how are mercenaries different from conscripts? they both signed a contract knowing the possible outcome and agreed to settle for the proposed reward. if anything, mercs are the smarter bunch, getting some decent P out of the gov't for getting fucked up.
btw how come everybody cries about general health care when your government is spending 300billions on mercenaries? americans are so fucking stupid.
AxeD wrote:I dunno, there's some thoroughly unemployed people on this forum.
how can you think those two are close to the same thing at all?
conscription is compulsory service; mercenaries are bought by the highest bidder; they are in 'it' for profit
(and yes our govt is insane, 'we' spend more on fighter jets and drone strikes than our education etc etc etc etc, I hate that myself and don't exactly know what to do about it, probably the same with a lot of the citizens of my country)
soronery wrote:supporting the troops and supporting the wars can be independant of one another
i respect people who fight in our armed services
but i dont agree with most of the wars theyere fighting in
I def agree with you. I'm not even sure if you were aiming this towards what I just said, but it still has nothing to do with what I was talking about really.
I suspect Cyclops is referring to the way the US (& most other countries)
inducts its poor unemployed to keep the war machine primed
with fresh meat ready to be shredded with ieds.
sorry my bad, I thought conscripts were the ones who signed up themselves; and yes, since nobody's forced to join the US army, I think there's not much of a difference between a soldier and a mercenary - apart from the soldier swapping $ for social esteem (until you've left the service of course).
AxeD wrote:I dunno, there's some thoroughly unemployed people on this forum.