If we accept the premise that most military men and women support the President and his policies (and I think it's a reasonable premise) -- the question I have is: why?
Has it been erroneously reported that this administration has cut medical benefits for veterans? Failed to provide troops with proper equipment? Lowered their pay? Cut money for military housing? Is it a media lie that the originally stated reasons for going to war in Iraq have turned out to be false (regardless of whether or not there might be other justifications now)? Used stop-loss measures to force soldiers into staying in Iraq longer than they were supposed to?
If these things are true (and I don't know if they are or aren't -- I only know that they've been widely reported by credible news agencies; but sometimes with the "news" it's down the rabbit-hole time) -- but if these things are true, WHY do the majority of military men and women support the President and his policies?
If these things are not true, maybe someone can clarify for me... Where has the reporting gone wrong? Which parts, specifically, are in disupute?
I'd like to know.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Good question.
I would suppose that the military supports Bush not out of a sense of self-interest, as your questions imply, but out of a belief that as a "strong guy," Bush makes us safer as a country. I do have a friend who is not and never has been military, and who was a lifelong democrat, who voted for Bush because he felt Bush could keep us all safer.
He's sorry, now . . . Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nowhere has it been reported that housing and pay has been lowered, to my knowledge.
Insufficiant tools and men for the task, and whatnot, is true, as far as it goes. Medical treatment under todays VA is wonderful, better than even in the history of the VA, and that fact has been widely touted, and rightfully so. The medical treatment in VA hospitals is great, but they consolidated the areas a few years ago to increase efficiancy and a lot of people got left out of coverage areas.
The funding for housing was cut, but not from the current budget figures for it, but from the amount they wanted to spend. So housing amounts haven't gone down, but they have not increased at the rate they had said they would.
Mind you, I do NOT like Bush, but there are plenty of things that he has done he needs to be held accountable for more than these things. We have a huge war to pay for, and some things have to be placed on hold.
What I can't excuse is the lack of body armor and APC armor. There is no excuse for it at all, and it is a national shame that people's parents had to buy their kids body armor because the Armed Services weren't providing enough of it. I know not every soldier wanted it, but the fact they had trouble getting enough of it is speaks volumes.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm dismissive of the military, as it stands. It reminds me of something Icarus said on the other thread.
quote:The SAT opened doors for me, and, like Dagonee, I'm not in a hurry to dismiss the only indicator that said I was worth a damn as being itself worthless.
Even if they don't execute wars well, Republicans believe in martial force. If you are in the defense industry, I figure voting republican is just an expression of dancing with the one who brung ya. Whether in truth or in perception, the Republicans support the military and loyalty being what it is, I imagine it flows both ways.
[ November 02, 2006, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not convinced that a large majority of troops DO support the President.
I've seen scores of returning tropps from Iraq having rather disapproving things to say about the President.
When my brother went into the Marines, he went in hating Bush. While he was there, he loved him, called me ignorant of the world, and said to support the commander in chief. Weeks before he was released on medical discharge, he said Bush was a joke, and an embaressment to the military, and he was making horrible mistakes.
I think people in the military are a little captured by the institution, at least to begin with. But I've heard too many with ill things to say about Bush to believe that everyone there supports him. Some returning from Iraq feel like they really are doing good there. Some feel that it's a mistaken policy, and that Bush and Rumsfeld don't really care about the troops.
I don't think we'll ever get a clear picture of what the military thinks of Bush though, maybe after he is out of office. Last I checked the UCMJ prohibited them from speaking publicly against the CinC. I could be wrong about that. But with the institutional predisposition for showing support for the CinC, I don't see a lot of them running out of their way to show their lack of support for him. All you ever see are the troops cheering for him on TV, and I don't doubt that much of that is staged.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Medical treatment under todays VA is wonderful, better than even in the history of the VA, and that fact has been widely touted, and rightfully so.
According to my SIL and BIL who are recently retired military, this is not true. They say they have seen aging veterans in wheel chairs waiting over 8 hours in lines to get prescriptions and the wait to see doctors is essentially forever. Although they qualify for medical care from the VA as retired military, they have to pay for private medical care because the waiting time at the VA even for acute problems makes getting the care they are promised impossible.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Bush is their commander in chief, and in being such, the military is required to support him in a time of war, which we have been constantly since the 50's.
Least, that is my understanding based upon talking to a guy I know in the Military.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm not talking about following the Commander in Chief. I'm talking about supporting the President and his political policies. As far as I know, they can't be "required" to do that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: Bush is their commander in chief, and in being such, the military is required to support him in a time of war, which we have been constantly since the 50's.
Least, that is my understanding based upon talking to a guy I know in the Military.
That arguement would work if the military had stood behind Clinton for the same reason. They didn't so I don't by the argument.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I think the military tends to be a more conservative segment of the population. The GOP makes no small effort to appeal to individual patriotism, so it's no surprise that a conservative President would be more popular in a group that is generally considered more patriotic (or at least, more actively so). The "my Commander-in-cheif" sentiment would just reinforce this.
That said, I'd be interested in a poll amongst servicemen on Clinton's policies, just for comparison. I can't say that I've ever seen one.
--j_k
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The recent comments by the sore loser that won't go away suggest one possible reason...
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You mean... we shouldn't suggest that the commander in chief made a terrible mistake that is costing thousands of military men their lives?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Maybe because he's a Republican and a lot of people in he military are Republicans. They might go into the military with a desire to fight against the enemy, but perhaps their feelings may change after they get home. I have been disgusted with how this administration deals with the military. If you must send people to war, why not give them everything they need to fight the war and win? Body armour, decent armoured cars, if they are working this hard, it's not unreasonable, even if I do not agree with this war.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
The military is an interest group. The majority of the people in it respect a person that has balls and will give them more money. GW supports pay-raises and he isn't lacking much in the balls department.
I feel the Dems are geldings that want to take my money. I'm probably not alone.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The military is an interest group. The majority of the people in it respect a person that has balls and will give them more money. GW supports pay-raises and he isn't lacking much in the balls department.
I feel the Dems are geldings that want to take my money. I'm probably not alone."
And yet...
if you look at ACTUAL policy rather then perceived policy, the democrats give the actual military fighting men more money over the course of their lives then republicans do.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
My Aunt is getting worderful care, as is my father...and I qualify for it as well. The equiptment is top notch, which was enver the case before, and overall the care is far better than it ever was for the VA.
Long lines is not a new things for them, and it is worse in some places than in others, but it is FAR, FAR better than it was, by every standard that I have seen and read about.
BTW, is IS illegal for a soldier to publicaly speak against the CiC. Still against the UCMJ. They can't tell you how to vote, but they can (and do) order you not to speak about your political views while in service.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
"actual fighting men over the course of their lives"
That's pretty interesting language. I'm finishing my first and only tour in around 1000 days. I'm pretty sure the only benefits that will last past my ETS date are my educational ones and my USAA Mastercard.
So that doesn't apply to me and I am, therefore, not interested.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
There's quite a bit of medical, pension stuff in your contract too... services that are provided to military men after they leave the military, that aren't provided to most americans, that has a dollar value.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The comments about the military being peopled by the ignorant and desperate. Very personal to soldiers I would guess.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: There's quite a bit of medical, pension stuff in your contract too... services that are provided to military men after they leave the military, that aren't provided to most americans, that has a dollar value.
Wrong. Not retiring. No pension, and I'm almost positive no medical stuff either. Re-read my last post.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
yeah, and as far as I understand how ex-military works, you're getting a lot more dollars for the rest of your life from the government then non-military people will, unless you choose not to take advantage of those benefits.
I'll have to look more deeply, of course, but this is what I discovered last time I looked closely at military benefits.
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: The military is an interest group. The majority of the people in it respect a person that has balls and will give them more money. GW supports pay-raises and he isn't lacking much in the balls department.
I feel the Dems are geldings that want to take my money. I'm probably not alone.
Huh. Not democratic politicians, not "some" democrats. "Dems"--as far as I can tell, anyone who self-identifies as a democrat--are are evil greedy cowards. Would you care to clarify that, or is that an accurate representation of your beliefs?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow, sounds like the military interest group is somewhat selfish and fractured then.
Democrats support military pay raises, and increased veterans benefits. They supported making sure the foot soldiers are well armed and armored.
Just because they don't support buying billions upon billions of dollars on the newest military toy that DARPA comes up with doesn't mean they are trying to take money away from you. I can't imagine people are ignorant enough to believe that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: The comments about the military being peopled by the ignorant and desperate. Very personal to soldiers I would guess.
General Sax, Who made these comments? As best I can tell, Rush Limbaugh made them and pinned them on John Kerry. Its really not fair to judge someone based on how others misconstrue what they say.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I'm pretty sure the only benefits that will last past my ETS date are my educational ones and my USAA Mastercard.
So that doesn't apply to me and I am, therefore, not interested.
I don't know who gives more, Repubs or Dems, but I don't believe this is correct, Airmanfour. As a military person with an honorable discharge, you are eligible for special loans for houses, you get access to certain vocational training post military, ability to be buried in Arlington (I think), not to mentin a military record means a lot when applying to a lot of jobs in the government and in the private sector.
I'm pretty sure there are more bennies, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The military is an interest group. the majority of the people in it respect a person that has balls and will give them more money. GW supports pay-raises and he isn't lacking much in the balls department.
I think this is an astute speculation. You can argue about the merits and the quality of judgement expressed by our men in uniform, but I think airmanfour laid down their reasoning clearly.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: [QUOTE] "Dems"--as far as I can tell, anyone who self-identifies as a democrat--are are evil greedy cowards. Would you care to clarify that, or is that an accurate representation of your beliefs?
Democrats in Congress. Turning the government into an evil and greedy organism that I'm deeply involved with for almost three more years.
I'd sound less jaded and more sensical if this wasn't a week before the elections. I really need to stop watching the news.
Now for the benefits. No pensions. Yes loans. No medical. Yes to checking the military service box. I think I rate a military funeral, but I doubt I'll enjoy it. And yes to the MGI Bill. And that's honestly all I can think of. I don't believe any of the above benefits was solely an initiative of the Democrats.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ah. Okay then. While I disagree with you on some particulars, at least I don't think I need to feel personally insulted by you then.
FWIW, I believe that it is the Republicans who have spent the last six years "turning the government into an evil and greedy organism." In fact, my decision about a year ago to switch my registration to Democrat was prompted by my preference for small government, which Republicans seem to have turned their backs on.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bush is obviously someone who feels that that the military should be used to try to fix problems in the world.
I would guess that many people who volunteered to be in our military feel the same way.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Icarus - Good. And I agree with you entirely. Except for the switching of the registration. I still think they'd be worse. But I fear we shall see soon enough.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:my registration to Democrat was prompted by my preference for small government, which Republicans seem to have turned their backs on.
I totally understand. I too am disgusted with how the government has grown over the last six years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: [QUOTE] "Dems"--as far as I can tell, anyone who self-identifies as a democrat--are are evil greedy cowards. Would you care to clarify that, or is that an accurate representation of your beliefs?
Democrats in Congress. Turning the government into an evil and greedy organism that I'm deeply involved with for almost three more years.
I'd sound less jaded and more sensical if this wasn't a week before the elections. I really need to stop watching the news.
Now for the benefits. No pensions. Yes loans. No medical. Yes to checking the military service box. I think I rate a military funeral, but I doubt I'll enjoy it. And yes to the MGI Bill. And that's honestly all I can think of. I don't believe any of the above benefits was solely an initiative of the Democrats.
Are any of the things you get from the military things that were created in the last 10 years? Or even 5 years?
Democrats and Republicans aren't the same parties that were around a decade ago. It's akin to Republicans claiming they have a great civil rights record because Lincoln was a Republican and he tried to set the slaves free. To say nothing of the fact that people started voting Republican in the south when Democrats starting supporting equality efforts there.
The biggest difference I see between Republican spending and Democratic spending, other than the vast increases in military spending under Republicans is that Republicans of late like to spend a lot, but have no intention of coming up with a way to pay for all the things they buy. Democrats admit freely that they will do it by raising your taxes.
So they are both spend crazy, but at least one of them is up front with you about how you'll be paying for it. The other just spends, then villifies the other side for trying to balance the national checkbook.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
That's a good point. And I think the answer is no.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
m_p_h: what's particularly amusing about that is Bush campaigned on the US not being someone who fixes problems in the world in the 2000 election.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: There's quite a bit of medical, pension stuff in your contract too... services that are provided to military men after they leave the military, that aren't provided to most americans, that has a dollar value.
Wrong. Not retiring. No pension, and I'm almost positive no medical stuff either. Re-read my last post.
You will qualify for VA health care, and VA loans, for the rest of your life. You may not use them, but if you get an Honorable Discharge they are there for you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
USAA is also pretty good for life insurance, auto insurance, and mortgages. I know I've sure enjoyed it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
USAA used to be a lot better.
Now, I'd still say they are "good" but they used to be much better.
This nation has a system of socialized medicine. It's called the VA.
Payments are also means-adjusted, so it's not just a boondoggle where rich people pay nothing...
If we wanted to have full coverage for everyone, all we'd have to do is register everyone in the US military for the minimum number of days required for lifetime VA benefits.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Medical treatment under todays VA is wonderful, better than even in the history of the VA, and that fact has been widely touted, and rightfully so.
According to my SIL and BIL who are recently retired military, this is not true. They say they have seen aging veterans in wheel chairs waiting over 8 hours in lines to get prescriptions and the wait to see doctors is essentially forever. Although they qualify for medical care from the VA as retired military, they have to pay for private medical care because the waiting time at the VA even for acute problems makes getting the care they are promised impossible.
That's not new. I can vividly remember waiting hours and hours at Primus (the military version of urgent care) as a child when I was sick. And it's not just because it seemed that long. You could call ahead to see how long the wait was. If it was going to be more than 4 hours from the time you walked in the door, Mom would often drive to the base instead to avoid the lines.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
As someone who was in the military, I can say that the large majority of the military (with the possible exception of the Air Force) support Republicans, mainly because they are conservatives. The pay is not being cut, it is being raised every year, surpassing the rate of inflation. The benefits are very good and the VA is excellent. Now I will be inflammatory because I am in the mood (deal with it)
Recent statistics about the intelligence level of the military have been released as a result of that idiot John Kerry ("I meant to say 'or you will end up getting *us* stuck in Iraq. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?!?!!!?!? {this is true}). Anyways, it seems that the education level of the average soldier is well above that of the average civilian, and the education level of the average officer is FAR above that of the average civilian (within the same age ranges for both). Entonces, military personel are more likely to be republican because they are...
...smarter.
HAHA!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Too bad 'smart' doesn't necessarily mean 'endowed with common sense.'
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Once again we come to the claim that soldiers aren't smart enough...
(Although the claim that civilians aren't smart enough is a new one...)
Maybe we could admit that it's possible disagree with our august selves without being dumb?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Anyway, it seems that the education level of the average soldier is well above that of the average civilian, and the education level of the average officer is FAR above that of the average civilian (within the same age ranges for both).
I don't have any problem believing this. Admittedly, I also don't want the average civilian in charge of killing people. For the record, I'm not a big fan of common sense. I think that common sense is more correctly called vulgar sense, and I've seen entirely too much drek and too little wisdom passed off as common sense. The common opinions of the world have come around on too many important issues for me to blindly go along with common sense. ______
There is going to be a problem with words like uneducated and educated. For example, my sense of education is pregnant with ideas of moral seriousness, the voracious duty-bound consideration and study, which one undertakes for the whole span of his or her life. Other people seek to reduce education to technical knowledge, or degrees and certifications, where one can be finished. My opinion is that the latter sense is misguided. Then again, I wasn't surprised at all that so many of the 9/11 terrorists were "educated" engineerers.
[ November 02, 2006, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Are Kwea and airmanfour the only ACTUAL military men on this thread posting? (oh - and Reshpeckobiggle -- sorry didn't see that).
I wouldn't even begin to assume to post in a thread asking for a how a military person feels if I wasn't a military person. Which is why I can't answer TL's original question.
FG
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I wouldn't even begin to assume to post in a thread asking for a how a military person feels if I wasn't a military person.
Yeah, I think that's part of your problem. I think it's okay to begin to assume, always ready to revise your assumption in the light of someone with better insight. I actually think that's part of your responsiblity as being a voting member of our civilian authority.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Thanks for pointing out my typo. I fixed it.
FG
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I wouldn't even begin to assume to post in a thread asking for a how a military person feels if I wasn't a military person.
I didn't see anything wrong with posting here. My post on the subject made it clear that I was guessing and not working from firsthand knowledge.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yes, your post was very clear, Porter, that you were only speaking for yourself, and not assuming you know how the military men think.
I just hope we have more actual military people who can answer the original question, so that, as Irami pointed out, we as voters can know how they really feel.
FG
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I was discussing this topic with my buddy at work today. It made a small chuckle. Sorry, but it did. We look for any excuse to lighten the day's load. However, the discussion was far too light to make a serious discussion. Some of it that dealt with body armor dealt with a couple things. 1) New body armor is constantly being put out there. You show up wearing the newest body armor around, and the next thing you know, there is a newer better body armor. 2) His brother opted to not wear all of it (some do). 80 pounds of armor makes it a little difficult to move around in. Especially out in the desert.
As far as losses, my friend's grandfather gets a little bit more than just upset with people today. In this whole war we have lost 2000 + americans. He remembers when he would lose that many in a week during WW2. We aren't even close to matching numbers for the Vietnam War.
Now, as far as supporting the President. I do. I may not agree with every single one of his policies, but I support him. I like that he has banned protests at military funerals (within a national cemetary, but it's a start). Protesting at these funerals I find quite atrocious. It is an unspeakable acty of evil, in my opinion (it is mine, and I am not saying anything about anyone here). Our veterans are important to us. Anyone who visiting my board for the next two weeks should be able to see that. His travels to give speeches to the troops out there is a great morale booster (I have been to a couple of these). Not many Presidents have done so.
I'm not going to delve into any deep policies on this, I am too tired and it's getting difficult to type this and play "text message tag" with my friend right now.
Edited to add: The "80 pounds" above is exaggerated. It is heavy stuff though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am ex-Army, and I wouldn't dream of speaking for all military men. I was in during Clinton's tenure, and I supported him, at least until he lied under oath. I still think he was a good President, but he wasn't a very good man.
Overall, I don't think there is any one reason. People in the Army, educated and uneducated, have differing views on almost every topic. Some of the smartest, most intelligent people I ever met were in the Army....and without a doubt others were the most bigoted, arrogant a$$holes I have ever met.
I know that Democrats are more likely to reduce funding to the Armed Services, and that could put them at risk, so Republicans have a built-in advantage in that regard. Countering them is the Republican's tendency to cause soldiers to NEED that equipment, so it probably balances out.
BTW, not-so-recent tests on the IQ of the CIC prove that drug and alcohol abuse only kill MOST brain cells....and don't hurt the wallet at all.
If I had to pick one reason why I would never have voted for Bush, I would say it was his own contempt for the Armed Services, demonstrated by his own service attendance record. I may have been one of the worst soldiers (problems with idiots in charge of me, even to this day ) at my post, but had I pulled the crap HE pulled I would have been arrested and put away, then dismissed with a Dishonorable Discharge.
I could never vote for someone like that....even if I was a Republican.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm vaguely miffed at the suggestion that it is somehow inappropriate for me to voice an opinion in this or any thread.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Voice it Icarus. I don't mind. I got your back. That may not mean much, but hey.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Kwea, you got that right about the idiots and @$$holes in the military. Also, I should clarify what I meant by better educated. About 88% of civilians 18-44 have high school diplomas or the equivilent, compared to about 99% of all soldiers. And of military officers a whopping 97% have a four year degree, compared to about 55% of civilians 18-44 who have at least some college experience. Also, of all those who try to join the military, I think it's something like 30% who get in.
One more thing: just because you never served in the military doesn't mean your feelings about issues that concern soldiers are invalid. The same argument holds for people who think that only a black person can honestly criticize racism. Or that Cindy Sheehan gets a free pass to say whatever she wants becasue she lost a son in combat. No one has a monopoly on understanding.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Or that Cindy Sheehan gets a free pass to say whatever she wants becasue she lost a son in combat.
See, I think that losing a son gets her a free pass to say whatever she wants, but as to the rest of your post, you are right. ONe more thing, this:
quote:And of military officers a whopping 97% have a four year degree.
Doesn't mean much unless you talk about what percentage of the military are officers.
[ November 03, 2006, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I know that Democrats are more likely to reduce funding to the Armed Services, and that could put them at risk, so Republicans have a built-in advantage in that regard. Countering them is the Republican's tendency to cause soldiers to NEED that equipment, so it probably balances out.
See this is one of the things that I don't think is really fair (not like that matters, heh) about funding. Republicans of late overfund everything, then Democrats call for either spending cuts or taxes, and get hit either way. Republicans double the funding of the military since Bush took office, so now if the Democrats cut ANY military spending, they look weak on defense. But if they try and raise taxes to actually PAY for those increases, they get jumped on for that.
Why is responsibility a BAD thing in government now?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Considering the reason a lot of people go into the Armed Forces is the GI Bill, it makes sense. What it doesn't tell you is their GPA's, course of studies, or how many of them were bullies BEFORE the Armed Forces armed them. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Or that Cindy Sheehan gets a free pass to say whatever she wants becasue she lost a son in combat.
See, I think that losing a son gets you a free pass to say whatever she wants, but as to the rest of your post, you are right. ONe more thing, this:
quote:And of military officers a whopping 97% have a four year degree.
Doesn't mean much unless you talk about what percentage of the military are officers.
Well, she can say whatever she wants, but there are people who believe that because she lost a son, no one is allowed to criticize what she says(David Letterman, for instance.) She shouldn't get a free pass to say absolutely treasonous things either, which she has (like calling the terrorists who have killed soldiers --like her son-- "freedom fighters")
And I think the percentage of officers who make up the military is around 15%. But the reason it is significant is that they are the ones who are making the decisions. Also, the ones near the top usually have at least on advanced degree, and many officers went to much tougher schools than your average college kid (like West Point).
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: As someone who was in the military, I can say that the large majority of the military (with the possible exception of the Air Force) support Republicans, mainly because they are conservatives. The pay is not being cut, it is being raised every year, surpassing the rate of inflation. The benefits are very good and the VA is excellent. Now I will be inflammatory because I am in the mood (deal with it)
Recent statistics about the intelligence level of the military have been released as a result of that idiot John Kerry ("I meant to say 'or you will end up getting *us* stuck in Iraq. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?!?!!!?!? {this is true}). Anyways, it seems that the education level of the average soldier is well above that of the average civilian, and the education level of the average officer is FAR above that of the average civilian (within the same age ranges for both). Entonces, military personel are more likely to be republican because they are...
...smarter.
HAHA!
Uhhhh. When did the Air Force become the liberal service?
The statistics involving the education of officers and enlisted is misleading. I believe at least 95% of applicants to the officer corps must have BAs to be eligable, and the only reason military members have more high school diplomas, on the average, is because the military was only accepting high school grads until recently. So if you take the average education of someone in the military, officers and enlisted as a group, you probably come out a little below average. That's not taking into account once you get to a certain rank you don't get "stuck" anywhere you don't want to be. Those are the really educated guys.
My recruiter discussed with me at one point his willingness to talk to some of my teachers if it looked like I wasn't going to pass. I didn't take him up on it, but I imagine I wasn't the only person a recruiter has ever made that offer to.
The dumbest people I've ever met have been in the military, and I spent four years at a public high school in NJ. That's saying something.
edited to make the point i meant to.
[ November 03, 2006, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: airmanfour ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You can also put me in the camp as having met some of the stupidest people on the planet in the military. I look at it, at least when talking about enlisted, as kind of a combination prison/fraternity.
Keep in mind, though, that I was peacetime non-combat arms. Combat arms is kind of the 'real' military where people go who actually want to be in the military for the military. Everything else, with a couple exceptions, is for people who need money for college, or can't hack it in the real world. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The statistics involving the education of officers and enlisted is misleading. I believe at least 95% of applicants to the officer corps must have BAs to be eligable, and the only reason military members have more high school diplomas, on the average, is because the military was only accepting high school grads until recently.
Totally true, by the way, but I think it's more like the vast majority of officers in the military are either rotc or academy of some kind, which means by definition they have degrees, versus OCS.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Those statistics are not misleading. It is because there are educational requirements for entrance in the mililtary that the percentages are higher. And I have met some pretty dumb people in the military, to be sure. But now that I am out it seems more likely that any given person I meet is a total moron. (There is probably a correlation there with the increased likelyhood that anyone I meet is a raging liberal. HAHA!)
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Those statistics are not misleading. It is because there are educational requirements for entrance in the mililtary that the percentages are higher.
And I have met some pretty dumb people in the military, to be sure. But now that I am out it seems more likely that any given person I meet is a total moron. (There is probably a correlation there with the increased likelihood that anyone I meet is a raging liberal. HAHA!)
And I don't know that there are more liberals in the Air Force. I just think that of all the branches, the one most likely to be more liberal is the one with the most p***ies.
[ November 04, 2006, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: Those statistics are not misleading. It is because there are educational requirements for entrance in the mililtary that the percentages are higher.
And I have met some pretty dumb people in the military, to be sure. But now that I am out it seems more likely that any given person I meet is a total moron. (There is probably a correlation there with the increased likelihood that anyone I meet is a raging liberal. HAHA!)
And I don't know that there are more liberals in the Air Force. I just think that of all the branches, the one most likely to be more liberal is the one with the most pussies.
Resh,
Just a friendly suggestion and you're welcome to take or leave it. You might want to post in not such an 'in your face' manner. The over the top insults are just kind of petty. I'm not liberal, but it really doesn't do anything positive when you call them names.
Edit: Well, you might call me liberal since I'm probably more liberal than you. Most people that self-identify as liberals though would probably call me moderate to moderately conservative.
[ November 03, 2006, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I think there are a number of minimum requirements to be in the military (age, athletic ability, HS diploma, passing a drug test, presumed heterosexuality and ASFAB minimum) there are far fewer to be able to vote.
So that the fact that an attempt to thin out the really big pieces results in a larger number of conservatives and Bush supporters is interesting. I know that anecdotal evidence would have us believe that there is just as much liberal support in the military (I know this guy, my friends all say, I personally am a vet and a democrat... ad nauseum) but the real numbers are 3-1 in favor of the current administration, numbers do not lie. So the question is a valid one, why do these people, arguably the best of us in America throw in with this administration?
Could it be that they just do not get enough liberal news over there? Don't they know we are losing and cannot win...
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And I don't know that there are more liberals in the Air Force. I just think that of all the branches, the one most likely to be more liberal is the one with the most pussies.
Ladies, ladies, I found a real gentleman for you.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So the question is a valid one, why do these people, arguably the best of us in America throw in with this administration?"
I'm not sure how you can argue they are the best america can offer. They might, on average, have a higher education then the average american.
But if you want to say they are the BEST, you have to show how they are smarter then not the average american, but the best americans who DON'T go into the military.
And I can't think of a standard to measure by where that ends up being true.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
A very wise man said that when a man takes it upon himself to place his body between those he loves and the horrors of war, he cannot have greater love. Taking responsibility for all of us is what a soldier does.
It is a shame that we do not require this level of committment to the body politic, a willingness to die to protect it, as a condition of franchise. This is what makes soldiers the best...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Or that Cindy Sheehan gets a free pass to say whatever she wants becasue she lost a son in combat.
See, I think that losing a son gets her a free pass to say whatever she wants, but as to the rest of your post, you are right.
Now I'm not an American, but I had the impression that she has the right to say whatever she wants because she is a US citizen. Losing or not losing sons is not relevant to that.
quote:
quote:And of military officers a whopping 97% have a four year degree.
Doesn't mean much unless you talk about what percentage of the military are officers.
Yes it does, in that officers are the ones who make the decisions.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"A very wise man said that when a man takes it upon himself to place his body between those he loves and the horrors of war, he cannot have greater love. Taking responsibility for all of us is what a soldier does.
It is a shame that we do not require this level of committment to the body politic, a willingness to die to protect it, as a condition of franchise. This is what makes soldiers the best..."
On the other hand, their JOB is to kill, not to die. And there's nothing worse then killing. So those kind of balance...
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:A very wise man said that when a man takes it upon himself to place his body between those he loves and the horrors of war, he cannot have greater love. Taking responsibility for all of us is what a soldier does.
You are right. God bless those suicide bombers. Their courage and sacrifice is an inspiration to us all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And of military officers a whopping 97% have a four year degree. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't mean much unless you talk about what percentage of the military are officers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does, in that officers are the ones who make the decisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure how appropriate that line of thinking is. I'd liked to know the person firing the gun can be trusted to think for him/herself.
[ November 03, 2006, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
General Sax: Minimum age 18 (17 with parent's permission. yes it happens). Be able to have athletic ability (basic training will get you in shape). HS diploma, or GED (Navy still does the diploma only). Of course, yes, you have to pass a drug test. ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) score....there is a minimum, and it changes by branch. Army is the lowest. Navy's lowest score to get in is 33 (I'm a category 2 at a 92. almost a category 1). Those ones don't usually get too far (33's that is). They can though.
As a vet, do you agree to just giving up? I don't like to think of myself as being on the losing team. No one really does. Besides, it is still a war able to be won.
I wouldn't call us the best of America, but we sure do come close, eh?
Paul: I have a standard I could say, but it may upset a few people. No use saying it in this kinder, gentler America we live in.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: I'm not sure how appropriate that line of thinking is. I liked to know the person firing the gun can be trusted to think for him/herself.
They can think for themselves. However, in a time of battle, you don't want them to. Too much going on. With all that is going on you need a central core of leadership. Someone to take the directive and run with it. There is a method to the madness here. I don't expect you to understand. This is not to say that I think you are stupid. I am just saying that you have no experience in it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well this is sure a friendly thread. It makes me want to spend more time on Hatrack, what with all the mutual respect and all that. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I wouldn't call us the best of America, but we sure do come close, eh?"
From my experience, no... not really. The military people I've met are like most americans, but more violent.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
eh, true that, Icarus. I'm just wasting time right now. Waiting for a friend to call once she gets done grocery shopping. Glad you didn't post in this besides the two comments you made ?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: You are right. God bless those suicide bombers. Their courage and sacrifice is an inspiration to us all
I do not know many of you, is this person just generally ignored as a silly hysteric or is this comment supposed to be taken seriously?
I started to answer but there is so much, all so obvious I wonder if I really need to.
Sorry Stan, I got those extra points, however I am too absent minded to remember it is V not F, so do not miss them too much...
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
When did it become wrong to kill people? When did violence become wrong per-sae?
Murder is wrong, killing the correct people is a public responsibility, all creation involves destruction, the DVD destroyed vinyl. Violence of action with control and style is the most rewarded capability in our society, it is the essence of masculinity.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Paul: Try the inner cities. You will meet plenty of violent people. Especially at night. If you think the military is violent, those guys on the streets are brutal. I may like my old hometown of Detroit, but I don't want to live there again for a reason.
Oh I forgot to add this to my earlier post: General Sax: It is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. The sexuality of the member does not matter so long as they don't act upon it. It is not a requirement to be hetero to join. Because you know...heaven forbid that nonstraight americans fight to protect their country .
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: When did it become wrong to kill people? When did violence become wrong per-sae?
Murder is wrong, killing the correct people is a public responsibility, all creation involves destruction, the DVD destroyed vinyl. Violence of action with control and style is the most rewarded capability in our society, it is the essence of masculinity.
That is a disturbing premise, and it's part ofwhat's gotten us into the mess we're in in the first place on a historic level. Survival of the fittest among human beings really needs to die.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You're a good egg, Stan. Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Eh, I try Ic. Most times I'm just a prick. I'll admit to that. But most people don't mind the level of it that I stick to.
Syn: It would be great to end all war and to have peace on earth. then the population could really get out of control. Really though, I wouldn't mind an end to war. We could center our thinking on expanding the race to space and move out of this hole that we live on.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"When did it become wrong to kill people? When did violence become wrong per-sae?"
About 3200 years ago? Killing people doesn't work... we're trying that tactic in iraq, and there are now MORE people who want to kill us then there were 4 years ago.
"Paul: Try the inner cities. You will meet plenty of violent people. Especially at night. If you think the military is violent, those guys on the streets are brutal. I may like my old hometown of Detroit, but I don't want to live there again for a reason."
I LIVE in the inner city. Dorchester. Its one of the worst parts of boston. The gang bangers around here are violent, yup, but just about on the level of the several hundred military people I know, too... and the thing is, the gangbangers are a small minority of the inner city population, while military people are 100% of people in the military.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
...
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Murder is wrong, killing the correct people is a public responsibility, all creation involves destruction, the DVD destroyed vinyl. Violence of action with control and style is the most rewarded capability in our society, it is the essence of masculinity.
Or would you like door number two, ladies.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I LIVE in the inner city.
Ok, wasn't aware of that. Now I am. Thank You. Nothing more to say. I will leave my comment, but give you the win on it.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Irami: Thing is, that GS made some good points (imo) in this topic. Now, yes, I may not agree with the Masculinity killing comment, but your comment on it was pot and kettlish.
But then again, I also believe that killing is best done by men because it is quicker. Oh, the females can kill, I give them that 100%. However, not only will they kill you, but they will budgeon you to death and spray you until you no longer feel lie you want the directions you were asking for. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The gang bangers around here are violent, yup, but just about on the level of the several hundred military people I know, too... and the thing is, the gangbangers are a small minority of the inner city population, while military people are 100% of people in the military.
Granted, I only know the gangbangers I've been present for the arrest of or seen being prosecuted in court, but those have generally been much more violent than the hundreds or thousands of military men I've met.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Killing people doesn't work... we're trying that tactic in Iraq, and there are now MORE people who want to kill us then there were 4 years ago
I think that you are like the uninitiated sitting down to watch a football game and seeing only random violence.
It is silly to say that we are trying to 'kill people' in Iraq, I assure you from experience that most of our effort in Iraq is spent in trying to not kill people or hurt people, or let them hurt or kill each other. Our ROE list grows every season. If we wanted to kill lots of people we could leave scorched earth for a city block around every attack against our troops with far less effort then we put into carefully separating the very bad from the just normally bad and the actually innocent and taking them into comfortable, well fed, and cared for custody (often releasing them in only a few months)
Yes a few naked pyramids and some hilarious pointing at inadequate masculinity occurs but the same thing happens in American High Schools.
It is a failure of imagination to think that we are engaged in anything like wholesale slaughter.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Thought I'd share some of the fun I had to go through. This video is fairly similar to what I had to do last month for security training. However, instead of using a gun, we used batons (practice ones for safety). LINKY. Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I heard an amusing story out of a marine base in California, some 'gang bangers' got all drugged up and shot at a Marine guarded gate with pistols or machine guns. The Marines signaled their overwatch and the 240B shreaded the car and killed them as easily as a cat terrier kills a rat.
The difference between the military violence and that of 'gang bangers' is not just one of skill but also control. In New Orleans the units from Iraq quelled the 'gang bangers' in a very brief time.
Better violence, unleashed for a purpose, under the control of our body politic through our elected leaders.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I am willing to bet that that is almost certainly a myth, but am willing to be proven wrong.
Regarding political affiliation in the military, I only had a couple political discussions in the military. No one ever asked me what party was in, and I didn't care what party anyone else was in. No one ever asked me to vote, for that matter.... So, my impression is that, as a whole, the military tended to be (used to be?) pretty politically apathetic, at least as far as the enlisted went.
For the record, I am pretty Democratic.
An interesting point about military and Democrats--I think that the number of Iraq veterans running this election cycle is in favor of the Dems. I know there are a large number out there.
Another point about spending. When people talk about spending for military, they often point at Clinton. Cato has some interesting articles on Clinton's military spending that I found quite illuminating.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Well, I just came across this thread and want to add my 2 cents.
As for intelligence, I will wager that the soldiers in all of the platoons I was in whilst serving have a much higher education level than that of the general population (note that I am talking all enlisted here). Over 50% had Undergraduate degrees (BA or BS) and probably 10-20% had advanced course work. (I should note that I was in Military Intelligence units in platoons of linguists so we were above average for the military)
As far as political leanings, the large majority of the soldiers I talked to about politics were leaning Republican as far as presidential races went. I started after clinton was elected the second time so the only elections I was in for were the last two but none of the guys wanted either Gore or Kerry in office. Now if the Democrats could put up a decent candidate that person may get more support from the military.
As for supplying the military (body armor and the like), no one expected the kind of war we are fighting. In traditional warfare only your combat arms guys needed body armor. Now we don't have front lines and even the cooks need it and the supply vehicles need to be armored. You really can't fault the administration for that screw-up. You might say they were too slow or that the pentegon screwed that one up but the administration isn't responsible for everything that happens in the world (though they will take credit for it if it is positive.) We wont even talk about a previous administration sending troops to Mogadishu(sp) without their armored vehicles (Abrams and the like).
As for the quality of the troops, I have found none better in the world. (Once again I was not in a traditional unit).
Sergeant
Edited to mention Somalia
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
GS, prove it. You can't, because it didn't happen.
Most people in the Army were pretty normal people. You had some people, usually a larger proportion than in usual society but still a small minority, who were very gun ho, but most of them you wouldn't have known they were in the Armed Forces...except for the fact that they all walk in sync with each other.
It is like saying that since some football players are bullies, the entire school is violent. Most people in the Army would be completely content to not ever fire a weapon in battle...and a ton of them never will, even in wartime.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Why should passing on an 'amusing' story awaken a need for a police record search to 'prove' it happened, I have no idea if it is a true tale, but there is undeniable truth in it...
Can you prove the story of the good Samaritan? No, the tale has its lesson even as this one does. I believe you were in the military? It is likely you went to basic training with a few of the morally challenged inner city youth. Did you find them to be skilled weapons handlers or as I did find them to be blustering fools who needed their hands held until they finally understood that there was no short-cut, no special treatment, just practice until you get it. Dime and Washer, point of aim, weaponeer practice and drill on the range.
We had three gangsters in our line, all three needed full magazines to qualify.(20 extra rounds in a 40 round qualification) Others have spoken of similar experiences to me. The real shooters are the boys from the Midwest and South and Oregon and Utah, who learned weapons from men who treat them with respect and use them as tools, not as props.
A single marine with an M-16 and a combat load along with a grenadier and a distant support by fire position stopped three truck bombs meant to sequentially over run a position, with the last, a dump truck, exploding in the chow hall. The windows were bullet proof, the drivers wore vests, all were dead and full of .556 rounds. That is a story I can point you too if you do not remember it, that should underline the difference between P-Diddly Whoever and a soldier.
(Anticipating the demand for the article, I went out and found out a similar case had happened just recently, again Marine Guard stops suicide attack the other one is older and , a couple years back perhaps so I may dig it up but if anybody else knows where, feel free...)
[ November 03, 2006, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
"Why should passing on an 'amusing' story awaken a need for a police record search to 'prove' it happened, I have no idea if it is a true tale, but there is undeniable truth in it..."
So it is OK for you to fabricate a story if it proves your point? If so, you should make that your tag. I didn't find the wannabe gangsters any less proficient than the hillbillies who couldn't get their mind around the fact that an M-16 isn't a deer rifle, and that they weren't shooting gophers or rabbits anymore.
I was a great shot, better than most of my instructors, but when it came time to qualify, they MADE me load the rifle with the "bonus shots" left for me by the guys ahead of me.....and I barely qualified, because each and every "extra" bullet was a dud, and caused me to miss all my 50 m targets...something I had NEVER done in practice.
When I tried to say I didn't want (or need) the "extra" rounds, the instructor hit me in the head, and made me load them. After, he pulled me aside and "smoked" me in front of everyone else, because I had questioned him on the shooting line. Never mind what he made me do was cheating, and had not worked. Never mind that I had shot a 38 or 40 the first time I shot an m-16, and had recorded 3 perfect rounds during practice shoots.....and had only scored a 34 of 40 qualifying that day.
Just because someone has more experience than you, or bigger and better guns, doesn't make them right, or just. It doesn't make then anything...other than dangerous....to you, and to others.
Although I am sure you can just fabricate another story to illustrate your obvious intellect and moral superiority and prove me wrong.
I could quote you real events....you know, the ones that actually happened outside of "some guys once told me that their cousin thrice removed once heard that..." ...that show how effective even limited weapons, in the hand of enemies lesser trained then ours, where a simple hand made bomb defeats all of our efforts to protect ourselves.
It happens every day in Iraq.
Violence may be necessary at times, but if your whole world view is based on it, as it seems to be, then I am glad I barely know you.
I wish I knew less.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Are you really a soldier? A simple hand-made weapon defeats all our efforts? A sharp rock can kill a man and has done so millions of times, but only one in a thousand 'hand made' bombs in Iraq kills an American soldier. I would call our efforts pretty effective and getting more so.
If you can shoot a gopher, a man sized pop up target is a joke, however I am more amused that you seem to harbor some sort of resentment over a smoking that sounds justified to me, a range is no place to lip off.
Anybody can be smoked too failure, in two minutes you can do all of the push-ups that your body will perform and you are done, in twenty minutes you can be so exhausted you can't crawl. The only thing you learn from a smoking is who you are, any Sergeant can break your stamina, but only you know when it broke, only you carry the baggage of self discovery that comes with it. It sounds like you did not like what you found out about yourself.
I have seen DI's miscount push-ups, full load magazines, DQ PT studs, and smoke soldiers from other lines to win the bragging rights of best platoon. I was cheated out of a 325 PT score because our platoon was in the lead (we won anyway because our DI's were just as big a bunch of cheats) but it is a joke to me now, I do not cry about it.
I also assure you, if the story of the San Diego drive by is an Urban Legend it did not start with me...
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Violence may be necessary at times, but if your whole world view is based on it, as it seems to be, then I am glad I barely know you
This seems personal, I do not know why you think a clear understanding of violence is a world view based on violence. I also have a clear understanding of software but I do not base my world view on that either. I am sure you have clear views on many things but only a fool would hear you discuss one of them and assume you are a whatever you happened to speak about at that time.
I have had scores of years to marinate in vice and virtue, so it does not a behoove a thinking person to believe they know my world view based on a two minute reading of what I have written. It would be like me looking at your ear ring and assuming you were gay...
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:And I don't know that there are more liberals in the Air Force. I just think that of all the branches, the one most likely to be more liberal is the one with the most p***ies.
Ladies, ladies, I found a real gentleman for you.
I think you were confusing the adjective version of "p***y" with the noun. And I think you were confusing my sarcasm with seriousness. I just think you are all around confused.
And for BaoQingTian, lighten up. My over-the-top, in-your-face style is only petty if I actually mean what I say. If you go to the thread "The Only Election Issue That Matters" on the other forum, you can see how I am when I'm talking about something serious.
[ November 04, 2006, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I am not sure but I think that the anglo-saxon slang for primary sexual traits is a no-no here, I am sure that the Papa Janitor will have rude things to say about it if you do not edit a bit.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Just so we're clear, I don't doubt that Marines can do damage when they need to. That's pretty obvious. I just seriously doubt the story about gang members wandering up and shooting at a Marine post just because they were on drugs, plus them sticking arond long enough for the Marines to get the overwatch to come around and shoot the car up with machine gun fire, plus I wonder about the fact that the car was off-base. Can military units on U.S. soil just kill civilians when threatened? Is that part of their mandate?
Note that none of the above means it couldn't have happened. It's just a weird, suspicious story to me.
Bob knows Marines have done plenty of heroic things, but that doesn't mean that untrue stories can't get around. Please don't think it's anything personal, GS.
By the way, I did guard duty for the base at Monteith, Germany and I didn't get any ammunition to guard the base with. In order to get the ammunition, I hade to get (as in find) the NCOIC to unlock the key box that had the key to the weapons cage, then he had to unlock the ammo boxes. True story. I menaced the communist world with "Halt! or I'll say Halt! again!"
Understand, of course, that the base was protected by a chain link fence with single-strand barbed wire at the top, so any terrorists or whatnot using the entrance (Which had no real roadblock or gate or anything. I just waved people through.) would just be doing so out of politeness, I'm sure. :/
Then there was the company next door who was, theoretically, the chemical spill clean-up guys or something. This company had what I think special needs woman in uniform. I think her I.Q. might have been about 80. Maybe 90.
Anyways, one night, apparently she got drunk, passed out and, if rumors were true, had a train performed on her.
Then there was the colonel of the brigade I was in who got transferred because he screwed too many of his drivers/secretaries.
Did I mention that most of the base took massive amounts of drugs? And of course it goes without saying that people drank until they passed out most weekends.
Let's see. What else. Of all the people I knew, I wsa the only person who had bothered to learn any German at all. I think I was one of the few who read for pleasure. Most of the guys stuck to McDonalds or known military hang-outs.
And there is more, but, hey, you get the picture. Peacetime military. Loads of fun for the whole family. Send your youth to hte Army, American, and watch them come home pillars of the community. /salute
Now, were there intelligent enlisted? Absolutely. Everyone is intelligent, really. It's just that so few people in the military really were what were charmingly referred to as 'book smart'. In case people don't know, book smart is what the military terms people who know a lot from books but don't know the real picture.
For the most part, people who are book smart tend to be the ones who, I don't know, learn stuff in school and progress, because they like to read.
So, it's kind of funny to me when I hear the military held up as some kind of bastion of honor and virtue, the cream of American youth.
And if you think I'm holding myself up as better than anyone else, trust me, I know I'm not. I joined the military not because it was any kind of dream of mine but literally on a whim. I would say most of the people that I knew were like that. Though, again, this is rear support, not combat arms.
I had a great time in the Army and met some great people, but in my mind the Army will be more Joseph Heller than Tom Clancy.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The Marine Barracks that were destroyed were hit by a van that sped through the Concrete Weaver and refused to stop. The Officer in charge had accountability issues with ammo so the live rounds were in the drawers with tape over the tops...
Since then guards, even in Germany, carry live ammo and are amber (weapon loaded but not charged) on guard duty.
Germany does seem to be a better place to bed your Eastern European nanny then too soldier, did you here the story about the guy and the chicken...
Still better a country where you can heave into a gutter and sleep it off on the train then one that periodically tries to take over Europe...
The Central Asian theater under Rumsfeld has really maintained high morals(no alcohol, fraternization rules enforced, etc). The army has CID men even in Germany and Korea stopping soldiers from frequenting the perfectly legal brothels (the little brown sisterhood actually protested bless their hearts...) so it is clear that much of the Peacetime antics are no longer allowed.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I am not sure but I think that the anglo-saxon slang for primary sexual traits is a no-no here, I am sure that the Papa Janitor will have rude things to say about it if you do not edit a bit.
Again. I was using the word in it's adjective form, which is not the same as using it as slang for a piece of anatomy. But for the sake of civility, I will edit.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I am not sure but I think that the anglo-saxon slang for primary sexual traits is a no-no here, I am sure that the Papa Janitor will have rude things to say about it if you do not edit a bit.
Again. I was using the word in it's adjective form, which is not the same as using it as slang for a piece of anatomy. But for the sake of civility, I will edit.
Wow. I just got to the AF being *expletive deleted*s and sort of shut down. I make fun of the Army, Navy and Marines because I work with them all and it's good-natured. What you said was not in accordance with the rules of the game.
Therefore, I feel it's my duty as a member of the force to prove your assessment wrong. If you ever come to GA, let me know, and I can iron this/you out.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Therefore, I feel it's my duty as a member of the force to prove your assessment wrong. If you ever come to GA, let me know, and I can iron this/you out.
And we have bachelor number three, does that mean I get to be Chuck Barris?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The Central Asian theater under Rumsfeld has really maintained high morals(no alcohol, fraternization rules enforced, etc). The army has CID men even in Germany and Korea stopping soldiers from frequenting the perfectly legal brothels (the little brown sisterhood actually protested bless their hearts...) so it is clear that much of the Peacetime antics are no longer allowed.
'Little brown sisterhood' isn't one I've heard before.
Anyway, the Korean posts have to be pretty gnarly duty. The DPRK keeps border duty strenuous, and yet there's no reduction in formalities.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I changed it from the more common LBFM...
Does anybody else feel that nothing illustrates that south Korea got the good end of the stick like the night sky pictures?
Such an image makes it clear who the good guys are, even though that is a relative term.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's pretty easy to be the good guys in comparison with North Korea, which is by far the most dystopic nation on earth.
I saw a documentary on it, by a guy named Pettigrew. He had a rare chance to wander within the country and bring a camera. Real crawly stuff, there. And South Korea's doing pretty good, too! multi-party democracy, tech savvy, booming trade, Starcraft tourneys that can be seen from space ..
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Wow. I just got to the AF being *expletive deleted*s and sort of shut down. I make fun of the Army, Navy and Marines because I work with them all and it's good-natured. What you said was not in accordance with the rules of the game.
Therefore, I feel it's my duty as a member of the force to prove your assessment wrong. If you ever come to GA, let me know, and I can iron this/you out.
Well, I spent plenty of time with airmen while I was at Fort. Carson and so I know exactly how empty your threats are. At any rate...THIS IS AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD!!! I thought eveyone already knew how ridiculous you can look when you try and threaten someone here (unless you are a moderator, of course. Then the threat usually has the word "banned" in it.) So go jump on your exercise bike to practice for your PT test and get busy not serving in combat.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
And I may have been out of line there. I don't really have anything against airmen. I think they are great people, most of them. Probably better people on average than army grunts. They're just not real soldiers. And they create resentment in the other branches because they are better paid, receive better compensation, don't do half the work and never put their lives on the line. And you will probably try and argue with me about it, but I saw it and I know. So before you do, answer me this: how many airmen have died in combat since Vietnam? How many even died in vietnam? What do they do that any other branch of the service cannot do? And how com airman who are stationed at an Army or Marine base get paid extra for "sub-standard living conditions?" Why are they allowed to go to school full time for free while serving active duty, while army guys need a waiver to take at maximum 6 hours a week, which is never granted if there is any training on the schedule? I was denied once because there "might" be training.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Good point. While I'd like to smack people for saying dumb stuff, it's not a good idea. So I'll be content daydreaming about it.
I've never met a soldier with your attitude, but the 98s and 97s are so wound up in training with us pitiful AF people that I guess they get polluted early.
We're not supposed to be soldiers. If we wanted to we could have joined the Army and then be bitter when we found out that the AF considers our living conditions sub-standard and has more opportunities than the Army does. Wake up at 0430 for PT, have to go between my team, squad, and platoon leaders to finally be referred to my 1SG. Get a 180(?) on my PT test so I can be exempt from morning PT and then be told I have to show up anyway to "help motivate my ate-up, unmotivated, broken battle-buddy".
Yeah, sounds like fun. Not.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
As far as branch rivalry, I will sit and have a drink with anyone in the service and have a good time. All my chiding is just that. I hold nothing against any branch, even "part-timers." So I don't really see your point in being a jerk to airmanfour, Reshpeckobiggle.
After all, all your duty has been shore duty. Lucky you. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Speaking of Branch Rivalry:
Yeah, don't be so hard on the Air Farce - if it doesn't involve scraping bird droppings off of planes, they tend to be a little lost.
-Trevor
Edit: And before we get to carried away in the good-natured branch bashing,
[ November 04, 2006, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Good point. While I'd like to smack people for saying dumb stuff, it's not a good idea. So I'll be content daydreaming about it.
I've never met a soldier with your attitude, but the 98s and 97s are so wound up in training with us pitiful AF people that I guess they get polluted early.
We're not supposed to be soldiers. If we wanted to we could have joined the Army and then be bitter when we found out that the AF considers our living conditions sub-standard and has more opportunities than the Army does. Wake up at 0430 for PT, have to go between my team, squad, and platoon leaders to finally be referred to my 1SG. Get a 180(?) on my PT test so I can be exempt from morning PT and then be told I have to show up anyway to "help motivate my ate-up, unmotivated, broken battle-buddy".
Yeah, sounds like fun. Not.
I don't know if anything I said was dumb, but you do have a point about making the right choice. My point is that is a definite blow to our morale knowing that arguably the most useless branch of the military (the Air Force does nothing the Navy couldn't do) is treated so much better than all the others. I don't have problem with the Air Force in particular, nor with you. Like I said, you were smart to join the Air Force. There is a certain degree of envy in my residual bitterness. No, my problem is with the preferential treatment, and that is something I'm sure everyone can identify with.
As far as the specific points you make, I generally got up around 6, not 4:30, for PT (didn't get off work until 6 most days of course, not to mention the 24 hour staff duty and CQ shifts every week or so); I've never heard of anyone being exempt from PT, and if it were to happen, the cutoff sure as hell wouldn't be anything as low as 180, maybe the 300s; and as for my attitue, I assure you that I am not in the minority for Army guys at least; the resentment is palpable. But since one of the things we have to be resentful about is that no one cares what we think, nothing will ever be done about it. Unless the Air Force all of the sudden decided to speak up about the injustice.
And I don't know what you're talking about, Stan. I got shot at and saw my share of blood during the year I spent in that hellhole between Baghdad and Tikrit.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
If you are referring to the last part of my last post, it was a joke. Hence the at the end of it. I was hoping that it would relay that I wasn't exactly being serious.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Oh. Hard to interpret that. I thought maybe you were just saying "no hard feelings," or something.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Oh, and one more thing: We don't make fun of the weekend warriors or part-timers anymore. They get longer deployments than active duty now. Sucks.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Oh, I know that. Buddy of mine was in the reserves and went to Iraq a couple years back. Tell you what, for the money that is offered, I'd go back out there. Wouldn't think twice about it.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Not me. I was offered an A3 re-enlistment bonus, which would have meant about $18,000. But it was also a guarantee for going back to Iraq. If I'm going back to Iraq, it's as a civilian where I can make about three times as much, including that bonus.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
It must have been 290 then, we score it out of 100, so I get the two confused sometimes. The exercise bike test went the way of the Dodo before I joined, FYI.
$18000? What did you do? Ours is somewhere between $30-50k now, but I'd rather chop off my leg. I just looked at the 97E PF SRBs and those guys are making a killing. 3.5A for an E-4. Maybe I should join the army.
And Stan referring to shore duty references the fact that in the Navy you're not a real person until you've "been to the fleet". I've heard it's one of the strangest experiences ever.
Sorry you got shot at.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Don't be sorry. It happens. At least I didn't get hit.
I was an 88M. A3 (or 3A, whichever) was 3x base pay x nuber of years re-enlistment. E-5 pay being around $2,000 for 3 more years. This was two years ago.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I heard an amusing story out of a marine base in California, some 'gang bangers' got all drugged up and shot at a Marine guarded gate with pistols or machine guns. The Marines signaled their overwatch and the 240B shreaded the car and killed them as easily as a cat terrier kills a rat.
I'm going to assume that "marine base in California" is 29 Palms, given that it's the largest Marine base in the world, and it's in California. Doubts of the veracity of that story aside, and lack of knowledge of WHEN it took place, I still take issue with your "amusement" at such a story.
My brother served at 29 Palms for two years. He got out of the service just before Afghanistan and Iraq, but anyone talking about "amusement" at the thought of someone shooting bullets at a place my brother served, possibly while he was there, severely pisses me off, to say nothing about your casual disregard for human life.
I don't even have the words to describe how your attitude offends me.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour:
And Stan referring to shore duty references the fact that in the Navy you're not a real person until you've "been to the fleet". I've heard it's one of the strangest experiences ever.
More like one of the greatest as far as I am concerned. I loved going out to sea. Those that served with me couldn't always tell, but I did. On the days I didn't have watch, I would wake up at 0530 and watch the sunrise with a cup of coffee and a cigarette. Greatest start to a day. It's always the same sun and the same ocean, but there is always something different about it.
That and the fact that going out to sea gave me a sense of purpose. I was involved in everything from training, safety, maintenance, and mentoring. Now I work in supply, and I don't like it so much. I want to be on a ship, teaching a NUB (new useless body) how to do proper valve mainetence, how to run drills, and to give boards again.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
So*...lets get this straight. Might makes right?
What they did could have gotten me kicked out of the service, and could have gotten them kicked out as well....except for the fact that the whole system is corrupt. Cheating qualifying with a rifle? If you need an extra 4 bullets the pass then you shouldn't be in the Army at all, and that isn't only MY opinion...it is the minimum standard for the Army as well. If you can't shoot, don't get into my foxhole. If you can't carry a strecher, don't be a medic.
It isn't rocket science. Why are there pictograms on MRE's if all soldiers are so smart? Tin Foil is smarter?
If you think a .22, which is usually used for shooting rabbits, gophers, and squirrels, and an M-16 shoot even close to the same, then I doubt you ever shot either. Most of the "good ole boys" didn't do great on their rifle qualification. Not because they couldn't shoot, but because they felt they already knew how to, and didn't listen to the instructors enough.
Sax, it IS wrong to kill people, which is why there are so many rules against it, and different types of charges depending on the situation. It is even wrong to kill someone accidentally, which BTW is called negligent homicide. You didn't mean to kill anyone, but your negligence cause their death anyway.
Sometimes it is the lesser of evils, but that never makes it right. THAT was the comment that I had a problem with, to be honest, even though I realized that you were just being bombastic. I know, from painful personal knowledge, that sometimes you have no other option, but it is rarely the correct path to take....particularly if there are other options at the time.
First you quote an "Urban Legend" to make a point....when called on it, you claim that the truth of your "story" is not relevant....then you claim to have such a wonderful "understanding of violence" that you fail to understand why killing is wrong.
But this is all caused by the fact that I didn't liked getting smoked 15 years ago.
Your intellect "amazes" me almost as much as your apparent lack of morality disgusts me.
My aunt Maureen was a full Col. in the Marines, I was in the Army (USAMRIID, one of the highest concentration of intelligent people on the planet), my dad (who is without a doubt one of the smartest people I have ever met) was in the Army in Korea, my uncle Jim was in the Navy (South Pacific), and my uncle Bobby died in the Army on D-Day.
I am familiar with the Armed Forces, to say the least. If you look at all my posts, I have defended the Service more than most....but it is hardly the brain trust that some people try to make it out to be.
Most of the really intelligent people I did know if the AF did the same thing I did....they got out as soon as they could, and used the GI bill to get a real education. Some of them made a career out of it...particularly the guys I knew in the Navy, who were working in Subs and with Nuclear Reactors.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I am familiar with the Armed Forces, to say the least. If you look at all my posts, I have defended the Service more than most....but it is hardly the brain trust that some people try to make it out to be.
Most of the really intelligent people I did know if the AF did the same thing I did....they got out as soon as they could, and used the GI bill to get a real education. Some of them made a career out of it...particularly the guys I knew in the Navy, who were working in Subs and with Nuclear Reactors.
LOL "Brain Trust" is not the world I would use either. I like to think I was a few degrees more intelligent than my battle buddies, and I did just that: got out after four years and went straight to school ( 25-yr-old junior at CSU now). But I'm gonna use some statistical terminology now, and what you have to do is compare the relative risk of stupidity of someone who is not in the military with someone who is. I'd put it around 1.2, which is not much, but statistically significant to be sure.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that doesn't take into effect some of the truly stupid people I have met while in the service.
You know, the people who are PROUD of the fact that they have NEVER read an entire book in their lives.
I don't know if they are more stupid than anyone else, but the fact that they are armed makes me worry about it more.
I will admit that a lot of people go into the service just for the GI bill, and that raises the curve more than a little.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
As far as the shore duty pass I made earlier. Here is a joke I found to go along with. It is edited for language.
An old Sailor and an old Marine were sitting at the VFW arguing about who'd had the tougher career.
"I did 30 years in the Corps, " the Marine declared proudly, "and fought in three of my country's wars. Fresh out of boot camp, I hit the beach at Okinawa, clawed my way up the blood-soaked sand, and eventually took out an entire enemy machine gun nest with a single grenade. As a sergeant, I fought in Korea alongside General MacArthur. We pushed back the enemy inch by bloody inch, all the way up to the Chinese border, always under a barrage of artillery and small arms fire. Finally, as a Gunny Sergeant, I did three consecutive combat tours in Vietnam. We humped through the mud and razor grass for 14 hours a day, plagued by rain and mosquitoes, ducking under sniper fire all day, and mortar fire all night. In a firefight, we'd fire until our arms ached and our guns were empty, then we'd charge the enemy with bayonets!"
"Ah, " said the Sailor with a dismissive wave of his hand, "lucky you! All shore duty, huh?"
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Oh yeah! I almost forgot my biggest biggest issue with the Navy. When they GIVE(!!!) EVERY SINGLE CTI IN THE COMMAND A 40GB VIDEO IPOD for "training"! They do EXACTLY the same thing we do and get iPods! Who's the spoiled service now? Stan.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
We get iPods? Cool, I want that job.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
BTW, Engineering types are lucky to get anything. Things such as Camelbacks were great when we were out in the North Arabian Sea. Our ventillation may be great in the engineering spaces, but it's not air conditioned.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I'd trade air-conditioning for windows. Going to work when it's dawn, and leaving when it's dusk is more than a little bit confusing when there's no visible progression.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Sadly enough, the a/c units are in the engineering spaces, but we don't get any (except on subs, where everything is air conditioned). I won't take any windows. I work below the water line. Bad things could happen. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
To Kwea: The part about being stupid and armed, yeah...
But my point was about balancing the idiots on both sides. And it is more likely that any random civilian you meet is some drug addict or thug or hillbilly with a room-temperature IQ than any random soldier.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Uh, not so much as you might think. Of course that depends on where you live too. Like if you live near me. I live about 2 blocks outside of crack central east coast.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yeah, it depends. Even in the inner city (I grew up near Detroit) most people just want a regular life. They go to work, keep their heads down, and hope no one violent notices them or their families.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yeah, it depends. Even in the inner city (I grew up near Detroit) most people just want a regular life. They go to work, keep their heads down, and hope no one violent notices them or their families.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) at my post, but had I pulled the crap HE pulled I would have been arrested and put away, then dismissed with a Dishonorable Discharge.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)