You seem to have developed an understanding of the military based entirely around a small slice of WW2 movies and video games, and then assumed that has any bearing on the real world.
The way you actually learn to deal with a machine gun (and this was true even in WW2) is find cover, set up suppressing fires, use smoke and terrain for concealment as you advance, and eventually get someone into a position where they can flank and take out the machine gun nest, probably with a grenade so they don’t expose themselves. Most importantly, everything I just described above involves teamwork. You protect each other, you trust each other, you rely on each other.
Safety is paramount. No one is teaching you to run screaming at a machine gun nest with no regard for your own life. That shit barely even happens in movies anymore.
A huge amount of what you learn as a soldier is basically how to keep yourself safe in extremely dangerous situations. Yes, you still have to have a willingness to put yourself in extremely dangerous situations in the first place, but the whole point of learning to do this stuff well is learning how to be the person who can survive those extremely dangerous situations.
You’re claiming “forests” (“militaries treat young, enlisted lives as expendable for unnecessary wars”) exist and then pointing at a cardboard standee of a tree you brought as evidence.
Yeah, you’re right, but you can admit when your attempt at artistry fails your point.
This is for people that will come after (assuming the whole post isn’t randomly deleted).
I think my reading of your comment’s anti-military message was reasonable, certainly not mean-spirited. However, I will admit my first comment was more declarative than inquisitive. A more open dialogue might have been “Then what is the forest?”
Sorry for the uncalled advice but it’s usually a waste of time to discuss with people who go out of their way to treat a figure of speech as literal, and vomit a huge “ackshyually” about it. Or that lie / assume / bullshit about your emotional state. (Cue to “what is it that disturbs you?”)
Because, like, it’s plain obvious your “run toward a firing machine gun” is a figure of speech.
Because, like, it’s plain obvious your “run toward a firing machine gun” is a figure of speech.
I’m curious what you think OP meant by their statement seeing as they claim my interpretation was reading something that wasn’t there. You’re saying it’s not literal and they’re saying it’s not the idea that war wastes lives carelessly. So how should someone read the statement that the military teaches people to run into machine gun fire? It reads as a critique, although I suppose that could be the start of the misunderstanding.
It’s about teaching people to disregard their own self-preservation, when following orders. That’s why they say “it scares me”.
It doesn’t need to be machine gun firing (part for the whole; “dangers in general”); or literally running towards it (hyperbole; “risking to get harmed”).
You might agree with their point, or disagree with it. However, “le ackshyually to le narwhal bacon’s knee, you’re instructed to take cover lol EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD KIND STRANGER!!!” doesn’t address what they said at all. And, like, people get rubbed off the wrong way when others use those “ackshyually”.
But… It’s not?
You seem to have developed an understanding of the military based entirely around a small slice of WW2 movies and video games, and then assumed that has any bearing on the real world.
The way you actually learn to deal with a machine gun (and this was true even in WW2) is find cover, set up suppressing fires, use smoke and terrain for concealment as you advance, and eventually get someone into a position where they can flank and take out the machine gun nest, probably with a grenade so they don’t expose themselves. Most importantly, everything I just described above involves teamwork. You protect each other, you trust each other, you rely on each other.
Safety is paramount. No one is teaching you to run screaming at a machine gun nest with no regard for your own life. That shit barely even happens in movies anymore.
A huge amount of what you learn as a soldier is basically how to keep yourself safe in extremely dangerous situations. Yes, you still have to have a willingness to put yourself in extremely dangerous situations in the first place, but the whole point of learning to do this stuff well is learning how to be the person who can survive those extremely dangerous situations.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.
You’re claiming “forests” (“militaries treat young, enlisted lives as expendable for unnecessary wars”) exist and then pointing at a cardboard standee of a tree you brought as evidence.
Yeah, you’re right, but you can admit when your attempt at artistry fails your point.
Read my comment again. You are reading things that are not there.
Sorry, I was trying to think of a more reasonable alternative than your literal statement that didn’t make sense.
Can you please explain what you meant by
Such that you think someone who explained that the statement is false is missing the forest?
Read back your comment. Does it sound like an honest, good faith effort at dialog?
I’m blocking you now and I’m not going to think twice about this exchange.
This is for people that will come after (assuming the whole post isn’t randomly deleted).
I think my reading of your comment’s anti-military message was reasonable, certainly not mean-spirited. However, I will admit my first comment was more declarative than inquisitive. A more open dialogue might have been “Then what is the forest?”
Sorry for the uncalled advice but it’s usually a waste of time to discuss with people who go out of their way to treat a figure of speech as literal, and vomit a huge “ackshyually” about it. Or that lie / assume / bullshit about your emotional state. (Cue to “what is it that disturbs you?”)
Because, like, it’s plain obvious your “run toward a firing machine gun” is a figure of speech.
I’m curious what you think OP meant by their statement seeing as they claim my interpretation was reading something that wasn’t there. You’re saying it’s not literal and they’re saying it’s not the idea that war wastes lives carelessly. So how should someone read the statement that the military teaches people to run into machine gun fire? It reads as a critique, although I suppose that could be the start of the misunderstanding.
It’s about teaching people to disregard their own self-preservation, when following orders. That’s why they say “it scares me”.
It doesn’t need to be machine gun firing (part for the whole; “dangers in general”); or literally running towards it (hyperbole; “risking to get harmed”).
You might agree with their point, or disagree with it. However, “le ackshyually to le narwhal bacon’s knee, you’re instructed to take cover lol EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD KIND STRANGER!!!” doesn’t address what they said at all. And, like, people get rubbed off the wrong way when others use those “ackshyually”.
OK. So elaborate. What is it that disturbs you?