American Foreign Legion?

Completely stripped of pretentious nonsense because this isn't really a debate. I don't have to use big words to confuse the enemy. I'm just talkin'.

      I don't know if you guys have turned CNN on or what lately but it seems like some parents thought that the war was all fun and games until their children get killed and now they're angry and protesting outside of Bush's pad in Texas, and in other news the USA's armed forces are down in recruitments. This may or may not have something to do with the fact that people who enlist sometimes die. (Seems like people are just catching on here with this one)
     Yeah, and here's another thing. People are still coming into the US illegally because apparently some people still think it's a good idea to be here and this is still the greatest country in the world or at least the greatest country within swimming distance.
     So here's an idea I was thunked up while I was sitting on the toilet this morning.
     Why doesn't the US make some kind of deal with these that lets more people into our country as long as those people spend five or so years in our millitary and possibly the reserves for the duration of their living here, and we could use all those same "Money for college!" deals we used to use on our own before they either wised up or died.
     I mean the best case senario is that we don't have to keep these clowns in our own country for more than a few months and we get to ship them off to fight all kinds of stupid wars for all kinds of stupid reasons but public support of these wars will go up a little because our own kids aren't dying and the people who come back will be war heros and citizens and rednecks don't usually complain about losing their jobs to war heros. Worst case senario is that people will think we're really sick for implementing this and immigration rates will go down and we might get bombed.

Thoughts? Other case senarios?

I was thinking of prisoners and convicts personally, but the officers in charge would have to deal with knowing that anyone could shoot anyone in the back at any time, even after gaining loyalty from training, etc.  You'd need "parole sergeants" at all times.

I like the immigrant idea, but it sounds almost like Starship Troopers (the book)- you aren't a citizen unless you've served once.  It would take a radical change in government policy, and critics would call it quasi-socialism.

Third, women and gays could enter combat, but what prevents them from doing so now is the emotional impact if any bonds were formed between soldiers.  You're more likely to risk your life for a girlfriend/boyfriend than anyone else, and such a loss might be more psychologically detrimental to an individual soldier.  But it could work.  The ban on gays has disqualified about 30 translators from signing up, as well as others who want to legitimately serve and die for their country.     

All of your ideas were incorporated by Rome.

You seem intelligent despite your anti-intellectualism. Read Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" if you haven't yet... you can probably handle it, though it does feature lots and lots of polysyllabic words (as does any scholarly work worth reading). All the issues you bring up are addressed in stultifying detail.

As to what difference technology might make between the Roman Empire and the American Empire... well... I don't think there are any. It's essentially a sociological or anthropological question, and none of those factors are essentially different now then they were then.

do you know the problem with the French Foreign Legion? Terrorists show up, say hi, get trained, fight a bit, then disappear. They try to run background checks, but they don't catch everyone.

>>it seems like some parents thought that the war was all fun and games until their children get killed and now they're angry and protesting outside of Bush's pad in Texas, and in other news the USA's armed forces are down in recruitments

A bit off topic but that is what really irks me about these parents who are against their kids/relatives being assigned in iRaq. I mean look; their kids did not sign up to the US Army and NOT expect to serve in real combat. When they signed up they understood the dangers they would be in. It would be a joke if you served in the Army all your life and not have witnessed some real action durying your service. If a person signed up and expected not to actually be injured or even die in service then Im sorry but that person is just dumb and he/she deserves what they get.

These parents are utterly stupid (im not sure what is a better word) to think that their sons and daughters are suppose to have this cushy little place in the army filled with peace and harmony. There was this other news on CNN where grandmothers were protesting outside a US Army Base asking their grandsons be returned back home. What is with them?? Its all nice and well to serve your country but when its tough better go back home? I pity the grandsons though cos they must be so embarassed.

>>3
I'm not anti-intellectual. I was just REALLY tired this morning and I wasn't in the mood to add the entire thing just to re-read it and find out I spelled gynecomastia wrong. That up there was pretty much all for my ego.

Not only were these ideas incorporated by Rome but leaders have been using them plenty since its fall. I got the name of this topic from a French millitary branch (See >>4, whom I'll deal with in a second)so chances are if any major sociological differences they've probably been smoothed out or at least addressed by some of them.

The closest thing I can really think of involving the technological changes is that people can do a lot more damage now in a short time than they could even a couple hundred years ago. I could probably bet directions on how to build a decent bomb with materials I could find on a millitary base on the internet and assuming I was trained properly I could sneak it into a public place and probably not get caught. This doesn't really create a new problem but it makes the existing problem of rogue soldiers a lot more dire.

>>4
This really is the biggest problem, but you could say the exact same thing about our own millitary. Just speaking of the Iraq war, we have people that have lived here their entire lives that still sympathise with the middle east. The best way to keep this sort of thing to a minimum would probably be to not allow people immigrating from the country we're invading (or those closely allied with that country) fight in that particular war.


The only way any of this would be financially reasonable is if America is planning on taking the whole "American Empire" thing seriously. If we're not involved in near perpetual war it'll just turn into another silly way to cheat immigration.

>>6
Explaining why I put on the front of anti-intellectualism. English and coherent writing aren't really my best qualities and I'll be angry at myself if I don't fix this.

>>so chances are if (THERE ARE) any major sociological differences they've probably been smoothed out or at least addressed by some of them.

<Inst>
also, mexico has the vestiges of a grudge against the US, for the crime of stealing maybe 40% of their land that now comprises the southwestern United States. Are you sure you want to train Mexicans?

ICDC

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/icdc.htm

>>8
Mexicans. Bomb sniffing dogs that'll work for less than the current stash.
In less volatile terms, not every job in the military is combat related, or else you'd have a lot of starving people. (I always thought letting absolute shit like McDonalds on board was a grevious insult...good thing the soldiers serving tend to be too poor to know what real food tastes like or they'd start revolting. Militarily I'm not US though so I don't know if the ol' cafeteria line is still available there. Seems like a long-term plan to ween them off that sort of thing, however.)