Military Vets

[Balgashang]

K so I got a heart thing called atrial fibulation, tried enlisting in 2002 when I was 18 and got shot down cause i'm supposed to be on maintence meds. Since then however, they have a few new procedures that could potentially 'cure' me. I've tried talking to a recruiter, sent an email to MEPS command, called walter reed, and so far no luck finding out if any of these new procedures I could get a waiver for.

I got the numbers for my local congressmen, and I sent an email to the white house, but other then waiting (its too late to call the congressmen now) I'm out of ideas on how to find out this information. Meps told me they don't do waivers, its up to each branch whether you get a waiver or not.

Any ideas or thoughts would be appreciated,

Justin

[Mali]

Tough situation bro. Maybe get it fixed and a note from your doc and try again?

The military is strict about that sort of thing. Got asthma? Got Diabetes? Obese? Out of luck.

The same might apply to you, but its probably in your best interest to get the procedures done if you think you are ready for it and if its your best option. Get a first and second opinion on em.

Don't expect the government to pay for it or change their mind, but do whats best for you, keep your head up, and keep pursuing your dreams.

[Imoutgoodbye]

I've got varicose vein disease. They've got nice procedures to "cure" me for about five to ten years at a time. Won't get me in.

However, in regards to your waivers, it's up to your recruiter to get you one. He needs the files from the surgeon detailing the procedure that was done to you before he can get the waiver. Then MEPS has to approve the waiver. Guess where the waiver comes from? MEPS. But they'll never tell you that. Why? It's their job to keep you out, even if that means making it all feel hopeless. Keep your head up and keep trying if it's what you really want.

**** MEPS. That's what I think about them. Lie, lie, and lie some more to them as long as you can keep it covered.

[The-Nameless]

I have a heart condition that requires laser cautorization. I was told that if the procedure was done since it is not open heart (no rib cracking) I would be able to enlist after recovery time from the procedure. This was for the Navy. The recruitment center out of Eastgate, Ohio is the recruitment center that gave me this information.

[Demiterracotta]

I finished filling out my paperwork to enlist last week.

Hooray for loopholes about certain medical conditions. (Them not being able to PROVE I have type 2 diabetes means I do not in fact HAVE type 2 diabetes. )

[Balgashang]

I've been hesitant to just get it fixed cause I know the military is wierd. For example Lasik eye surgery disqualifies you from enlistment (or did as of eight years ago) BUT there's another form of eye surgery where they cut a flap as opposed to burning the dead stuff with a laser that you can get a waiver for.

I had a 93 Gt 120 something for the QT on my ASVAB, AP classes like alot of you in highschool, I had intially wanted 91B and had Airborne school and RIP in my contract, but at this point in time, I'd settle for being a REMF heh... its just frusterating to think that out of the entire monostrosity that is our nations military, there's not a single position in which I could be of use. All Afib does is make it more physically demanding (at times) for some tasks, running for example, (I can still do it and in a timely fashion, if not better really for my height/weight/age, its just I have to put forth a bit more effort) And I run a higher risk of a stroke, but its nothing set in stone saying thats that. But thanks for your advice Mali, I enjoy reading your thoughts on a variety of topics.

Edit: Damn alot of replies while I was writing that novel, and Nameless, the procedure I was thinking of having done seems to be real close to what they told you...I read about something called radiofrequency ablation, they do a catheter, feed a tube through the veins into the heart, and use radition/electricty couple of other things they can use to kill off the av node thats sending the crazy signals

[The-Nameless]

I know what your talking about. I have WPW disease. Basically I have a fused pair of nerves so my heart will accel and decel twice as fast in either direction. My heart will get to workout speed twice as fast as the "average" and it will get to cooldown speed twice as fast as well.

[Mali]

Sounds like everyone needs to visit the cardiologist.

[Mmm Coffee]

Consider it a blessing in disguise that you couldn't enlist. Why do you want to potentially risk your life to further the profits of the industrial elite?

http://www.youtube.com/theparadigmshift#p/a/f/0/jl2JQfxnnHU

[Liadon Xiloscient]

We don't go into the military to serve the man, we go there intending to serve our loved ones. To protect them.

You cannot blame the soldiers for following orders...

[Mindflayer]

A. Fib is the most commonly occurring arrhythmia. Kick your A/V node in it's intercalculated discs and tell it to start listening to the sinus node.

[Mali]

You cannot blame the soldiers for following orders...

FAIL.

Thats the most famous and the most ridiculous (and the most common) defense used by Nazi soldiers and officers during the Nuremburg trials.

[Imoutgoodbye]

FAIL.

Thats the most famous and the most ridiculous (and the most common) defense used by Nazi soldiers and officers during the Nuremburg trials.

Now, leave the Nazis alone. They've got enough Jews hunting them down even though they're in their 90's and on life support that want to see them executed. Talk about blood thirsty.

But all that aside, military life is the biggest pile of BS for a soldier. It's like drow society. Do whatever you can and get away with it without the slightest suspicion and you'll have all kinds of things fall into your lap.

Don't follow an order and you get screwed, HARD. Follow an order and do it in a manner that draws negative attention, get screwed HARD. Follow an implied order and do it however you want to get away with what your superior wants (see above paragraph)....

People don't understand what the military WAS like and what the military STILL is like. Media's changing it slightly, but it's still supposed to have its secrets. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but just that's how it currently is and was worse 100 years ago. That Navy officer who's losing his job over those skits he showed prior to having command of his own ship? No big deal. Kept swept under the rug. Until someone drew attention to it. The Pentagon knows that crap goes on in every branch everywhere. They don't care. Until they're expected to be accountable because they were caught not caring then they pretend they care.

And wtf is the rest of the country caring for? WAR is NOT civil! He who wins creates the rules and creates the history. Why are we nitpicking at our war machine like this?! It's freakin' insane. I've heard stories of what goes on in boot camp for Marines in California that would make some people turn pale. Boot camp deaths aren't even close to always accidental.

*gets pissy and storms off*

[Mali]

Now, leave the Nazis alone. They've got enough Jews hunting them down even though they're in their 90's and on life support that want to see them executed. Talk about blood thirsty.

Double fail. If someone killed your family would you let it go because they were comfortably in retirement? That argument is beneath you.

Seriously man, your argument is weak.

If you commit a crime against humanity while following orders, you still did it and put yourself in a situation to be controlled mindlessly by another.

It all comes down to making excuses after the fact. Excuses are the haven of cowards.

*******************************************************************

In any case, not to derail the thread further, I'll note that service to the US is a fine choice of employment and I wish the OP best of luck in his endeavors.

[Imoutgoodbye]

The majority of the Nazi cases are based on "this person was a Nazi, so they were directly involved in killing my family because they were with this troupe".

You know what riles me up about that, Mali? The individual may have done nothing.

Run away, die. Stay and do nothing and later on you die anyways by a war crimes tribunal. Which death is better? The "honorable" one? Not every member of the Nazi military was by choice.

Now, here it is sooo many years later. They get executed sometimes with no proof other than they were there. They have children. They have grandkids. They're law abiding citizens.

Two wrongs don't make a right in my mind. That's my argument about it, but almost no one wants to present that view because they get labeled as

A) Supporting a "coward"

and

Being a Nazi "supporter".

My apologies if this subject upsets me, but it does, and I needed to get the rest of my argument out there. It's only a fail in some people's eyes.

[Mali]

Valek, I challenge you to identify one person falsely labeled and punished or executed for being a nazi when they weren't, or when there was no evidence.

My old neighbor was in the German army during WWII and fought against the russians. He was a soldier, a frontline trooper, and though technically served under hitler and as a nazi, did not share nazi ideals. Nor did anyone hunt him down or slander him later in life. He wasn't even a good nazi soldier, but he fought in WWII. He didn't commit crimes against humanity, and no one bothered him about it. He died peacefully of old age.

In contrast, men who served in the "deaths head" unit of nazis (those that started as the concentration camp guards) were notoriously brutal men, and got to those positions by carrying out particularly nasty orders with zeal. If a man served as a concentration camp guard or as an SS officer, you can be sure they were not just 'following orders', but sought out such positions that gave them power to pursue their fantasies of control, rape, torture, and murder.

I think you'll find those being prosecuted have well-established records in the SS, and were not those who just happened to be there. Those men who just happened to be there got sent to the front lines, were not in positions of power at the camps or in the government, and are not being bothered late in life.

If you are upset about it, then please direct us to the case of someone who was hunted down or punished by Israel or any other government without evidence, without trial, or without deserving it.

I think you'll find that there are plenty of real nazi's out there still living happily, and that the vast majority of cases where nazi hunters bring in their prey are totally justified. The real perversion of justice occurs when a nazi is able to walk around America or South America or Europe like nothing ever happened. There are far more examples where justice was called for and not carried out, than where someone has been prosecuted unjustly.

Really, you should be upset that nazi's are still around. I question why you feel it is the ex-nazi's that deserve your pity, since it is such a rare and non-refreshing point of view.

Again, feel free to point out someone who just happened to serve in concentration camps and who have become targeted when they were really gentle old men who would never hurt a fly. That certainly doesn't apply to Adolf Eichmann, perhaps the most notorious success of modern nazi-hunting and the -only- nazi to recieve the penalty of execution in Israel. Otherwise, I challenge you to rethink your point of view.

[Balgashang]

I'm just throwing this out there, from my understanding the SS was sort of seperated into two factions, the black shirt guards, and the waffen SS were frontline soldiers as well, basically if they were wearing camo, they were either waffen SS or paratroopers.

The 'Deaths Head' was just a unit of the Waffen SS (German tankers wore a symbol close to the totenkoph, cept the skull was missing the jawbone if I remember right, or vice versa)

[Mali]

Thanks for your input Balgashang, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum states the following (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263)

Special “political units on alert” (Politische Bereitschaften), originall guarded the SS concentration camps. They were renamed “SS Guard Units” (SS-Wachverbände) in 1935 and “SS Death's-Head Units” (SS-Totenkopfverbände) in April 1936. One SS Death's-Head Unit was assigned to each concentration camp. After 1936, the camp administration, including the commandant, was also a part of the SS Death's-Head Unit. Although all SS units wore the Death's-Head symbol (skull and crossbones) on their caps, only the SS Death's-Head Units were authorized to wear the Death's Head Symbol on their lapels. After the creation of the “SS Death's-Head Division” of the Waffen SS in 1940, whose officers had been recruited from concentration camp service, members of this division also wore the Death's-Head symbol on their lapel.

*******************************************************

I'd also like to stress again that my comments on military orders and nazi's are not to be viewed as a commentary on the original posters aspirations or questions regarding US service and medical conditions.

[Balgashang]

I didn't know that heh, but I also haven't read about WWII since I was a sophmore, my grandpa was on the american side fought in the battle of the bulge in the ardennes and was there for d-day. Also my best friend that introduced me to this mud is Israeli, I'm not advocating the nazi's by any means.

Most of my reference sources were the Ballentine battle series of books, plethora of info on specific units/battles etc in that series from many different conflicts. but its also been ten years since I read them.

Still, I thought there was signifigant difference between the black shirt SS and the Waffen SS, and yea, I could google it and read up, but I'm lazy, what was your take on it again Mali, SS is SS is SS or there was a difference between the camp guards and the Waffen SS?

Edit: I thought I read there was alot of animosity between the other waffen SS units and the totenkoph?

[Mali]

Balgashang, since you ask to clarify my point, it is that the concentration camp guards, various special units, and top political officers ended up in positions of power because of a)willingness to commit crimes against humanity b)idealogical pursuits in line with that of the nazi government c)organizational capacities that lent themselves to the final solution or d)maneuvered into power through nazi networking or bribes. In contrast, those who did not wish to commit brutality, expressed distaste to massacres, or were not the nazi favored elite were often sent into war on the frontlines to fight, die, or freeze in Russia. Nazi-hunters are generally after the first group of dedicated nazis, and seldom if ever pursue random german soldiers that happened to serve under hitler in WWII.

As stated in an earlier post, and in direct contrast to Valek's statement (that old innocent germans are being executed for no reason by bloodthirsty jews), only one nazi was ever executed in Israel, Adolf Eichmann, and he was most definately of the first breed (category b and c). Others have been prosecuted and imprisoned, but not executed, and had established histories as camp guards or political officers... never 'merely' German soldiers.

This is why the excuse of 'I was just following orders' does not hold water. There is no record of a summary execution following a denial of orders, although men who did not follow orders were often demoted or sent into the front-lines. Those that stand trial for war crimes use it as an excuse to deny personal responsibility for crimes against humanity. Those nazi's in positions to commit acts of brutality had generally earned their right to be there by establishing a willingness to do so and often were recognized for this peculiar type of ambition by subsequent promotion through the SS ranks. Some even gained international notoriety, and it is these poor excuses of mankind that modern nazi-hunters seek to bring to justice.

[Imoutgoodbye]

men who did not follow orders were often demoted or sent into the front-lines

That's going against a survival instinct. Front lines back then were a death sentence. Demotion put you under someone.

Is my view "different" than others? Yes. However, choices were made. War is not like every day life.

So, what is it that I'm arguing against here? Look where the information is coming from. Look who controls most of that information. The war was won. The bad guys were cast. The good guys were cast. It's like any other part of history. I'm not saying what they did was right. I'm 100% against what the Nazis were doing.

I'm just pointing out that Christopher Columbus happened to be a slave trader.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that a good chunk of that historical information on the Nazis is correct. 99% correct. I just happen to think most of the Nazi hunting that has gone on since the 70's has been nothing more than witch hunting.

[Pali]

I can't entirely agree with your rejection of "following orders", Mali. Human beings are not free agents floating in a vacuum - we are highly complex products of a wide variety of genetic and environmental influences, and we as individuals have very little control over what those genetic and environmental influences are going to be. When someone has been told through their entire lives by pretty much everyone they know that some other group of people don't deserve to live, and aren't worthy of basic humane treatment - who is at fault in this person acting based on these cultural teachings? Is it the individual's fault for failing to adopt moral stances in line with the ones we now generally hold rather than adopting the moral stances he's been taught throughout his life and that are shared by most people he knows? I could also point you to study after study that has shown that a person's capacity for thinking critically about something is diminished if he's being told it by someone he views as an authority, or studies that show that people are far more willing to inflict harm on others than they otherwise would be comfortable with if they have someone behind them (again, particularly an authority figure) egging them on and telling them that it's okay. Responsibility in these cases, if it is to be justly applied, cannot be applied solely to the individual directly performing the deed (most people are happy to say that Hitler killed 6 million Jews - as far as I know, he didn't personally kill a single one). Are we as individuals responsible for these psychological weaknesses that we've inherited, that many of us have little or no awareness of even having?

I have a great distaste for simplistic notions of "good people" or "bad people". Is every single member of the paramilitary African armies that hack people apart with machetes an evil person? Or are many of these soldiers, in many ways, victims of brainwashing and other powerful cultural influences?

I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't be held responsible for their behaviors... but the level of responsibility that they should be held to can vary a great deal based upon the circumstances those behaviors were committed in.

EDIT: I'd also like to emphasize how much power group-mentality has over an individual's behavior - humans, like most social animals, tend to distinguish each other along lines of "one of us" or "not one of us", and morality tends to come into play mostly for that first group. We're left with the curious and unfortunate situation where people exist who are wonderful neighbors, will happily help the old lady cross the street, volunteer at the local homeless shelter in their spare time... and yet will support the exploitation, murder, or other forms of mistreatment of people simply for not sharing the same skin color, nationality, religion, or political party and still sleep well at night. It's also shown in how we don't generally consider other species to be as worthy of moral consideration - nearly all animals in human care, from livestock to pets, are literally our slaves, and the ones that we don't like (usually the non-cute and/or very annoying ones) we show absolutely no consideration for. We later rationalize this along lines of how much suffering or awareness the animal experiences - but we behave like this long before we actually figure out for ourselves why we do. You also see it in less dangerous (and sometimes in healthy and productive) forms... state rivalries (we in Wisconsin often refer to people from Illinois as fibs - f***ing Illinois bastards ), sports fans, employees of different stores, even favoring friends and family over strangers. But how do we judge the first person, the person who is a beacon of humanitarianism if you're in his group but could not care less about you if you aren't, if we're going to limit ourselves to in the end just the terms "good" or "evil" as descriptions of their behavior? I don't think either applies.

We don't go into the military to serve the man' date=' we go there intending to serve our loved ones. To protect them.[/quote']

This is the intention. It is rarely the result. Wars are, as a rule, poor young people fighting for the interests of old rich people who convince those poor young people that somehow their interests are at stake as well (in some cases they actually are - in many they are not).

[Mali]

I'm well aware of the Milgram experiments and the fact that evil does not always show its face with claws and fangs and red-eyes, but rather can be woven into bureaucracy and a cultural system. Re: the banality of evil.

And yet:

Are we as individuals responsible for these psychological weaknesses?

Yes. Despite Milgram, people act of their own accord or not at all.

Is every single member of the paramilitary African armies that hack people apart with machetes an evil person?

Perhaps not all, but definitely many.

Nazi-hunters aren't pursuing random members of the german army or of the collective nazi machine. Rather, they pursue those with reputations of infamy, camp guards, top level doctors and planners, SS officers.

This is the intention. It is rarely the result. Wars are, as a rule, poor young people fighting for the interests of old rich people who convince those poor young people that somehow their interests are at stake as well (in some cases they actually are - in many they are not).

I agree with this, but I wouldn't think less of the OP becoming a soldier or pursuing his chosen career, despite the medical obstacles listed in the beginning of the thread.

[Pali]

Yes. Despite Milgram' date=' people act of their own accord or not at all.[/quote']

Quite right - we do not at all act of our own accord. People act according to their brain's activity, and the brain's activity is just physics. Treating each other as free agents can often be useful... but it's not accurate as far as I can tell, and should not always be applied.

Perhaps not all, but definitely many.

Let me rephrase the question: should a person who was violently abducted and brainwashed into joining these armies be considered in control of his actions?

And I don't care about Nazi-hunters. Nothing I said should be considered directed at that topic.

I agree with this, but I wouldn't think less of the OP becoming a soldier or pursuing his chosen career, despite the medical obstacles listed in the beginning of the thread.

Oh, I don't. I considered joining for a time myself - realized the rigidity would drive me insane.

[Mali]

should a person who was violently abducted and brainwashed into joining these armies be considered in control of his actions?

That is beyond my ability to answer, and is dependent on context on a case by case basis. I imagine the answer is at times yes and at times no :eek: