[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul This is an interesting topic in that the people who join the airforce wave (wave bye, bye now, kiddies. I presume you actually mean "waive.") some of their consitutional [sic] rights and so they are more or less citizens of the military more so then [b](I presume you mean "than") citizens of the USA while on duty.

While it is true that certain Constitutional rights are waived by our military, they do so voluntarily. That was not necessarily the case in my day. However, there is no such thing a being a "citizen of the military." I'm not sure why you specified the Air Force. The UCMJ isn't specific to a particular branch of service.

I am not sure but stuff can be addedd [sic] to their food

Nope. Our military personnel know what inoculations they are receiving. They are told so when it is administered and they carry an inoculation record.

or they can be given shots or wharever [???] and they are not supposed to object or refuse. I least that is what I hear.

Do you think that they should object? Usually the inoculations are administered upon induction, for common diseases that are arise in cases of crowding, i.e., barracks life of people from many environments. Additional inoculation are given before overseas deployment, and then they are most usually for diseases endemic to the duty station to which our military probably have not developed a resistance. They are also inoculated against diseases that might be weaponized, such as small pox and anthrax.

Simular [sic] to prisoners in our jails who have lost their consitutional [sic] rights to some degree.

Actually, it's not similar to prisoners in jails.

If the army thought it would improve their reaction time during combat or if they thought it would stemulate (I presume you mean "stimulate.") being more agressive [sic] then such drugs might be provided. (not because of a choice on the part of the pliots to "get high".)

I guess you missed the point of the thread, as well as the spelling of "pilots." The amphetamines are not intended to increase reaction time (they don't) or to increase aggression (they don't). They are to keep a pilot alert in spite of fatigue on extended missions where there is little sensory stimulation. The Army doesn't do that and the Army doesn't need to do that. There is nothing like a few AK rounds showering you with wood chips to improve reaction time and increase aggression. I don't know what your experience is or how you feel about it, but someone shooting at me always made me alert and aggressive. I'm not sure how you transposed this question from the Air Force (specifically, pilots on long missions), to the Army.

Safty [sic] in battle is not a big objective because if you play it safe you would not be much of a fighter.

On the other hand, if you are dead, you are even less of a fighter. In fact, much of Army combat training is about keeping yourself safe, as much as possible, in an inherently dangerous situation. The training is all about safety - concealment and cover, maneuver, and fire power. The purpose is to defeat the enemy without loss, even though that may not be possible. Of course, when most of our casualties are the result of IEDs, where they didn't have the opportunity to meet the enemy, such discussions are moot. When one is killed by an enemy who isn't even there, it matters little what drugs the troops were taking. Increased alertness or aggression are irrelevant. As Gen. George Patton said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Where as (do you mean "whereas'?) in public life safty [sic] is an important concern because private people might not manage the dose correctly.

Right. And we wouldn't want exhausted civilians launching rockets at friendly troops.

And so this is like saying: is it right for the military to drive tanks when that is not allowed on the freeway here by citizens in pubic situations.

Since the military does not drive tanks on the freeways, and since the question of Air Force pilots on extended missions has no relevance to Army tanks on freeways, what are you trying to say? Did you actually think that you were making a point?

(just taking stab in the dark here about the reasoning involved).

Since there is little evidence of any sort of logical reasoning, your stab missed.