digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

His Kid vs. Your Kid (PIC)

i142.photobucket.com — Point well taken.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • colin409, on 10/10/2007, -93/+80What a little bitch
    • broken1812, on 10/18/2007, -61/+143This is nothing but propaganda. She is sticking her tongue out, we've all done it. I'm sure the guy on the stretcher has photos of him with his tongue out too. That's not even worth comparing. Thats guy signed up for the military and believe me, he is fully aware that this can happen to him. Netx time take a picture of yourself posting a rediculous Digg article and then compare it to the picture of the wounded soldier, it's the same thing.
      • dys2k7, on 10/10/2007, -45/+33I'm fed up with all "the guy signed up and was aware he could die". You know he probably would not signed up if his dad was president.



        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -14/+36Gotta love people that are comparing a fact with a hypothetical and expecting a logical person to be swayed.
          • Ph34rb0t, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Doesn't that conclude that all believers of anything outside of our existence are illogical?
          • Ph34rb0t, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I said it twice for emphasis, seriously.
          • hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Well, there is a certain truth to the observation that the offspring off the rich and powerful do not sign up for military service anymore. We may lose Iraq because we don't have enough troops, but the people running the war would not dream of asking Americans to sacrifice by reinstating the draft. You can;t tell me that this mission is the most critical thing in one breath then tell me it's not worth getting all of America behind it in the next.
        • hulez, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2I was swayed. WITH DISGUST. lolololololol
        • schuder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22Umm... John McCain anyone? One son in the Navy, one in the Corps.
          • takamalak, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Yet, he'll never get elected. Face it. American redneck, christo-fascists, want to be lorded over by the elite. People know Bush is a Connecticutter, Yaley, cowboy wannabe. That's what they wish they were. As long as you give them a powerboat and let them fish all day, you have placated them.
          • blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1And how did they solve that problem in 2000? Swiftboat his ass.
          • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"Yet, he'll never get elected."

            Isn't he already a Senator? Who voted for the use of force?
        • OwdenBowden, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Most men and women who sign up for military service do so to get money for college. After Vietnam I would wager that almost all of them knew the risk of signing up but also figured that we would not have another war for a long time. Well, they we all wrong and now they are paying the price. Like it or not each of them Knew what they were doing.

          And if their dad was president they would not sign up because they would not have the need for the GI Bill money to go to college, as they are most likely, loaded. So deal with the truth and get over yourself.
          • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5BS. My brother didn't go to military for college money. He joined there after 9/11. There are people who do that to get huge respect. They also feel they're helping their country and citizens. There is much more to it than just need of receiving something. After military he plans to study Criminal Justice (although I think there much better majors, we'll see if he can be persuaded)

            BTW: I didn't go to military, yet I don't have problems with affording college, and we're not rich. US Government gives more than enough help to get proper education, there are is also a lot of scholarships. The only requirement is to be a good student.
          • aywwts4, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"US Government gives more than enough help to get proper education, there are is also a lot of scholarships. The only requirement is to be a good student."

            *****. *****, Bullllshiiiiiit, ***** *****!

            Maybe if you are "ethnic" as the forms say, or in a low enough income bracket, but if you arent poor and your parents arent pitching in a dime, "Scholarships" come in the form of 100%+Interest loans you will be paying till you turn 40, good student or not.
          • timjim31, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'll choose student loans over Iraq anyday
          • clorby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@aywwts

            um, i'm whiter than white bread and i got a full scholarship for 4 years of college because i did well in high school. i didn't go to yale, but i went to a pretty good public uni. you don't have to be ethnic.
      • lordthor, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15and you probably wouldn't be posting stupid comments on digg if your dad was president. so what.
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Never underestimate the power of stupidity. Anything is possible.
      • aywwts4, on 10/10/2007, -10/+33About 40% of the troops overseas are national guardsmen.

        The people who signed up for the national guard did not expect to die, they expected "One weekend a month, two weeks a year", now as never before they are the largest segment of our forces in Iraq.
        • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6There is no difference. One is part time the other is full time they still do the same thing.
        • wafflez, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9doesn't matter. what do you th ink the national guard and the army reserves are for anyways?
          look, yes I feel bad for the soldiers who are dying and getting injured, but they all were fully aware of the risks and signed up for whatever reason they wanted to. Soldiers have been sent into war for all of time.
        • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Yeah, because that one weekend a month, two weeks a year, is why they're paid, right? It's not like national guard units have fought in pretty much every major war the US has fought, is it?
          • Marc39, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7from the National Guard's website...
            "...some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam".
            Considering millions served in Vietnam and with troop levels maxing out at over 500,000, I'd say the level we use now overseas vs a measly 8,700 is quite a difference.
          • broken1812, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Marc, you took that quote out of context to support your argument. If your going to quote something quote the whole thing.
            From the National Guards website:
            "In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight.
            During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991."

            Is it still quite difference?
        • broken1812, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Are you serious? Do you even know what the National Guard is for? Their job is to supplement regular armed forces. Every war we fight we send in masses of National Guard. Their job is to fight wars. If you sign up for the National Guard during times of war and don't expect to go, you are not very smart.
        • Nowheredan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6If only this were a declared war...
      • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18"Thats guy signed up for the military and believe me, he is fully aware that this can happen to him."

        Why did he sign up? If his family had been millionaires, would he still have signed up? And if he had, what role would he have "served" in?

        First they inundated us with messages shaming men who haven't earned wealth all over the tube every day.
        Next they removed just about every avenue for a person not born into wealth to ever achieve it, or even to ever escape debt.
        Then they promised opportunity for wealth to those who would join the military, replete with plenty of lies about how much they would be required to serve and what their benefits would be.
        At the same time, they kept all images of what is really going on in Iraq off the tube which kept the kids from really seeing what they were signing up for.
        And they've been airing many propaganda commercials trying to convince kids that to be responsible they need to join the military.
        And when the kid dies as a result, you feel no empathy and treat it like death was part of the contract saying "He was fully aware this could happen"?
        • broken1812, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5First off, you're speaking for yourself. Just because you can't make these things happen for you, doesn't mean the rest of America can't. There are millions of examples of people achieving wealth coming from nothing. You know how they did it? By not thinking like you.
          The military never promises you anything. You get from it what you put in, just like the rest of life.
          If you join the military and don't know what your getting into then that is your fault, no one else's.
          Its not up to them that the media decides not to show the blood and gore of what war is really like.
          They don't trick anybody into joining.
        • Zyphron, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Seriously, are you that paranoid of "the man"?
          Do you realize how many self made millionaires there are in this country? How much do you think Kevin Rose is worth?
          Have you ever heard of Larry Page or Sergey Brin?

          Now, admittedly, the three above did not come from abject poverty, but they were certainly not millionaires or billionaires before they started their career. Read "Think and Grow Rich" (a type of manifesto for the rich and successful) The basic message is that success comes to those that commit themselves to achieving it and take responsibility for their own success, or their own failure. Stop trying to blame stuff one everyone else. The world is not perfect, and it is not fair, but that is LIFE, learn to live with it and make the best out of it rather than bitching because someone did not drop millions of dollars in your lap.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1"Next they removed just about every avenue for a person not born into wealth to ever achieve it, or even to ever escape debt. "

          Only for lazy, loser malcontents like you. I grew up in a miner's cabin. We never had a car that was less than ten years old during my entire childhood. One year my Christmas present was a Weeble - one Weeble - as in "Weebles wobble but they don't fall down."

          Now I make a six figure income and have a net worth over two million bucks.

          So ***** you, you lazy loser. Work or starve, you piece of *****.


          • WaltDismal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Work or starve, you piece of *****."
            Nice attitude. All you Christian rightwingers sure are fine noble people. Although when the dollar collapses, I hope you lose every penny and people laugh at you begging on the street for crumbs. Bastard. I work hard too, but I have respect and charity for my fellow man, as long as he deserves respect. You don't.
        • khellendros1984, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1My father recently retired from the Marine Corps as a Lieutenant Colonel after 23 years of service. His family wasn't "poor", but they certainly weren't well off by any stretch. He put himself through college purely with hard work. Our family has owned houses (including the one we're in now), and he's making a very respectable 6 figure income. We aren't "rich", but you can't say that someone can't better their position in life ENORMOUSLY with only hard work. You can't say that the recruits aren't told what they'll be facing before they head over. It's just not true.
        • skulljar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Many Americans think that the only way to serve their country is to join the military. As a veteran, I would disagree. There are other options, such as go to college and get involved politically and with your community. The military offers a fine opportunity to serve, none-the-less, and most people have seen Full Metal Jacket to know what they're getting in to. Even though I hate this war in Iraq I sometimes think about re-enlisting. I do think that way too many Americans have bought in to the idea that America is perfect and better than everyone; that we're the good guys and they're the bad guys. Well that mentality may work for my 3 year old but life is not as simple as good guys vs. bad guys.
      • sekhui, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2it's spelled "ridiculous".
    • DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -20/+19Broken don't be so dumb. The same question was asked to Tony Blair regarding education; the question was, why are his kids getting a private education and not a public one when he has categorically stated many times that the education system in the UK has improved. It's clearly because he thinks the education system in the UK is flawed thus has resorted to sending his kids to gain education in the private sector all the while telling the public education has improved. It's just one rule for these guys and another rule for the rest of us.
      • broken1812, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Thats got nothing to do with anything...but regardless...why would you send your kid to a public school when you are the Prime Minister or President? Besides the fact that you are already hated by at least 50% of the school body it is a huge threat. You could be easily kidnapped or killed. If it was safe for that to happen I'm sure it would happen a lot more, but when your the offspring of one the most important men in the world, your kind of in a different situation. It has little to do with education.
      • schuder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I can't say I know the public education in the UK, but it can be improved without Blair sending his kids there. Public education can go from ***** to less *****, but still doesn't compare to private or charter schools.
      • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's like the debate of colleges. If you get into Harvard, by all means you should go there as it's a great school. If you get into a community college, that shouldn't stop you from getting a good job. The same thing applies...Blair said that public education was "good enough", not that it was better than private education. You'll still be able to succeed in life if you go to a public school in the UK.
      • Eronamanthius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Despite how good public schools are, private schools are meant to be better (i.e. more reputable professors, more extra curricular activities, etc.) So if I was Tony Blair, yeah, I'd still put my kids in private school.
        Not that I like the douche, mind you, I just like looking at both points of view.
    • ivandir, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0She is one. Haven't you seen her bush when she went to South America.
    • Jalh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9why negative diggs ? she is a really bitch.
      • colin409, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2They're Bush lovers. Why should she have to fight for her country, she's "special"
    • gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I thought colin was talking about smitty. Not the girl.
  • Cink420, on 10/18/2007, -36/+807Thank God my kids carrying the stretcher otherwise I'd probably feel much worse about this.
    • capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -39/+25my kids the ninja.
      • lukee, on 10/16/2007, -3/+88I don't see any ninja in that pi... ohhhhhh, I see what you did there.
      • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3My kid's the guy with the camera. In both pictures.

        Yep, Junior sure gets around.
        • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What, no respect for the cameraman? Those guys work their asses off!
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -34/+6That was the stupidest comment ever.
    • daridave, on 10/10/2007, -49/+5Yeah, if you were trying to be funny, mission failed. Probably like your son someday.
      • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+27Apparently, he's 148 diggs better than you.

        LULZ IN UR FACE, BITCHES!!!!!
        • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1make that 803 diggs better
          YEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
      • gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Or like ur mom blowin me last night.
        • danwallace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Man, she even fails at blowing? What a dumb bitch.
    • HypocriteDigg, on 10/10/2007, -20/+34Thank Zeus we're not a christian theocracy yet.
      • turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10im going to have to disagree and say we are.
      • gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4That was his point.. but way to miss it. However dugg down for irrelevency.
      • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, I worship Hephaestus. He's not as cool as Zues, I admit, but he is the one who forges the lightning bolts for the big guy. Also, a diamond-tipped bullet forged upon the anvil of Hephaestus is the only way to kill or wound a Supreme Court justice. (Thank you, Jon Stewart)
    • bib4tuna, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0ha!
    • TomJohn, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Um, if your "kid" is over there and in a hot zone, he could be knocked horizontal just as well. Sorry.
      • tchynerd, on 10/16/2007, -0/+12You think the Bush girls arn't knocked horizontal often?
        • imdeanlabouty, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7HEYOOOO
          • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Buckey1983, on 10/10/2007, -43/+22This is just another thing to add to the fact our country is starting to become exactly how it was back with Vietnam.
    • capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16wake me up when they legalize LSD.
      • knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3then we can paint the microbus and head out to haight and ashbury, man...
        • mydigga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Can we paint the microbus on microdots?
    • sjaskow, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Nope, after all, if this was Vietnam, all 5 of the guys on the stretcher picture would have been draftees.
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7Oh, you mean people politicizing the sacrifices of the military? And Congress trying to legislate the war? And the far left hoping the US will lose and is doing everything possible to turn public sentiment against the war?

      The only thing thats left is Jane Fonda hopping on an anti-aircraft gun and pretending to shoot down Americans.
      • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Isn't congress supposed to legislate war? Either I mis-read the constitution or you're a complete *****.

        and i think you're a *****.
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2No, Congress is supposed to legislate FUNDING and AUTHORIZATION to use military force.

          They've done both. They can either pass new laws to deal with it, or they can get the ***** out of the way.
    • Schauvin, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8People like you make me want to vote Republican.
      58,148 casualties Vietnam http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.htm
      3,783 Iraq http://icasualties.org/oif/
      • bdurkin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7...but they are both wars we are loosing/lost. I think that was the point but I could be wrong.
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1We aren't LOOSING... We may not be "winning" but we definitely aren't loosing.

          You're falling for the enemy's (and our own press') propaganda if you think we are ACTUALLY LOOSING.
          • LuaPron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The concept of winning or losing is totally irrelevant. This war is inflaming a lot of resentment against us. If we destroy the existing terrorist groups, we will see new groups take their place. If we do not destroy them, they will simply continue fighting us. Throwing more guns at this problem doesn't fix the problem - that works for destroying governments, such tactics are counterproductive when applies to ideologies.

            if we actually addressed the underlying problems instead of exacerbating them, we'd see much less resentment directed at us. If we didn't incite so much hatred, it would be much harder for terrorist groups to attack us - they would lack [relative] popular support.
          • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6In a war of occupation, you're either winning or losing. We're obviously not winning, only a complete moron would say that, so we're losing. People who blame this loss on protesters are no different than Nixon, who blamed the loss in Vietnam on hippies/protesters. "What's that Mr President? We're making you lose an unwinnable war by speaking our minds? Sorry, we'll shut up now." It's idiotic to expect someone to believe drivel like that, and you're an even bigger idiot if you believe it yourself.


            Also, you spelled "losing" wrong, asshat. Twice.
          • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I was making fun of bdurkin.
          • vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What are you LOOSING? Ohhhh, You mean LOSING. Loser.
        • noisey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What are we trying to "WIN"? Will the terrorists go away?
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2We're trying to "WIN" Iraq's stability enough so that their elected government can take over.
      • LuaPron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Are you suggesting that starting the current war was somehow a better moral decision simply because our side is taking less casualties?
      • Schauvin, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Im suggesting that they are not the same and should not be compared. Comparing Vietnam and Iraq is like comparing a rock to an orange.
        • tehbored, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No it's comparing a rock to a larger and slightly different colored rock. They're not exactly the same, but they are pretty similar.
  • TerryTowelling, on 10/11/2007, -90/+419Not my kid. Buried as inaccurate.
    • patrickewen, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5hahaha
    • thexder, on 10/16/2007, -0/+75Better to bury the thread than your kid.
    • mjmelies, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3You wouldn't be so quick on your burying high-horse, if it WAS your kid. You're despicable.
      • sammythemc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Would you be so quick to attack Bush if it were your kid in the back of the car?
      • gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The kid's not dead, they usually don't carry off dead guys with hands bandaged up. And if they are dead, they are usually kept out of sight if possible, blanket or something. So perhaps he's not so despicable? Perhaps he just thought the sensationalism of the propagana was retarded. In that light, it was a quite appropriate response. However, seeing how your kid will be in canada if the time ever comes to fight a war you're in no position to throw stones anyway. So shut the ***** up.
        • bipher, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Prick
        • AdamWillis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Even if he's not dead, he is seriously hurt and his kid is living the life of luxury while he sends people like the soldier to die for her and she has no appreciation because her dad spoils her.
      • stinger666, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You deserve it. You voted for bush TWO ***** TIMES.
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -134/+348Meh. Heavy-handed propaganda crap. Military is paid to do a job, and it's a volunteer army. Yeah, let's all pretend that people who sign up for military duty don't know that they can get killed or maimed.

    Besides, here's your overprivileged kid: http://www.getrevengeonyourex.com/ecards/*****-You-Kid.gif
    Here's your rich dad: http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c369/martineurotic/*****-off-smokers.jpg
    • knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -18/+14there's a way to educate yourself to a better future than your parents can afford to prepare you for, if you can make it through the roads of fallujah first - right?
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18There are plenty of college aid loans... I know, I'm still paying on mine.

        Not to mention, plenty of GRANTS for disadvantaged people. This blood for education argument is *****.
      • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7If you join the army to pay for school you accept part of that payment may be getting your left nut blown off.
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I would never sign away my left nut, let alone even a slight chance of departing from it. period.
    • macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -27/+20***** moron... How'd you feel if we just lined 'em all up and shot 'em? I don't know how the hell you equate being in the military with your life being worthless. Yes, they're willing to die for our country, but shouldn't they die fighting for something worthy, not because we were bored or whatever the ***** our justification for this idiotic war was?
      • raynar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13But they had the same choice I did. I'm NOT in the army, because I dont want my life dictated by rich politicians. Theres a chance you wont go to war and a chance you will. How long was it between now and Desert Shield(Storm)? Those people gambled and won, these didnt. Tough break, but thats what you get when you roll the dice.
        • thedeevolution, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Better hope they don't draft then.
          • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0If I ever get drafted, I intend to go on a rampage my first day at the range. Trucks/Hummvees, gas cans, ammo dumps, maybe a few kneecaps for good measure...
          • Cymon86, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1good luck considering if you take your barrel past safe life with live ammo in chances are you'll be shot immediately. yes, firing range personnel are armed.
        • raynar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Draft is different than volunteer, *****.
          • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think that was his point, dude.
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11He didn't say his life was worthless. He stated that the soldier signed up knowing the risks.
        • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1In this war, it isn't a "risk", it's a matter of time.

          Not that I disagree on principle, since they are, as you said, volunteers. The problem is, they didn't know what they were signing up for, since they (like everyone else four years ago) thought we had learned a lesson from Vietnam. Apparently we didn't.
        • jellomizer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wow I never saw any numbers saying going to war is 100% death from the war. Man my Dad Must be a Zombie when he left Vietnam some how he must have been killed working on putting guns on helicopters. In war getting killed is a Risk for most people go into war come out alive. But a lot like life in other areas it is not always what you expect or hope for many times you agree to a job it ends up a lot harder then you bargained for. Most people know War Sucks, even if they sign up to the military, most who did sign up didn't do so because of the recruiting poster but more to the fact they wanted to do something for our nation... Now the free tuition and other benefits only make it so people who were thinking about joining the military just an extra reason to do so, elevating fear of not getting a college education. There are other options if the person didn't want to join the military they are not forcing you to do so. I have never joined the military because I felt I could get more experience going to college and getting a civilian job. But looking back even with the Iraq war I may have made a different decision.
      • KyleGoetz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Strawman argument. Now shut up or learn logic.
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Reading comprehension FTW, Macweirdo!
    • JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17I think that you are getting dugg down for no reason. It is true that a lot of people join the military in order to pay for college or learn a trade, however, one can also join Job Corps.
      @ macweirdo - I do not see anyplace where he equated being in the military with one's life being worthless. Quit truing to spin things around for your own purposes.
      • macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6What purposes do I have? I'm just saying, sure they signed up, sure they knew the risks, but I'm guessing they'd assumed that whatever war they were going to fight would be for the good of our country. What bothers me is that they're only being sent off to die because the politicians felt like it, not for any noble cause.
    • jayhawk, on 10/10/2007, -12/+82my neighbor across the street is in iraq right now. he joined the national guard a long time ago and then quit when he started a family. he has 3 kids under the age of 7. last year, less than a year before he was officially done, they brought him back in. he had been out for nearly the life of his 7 year old son. he didn't volunteer to go back in; they brought him back.

      to say it's an all volunteer army is a misnomer. he's not over there voluntarily and his wife and little kids certainly want him home ASAP.
      • hammerpants, on 10/10/2007, -16/+11Did he sign up on his own free will, or did someone make him sign up? Look up "volunteer."
      • raynar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Thats because the guard can be activated and made into full-time soldiers. As I commented before, thats what happens when you roll the dice. I have friends who did there 4 years and got school paid for and never did anything, and I have some who joined up and 2 weeks later are out in the desert.
        • somerandomnerd, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I see- similar to Al Qaida 'sleepers'?

          I guess if it works...
        • raynar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I doubt Al-Queda sleepers join up to get their college paid for. They join in order to keep from having a central point of failure. tard
        • Terrk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I doubt it was 2 weeks, seeing as the shortest basic training is 8.
      • kevin28, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Sure he was a volunteer. When you join you have a specified number of years of "active" Active Duty/Guard/Reserve time and then you have a period of "Inactive reserve" time that is in the contract. He was obviously in his inactive reserve time and got called back to duty. I am a retired military member and I still have 5 years of inactive reserve time left that they can call me back into duty.
        • dde2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0For God's sake... Don't inject common sense or logic into this, there is no room for that on Digg!
      • MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The Army, Guard, etc. are not some free paychecks to join a fraternity, ya know... there are times where ya may have to actually do a job. Even if you throw your sympathetic kid ***** in it.

        I live next to McGuire and Ft. Dix and my high school was their sending district. For all the years leading up to 9/11, the base was primarily open. I could go in as a civilian, go to friends houses, etc. Now that ***** is locked up tighter then Tookie Williams. It's a great deal when you're playing soldier, but its a ***** job once sent out.
      • Cymon86, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Well, that's all part of the contract. People who sign for "4" years give an 8 year commttment. Hell, retirees can be called back up to 10 years after their DoS (date of seperation). He signed the contract. Yea it sucks, but you can't say it's involuntary.
        • TwistedRonin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I may be wrong on this, but isn't it also possible for them to extend the length of inactive reserve, even after the time limit is up for a person? Just wondering, I seem to remember that being done with some people a few years back, but I might be thinking of something else.
        • dde2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have never heard of inactive reserve being extended, I do know that when I enlisted in 89, the contract stated that my enlistment could be extended at the will of the military.
    • pukufek, on 10/10/2007, -20/+13***** you you ***** ***** *****, our soldiers signed up to defend THIS country. Not some ***** country in the Middle East, THIS ***** COUNTRY. Sure, soldiers at times must be called upon to go and tour "some ***** country in the Middle East" but what George Bush is doing takes the piss, he has dragged this ***** excuse for a war out for 4 years sending these men and women back again and again. This is not what soldiers are for.
      • KyleGoetz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Oh? What are soldiers for except defending countries and attacking countries? Listen, I'm not for the war at all, but to suggest that soldiers are " not for [war]," well, I don't know what to think of your brain.
        • LuaPron, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Actually, our military should not be doing anything but defending our country. Using soldiers to attack other another country (in a war of aggression!), when they only signed up to defend ours is very abusive.

          Soldiers are not for war; Soldiers are for defense.
          • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It's also illegal, as the Nuremburg trials determined. Offensive wars are considered "Crimes Against Peace", like the one we're currently entrenched in.
      • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6No they signed up to go where the army sends them.
        • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6No, they signed up to defend this country. That's why they took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, not to blindly follow the orders of a Commander-in-Chief who is obviously off his ***** gourd. It was the Nazis who did that.

          This little debate comes down to whether the war in Iraq is actually keeping Americans from getting killed. It isn't, it's just pissing off more people, making more people want to kill us. Since when is that considered an effective defense. That "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" joke is utter *****, propaganda predictably spewed out of every pro-war mouth in the country whenever the illogic of the war is brought to attention.
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Actually, yeah, it is, you *****.
        • LuaPron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Our soldiers generally sign up to defend us against foreign aggression.

          Are you suggesting it is acceptable to use them to start a needless war of aggression when all they wanted to do is defend you?
      • Jb611, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Good opening. 4 swear profanities and 2 you's. You should join a debate team.
      • MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2See... here's the problem:

        You sign up to go wherever the Chief sends you, so uhh... whether its Iraq, Vietnam, or Kent State... that's what you've signed up for.
      • Cymon86, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0ummm just to point out the brutaly obvious fact...where the hell do you think Ahkmed would be blowing ***** up if he wasn't busy blowing ***** up in the desert?
    • mbonzo531, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8People join the military to fight and defend their country. If they had the expectation that they would die then they wouldn't join in the first place. These people trust in their superiors to protect them while they dedicate their lives in training as well as combat. Ignorant people like you look at our soldiers as statistics and not human lives. Have some sympathy or go watch fox news.
    • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27Why did he sign up? If his family had been millionaires, would he still have signed up? And if he had, what role would he have "served" in?

      First they inundated us with messages shaming men who haven't earned wealth all over the tube every day.
      Next they removed just about every avenue for a person not born into wealth to ever achieve it, or even to ever escape debt.
      Then they promised opportunity for wealth to those who would join the military, replete with plenty of lies about how much they would be required to serve and what their benefits would be.
      At the same time, they kept all images of what is really going on in Iraq off the tube which kept the kids from really seeing what they were signing up for.
      And they've been airing many propaganda commercials trying to convince kids that to be responsible they need to join the military.
      And when the kid dies as a result, you feel no empathy and treat it like death was part of the contract saying "Yeah, let's all pretend that people who sign up for military duty don't know that they can get killed or maimed."?
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Enlighten me: Just how did "they" somehow "remove" just about every avenue for someone to get wealthy when they're not born into it? Ever heard of higher education and grants/scholarships/loans? Those were still around last I checked. Getting out of debt? Here's a tip: Shop smart and don't spend money you don't have on ***** you don't need. We'd have a LOT less debt at every income level if people would follow that simple rule. But hey, it's all about how "they" are trying to keep people down, right?
      • MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Are you trying to say that Americans think that Iraq is all lollypops and gumdrops? Sure, we're insensitive, but don't ever cheapen the soldiers and say that didn't know what they were signing up for. Thats just disrespectful.
      • Colbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, Soldiers know the risk they take when they join the military.
        But the point is, soldier's are dying for a war that didn't need to happen, and was completely unjustified.
        I'm sure when people sign up for the military, they hope they are signing up to defend their country, and only die if it is COMPLETELY necessary.
        Not to die for no logical reason....
    • esuperchicken, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7Say that to my 19 year old cousin whose body was so disfigured they wouldn't let his mom see him. He died February 18th as part of the surge. He signed up because his friends were doing it. You are a sick sick F**K. I hope your kids get drafted.
      • Cymon86, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4well... "He signed up because his friends were doing it."
        would he play russian roullete because his friends were doing?
        let's be honest, joining these days is russian roullette.

        If you ask me the kid was someone that got 0 direction as a child and had nothing better to do or pissed his life down the drain toking it up or some other stupid *****.

        Another thing, don't complain about our military. It could always be like Israel where everyone is required to join the military for the designated number of years. Be glad that you live in a country where the standing military is a volunteer force and honor the 1% or so of the population that serves.
        • TheBigSquid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"let's be honest, joining these days is russian roullette."
          he was a kid. since when do kids really understand death?
          and if the kids die in war shouldn't it be a war that wasn't based on ***** lies???
    • JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Yes, military service is a job and is (currently) volunteer- but the US Armed services are still overwhelmingly drawn from the lower class, and many people join the Army simply to get three regular meals and a place to sleep at night.
    • bdoherty96, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think your reference to an over-privileged kid is unfounded. The kid showing off his middle finger might be offensive. However, I don't see what makes you think that somehow this kid is over-privileged. Kids his age do a lot of things without regard to context I bet. Maybe if you could find a older kid (HS) with the "right" race and the "right" clothes and the middle finger, then maybe that would make for interesting commentary.
    • ladbroke, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9People who use the "they volunteered to go so it's their fault they died" are engaging in the worst form of *****. I volunteered to fight because I felt it was wrong to ask others to sacrifice themselves for a war that didn't really mean anything that was started on ideology, not facts

      I really, really wish there were a draft, because it would force ***** like you to look out for other people. Just because you pay taxes doesn't mean you've done a damn thing for this country.
    • crichton101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Yes, being in the Military is a job. But seeing as how his kids are grown ups and he's the FREAKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, you'ld think they would be able to act a bit more mature. But hey, that's the whole basis of the neocon party, do as I say and not as I do. It makes me wistful of the old gone by era's where the leader went into battle with his armies, instead of hiding behind his desk acting like he's watching a football game when he tells foreign leaders "We're Kicking Ass".
    • TheBigSquid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I doubt that anyone who joins our volunteer army expects to get into a completely unnecessary war.
  • FSBO, on 10/10/2007, -31/+21What a little bitch
  • Snoods, on 10/10/2007, -17/+146Thats actually Corey Feldman disguised as one of Bush's daughters.
    • danielf30, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Dugg up for the Robot Chicken Reference
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Can't be. There's no crack pipe in his/her mouth.
    • darlyn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Still valid
  • juttman, on 10/10/2007, -21/+203There will always be war, just make sure that your kids do not sign up to fight for someone else's $$
    • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There will always be war as long as banks lend money to both sides and profit. Read how General Butler says we should stop war, warisaracket.com

      He makes some good points. Take the profit out of warfare and al wars will end. War is the biggest money making adventure a company can be involved with. It has been said to beware of the Military Industrial Comples. Now beware of the Terrorism Industrial Complex.
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know if you're right, but that first line reminds me of Milo Minderbinder.
    • bethehammer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Of course there will always be war. And if you have any smidgen of historical perspective you realize that the rich NEVER send their kids into the killing zone. Seriously people now the rich kids don't have to go to war because it is still a voluntary army. In Viet Nam the rich kids were able to go to college and not be drafted, during WWII the rich kids were able to do administrative duties or use their college degrees for officer and above positions - which were less dangerous, during WWI the rich kids were playing like knights of yore and flying planes around shooting at each other, not in the trenches. Just realize this there will always be war and just do your best not to allow your country to get involved in such money making enterprises. The Iraq war will have cost one trillion dollars in a few years, that is alot of contractors making some serious change... Wake up America, we are no better than any other country.
    • giroguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1there will always be war if we let there be war. if you justify to me why we need war other than to drive an economy.. then we can talk
      • bwpayne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"other than to drive an economy" thats a pretty big "other than". Because everything we "need" is based on an "economy".
    • myak, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1There will always be war as long as US keeps invading countries.
    • myak, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1There will always be war as long as US keeps invading countries.
  • ementis, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6photobucket ftl. http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/6621/hiskid2ll0.jpg
  • DittoMuch, on 10/10/2007, -45/+8There are no hero's in a war of aggression fought between unequal foes. American soldiers signed up to go and shoot at Iraqi's in exchange for money. That same kid on the stretcher may very well by a murderer may very well have shot dozens of children to death may very well have done it so that he could get a car when he got home. Nobody else in the world considers that kid on the stretcher a hero just another pathetic bastard who chose to take up the way of the sword for money.

    We don't know what Bush's brat is sticking her tongue out at. She may very well be sticking her tongue at an ***** blocking an abortion clinic, for that matter it might be a friend of hers mooning her for all we know. End of the day though she hasn't shot an innocent people dude on the stretcher may very well have wiped entire families off the face of the planet simply because he felt like it.

    • radartheunder8d, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13You are kidding right? or is your head that far up your ass it has its own parking space.

      Most of the "killers" you are ***** on were given so few options for work that being a killer is the most viable option to support a family.
      • knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4exactly.

        don't train them, let's bring in people from india to displace our young men in the office who somehow deserve to go die in a war for oil profits rather than enjoy the liberty that is guaranteed by the Constitution /sarcasm
    • Dundasbro, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4She could of wiped out entire families, how do you know that she hasn't and the army man has?
    • neoblaque, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10You Win! The dumbest comment in the short history of Digg, DittoMuch go home.
      • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I'd prefer if he ate a gun actually, so he wouldn't be able to pass on his horribly idiotic genes.
    • masterdbugger, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4That may very well have been the most stupid thing I've very well seen on digg very well.

      On a side note, if he was a murderer, at least he did it very well.
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"fought between unequal foes"

      Screw the idea of equal foes. Equal foes will necessitate HIGHER death tolls as both sides are equally matched. The US soldiers are there to do a job. Give them all the equipment and training to make them far superior to everyone else and end the war quickly.
      • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's like all professional armies (volunteers) say: "The last thing a soldier wants is a fair fight."
      • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Bring them home and end the war today.
    • sommervr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Exactly right.

      Eat it americans. That idiot on the stretcher is the sharp end of the dick that Bush is ***** the world with.

      Chances are he did it for the sign up bonus.
  • radartheunder8d, on 10/10/2007, -53/+49I think that picture sums it up well, the rich continue their bloodline by NOT sacrificing it.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The rich can't really "sacrifice" their bloodline when the military is staffed by volunteers.
    • bethehammer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Historical perspective people - just remember Viet Nam when the draft applied only to non-college bound people: AKA the poor... This war is no different from any previous war of human history, the rich never send their kids into harms way - unless their country is in serious danger then their kids lead lots of poor kids into battle.
      • Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, but they paid for it in taxes instead. In the Civil War, the rich could pay money in lieu of being conscripted. Generally the money did more good than another green serviceman would have. In WWI, Income Tax rates for the richest Americans was at 77% in 1918 and 94% in 1945.
        With tax loop holes, the richest Americans pay a smaller percentage of their income than their secretaries. That's the difference.
    • FishHammer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1well in his defense, he does have two DAUGHTERS. None of the women I know are tough enough or have the will to serve in the army, and I don't expect them to. This is a pretty retarded comparison to be honest. It's not like his ripped 20 year old son is sticking his tongue out.
  • shorty9, on 10/10/2007, -25/+12Concise, to the point and very true.
    Bush is an idiot.
    http://tinyurl.com/ysrbg3
  • paris75, on 10/10/2007, -26/+11that bitch deserves a good ass *****'
    • cardyology, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Dude, you cant say that!! Isn't she like 12 or some *****? :O
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't know if she deserves it, but I'd be happy to give her one. Say what you want about Dubya, but Jenna is way hotter than Chelsea!
    • UnlikelyHero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hey, hey why is everyone digging this fine comment down? Girl might enjoy it, insane religious parents brought her up can you imagine how much she probably wants it?....poor girl. Not to mention she's not exactly just goin around blowin daddy's money anymore. Last I read she was in South America as a schoolteacher or some ***** (look it up yourself and vet it, had pictures, I remember it being good enough for me)
      But ya, she could very well WANT a good ass *****'. And any girl who wants a good ass ***** deserves one.
      Btw, cardyology, ya...they're over 18. I have no idea who you were thinking of.
  • ThePerkins, on 10/14/2007, -56/+304Its not like there's a draft. If you join the military, its understood you might go to war and get killed. Thats the chance you take.
    • Tzeentch, on 10/10/2007, -6/+72You're 100% right about that, but military personnel are always hoping that they will be sent to war for really, really, really, really, really really really good reasons...
      • neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Actually they hope that they never will be sent to war.
    • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -9/+41But the military is supported largely by the lower class as they are the ones who join for the free schooling and great pay. Rich people (and even middle class) don't join the military because they either can afford education or they're financially stable enough to get loans/scholarships.
      • SmpleJohn, on 10/10/2007, -19/+12EVERYONE can afford education if they're driven enough. That's one reason this country IS an amazing place. You can start out as a little nobody in Chicago or just some computer nerd and turn into Oprah or Bill Gates. It's more about drive. A LOT less about money.
        • OutThisLife, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6Or not.
        • bentman78, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5***** OurThisLIfe, anyone if driven enough can go to school and get educated. It's not like it takes a super rich elite to get a college education.
          If you can't get rich here you can't get rich anywhere, that's all there is to it. It's about drive and most people do not have it. When you tell them that they get angry and jealous of the people who do.
        • drmangrum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12You do know bill gates was a trust fund baby right? He had a large amount of starting capitol.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Drive alone isn't sufficient to succeed .... and neither is money. I met plenty of people in the military with drive but no other means to gain access to college. The simple fact is that some people are born into a bad environment void of finances and other non-tangible support (emotional, psychological, role models etc). Without an external means of financing, like the military, these people do not have access to a college education. Similarly, money alone isn't enough. I met plenty of people in college after getting out of the military that had all the money they needed but they didn't have the ability to make a passing grade.
      • bentman78, on 10/10/2007, -11/+18wrong. My parents were very well off and I enlisted in the military. I did it for a couple of reasons. I wanted to get out on my own and make it without help and get college money, and give something back to my country (one thing this mostly greedy generation of people aren't willing to do). To classify all military as lower income or class is wrong. Most are in fact middle class, I barely knew anyone I'd consider loser class, yes there was some instances of some poor back country folks, but by and large most were regular people from regular families. Quit spewing *****.
        • vat0r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Cause of course we all know "back country" people are'nt regular people at all right?.....wtf?
        • umrgregg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Well gee, he didn't say everyone in the military is low income, he just said it is largely supported by low income enlistees. Which is true. And given what they're paying our soldiers, enlisting really hasn't helped them in that regard either.
        • rix0r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6ha ha, "loser class". Unfortunate typo...

          Or was it?
        • julianrod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'd rather be selfish than dead, or killing someone else, which is worse.
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You have to be financially stable to be eligible for scholarships? What kind of a twisted world is that?!
        • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, working 30 hours a week ontop of high school to make sure your family can afford rent even though your just the kid puts a damper on the "community service" and "heart wrenching essay writing" that is so required by scholarships.
      • MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2err... my family I'd say is very well off, however, my mom wants me to know the value of college. I'm paying my way right now. There is the chance for any class citizen to make it. Community college to start with?

        Loans and scholarships are there! Millions of dollars worth of scholarship money go untouched per year. You just have to put some effort into it. The GI Bill was imposed as an incentive for the military, not an excuse to join the military.
      • fitzsimj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Dig up betterth! Accurate comment except for the slip-up about being financially stable enough for scholarships.

        Don't tell me people have a choice about joining the military until you talk to my friend who realized, at 18, he could join the military or die on the streets in a gang. That's how it is in the projects in New Orleans.

        (I was middle class, and lived at home to afford being able to pay my way through college by working. Yes, there are exceptions, but by and large the military is fueled by the lower classes)
    • rot13ubercrypto, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19You're absolutely right. I mean, people who only want to defend the territory of the United States against foreign aggressors should join the national guard.

      Oh wait.
    • themoosejuice, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Signing up for the military it not what it used to be.
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Yeah, it used to be much worse.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0What did it used to be?
        • LuaPron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It used to be for the defense of our nation.
          • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And it hasn't been for over half a century now. Sad thing, really.
    • metamorfoza, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I am leftist by default, but i totally agree with you. If you join the army , no matter what ar the reasons (i.e. poverty), you have to accept a fact that you are the soldier,and as a soldier you have to accept the command hieararchy. You are on the bottom accepting the commands - commander in chief is on the top giving the commands.
      Either way, you'll be ***** from behind.
      • rv36116, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1So no one joins the military, and then guess what, genius???

        Hi Mr. Draft, how are you today?
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3No, there's no draft--yet.
      • MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And there won't be a draft for Iraq. This is an unpopular war, and you'll be hardpressed to find a majority of Americans accepting that there is a draft.
        • otakushark, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The majority of Americans don't want us in Iraq at all--yet there we are--so don't rely on public opinion to be the deciding factor.
  • johneyoung, on 10/10/2007, -21/+8All lies and false propoganda.....we go!
    • knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6what's the lie? please elaborate.
      • john2kx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10"Lie" doesn't even apply to anything here.. it's just the standard response for neo-cons these days, as they've been so overwhelmed with spinning all the recent corruption, hypocracy, scandal, and incompetence that those who are unable to keep up with all of it just issue a standard response like "liberals hate america" or "all lies and false propaganda"..
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1While it may not be a lie, it is a logical fallacy.

        Appeal to emotion.
    • 1337Einstein, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Well, if Bush saw that picture, it would be telling him that his kid was on the right, and the one on the left was someone else's, which would be a complete lie.
  • fezzasus, on 10/10/2007, -60/+128What point? The soldier chose to join the army, his daughter didn't. Deal with it.
    • macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -18/+13The army exists to defend our country, not so some rich ***** can make a quick buck. If that kid's life really means nothing to you, then just come out and say it. Hey, how about this? Since soldier's lives are worthless anyway, why don't we build a big arena where we can execute them for our entertaining, you sick *****? Burn in hell, *****.
      • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What?! Who said that the soldiers life was worthless? Who said that the kid's life meant nothing? You're just twisting his words, and being kind of psychopathic about it.

        If someone wants to support a family or support themselves or pay for education by becoming a soldier, what's stopping them? It's a great career, considering you survive any wars you may get deployed to. Consider this, there are 2,300,000 people either active or on reserve in the army. 12,000 have been killed in the Iraq war. That means that the Iraq war has killed 0.005% of people who VOLUNTARILY enlisted in the US Military. Now, think about how many police men or firefighters die each year, and get paid less for their efforts?

        The United States Military is one of the safest, most well equipped, well paying armies in the world. And there's no draft. Really, what's wrong with that?
        • macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Well, if soldier's lives aren't worthless, why are they fighting meaningless wars that have absolutely nothing to do with defending our country, or making the world a better place? Why are they dying for oil money, if they're so valuable? Surely their lives are worth more than a few extra bucks in corporate pockets.
        • AceLy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Holy *****. I hate ***** like you, macweirdo42. First you accuse him of saying soldiers' lives are worthless, then someone said he never said it. Now you're saying, "Well, if soldier's lives aren't worthless, why are they fighting meaningless wars that have absolutely nothing to do with defending our country..." You just like arguing so much that you forget about logic and consistency, huh?
    • dys2k7, on 10/10/2007, -8/+47Idiot.
      palace life OR soldier life?
      street life OR soldier life?

      Sometime life chose for you.
      • crestfall, on 10/10/2007, -6/+30A-*****-MEN.

        Only people with easy lives, (yeah, you heard me - I said it) think everything is a choice.
      • bentman78, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7***** again. You can't live a street life and get into the military in most cases, they won't let you in.

        There is choice for most everyone. Those that whine there isn't aren't motivated enough to change their lives and it's their fault. I changed my life by busting my ass, anyone can do it, they're just lazy.
        • dys2k7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2too lazy? man sometime life is not that easy ok? what if your mum's alcohoolic and your dad's in prison?
          anyone can do it? I don't think so...
          • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What if your mom is alcohoolic [ are you drunk right now? ], and your dad's in prison? Move out of the house. Join the Big Brother Big Sisters foundation. Move into a foster home. Get a scholarship. Get a job at a small business, live with your boss. Split rent with other lower-middle class people. Get a loan. Find someone to help you with your life.

            America is unique in that there are so many chances for disenfranchised people.
        • SickMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Good for you, but try growing up black or Hispanic in a poor rural community and making it all on your own. They are plenty motivated, but for many their only opportunity is to join the military. Sure they take their chances, but asking them to risk their flesh and blood in a war that looks more and more like it's just about oil (while the rich get tax cuts and the government cuts funding for education) is pure crap.
        • MacBigotDotCom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Coming from a family situation not much better than you describe, I can say that if I had joined the military, it would have been a step UP ... but at that time in my life, I felt too weak to be wanted by the military (might even have been true). For some, the military is the right choice. Whether in war or not. There are parts of me that wishes I had the cahones to have signed up when I had the chance... but I'm still being useful now -- just not in the way I think I would have been if I had better training as an individual, and as a team member, early in life.
        • crestfall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Dead wrong - they let anyone in now. Jackets, no GED.. there's a waiver for everything. The poor are the Army's greatest resource.
        • MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Growing up black or hispanic in a poor rural community?

          Not happy with your current living situations, then move! There are plenty of cheaper communities out there with job availability that can provide. Wah I 'm black and hispanic. Don't bring race into this because getting an education has no effect of the color of your skin... unless your in Ann Abour, in which case... you have the advantage.

          go to community college for two years, transfer. In most states, if the grades are high enough in high school (top 20% in NJ), then it's FREE for you. Free?!? What?

          Mom's an alcohol and dads in jail? Well then wouldn't you think, oh yea, I don't wanna be like that. Get out of that situation and better yourself. And this is the exception even in so.
      • MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Once again, *****! Anyone, no matter from the Hamptons to Camden has the opportunity to go to college. Give me one reason that you've been restricted. Sure, Harvard and Yale are more easily obtainable. But there is no reason that you can't start at a community college then transfer to a four-year. It is a choice. You CHOSE to deal drugs, hustle, etc. You CHOSE to ***** around in high school instead of getting an education.

        The United States is not equal as in class-structure and opportunity. Democracy and capitalism don't provide for that. But you do have the same equality in the end result and class-mobility.
    • cdelac04, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4even if she did join the army... it's not like she'd be out there anyways.
    • lucidguru, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Granted the soldier choose to serve his country, however occupying a foreign country in order to protect oil interests is not "serving your country."
      According to this flawed logic all soldiers that joined the military are not allowed to think or question why we are occupying a foreign country. Soldiers are to be put into dangerous situations by their corrupt self-serving president, and soldiers are never to question what exactly there mission is or why they are doing it. (If you haven't noticed we are not in a declared war and have not laid out a reason for our continuing occupation. )
      Also you may want to consider:The military extends deployments in Iraq beyond the standard 12 months, up to 18 months (This doesn't take into account pre-deployment training and post deployment time either). The military doesn't give soldiers adequate breaks away from the war zone (Units are often redeployed within 6 months of returning from the war zone.) And a significant amount of soldiers in the national guard and reserves take huge pay cuts and lose their jobs to go on these absurd deployments.
      Soldiers are being abused and are making incredible sacrifices to make Bush and his cronies more rich. There is not a single National Guard or reserve soldier that agreed to spend all 6 years plus at least 2 extra years deployed in Iraq, (they would have signed up full time) but we are currently doing this to our "part time" soldiers.
      We lie to them, put them in unnecessary danger, pay them too little, and then BLAME THEM when they want out of their "voluntary" contract. It is ***** how we treat our solders. These are the men and women that have been willing to sacrifice their lives protecting this country.
    • chessmaster2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What's the point?? The point is that his kid is a selfish brat and probably doesn't even care that there's a war going on while the other one is actually risking his life so that she can live in safety.
    • bwpayne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The gap between the rich and the poor is ever-widening...
  • bonjourmr, on 04/25/2008, -17/+12What a little bitch
    • j3one, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Bet she's great in the sack though... Like YOUR MOM!!11!!
  • SmpleJohn, on 10/10/2007, -17/+9Yeah, and none of you idiots making this an issue of Bush being an idiot ever stuck there tongue out at a camera.
    • crestfall, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3You spelled simple wrong.
    • umrgregg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1While we're nitpicking, he also didn't get 'their' right.
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I think theres a rather famous picture of an extremely intelligent man with wild, white hair and his tongue sticking out.

      I seem to remember him creating some theory of relativity or something like that.
      • MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2yea and its his fault right now that I'm stuck in a chemistry lecture.
  • Karmashock, on 10/10/2007, -71/+101*yawn* another "I don't like bush post"... seriously people... do something original... this is done to death. I'm tired of looking at digg and seeing 5 of the posts EVERY DAY being an anti bush message. You're not even saying anything novel or witty. It's just more rehashed nonsense... again and again and again and again. Lately I've started just ignoring all political and current events posts because they're all the SAME thing. Say something that is actually news. You being militantly against bush is no longer news. It isn't interesting, it isn't funny, it isn't clever, and you're not changing anyone's mind at this point. Everyone has already decided one way or the other. Please... for the sake of digg stop spamming it with this crap.
    • ThePerkins, on 10/10/2007, -26/+23digg is a politically charged site. bush is a dangerously awful president. he is part of a regime that is visibly destroying the USA. i think posting a few presidential articles is "newsworthy"
      • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Know the definition of Regime?
        • ThePerkins, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8yes. why wouldn't I? its used in the correct form here. nice try though.
          • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4America has had a Constitutional regime since 1787. Do you mean he's part of a dictatorship? America has had the same regime for 220 years.
      • Ninjaneer, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14no, digg is FAR from a "politically charged site". It's where the MTV generation comes to express poorly formed opinions on the world and politics, yet won't get out from behind their installs of Ubuntu to go vote. I come here for the tech news, like when the site first started, not this liberal propaganda.
        • damnmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4dug WAY up ninja! well said
        • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm not particularly interested in this whole argument, but I think I can help a bit.

          Go to Customize (at the top of the page), then disable everything but the 'Technology' section. You may also want to choose Industry News from the Gaming section. Look around a bit and choose what you want. I think you'll need to have atleast one video section, so choose 'Educational'. Now you'll get just what you want. That's what's lovely about this site in comparison to real life, you can choose to ignore what's boring to you. Good luck, and smile a bit :)
        • littlegoku, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2ninjaneer is one of the few smart ones around here.
          • liquidjamm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1no he is really not that bright - check arjie's post. i'd go as far as to insult his intelligence level and call him stupid.
        • liquidjamm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hey Stupid...
      • Greatmatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ThePerkins

        Just a question, but where exactly is the "presidential article" you mention for this post?
    • bsonline, on 10/10/2007, -14/+12I'm tired of reality! Stop giving me all of this "news"! I don't want to hear about what the president may or may not be doing! I need more cutest cats and Amazing OMFG LoLz pictures! Stop with the boring, more with the hoaring!
      • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2We want more NEWS. Not cats. Not "LoLz" pictures. NEWS.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3I agree Karmashock, but once you realized it was another Bush-Bashing (the picture was a dead give away) why didn't you just go on your merry little way to another article that might be of more interest.
    • toothygrim, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Tell you what... when Bush stops with HIS propaganda I'll join you in burying all Digg propaganda. Deal? (I can't agree to stop posting it as I haven't posted any)
    • damnmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14amen brotha.......oops, did i say amen? that's probably frowned upon around here...eh, ***** it.
    • marastara, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2There are so many I hate Bush statements on digg because most of America, well, hates him and with an approval rate of maybe 30% that pretty much sums it up. You might think it's boring, but if you listen to him, he promote rehashed nonsense...ie. his speeches.
    • Wormfather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well said, thought I was near alone on this. Yes, dissent, it's your right, but please try and keep it to you and your kind (I've never had an opportunity to use that phrase, felt good) Anyway, c'mon, the "Bush Reign of Terror" is almost over, I would think that at this point you guys would be busy bumping up Hillary or Obama or at least bashing potential nominees. The left lost the Bush bet, it's time to move on.org.
    • hardwire187, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Haha! This comment is more of a pretentious "I'm safely judging you all from my cubicle" Slash-dot style comment.
    • alanfullmer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Then again, all you guys have no clue what is going on. You hear your mommy and daddy say something, or even your liberal teacher at school and borrow their hate. #1, get your own opinion and base it off fact, not opinion. #2, if you just entered college and think you're the best thing that happened to society. Get real.
  • Grossmont, on 10/10/2007, -13/+81And then of course, there is Presidential candidate, Duncan Hunter's son, who actually has been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

    http://www.hunterforcongress.com/bio/

    // Standing by for the Digg-Down
    • KyleGoetz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6It sucks that someone has to ride on their son's military status to get elected...
      • petewiz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He's not going to win regardless. Who cares?
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4He's a "Presidential Candidate" in the same way that Joe Schmoe of the "Standing in the Back Dressed Stupid Looking Stupid Party" is a presidential candidate. Hell, I could encourage people to write my name in on the ballot and call myself a presidential candidate.
    • bethehammer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1// standing by for the Digg-Down???? lolz you don't understand that 99.9% of the bury brigade don't have a clue who Duncan Hunter is - sry just the facts...
      • darlyn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Lolz you must learn to write proper English. Sry I had to break it to you.
      • SlipstreamLucas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0lol @ "bury brigade"
    • bwpayne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not a matter of whose in the army and who isn't. It's between the rich and the poor.
  • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -27/+123I'm Bush's biggest non-fan, but I don't really see the message behind this. I assume his daughter has free-will, and she's decided not to join the forces. All those in the right-hand picture did decide to join. That's all this picture shows...
    • blinddonkey, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Yeah, are we to believe that we should sign our kids up for the war, regardless of their wishes? If that's what the point is, then it's stupid.
    • crestfall, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Classes, opportunity, access to decent education.... it's all about free-will.
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"access to decent education"

        Free Money
        ---------------
        Federal Pell Grant
        Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
        Academic Competitiveness Grant

        Loans
        -----------
        Stafford Loans

        With the free money alone, you can EASILY get an Associates Degree... With the Stafford Loans on top of it, you can easily afford a bachaelors. Tack on Part time work, and it's EASY to get a college degree in America WITHOUT military service.
        • neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I agree. I worked 20 hours a week (and more in grad school) throughout my college education (even when I was on scholarship). I had enough to do just fine. I've even supported a family on just my income (plus loans) through grad school so far. Money is tight but not bad overall.
      • crestfall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not if you go to a ***** high school, and can't pass standardized tests.
      • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I don't disagree, but should we hold it against Bush's daughter because she's in a position to have the choice? That's no fairer than the current setup.

        Regardless though, there IS a choice. The forces isn't the only choice, even if your choices number in the few.
    • uberchaoslord, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Reminds me of when Michael Moore went to all those congressmen and asked them to sign their kids up for the war. OMG evil congressmen not doing something thats meaningless since their kids have the right to choose for themselves.
      • BHSPitMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As meaningless as the war they're supporting?
    • monsterenergy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Idiot.
      palace life OR soldier life? (Bushes daughter choice)
      street life OR soldier life? (The soldiers choice)

      Sometime life chose for you.
    • shupy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0For now. When Bush was of age and we had a draft, he and many other rich kids got cushy assignments stateside. A lot of others had a choice to leave the country, go underground or find some other out. Money helped. Take a look at "The Wall". I guarantee that most of those names are not the result of guys exercising their free will.
      If this war goes on, it may no longer be anyone's choice. But I guarantee that the new draft law will have plenty of exemptions for the Bush's of this country.
  • doctorweird, on 10/10/2007, -28/+36Wow, This is what Digg has comes too? LAME!!
    • Killah_xxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Source of Digg's pictures are mainly /b/ pics from three months ago
    • bethehammer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah and videos reminiscent of dancing babies and hamsters dancing in unison.... Digg is truly lame - but I still like it =D
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah... how I miss when digg was only about discussing scholars and philosophy. I came afterwards though.
  • sensadiva, on 10/10/2007, -29/+31Three weeks ago it was my friend on that stretcher, how many more need to die for our oil and new military bases...woops I mean freedom.
    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/
    • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7Name your friend, give us your name and your friends name and let us check your claim or shut the ***** up, dip-*****.
      • sensadiva, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17I'm Jud lewis. My friend was a poet named scott Kirkatrick and you are an dick.
    • 13B1303, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Way to use your friends death to push a political rant. I'm sure his family appreciates your compassion.
      Let me know where I can get that cheap Iraqi oil too... My car takes premium
    • fcpninja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0When you stop driving a car, let us know, and you'll have some credibility.
  • hokie47, on 10/10/2007, -11/+13I really enjoy how silicon camera chips can see beyond the visible spectrum and into the infrared. You know that tint is dark as it can be, but a camera can see right past it.
    • Zbrah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah yes...I enjoy that as well. Really quite spectacular...mmhhh...
    • fredricko, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That makes no sense.
    • SlipstreamLucas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0*****, really? i need one of those for the hottie next door who i swear gets naked behind those double glazed windows of hers.....
      link for where i can buy one of these please !
  • greystar, on 10/10/2007, -38/+52buried because it's political agenda crap, not news - digg is becoming little more than a liberal hangout.
    • felyduw, on 10/10/2007, -13/+11What is it about "Political Opinion" you don't understand?
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Opinion is one thing.... logical fallacies and propaganda is something else.
    • haterofps3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3 I find it amazing that you throw the term liberal around like its a bad thing. Secondly regardless if the opinion doesn't make any logical sense I have listened to Preachers complain that there is no way Humans evolved from "Gorillas" I just grin and bare it.

      Do you people seriously not understand that by labeling this as someone's political opinion you are expressing your own political opinion and that just cause it does not sink up to your opinion does not make it any less valid.
      • eternal464, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0your lack of reasoning astounds me. The picture compares apples to oranges. We all know about the lives of the rich and famous, but you can't compare it to the all volunteer military.
      • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1liberal IS bad. Its the ***** same as conservative! Neither side is right! You have to pick and choose. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative = moderate = CORRECT.
    • v1ctor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Liberal or libertarian?
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Those are two different sides of the coin my friend.
  • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -28/+14Brainless liberal Garbage. Buried. Go foam atthe mouth Somewhere else losers.
  • doctorweird, on 10/10/2007, -32/+21I hope the intelligent people on Digg will bury this crap.
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Why? Because you don't like "Political Opinion" that differs from yours?
      • GrabAss, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3On this site only one type of opinion matters.
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Especially if its anti-Bush Propaganda.
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The stupid people obviously won't.
  • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -27/+14More Bush bashing. Exactly how lame are you going to get?
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4He hasn't been bashed enough until he stops moving.
    • DrummerAndrew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The bashings will continue until moral improves.

      EDIT: As lame as it takes.
  • senkmajer, on 10/10/2007, -13/+34I didn't see the children of prominent democrats being encouraged to join the military even though they were just as eager to use troops in Somalia, Kosovo, and yes, even voted for the use of force in Iraq -- both times... and don't forget, it was Democrats that shoved us down the path towards Vietnam, not Republicans (John F. Kennedy first then Lyndon B. Johnson dispatched the first real combat troops). Why not similar criticism?

    Don't get me wrong, I am just sick over families losing their loved ones. My best buddy growing up (as far back as 1982) just requested deployment to Afghanistan at 37 years old. I am beside myself at the thought of the world losing this good man, but then again, his point is: "I chose the military, I chose to train as an Army Ranger, there's a job that needs to be done and I need to use my training to do what I think is right."

    I wouldn't be as curt as fezzasus or ThePerkins, but I am also irritated when I see injured or dead soldiers and their families being used to score cheap political points when there is clearly a lack of consistency in any moral, ethical, or even logical standard.
    • senkmajer, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Follow-up. My buddy got promoted to Major and is now in a hot zone in Iraq. Not only did he choose this for himself, he *requested* the deployment even though he had a job at a university training for ROTC and could have stayed there for the next 20 years.
  • 7levels, on 10/10/2007, -7/+20Ok lets not forget that our soldiers signed up to do what they do. They chose to fight for their country. I know a lot of people who have chosen this path, but I also know a lot who haven't. So does that make everyone who is not in The Armed Forces a little bitch? Stop comparing our kids to theirs. If you don't want to fight, then don't.
    • knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6the trouble lies in are we fighting "in defense of liberty and justice" or are we fighting "for oil and control over autonomous people"

      it's that the whole scenario was borne of lie after lie after lie that dispels any easy assimilation of the subject
      • vat0r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3YES.. that's the point everyone here is missing. You sign up to defend your country and fight for "justice and democracy" not to DIE in a rich man's resource war.
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3IF you think we really went into Iraq to take their oil.... you are sadly mistaken.
        • knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1if you think we didn't, you are sadly mistaken.
          • BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Both of you are right. Whether we went into Iraq for oil or not...we were sadly mistaken.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"They chose to fight for their country" but that's not what they are dying for. people keep talking about supporting the troops, but the leaders aren't supposed to put them in harms way unless it's necessary. war profiteering is hardly necessary.
    • dlsspy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"They chose to fight for their country."

      OK...but what about our soldiers who aren't from Iraq?
  • arcowden, on 10/10/2007, -10/+24Ah, nothing like some good old propaganda in the morning to start your day out with.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2you saw an "army strong" ad on tv? paid with tax money no less.
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0you saw a "truth" anti-smoking ad? paid for by tobacco companies.
  • ZeRux, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24Stalin sent his son at frontlines in WW2, to use him as an example that he treats everyone equally.

    No matter what you think of Bush, he still isn't anywhere close to Stalin.
    • knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5give him time...
      • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2When Bush starts sending soldiers who've returned home to gulags because they've been introduced to different ideas, I'll be with you.

        That just doesn't seem likely.
    • bentman78, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9That's right he's not. He isn't responsible for the death's of millions of people or setting up gulags....
    • dsmx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Urrrm well he is responsible for killing potentially millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and setting up guantamino bay where terrorist can be tortured. Then there's the fact that he won't accept retreat or defeat. Sounds very similar to stalin if you ask me.
      • huszar02, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Bush did that? Um...the key difference is that Stalin, as a state policy had MILLIONS killed directly by Soviet agents. Even if you assume that millions have died due to US intervention, if it wasn't for the fact that Muslims are blowing up other Muslims, the civilian deaths would be minimal. Are you saying Bush is equally comparable to insurgents and terrorists in culpability? Bush isn't directly TRYING to kill civilians, while the other is. Let's be honest here.
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Not Stalin? Is that supposed to be a compliment? Is he Ghandi? How about Lincoln? Jack Kennedy? Jimmy Carter? Saying that the murderous beast is not (yet) one of history's greatest monsters is far from good.