I know it's not a security liability, I just figure local police might tend to ignore the problem.
Why don't soldiers guard bases anymore?
Why don't soldiers guard bases anymore?
I dont think their should be recruiters, anti-recruiters, or anyone like that in public schools at all. From personal experience recruiters are bullshit liars who will say anything to anyone to fill their quota.
I'd estimate that I got at least 50 calls at home from recruiters, none on whom i gave personal information to.
I'd estimate that I got at least 50 calls at home from recruiters, none on whom i gave personal information to.
good questionBubbalo wrote:
I know it's not a security liability, I just figure local police might tend to ignore the problem.
Why don't soldiers guard bases anymore?
Isn't the Pentagon concerned about the fact that private security is basically a mercenary unit by another name?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
good question
Yeah cause countries with no big army cannot survive... Look at Belgium for instance, not a big army and mainly used for helping other humans (sending food packets to africa for example). Also able to diffuse bombs, ... And because of the european union, we know that no-one will invade our country except if they want to see the whole (or a big part of the) european army muster to come to aid.CowboySwim wrote:
... how do they think America is going to survive? I just don't understand the anti-military/recruitment people...
Don't get me wrong, I think a basic amount of soldiers is necessary for defense and some order or to be active when natural disasters strike. But there is no need for such a huge force only to invade other countries.
So how is america going to survive? If they put 1/5th of the budget they spend on military in the economy, they can easily survive on economics, while still being able to have a good defense.
Besides, with the current united nations, it's not likely to have a country invading the usa...
cant speak for the pentagonBubbalo wrote:
Isn't the Pentagon concerned about the fact that private security is basically a mercenary unit by another name?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
good question
Anti-military ideology is stupid. Anti-war ideology usually makes sense.
Militaries will always be necessary, but ideally, they should only be defensive in nature. In other words, we shouldn't spend more time invading and occupying than simply defending our own borders.
Militaries will always be necessary, but ideally, they should only be defensive in nature. In other words, we shouldn't spend more time invading and occupying than simply defending our own borders.
Does that mean you are?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
cant speak for the pentagonBubbalo wrote:
Isn't the Pentagon concerned about the fact that private security is basically a mercenary unit by another name?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
good question
In all seriousness, how do your mates in the army view this sort of thing?
And, perhaps more interestingly, how does security tend to get along with protesters on/near to bases?
I've no problem with that. That is your right.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's also called lack of manners, barging in uninvited and interrupting a conversation. I'll also exercise my own freedom of speech and call these people assholes. Should wait their turn, I say.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
It's called freedom of speech. And it is a good thing. Whether you agree with their opinions or not.
Well I dont agree with anti-recruiting people but not all recruiters are honest and some even lie to get people to join..My uncle was a Marine Corps recruiter and he has told me of other recruiters that would tell flat out lies to get people to join...I guess that is not different..now saying that....I am still joning and only need to go to a recruiter to fill out the neccessray applications and forms..they didnt have to "convince" me to join..
A recruiter would not normally argue with such a person. There is too great a possiblity of saying something that could make the military look bad. Many military members (especially in uniform) will either ignore a heckler or try to end any conversation politely. It sucks because I would love to argue with some of these people, but this is practiced to keep military personnel from accidentally making the military look bad.
Yes, but would this be qualified as stalking? Hounding the heels of recruiters and interrupting them while they're working at every chance you get? What about their right to free speech?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I've no problem with that. That is your right.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's also called lack of manners, barging in uninvited and interrupting a conversation. I'll also exercise my own freedom of speech and call these people assholes. Should wait their turn, I say.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
It's called freedom of speech. And it is a good thing. Whether you agree with their opinions or not.
From the OP, it didn't sound like they were actually actively stopping the recruiter from doing his job, just being a nuisance.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Yes, but would this be qualified as stalking? Hounding the heels of recruiters and interrupting them while they're working at every chance you get? What about their right to free speech?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I've no problem with that. That is your right.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's also called lack of manners, barging in uninvited and interrupting a conversation. I'll also exercise my own freedom of speech and call these people assholes. Should wait their turn, I say.
If they were actually actively stopping him, then yeah, you've got a point.