• kvasir476@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    180
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Two things not mentioned it that article:

    1. Why would anyone want to fight for a country that is so callously disinterested in the welfare of it’s citizens?

    2. In the last quarter-century it has become extremely apparent that the US Military is not the “global force for good” that it wants to portray itself as. Most young people probably aren’t interested in joining up to commit war crimes in the name of making money for the military industrial complex.

    • SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago
      1. Every branch of the military has become increasingly toxic, cutting things like training and cleaning up black mold in favor of new uniforms every 2 years
      • kvasir476@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        How’s training and cleaning up mold supposed to line the pockets of the senator’s buddy who owns the uniform company?

            • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I mean, it’s not just billionaires. People who mug people are looking for money.

              It’s the money. Greed isn’t limited to the rich.

    • Grumble@techhub.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      @kvasir476 @throws_lemy Suggested edit: After “In the last quarter-century” insert “I’ve finally noticed”.

      Butler saw the scam first-hand, 100 years ago. Every generation seems it must relearn the lessons of our grandparents.

      As for young people not enlisting for wars of convenience - exactly. That’s partially why a draft was around, and why it was so unpopular. And why the money each service pays for college benefits goes way up when there’s a shooting war and goes down in peacetime.

      My time in the Navy overlapped with the VEAP program, which would give me a 2-to-1 match for college - up to the maximum contribution of $2700. What a joke.

      Compare that to the current GI Bill plus extra money each service pays directly.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

    • littlewonder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      \3. Pay hasn’t kept up with civilian work.

      \4. They stopped offering student loan repayment as a benefit.

      • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago
        1. They stopped offering student loan repayment as a benefit.

        What really? That was the biggest reason anyone joined when I was in. Wow. So the headline should be “Military reduces benefits of service, less people willing to serve”

        • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          After Germany declared war on them? They didn’t defeat them out of good will, in fact, I’d say America and South Africa were the closest things to Nazi Germany outside of the Reich

          • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            8 months ago

            Really? Closer than Russia which actually did invade its neighbors? Go back to lemmygrad.

            • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Should I remind you of the land the USA originally had and what they did to the people who lived in the lands they conquered?

              • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                8 months ago

                You can if you want to pretend that Russia didn’t do the same thing and that it somehow makes the comparison better for you!

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            8 months ago

            Is it good to beat the shit out of the school bully after he picks a fight with you so he learns to stop picking fights with people? I would say so.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                13
                ·
                8 months ago

                There’s a difference between being a good country and being a global force for good. In helping to defeat the Nazis, the U.S. was a global force for good regardless of what else they did, had done or will do. The same with Stalinist Russia.

          • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Not really, no. And let’s ignore the part where the only reason they even fought is because Russia wanted to conquer some of the same land as Germany 😂

              • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war?

                Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before…

                • RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It’s only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made.

                  • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t.

                    Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn’t liberate Paris though.

            • Nudding@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa.

                But yes, they lost the most lives. I’m not sure why that means it wasn’t a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so.

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America’s Lend Lease Act didn’t cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory.