.

The facts are that you're taking your defences for granted, insulting them, and giving no good reasons why your insults are true. Stereotypes and the media surely don't count. Neither do theories on what "could" happen, because these are not accounted for in todays circumstances; which are that we do have armies.

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm not aware of any tests of "mentality".

I'm not saying that everyone in the army fits the stereotype, it's just that a lot do.
Why do you think the U.S government specifically targets people in poorer communities for recruitment in to the army?

Your last question is moot. I didn't decide to have an army to protect me.
They were already there. I would not make the decision of getting some people to protect other people.
And I believe there are other ways to solve conflicts of opinion.

Pretty much every war, if not every war, has happened because someone wanted something from the occupying peoples. If the "leaders" were just a bit smarter than the people fighting for them, they would figure out another way to get what they wanted.

If every country agreed to disband their armies, what bad do you think could honestly come from that?
There is an agreement to disarm all nuclear bombs all over the world; a movement started by one man. That is a smart guy.
Why are armies any different? You THINK you need them for your protection. You don't.
A government wants something and uses their army to take it.

It's the same as any argument. Boy A wants Boy B's car.
Boy B says "Fuck you I want my car"
Boy A gets his gang of hoodlums to bash Boy B.
Boy B gets his gang of hoodlums to bash Boy A's hoodlums.
War ensues.

Which shows you that armies are unnecessary if we have good leaders.

Yes, I agree that it would be nice if there were not anymore wars, violence, or death. This, however is not within our capacity as humans. There will always be hierarchy. There will always be the guy with the bigger gun. If we could somehow change our way of thinking and not always want more. Then, we could have no more wars, armies, death, violence, etc... But, since this currently isn't possible, we need a military force to stop a different military force from taking what is ours. Without us having an military force backing us up, words aren't gonna do shit. Wanting to do something noble, such as being able to defend your country if we were threatened, doesn't make you stupid. Also, your remark about recruiters going for poorer communities, your wage doesn't affect your intelligence.


I do however, not agree with what our military force is currently being used for. I do agree though, with having a military force.

Originally Posted by Ish

I know, it was a typo? I just admitted that?

I mean you "corrected" your post and got it wrong again.

Originally Posted by Ish

Also, your remark about recruiters going for poorer communities, your wage doesn't affect your intelligence.

No, but it's a pretty well established fact that poorer communities have poorer education. Intelligence is the same regardless, but their knowledge is limited.
People with a high level of intelligence can still use their power for wrong (factually wrong, not morally wrong) things if they are told lies. If they have no reason to assume they have been taught the wrong things.

Military forces are barely ever used for what is claimed.

Having a defensive army is one thing. Being the aggressor is quite another.

And I don't see much wrong with criticizing "those troops" or actions.

Sadly it is common belief that the ones in place do right, secure freedom and bring democracy.

Even if it's total doublespeak.

So criticism is not well received, since they "risk their lives so we can sit in front of our computer".

Nothing you can do.

Either way, best of luck to the OP.

Originally Posted by tommo

I mean you "corrected" your post and got it wrong again.

Oops, I accidently put the "i" before the "e", how embarrassing.

Anyway, I think this arguement shouldn't drag on any longer. It is off topic, and we aren't getting anywhere.

Originally Posted by dajo

Military forces are barely ever used for what is claimed.

Having a defensive army is one thing. Being the aggressor is quite another.

And I don't see much wrong with criticizing "those troops" or actions.

Sadly it is common belief that the ones in place do right, secure freedom and bring democracy.

Even if it's total doublespeak.

So criticism is not well received, since they "risk their lives so we can sit in front of our computer".

Nothing you can do.

Either way, best of luck to the OP.

Yes, I agree 100% that we should all have a defensive army that trains. But, I don't agree with my country The U.S. policing the world. We shouldn't be in Iraq or Afgahnistan. Sadly, I don't like anything the government is doing right now...

Originally Posted by tommo

How.... what's the word? Stupid.

BTW it's "their" not "they're".
I'm noticing a pattern here.

I think your a TIT!!

Yes i totally agree that we should use our forces for defense only.

but poking our noses into everyones business i do not agree

this post was originally suposed to be about joining armys abroad like america, New zealand Britain Austrailia, canada and how do you sigh up to them

But instead it turned into a SLAGGING OFF MATCH!! Directed towards TOMMO!!



So if we could get back on topic that would be nice

I like the military. Military history and tradition is fascinating. I don't agree with war, but I can appreciate the fact that it exists and we have armies and that people must sign up for these armies.

That doesn't mean I don't think there are a whole lot of unintelligent people (usually poor background, obviously, but not always thanks to the public school tradition) who sign up because they have macho fantasies to play out. And it doesn't mean I like the retards who will shout DONT INSULT THE MILITARY YOU PUSSY THEY ARE BRAVE MEN WHO GAVE YOU YOUR FREEDOM because they're goddamn retarded. Seriously. Of course people can insult the military. Soldiering is a profession like any other, where you apply knowing the risks beforehand. It isn't somehow immune to vitriole.

Banking is a very important line of work in modern society and without it civilization as we know it would unquestionably falter. But if I called a banker a dick you kids wouldn't stop me.

If you want advice then I'd suggest you get some more education, grow up some, and then make a decision about the army then. You sound (and spell) like a prepubescent who just watched Saving Private Ryan.

Originally Posted by Siиdяed

I like the military. Military history and tradition is fascinating. I don't agree with war, but I can appreciate the fact that it exists and we have armies and that people must sign up for these armies.

That doesn't mean I don't think there are a whole lot of unintelligent people (usually poor background, obviously, but not always thanks to the public school tradition) who sign up because they have macho fantasies to play out. And it doesn't mean I like the retards who will shout DONT INSULT THE MILITARY YOU PUSSY THEY ARE BRAVE MEN WHO GAVE YOU YOUR FREEDOM because they're goddamn retarded. Seriously. Of course people can insult the military. Soldiering is a profession like any other, where you apply knowing the risks beforehand. It isn't somehow immune to vitriole.

Banking is a very important line of work in modern society and without it civilization as we know it would unquestionably falter. But if I called a banker a dick you kids wouldn't stop me.

If you want advice then I'd suggest you get some more education, grow up some, and then make a decision about the army then. You sound (and spell) like a prepubescent who just watched Saving Private Ryan.

First off, thanks for the insults. Really appreciated, and was an awesome way of getting your point across

But like I've said before, I don't like the generalization. Sure, you could call a banker a dick. I wouldn't argue with that because you're only saying it about one banker. But if you said "all bankers are dicks" I'd stop and think "wait a minute".

That's why I started the arguement.

But all bankers ARE dicks.

Actually Everyone can be Dicks!!

Originally Posted by Raspberry

First off, thanks for the insults. Really appreciated, and was an awesome way of getting your point across

That was for colour. Delicious, flavoured colour. But there were points as well.

Originally Posted by Raspberry

But like I've said before, I don't like the generalization. Sure, you could call a banker a dick. I wouldn't argue with that because you're only saying it about one banker. But if you said "all bankers are dicks" I'd stop and think "wait a minute".

But it was meant as generalization because it was making a point larger than that one banker. You might well stop and think, after waiting a minute I guess, that I was - rather than just being colorfully caustic about one individual banker - insulting 'bankers'. I might have been making a point (not a very eloquent or defined point by 'dicks' but let's pretend it was lengthier and more filled with content) about the kind of people who become bankers, about prevailing trends among people who are bankers, about what bankers do, or any number of things that you can - to some degree, with allowance for the fact that 'bankers' is a group made up of individuals that will obviously differ from person to person, but which do have a very strong connection that suggests trends and similarities in various aspects - argue about a group of people. In this case 'bankers'. Or 'soldiers'.

So I can say:

Originally Posted by tommo

all bankers ARE dicks

without losing coherence. Bankers more than likely share similar backgrounds and mindsets to at least some degree, there must be some unifying theme as to why these people became bankers and how they act as bankers. A middle-class upbringing is probable. An interest in mathematics, family connections to the financial world. If they are good at banking I can probably be safe in picturing them as having a flashy car, a flashy suit, and spending their leisure time in bistros. I could even say they are probably dull people, given that to the vast majority the numerical and financial world is considered dull, and they are people who dwell excessively there and are probably very dull indeed as a result.

It would be a stereotype, and the fact that I know at least one banker who defies the image doesn't prevent it from being a statement about 'bankers' that rings true enough. Or at least true enough to hold up in an argument.

Originally Posted by Raspberry

That's why I started the arguement.

I wish you hadn't, it seems wildly pointless. It's just people arguing about generalisations now.

I meant my advice, Wrighty. Finish your schooling and mature on up before you make a choice about going into the army. That's not me warning you off it. That's me encouraging someone to enter the forces as an intelligent human being competent at more than the bare basic drill and exercise that the rank and file demands.

There are a lot of smart, brave, well-rounded people in the army. Try and be one of those. Take an interest in politics, art, literature, science, engineering, music, anything. Then join the army. Don't just shunt from secondary school into the army without taking the time to start thinking.

Originally Posted by Siиdяed

That was for colour. Delicious, flavoured colour. But there were points as well.



But it was meant as generalization because it was making a point larger than that one banker. You might well stop and think, after waiting a minute I guess, that I was - rather than just being colorfully caustic about one individual banker - insulting 'bankers'. I might have been making a point (not a very eloquent or defined point by 'dicks' but let's pretend it was lengthier and more filled with content) about the kind of people who become bankers, about prevailing trends among people who are bankers, about what bankers do, or any number of things that you can - to some degree, with allowance for the fact that 'bankers' is a group made up of individuals that will obviously differ from person to person, but which do have a very strong connection that suggests trends and similarities in various aspects - argue about a group of people. In this case 'bankers'. Or 'soldiers'.

So I can say:



without losing coherence. Bankers more than likely share similar backgrounds and mindsets to at least some degree, there must be some unifying theme as to why these people became bankers and how they act as bankers. A middle-class upbringing is probable. An interest in mathematics, family connections to the financial world. If they are good at banking I can probably be safe in picturing them as having a flashy car, a flashy suit, and spending their leisure time in bistros. I could even say they are probably dull people, given that to the vast majority the numerical and financial world is considered dull, and they are people who dwell excessively there and are probably very dull indeed as a result.

It would be a stereotype, and the fact that I know at least one banker who defies the image doesn't prevent it from being a statement about 'bankers' that rings true enough. Or at least true enough to hold up in an argument.



I wish you hadn't, it seems wildly pointless. It's just people arguing about generalisations now.

I meant my advice, Wrighty. Finish your schooling and mature on up before you make a choice about going into the army. That's not me warning you off it. That's me encouraging someone to enter the forces as an intelligent human being competent at more than the bare basic drill and exercise that the rank and file demands.

There are a lot of smart, brave, well-rounded people in the army. Try and be one of those. Take an interest in politics, art, literature, science, engineering, music, anything. Then join the army. Don't just shunt from secondary school into the army without taking the time to start thinking.

Well i was in the terrortorial army for almost 2 years but because of education at college i couldnt cope with Extra :/
Im just gettin on with my college work and doin fitness training

i rather sigh up this year or next year when i am 20