Bill Hicks- Gays in the Military

The genius Bill Hicks talks about his point of view.
Warning: Bill Hicks swears a lot in this, so if you are sensible to the use of those words don't watch it.

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• bill
• hicks
• gays
• military

[Wrathbone13]

I'm ex-military, and I still support Bill Hicks' opinion.  It turns out our current enemies were armed by us and now after over a decade since 9/11, a lot of military are starting to ask questions and no one has any good answers. This war is no longer worth fighting and I have to agree that anyone who wants to join, might need to listen to some Bill Hicks and then decide.

[NickNorie15]

@MrMyers758

In the end, he goes a bit far once in a while, maybe cause he's just too pissed (and he should be, everyone should) but ultimately the basis of his idea is completely correct: Why would you join the army? Why would you help this entity, putting your life in danger so that some old fuckers can profit?

[MrMyers758]

@treehousewizkid I have no issue with anything you just said except the usage of the word "requires", which insinuates that in most cases military operation NEED civilian casualties, and I cannot understand why you would think that.

Civilian casualties are estimated simply because they are almost always inevitable, and the only purpose this estimation serves is to inform strategists and to be used in decision making so the estimated number could be lowered (though hardly ever successful).

[treehousewizkid]

@MrMyers758 I absolutely do not believe that military operations are based on civilian deaths, not in any shape or form. I'd lose my mind if I believed that. I'm not even inherently anti-war. My belief is that the basis for military action, as it stands, requires in most cases the deaths of civilians in exorbitant number and that the system functions on this knowledge. It's well understood in every credible pre-war estimate and is generally exceeded.

[treehousewizkid]

@MrMyers758 More comments isn't a problem; I have no issue with someone going in-depth. Allow me to say in reference to Afghanistan: our own estimate on civilian casualties prior to the U.S. involvement in the region (which at this point was either inarguably modest or just plain inaccurate) was calculated as a necessary consequence contingent on our entry there.

[MrMyers758]

@treehousewizkid And dont get me started on the Gaza War! The civilian to combatant death rate is estimated to be 1 civilian per 30 combatant deaths!

My apologise if I'v made too many comments its just hard not to hold back information when you have it and it helps.

[MrMyers758]

@treehousewizkid Heres another interesting fact, 76% of civilian casualties in 2009 in Afghanistan were inflicted by the Taliban. Was that to the detriment of the actual militarys involved because they were only responsible for less than a quarter of them?

The difference between the current war and the Falklands and other such conflicts is that in one you have an easily identifiable foe, but in the other, the civilians and the enemy are totally inseparable upon initial appearance.

[MrMyers758]

@treehousewizkid

In fact heres some food for thought, a conflict which is considered a major one in my country is the Falklands war, it happened in 1982 and you might be interested in the casualty report! 649 Argentinians killed, 255 British killed and 19 civilian deaths. Is that a massive percentage? Its horrible that any civilians had to die but can your claim still hold up when looking at this war? Was is a bad victory for the British because they didn't kill enough civilians?

[MrMyers758]

@treehousewizkid Now if you were to say that weapons manufacturers are predicated on civilian deaths you would have a point. In fact weapons manufacturers are predicated on weapons being fired, no matter who they are fired at or whether it hits the target, because the more the gun is fired, the more rounds the military has to buy and the sooner weapons need replacing, all profit for them. But the military itself?

[MrMyers758]

@treehousewizkid But you still haven't managed to explain WHY the military is based around civilian deaths. I could say for McDonalds that their business is based on shitty food because shitty food is cheap to make, therefore it is profitable for them to do so. Just because masses of civilians die during war does not mean that military operations are based on how many civilians they can kill.

[Munstallstodes]

Bill Hicks, enough said. :)

[treehousewizkid]

@MrMyers758 I think the main difference in our discourse is that you're evaluating the military from a conceptual point of view and thus are assuming that I am also. If McDonald's actually started making good food then it would continue to exist, too, still under the concept of a restaurant geared towards profit. It doesn't change the fact that they presently make shitty food and their business model is based around that fact.