First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply U.S. Army lifts waiver ban to accept potential recruits with mental illness
17069 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/16/17 , edited 11/16/17
I don't think I've met anyone who didn't (love) Okinawa, but I guess it takes all types.
runec 
41458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 11/16/17 , edited 11/16/17

CKD-Anime wrote:
The big ticket seller for the last several years has been free college. But recruiters will sell you what you want, and kinda like you said people aren't all that interested in getting deployed (even to an overseas base).
To the dismay of forum users here, I know people who hated the fact that they got sent to Japan.


"Hey you might die or have to kill people and will undoubtedly come back with at least some trauma or physical injuries" is a pretty hard sell to begin with. With America still lodged in Iraq and Afghanistan it becomes a far more real possibility. Add to that the current geopolitical climate with the President dick fencing with another nuclear power and you've got a rather difficult job as a recruiter.

Though I've heard more than a few tales about how dubious recruiters can be in the States when trying to fill boots.

35958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 11/16/17 , edited 11/16/17

runec wrote:

Though I've heard more than a few tales about how dubious recruiters can be in the States when trying to fill boots.

Regardless of however sleazy certain recruiters are in order to meet their quota (unfortunately the pressure of the special assignment almost pretty much forces some of them to eventually be that way), you are constantly, constantly reminded at a MEPS about your acceptance of risk for in-processing into the military, so those who are not prepared for that sort of mental pressure still have the option to opt out before they make a hasty life decision.

That being said, I understand that some people joining the military is a game and will even still join under the "that won't be me" mentality.
39148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Charlotte NC
Offline
Posted 11/16/17 , edited 11/16/17
Remember that a lot of the military isn't involved in actual combat. I have a master's in biochemistry and would have loved to work for them doing research - but the fact I take low level zoloft for mild depression kept me out. Would try to go back now but at 39 expect other things would keep me out. Timing is interesting though I wonder if they are really starting to worry about Russia and North Korea (about time).
mxdan 
12308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 11/16/17 , edited 11/16/17
Compounding mental illnesses, wonderful. Let's just fill our police force with more dangerous and damaged farm boys when they come back. That wont go wrong.
6638 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/16/17 , edited 11/16/17

runec wrote:


uncletim wrote:
Yes in fact I think it would have been more likely if Clinton had won. We are just due


Clinton wouldn't Tweet her way into a land war in Asia.



CKD-Anime wrote:
The meat grinder only wants fresh meat


That's ultimately what it comes down too. I mean, lets face it, Army recruiters have never met a dumb kid from a poor family they didn't like. But the current generation has grown up with unending and unnecessary wars. There's nothing noble or patriotic about being sent off to Iraq to clean up Bush Jr's mess for example. Its gotten a lot harder for them to sell the cause on top of all the other problems they're having such as physical requirements.




well she is well known for being a war monger last i checked having voted for and supported a number of wars throughout her career and likely was going to continue that trend. where o my trump posted something crazy on his twitter he must want ww3 or something
runec 
41458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 11/16/17 , edited 11/17/17

dragonlord1234 wrote:
well she is well known for being a war monger last i checked having voted for and supported a number of wars throughout her career and likely was going to continue that trend. where o my trump posted something crazy on his twitter he must want ww3 or something


No, actually she isn't. The main criticism you can level at her is her vote on the Iraq war and even that has some caveats:

Straight from the Congressional record of the Iraq war vote: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-10-10/html/CREC-2002-10-10-pt1-PgS10233-7.htm


MRS CLINTON:
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set
a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia
has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India
has mentioned the possibility of a preemptive strike on Pakistan. What
if China should perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled
out, is not a good option.



MRS CLINTON:
If we get the resolution the President seeks, and Saddam complies,
disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change
will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing
all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack
him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply calls for Saddam's
compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will
be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support
and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes
authorizing military action and other requirements giving other nations
superficially legitimate reasons to oppose Security Council action.
They will say, we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only
support the U.N. when it does exactly want we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After
shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are
predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put
troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's
biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to
use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand
his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, with the outcome
certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass
destruction and give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us
with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this
possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it.

According to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing
the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more
bearable and would be far more likely to share the considerable burden
of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.


You might recall there was that whole coordinated effort by the administration to lie about Iraq's WMD capabilities to get the go ahead to attack.



MRS CLINTON:
“This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”



Not exactly the serial war monger. -.-
20193 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/16/17 , edited 11/16/17

runec wrote:


uncletim wrote:
Yes in fact I think it would have been more likely if Clinton had won. We are just due


Clinton wouldn't Tweet her way into a land war in Asia.



CKD-Anime wrote:
The meat grinder only wants fresh meat


That's ultimately what it comes down too. I mean, lets face it, Army recruiters have never met a dumb kid from a poor family they didn't like. But the current generation has grown up with unending and unnecessary wars. There's nothing noble or patriotic about being sent off to Iraq to clean up Bush Jr's mess for example. Its gotten a lot harder for them to sell the cause on top of all the other problems they're having such as physical requirements.




No but she would have started a war with Russia, and a few other countries as she had so happily pointed out in her own speeches wile she was failing at trying to become the next president, Most likely she had started a war with NK as well being she is all gun ho for war. Its profitable for her.


and she also well known for her two face lies where she will say what she thinks you want to hear. so witch is the real her.

Because she is well known for he war mongering, even had arms dealers backing her for president. But as rune said she good at lien and saying Ooo it was a hard choice, and saying what she thinks people want her to say.
runec 
41458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 11/16/17 , edited 11/17/17

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
No but she would have started a war with Russia, and a few other countries as she had so happily pointed out in her own speeches wile she was failing at trying to become the next president, Most likely she had started a war with NK as well being she is all gun ho for war. Its profitable for her.

and she also well known for her two face lies where she will say what she thinks you want to hear. so witch is the real her.

Because she is well known for he war mongering, even had arms dealers backing her for president. But as rune said she good at lien and saying Ooo it was a hard choice, and saying what she thinks people want her to say.


She wanted a hardline stance on Russia's dickery in Syria. Instead, Russia now has you bent over a table politically with a stooge in charge that believes them over his own intelligence agencies. While he stalls sanctions on Russia that Congress ordered and complies with pass along ideas via Wikileaks on what he should say.

Yeah you really dodged a bullet there. =p

How exactly is war profitable for her? Ignoring that the current President is actively using the presidency to line his own pockets *and* tweeting like a lunatic at another lunatic with nukes.

Also no, she's not well known for two faced lies. Again, you're thinking of the orange one. But even if I linked you a source with a Pulitzer Prize you would dismiss it in favour of whichever flavour of conspiracy theory you're currently reading. -.-

So, to sum that up: She's well known for her war mongering except everything she said that wasn't war mongering?









20193 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/19/17 , edited 11/19/17

runec wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
No but she would have started a war with Russia, and a few other countries as she had so happily pointed out in her own speeches wile she was failing at trying to become the next president, Most likely she had started a war with NK as well being she is all gun ho for war. Its profitable for her.

and she also well known for her two face lies where she will say what she thinks you want to hear. so witch is the real her.

Because she is well known for he war mongering, even had arms dealers backing her for president. But as rune said she good at lien and saying Ooo it was a hard choice, and saying what she thinks people want her to say.


She wanted a hardline stance on Russia's dickery in Syria. Instead, Russia now has you bent over a table politically with a stooge in charge that believes them over his own intelligence agencies. While he stalls sanctions on Russia that Congress ordered and complies with pass along ideas via Wikileaks on what he should say.

Yeah you really dodged a bullet there. =p

How exactly is war profitable for her? Ignoring that the current President is actively using the presidency to line his own pockets *and* tweeting like a lunatic at another lunatic with nukes.

Also no, she's not well known for two faced lies. Again, you're thinking of the orange one. But even if I linked you a source with a Pulitzer Prize you would dismiss it in favour of whichever flavour of conspiracy theory you're currently reading. -.-

So, to sum that up: She's well known for her war mongering except everything she said that wasn't war mongering?










The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.
Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. Also donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. So yes Hillary for some time been bed buddies with Russians, hell she gave them 20% of Americas Uranium and got a hefty amount of money for it.


Hillary's Iraq Liberation Act came the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO to bomb Belgrade, in the heart of Europe, and unleashing another decade of unrest in the Balkans. Hillary, traveling in Africa, called Bill: “I urged him to bomb,” she told reporter Lucinda Frank. (look it up its a fact!)
Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.
Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime, Hillary found it hilarious to declare of Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary’s relentless promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria. Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful. In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must “get out of the way,” backed by secret CIA operations.
Five years later, no place on the planet is more ravaged by unending war, and no place poses a great threat to US security. More than 10 million Syrians are displaced, and the refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean or undermining the political stability of Greece, Turkey, and the European Union. Into the chaos created by the secret CIA-Saudi operations to overthrow Assad, ISIS has filled the vacuum, and has used Syria as the base for worldwide terrorist attacks.
The list of her incompetence and warmongering goes on.

Should I continue?
runec 
41458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 11/19/17 , edited 11/19/17

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
So yes Hillary for some time been bed buddies with Russians, hell she gave them 20% of Americas Uranium and got a hefty amount of money for it.


.....your argument was that she was going to start a war with Russia. Not that she was buddies with Russia. At least stay coherent on your own argument. Also, don't start with the Uranium One bullshit. It's a conspiracy theory. The Secretary of State does not have the power to unilaterally approve such a deal.




Darkphoenix3450 wrote:Hillary's Iraq Liberation Act came the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO to bomb Belgrade, in the heart of Europe, and unleashing another decade of unrest in the Balkans. Hillary, traveling in Africa, called Bill: “I urged him to bomb,” she told reporter Lucinda Frank. (look it up its a fact!)


How the fuckballs does a Republican bill belong to the Democratic first lady? How the fuckballs does the First Lady command NATO? What about the Republicans who backed Clinton on Kosovo?




Darkphoenix3450 wrote:Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.


No, it wasn't. Not even close. She wasn't a "disaster" until it became politically beneficial to the GOP. Her approval numbers as the SoS were actually the highest she ever had in her entire political career.


“Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.


^ Donald Trump on Hillary as SoS.




Darkphoenix3450 wrote:Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime, Hillary found it hilarious to declare of Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”


Benghazi was a side show meant to hurt her poll numbers should she run for President. Republicans admitted as much.

Once again, the SoS does not have that kind of power and she certainly doesn't command the UN or NATO and Libya was already IN a civil war which is why the UN had to get involved in the first place. Hillary's comments were not "in the meantime". They were made as soon she heard news of his death.




Darkphoenix3450 wrote:Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary’s relentless promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria. Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful. In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must “get out of the way,” backed by secret CIA operations.


Right, okay. Stop parroting that op-ed from Huffpo. Most of your damn post is from it so far and it clearly has some credibility issues.

If Hillary had an *ounce* of the power you and Huffpo thinks she has she would be our God Queen right now.



Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
Should I continue?


Not unless you're going to put the Koolaid down and find your own words, no.
32092 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 11/19/17 , edited 11/19/17
If it's in the past and no longer current there is no problem honestly if it's current they should re-evaluate not so sure about bi-polar people but some have it under control.


Autistic people can get into the military and they have a disorder (Atleast here) so i don't see why others shouldn't be able to.

They should be tested mentally ill or not if they are ok enough to serve
321 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/19/17 , edited 11/20/17
A lot of people enter the military as perfectly normal people and leave with some sort of mental illness (PTSD). As long as it can be managed why not. Entering the military might help them with it because they can actually get help.
4516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/19/17 , edited 11/20/17

CKD-Anime wrote:


AnimeAddictANN69 wrote:
PTSD for just going through military training is very likely for sure
Well they were never going to make the cut anyways.



unless they lower the standards like Phoenix PD. They are so desperate that they lowered the standards for specific age groups and females

You can not pass the physical for males? ? just get a doctor note and claim you are a female.. who knows.. they will let you pass now a day

https://www.phoenix.gov/police/joinphxpd/physical-fitness-standards

3871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/20/17 , edited 11/20/17

AnimeAddictANN69 wrote:

unless they lower the standards like Phoenix PD. They are so desperate that they lowered the standards for specific age groups and females

You can not pass the physical for males? ? just get a doctor note and claim you are a female.. who knows.. they will let you pass now a day

https://www.phoenix.gov/police/joinphxpd/physical-fitness-standards




You can in Canada. I don't know about US or Arizona. Phoenix PD is really desperate for new hires.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.