Army Slogans

By -
I always thought "Be All That You Can Be" was a silly slogan. Yes yes, I know of a few young lads who came back from basic training with much more confidence in themselves and stronger upper bodies. (They also came back disillusioned because of the waste and stupidity of the actual military. And these guys aren't "political" either.) But even so, the army is the one institution that does its best to stamp out all individuality. You are only allowed to be all that you can be so long as this "being" is in strict accordance with your orders.

Anyway, I always thought that was a silly slogan. But the new one is simply Orwellian: "An Army of One." Give me a break! Are you telling me that if I went to boot camp, and started saying, "Why are we doing things this way? It seems to me that it would be much better if we did it this other way, so that's what I'm going to do from now on...", I would be encouraged?

And if it's an Army of One, why do they keep recruiting?

Comments

  1. Anonymous9:42 AM

    Your fucking stupid and apparently you missed the whole meaning of the slogan, without the individual soldier the army is nothing hence the motto an "army of ONE", instead of poking fun maybe you should enlist and see what it's all about for yourself instead of posting half-ass, and poorly thought out garbage such as what I just read.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous6:36 PM

    Bob, Phil you guys better be glad for those recruiting tactics than doing it like they do it in foriegn countries...mandatory service for a minimum of two years...You better be glad it's still an all- volunteer military...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1:07 AM

    look bob, phil and anoymous the truth is that the slogan is now army strong and as a young army private who is actually enlistedi can tell you first hand that if you asked all of the people in my unit including myself why they joined they will not say they joined because of a slogan or what they saw on tv and definatly not to be war heros. the truth is some joined to better their life by bieng able to afford collage and other expenses, some joined for the adventure because i will say basic was one of the most exciting times of my life, or some including myself will say they joined because they just felt an inner calling that just said this is what you want to do with your life

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous6:00 AM

    Great article! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:49 AM

    Nice Blog!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:49 AM

    Thanks for interesting article.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous12:44 PM

    Very interesting site. Blog is very good. I am happy that I think the same!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous1:39 AM

    Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more