They also sponsor a bunch of sporting events. They've even done the video game thing in the past (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army). I suppose you could argue that Twitch is a little different, but the idea is the same. They are trying to reach platforms that are popular among their recruitment demographic- young Americans. They aren't going to waste their money trying to recruit people with ads on the Hallmark Channel.
I played this game in high school and it is still top of my list as one of the best games I've ever played.
The matches could be incredibly slow. You could start a match and go grab a snack and you'd still be alive. On the flip side if you died it could be 10+ minutes to respawn. Sound was really important. I think eventually you could tag enemies on a minimap, but we had a ton of abbreviations for calling out locations in chat. The weapons had their quirks too.
The training and qualifications were also hella tedious. Like to get medic qualified you had to sit through this classroom lecture and take a test. The special forces qualification (opened more levels and weapons) was also really tough.
I hopped on in a later update and it was just constant respawn like any modern FPS. Anyway, loved that game. Never joined the military but I thought about it.
> I hopped on in a later update and it was just constant respawn like any modern FPS
Yeah, I think the thing that made it such a good recruitment tool at the beginning was that it wasn't like most video games. I wouldn't quite call it realistic, but if you were the type of person that liked AA, you were probably a good fit for the Army. The revisions gave it more mass appeal but probably lowered the hit rate as a recruitment tool.
A sizeable number of people that I played with went on to serve in the military, evidently due to their experience playing the game. So, anecdotally, it was effective.
Strangely, the one thing that sticks out to this day is they shunned the convention of using red and blue team indicators and instead chose red and green which made the game strangely difficult to get used to. I think I am remembering those little tick icons hovering above a player or maybe the reticle.
I guess the reason I'm pointing this out was because at the time I kept thinking if they can't get this one simple thing correct, what plethora of other things are they getting wrong.
edit: I have no idea how this adds to the conversation. Just thought vomit I guess.
I played this game as a kid for a lot of hours and knew it was a recruitment tool. I played in lots of small TWL tournaments and was in a clan, so I was pretty involved. While my KDA was pretty good, the D part always sacred the shit out of me, so I don’t think it was a particularly effective tool for recruitment for myself. Pretty well made game though. The map design was great imo; I still remember the map of Mount McKenna. I think I only met one person through the game involved in the military and he was enlisted before its release.
Is Joshua “Strotnium” David a children's idol? I bet most kids never heard of him. Unless they're getting pewdiepie to tell people to join the navy this seems like reaching too far.
People think military is cool, even those who are against the military are donned in milspic gear and want to train with their tactics. Twitch makes it cooler. I don't understand why its so upsetting, I thought the military was cool before they were on twitch, before I watched movies on them just because as a kid I thought they were strong ant powerful people that excelled at war, kill or be killed. Military gets great treatment and I don't see what the problem is. Do we consider action figures of GI Joe a recruitment problem?
>I had just reminded viewers of the United States’ history of atrocities around the globe, and helpfully provided a link to the Wikipedia page for US war crimes.
Can you name any military that hasn't done anything wrong? Not unique to any military
>The practices employed on Twitch by military e-sports teams are part of a system by which recruiters target children in unstable and/or disadvantaged situations. Recruiters take advantage of the poor seeking steady income, the vulnerable longing for stability, and the undocumented living in fear because of their citizenship status. Now, at a time when all those factors are magnified by a pandemic that has left half the country out of work and over 30 percent unable to afford their housing payments, conditions are ripe for recruiters to prey on anxious youth.
Prey on anxious youth? Seriously, it's like they assume nobody wants to join the military for any reason, if it wasn't for the pandemic. Giving young disadvantaged kids discipline when their parents don't isn't bad. The article brings up military sexual trauma and suicide as if that is not going to happen anywhere but the military, or if its a normal thing. I have family in the military, in fact that is how my family immigrated to the US due to a great uncle serving in the military.
>“Twitch is unlike anything I’ve ever experienced in my career, and it’s because you’re live for hours on end, talking to these people in the chat. You develop a community and know your individual chatters. There is an ecosystem in every Twitch channel,” Piker said. “Recruiting in this predatory way is a violation of [the users’] safety.”
Seriously? You can find that kind of community on chaturbate or any of the sex streaming sites.
Disappointing that this is so downvoted. Say what you want about militaries as a general concept, but compared to essentially any prior state/country/empire in the history of the world, the American military is remarkably benign, especially considering their overwhelming military strength in comparison to rivals.
If the Americans had even 10% of the imperialistic mentality of the Roman Empire, British Empire, Ottoman Empire, Japanese Empire, Mughal Empire, etc., the entire world would be a single imperial state.
That certainly doesn't justify the numerous crimes that the American military has done, but context is key, and like should be compared with like.
The only reason that the middle east is in such dire situations is because we refused to do what crueler militaries would do, which is crush opposition, what Assad would do, what Saddam would do. They may be cruel dictators but they brought stability and the ability for people to live within those rules. The US's military has and probably will do cruel things too but not to that degree.
This is really glorifying dictatorships, people who live within the rules are still targeted and killed if that happens to benefit the dictator or those in his favor.
No its not. The people of these countries would rather have a dictator who brought stability than chaos. That is true worldwide, for example in Russia. There is hardly a country with constant anarchy for long consistent periods.
I've found this is to be a common sentiment from people who've lived in 3rd world countries especially during times of conflict. Anyone born in America, or any peaceful first world country would have a hard time understanding how this could be a desirable situation.
I don't think that's true. Warfare in general has advanced quite a bit, and expertise exists in many places. You can't really hold an empire with just force these days. The US would crumble under an attempt to take over anything more than North America.
The approach of the modern superpower is much more effective: decentralized power but overall alignment. There's no coincidence to America's approach. It isn't ideological. It's pragmatic.
1) Much of that expertise has come directly from US involvement. See: Western Europe, Japan, Korea.
2) Much of the other expertise developed specifically because of US non-involvement. See: the Soviet Union and the states it influenced and supported. There were even plans to attack/nuke the Soviets, who were the only real rival post-WW2.
Had the U.S. wished to, it could have easily formed an imperial state following WW2. That would have been in-line with essentially every large state in human history. Thankfully, they didn't, and the world is better off for it.
I actually think America couldn’t have formed an imperial super state. That is really, really hard. Even the pre-eminent superpower of the pre-World-War Era, the United Kingdom, was having her empire fray and tatter before the Wars. The forces at play are too powerful. Rapid collapse would have followed. And that’s even assuming we could have beaten the USSR by 1949 (First Lightning), when opposition nukes enter the picture and the game changes again.
The tools of modern warfare are too widespread and easy to adopt. You can’t do it anymore, the old school empire is just as dead as old school fortresses. Technology has broken it.
I have friends who served in Afghanistan. I’m not unfamiliar with how powerful the US military is. But even that power is too weak.
America’s approach is way more resilient and the control exerted is much easier to retain.
Besides the technology of weapons, a big change here is that the economics of running an empire was completely changed by industrialization.
Every empire since the year dot captured land, with peasants farming it, who could be taxed, to pay the soldiers, to capture land... that was the business model. A little profit was left over to pay for cities, palaces, pyramids, etc.
This flow of money from country to towns was reversed by the industrial revolution. Within almost every country now, the cities are taxed to pay the rural voter base (or to pay off the rural might-be-revolutionaries, in places with less voting).
Not the only thing going on, of course -- changes in weapons matter to the balance, as mentioned. So does the rise of literacy & nationalism, which made the idea of rulers who are too distant (by ethnicity, language, or religion) from the population base (as they were in empires, almost by definition) into a rallying point. And thus raised the cost of holding land.
You're right that you can't hold an empire with only force, but I would argue that was just as true during the days of the Roman empire as it is today.
Sure, the Romans used (for the time) overwhelmingly advanced technology and amazingly brutal tactics to conquer Gaul and Britain, but they maintained their hold over those territories by culturally assimilating the native populations. Gallic and Britanic Romans spoke Latin, wore Roman dress, and even followed Roman sanitary customs -- there's a reason there's a town called Bath in southwestern England.
That culture continued to exert influence long after Rome fell as a central military power.
>Roman Empire, British Empire, Ottoman Empire, Japanese Empire, Mughal Empire
Imagine, for a moment, that each one of these had nukes. What's the probability they'd use them to make a point as an aggressor/opressor? Even risking MAD?
Probably the same, with the same knowledge available. If you just gave a Roman Emperor unlimited use of nuclear weapons, sure, he might go ham. He didn’t even know the extent of the world. But you don’t get nukes without awareness of what a nuke is.
Given everything, I think the highest likelihood outcome is that they behave similarly.
The US definitely would have used nukes, especially in Vietnam - I believe that the reason the US President is the one with the nuclear suitcase and who it the end decision maker (probably something more people are nervous about now) is because when Truman learned about the nuke project (I'm not sure he had been aware of them until he became president) and used them he was afraid the military would use even more. Former SecDef Perry does a lot around nuclear nonproliferation and has good free courses, a podcast, and a book https://www.wjperryproject.org/
Even though I suppose many do find it 'cool' and the military probably likes to use that ... as someone who spent time in the service, I wish they would focus more on the 'dutiful' aspects of it all. I felt cool for about 10 minutes the first time I held a weapon, then it was definitely a 'responsibility'. That said, not sure how great it would as recruiting tool to focus on issues of community responsibility and duty.
I think that is what the national guard does but I am not sure. Many people join for a few years and leave. The coolness was just my perception. Depending on what job such as arabic translator it could be seen very much as responsibility.
>People think street gang is cool, even those who are against the street gang are donned in street gang gear and want to train with street gang tactics.
Can you name a street gang that pays your college?
I stand corrected, there are indeed some compensation perks compared to street gangs. But the converse is also true, street gangs have some advantages in compensation (eg don't pay taxes from criminal activities proceeds).
My intention was to draw attention to the ethics though.
Yeah I also thought they went pretty over the top, I also don't know why the demographics of Twitch would map to "poor seeking steady income, the vulnerable longing for stability..." I mean are the poorest kids in the U.S. and those in unstable environments really on Twitch for hours on end? Maybe, but those seem like exactly the kids who wouldn't have as good access to wifi and computers as slightly wealthier families.
Depends where you live, I know someone who joined to remove a DUI, my cousin was not poor and just wanted discipline before joining a biotech phd program with the military paying for it. Poor kids are not online for hours on twitch, they are caring for their other siblings while their parents are at work, and probably playing or helping with homework, not watching hours of their favorite US military streamer play CoD.
You can remove criminal offenses? Wow, I think I'd seen that in movies (or maybe that Simpsons episode about Seymour Skinner?) but didn't realize it was really a thing
The judge let him go because he told me he needed a licence for driving the amphibious vehicle and he wouldn't be able to do it if he got a DUI so it was dismissed, but hes told me about screaming camel spiders I googled and called him out on. I don't think he lied about that one though but I'm just rehashing what he told me.
I think the US army (or maybe modern armies) might be the only army I know of that actually tries not to be evil officially. Compared to armies of the past where there was no pretense. Not saying it's any different in practice but....
I understand the argument and empathize with it but is it really the military or the politicians who sent them who are responsible? Would the military independently initiate something like the Iraq war? Maybe, but I'm not so sure - I mean there are definitely tons of hawks and some people with extremist views, but I think generally they would prefer to fight a different type of war more akin to the traditional "glorious" battles of WWII rather than urban combat fighting hidden enemies and getting blown up by IEDs
Ok radical. I served 9 years in the military and no one I worked with was evil. Service members honestly believed they were doing good in the world and many felt some of the wars they were forced to participate in were unjust. Life is way more nuanced.
Generally, it was the intended targets of those drones who decided to hide among children. Meaning, usually, in areas with children nearby.
The rate at which children are harmed by drones is largely a consequence of strategies outside of American control once you posit that the targets are targeted justly.
I am not saying that stupid mistakes and civilian death don't happen.
> as a kid I thought they were strong ant powerful people that excelled at war, kill or be killed
That is because most popular depiction of military amount to propaganda and is designed to make you feel good about military. It does not show the ugly or boring or realistic parts of it.
You pretty much never see movie from point of view of civilians living in the place where military operates. Military would not be so cool looking there.
Even death in combat or mistreating civilians is depicted in a way that makes you want to join fight. More realistic (and less popular) depictions don't have thay effect.
You're saying it's weird that kids like tanks, supersonic aircraft and and nuclear submarines? Technology is cool. You didn't think the blackbird was really cool? I never thought only the US military was cool, powerful machines facinate boys without propaganda. I liked monster trucks and crushing machines too and I bet lots of other boys did too despite their non military function.
But as a kid I also read books about civilians in war time. I seen photos of bombed cities and read memoirs of people who went through it. Journals would have that every year at milestones.
There were those sad movies about kids in war time too.
No, the war was not unambiguous cool good as far as I remember. I never perceived it as cool technology only, it was never framed to me that way.
My grandma used to say that war is horrible. The grandparents generally did not liked it and did not liked movies with shooting and bombing. They added details only later, the stuff they personally seen, when I was adult, but when I was kid they would at least generally say it was bad.
What is the war you talk about? I was always interested in cool technology, not war. Often, the military had cool technology. I remember reading a book, how things work and it explained lots of things to me, like how airplanes fly, so I wanted to look up the fastest one and the blackbird was really cool. I love machines and used to take apart clocks to (try to) fix them too. I wasn't interested in guns despite them being in every military game, they just exploded a bullet from a shell in various ways.
Some things had a horrible magnificence like when the US bombed Los Alamo's US soldiers and the men in a documentary talked about how beautiful it was, or the terrifying effect of white phosphorus.
After writing this, I think I liked the idea of the power and leanness of the military ( wanted their gear because milspec means hardy), but also thought they had the coolest toys to play with.
The whole point of military it to do war and keep themselves ready for war. There is no military without war or threat of war.
And there is no war without massive suffering. Pretty much any of them displaces people, interrupts food distribution and generally makes people living in that area suffer.
> "I seen photos of bombed cities and read memoirs of people who went through it."
I have too, which is precisely why I'm greatly in favor of an extremely strong military. Sovereignty is a privilege enjoyed only by those with the means to enforce it.
This isn't shocking at all - recruiters used to come to my high school and then eventually they set up an ROTC. I've even seen them put out attractive girls in the park at recruiting booths with giveaways, not surprised they'll do whatever they can to attract people.
I have an aversion to these tactics because I know I sure as hell wasn't mature enough at 18 or even a decade later to be in a position where I could be deciding to kill someone in combat and I don't like the idea of kids being recruited with some slimy tactics, but I do think Silicon Valley needs to do a better job of working with DoD and the US govt, I sure as hell would rather the US be the undisputed world leader than Russia or China
>I know I sure as hell wasn't mature enough at 18 or even a decade later to be in a position where I could be deciding to kill someone in combat
You could easily be a non combatant, and most are not combatants jobs. Its one of the greatest misconceptions of the military. Wars and battles only occur during a failure of diplomacy and negotiation.
Sure, I could easily be a non combatant and likely would be (although I scored in the high 90s on the ASVAB and the recruiters said I could pick my role...) but my understanding is that you don't really get a choice. When you sign the papers they own you and you wouldn't have much of a choice if they decided to put you in that position.
I'm not sure I agree that those are the only situations where wars and battles occur - maybe in great power conflicts but was there really much diplomacy or negotiation before the U.S. invaded Iraq?
I scored a 96. I was supposed to go Navy Nuclear Power School and become a nuclear power plant technician of some kind. Either a Machinist's Mate (MM Nuclear), Electronics Technician (ET Nuclear), or Electrician's Mate (EM Nuclear).
Turns out I'm color blind. I already had the top secret clearance, ended up as a quartermaster (QM) for Patrol Coastal Crew Charlie at Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek in Virginia Beach, under command of SOSCOM (Special Operations Support Command).
A lot of driving around spec ops units on a RHIB (Ridged Hull Inflatable Boat) up and down the Um Qasr river (which is actually more an estuary and canal system, and actually has a lot of different names as it shifts... but that's another story - everyone just calls it 'Um Qasr').
Bottom line, the military will put you where they need you most. Smart people get put into advanced training for very technical ratings. I would probably be working in a nuclear power plant today had I been born with normal color vision. Such is life. Smart people are too rare to waste on shit like infantry. There's plenty of people that can hold a rifle.
>>>Smart people are too rare to waste on shit like infantry.
Nitpick: the infantry needs intelligent people too, especially in the officer ranks. McNamarra's Morons suffered massively-higher casualty rates than "normal" draftee infantry, for example.
I cannot say for sure, but it wasn't the only place with conflicts. I also got high on the ASVAB, but I didn't end up joining because I was too nervous and scared like you.
People need to stop seeing the military as the problem and rather the electorate that votes for politicians that lead us into wars. The military without a war is just a big gun club.
How does an article about military recruitment for voluntary enlistment share the core story of a children's book where the main character is drafted? I find it hard to imagine more different themes.
In Ender's Game, the main character repeatedly tries to out smart the military and avoid his draft by becoming more and more brutal.
In this article, the military is portrayed as a group of pseudo drug dealers, seducing poor youths into a life of violence and war crimes.
Really, this article is fascinating in how it assumes that the reader will agree with it's unstated thesis that entering the military is the worst thing that could happen to a person.
This is news? The US military has been actively recruiting online at least since 2002 when they released the America's Army first-person shooter whose sequel releases continue to this day.
But, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to recruit least disciplined people who love shooting more than everything else, and aren't even good at what they area doing in digital games (otherwise why would they leave it).
I still remember the Apache footage that WikiLeaks published. The gunner was so enthusiastic to shoot people. "c'mon let's shoot. let me shoot"
> The Twitter account for the US Army e-sports team links to a sparsely populated page with register to win! at the top, no details on what one could even win, and a sign-up form that, according to a tiny disclosure at the bottom of the page, welcomes an eventual harangue by an Army recruiter. It allows people as young as 12 to submit the form, but adds a notice on the post-submission page that recruiters are not permitted to contact a child under the age of 16.
Wow, baiting 13 year olds into signing up for the military via a fake contest is something straight out of Starship Troopers
That's a new take on Starship Troopers I've never heard before.
The entire movie is supposed to be a pro-military propaganda film for that specific universe. One cannot be a citizen without military service. They even used child soldiers [0]
Supposed to be _mocking_ pro-military propaganda. It's a movie about teenagers being convinced to enthusiastically join a fascist government and to commit zenocide thru advertising and sex appeal.
The book and movie are fundamentally different beasts. Though are both in true Science Fiction form of giving characters a shiny thing, running with it on social/political/economic implications, and viewing it through the lens of modern politics.
The movie was written post "failed military policy" from the perspective of dozens of minor conflicts, middle east interventions, and a few major ones like Vietnam. It explicitly satirizes "political exceptionalism", when they are anything but (utterly incapable intelligence leading to massive fleet loses to artillery, woefully under equipped soldiers, and even psychic abilities used to comical effect of "they're afraid"). While having a "social media reality" that lets the myth of exceptionalism flourish.
The books are essentially written as a love affair to cold war policy, and the concept of the "forever war" against an enemy (the bugs which are essentially the perfect red communists, led by a cabal of male psychic bugs). The soldiers are woefully over equipped to the point that they make master chief from Halo look wimpy, and put through training that makes them actually exceptional. And it is explicitly written through the lens of "this forever war is a just and good thing".
__
They can also be read through the lens of "this is a drunken romp". The book an action combat read, and the movie a comedy. Assuming you don't have the patience to dig into the lessons they offer.
I actually enjoy both. And find the fact that they are nearly perfect foils of each other, even more enjoyable.
And the books did purposefully set recruitment up so that people entering the office would be forced to see grim realities of what they were signing up for, and that people joining would have multiple outs to get out.
First: Yes, this is my second comment on this post. I wasn't sure if I should just edit my comment but this has a different theme so I'll keep them separate.
You should note when reading this article that it is written from a progressive/leftist perspective. The author isn't trying to hide it. I want to comment on some specific points just to offer a little balance and some inside knowledge from my experience being in the military (experience the author does not have). I'm not a recruiter and none of this represents an official stance from any organization, it's my personal views.
- "None of the military branches or Twitch would comment on paid promotion or how branches might qualify for prominent placement on Twitch’s homepage" It's money. Literally just money. There is nothing nefarious on Twitch's part about selling featured space.
- I'll admit that the whole promising a chance to win an Xbox controller and then redirecting to a recruiter is kind of scummy. But if you're going to get mad at recruiters, get mad at them for lying to recruits about their potential jobs based on their ASVAB scores. They will tell low scoring kids that they can do whatever job they desire just to get them to sign papers, when a lot of jobs have specific requirements that the recruiter knows they don't meet. This is a really bad thing that recruiters do and it's way worse than lying about an Xbox controller.
- But as scummy as recruiters sometimes are, let's acknowledge that the military can be beneficial to some people. It really does pay for college, both with tuition assistance while they are serving and with the GI bill after they get out. For me personally, I have received a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a PhD all without taking a single loan because of the military. I have also helped tutor airmen taking college math classes while they were deployed. A lot of them would not have thrived in a traditional college environment, but while deployed they would work 50+ hours a week and also knocked out six credit hours of classes in six months. A lot of those airmen have now finished their bachelor's degrees with zero debt and are now stellar civilian employees with great lives.
- The military can help people raise their station in life. This phrasing "a system by which recruiters target children in unstable and/or disadvantaged situations. Recruiters take advantage of the poor seeking steady income, the vulnerable longing for stability, and the undocumented living in fear because of their citizenship status" screams that it was written by a privileged person that looks down on poor people but wants to look like they care. The reality is that a lot of people that came from poor families and broken homes really appreciate that the military gave them a new family, a good paycheck, secured their chance at citizenship, etc. No, the military isn't for everyone, but it's not a nefarious supervillian preying on the underclass of society.
- The anti-recruiter says "They don’t talk about military sexual trauma." I do want to acknowledge that this exists and is a problem. But every branch of the military is making serious attempts at getting better. There are pockets of absolute filth, but most people in the military want to fix the problem and do not tolerate sexual abuse or abusers in their units, and act swiftly and appropriately when it is discovered. I am confident saying that you are now at far greater risk of being sexually assaulted if you attend a college frat party than you are joining the military.
- This part "Despite being older than most of his young viewers, he speaks like them" is how you should communicate with people. Most groups/cultures appreciate it when an outsider speaks or makes an attempt to speak the native language. It's not a bad thing.
That's probably enough commentary. It's true, the military isn't perfect, and sometimes pulls some shady tricks when recruiting. But this article is slanted, so keep an open mind when forming an opinion. The truth probably lies somewhere between the radical left and the radical right, it's up to you to find it. There are a lot of proud veterans that appreciate their time in the military and the benefits it brought them. There are too many happy veterans for them to all be psychopaths or brainwashed or idiots, some of them have to be decent regular people. There are also a lot of veterans that regret their time in the military for various reasons. Many of them have real trauma and legitimate complaints. But I think overall, using Twitch to reach young people for recruitment isn't a bad thing.
> "None of the military branches or Twitch would comment on paid promotion or how branches might qualify for prominent placement on Twitch’s homepage" It's money. Literally just money. There is nothing nefarious on Twitch's part about selling featured space.
It also might not be money. I follow a popular twitch streamer (averages 30k+ viewers) who is often featured on the front page. He says he just asks his contact at Twitch to be put on the front page, no money required. They do have additional rules though (he isn't allowed to swear too much or they will remove him from the front page).
>But every branch of the military is making serious attempts at getting better. There are pockets of absolute filth, but most people in the military want to fix the problem and do not tolerate sexual abuse or abusers in their units, and act swiftly and appropriately when it is discovered.
"As a naval officer I abhor the implication that the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism. It is well known that we have the problem relatively under control, and that it is the R.A.F. who now suffer the largest casualties in this area"
I don't get it. The article is basically saying that the military is something bad? Then just say it like that. Don't make it about those perfectly fine twitch channels.
Starting and perpetuating flamewars like this is not allowed on HN, regardless of how right your views are or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do this.
This was really, really bad. Please don't do this again.
Do you honestly think the military is a criminal activity? Not specific things that happen inside it (obviously some people in the military commit crimes). But as a concept?
What would you replace it with? Nothing? How do you think a nation could defend itself without a military?
You said militaries don't construct, they destroy. You can't have a society without a military. You should review your posts before ranting incoherently and contradicting yourself constantly.
Aside from painting all military units as psychopaths you might want to understand why you feel the need to hate America, when all militaries are combatants. All is fair in love and war, there is not one military that is innocent of crime nor any people or nation.
Americans military is an evil, out of control force. If you can't comprehend why someone would think that, you haven't been paying attention to the smoking piles of innocent bodies laying under the rubble around the globe.
And while your endless ad hominems don't really add to the conversation, I will say this: if you think America is defending anything with its military, you've not been paying attention. Nobody is threatening America with military aggression - everyone is sick and tired though, of American hegemony and would like, very much, to see you start taking care of your own people before you bomb millions of other innocent people into oblivion, as you are doing.
War crimes and crimes against humanity cost the American people, too.
Defend your almighty military all you like - it is after all, a massive and overwhelming force.
But, in the meantime, there are kids within your own borders starving to death, and for the cost of a single B1 flight you could've done a lot to bring America's social health care system up to world standards. That is an example, precisely, of how America's criminal military is robbing its citizens, blind.
How do you think the US was founded? We are the strongest nation because we have the strongest military. Where would the US be without it's military? At best we could be Japan, but even they have their own military, and rely on ours to protect them.
Agreed, also because geography has thus far protected us from most major modern wars so we were able to avoid the catastrophic damage to infrastructure (and lives lost) that afflicted most of Europe and even Asia in WWII
The US did that to prevent another war, after 2 world wars who would have though Europe was responsible enough for itself? NATO has been the reason why there has been such lasting peace.
>This is the modus operandi of a bully, an invader, an exploiter - certainly not that of a protector.
So America plundered Japan and Germany? If they actually invaded them and overtook them they'd be part of the US now. The US saved the world from another world war, and they are the bullies? You can make a case out of some but NATO has been good for most of the world.
America has plundered those nations by enforcing the use of the US dollar in their trades, and demolishing any sovereign nation that suggests otherwise. That's soft imperialism, yo.
> America has plundered those nations by enforcing the use of the US dollar in their trades...
That's really not a thing, economically - though many people seem to be confused about that, so it's understandable that you would be as well. America does benefit when foreigners choose to invest in the US and perhaps hold US assets as collateral, but nobody is forcing anyone to do that. Using the US dollar in trade is simply a matter of convenience.
>Using the US dollar in trade is simply a matter of convenience
Nonsense. The US dollar is the worlds reserve currency, enforced at the tip of the US military spear, and any nations which try to change that promptly get bombed into oblivion.
I suggest reading the statements of American generals which in both cases call it an occupation. If it were to protect they'd have gone long time ago, yet drunk American soldiers harrass or kill civilians when they get out of their bases for their weekly partying. Why edulcorate imperialism (again, cultural and economic) with stale heroism, when it's clear that what keeps the US economy running is constant war (for about 93% of the 200+ years since 1776)?
If you believe that states occupy foreign land out of anything but need to control land and resources, I believe you've been force-fed a tad too much propaganda.
> If they actually invaded them and overtook them they'd be part of the US now.
That's not how empires work, and that's why NATO has been created. You have the same contro, but can delegate administrative tasks to the invaded countries. It's how the Mongol, Roman and Großdeutschland empires worked (unlike the colonial imperialism you refer to with "overtooking").
When you have time see if reading about what is called "Pax Americana" can give you a different perspective, possibly that of those that have been invaded.
When you claim NATO has been good for the world aren't you forgetting about the political meddling, money showering and laundering, secret illegal perations, and puppet government instantiated throughout the subjugated countries in order to steal control from Russian control during cold war?
What about the military bases conveniently placed in Afghanistan to control resources? Or the crypto funding of right and left wing terror groups to instate a police state in Italy?
There's a reason why southern Europe is covered with "YANKEES GO HOME" graffiti, and they weren't made in the 50s.
>If you believe that states occupy foreign land out of anything but need to control land and resources, I believe you've been force-fed a tad too much propaganda.
The US occupied Japan and it became a powerhouse. What was the real reason?
>When you claim NATO has been good for the world aren't you forgetting about the political meddling, money showering and laundering, secret illegal perations, and puppet government instantiated throughout the subjugated countries in order to steal control from Russian control during cold war?
No. I never said NATO was perfect. I said it's good because it caused lasting peace and prevented WW3.
It would be stupid for me to say America doesn't meddle. But what was the other outcome? If NATO didn't exist what would the world be like?
I skimmed your 100 page pdf (parts of it) and did not find anything remotely close to 5% of Iraq's population. That's 2 million people. The highest number I found in your document skimming it was 108k. I don't even think you can get to 2 million if you count up every death (and net emigration) that occurred for any reason in the country in the last 17 years (since the US was there).
The Iraq war was/is undoubtedly a heinous failure in concept and execution. There is no need to throw out blatant falsehoods to muddy the picture.
You didn't read the document. Read the document, gain an understanding of the statistics and why - and how - they are key to America's propaganda war - and then we can continue.
Read the report. It answers all your questions. And, it is very, very sad. Americans have no idea the extent of the evil damage they have done to the world.
Multiple cities with civilian populations greater than two million have been reduced to smoking piles of rubble, because of American ignorance. If the American public had seen what had been done to Mosul in their name, when it happened - the White House would be a smoking crater today.
To your post I can reply that ducks have very long corkscrew penises, which has nothing to do with your post and is what you're also doing when you reply. Discussions happen when people are speaking to each other not one ranting at a question.
Calling war endless is accurate, given it does not end. Plus, there was always armed conflict for over last 30 years.
Calling war evil is not uncivil. That is how wars are perceived by people who live through them - there are massive non combatants populations suffering a lot.
Movies don't show that part or only as aside, that they make you feel it is all cool and heroic. But reality and memories of civilians who went through wars are in the realms of "that was evil".
30 years? Wass humanity singing kumbaya before? Try over all of human civilization, like you said endlessly. Calling war endless isn't uncivil but being insulting and rude is, and if you don't understand the difference I have no obligation to answer to your justifications for endless, evil flame wars.
I am talking about amount of time America is in war state. Calling it endless is appropriate. There are plenty of politicians and journalists who never encountered war they would not like.
I am not talking about war anywhere in the world by anyone.
War itself is uncivil. The way it was talked about here was no more uncivil then javascript frameworks are talked about.
It is absurd to demand that war is talked about with reverence and euphemisms. People can talk about it the way they talk about vim or emacs or cultural issues.
Frankly, the emotional reaction against the idea that war could be evil and not cool is likely one of reasons why military propaganda in games or sports bothers people. It is not just pushing people toward profession that is really necessary, it is pushing people to think war is cool and heroic. To like that and to ignore destruction it brinks.
I think the motivation for calling this thread 'rude and uncivil' was the fact that it required anyone who just blindly supports American military misadventures to re-evaluate their position.
Americans are scared of the truth and don't like being embarrassed - but the evil of their military crimes is not something that can be ignored, and there is absolutely nothing honourable about them.
So yes, be rude to the American war mongers you encounter, who forward the propaganda that theirs is an infallible military and a just state of affairs, because this is far, far from the truth. Such cowardice must be shunned, because - as we have seen recently, the USA is a psychopathic state hell bent on tearing itself apart before it commits further crimes against humanity around the world.
Is there "anyone who just blindly supports American military misadventures"? Is there anybody "scared of the truth"?
It could be that other people hold different values than you do. They might be fully aware and thinking, and still prefer military action that you detest.
Blind opposition can also exist. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your position.
Yes, exactly. And this is, incidentally, why Americans are so afraid of looking at the statistics of their wars.
Because the very real evil of America's wars is obvious, in plain view, for all to see.
“People tend to turn away from disasters such as a war gone bad very quickly. They turn away because it bothers them morally, but also because the carnage challenges their strongly held self-perception that their country is a force for good in the world,” said Tirman. “In the face of something horrible, people are much more likely to become indifferent than they are to protest. Oftentimes it’s even easier to just blame the victims for causing their own suffering.”
I don't know what your problem is, but when you spend all your time ignoring questions, insulting others, and expecting them to read your angry wall of text, you're wrong.
I asked you 2 questions and you do nothing but rant about everything else, subjects that could have been brought up respectfully but instead are rammed down like font vomit. Do you actually expect me to read or treat any of your supposed facts with any respect after you constantly contradict yourself, insult anyone who disagrees and rant about subjects others aren't even talking about? Who cares what a rude person says?
I agree, but to be fair, that includes many major armies in the world such as western European colonial powers that have track records far worse than the US. I think the idea that militaries are glorified due to a supposed "coolness" factor is disturbing to begin with.
> nobody has come even anywhere close to the level of evil enacted on the world, as the US and its criminal War Coalition cult
I understand that these actions are incredibly callous, particularly as some of them are ongoing and can be stopped. I'm not trying to make the US look better, but only place it in a global context. All of these atrocities combined still don't seem even even remotely comparable to the atrocities committed by the British, for instance.
> European armies are being forced (by their NATO captors) to participate
This sounds incredibly misinformed and callous. Have people already forgotten about Libya in 2011, urged by the French utilizing NATO for their own interventionist agenda? Or the expectation among powerful European countries such as Germany and certainly most Eastern European NATO members that the US maintain a presence there? No one is being held captive.
Or for another example before NATO, the British urged the US to intervene in Iran to protect exploitative British oil interests, starting a cascade of further US intervention in the country succeeding the long cycle of British imperialism there.
A very (very) short sampling of the wonders of British colonialism with some sources that provide more context at the end:
A large-scale famine in Ireland that could have been prevented, brutal massacres in Kenya to crush uprisings resulting in the detainment without cause of around 80,000 people and the death of tens of thousands that were later covered up by burning their documents, the deindustrialization of some of the most successful economies in the world that were in what is now India (Bengal, etc.) by razing and/or crippling local industries that had developed globally-recognized innovations and forcing them through enslavement and forced labor into inefficient agriculture that partially resulted in famines that killed more than 10 million.
You did more than any other account to turn this thread into a flamewar. I've had to rate limit your account again because of this.
Looking at the posting history, it seems you've been commenting like this in other threads too. Please don't. Denunciatory rhetoric destroys what this site is for, and does not good. It doesn't do anything to reduce militarism in the world to fulminate about it on an internet forum, and you're damaging this place when you do it. Most other users in this thread posted thoughtful comments, including ones representing anti-militaristic views. That's what we're looking for here: exchange of information, not internet war.
As a European I find the patriotic displays before sports matches in the US a little vomit inducing. It's paid for by the military and not some spontaneous display of love for the country, and it's a little fascist in that anyone refusing to take part (Colin Kaepernick? But also people in the crowd who don't stand) stands out like a sore thumb. Then there's the "let's clap for veterans" mid-way through the game and whatnot, sometimes bringing one or two onto the pitch for everyone to gawk at. It seems to me like the whole thing is a choreographed process to show impressionable youngsters who lack self respect that they will be respected by society if they wage war on its behalf.
First, the pageantry in most sports is not paid primarily by the military. It’s true that military will lend a color guard (those are the service members holding the flag), and will often sponsor sports, but that tends to be only at televised games. The tradition of honoring the flag and local service members is common throughout the country down to grade school events.
The overt acts of patriotism and congratulatory acknowledgements of soldiers has certainly been ratcheted up over the last 40 years, but I think you can contribute that to guilt over how services members were treated during and shortly after the Vietnam War. I would liken it to “asking forgiveness”, which in some respects is shallow given that those that are most patriotic are likely to vote for politicians that will send the military into more needless wars.
My point is, the nature of our patriotism is complex and nuanced. You can be disgusted by it, but understand that there is a history behind it.
>It seems to me like the whole thing is a choreographed process to show impressionable youngsters who lack self respect that they will be respected by society if they wage war on its behalf.
We all had to do the pledge of allegiance in high school every day. You may see that as an adult, but after doing it for over a decade I was just saying we-puppet instead of republic and never understood what it meant or cared. It was just a habit, like saying death to america or something.
No idea, I think it still does. I doubt kids are being indoctrinated by it, its a ritual like lighting incense, we remember the ritual but not why or the context. Only now when people complain about it do I realize it had no effect on my patriotism. I didn't learn what a republic was for most of the years. What does one nation under god mean? No idea still.
Depends on school, district, grade level, etc. If I walked into any school in the country and saw it not/occurring, I would not be surprised or perturbed at all. It's just kinda part of life.
Think how Japan does calisthenics before work/school every morning. Not everyone does it, but enough do that it's kinda just part of Japan.
Please don't take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar. Denunciatory rhetoric is particularly unwelcome here, since it's the opposite extreme of curious conversation.
The US is a superpower, and uses the military to create mostly stable political structures around the world that benefit the US. The oceans are patrolled around the world, and the nuclear arsenals facilitate mutual assured destruction, which is the only stable nuclear outcome in a world with enough nukes to destroy the planet.
This military is an all-volunteer force. This wasn't always the case, but we found out in the 70's that requiring people to join can get extremely contentious if the reasoning for a conflict isn't absolutely clear to the layman. This means there has to be massive recruitment drives to get the people required for the large military.
Early recruitment ensures indoctrination, which isn't evil, it just means instilling certain norms and cultures into someone so that they can cooporate and do their job in an environment that humans didn't evolve in.
As an immigrant from Europe, I see nothing wrong with patriotism. I also suspect that reminding the fans that they are citizens of one nation might be playing into the lack of pre/post game fights, quite common in Europe. Tbqh, there are still riots after some games in the US but they are far from organized beat downs of the opposing team fans.
> It's paid for by the military and not some spontaneous display of love for the country
That reaction is an unfortunate part of modern European culture, and I'm sorry to say that the USA encouraged it after World War II. I say "unfortunate" because it takes away the natural urge for self-preservation and will ultimately lead to the demise of European culture. Culture dies if it is not defended.
Please don't take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar. Denunciatory rhetoric is particularly unwelcome here, since it's the opposite extreme of curious conversation.
There is no such thing as a "European culture". The European Union is a loosely bound groups of countries with different languages and cultures tied together by varying degrees of relationship and exchanges throughout their histories.
Local cultures in European countries seem to be doing fine.
There’s not really a European identity like American’s have. You can live in Texas or Idaho, but consider yourself American. I’ve never met a Spaniard, German, or Englishmen consider themselves European first, and their nationality second.
No. Not many. My best friend was an Air Force recruiter for over 20 years. Physical fitness and being in good enough shape to even attend boot camp is the single biggest disqualifer for most potential recruits.
And no, they're not interested in setting up a workout plan for the average recruit to get them boot-camp-ready. Its a waste of time. If they had the wherewithal to do that, they'd already be in good enough shape - his words, not mine.
As it turns out, the person who recruited me did have a workout plan, but only if you scored 90+ on the ASVAB, because those scores are so rare, its easier to delay entry into the Navy and shave 10-20 lbs. off someone and get them able to run 1.5 miles, do 50 sit-ups, and 50 push-ups than it is to find another person with a 90+.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many highschool athletes who don't also play video games. Video games are not some sort of exclusive basement nerd niche and haven't been for decades (if ever.)
You're describing the gamer stereotype. Any objective definition of gamer is merely "one who plays games." If you step away from pop culture depictions of the stereotype and look at some real world data (for instance, percentage of American homes with a gaming device, which has been above 50% for years), I think you'll find that most gamers don't fit the gamer stereotype.
No it is not. There is culture around it that defines what gamer is. I used to play games and I was not gamer.
No gamer would call me gamer or accept me as gamer either. I would be "not a real gamer" in their eyes. And I don't want to be called gamer, because I don't like that culture either.
There are people who play games and there are people who call themselves gamers. Those are two different groups.
Also, I stopped playing games afre living with guy who changed into gamer. Seeng what the obession and irritability after playing does to others around made me understand the dislike and stereotype.
> There is culture around it that defines what gamer is
That "culture" is just the gamer stereotype. If you play games, you're a gamer. Whether you choose to self-describe that way is irrelevant. Whether people who self-describe that way also describe you that way is irrelevant.
You may as well claim to ride bicycles but not be "cyclist" because you don't own spandex. If you ride bicycles you're a cyclist, whether or not you self-describe as a cyclist, whether or not people who self-describe as cyclists consider you a cyclist, and whether or not you resemble the stereotype of cyclists. If you ride bicycles, you're a cyclist. If you play games, you're a gamer.
No, gamers themselves distinguish between gamers and non gamers. Quite strongly and it is important to them. Gamers do have shared values I tend to disagree with.
No cyclist ever told "she/he is not a real cyclist", so cyclist is descriptor for people who cycle enough. Cyclist is not identity.
Gamer is identity and subculture, because gamers use it as identity. You can't be like "she is not real gamer" and then turn around "everyone who occasionally play games is gamer" when it suddenly suits you.
The things gamers consider good, I don't. The shared values and culture of gamers makes them more then just stereotype.
And also, I am here talking about things and people I gave experience with, both online and in person. No, it is not media stereotype what I talk about. More of conclusions based on interacting with gamers.
Thanks for being on this thread here and elsewhere, I forgot to check replies for awhile.
I agree completely. If anything they need to do what the deaf/Deaf community does and actually brand as a capital-g Gamer.
Remember the whole point of this post is that the military is using games to recruit kids.
It does not matter if they are a Gamer or a gamer in that case because it doesn't matter.
The military will be on Twitch or running real-life fire team tactics in COD Warzone and it doesn't matter anymore. Gamer or gamer they will reach some kids, some of which will be fit enough to join.
It is right and just for a nation to encourage its young to defend their mothers and fathers, and children and grandchildren not yet born. Any nation that sees this as wrong has lost its will to exist and is living on borrowed time.
> Twitch viewers in the Army’s channel are repeatedly presented with an automated chat prompt that says they could win a Xbox Elite Series 2 controller—an enhanced controller with customizable options and extra paddles for advanced play that costs upward of $200—and a link where they can enter the “giveaway.” It, too, directs them to a recruiting form with no additional mention of a contest, odds, total number of winners, or when a drawing will occur.
If that’s true, it’s wrong. And was it a policy or a few losers trying to pad their numbers? I’ll withhold judgment at least until the official army response.
