Most of my friends who did ROTC to pay for college wound up with a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. I also have several friends who had their marriages destroyed by PTSD resulting from these tours. For those reasons, I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college. If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it. I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.
Most of my friends who did ROTC to pay for college wound up with a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. I also have several friends who had their marriages destroyed by PTSD resulting from these tours. For those reasons, I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college. If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it. I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.
I assume they were army? I'm not sure that PTSD is much of a possibility for the Air Force or Navy. The Navy can still result in long separations, but on a boat rather than getting shot at by people who hate America.
Most of my friends who did ROTC to pay for college wound up with a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. I also have several friends who had their marriages destroyed by PTSD resulting from these tours. For those reasons, I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college. If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it. I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.
I assume they were army? I'm not sure that PTSD is much of a possibility for the Air Force or Navy. The Navy can still result in long separations, but on a boat rather than getting shot at by people who hate America.
However, there are thousands of jobs that DON'T involve getting shot at in a foreign country for a year or more.
Most of my friends who did ROTC to pay for college wound up with a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. I also have several friends who had their marriages destroyed by PTSD resulting from these tours. For those reasons, I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college. If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it. I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.
I assume they were army? I'm not sure that PTSD is much of a possibility for the Air Force or Navy. The Navy can still result in long separations, but on a boat rather than getting shot at by people who hate America.
Not according to the PTSD research done by the VA.Most of my friends who did ROTC to pay for college wound up with a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. I also have several friends who had their marriages destroyed by PTSD resulting from these tours. For those reasons, I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college. If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it. I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.
I assume they were army? I'm not sure that PTSD is much of a possibility for the Air Force or Navy. The Navy can still result in long separations, but on a boat rather than getting shot at by people who hate America.
However, there are thousands of jobs that DON'T involve getting shot at in a foreign country for a year or more.
17 year old me had no idea this was true. I thought if I joined the army I'd get shot. Loans seemed better.
Hi all,My husband and I met in the Navy.
One thing that I've seen over and over again both on these boards and in other places is people talking about paying for their kid's education. Like many fortunate people, I had amazing parents who gave me a huge leg up in life. However, they didn't have the ability to fund their kid's education beyond a little bit of help. I think I received $1100 twice and while my siblings got a bit more they didn't get anywhere near the 200k that their ivy league educations would have cost.
I took the route of military first followed by school. This was a good deal back when I did it (leaving with minimal debt, would have been none if I'd been more careful during those 4 years) and is a fabulous deal now with the new GI Bill. After 4 years of learning useful life skills, discipline, seeing the world, learning about themselves, etc enlisted people leaving the force these days also get 4 years of school + housing/food paid for.
My siblings took the route of school first on the military's dime followed by 4 years of service. In addition to free college (instead of 200k), my siblings also enjoyed or are enjoying challenging and interesting jobs around the world and 70k+ salaries while doing it. If you tack on the amount paid in school to their current salaries, officers in the military easy make 6 figure salaries right out of college: not a bad deal! Many of my brother's best friends are from his time in the Navy and they've forged lifelong bonds and followed each other into careers after the Navy as well.
Thankfully the general civilian attitude towards military is way better than at some periods in our past. I've always had people thanking me for my service, offering reduced/free things on Veteran's day, etc. However, the military is not JUST a noble sacrifice that some take on so that others don't have to. Its also a heck of a great way to pay for school, grow up a bit, and start life off the right way. Hollywood likes to show the dark side with the soldiers dealing with PTSD and messed up lives etc and for an infantryman in the Army that's a legit concern. However, there are thousands of jobs that DON'T involve getting shot at in a foreign country for a year or more.
In a forum that talks constantly about finding every way to save money, credit card rewards, DIY rather than paying someone: why is there so little discussion about education and especially the military as a way to pay for it?
I'm not a recruiter and certainly don't mind if people have specific reasons. I've just read a lot of "currently paying for 2 kids to go through college" in various threads recently and it boggles my mind.
I think the military has a kind of mystique to outsiders. We have a separate culture, a separate vocabulary, a strict rank structure, and the services exist (in a very simplified metric given to the non rank-and-file) to kill people. I think it's just too weird for some people to attempt bridging the culture gap. Or they are too intimidate by the prospect of bootcamp/OCS/plebe year to try. I've also heard that an increasing number of young people can't meet the physical requirements to serve.:P
In the meantime, I shall amuse you...(http://www.broadside.net/2015/Images2015/150330-13ROTCcolor500.jpg)
Curtesy of Jeff Bacon, Broadside Cartoons
I could give you lots of reason I didn't and wouldn't. Irrelevant to discussion of one's children. The bigger issue is that if you have the ability to save for your children's education why on earth would you not do so? Can you really make a choice for a 5 year old that they will be going into the military to pay for school so you can retire sooner? Not me.If you ask my friends -
Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" fieldThis really is going to vary. I went ROTC, so there was no "break" for school.
So let's say I went military. My career path would be:
Year 1: Army, make 50k?
Year 2: Army, make 55k?
Year 3: Army, make 60k?
Year 4: Arm, make 65k?
Year 5-8: School mostly, make little
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 90k
Total money made: 400k
Total spent for school: 0k
Total 400k
Vs no military:
Year 1-4: School, make little
Year 5: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 6: Fulltime job, make 90k
Year 7: Fulltime job, make 100k
Year 8: Fulltime job, make 110k
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 120k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 130k
Total money made: 630k
Total spent for school: 40k
Total 590k
So I end up 190k ahead by not being miltary, and I have a career lead and earning more every year than my military twin.
And all of this is assuming I don't die in the military. I would need the difference to be at LEAST 1 million dollars over the 10 years to justify risking dying. Risk of death to lose 190k? No thanks
Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" fieldThis really is going to vary. I went ROTC, so there was no "break" for school.
So year 1: I was making about $20k less than my civilian counterparts
Year 5: I was making the same
Year 6+ then it's all me. Doesn't really matter, though military often gives you a leg up if you are in certain jobs/ industries.
I went to college for free without seriously considering any military options. Every branch tried to recruit me, but finances were not an argument in their favor since it was clear college wasn't going to cost me anything anyway. This is one side of the college-funding debate that no one seems to address here; about 5% of you will be able to send your kids to college for free because they are smart.Interesting and good to know. Does this still apply for those transferring from other types of governmental work?
But not everyone gets scholarships. If you're a mediocre student, and don't have rich parents, the military is certainly one way to pay for school. Assuming you can handle the psychological implications of servitude, which I struggled with.
But on the plus side, the US government has strongly increased veteran's preference for civilian federal hiring. With so many returning vets looking for work back in the state's, and facing a national epidemic of highly trained killers resorting to drug abuse and homelessness, the federal government hires them for almost anything. I work in a federal facility and have been involved in lots of hiring over the past few years, and we basically never get to even interview candidates who aren't veterans. HR can't even pass a non-veteran on to the interview committee because the point reward for military service swamps any of the points for qualifications for the jobs. We routinely get hiring lists of six veterans with zero relevant experience, especially for jobs that don't require advanced degrees. We still occasionally hire non-vets for PhD positions, but for any other job with the federal government you basically can't get hired anymore without a military record.
Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" field
So let's say I went military. My career path would be:
Year 1: Army, make 50k?
Year 2: Army, make 55k?
Year 3: Army, make 60k?
Year 4: Arm, make 65k?
Year 5-8: School mostly, make little
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 90k
Total money made: 400k
Total spent for school: 0k
Total 400k
Vs no military:
Year 1-4: School, make little
Year 5: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 6: Fulltime job, make 90k
Year 7: Fulltime job, make 100k
Year 8: Fulltime job, make 110k
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 120k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 130k
Total money made: 630k
Total spent for school: 40k
Total 590k
So I end up 190k ahead by not being miltary, and I have a career lead and earning more every year than my military twin.
And all of this is assuming I don't die in the military. I would need the difference to be at LEAST 1 million dollars over the 10 years to justify risking dying. Risk of death to lose 190k? No thanks
I'm trying to figure out how someone spends $40k on school and has $130k in income in ten years?Bachelor's degree in engineering (or CS, or maybe accounting?) from a state university (10 years ago; it's more than $10k/year now).
I'm trying to figure out how someone spends $40k on school and has $130k in income in ten years?Bachelor's degree in engineering (or CS, or maybe accounting?) from a state university (10 years ago; it's more than $10k/year now).
I'm trying to figure out how someone spends $40k on school and has $130k in income in ten years?Bachelor's degree in engineering (or CS, or maybe accounting?) from a state university (10 years ago; it's more than $10k/year now).
I have a masters degree in engineering, I assure you the raises are NOT 10k a year unless you are job hopping like a mad man, more like 3-5% is standard with me, and pretty much all my engineering friends. They started most of us off at 50-60, through job hopping we are all in the low six figure range 10 years out but no one I know has seen 10% plus yearly raises ever.
I went to college for free without seriously considering any military options. Every branch tried to recruit me, but finances were not an argument in their favor since it was clear college wasn't going to cost me anything anyway. This is one side of the college-funding debate that no one seems to address here; about 5% of you will be able to send your kids to college for free because they are smart.Interesting and good to know. Does this still apply for those transferring from other types of governmental work?
But not everyone gets scholarships. If you're a mediocre student, and don't have rich parents, the military is certainly one way to pay for school. Assuming you can handle the psychological implications of servitude, which I struggled with.
But on the plus side, the US government has strongly increased veteran's preference for civilian federal hiring. With so many returning vets looking for work back in the state's, and facing a national epidemic of highly trained killers resorting to drug abuse and homelessness, the federal government hires them for almost anything. I work in a federal facility and have been involved in lots of hiring over the past few years, and we basically never get to even interview candidates who aren't veterans. HR can't even pass a non-veteran on to the interview committee because the point reward for military service swamps any of the points for qualifications for the jobs. We routinely get hiring lists of six veterans with zero relevant experience, especially for jobs that don't require advanced degrees. We still occasionally hire non-vets for PhD positions, but for any other job with the federal government you basically can't get hired anymore without a military record.
Sol is overstating the situation.
I'm trying to figure out how someone spends $40k on school and has $130k in income in ten years?Bachelor's degree in engineering (or CS, or maybe accounting?) from a state university (10 years ago; it's more than $10k/year now).
I have a masters degree in engineering, I assure you the raises are NOT 10k a year unless you are job hopping like a mad man, more like 3-5% is standard with me, and pretty much all my engineering friends. They started most of us off at 50-60, through job hopping we are all in the low six figure range 10 years out but no one I know has seen 10% plus yearly raises ever.
I'm an engineer too (actually, two kinds: a real EIT (civil) and a fake "engineer" (software)), and my salary has doubled in the last four years. Of course, that's because I have in fact been job-hopping like a madman (underpaid civil job -> underpaid software job -> decently-paid software job where my civil degree is also relevant).
On the software side of things especially I can see the salary progression being mostly reasonable, assuming changing jobs a couple of times (which is more accepted in that industry) and working in a HCOL area.
I'm trying to figure out how someone spends $40k on school and has $130k in income in ten years?Bachelor's degree in engineering (or CS, or maybe accounting?) from a state university (10 years ago; it's more than $10k/year now).
Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command.
I mean this in the most respectful way possible to those that do serve, but I am glad I can afford to pay other people to fight my and my children's wars so that I can live in a peaceful and stable country because the alternative of revolution and foreign millitarys messing around seems horrible. I am happy that the military is seen as this wonderful service and patriotism and is a wonderful experience that teaches leadership and life skills because that keeps the HR costs down.
Man, some of the attitudes and statements on this thread make me sad. When the everyday citizen is so far removed from fighting for his/her country that he/she actually has the temerity to be thankful to pay others to do it, well, hell, I'm just speechless. Incredibly disrespectful.
I won't be coming back to this thread as I don't want my view of humanity to descend further. That said, I joined at 18 and have never regretted a second of my decision. To my fellow veterans, thank you for your service.
Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command.
We have very different opinions on what being in the military "means."
I can assure you being in the military does not mean subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up.
Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" fieldThis really is going to vary. I went ROTC, so there was no "break" for school.
So year 1: I was making about $20k less than my civilian counterparts
Year 5: I was making the same
Year 6+ then it's all me. Doesn't really matter, though military often gives you a leg up if you are in certain jobs/ industries.
Plus the benefits of another MMM beloved, tax optimization. I made O-3 and started grossing 90k about 5 years after taking my commission. Which has since crept up to 98k. On gross, I pay 12.5% effective tax rate, including both Fed and FICA.
Tax breaks aren't an actual reason to sign up, but they sure are fun.
I'm trying to figure out how someone spends $40k on school and has $130k in income in ten years?Bachelor's degree in engineering (or CS, or maybe accounting?) from a state university (10 years ago; it's more than $10k/year now).
I can see only spending $40k on school, but that will get you a bachelor's degree. I was more questioning what bachelor's degree would get you a $130k job within 10 years except maybe in a HCOL area?
A guy I know is in the reserves. His unit got called up for the tail end of the Iraq war. He ended up being deployed to somewhere near the Washington, DC area. He was somehow able to room at a ranch near Washington, DC and had it pretty easy. However, he had previously been deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq.
If you're in combat and receive an order that you don't fully believe is right, what happens if you refuse the order?
Plus the benefits of another MMM beloved, tax optimization. I made O-3 and started grossing 90k about 5 years after taking my commission. Which has since crept up to 98k. On gross, I pay 12.5% effective tax rate, including both Fed and FICA.
Tax breaks aren't an actual reason to sign up, but they sure are fun.
So 90k in 5 years of service. I made 90k the year I graduated college, and skyrocketed after that.
if you are going in a field that pays very little, Military can pay ok. If you are going in a field that makes a lot of money (like I did), the military is a HORRIBLE deal.
If you're in combat and receive an order that you don't fully believe is right, what happens if you refuse the order?
You only have to obey lawful orders. In fact you can go to jail for obeying an unlawful order. See http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm
On the other hand - 98% of American wars are lawful but immoral. Those you need to obey.
There are many great pluses and minuses to having the military pay your way.
Advantages:
- You get slam dunked into the real world - or a version of it anyway. But more real than, say, college. You get to live and work with great people of all backgrounds, races, religions on real jobs. In some cases you get an up front, personal view of events politicians think they understand and journalists lie about.
- You get paid a pretty decent wage.
- There's an opportunity to travel and see parts of the world and understand it in ways you couldn't from a weeklong vacation.
- For a variety of reasons, warfare is no longer like it was in WWII or Vietnam. People can go their entire careers without seeing combat. Even if they actively seek it out. Throwing some perspective on it, consider that living in some of America's more dangerous cities is more dangerous than a lot of our combat zones. Do those civilians get PTSD treatment?
Downsides:
- For the enlistment duration the military basically OWNS you. Even with all the bennies that's hard for a lot of people to swallow when considering it and even after joining. You're subjected to a lot of seemingly arbitrary BS that from a strategic view makes a lot of sense. And a lot of BS that really is aribitrary. And not all your bosses are as good as they should be.
- There is danger. Not just from combat but training accidents and even hazards civilians face. It's one of the reasons the bennies exist.
- It can be incredibly stressful for long stretches even well outside combat. The hours can be gong and the working conditions harsh. A single enlisted person should have what it takes to go the distance their first term without a breakdown. But not all can.
- The military is a huge organization (but by no means monolithic) up to God knows what. Some of it you won't approve of. Indeed if you're lefty lib you'll be spring loaded to not approve of it. And there are plenty of conservatives who've got issues and a wacky subset that believe the Army is going to take over Texas. You have to grit your teeth when it screws up and be accused of it as if you had direct control over the DoD. Prepare to be rejected by ideological fellow travelers - especially if you add a differing perspective not given by their favored media outlet.
BTW, I encourage liberals to join the military. One of the worst things to come out of the liberal 60's heritage is PROUD, PROUD ignorance of all things military. This attitude fails them in the public arena and the halls of power. Trust me, the experience and knowledge will not transform you into a mini Rumsfeld.
Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command.
We have very different opinions on what being in the military "means."
I can assure you being in the military does not mean subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up.
If you're in combat and receive an order that you don't fully believe is right, what happens if you refuse the order?
That's sweet and all, but I'm an engineer with a master's degree, and I didn't make 90k until I was ... 39? 40? The plural of anecdote =/= data.Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" fieldThis really is going to vary. I went ROTC, so there was no "break" for school.
So year 1: I was making about $20k less than my civilian counterparts
Year 5: I was making the same
Year 6+ then it's all me. Doesn't really matter, though military often gives you a leg up if you are in certain jobs/ industries.
Plus the benefits of another MMM beloved, tax optimization. I made O-3 and started grossing 90k about 5 years after taking my commission. Which has since crept up to 98k. On gross, I pay 12.5% effective tax rate, including both Fed and FICA.
Tax breaks aren't an actual reason to sign up, but they sure are fun.
So 90k in 5 years of service. I made 90k the year I graduated college, and skyrocketed after that.
if you are going in a field that pays very little, Military can pay ok. If you are going in a field that makes a lot of money (like I did), the military is a HORRIBLE deal.
^This. People here seem to thing everyone in the military is in a combat role ALL the time. Not true. Of the millions of people serving in the military at any time only a small percent are ever in a combat arena even during an active war. People forget about the giant Navy hospital ships full of military medical personnel that spend months and months administering aid to thousands in natural disasters or during civil unrest all around the world. They forget about the people that the various military services save and render aid to by ferrying in supplies, helping rebuild, providing security and protection to. Or who they pluck them from the sea or off their rooftops or side of a mountain in huge storms. The environmental protection and clean ups. The scientific research in so many cutting edge areas,. I could go on and on. Military members and Vets aren't just a bunch of drug addled killing machines as has been alluded to in this thread, and being in the military doesn't mean you will ever be near combat or in a combat GRUNT or infantry job. Many many many other jobs in the armed forces.Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command.
We have very different opinions on what being in the military "means."
I can assure you being in the military does not mean subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up.
If you're in combat and receive an order that you don't fully believe is right, what happens if you refuse the order?
Or you take one of the thousands of jobs that doesn't involve you being in combat in the first place. The % of military personnel who actually see combat is far lower than some people seem to think. Its not just Hurt Locker/Jarhead/BlackHawk Down. A lot of it, especially in the air force, is much more like The Office.
Here are lame excuses that should not be part of your considerations:
1. "I'm not cut out for it." Bullshit. We've had entire generations drafted. They did fine. In fact, the more you think "you're not cut out for it", the better for you it will probably be.
2. "I'm not good at taking orders." Also bullshit. Unless you have a real plan to never have a boss during your entire life, this is just a fact of life until FIRE.
3. "I'm not athletic enough." This just takes practice.
Bottom line, each person needs to decide for themselves.
Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" fieldThis really is going to vary. I went ROTC, so there was no "break" for school.
So year 1: I was making about $20k less than my civilian counterparts
Year 5: I was making the same
Year 6+ then it's all me. Doesn't really matter, though military often gives you a leg up if you are in certain jobs/ industries.
Plus the benefits of another MMM beloved, tax optimization. I made O-3 and started grossing 90k about 5 years after taking my commission. Which has since crept up to 98k. On gross, I pay 12.5% effective tax rate, including both Fed and FICA.
Tax breaks aren't an actual reason to sign up, but they sure are fun.
So 90k in 5 years of service. I made 90k the year I graduated college, and skyrocketed after that.
if you are going in a field that pays very little, Military can pay ok. If you are going in a field that makes a lot of money (like I did), the military is a HORRIBLE deal.
I could give you lots of reason I didn't and wouldn't. Irrelevant to discussion of one's children. The bigger issue is that if you have the ability to save for your children's education why on earth would you not do so? Can you really make a choice for a 5 year old that they will be going into the military to pay for school so you can retire sooner? Not me.
I went to college for free without seriously considering any military options. Every branch tried to recruit me, but finances were not an argument in their favor since it was clear college wasn't going to cost me anything anyway. This is one side of the college-funding debate that no one seems to address here; about 5% of you will be able to send your kids to college for free because they are smart.
But not everyone gets scholarships. If you're a mediocre student, and don't have rich parents, the military is certainly one way to pay for school. Assuming you can handle the psychological implications of servitude, which I struggled with.
Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" field
So let's say I went military. My career path would be:
Year 1: Army, make 50k?
Year 2: Army, make 55k?
Year 3: Army, make 60k?
Year 4: Arm, make 65k?
Year 5-8: School mostly, make little
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 90k
Total money made: 400k
Total spent for school: 0k
Total 400k
Vs no military:
Year 1-4: School, make little
Year 5: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 6: Fulltime job, make 90k
Year 7: Fulltime job, make 100k
Year 8: Fulltime job, make 110k
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 120k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 130k
Total money made: 630k
Total spent for school: 40k
Total 590k
So I end up 190k ahead by not being miltary, and I have a career lead and earning more every year than my military twin.
And all of this is assuming I don't die in the military. I would need the difference to be at LEAST 1 million dollars over the 10 years to justify risking dying. Risk of death to lose 190k? No thanks
Yes, but the best schools don't give merit aid.
I went to college for free without seriously considering any military options. Every branch tried to recruit me, but finances were not an argument in their favor since it was clear college wasn't going to cost me anything anyway. This is one side of the college-funding debate that no one seems to address here; about 5% of you will be able to send your kids to college for free because they are smart.
But not everyone gets scholarships. If you're a mediocre student, and don't have rich parents, the military is certainly one way to pay for school. Assuming you can handle the psychological implications of servitude, which I struggled with.
Yes, but the best schools don't give merit aid. If you have a smart kid and you want him to go to the school of his choice, you have to save. I went to school for free, but it meant going to my fourth-choice school. I'd like my kids to have more choice.
I went to college for free without seriously considering any military options. Every branch tried to recruit me, but finances were not an argument in their favor since it was clear college wasn't going to cost me anything anyway. This is one side of the college-funding debate that no one seems to address here; about 5% of you will be able to send your kids to college for free because they are smart.
But not everyone gets scholarships. If you're a mediocre student, and don't have rich parents, the military is certainly one way to pay for school. Assuming you can handle the psychological implications of servitude, which I struggled with.
Yes, but the best schools don't give merit aid. If you have a smart kid and you want him to go to the school of his choice, you have to save. I went to school for free, but it meant going to my fourth-choice school. I'd like my kids to have more choice.
Really? A friend who graduated from Yale told me that MOST students there don't pay the full $50K tuition. He said the only people who pay that much are students whose parents have tons of money and can afford it. A while back I heard an interview of some bigwig at Harvard, and he said, "Anyone who can get into Harvard can afford to go to Harvard." He said their admissions policies don't allow them to consider need when choosing students. If you are smart enough to get admitted to Harvard, he said, and your family's poor, you'll pay nothing or very little for tuition...
Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" field
So let's say I went military. My career path would be:
Year 1: Army, make 50k?
Year 2: Army, make 55k?
Year 3: Army, make 60k?
Year 4: Arm, make 65k?
Year 5-8: School mostly, make little
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 90k
Total money made: 400k
Total spent for school: 0k
Total 400k
Vs no military:
Year 1-4: School, make little
Year 5: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 6: Fulltime job, make 90k
Year 7: Fulltime job, make 100k
Year 8: Fulltime job, make 110k
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 120k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 130k
Total money made: 630k
Total spent for school: 40k
Total 590k
So I end up 190k ahead by not being miltary, and I have a career lead and earning more every year than my military twin.
And all of this is assuming I don't die in the military. I would need the difference to be at LEAST 1 million dollars over the 10 years to justify risking dying. Risk of death to lose 190k? No thanks
You pay $40k for 4-years of college, then bounce out and immediately make 80k, rising rapidly to 130k?
Look, you clearly think you are wonderful.
But consider for a moment that not everyone is going to be as wonderful as you think you are.
An $80k starting salary, rising rapidly to $130k, is NOT TYPICAL. In fact, it's extraordinary (as you clearly think you are).
Don't even get me started on your claimed college costs. You paid $40k for 4-years of college? Really? Wow, you really are special.
So you want to a 4th rate school (because top schools charge more than that for a single year of tuition alone, let alone all the other expenses of college) and started out making big money?
Wow, very impressive story.
Consider for a moment that this may not be typical. Most students who go to a cut rate school will NOT end up making big money right away. And unlike you, they will have massive debts.
For mere mortals, who aren't was wonderful as you think you are, the military might be a good deal.
Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" field
So let's say I went military. My career path would be:
Year 1: Army, make 50k?
Year 2: Army, make 55k?
Year 3: Army, make 60k?
Year 4: Arm, make 65k?
Year 5-8: School mostly, make little
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 90k
Total money made: 400k
Total spent for school: 0k
Total 400k
Vs no military:
Year 1-4: School, make little
Year 5: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 6: Fulltime job, make 90k
Year 7: Fulltime job, make 100k
Year 8: Fulltime job, make 110k
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 120k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 130k
Total money made: 630k
Total spent for school: 40k
Total 590k
So I end up 190k ahead by not being miltary, and I have a career lead and earning more every year than my military twin.
And all of this is assuming I don't die in the military. I would need the difference to be at LEAST 1 million dollars over the 10 years to justify risking dying. Risk of death to lose 190k? No thanks
You pay $40k for 4-years of college, then bounce out and immediately make 80k, rising rapidly to 130k?
Look, you clearly think you are wonderful.
But consider for a moment that not everyone is going to be as wonderful as you think you are.
An $80k starting salary, rising rapidly to $130k, is NOT TYPICAL. In fact, it's extraordinary (as you clearly think you are).
Don't even get me started on your claimed college costs. You paid $40k for 4-years of college? Really? Wow, you really are special.
So you want to a 4th rate school (because top schools charge more than that for a single year of tuition alone, let alone all the other expenses of college) and started out making big money?
Wow, very impressive story.
Consider for a moment that this may not be typical. Most students who go to a cut rate school will NOT end up making big money right away. And unlike you, they will have massive debts.
For mere mortals, who aren't was wonderful as you think you are, the military might be a good deal.
If you disagree with some things MrFrugalChicago has said in this thread then, by all means, show us the errors in his logic, but it's not necessary to be a dick. It doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion.
Ivy League schools give no merit aid.
If you are smart enough to get admitted to Harvard, he said, and your family's poor, you'll pay nothing or very little for tuition...
I went to college for free without seriously considering any military options. Every branch tried to recruit me, but finances were not an argument in their favor since it was clear college wasn't going to cost me anything anyway. This is one side of the college-funding debate that no one seems to address here; about 5% of you will be able to send your kids to college for free because they are smart.
But not everyone gets scholarships. If you're a mediocre student, and don't have rich parents, the military is certainly one way to pay for school. Assuming you can handle the psychological implications of servitude, which I struggled with.
Yes, but the best schools don't give merit aid. If you have a smart kid and you want him to go to the school of his choice, you have to save. I went to school for free, but it meant going to my fourth-choice school. I'd like my kids to have more choice.
Really? A friend who graduated from Yale told me that MOST students there don't pay the full $50K tuition. He said the only people who pay that much are students whose parents have tons of money and can afford it. A while back I heard an interview of some bigwig at Harvard, and he said, "Anyone who can get into Harvard can afford to go to Harvard." He said their admissions policies don't allow them to consider need when choosing students. If you are smart enough to get admitted to Harvard, he said, and your family's poor, you'll pay nothing or very little for tuition...
That's not merit aid. The best schools give a lot of need-based aid, sure. I know a family who sent one kid to Princeton, one kid to Rutgers, and one kid to Yale. They ended up paying the most for the Rutgers kid, because the other schools give a lot more financial aid. But Ivy League schools do not give merit aid.
Ivy League schools give no merit aid.
Do you read my little post?
Most merit aid doesn't come from schools. Private scholarships can be used anywhere.
Also, I disagree with your implicit assumption that the eight ivy league schools are the eight "best schools" you can get into.
I went to college for free without seriously considering any military options. Every branch tried to recruit me, but finances were not an argument in their favor since it was clear college wasn't going to cost me anything anyway. This is one side of the college-funding debate that no one seems to address here; about 5% of you will be able to send your kids to college for free because they are smart.
But not everyone gets scholarships. If you're a mediocre student, and don't have rich parents, the military is certainly one way to pay for school. Assuming you can handle the psychological implications of servitude, which I struggled with.
Yes, but the best schools don't give merit aid. If you have a smart kid and you want him to go to the school of his choice, you have to save. I went to school for free, but it meant going to my fourth-choice school. I'd like my kids to have more choice.
Really? A friend who graduated from Yale told me that MOST students there don't pay the full $50K tuition. He said the only people who pay that much are students whose parents have tons of money and can afford it. A while back I heard an interview of some bigwig at Harvard, and he said, "Anyone who can get into Harvard can afford to go to Harvard." He said their admissions policies don't allow them to consider need when choosing students. If you are smart enough to get admitted to Harvard, he said, and your family's poor, you'll pay nothing or very little for tuition...
That's not merit aid. The best schools give a lot of need-based aid, sure. I know a family who sent one kid to Princeton, one kid to Rutgers, and one kid to Yale. They ended up paying the most for the Rutgers kid, because the other schools give a lot more financial aid. But Ivy League schools do not give merit aid.
Yep, and people who have a giant stash like many on this board will have trouble with the need based part unless its all nicely stashed in tax sheltered accounts.
yeah, the best schools don't offer merit aid.
yeah, the best schools don't offer merit aid.
I feel like you may be missing my point, so I'll say it a third time just to be sure: most merit aid is from private sources, not from specific schools, and can be used anywhere.
Which means that the smartest kids are guaranteed free college based solely on merit aid. No matter where they go. Every national merit scholar, for example, has free ride options.
yeah, the best schools don't offer merit aid.
I feel like you may be missing my point, so I'll say it a third time just to be sure: most merit aid is from private sources, not from specific schools, and can be used anywhere.
Which means that the smartest kids are guaranteed free college based solely on merit aid. No matter where they go. Every national merit scholar, for example, has free ride options.
I wonder how accurate this is. I crushed the SATs and SAT IIs with a bunch of perfect scores and was a National Merit Scholar. That was worth a free ride at my lower choice schools but only worth 2k at the schools I wanted to attend. I had some other merit based aid but it was always like 500 here 2k here etc. My brother won a bunch of merit based aid but it was a drop in the bucket for his college costs whereas the Navy paid his way. I might be misremembering but IIRC the various scholarships we won were offset by the school in the financial aid package rather than being added to the financial aid from the school. Again, its been a while so that may not be accurate.
I think we are getting into the particulars a bit too far though. There are other ways other than the military. They can win scholarships. They can take on loans. Heck, they can get married and then qualify for need based aid on their nonexistant income. There are lots of ways to pay for school and people shouldn't feel obligated to take on the full burden of their kid's educational cost. I think the main thing is to "add the military to things you consider" as its a hell of a great opportunity to get a good start on life especially if you go Air Force or Navy ROTC.
yeah, the best schools don't offer merit aid.
I feel like you may be missing my point, so I'll say it a third time just to be sure: most merit aid is from private sources, not from specific schools, and can be used anywhere.
Which means that the smartest kids are guaranteed free college based solely on merit aid. No matter where they go. Every national merit scholar, for example, has free ride options.
Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" fieldThis really is going to vary. I went ROTC, so there was no "break" for school.
So year 1: I was making about $20k less than my civilian counterparts
Year 5: I was making the same
Year 6+ then it's all me. Doesn't really matter, though military often gives you a leg up if you are in certain jobs/ industries.
Plus the benefits of another MMM beloved, tax optimization. I made O-3 and started grossing 90k about 5 years after taking my commission. Which has since crept up to 98k. On gross, I pay 12.5% effective tax rate, including both Fed and FICA.
Tax breaks aren't an actual reason to sign up, but they sure are fun.
So 90k in 5 years of service. I made 90k the year I graduated college, and skyrocketed after that.
if you are going in a field that pays very little, Military can pay ok. If you are going in a field that makes a lot of money (like I did), the military is a HORRIBLE deal.
That was worth a free ride at my lower choice schools but only worth 2k at the schools I wanted to attend.
If you disagree with some things MrFrugalChicago has said in this thread then, by all means, show us the errors in his logic, but it's not necessary to be a dick. It doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion.
Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
I did it for the college money more than anything else (my family was poor and could not pay for the top of the line schools I was accepted to).
I have also been a pretty hard core libertarian anti-war protester, even while I was still an officer in the Army Reserve.
Yes, people in the military sometimes do really bad things. So do cops. So do teachers (search "teacher sex student"). So does every profession.
That does not mean that all, or most, or even very many, people in that profession are bad. Same for the military.
I wasn't trying to imply that joining the military somehow makes you a bad person. It doesn't. The military does a lot of things that aren't combative in nature. Many of the missions that are done help a huge number of people.
Regarding unlawful orders (e.g. "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" type stuff): The military TRAINS SOLDIERS TO DISOBEY UNLAWFUL ORDERS (yeah, I know, you won't see that in the movies).
Every soldier, no matter who far down the chain of command, is taught that it is not only his right, but his DUTY to disobey unlawful orders.
Remember, folks, atrocities like those committed by Lt. Calley tend to be prevented, or ended by lower ranking folks who just stand up and say "No" to their superiors (in this case, warrant officer Hugh Thompson).
One extra benefit of getting college paid for by the military is that when you get to college you're focused and mission oriented. There's none of this "party in college 'til you're damn near 30" or "let's just scrape by with a 2.0 GPA" silliness a lot of other college kids go through. The military instills discipline and motivation - even if that motivation is not failing college and having to re-enlist.This.
I know for a fact that is untrue. I have seen the financial aid documents.Ivy League schools give no merit aid.
Do you read my little post?
Most merit aid doesn't come from schools. Private scholarships can be used anywhere.
Also, I disagree with your implicit assumption that the eight ivy league schools are the eight "best schools" you can get into.
Some of the Ivies are the best schools you can get into. Most of the other best schools, including Stanford, Williams, and MIT, don't offer merit aid, either. So yeah, the best schools don't offer merit aid.
My brother totaled up his time spent on duty at work (Navy submariner), training, etc. and his lifetime benefits/salary/college, and determined that in the Navy he earned approximately $0.17 per hour. That's total wages+dollar value of everything you can ascribe dollar value to.
I assume they were army? I'm not sure that PTSD is much of a possibility for the Air Force or Navy. The Navy can still result in long separations, but on a boat rather than getting shot at by people who hate America.
The US Navy hasn't done diddly since 1945. No major combat.I'm sure the approx. 1 million Navy military member who served in Vietnam would disagree. And those in the most recent wars too:
(As of Oct 2009 so numbers higher now)
• Navy. More than 367,900 sailors have deployed since the beginning of the wars (since 2001), with 147,200 deploying more than once. In all, the sailors have logged 595,700 deployments.
Unfortunately this stereotype of people who join the military (especially enlisted people) is one of the main reasons many who aren't familiar with the various military services and job/career options don't consider the military as a way to pay for college or as a career path. Many people come from impoverished families who's parent(s) struggle to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, and paying for college, even community college, just isn't something they could do. Many kids are kicked out after they turn 18 and left to fend for themselves by flipping burgers for minimum wage. Many want/need to help support their families and having a full time job must come before education. Many are average, and even above average, students but not in the top 5% to get a full ride scholarship or even a partial merit or needs based scholarship. And others just want the "adventure, excitement and really wild things" that often come with military service, or feel the need to serve their country. So not everyone whop joins the service does so because they are "delinquents and knuckleheads", many feel it is a way to a better life or a more suitable life for them. I tend to agree. While everyone here is talking about those who come out of the service dead, injured or with mental problems, you need to also look at the millions upon millions of service members (both officer and enlisted) who have been extremely successful in their lives. Many leaders in their fields and even a few U.S. Presidents too.
5. Delinquents and knuckleheads went into the service. Also people who didn't have any sort of life plan figured out. A few smart upstanding guys went to West Point, but other than that it was the type of people I generally was trying to get away from in college.
ETA: Also some people who have option for college still opt for the military - even enlisted - as my ex-DH did. He had a full ride engineering scholarship to Hofstra U. in NY but opted to join the coast guard as an enlisted member instead. His idea of living wasn't to spend it cooped up in an office looking a blue prints or designing things, but doing something he considered more valuable to others as well as himself so he choose what worked for him. Worked his way up to Warrant Officer (CWO-4) with the ability to retired in his early 40's or earlier with a fat pension and medical for life.
You have a higher risk of death, maiming and YES psychological issues due to DRIVING YOUR CAR then you do from deployment
You can come up with statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.
You can come up with statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.
I have yet to see any statistics that support her assertion that driving a car has a higher risk of death than being deployed in an active war zone.
I did a quick google search to see if it was even ballpark close, by comparing the traffic fatality rate to the total veteran suicide rate, as the easiest possible bar to clear. That test widens the "deployed" subset to include ALL veterans, and it only looks at one specific cause of death among that population. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the risk to deployed veterans who get shot at is higher than the average risk for all veterans, and that there are additional sources of risk for veterans besides just suicide. Both of those conclusions make the risk to veterans even higher than the test I proposed, which is already more risky than driving.
But I'm certainly willing to look at other approaches to this problem, if someone has some numbers to share. Otherwise, I'm going to call MishMash's myth BUSTED and move on.
You can come up with statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.
I have yet to see any statistics that support her assertion that driving a car has a higher risk of death than being deployed in an active war zone.
I did a quick google search to see if it was even ballpark close, by comparing the traffic fatality rate to the total veteran suicide rate, as the easiest possible bar to clear. That test widens the "deployed" subset to include ALL veterans, and it only looks at one specific cause of death among that population. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the risk to deployed veterans who get shot at is higher than the average risk for all veterans, and that there are additional sources of risk for veterans besides just suicide. Both of those conclusions make the risk to veterans even higher than the test I proposed, which is already more risky than driving.
But I'm certainly willing to look at other approaches to this problem, if someone has some numbers to share. Otherwise, I'm going to call MishMash's myth BUSTED and move on.
You have a higher risk of death, maiming and YES psychological issues due to DRIVING YOUR CAR then you do from deployment
But how many military deployment deaths were the result of dying in a vehicle accident while deployed :-)! Statistics - Gods attempt to befuddle us!You have a higher risk of death, maiming and YES psychological issues due to DRIVING YOUR CAR then you do from deployment
No. This post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of risk. Namely, the risk of dying in an activity depends on whether or not you do that activity. Sol pointed this out, but I wanted to provide some numbers for just how wrong you are.
In this case, the risk of soldiers dying during deployment depends on
1) whether one is a soldier
2) whether one is deployed.
The average deployment of US troops (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf) in Iraq and Afghanistan was under 200,000 people. For 2001 to present, that gives a maximum number of 3 million person-years of deployments. Using your number of 7000 deaths, that's a risk ratio of 1 death per 428 person-years of deployments.
The average risk of death due to operating a car is pretty much everyone in the US (pedestrians die in car accidents too). But using only people who regularly ride cars for 2013, your number of deaths of 32719 in an at-risk population of about 300 million gives a risk ratio of 1 death per 9168.
In other words, deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan resulted in a death rate 20 times higher than driving a car.
That's DH's experience as well. He was an engineering major at an Ivy league school, dropped out in his senior year to enlist in the Army (oddly enough 5 months prior to 9/11). He felt he grew up sheltered, and with a silver spoon, and he wanted to do "more" (and he did grow up sheltered in a wealthy family). Coming up on 15 years later he's still in (officer side now). He could have gotten the high paying mid six figure job, he could have "been glad he could pay someone else to do it" but you know what? If everyone had that "it's not for me" "I couldn't endure it" "I'm wealthy so I can pay the lesser folk to do it" attitude, there would be NO volunteer force and all of you on this board that have said these things would be wide open to be drafted again or be forced into mandatory civil service.
You have a higher risk of death, maiming and YES psychological issues due to DRIVING YOUR CAR then you do from deployment
I'm not so sure the numbers will back up that claim, but I'd be willing to look at them if you have some to share. This feels like the same argument I hear about how shark attacks are supposedly a vanishingly small probability event, which is true unless you surf 300 days per year in shark infested waters, in which case your odds of being bitten by a shark, while still small, are also considerably greater than average.
For example, the US military claims that their suicide rate for veterans is about 30 people per 100k population per year, more than double the civilian rate. The US traffic fatality rate is only 10.3 per 100k population per year. These numbers seem to suggest that on average, just the increased suicide risk alone from joining the military is more dangerous than driving a car, before even accounting for combat fatalities or training accidents.
<snip> 4 years in the navy or air force and not only will you not see any combat unless World War 3 breaks out <snip>
i work with vets with ptsd from seeing their friends come back in body bags, even though they werent deployed... had someone that thought about suicide because of survivors guilt too... it isnt because they are trained to kill people that they commit suicide more... it doesnt take much training to jump off bridge, run car into tree, set home on fire, etc...Working at the VA I discovered other not as well know things that also cause PTSD and the issues with getting it covered/counted at the VA. One of the ways one researcher was finding the "difference" was using graduate students to find the homeless vets and interview them. Many had undiagnosed PTSD.
still, why hasnt anyone brought up how much easier it is to get full rides, scholarships or grants than joining army? if someone wants to join military to serve, great... but dont do it for the gi bill, that's a hard way to earn college money... and if any of you are going to say you arent guaranteed to get a scholarship, you arent giaranteed you wont be disabled, killed before you get gi bill either...
Unfortunately this stereotype of people who join the military (especially enlisted people) is one of the main reasons many who aren't familiar with the various military services and job/career options don't consider the military as a way to pay for college or as a career path. Many people come from impoverished families who's parent(s) struggle to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, and paying for college, even community college, just isn't something they could do. Many kids are kicked out after they turn 18 and left to fend for themselves by flipping burgers for minimum wage. Many want/need to help support their families and having a full time job must come before education. Many are average, and even above average, students but not in the top 5% to get a full ride scholarship or even a partial merit or needs based scholarship. And others just want the "adventure, excitement and really wild things" that often come with military service, or feel the need to serve their country. So not everyone whop joins the service does so because they are "delinquents and knuckleheads", many feel it is a way to a better life or a more suitable life for them. I tend to agree. While everyone here is talking about those who come out of the service dead, injured or with mental problems, you need to also look at the millions upon millions of service members (both officer and enlisted) who have been extremely successful in their lives. Many leaders in their fields and even a few U.S. Presidents too.
5. Delinquents and knuckleheads went into the service. Also people who didn't have any sort of life plan figured out. A few smart upstanding guys went to West Point, but other than that it was the type of people I generally was trying to get away from in college.
ETA: Also some people who have option for college still opt for the military - even enlisted - as my ex-DH did. He had a full ride engineering scholarship to Hofstra U. in NY but opted to join the coast guard as an enlisted member instead. His idea of living wasn't to spend it cooped up in an office looking a blue prints or designing things, but doing something he considered more valuable to others as well as himself so he choose what worked for him. Worked his way up to Warrant Officer (CWO-4) with the ability to retired in his early 40's or earlier with a fat pension and medical for life.
That's DH's experience as well. He was an engineering major at an Ivy league school, dropped out in his senior year to enlist in the Army (oddly enough 5 months prior to 9/11). He felt he grew up sheltered, and with a silver spoon, and he wanted to do "more" (and he did grow up sheltered in a wealthy family). Coming up on 15 years later he's still in (officer side now). He could have gotten the high paying mid six figure job, he could have "been glad he could pay someone else to do it" but you know what? If everyone had that "it's not for me" "I couldn't endure it" "I'm wealthy so I can pay the lesser folk to do it" attitude, there would be NO volunteer force and all of you on this board that have said these things would be wide open to be drafted again or be forced into mandatory civil service.
Not everyone that joins the military is dumb, a knucklehead, without options, or poor. Nor do they all come out broken, with PTSD, missing limbs etc. A little bit of perspective. In 2013 ALONE, the number of US deaths from auto accidents was 32719 according to NTSB. The TOTAL number of deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan from 2001 to present is just under 7000. You have a higher risk of death, maiming and YES psychological issues due to DRIVING YOUR CAR then you do from deployment
Wow only an American could say that without blinking
"The TOTAL number of deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan from 2001 to present is just under 7000."
Wow only an American could say that without blinking
You have a higher risk of death, maiming and YES psychological issues due to DRIVING YOUR CAR then you do from deployment
I'm not so sure the numbers will back up that claim, but I'd be willing to look at them if you have some to share. This feels like the same argument I hear about how shark attacks are supposedly a vanishingly small probability event, which is true unless you surf 300 days per year in shark infested waters, in which case your odds of being bitten by a shark, while still small, are also considerably greater than average.
For example, the US military claims that their suicide rate for veterans is about 30 people per 100k population per year, more than double the civilian rate. The US traffic fatality rate is only 10.3 per 100k population per year. These numbers seem to suggest that on average, just the increased suicide risk alone from joining the military is more dangerous than driving a car, before even accounting for combat fatalities or training accidents.
I wonder if the higher rate of suicides by veterans can be partly attributed to the fact that veterans are more likely to be men than women? Also, is it possible that because of their military training in how to kill humans and blow shit up, veterans are just more likely than their civilian counterparts to be successful at killing themselves?
Another interesting question to me - is how much is the removal of the draft leads to the current almost "fetish wrap yourself in the flag you must love everything military/veteran"?It's really funny to me that in the Russian military when they wanted to start recruiting "volunteers" like the United States (in addition to conscripts) the diehard old generals were like, "Look, granted, we'd have better soldiers. But think about what it would do to society." And then they did it anyway, but you can tell what they think about the "volunteers" by what they're called (contract soldiers).
Coming from the Russian/Soviet background, my generation did not consider being a 'veteran' anything special or anything that is worth of different treatment, preferential hiring , and the whole salute the flag show. it is just what you did, normal and expected , if you are male - you served in armed forces unless you were truly very sick (and everyone looked at you strange). each and every family and person I know had multiple family members fight and die in WWII (actually do not know any family personally that did not have a male family member who did not fight). Being soldier means you can die, sure . but being human means you can die (at any moment), breathing air means you can die, anything that is born is meant to (eventually) die - and Russians are ok with it.
Why is American psyche on it so different? Why the fetish? 1st world problem/beliefs?
"It looks like professional armies are better until you reflect on how the United States keeps losing all its stupid wars.
It's really funny to me that in the Russian military when they wanted to start recruiting "volunteers" like the United States (in addition to conscripts) the diehard old generals were like, "Look, granted, we'd have better soldiers. But think about what it would do to society." And then they did it anyway, but you can tell what they think about the "volunteers" by what they're called (contract soldiers).
"
Yes, that was and still is an active discussion - at what point does a patriot becomes a mercenary (who is _paid_ for killing on behalf of the state)? At what point society no longer treats its armed forces as part of itself (as everyone 'serves' ) and starts separating its armed forces into 'them' and starts to fear its own military ? At the same time, there is no comparison in that professional army fights better, is more effective, cheaper to maintain beyond startup costs, at in vast majority of the places absolutely required due to modern training needed to operate at peak efficiency.
Another interesting example is Israel, with (relatively) small professional core and massive draft.
"It looks like professional armies are better until you reflect on how the United States keeps losing all its stupid wars.
It's really funny to me that in the Russian military when they wanted to start recruiting "volunteers" like the United States (in addition to conscripts) the diehard old generals were like, "Look, granted, we'd have better soldiers. But think about what it would do to society." And then they did it anyway, but you can tell what they think about the "volunteers" by what they're called (contract soldiers).
"
Yes, that was and still is an active discussion - at what point does a patriot becomes a mercenary (who is _paid_ for killing on behalf of the state)? At what point society no longer treats its armed forces as part of itself (as everyone 'serves' ) and starts separating its armed forces into 'them' and starts to fear its own military ? At the same time, there is no comparison in that professional army fights better, is more effective, cheaper to maintain beyond startup costs, at in vast majority of the places absolutely required due to modern training needed to operate at peak efficiency.
Another interesting example is Israel, with (relatively) small professional core and massive draft.
The Pentagon brags about how they've killed 10,000 IS fighters and it's like, hang on a second, remember when the Forever War began in like, 1998? Remember how Al Qaeda had like, forty guys back then? Total?
I feel like if I tried to explain this to an American general or CIA boss they'd think I was insane, and the only hope I'd have is to make an analogy to when the same thing worked in our favor, and Germany was gleefully sinking dozens of merchant marine ships all over the Atlantic, but it didn't fuckin matter, because every time they sank 10 we built 100.
I am from Finland(Europe). I have done my country's mandatory(must do!) military service for men. Women can do it voluntary and of course a person can for physical or mental reason be deemed unfit for service. There is instead of military service as an option in my country communty service as a free worker, but that community service is longer and I have nothing against using guns.
Anyway my brother became a driver in the military and he got his driving license for free. Driving license is expensive in my country it costs thousands of euro.
My point being I think it is good if you can use the military benefits. That said make no mistake military service ain't some fun camping trip like som people might believe.
I do like sports both watching and doing and well from military service you can usually get some interesting memories.
NOTE! In my country military service lasts shorter time then 1 year unless you become officer or as my brother something special like a driver. The payment for mandatory must do military service in my country is very low basically you get food and living costs covered.
4 years USA military service is without doubt more dangerous, but you get paid for that and yeah you stay fit and in military service you can get good friends.
Mental analyze? Well lot of different people go to military, but if I analyze me? Well I like Action and Horror movies.... and hate boring movies... and whatever can be said of my military service it was not boring!
Further mental analyze well I have absolutely no moral problems using guns!
My point being if you go to military or become a police officer there should be some kind of mental ok with that. Of course it is better if you like what you are doing more or less.
Yeah something like that anyway:I am from Finland(Europe). I have done my country's mandatory(must do!) military service for men. Women can do it voluntary and of course a person can for physical or mental reason be deemed unfit for service. There is instead of military service as an option in my country communty service as a free worker, but that community service is longer and I have nothing against using guns.
Anyway my brother became a driver in the military and he got his driving license for free. Driving license is expensive in my country it costs thousands of euro.
My point being I think it is good if you can use the military benefits. That said make no mistake military service ain't some fun camping trip like som people might believe.
I do like sports both watching and doing and well from military service you can usually get some interesting memories.
NOTE! In my country military service lasts shorter time then 1 year unless you become officer or as my brother something special like a driver. The payment for mandatory must do military service in my country is very low basically you get food and living costs covered.
4 years USA military service is without doubt more dangerous, but you get paid for that and yeah you stay fit and in military service you can get good friends.
Mental analyze? Well lot of different people go to military, but if I analyze me? Well I like Action and Horror movies.... and hate boring movies... and whatever can be said of my military service it was not boring!
Further mental analyze well I have absolutely no moral problems using guns!
My point being if you go to military or become a police officer there should be some kind of mental ok with that. Of course it is better if you like what you are doing more or less.
Speaking of highly efficient bullet usage, I believe during his 1 year deployment, your Simo Hayha killed 5 people a day.
It would be interesting if the US had a military alternative, a national service that focused on humanitarian and other job skills. Not mandatory, but with strict guidelines. Room, board, and a small stipend, with training and potential college opportunities upon completion of say, a two year service. There've been programs like CCC, Teach for America and such, but a comprehensive national plan would be something a lot of young people could benefit from.
It would be interesting if the US had a military alternative, a national service that focused on humanitarian and other job skills. Not mandatory, but with strict guidelines. Room, board, and a small stipend, with training and potential college opportunities upon completion of say, a two year service. There've been programs like CCC, Teach for America and such, but a comprehensive national plan would be something a lot of young people could benefit from.you mean the peace corp? http://www.peacecorps.gov/volunteer/learn/whyvol/during/ and get out with some benefits to get hired to fed job as well, yes the peace corps might not have "fun" jobs for everyone, but neither does military...
It would be interesting if the US had a military alternative, a national service that focused on humanitarian and other job skills. Not mandatory, but with strict guidelines. Room, board, and a small stipend, with training and potential college opportunities upon completion of say, a two year service. There've been programs like CCC, Teach for America and such, but a comprehensive national plan would be something a lot of young people could benefit from.you mean the peace corp? http://www.peacecorps.gov/volunteer/learn/whyvol/during/ and get out with some benefits to get hired to fed job as well, yes the peace corps might not have "fun" jobs for everyone, but neither does military...
or the army corp http://www.usace.army.mil/ more selective though, on down to national and state guard
forgot about them :D see lots of programsIt would be interesting if the US had a military alternative, a national service that focused on humanitarian and other job skills. Not mandatory, but with strict guidelines. Room, board, and a small stipend, with training and potential college opportunities upon completion of say, a two year service. There've been programs like CCC, Teach for America and such, but a comprehensive national plan would be something a lot of young people could benefit from.you mean the peace corp? http://www.peacecorps.gov/volunteer/learn/whyvol/during/ and get out with some benefits to get hired to fed job as well, yes the peace corps might not have "fun" jobs for everyone, but neither does military...
or the army corp http://www.usace.army.mil/ more selective though, on down to national and state guard
Also Americorps, which is almost an order of magnitude larger than the Peace Corps.
Calimom, the types of programs that you're suggesting already exist, and in large numbers.
Those are great programs but unfortunately, unlike the military, they don't pay anything except a stipend to cover your expenses, a little bit when you leave after your commitment, and often don't formally train you in a useful job for a career while your in or afterwards. I also believe you need a college degree before you can join the Peace Corp. Now if they changed that to be inline with military pay and benefits it would be great. But I imagine if that was the case you'd have to do a longer commitment in order to receive those educational benefits after you were done.
I could give you lots of reason I didn't and wouldn't. Irrelevant to discussion of one's children. The bigger issue is that if you have the ability to save for your children's education why on earth would you not do so? Can you really make a choice for a 5 year old that they will be going into the military to pay for school so you can retire sooner? Not me.
This, a thousand times. I brought these kids into the world, deliberately. The least I can do is educate them, even if it means retiring a little later.
No one should ever join the military for the simple fact that they want college paid for. You should join the military because you're number one goal is to protect and serve your country. (btw, yes, I am a veteran and I come from a huge military family)."Should" is nice and all, but if the military itself believed that, the recruiting ads would leave out all that stuff about:
Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity? Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time. I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc. I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.
Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" field
So let's say I went military. My career path would be:
Year 1: Army, make 50k?
Year 2: Army, make 55k?
Year 3: Army, make 60k?
Year 4: Arm, make 65k?
Year 5-8: School mostly, make little
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 90k
Total money made: 400k
Total spent for school: 0k
Total 400k
Vs no military:
Year 1-4: School, make little
Year 5: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 6: Fulltime job, make 90k
Year 7: Fulltime job, make 100k
Year 8: Fulltime job, make 110k
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 120k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 130k
Total money made: 630k
Total spent for school: 40k
Total 590k
So I end up 190k ahead by not being miltary, and I have a career lead and earning more every year than my military twin.
And all of this is assuming I don't die in the military. I would need the difference to be at LEAST 1 million dollars over the 10 years to justify risking dying. Risk of death to lose 190k? No thanks
GuitarStv,I have, and still do, and I find his concerns 100% real and valid.
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity?
Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders.I don't think that simple truth constitutes a rebuttal. It leads one to certain logical conclusions about servicemembers who commit war crimes, but it doesn't alleviate the concern over being ordered to, or any of the others.
It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.Again, the ultimate source of the orders leaves unchanged the fact that they can be odious, and in context, difficult to contravene without severe and dangerous repercussions. Yes, we're taught LOAC. No, that doesn't mean every squad leader will stand down when challenged by a private over a perceived violation. Now your troop is being accused of insubordination or even treason and there are no lawyers in the field. What does he do?
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.Nowhere in the post to which you are responding does GS say we're bad people, nor do I think we're bad people, but the bad apples are orders of magnitude above .001% by any reasonable estimate. It's a bit condescending to first misrepresent his position as maligning the character of an entire group when it seems clear he's more interested in highlighting the moral dilemmas we face, and then chalk it all up to ignorance when facts really do support the genuine concern expressed there. I don't have to think we all suck to admit that real problems hide behind all our visible discipline and good order. Reality is nuanced and complex, and there's no evidence that servicemembers are less likely to have the same personal and social ills found throughout society. We have our share of criminals and generally bad people, why not admit it? We try pretty hard to find them and root them out, except in cases where misguided loyalty leads to protection of the guilty - yeah, we have that problem. Being honest about it is a step toward improvement.
I have not served in the military. Granted that soldiers are told that they are not to follow unlawful orders, in the heat of combat in which soldiers are expected to follow orders first and answer questions later, how much tolerance is really granted for the lone soldier who believes that an order may be unlawful?Very little, or even none, in some documented historical situations.
Isn't there a significant amount of institutional pressure to just go along to get along?Significant, even immense, in many cases.
Here's another reason why certain people have chosen not to consider the military (mostly women): the systematic, culturally ingrained tolerance and concealment of sexual harassment and rape in the armed forces. If you've never seen The Invisible War (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2120152/), I do recommend it. Not for the faint of heart, but highly instructive.
To the credit of our senior leadership, the last few years have seen a concerted effort to enact a cultural change. But only two years ago at one of those re-training sessions, I witnessed 100 people in uniform laughing over the suggestion that a guy who's blackout drunk isn't responsible for any rapes he might happen to commit. Cultural change could take a while.
Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity?
Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners).
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders.
Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
I cried, watching that movie. I can say without hyperbole that viewing it destroyed some of the pride I feel in my uniform. I still think the military as an institution of services is honourable, but it's hard to stand quite so tall when you realize the discipline of your house is partially an illusion.We have every right to be proud of the things we've done, and continue to do. But we owe it to ourselves to admit both personal and institutional flaws so we can continue to isolate and extract them.
.001% of service members doing "bad things"? Really?Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity? Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time. I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc. I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.
Cheers,
Dan
Actually not true. Google heavily hires from SJSU (or did when I was going to school there), which cost $5000 at the time.Not worth it if going into tech or any other "smart person" field
So let's say I went military. My career path would be:
Year 1: Army, make 50k?
Year 2: Army, make 55k?
Year 3: Army, make 60k?
Year 4: Arm, make 65k?
Year 5-8: School mostly, make little
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 90k
Total money made: 400k
Total spent for school: 0k
Total 400k
Vs no military:
Year 1-4: School, make little
Year 5: Fulltime job, make 80k
Year 6: Fulltime job, make 90k
Year 7: Fulltime job, make 100k
Year 8: Fulltime job, make 110k
Year 9: Fulltime job, make 120k
Year 10: Fulltime job, make 130k
Total money made: 630k
Total spent for school: 40k
Total 590k
So I end up 190k ahead by not being miltary, and I have a career lead and earning more every year than my military twin.
And all of this is assuming I don't die in the military. I would need the difference to be at LEAST 1 million dollars over the 10 years to justify risking dying. Risk of death to lose 190k? No thanks
OP,
Your math is off, along with some of your assumptions. Here is a more accurate view of military salaries, which you can google at your leisure. Of course, I made the assumption that you went to school first, since you aren't comparing apples to apples in your 10 year chart. Your civilian job wages came AFTER going to school, whereas your military wages were PRIOR to school.
ARMY PATH
School 4 years (ROTC stipend ~4000/yr) + no cost for school
Year 5: Second Lieutenant, 0 years experience: $57,100
Year 6: Second Lieutenant 57,100
Year 7: First Lieutenant 69,711
Year 8: Captain 91,466
Year 9: Captain 91,466
Year 10: Captain 94,500
TOTAL: 477k
YOUR PATH (a more realistic view)
Year 1-4 school (cost: 80k)
Year 5: job, 60k
Year 6: job, salary 70k
Year 7: job, salary 80k
Year 8, job, salary 90k
Year 9, job, salary 100k
Year 10, job, salary 110k
TOTAL SALARY: 510k
SCHOOL COST: (80k)
TOTAL BENEFIT: 430k
Some other points:
-What school are you going to for 40k that allows you to get a full-time tech job that starts at 80k? Do google engineers even get that much starting off? I know google isn't hiring from most schools that cost 40k for 4 years, FYI.
-Zero cost healthcare in the military.
-Did you include living costs for your 4 years of school? The Army covered mine.
-Assuming you even make 80k to start: most places that are hiring new tech grads for 80k are in either Silicon Valley, Washington DC, or NYC. Do you know how far 80k goes in Silicon Valley? The military pays a housing allowance based on your location.
-Approximately 25% of military compensation is tax free.
-Every military officer gets this pay. Does every tech grad start off at 80k?
-What are the odds of losing your job at these extremely stable tech companies?
-Last, your odds of dying in the military tech field are about the same as your civilian odds of dying.
I served. Went Navy ROTC and then commissioned as a Supply Officer. You guys worried about illegal orders and all that are talking about very limited situations that aren't very common at all."Not very common" is very different from "doesn't happen". The point above was that you don't have a choice about which situation you end up in, and that some represent real moral dilemmas. It's a valid concern regardless of the exact frequency with which they occur.
What you really need to worry about is not having to do illegal things, but having to do stupid things that are inefficient and a giant waste of time (and in some cases government money).That's a real thing too. Even as a government civilian I see it all the time. Back to slightly more contentious subjects:
No one is going to tell you to start executing women and childrenI thought you admitted above that the occurrence of this is above zero, which means it's at least theoretically possible that I could be the one given that order. Of course, most real-world examples are less extreme, but it's only there to illustrate a point. Less hyperbolic scenarios might include extrajudicial punishment, habitual violations of time-and-attendance regs, or illegal appropriation of government resources. The point is that there are contradictory doctrines and forces at play, and servicemembers do often find themselves caught between law, ethics, and organizational values (both explicitly taught, and unspoken but deeply ingrained). Being caught there sucks.
they're going to tell you to sit in a building every third night with a telephone in a building that has built in fire alarms and call an emergency number, to the guys who are watching the alarm panel, in case the building catches on fire. That type of stupid shit.Or sent out en masse to paint rocks white before a base inspection... man, I know. I KNOW. :D
I served. Went Navy ROTC and then commissioned as a Supply Officer. You guys worried about illegal orders and all that are talking about very limited situations that aren't very common at all."Not very common" is very different from "doesn't happen". The point above was that you don't have a choice about which situation you end up in, and that some represent real moral dilemmas. It's a valid concern regardless of the exact frequency with which they occur.
I would put blatantly illegal orders right up there with things like the stock market completely tanking or someone getting killed commuting on their bicycle. These are things the MMM philosophy tells people not to consider as decision points because of their unlikelihood, and I would argue blatantly illegal orders fall under the same umbrella.I still got commissioned. I'm not arguing against military service based on it, I'm saying there's a difference between "a little" and "none" and you'd do well to maintain consistency.
Of course, most real-world examples are less extreme, but it's only there to illustrate a point. Less hyperbolic scenarios might include extrajudicial punishment, habitual violations of time-and-attendance regs, or illegal appropriation of government resources. The point is that there are contradictory doctrines and forces at play, and servicemembers do often find themselves caught between law, ethics, and organizational values (both explicitly taught, and unspoken but deeply ingrained). Being caught there sucks.
tl;dr all of the posts...You do realize that the rich, mostly, got out of the draft right?
Let me say that I am thankful to have found MMM and I enjoy reading this forum now and again but after reading this thread I'm truly in awe.
This forum, in general, appears to be made up of mostly techie, liberal minded folks. That's fine with me, to each his own.
However, I think that some of the arguments against serving are made from the cushions of money, education, privilege, etc. that haves been afforded TO you. It concerns me that many of you are only too happy to let someone else do the dirty work for you.
When I hear: "Why serve my county and get crap pay when I can get an IT job and make a bunch of money? (in my head it translates to : "Let the someone else do it. I have better things to do. I am much too important" Ivory Towers much?
You forget that you get to do this because of people who serve and have served. Why do you get to pass the buck?
Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if they started the Draft again.
When I hear: "Why serve my county and get crap pay when I can get an IT job and make a bunch of money? (in my head it translates to : "Let the someone else do it. I have better things to do. I am much too important" Ivory Towers much?
Yes, people can dodge a draft, and the whole thing has always been rife with abuse.
I think mandatory service requirements would be much more effective and even-handed. Perhaps 3 years uniformed, or 4 years civil service. The exceptions would have to be extraordinary.
So I did some math on O-5 and O-6, and they both make more than I do, straight up. I'm a senior engineer/ manager in tech. And not a little bit more, but tens of thousands more.
Of course, I do get to go home every night, cook dinner, and tuck my kids into bed.
Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity? Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time. I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc. I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.
I have not served in the military. Granted that soldiers are told that they are not to follow unlawful orders, in the heat of combat in which soldiers are expected to follow orders first and answer questions later, how much tolerance is really granted for the lone soldier who believes that an order may be unlawful? Isn't there a significant amount of institutional pressure to just go along to get along?
GuitarStv,I have, and still do, and I find his concerns 100% real and valid.
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity?QuoteMost of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders.I don't think that simple truth constitutes a rebuttal. It leads one to certain logical conclusions about servicemembers who commit war crimes, but it doesn't alleviate the concern over being ordered to, or any of the others.QuoteIt says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.Again, the ultimate source of the orders leaves unchanged the fact that they can be odious, and in context, difficult to contravene without severe and dangerous repercussions. Yes, we're taught LOAC. No, that doesn't mean every squad leader will stand down when challenged by a private over a perceived violation. Now your troop is being accused of insubordination or even treason and there are no lawyers in the field. What does he do?QuoteAs an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.Nowhere in the post to which you are responding does GS say we're bad people, nor do I think we're bad people, but the bad apples are orders of magnitude above .001% by any reasonable estimate. It's a bit condescending to first misrepresent his position as maligning the character of an entire group when it seems clear he's more interested in highlighting the moral dilemmas we face, and then chalk it all up to ignorance when facts really do support the genuine concern expressed there. I don't have to think we all suck to admit that real problems hide behind all our visible discipline and good order. Reality is nuanced and complex, and there's no evidence that servicemembers are less likely to have the same personal and social ills found throughout society. We have our share of criminals and generally bad people, why not admit it? We try pretty hard to find them and root them out, except in cases where misguided loyalty leads to protection of the guilty - yeah, we have that problem. Being honest about it is a step toward improvement.I have not served in the military. Granted that soldiers are told that they are not to follow unlawful orders, in the heat of combat in which soldiers are expected to follow orders first and answer questions later, how much tolerance is really granted for the lone soldier who believes that an order may be unlawful?Very little, or even none, in some documented historical situations.QuoteIsn't there a significant amount of institutional pressure to just go along to get along?Significant, even immense, in many cases.
Loyalty and obedience are counted among the highest virtues in uniform. Even institutions which overtly teach critical thinking and contravention of illegal orders do not always do so well in practice. Especially when it comes to combat, when it is easy to fall back on the simplest "us vs them" thinking and lump in any suspicious or vaguely threatening parties with the enemy.
Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity?
Nope.
I've been around and worked with a lot of people from the air force, as I worked on flight simulators and weapons trainers for US, Canadian, Australian, and Danish military aircraft. One of my best friends from elementary school is currently a sergeant in the Canadian infantry and has done several tours in Afghanistan, and we still keep in touch. I have had plenty of frank conversations with people in and formerly of the military.Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners).
I'm sorry, my understanding was that the US President was the commander in chief of the military. I didn't realize that he was a civilian. That said, I don't care if your orders come from dancing pink hippos in the chain of command . . . that's beside the point. They still are part of your chain of command. They command you. You still may end up "subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up". That's something to be concerned about.
You didn't say "may subordinate..." in your original post, GuitarStv. You said, "Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command." As for the second part - I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic here or not...you really didn't know that the president of the United States is not a military member?As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders.
This is a nice idea in theory, but it runs into some problems. In the middle of a deployment, do you have a lawyer to consult between every order? No? Then how serious do you really think the military commitment to not following illegal or unlawful orders really is? How well regarded and decorated is the soldier who questions every order he receives in a firefight?
There's also the scenario where you're asked to do something that is absolutely morally wrong, but isn't illegal under local law. Like when the military was aiding child molesters in Afghanistan (in the link I posted). Not illegal, so I guess you just have to suck it up and "subordinate your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up".
There's also the scenario where you're doing something that's absolutely morally wrong, but is questionably legal. Like working in Guantanamo Bay. Or sending out drone strikes in other countries.
99.9% of military members have access to military lawyers while on deployment. Do you have access to one for every order? Of course not. That's why we have training on the Geneva Convention, the laws of war/laws of armed conflict, etc. The soldier doesn't have to, nor is he or she supposed to, question every order in a firefight. It's certainly not too much to ask a soldier to stop for a second if he is ordered to shoot a civilian, though, which, again, is why we have the training.
As for the military aiding child molesters - Yep, we end up supporting some pretty unsavory characters. For this specific case, GuitarStv, do you know what the alternative to supporting the child molester was, and what the repercussions would have been?Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
There's a lot of good that the military does. There's also a lot of bad. You don't have the choice which you'll be doing when you've signed up . . . so if you don't want to potentially be assigned to do something bad, it's probably best to stay out of the military.
Let's get rid of all nuance and complexity. If you're in the military, do you have to follow an order that is morally wrong, but legally correct? Yes. I've provided several instances where this has happened quite recently (bombing civilians, the Guantanamo Bay torture facility, military support of pedophile warlords in Afghanistan).
GuitarStv's post started off as follows: "Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command." To me, that doesn't sound much like someone who is "highlighting the moral dilemmas we've faced", it sounds an awful lot like judging the group based on the actions of a few. Do we have bad apples? Yep. Do we have the worst apples? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps we just get a lot of bad apples and unfortunately they are put in a spot that highlights their own personal rot. Does that mean that joining the military is going to make you "bad"? I vehemently disagree. Guitarstv used three media examples of how "often" (his words) the military does something "bad"...out of what, millions of interactions with civilians? Hundreds of thousands of opportunities to do "bad" things? I fully admit we have bad apples, nowhere did I deny that. Of course we have problems; of course reality is "nuanced and complex". What isn't "nuanced and complex" is GuitarStv's post. He also mentioned "general disagreement with how the military is deployed". That sounds an awful lot like projection of his personal beliefs. Of course, not everyone agrees with how the military is utilized, but the majority of the American people - who elect the leaders that determine those deployments - do agree with how the military is, and has been recently, used. I don't think any reasonable person would label that as "general" disagreement. Perhaps in certain circles where GuitarStv may linger, but not the general populace.We seem to be talking past each other a bit, but we essentially agree on the reality. To wit: being in service doesn't make someone good or bad, though we do our best to find and remove bad ones; truly awful actions by military members are rare, illegally ordered ones even rarer, but the member does make a choice upon entry to subordinate his/her will to the chain of command that theoretically could result in moral dilemmas.
On a side note: If you have personal experience, Zephyr911, with military laws being broken or abused, I suggest you report them immediately. I've seen the military justice system in action; while it is not perfect, it doesn't have much tolerance for those who try to play the "I didn't know any better" card. If you need any assistance in this area, I would be more than willing to help.
Let's get rid of all nuance and complexity. If you're in the military, do you have to follow an order that is morally wrong, but legally correct? Yes. I've provided several instances where this has happened quite recently (bombing civilians, the Guantanamo Bay torture facility, military support of pedophile warlords in Afghanistan).
Meh, you have to do things you think are morally wrong but still "legal" in all sorts of professions. The frequency of this sort of event in the military is probably a lot lower than in a lot of other situations. I know people that were in the Navy and now work in Wall Street and are way more heartsick about what goes on there than in the military. The number of people in the military that have to deal with stuff over bombs that could kill a civilian or similar are like... .001%?
99.9% of military members have access to military lawyers while on deployment. Do you have access to one for every order? Of course not. That's why we have training on the Geneva Convention, the laws of war/laws of armed conflict, etc. The soldier doesn't have to, nor is he or she supposed to, question every order in a firefight. It's certainly not too much to ask a soldier to stop for a second if he is ordered to shoot a civilian, though, which, again, is why we have the training.
Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity? Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time. I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc. I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.
I have not served in the military. Granted that soldiers are told that they are not to follow unlawful orders, in the heat of combat in which soldiers are expected to follow orders first and answer questions later, how much tolerance is really granted for the lone soldier who believes that an order may be unlawful? Isn't there a significant amount of institutional pressure to just go along to get along?
It really depends on the situation. There is a pretty intense solidarity in most units, so it's not so much that the soldier wants to disregard the order, it's that he (or she) doesn't want to appear to be letting the team down. We are given endless briefings on the laws of war, the Geneva Convention, sexual harrassment, etc. The problem is that we can't simulate how everyone will react in combat. If you see a news report about a Soldier killing innocent civilians in Iraq, try to look at the whole picture: that kid was probably from a terrible home, grew up in a poor socioeconomic situation, and is now in a 130 degree heat environment where he just watched some of his friends get blown to bits. When he shoots an innocent person out of rage, who is to blame? The military doesn't give orders to kill innocent people, and good lord, you should see the extent we go to in order to avoid collateral damage. The elected civilian leaders know there will be collateral damage in times of war, and they still tell us to fight. If I'm given an order to kill people in a village, of course I'm going to say no. If I'm ordered to use a drone strike to kill a terrorist that has blown up hundreds of people that has a chance to kill, say, three innocent people...it's not an easy decision.
The US military has been running a torture facility in Guantanamo Bay for many years now. Serious question . . . how is this still going on with all the military lawyers and the fantastic knowledge of the Geneva conventions that each soldier is upholding? The camp has been in violation of Article 1 since the day it opened.
Not commenting on your larger point, but BHO wanted Gitmo closed before he was elected and that has never changed. He's been actively prevented from doing it by Congress, mostly via the NDAA but also using other forms of obstruction.The US military has been running a torture facility in Guantanamo Bay for many years now. Serious question . . . how is this still going on with all the military lawyers and the fantastic knowledge of the Geneva conventions that each soldier is upholding? The camp has been in violation of Article 1 since the day it opened.
Because I would argue it's not nearly as cut and dried as you tried to make it out to be. For one thing, few/none of the combatants are from signatories of the Geneva Convention. For another, both GWB and BHO have elected to keep Guantanamo open, and given how far apart those two are politically, I'd say there's probably a reason both find it legal and acceptable.
The US military has been running a torture facility in Guantanamo Bay for many years now. Serious question . . . how is this still going on with all the military lawyers and the fantastic knowledge of the Geneva conventions that each soldier is upholding? The camp has been in violation of Article 1 since the day it opened.
Because I would argue it's not nearly as cut and dried as you tried to make it out to be. For one thing, few/none of the combatants are from signatories of the Geneva Convention. For another, both GWB and BHO have elected to keep Guantanamo open, and given how far apart those two are politically, I'd say there's probably a reason both find it legal and acceptable.
So . . . I guess your claims of people in the military sticking with the Geneva conventions kinda gets tossed out the window, eh?
Let's get rid of all nuance and complexity. If you're in the military, do you have to follow an order that is morally wrong, but legally correct? Yes. I've provided several instances where this has happened quite recently (bombing civilians, the Guantanamo Bay torture facility, military support of pedophile warlords in Afghanistan).
Meh, you have to do things you think are morally wrong but still "legal" in all sorts of professions. The frequency of this sort of event in the military is probably a lot lower than in a lot of other situations. I know people that were in the Navy and now work in Wall Street and are way more heartsick about what goes on there than in the military. The number of people in the military that have to deal with stuff over bombs that could kill a civilian or similar are like... .001%?
I guess the difference is in the 'have to'.
If you don't feel morally right about a civilian job, you just quit. If you don't feel morally right about something you're doing in a war zone, you don't really have that option.
A better question to ask might be, "Why would anyone who has other options choose the military to pay for college?"
Yep, and my husband makes 142% of mine.So I did some math on O-5 and O-6, and they both make more than I do, straight up. I'm a senior engineer/ manager in tech. And not a little bit more, but tens of thousands more.
Of course, I do get to go home every night, cook dinner, and tuck my kids into bed.
The big one for me was that it's very difficult for a military spouse to have a meaningful career when you're in the military. Possible, but difficult. So I always looked at all the benefit comparisons (mil vs. civilian) with the idea that the civilian side could, in theory, be doubled on the comps, and it's hard to do that on the military side. I've proven this out in that my wife makes 47% of our HHI.
Yep, and my husband makes 142% of mine.So I did some math on O-5 and O-6, and they both make more than I do, straight up. I'm a senior engineer/ manager in tech. And not a little bit more, but tens of thousands more.
Of course, I do get to go home every night, cook dinner, and tuck my kids into bed.
The big one for me was that it's very difficult for a military spouse to have a meaningful career when you're in the military. Possible, but difficult. So I always looked at all the benefit comparisons (mil vs. civilian) with the idea that the civilian side could, in theory, be doubled on the comps, and it's hard to do that on the military side. I've proven this out in that my wife makes 47% of our HHI.
Just to add my .02 to the illegal orders bit...A few years ago a brand-new 2LT in Afghanistan ordered his men to shoot a couple guys riding motorcycles because guys on motorcycles had been killing men in his unit. Some of the men with him obeyed his order to fire, but a number didn't or were left behind at the base because they believed he was violating the rules of engagement for days leading up to the shooting. He's now in Leavenworth for murder. According to prosecutors the LT left those men behind because they were objecting to how he was running the platoon. In this case they appear to have been vindicated in their choices. It's unfortunate that he convinced a couple of them to fire, but with the bulk of his troops refusing to murder and lie about it I think there's still hope.
.001% of service members doing "bad things"? Really?Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity? Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time. I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc. I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.
Cheers,
Dan
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/04/pentagon-rand-sexual-assault-reports/19883155/
Preliminary findings of an extensive survey of 170,000 troops released Thursday revealed that 20,000 service members said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5 percent of all active-duty women and 1 percent of active-duty men.
Is this really from .001% of the military, I think not.
I was discussing this with a coworker...it's not too terribly different than a company really - it's kind of a pyramid. You only need so many directors and VPs.Yep, and my husband makes 142% of mine.So I did some math on O-5 and O-6, and they both make more than I do, straight up. I'm a senior engineer/ manager in tech. And not a little bit more, but tens of thousands more.
Of course, I do get to go home every night, cook dinner, and tuck my kids into bed.
The big one for me was that it's very difficult for a military spouse to have a meaningful career when you're in the military. Possible, but difficult. So I always looked at all the benefit comparisons (mil vs. civilian) with the idea that the civilian side could, in theory, be doubled on the comps, and it's hard to do that on the military side. I've proven this out in that my wife makes 47% of our HHI.
As far as comparing military salaries, also remember that making O5 or higher isn't guaranteed and gets very competitive. In the Army you're eligible for O5 at 17 years of service, and if you don't get promoted you could be told to leave before reaching the pension point. To make O5 you were selected for O3 at a 90% selection rate, O4 at 65-80% of that remaining group, and O5 at 50-60% of that group. Making O6 is from 25-50% of that group and happens around 22 years of service.
Yep, and my husband makes 142% of mine.So I did some math on O-5 and O-6, and they both make more than I do, straight up. I'm a senior engineer/ manager in tech. And not a little bit more, but tens of thousands more.
Of course, I do get to go home every night, cook dinner, and tuck my kids into bed.
The big one for me was that it's very difficult for a military spouse to have a meaningful career when you're in the military. Possible, but difficult. So I always looked at all the benefit comparisons (mil vs. civilian) with the idea that the civilian side could, in theory, be doubled on the comps, and it's hard to do that on the military side. I've proven this out in that my wife makes 47% of our HHI.
Sigh. This is why I rarely visit or post here anymore.
Any person who doesn't see GuitarStv's posts as attacks on the morals of US military members either lacks reading comprehension or is simply being obstinate. Yeah, he has experience. He's actually spoken to people who have served. Cool. That -- and exceptional Google-fu along with a mighty sense of entitlement -- have made him an expert on the US military.
I get that not everyone is inclined or able to serve. That's OK. But have the common human courtesy not to sit behind your keyboard and snipe at those who are inclined and able.
Like many on this site -- shockingly, Shane, you can be military and Mustachian, just look around you -- I am a combat veteran and am proud of my service to this country.
Yes, I am well aware of the statistics for rape in the US, in general. But you just compare in the last year to within their lifetimes. When you look at assault/rape in the military over one's lifetime you get one in three women. That is a huge jump. Then you have to look at the results of that rape. Civilian women don't get fired from their jobs for attempting to report a rape, they don't have to go through their commander (sometimes the person who assaulted them) to report it. Rape victims within the military are more likely to have PTSD than civilians partly because of how the military responds. So the classes are nothing because it is an institutional issue. "Thirty seven percent of the attempted raped and raped women in the VA study also reported being raped more than once and 14% of them reported being gang raped. This study also discovered that 75% of raped women in the military failed to report it.".001% of service members doing "bad things"? Really?Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity? Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time. I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc. I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.
Cheers,
Dan
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/04/pentagon-rand-sexual-assault-reports/19883155/
Preliminary findings of an extensive survey of 170,000 troops released Thursday revealed that 20,000 service members said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5 percent of all active-duty women and 1 percent of active-duty men.
Is this really from .001% of the military, I think not.
Gin,
Have you taken a look at the statistics on these types of things for the country at large? One in four college age women report surviving rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime.
I won't defend the military on this other then putting it out there that we receive a lot of training to try to combat this issue. I think it is a problem in our society at at large and the military is a subset of society. Yes, it is probably not .001% when it comes to something like sexual assault or rape and ultimately we should shoot for 0.00%, but is it higher then the rest of society (by my estimates it is .282%, using the DOD numbers. Unfortunately, I am sure that the actual number is higher.)?
.001% of service members doing "bad things"? Really?Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity? Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time. I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc. I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.
Cheers,
Dan
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/04/pentagon-rand-sexual-assault-reports/19883155/
Preliminary findings of an extensive survey of 170,000 troops released Thursday revealed that 20,000 service members said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5 percent of all active-duty women and 1 percent of active-duty men.
Is this really from .001% of the military, I think not.
Gin,
Have you taken a look at the statistics on these types of things for the country at large? One in four college age women report surviving rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime.
I won't defend the military on this other then putting it out there that we receive a lot of training to try to combat this issue. I think it is a problem in our society at at large and the military is a subset of society. Yes, it is probably not .001% when it comes to something like sexual assault or rape and ultimately we should shoot for 0.00%, but is it higher then the rest of society (by my estimates it is .282%, using the DOD numbers. Unfortunately, I am sure that the actual number is higher.)?
Sigh. This is why I rarely visit or post here anymore.
Any person who doesn't see GuitarStv's posts as attacks on the morals of US military members either lacks reading comprehension or is simply being obstinate. Yeah, he has experience. He's actually spoken to people who have served. Cool. That -- and exceptional Google-fu along with a mighty sense of entitlement -- have made him an expert on the US military.
I get that not everyone is inclined or able to serve. That's OK. But have the common human courtesy not to sit behind your keyboard and snipe at those who are inclined and able.
Like many on this site -- shockingly, Shane, you can be military and Mustachian, just look around you -- I am a combat veteran and am proud of my service to this country.
I have a serious problem with someone who performs torture, decides that civilian casualties (from another country) are acceptable, and supports/arms pedophiles. These are all current US activities undertaken by the military. They were not one off flukes, but standing policy decided after deliberation.
Sigh. This is why I rarely visit or post here anymore.
Any person who doesn't see GuitarStv's posts as attacks on the morals of US military members either lacks reading comprehension or is simply being obstinate. Yeah, he has experience. He's actually spoken to people who have served. Cool. That -- and exceptional Google-fu along with a mighty sense of entitlement -- have made him an expert on the US military.
I get that not everyone is inclined or able to serve. That's OK. But have the common human courtesy not to sit behind your keyboard and snipe at those who are inclined and able.
Like many on this site -- shockingly, Shane, you can be military and Mustachian, just look around you -- I am a combat veteran and am proud of my service to this country.
I have a serious problem with someone who performs torture, decides that civilian casualties (from another country) are acceptable, and supports/arms pedophiles. These are all current US activities undertaken by the military. They were not one off flukes, but standing policy decided after deliberation.
By whom? Hint: not the military.
Yep, and my husband makes 142% of mine.So I did some math on O-5 and O-6, and they both make more than I do, straight up. I'm a senior engineer/ manager in tech. And not a little bit more, but tens of thousands more.
Of course, I do get to go home every night, cook dinner, and tuck my kids into bed.
The big one for me was that it's very difficult for a military spouse to have a meaningful career when you're in the military. Possible, but difficult. So I always looked at all the benefit comparisons (mil vs. civilian) with the idea that the civilian side could, in theory, be doubled on the comps, and it's hard to do that on the military side. I've proven this out in that my wife makes 47% of our HHI.
Of your HHI (household income)? Maybe you should stop being such a financial drag ;)
Sigh. This is why I rarely visit or post here anymore.
Any person who doesn't see GuitarStv's posts as attacks on the morals of US military members either lacks reading comprehension or is simply being obstinate. Yeah, he has experience. He's actually spoken to people who have served. Cool. That -- and exceptional Google-fu along with a mighty sense of entitlement -- have made him an expert on the US military.
I get that not everyone is inclined or able to serve. That's OK. But have the common human courtesy not to sit behind your keyboard and snipe at those who are inclined and able.
Like many on this site -- shockingly, Shane, you can be military and Mustachian, just look around you -- I am a combat veteran and am proud of my service to this country.
I have a serious problem with someone who performs torture, decides that civilian casualties (from another country) are acceptable, and supports/arms pedophiles. These are all current US activities undertaken by the military. They were not one off flukes, but standing policy decided after deliberation.
By whom? Hint: not the military.
Does it matter?
If you're required by oath to follow the order, it could come from a purple unicorn . . . the outcome is the same. The purple unicorn should be held accountable for it's actions. As should any person in uniform who was following the command.
Gin,Yes, I am well aware of the statistics for rape in the US, in general. But you just compare in the last year to within their lifetimes. When you look at assault/rape in the military over one's lifetime you get one in three women. That is a huge jump. Then you have to look at the results of that rape. Civilian women don't get fired from their jobs for attempting to report a rape, they don't have to go through their commander (sometimes the person who assaulted them) to report it. Rape victims within the military are more likely to have PTSD than civilians partly because of how the military responds. So the classes are nothing because it is an institutional issue. "Thirty seven percent of the attempted raped and raped women in the VA study also reported being raped more than once and 14% of them reported being gang raped. This study also discovered that 75% of raped women in the military failed to report it.".001% of service members doing "bad things"? Really?Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity? Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time. I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc. I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.
Cheers,
Dan
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/04/pentagon-rand-sexual-assault-reports/19883155/
Preliminary findings of an extensive survey of 170,000 troops released Thursday revealed that 20,000 service members said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5 percent of all active-duty women and 1 percent of active-duty men.
Is this really from .001% of the military, I think not.
Gin,
Have you taken a look at the statistics on these types of things for the country at large? One in four college age women report surviving rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime.
I won't defend the military on this other then putting it out there that we receive a lot of training to try to combat this issue. I think it is a problem in our society at at large and the military is a subset of society. Yes, it is probably not .001% when it comes to something like sexual assault or rape and ultimately we should shoot for 0.00%, but is it higher then the rest of society (by my estimates it is .282%, using the DOD numbers. Unfortunately, I am sure that the actual number is higher.)?
See: Factors Associated With Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment. Am J Ind Med 43:262–273, 2003.
Now I agree that some of the response and assaults are based on our current civilian culture but I would never tell my daughter to join with those risks. Risks that she will be raped, risk that she will be jailed if she tries to remove herself from the situation. Risks that she will be attacked because of reporting the crime.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/05/18/report-retaliation-against-sexual-assault-victims-rampant/27368747/
I can sue a school, I can keep my daughter from living in the dorms (epicenter of rapes on most college campuses), I can remove her from school and get her help if she needs it, if there is a rape or assault on campus. There is nothing that a civilian can do, for a person (man or woman) who is raped while in the miliary.
"A 2014 survey conducted by the think tank Rand as part of that study found that 62 percent of women who reported unwanted sexual contact to military authorities experienced some form of retaliation. More than half of those women said they were retaliated against socially.
The Rand study also found 35 percent of women reporting sexual assault suffered an adverse administrative action, 32 percent suffered professional retaliation and 11 percent were punished for infractions after reporting. Similar statistics for male sexual assault victims were not available."
Please see this article for more info:http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/trauma/war/military-sexual-trauma.asp
I went to college for free without seriously considering any military options. Every branch tried to recruit me, but finances were not an argument in their favor since it was clear college wasn't going to cost me anything anyway. This is one side of the college-funding debate that no one seems to address here; about 5% of you will be able to send your kids to college for free because they are smart.Interesting and good to know. Does this still apply for those transferring from other types of governmental work?
But not everyone gets scholarships. If you're a mediocre student, and don't have rich parents, the military is certainly one way to pay for school. Assuming you can handle the psychological implications of servitude, which I struggled with.
But on the plus side, the US government has strongly increased veteran's preference for civilian federal hiring. With so many returning vets looking for work back in the state's, and facing a national epidemic of highly trained killers resorting to drug abuse and homelessness, the federal government hires them for almost anything. I work in a federal facility and have been involved in lots of hiring over the past few years, and we basically never get to even interview candidates who aren't veterans. HR can't even pass a non-veteran on to the interview committee because the point reward for military service swamps any of the points for qualifications for the jobs. We routinely get hiring lists of six veterans with zero relevant experience, especially for jobs that don't require advanced degrees. We still occasionally hire non-vets for PhD positions, but for any other job with the federal government you basically can't get hired anymore without a military record.
Sol is overstating the situation. I'm in federal government and although there are a good many individuals who were in the military, there are just as many of us who are not. Yes all other things being equal, veterans do get a bonus in the scoring of applicants, but the way scoring works, an unqualified veteran should not be hired in favor of a qualified non-veteran. Like in any other job opening, it really comes down to who else is competing for the job. Qualified persons who are not veterans can and do get hired for a federal positions.
For those of us who have daughters, try watching this trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fBaFQk6aE0) and this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpj9XoVFoI) for the movie linked above, The Invisible War.I'm not interested in watching the trailers, and I don't have daughters. I have no doubt that this is an issue.
If you can watch both those trailers and still consider having your daughters join the military to save money on college, then you're braver than I am.
So, which is it? Is the military a rational, logical choice of a well-paying job with great benefits, or is it "service" which requires great sacrifice of its members?
Personally, I'd be fine with mandatory military service for EVERYBODY. If all of us had to serve in the military, then our politicians would never be able to get away with starting bullshit wars in other people's countries, because the people wouldn't put up with it. Right now, the U.S. Military is a mercenary force. If we pay people enough money and give them enough good benefits, they will do ANYTHING they are told to do without question. This isn't "service". It's people acting in their own self interest.
That you were aware of. I found out later about multiple relatives and friends being raped and/or sexually assaulted once I started talking about the issue.For those of us who have daughters, try watching this trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fBaFQk6aE0) and this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpj9XoVFoI) for the movie linked above, The Invisible War.I'm not interested in watching the trailers, and I don't have daughters. I have no doubt that this is an issue.
If you can watch both those trailers and still consider having your daughters join the military to save money on college, then you're braver than I am.
BUT, as an anecdote, I was in the Navy for 5 years and never was a victim of any kind of sexual assault, and none of my friends were either.
In regards to the statistics of the article: For the type of of they were doing 558 was actual a large sample size with a large effect size. They had planned for less responses.Gin,Yes, I am well aware of the statistics for rape in the US, in general. But you just compare in the last year to within their lifetimes. When you look at assault/rape in the military over one's lifetime you get one in three women. That is a huge jump. Then you have to look at the results of that rape. Civilian women don't get fired from their jobs for attempting to report a rape, they don't have to go through their commander (sometimes the person who assaulted them) to report it. Rape victims within the military are more likely to have PTSD than civilians partly because of how the military responds. So the classes are nothing because it is an institutional issue. "Thirty seven percent of the attempted raped and raped women in the VA study also reported being raped more than once and 14% of them reported being gang raped. This study also discovered that 75% of raped women in the military failed to report it.".001% of service members doing "bad things"? Really?Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity? Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time. I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc. I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.
Cheers,
Dan
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/04/pentagon-rand-sexual-assault-reports/19883155/
Preliminary findings of an extensive survey of 170,000 troops released Thursday revealed that 20,000 service members said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5 percent of all active-duty women and 1 percent of active-duty men.
Is this really from .001% of the military, I think not.
Gin,
Have you taken a look at the statistics on these types of things for the country at large? One in four college age women report surviving rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime.
I won't defend the military on this other then putting it out there that we receive a lot of training to try to combat this issue. I think it is a problem in our society at at large and the military is a subset of society. Yes, it is probably not .001% when it comes to something like sexual assault or rape and ultimately we should shoot for 0.00%, but is it higher then the rest of society (by my estimates it is .282%, using the DOD numbers. Unfortunately, I am sure that the actual number is higher.)?
See: Factors Associated With Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment. Am J Ind Med 43:262–273, 2003.
Now I agree that some of the response and assaults are based on our current civilian culture but I would never tell my daughter to join with those risks. Risks that she will be raped, risk that she will be jailed if she tries to remove herself from the situation. Risks that she will be attacked because of reporting the crime.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/05/18/report-retaliation-against-sexual-assault-victims-rampant/27368747/
I can sue a school, I can keep my daughter from living in the dorms (epicenter of rapes on most college campuses), I can remove her from school and get her help if she needs it, if there is a rape or assault on campus. There is nothing that a civilian can do, for a person (man or woman) who is raped while in the miliary.
"A 2014 survey conducted by the think tank Rand as part of that study found that 62 percent of women who reported unwanted sexual contact to military authorities experienced some form of retaliation. More than half of those women said they were retaliated against socially.
The Rand study also found 35 percent of women reporting sexual assault suffered an adverse administrative action, 32 percent suffered professional retaliation and 11 percent were punished for infractions after reporting. Similar statistics for male sexual assault victims were not available."
Please see this article for more info:http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/trauma/war/military-sexual-trauma.asp
I think you have a valid argument against any yearly vs lifetime stat. That being said, I would be weary of using the "Factors Associated With Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment. Am J Ind Med 43:262–273, 2003." as the basis for your 1 out of 3 stat. Not that I think their numbers are suspect (although I do think 558 is a small sample size), but I have seen a fairly large cultural shift in the short 6 years I have been in Navy. Their interviews were completed Nov 96 through May 97 and was conducted with veterans from Vietnam though the first Gulf War. I would be interested in seeing if the numbers are the same today.
In my defense, I had all of 4 or 5 female friends (I am an engineer, after all), so statistically...That you were aware of. I found out later about multiple relatives and friends being raped and/or sexually assaulted once I started talking about the issue.For those of us who have daughters, try watching this trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fBaFQk6aE0) and this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpj9XoVFoI) for the movie linked above, The Invisible War.I'm not interested in watching the trailers, and I don't have daughters. I have no doubt that this is an issue.
If you can watch both those trailers and still consider having your daughters join the military to save money on college, then you're braver than I am.
BUT, as an anecdote, I was in the Navy for 5 years and never was a victim of any kind of sexual assault, and none of my friends were either.
I came to conclusion because the results stated it. It compared the rate of MSA vs CSA as well as the effects. I included the methods so that people could see the group that was investigated, but I cannot legally post the entire article.I'm not sure how you are drawing that conclusion from the article. The purpose of the article was to determine the impact of military sexual assaults (MSA) upon female veterans, not the prevalence of civilian sexual assault vs. MSA. Unsurprisingly the MSA had a greater impact upon the women, but the article doesn't seem to support your claim that MSA is more prevent. Also, since this is a non-random reporting system a case can be made for sampling bias so you can't make claims about the military as a whole. "Military sexual trauma - A review of prevalence and associated health consequences in veterans" (http://tva.sagepub.com/content/9/4/250.short) works better as a survey paper but the 4% to 71% prevalence rate is indicative of the fact that it can be difficult to get handle on exactly how widespread a problem may be. Furthermore, it doesn't appear from the summaries that it was always distinguished between military assaulting military or civilians assaulting military.In regards to the statistics of the article: For the type of of they were doing 558 was actual a large sample size with a large effect size. They had planned for less responses.Gin,Yes, I am well aware of the statistics for rape in the US, in general. But you just compare in the last year to within their lifetimes. When you look at assault/rape in the military over one's lifetime you get one in three women. That is a huge jump. Then you have to look at the results of that rape. Civilian women don't get fired from their jobs for attempting to report a rape, they don't have to go through their commander (sometimes the person who assaulted them) to report it. Rape victims within the military are more likely to have PTSD than civilians partly because of how the military responds. So the classes are nothing because it is an institutional issue. "Thirty seven percent of the attempted raped and raped women in the VA study also reported being raped more than once and 14% of them reported being gang raped. This study also discovered that 75% of raped women in the military failed to report it.".001% of service members doing "bad things"? Really?Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things. Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command. Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani)). Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities. It's also possible that you will. Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.
GuitarStv,
Military member here. I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform. Have you served in the military in any capacity? Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders. It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works. We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to. We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners). There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.
As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders. Do people make mistakes? Yes, of course - just like in any career field. Does that make the military bad? If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better. I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc. These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them.
Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time. I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc. I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.
Cheers,
Dan
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/04/pentagon-rand-sexual-assault-reports/19883155/
Preliminary findings of an extensive survey of 170,000 troops released Thursday revealed that 20,000 service members said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5 percent of all active-duty women and 1 percent of active-duty men.
Is this really from .001% of the military, I think not.
Gin,
Have you taken a look at the statistics on these types of things for the country at large? One in four college age women report surviving rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime.
I won't defend the military on this other then putting it out there that we receive a lot of training to try to combat this issue. I think it is a problem in our society at at large and the military is a subset of society. Yes, it is probably not .001% when it comes to something like sexual assault or rape and ultimately we should shoot for 0.00%, but is it higher then the rest of society (by my estimates it is .282%, using the DOD numbers. Unfortunately, I am sure that the actual number is higher.)?
See: Factors Associated With Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment. Am J Ind Med 43:262–273, 2003.
Now I agree that some of the response and assaults are based on our current civilian culture but I would never tell my daughter to join with those risks. Risks that she will be raped, risk that she will be jailed if she tries to remove herself from the situation. Risks that she will be attacked because of reporting the crime.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/05/18/report-retaliation-against-sexual-assault-victims-rampant/27368747/
I can sue a school, I can keep my daughter from living in the dorms (epicenter of rapes on most college campuses), I can remove her from school and get her help if she needs it, if there is a rape or assault on campus. There is nothing that a civilian can do, for a person (man or woman) who is raped while in the miliary.
"A 2014 survey conducted by the think tank Rand as part of that study found that 62 percent of women who reported unwanted sexual contact to military authorities experienced some form of retaliation. More than half of those women said they were retaliated against socially.
The Rand study also found 35 percent of women reporting sexual assault suffered an adverse administrative action, 32 percent suffered professional retaliation and 11 percent were punished for infractions after reporting. Similar statistics for male sexual assault victims were not available."
Please see this article for more info:http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/trauma/war/military-sexual-trauma.asp
I think you have a valid argument against any yearly vs lifetime stat. That being said, I would be weary of using the "Factors Associated With Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment. Am J Ind Med 43:262–273, 2003." as the basis for your 1 out of 3 stat. Not that I think their numbers are suspect (although I do think 558 is a small sample size), but I have seen a fairly large cultural shift in the short 6 years I have been in Navy. Their interviews were completed Nov 96 through May 97 and was conducted with veterans from Vietnam though the first Gulf War. I would be interested in seeing if the numbers are the same today.
That said, the 2007 article, Mental Health, Quality of Life, and Health Functioning in Women Veterans also had the 1/3 result. And pretty much every article that compares finds an major increase from civilian sexual assaults/rapes vs military sexual assaults/rapes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202575
Methods
"Eligible participants were female veterans who were enrolled in a medical
or mental health clinic within the Veterans Administration North Texas
Health Care System. The sample included 270 women veterans who had
attended at least one outpatient appointment during the 5 years before contact
and were able to give informed consent. Participants were recruited via
flyers and face-to-face and telephone contacts. The mean age for the sample
was 46.7 ± 11.5 years (range = 23 to 79). Of the present sample, 64.1% were
White, 32.2% were African-American, 3% were Hispanic, and .7% were
from other racial backgrounds. The mean number of years of education for
the sample was 14.5 ± 2.0 years (range = 10 to 20 years). A total of 21.5%
of the women had never been married, 32.6% were currently married, 5.6%
were separated, 34.1% were divorced, and 5.9% were widowed. Participants
came from all service branches, with the majority from the Army (46.7%),
followed by the Air Force (30.4%), Navy (17.4%), Marines (5.2%), and the
Coast Guard (0.4%). Additional demographic characteristics for participants
based on type of sexual assault are presented in Table 1.
There were no significant differences between any of the demographic
variables, with the exception of age. Women veterans with a positive
history for sexual assault were significantly younger than those veterans
without a history of sexual assault (M = 45.55 vs. 48.77, p < .05)."
I did cite the article, for those who could access. And I did say it was not the end all be all. I said here was another article which also showed 1/3 and was a later date. In addition, I pointed that other articles showed an increase from CSAs to MSA but since I was working I was not going to check every single one. The general consensus is that MSA are more prevalent. And I disagree that the methodology is not appropriate for a population claim, at least among the military especially given the previous and consistent data from other sources.I came to conclusion because the results stated it. It compared the rate of MSA vs CSA as well as the effects. I included the methods so that people could see the group that was investigated, but I cannot legally post the entire article.I have a subscription to the journal through my university. Most other journals I can get through inter-liberary loans so feel free cite any article.
With that said, I don't see how the article supports your claim that there are more MSAs then CSAs. As the authors even note:QuoteThere are several limitations of the present study. Our study was a single-site, retrospective study consisting of a convenience sample of women veterans using some self-report data.
The sampling methodology is not appropriate for a broad population claim, even more so given the focus of the article was on health outcomes and quality of life as opposed to rates of occurs in a broad population. That said, the background of the article provides other citations that support MSAs being more prevalent than CSAs (e.g. Sadler, Booth, Nielson, & Doebbeling, 2000; Surís, Lind, Kashner, Borman, & Petty, 2004), but it would be more appropriate to cite those than this article.
Yes it is a limitation, and yes I would prefer for them to repeat it over multiple VAs, however, that does not mean it cannot be used as support for a population claim given the multiple other studies. All I was using it for was to show that the 1/3 result has been shown at a later date. Unless there is reason to believe the women using this specific VA were more likely to get MSA, the sample can be used to make inferences about the population. Having limitations does not mean you cannot make inferences.And I disagree that the methodology is not appropriate for a population claim, at least among the military especially given the previous and consistent data from other sources.At the risk of derailing this thread with a discussion about research methodology, the authors call out their own data as a limitation in the discussion:QuoteThere are several limitations of the present study. Our study was a single-site, retrospective study consisting of a convenience sample of women veterans using some self-report data.
That line does not exactly instill any sort of confidence that the data should be used for broad conclusions.
Personally, I'd be fine with mandatory military service for EVERYBODY. If all of us had to serve in the military, then our politicians would never be able to get away with starting bullshit wars in other people's countries, because the people wouldn't put up with it. Right now, the U.S. Military is a mercenary force. If we pay people enough money and give them enough good benefits, they will do ANYTHING they are told to do without question. This isn't "service". It's people acting in their own self interest.
Now come on. That was presented using unnecessarily hyperbolic assholery.
In the first pass, you've suggested the US Military as a whole is a mercenary force, where the Powers That Be commit know-nothing soldiers and infrastructure to the highest bidder. The war on terror sure has economic roots, but the economics weren't Iraq's neighbours paying the US to invade. And on the home front; Care to cite the latest military coup d'etat in the United States?
In the second pass, you imply each individual service member is a conscious-less mercenary who will shoot children holding puppies for enough money. That gets pretty damn personal. No doubt the US military has to evolve as times change. No doubt the civilian branches of govt must initiate and monitor the evolution. Do you really want to start the change by unilaterally stating all 2.2 million service members are morally corrupt?
I agree that I would have second thoughts about recommending general army enlisted and especially infantry for any female. However, I haven't heard of many rapes of military officers which would be the rank after completing college having the military pay for it. If your daughter is thinking about committing to the military to pay for college, she is far likelier to get raped while attending college than in the 4 years following as she serves her time after ROTC. Does anyone ever say "I wouldn't let me daughter go to college, she might get raped!" ? Not really.Right - my experience is with ROTC.
Does it suck that the military and especially the lower enlisted in the Army still have issues with sexual assault? Absolutely. Its something that needs to get cleaned up. But I'm also not sure its terribly relevant when considering whether or not to go ROTC to pay for school.
I have seen no data to suggest that officers are raped/sexually assaulted at a lower than the military average. Do you have any actual data to support that?I agree that I would have second thoughts about recommending general army enlisted and especially infantry for any female. However, I haven't heard of many rapes of military officers which would be the rank after completing college having the military pay for it. If your daughter is thinking about committing to the military to pay for college, she is far likelier to get raped while attending college than in the 4 years following as she serves her time after ROTC. Does anyone ever say "I wouldn't let me daughter go to college, she might get raped!" ? Not really.Right - my experience is with ROTC.
Does it suck that the military and especially the lower enlisted in the Army still have issues with sexual assault? Absolutely. Its something that needs to get cleaned up. But I'm also not sure its terribly relevant when considering whether or not to go ROTC to pay for school.
I may or may not suggest military academies to my daughters, if I had daughters.
Personally, I'd be fine with mandatory military service for EVERYBODY. If all of us had to serve in the military, then our politicians would never be able to get away with starting bullshit wars in other people's countries, because the people wouldn't put up with it. Right now, the U.S. Military is a mercenary force. If we pay people enough money and give them enough good benefits, they will do ANYTHING they are told to do without question. This isn't "service". It's people acting in their own self interest.
I have seen no data to suggest that officers are raped/sexually assaulted at a lower than the military average. Do you have any actual data to support that?I agree that I would have second thoughts about recommending general army enlisted and especially infantry for any female. However, I haven't heard of many rapes of military officers which would be the rank after completing college having the military pay for it. If your daughter is thinking about committing to the military to pay for college, she is far likelier to get raped while attending college than in the 4 years following as she serves her time after ROTC. Does anyone ever say "I wouldn't let me daughter go to college, she might get raped!" ? Not really.Right - my experience is with ROTC.
Does it suck that the military and especially the lower enlisted in the Army still have issues with sexual assault? Absolutely. Its something that needs to get cleaned up. But I'm also not sure its terribly relevant when considering whether or not to go ROTC to pay for school.
I may or may not suggest military academies to my daughters, if I had daughters.
I'm an active duty female officer with 19 years in. No sexual assault/harassment experienced. College was a huge, well-known party school where I and my friends were stalked at parties, culled from the herd towards frat rooms and made to feel hunted just walking on campus after dark. From my perspective women in the Navy are far safer from sexual assault than university women. It's just one data point but I endorsed both of my step-daughters in joining the military - one went Army after college (officer), one went Air Force out of high school (enlisted) - and I counselled the college-bound one far more about her safety than the one bound for boot camp.I went to 2 military academies and had no issues either.
I'm an active duty female officer with 19 years in. No sexual assault/harassment experienced. College was a huge, well-known party school where I and my friends were stalked at parties, culled from the herd towards frat rooms and made to feel hunted just walking on campus after dark. From my perspective women in the Navy are far safer from sexual assault than university women. It's just one data point but I endorsed both of my step-daughters in joining the military - one went Army after college (officer), one went Air Force out of high school (enlisted) - and I counselled the college-bound one far more about her safety than the one bound for boot camp.I went to 2 military academies and had no issues either.
Aren't all these issues and problems actually reasons to encourage the good people in our lives to join the military?
I don't see any vitriol being spewed here. I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves. Which, after all, was the original question...
I don't see any vitriol being spewed here. I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves. Which, after all, was the original question...
No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.
I don't see any vitriol being spewed here. I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves. Which, after all, was the original question...
No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.
Given that the data is for the entire military population, not the junior enlisted and there has been no actual data to show that officers have a lower rate, you are incorrect. Post one, single research article that focuses on those officers and compares to the entire population (what the actual studies that been focusing on).I don't see any vitriol being spewed here. I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves. Which, after all, was the original question...
No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.
The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.
Aren't all these issues and problems actually reasons to encourage the good people in our lives to join the military?
I guess. It's the same reason that you bought a house in the poorest, highest crime rate, worst schools provided area of the city you live in, right? Because the need for your family to personally change things for the better outweighs all the risks?
The military has done horrific things. Water boarding, sexual humiliation of prisoners, use of land mines, etc. not so long ago, the napalming of civilians. These are documented practices, not pot shots. These are legitimate reasons why one might not want to join.I don't see any vitriol being spewed here. I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves. Which, after all, was the original question...
No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.
The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.
The military has done horrific things. Water boarding, sexual humiliation of prisoners, use of land mines, etc. not so long ago, the napalming of civilians. These are documented practices, not pot shots. These are legitimate reasons why one might not want to join.I don't see any vitriol being spewed here. I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves. Which, after all, was the original question...
No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.
The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.
What do you expect? Should every person turn a blind eye to this because rah, rah, rah? I think the military is important but There are significant issues that should not be glossed over. I don't allow recruiters to contact my minor children.
When my children are legal adults they can make their own decisions. Until then, no the military does not need them. I think the practice of trying to recruit them as minors is unethical.
All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials. Take it up with them. Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.The military has done horrific things. Water boarding, sexual humiliation of prisoners, use of land mines, etc. not so long ago, the napalming of civilians. These are documented practices, not pot shots. These are legitimate reasons why one might not want to join.I don't see any vitriol being spewed here. I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves. Which, after all, was the original question...
No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.
The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.
What do you expect? Should every person turn a blind eye to this because rah, rah, rah? I think the military is important but There are significant issues that should not be glossed over. I don't allow recruiters to contact my minor children.
All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials. Take it up with them. Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.The military has done horrific things. Water boarding, sexual humiliation of prisoners, use of land mines, etc. not so long ago, the napalming of civilians. These are documented practices, not pot shots. These are legitimate reasons why one might not want to join.I don't see any vitriol being spewed here. I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves. Which, after all, was the original question...
No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.
The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.
What do you expect? Should every person turn a blind eye to this because rah, rah, rah? I think the military is important but There are significant issues that should not be glossed over. I don't allow recruiters to contact my minor children.
The question posed was why don't people join the military for college expenses. If you are in the military, and you are ordered to do these things or other things that are perhaps legal but you find unethical, you don't have much of a choice. It doesn't matter where these orders come from. If you are a civilian, and your boss tells to do terrible things, you can quit. That's an answer to the question that was asked.All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials. Take it up with them. Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.The military has done horrific things. Water boarding, sexual humiliation of prisoners, use of land mines, etc. not so long ago, the napalming of civilians. These are documented practices, not pot shots. These are legitimate reasons why one might not want to join.I don't see any vitriol being spewed here. I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves. Which, after all, was the original question...
No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.
The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.
What do you expect? Should every person turn a blind eye to this because rah, rah, rah? I think the military is important but There are significant issues that should not be glossed over. I don't allow recruiters to contact my minor children.
When my children are legal adults they can make their own decisions. Until then, no the military does not need them. I think the practice of trying to recruit them as minors is unethical.
You can join if you're 17 with parental permission. You can go through training as a minor, but you cannot be deployed until you're 18.
All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials. Take it up with them. Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.
Your lack of understanding about the military is laughable. Your hatred is based on your ignorance.All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials. Take it up with them. Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.
No one is "scapegoating the people who serve." We're answering the OPs question by explaining why we would not consider the military as a means to pay for college.
People in the military always try to claim, "It's not our fault. We're just doing what the politicians tell us to do." That's a bunch of bullshit. No matter what politicians tell the military to do, they don't HAVE to do it. If everyone refused to sign up and fight when our elected officials decided that they wanted to start a war in some other part of the world, then they wouldn't be able to fight their war. The only reason the politicians are able to do the things they do is because individual people volunteer to join the military and do the work for them. When the military couldn't get enough people to sign up to fight voluntarily during its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they started increasing the reenlistment bonuses for people who had already been deployed once or twice overseas. For somebody who comes from a poor family, a $10K or $20K reenlistment bonus is a lot of money, and there were tons of people who made a conscious decision to risk their lives in exchange for the extra cash.
There's no fucking way I'm going to let military recruiters anywhere near my daughter until she's an adult. Those guys have no business going anywhere near our children. The reason they like to get young kids is because they can mold them more easily. As people get older, most of us think a little more before doing things, so there's no way we'd do the stupid shit they tell you to do in the military.
The military trains people to follow orders instinctively without asking any questions. "Ours is not to ask why. Ours is but to do and die."
Your lack of understanding about the military is laughable. Your hatred is based on your ignorance.All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials. Take it up with them. Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.
No one is "scapegoating the people who serve." We're answering the OPs question by explaining why we would not consider the military as a means to pay for college.
People in the military always try to claim, "It's not our fault. We're just doing what the politicians tell us to do." That's a bunch of bullshit. No matter what politicians tell the military to do, they don't HAVE to do it. If everyone refused to sign up and fight when our elected officials decided that they wanted to start a war in some other part of the world, then they wouldn't be able to fight their war. The only reason the politicians are able to do the things they do is because individual people volunteer to join the military and do the work for them. When the military couldn't get enough people to sign up to fight voluntarily during its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they started increasing the reenlistment bonuses for people who had already been deployed once or twice overseas. For somebody who comes from a poor family, a $10K or $20K reenlistment bonus is a lot of money, and there were tons of people who made a conscious decision to risk their lives in exchange for the extra cash.
There's no fucking way I'm going to let military recruiters anywhere near my daughter until she's an adult. Those guys have no business going anywhere near our children. The reason they like to get young kids is because they can mold them more easily. As people get older, most of us think a little more before doing things, so there's no way we'd do the stupid shit they tell you to do in the military.
The military trains people to follow orders instinctively without asking any questions. "Ours is not to ask why. Ours is but to do and die."
Secondly, I think the population in general has ZERO idea what the military does, what it's like, or how politics affects our use of the military. This lack of knowledge, understanding, or familiarity with the people responsible for the defense is reprehensible. Not only would the voters have a better idea what the military does, but it connects the actions of the military to the average person on a personal level if they know someone that serves. Worse, this unfamiliarity with this vital public service is becoming more common in our elected representatives.
And this is why society needs moral & upstanding children to become soldiers & officers.
Definitionally it is impossible to be moral & upstanding and to join a voluntary military. You are describing a contradiction.
I think they should bring back compulsory conscription.
Definitionally it is impossible to be moral & upstanding and to join a voluntary military. You are describing a contradiction.
Too grandiose. Is it immoral to join as a doctor or nurse? What about a chaplain? To serve as the PA to a prison? Is it immoral to join a life saving service?
Your lack of understanding about the military is laughable. Your hatred is based on your ignorance.
+1. You obviously haven't served so you have no idea what actually goes on. It's also amazing to me that you bash all the military when they are honorable men and women.
signed, a veteran.
If you two have knowledge about the military which might help us to understand why we should encourage our children to join up to get help paying for college, why not enlighten the rest of us? Just writing, "Well I'm a veteran and you don't know shit about the military because you never 'served'," doesn't really help us to get a better understanding.
I stand behind my claim that politicians aren't the only ones to blame for the two ridiculous wars our country has been involved in in the last ~14 years. W. and his merry band of Neocons started the wars, but individual members of the military should be held responsible for fighting the wars. If individual Americans hadn't been willing to sign up and fight in our government's stupid wars, they wouldn't have happened and over a million people would still be alive today. Individual members of the military are the ones who fought the wars, and for what? We're much less safe today than we were in 2001. BECAUSE of the wars members of the military chose to fight. They could've just said, "Fuck you!" to W and his buddies, and they would've had to come up with a different plan.
Definitionally it is impossible to be moral & upstanding and to join a voluntary military. You are describing a contradiction.
Too grandiose. Is it immoral to join as a doctor or nurse? What about a chaplain? To serve as the PA to a prison? Is it immoral to join a life saving service?
I think you lose all ability to claim yourself as morally upstanding any time you voluntarily subjugate your own decision making to another party. You may be moral, but if you pledge allegiance to an immoral party that can compel you to participate in immoral activities then your own morality isn't really relevant anymore.
I think most soldiers are good people. I think the US military is trying to do good things. I know that some US soldiers have done terribly immoral things, and millions more have inadvertently supported them. Even the guy who procures groceries for the staff at Gitmo is complicit in torture.
Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork?
Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork?
As I said in the thread above, I met a whole bunch of Army Infantry men and women who were all bummed out that their orders to deploy to Iraq had been cancelled. The only reason for their disappointment any of them were able to articulate was that they had been counting on the extra pay that they would get if they were deployed.
For those of you who've been in the military, is it or is it not true that the government pays you extra money if you go overseas to fight? I lost track of how many people in my community returned from overseas deployments and immediately bought new pickup trucks. My guess is that that money must've come from somewhere.
So, in the spirit of intellectual fun; how far would you say the immorality goes?
So, in the spirit of intellectual fun; how far would you say the immorality goes?
It's not very complicated or intellectually challenging. Participating in or directly aiding an imperialist war machine is one of the worst things you can do. The cost is far far higher than the benefit of a college education.
Not a third. 16%. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/So, in the spirit of intellectual fun; how far would you say the immorality goes?
It's not very complicated or intellectually challenging. Participating in or directly aiding an imperialist war machine is one of the worst things you can do. The cost is far far higher than the benefit of a college education.
Brawndo, Sailor Sam is making the point that we ALL directly aid an imperialist war machine. I pay US taxes, and approximately one third of those dollars are spent on the US military, which uses that money to do some great stuff and some horrible stuff.
How was invading Iraq a last resort?If you two have knowledge about the military which might help us to understand why we should encourage our children to join up to get help paying for college, why not enlighten the rest of us? Just writing, "Well I'm a veteran and you don't know shit about the military because you never 'served'," doesn't really help us to get a better understanding.
I stand behind my claim that politicians aren't the only ones to blame for the two ridiculous wars our country has been involved in in the last ~14 years. W. and his merry band of Neocons started the wars, but individual members of the military should be held responsible for fighting the wars. If individual Americans hadn't been willing to sign up and fight in our government's stupid wars, they wouldn't have happened and over a million people would still be alive today. Individual members of the military are the ones who fought the wars, and for what? We're much less safe today than we were in 2001. BECAUSE of the wars members of the military chose to fight. They could've just said, "Fuck you!" to W and his buddies, and they would've had to come up with a different plan.
Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork? If you have any understanding of international relations you understand that we only use the military as a last resort. We spend years leveraging assets with NGOs, the State Department, and various international organizations. Ideally, the goal would be to eliminate or neutralize the threat while it's small and unable to present a threat to our country, rather than waiting for a situation like Germany or Japan rapidly expanding and consolidating power before we intervene.
Also, most people also don't understand that the military is primarily an economic force. The largest threat to our country is economic. If a major competitor like China were to close all trade moving through the South China sea, it would cripple our economy. This is turn would cripple our military (example: targeting Japanese oil tankers instead of ships during WW2 won us the war). So when people ask why the US military cares about dissidents in the south Philippine islands, it's complicated and usually at the request of the local government through the State Department, but global economic stability is a vital area of our national security strategy.
Brawndo, Sailor Sam is making the point that we ALL directly aid an imperialist war machine. I pay US taxes, and approximately one third of those dollars are spent on the US military, which uses that money to do some great stuff and some horrible stuff.
I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime. You can apply that any ANY organization, ANY group in America.
Not a third. 16%.
Sol wants to take this to rendition and torture in black locations. Those were run by the CIA, not the military, certainly not Marines. So not the military.
I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime.
you're missing the point. it's not a minority that are committing a crime. it's 100%: all of it and all of the people who participate.
Sol, you usually have pretty solid arguments, but your numbers are way off and now the CIA and the military are exactly the same. Weak sauce.I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime. You can apply that any ANY organization, ANY group in America.
Perhaps, but I think it's a critique that applies more sharply to organizations that require all members to make a pledge of obedience, and then trains them to subvert their own judgment to the chain of command.
To continue the above analogy about people living in Germany in the 1930s, I agree with your assessment that an active Nazi party member is more complicit than a non-party member who passively benefits from living in a resurgent Germany. But in this case, we're talking about the difference between civilians who benefit passively (like me and presumably like Brawndo) and active members of the organization committing the crime. Not every Nazi Party member worked at a concentration camp, but we still hold them each individually responsible for the sins of their group.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that all military personnel are equally complicit in the crimes committed by a few. I agree with you on that point. But I still think that a person who volunteers for military service has made a conscious decision to support the things the military does, and forsaken their individual right to protest the things the military does. That person has got to be slightly more complicit than a peacenik hippie who burned his draft card, but still benefits from living in a country with a ruthlessly efficient military. Right?Not a third. 16%.
I didn't look up a number before posting, but isn't the argument equally valid at 1%? This isn't a thread about the federal budget.Sol wants to take this to rendition and torture in black locations. Those were run by the CIA, not the military, certainly not Marines. So not the military.
I merely used such examples above as easy and familiar examples, because I think there's been enough pointed critque of the military in this thread without me piling on with additional specific examples. I don't think anyone here needs to be convinced that the US military has done some truly terrible things over the years on behalf of the American public.
And from the perspective of this thread, the CIA and the military are equivalent representative subdivisions of the US government. They will both send you to college for free. They both require an oath of obedience. They both try to do good, and sometimes do bad instead. We're not here to prosecute the military in particular, we've instead been discussing the merits of volunteering for an organization that may ask you to do things you don't agree with, and whether the benefits you derive from joining up are worth the loss of personal freedom. The argument doesn't change if any particular example were entirely devoid of military involvement.
Sol, you usually have pretty solid arguments, but your numbers are way off and now the CIA and the military are exactly the same. Weak sauce.
This is a thread about the military.
Comparing the US military to Al Qaeda is interesting.
I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime.
you're missing the point. it's not a minority that are committing a crime. it's 100%: all of it and all of the people who participate.
Perhaps, but I think it's a critique that applies more sharply to organizations that require all members to make a pledge of obedience, and then trains them to subvert their own judgment to the chain of command.
Actually it is a thread about using the military to pay for college. Now, what role has your lab played in illegal and immoral acts of the US government? When did you stop beating your wife Sol!!??This is a thread about the military.
This was a thread about paying for college, and now it's a thread about how people feel about their nation doing some ugly and unfortunate things. It's only a thread "about the military" for military members who took umbrage at the criticisms leveled against them, and rose up to try to defend their honor.QuoteComparing the US military to Al Qaeda is interesting.
Slow down there, Hoss. I did nothing of the sort and you know it. I was responding to your suggestion that small amounts of support for an organization do not count as support. I gave you an example that I thought would speak to your sensibilities, to illustrate that yes even tiny amounts still count. This whole discussion is about how being a tiny cog in a larger machine challenges some people's sense of morality.
It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military.
Those sorts of decisions are not the kind of thing that one officer with a conscience can stop. The entire US military carefully planned and plotted to make that happen, because they thought it was the most moral thing to do at the time. Murdering civilians is bad, but America did it. Torture is bad, but America did it. Supporting pedophiles is bad, but America did it. Overthrowing democracies to install dictators is bad, but America did it. Suppressing sexual assault claims within the ranks is bad, but America did it. Assassinating foreign leaders is bad, but America did it. Violating due process is bad, but America did it. Killing American citizens instead of arresting them is bad, but America did it. These are all carefully deliberated policy positions of the US government, not random flukes that could be avoided if we only had better soldiers, and some people find them too problematic to rationalize volunteering for military service. We're still a free country, and as long as we have an all-volunteer force they still get to make that decision.
Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't think Dick Cheney was an evil man, for example, I think he was a tragically misguided man. He tried to do good and failed, and we as a nation bear the scars of countless men like him and the bad decisions they have made. I'd like to believe those scars are recognized exceptions, not our national ideals made manifest.
I respect your opinions, and I agree with your premise that the world would be a much better place if the military wasn't necessary, and I'd wholly support that. However, that idealism isn't likely to spring into being anytime soon. I'd rather have a professional fighting force and not need it, than not have one and need it.
I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime.
you're missing the point. it's not a minority that are committing a crime. it's 100%: all of it and all of the people who participate.
You're going to have to elaborate on this.
Do you return fire at someone shooting at you who's using a child as a shield?
It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military.
Statistically, you're more like to be sexually assaulted at a college than in the military. The military also has a much higher conviction rate for sexual assault and rape. Also, the military is subject to several reporting requirements and restrictions that the average citizen isn't subject to. The UCMJ is a much harsher justice system. When you read these reports about sexual assault, understand that they're extrapolating information from the cases that were reported and ASSUMING that 4 out of 5 people don't report an incident. The military also expanded the definition of sexual assault to include touching perceived to be sexual in nature (like your arm for instance). People were afraid of accidentally brushing in a hallway for a while there.
Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork? If you have any understanding of international relations you understand that we only use the military as a last resort. We spend years leveraging assets with NGOs, the State Department, and various international organizations. Ideally, the goal would be to eliminate or neutralize the threat while it's small and unable to present a threat to our country, rather than waiting for a situation like Germany or Japan rapidly expanding and consolidating power before we intervene.
Also, most people also don't understand that the military is primarily an economic force. The largest threat to our country is economic.
Statistically, you're more like to be sexually assaulted at a college than in the military. The military also has a much higher conviction rate for sexual assault and rape. Also, the military is subject to several reporting requirements and restrictions that the average citizen isn't subject to. The UCMJ is a much harsher justice system. When you read these reports about sexual assault, understand that they're extrapolating information from the cases that were reported and ASSUMING that 4 out of 5 people don't report an incident. The military also expanded the definition of sexual assault to include touching perceived to be sexual in nature (like your arm for instance). People were afraid of accidentally brushing in a hallway for a while there.
Maybe you missed the pages of this thread that were dedicated to talking about the prevalence of sexual assaults against young women in the military. Apparently, in certain branches of the military enlisted women have a much higher probability of being sexually assaulted or raped than if they were civilians. In the thread above former members of the military recommended against women enlisting in certain branches of the military because of the extreme danger of being sexually assaulted. The movie The Invisible War (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpj9XoVFoI) has many interviews with women who were sexually abused in the military. One of the young women said that the treatment she got from the military after she reported it was as bad or worse than the rape itself. All the women who were interviewed said they were retaliated against professionally after they reported that they had been raped. Apparently, the military only convicts ~7% of people charged with sexual assault. It's hard to see how that can be "much higher" than civilian courts, especially since the stigma is so great against reporting sexual assault in the military. Any woman who reports sexual assault in the military has to know that it will be the end of her military career. That's why most sexual assaults in the military go unreported.
When my children are legal adults they can make their own decisions. Until then, no the military does not need them. I think the practice of trying to recruit them as minors is unethical.
You can join if you're 17 with parental permission. You can go through training as a minor, but you cannot be deployed until you're 18.
I can personally attest that, while you can join as a minor with both parents' consent; the idea that they can't do anything is a flexible concept.
Explain how the US made money invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Please cite your work.Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork? If you have any understanding of international relations you understand that we only use the military as a last resort. We spend years leveraging assets with NGOs, the State Department, and various international organizations. Ideally, the goal would be to eliminate or neutralize the threat while it's small and unable to present a threat to our country, rather than waiting for a situation like Germany or Japan rapidly expanding and consolidating power before we intervene.
Not all, but most former members of the military I've known are hawks. They vote Republican, and they like candidates who have military experience and are tough on "defense," i.e., they want to invade other people's countries and take their stuff.QuoteAlso, most people also don't understand that the military is primarily an economic force. The largest threat to our country is economic.
I totally agree with this. The main reasons why our military invades or doesn't invade any given country all have to do with money. The whole moral superiority, patriotism thing is just a ruse to cover up the U.S. government's real agenda.
It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military.
While it's an admirable goal, I'm honestly not as worried about it as I probably should be. The military does the best that it can. They're not perfect, and never will be. I think you have to accept some degree if malfunction in any large organization, especially if the cost to fix it is more than the cost of the problem.
But I suspect folks like GuitarSV are less concerned about the bad apple problems that could theoretically be fixed by "including more moral and talented people in the military". They seem more concerned about the structural, carefully orchestrated problems (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/why-do-so-few-people-consider-military-paying-for-college/msg943363/#msg943363). Not a crazy dude shooting up a mess hall or a soldier offing a bunch of civilians in a warzone, more like the instantaneous murder of an entire city by nuclear weapons. That sort of crime was a carefully thought out and orchestrated act of evil, done with the best of intentions but still evil. Women and children, noncombatants, hospitals and day care centers and nursing homes, all wiped out instantly in a giant mushroom cloud. Then, as if that wasn't terrible enough, we did it all again three days later somewhere else. I'm still not sure what the excuse is for dropping the second one, honestly.
Those sorts of decisions are not the kind of thing that one officer with a conscience can stop. The entire US military carefully planned and plotted to make that happen, because they thought it was the most moral thing to do at the time. Murdering civilians is bad, but America did it. Torture is bad, but America did it. Supporting pedophiles is bad, but America did it. Overthrowing democracies to install dictators is bad, but America did it. Suppressing sexual assault claims within the ranks is bad, but America did it. Assassinating foreign leaders is bad, but America did it. Violating due process is bad, but America did it. Killing American citizens instead of arresting them is bad, but America did it. These are all carefully deliberated policy positions of the US government, not random flukes that could be avoided if we only had better soldiers, and some people find them too problematic to rationalize volunteering for military service. We're still a free country, and as long as we have an all-volunteer force they still get to make that decision.
Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't think Dick Cheney was an evil man, for example, I think he was a tragically misguided man. He tried to do good and failed, and we as a nation bear the scars of countless men like him and the bad decisions they have made. I'd like to believe those scars are recognized exceptions, not our national ideals made manifest.
That is not true. Even the military said they were doing worse than civilians (1/4-1/6 for college vs 1/3 for military). They brought in Dr. David Lasik, one of the leading civilian researchers on rapists because that. And prior to that, the response to rape/sexual assault was to harm the victim, not prosecute the attacker.Those sorts of decisions are not the kind of thing that one officer with a conscience can stop. The entire US military carefully planned and plotted to make that happen, because they thought it was the most moral thing to do at the time. Murdering civilians is bad, but America did it. Torture is bad, but America did it. Supporting pedophiles is bad, but America did it. Overthrowing democracies to install dictators is bad, but America did it. Suppressing sexual assault claims within the ranks is bad, but America did it. Assassinating foreign leaders is bad, but America did it. Violating due process is bad, but America did it. Killing American citizens instead of arresting them is bad, but America did it. These are all carefully deliberated policy positions of the US government, not random flukes that could be avoided if we only had better soldiers, and some people find them too problematic to rationalize volunteering for military service. We're still a free country, and as long as we have an all-volunteer force they still get to make that decision.
Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't think Dick Cheney was an evil man, for example, I think he was a tragically misguided man. He tried to do good and failed, and we as a nation bear the scars of countless men like him and the bad decisions they have made. I'd like to believe those scars are recognized exceptions, not our national ideals made manifest.
Almost half of those things have, and do, occur with no military involvement at all. Is it entirely possible that someone can have a moral justification to join the military to PREVENT atrocities? Not just in our government, but to wave the democracy flag and stop global injustice? I'm sure you could have advocated peaceful protest against Germany invading Poland, yet that wouldn't have stopped the invasion or the wholesale slaughter of Poles.
Statistically, you're more like to be sexually assaulted at a college than in the military. The military also has a much higher conviction rate for sexual assault and rape. Also, the military is subject to several reporting requirements and restrictions that the average citizen isn't subject to. The UCMJ is a much harsher justice system. When you read these reports about sexual assault, understand that they're extrapolating information from the cases that were reported and ASSUMING that 4 out of 5 people don't report an incident. The military also expanded the definition of sexual assault to include touching perceived to be sexual in nature (like your arm for instance). People were afraid of accidentally brushing in a hallway for a while there.
What do you think the phrase "defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic" means? Has our military done terrible things? Yes. I personally think Sherman's march through the south during the Civil War, burning cities and killing thousands, ultimately saved lives by crippling the south's infrastructure and shortening the war. The same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, it makes you uncomfortable that an organisation you support kills people. Would you rather bomb a compound and possibly kill civilians working with terrorists, or continue to allow them to kill hundreds more? That's what we pay it to do, to make those judgement calls and live with the result. It's kind of like that moral question about time-traveling back and killing Hitler before he came to power. Would you murder an innocent if you knew it would save millions?
I'd also like to argue that all of the major policy decisions are made by civilians, appointed or elected. Lincoln authorized Sherman's march. Truman authorized the bombing of Japan. The Secretary of Defense and his staff of civilians that run the military and develop policy within the US government. A military member doesn't get to decide that. We'd rather not have a force capable of leveling major cities with significant and direct influence within the government.
I think FDR was one of the worst presidents we've ever had, and we'll forever bear the scars from the bad decisions he put into motion. But that's just my opinion.
Imagine you, yourself, are in a situation, say a hostage situation or a terrible car accident, something that COULD theoretically happen in your apparently super moral country of Canada where no one does any wrong.
There are two lives in this situation, both badly injured or about to be, one is a stranger, the other someone you love, your wife, your child, your mother etc. You are asked to CHOOSE who will live. 99% of people, in that situation, I would suspect would go with the loved one. You could offer to sacrifice yourself, but the human will to live is a basic drive. Now, it's HIGHLY immoral that you would choose the death of the stranger over the death of a loved one, however, attachments being what they are most people would do it without a second thought. Heck I KNOW I would choose my husband over a person I didn't know because their life doesn't, in the heat of the moment, directly influence mine.
Now what does this have to do with military actions? Everything. One of the BIGGEST things I hear is that the fight is kept over there, so that it doesn't come over here.
So that our loved ones can go to the market without fearing for their lives, that we don't have to worry about IEDs on our daily car ride to the store or the doctors office etc.
Most servicemen, DESPITE what you think, deploy not for the money or for bloodlust, but for the desire and drive to keep their loved ones safe from people wishing to do us and our way of life, harm.
Now, we all wish the world was a peachy keen 1950's movie where world peace was a reality and everyone sang their nations version of koombaya around a campfire. It's not. Despite how badly you want it to be. This is reality, there are VERY real threats to this world, and very real world monsters on a power trip. I guaran-damn-tee you that most soldiers do not want to go to war any longer.
However, until certain nations step off the crazy train that involves mass murdering their own women and children and subjugating entire factions of the population on the basis of religion, skin color, language or genitalia, well, frankly, that's not a reality.
I wish the people of these nations, and the able bodied men in particular, would stop fleeing to Europe and finally stand up to the terrorists that are destroying their way of life, but they aren't, and their governments are so damn corrupt that as long as the money keeps flowing into the elites pockets they don't give a damn about the peasants.
It is very easy for you to sit in your Ivory Tower and judge all the "immoral" people in the world, but as others have pointed out, until you lose someone to irrational violence, or you yourself are put into a situation that is life or death, you will never be able to understand, and for your sake, I HOPE you are never in that situation. Instead you sit, like an old school Vietnam runner, in a foreign country, running your mouth about the immoral decisions people make here in the US. Are there problems with the military, oh hell yea, never going to disagree on that one. But, there are problems with EVERY company, government, job, etc out there. All an INDIVIDUAL can do, is make the right decision, for them, in the moment that it has to be made.
Human beings, after all, are not infallible.
words
Agreed. Why do you think that totally losing any moral authority by your actions, and becoming one of the very real world monsters on a power trip that you're concerned about helps your cause?
It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military.
While it's an admirable goal, I'm honestly not as worried about it as I probably should be. The military does the best that it can. They're not perfect, and never will be. I think you have to accept some degree if malfunction in any large organization, especially if the cost to fix it is more than the cost of the problem.
But I suspect folks like GuitarSV are less concerned about the bad apple problems that could theoretically be fixed by "including more moral and talented people in the military". They seem more concerned about the structural, carefully orchestrated problems (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/why-do-so-few-people-consider-military-paying-for-college/msg943363/#msg943363). Not a crazy dude shooting up a mess hall or a soldier offing a bunch of civilians in a warzone, more like the instantaneous murder of an entire city by nuclear weapons. That sort of crime was a carefully thought out and orchestrated act of evil, done with the best of intentions but still evil. Women and children, noncombatants, hospitals and day care centers and nursing homes, all wiped out instantly in a giant mushroom cloud. Then, as if that wasn't terrible enough, we did it all again three days later somewhere else. I'm still not sure what the excuse is for dropping the second one, honestly.
Those sorts of decisions are not the kind of thing that one officer with a conscience can stop. The entire US military carefully planned and plotted to make that happen, because they thought it was the most moral thing to do at the time. Murdering civilians is bad, but America did it. Torture is bad, but America did it. Supporting pedophiles is bad, but America did it. Overthrowing democracies to install dictators is bad, but America did it. Suppressing sexual assault claims within the ranks is bad, but America did it. Assassinating foreign leaders is bad, but America did it. Violating due process is bad, but America did it. Killing American citizens instead of arresting them is bad, but America did it. These are all carefully deliberated policy positions of the US government, not random flukes that could be avoided if we only had better soldiers, and some people find them too problematic to rationalize volunteering for military service. We're still a free country, and as long as we have an all-volunteer force they still get to make that decision.
Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't think Dick Cheney was an evil man, for example, I think he was a tragically misguided man. He tried to do good and failed, and we as a nation bear the scars of countless men like him and the bad decisions they have made. I'd like to believe those scars are recognized exceptions, not our national ideals made manifest.
Yes, this is the point that I was trying to get across originally.
To reiterate (for the third or fourth time) I have no issue with most of the people in the military. To repeat myself . . . you're not a bad person for joining up and wanting to help your country. Those are good intentions.
I do have tremendous issue with some current and morally reprehensible military practices. Especially as there appears to be no end to them because nobody is really admitting that they are wrong. This is at least in part because calling attention to atrocities currently perpetrated by the US military immediately makes a lot of people react to you negatively.
In this thread:
- I've been called uninformed
- I've been told that I hate servicemen
- I've been told that my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not a member of military
- I've been told that most people in the military don't do immoral things on a day to day basis, so we just obviously ignore all the immoral stuff currently happening
- It's been insinuated that I'm hypocritical for pointing out the immoral things in the military, because there are other jobs where immoral things happen
- I've been told that my opinion is heavily influenced by television and movies, therefore my complaints aren't valid
- I've been told that I have a 'hard-on' for criticizing the US government.
- I've been told that my posts are direct attacks on the morals of US servicemen.
Something is badly broken. There appears to be nobody trying to stop the bad things that the US military is currently doing (and the above baseless criticisms are a good indication why they remain so). That means to me, that the problem will never be fixed. There's a chance that any new recruit could be ordered to torture people in an illegal prison camp, to bomb foreign civilians via computer screen, or to help solidify a base of power for child molesters. Even if the chance of getting that assignment is low, does that really sound like a group of people you want to encourage your kid to join up with?
Saying it's immoral to sign up to become a state sanctioned killer isn't particularly radical. You only think it is because of the overt propaganda people in the US experience constantly from day 1.
So, is this the forum's collective answer to the OP question? That few to no one on this forum mentions sending kids into the military to pay for college, because it's a moral issue?
I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college. If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it. I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.
In my view, GuitarStv and Sol have offered the better critiques. They both pointed out the problems currently facing the military, with out overly vilifying individual service members. It's possible to have a debate with both of them, and walk away with a handshake. There are others with much more radicalized views, who aren't much interested in debating.
Something is badly broken. There appears to be nobody trying to stop the bad things that the US military is currently doing (and the above baseless criticisms are a good indication why they remain so). That means to me, that the problem will never be fixed. There's a chance that any new recruit could be ordered to torture people in an illegal prison camp, to bomb foreign civilians via computer screen, or to help solidify a base of power for child molesters. Even if the chance of getting that assignment is low, does that really sound like a group of people you want to encourage your kid to join up with?
So, is this the forum's collective answer to the OP question? That few to no one on this forum mentions sending kids into the military to pay for college, because it's a moral issue?
No, I don't think that's the consensus at all. I think cats nailed the answer in the very first response:I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college. If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it. I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.
One shouldn't plan on their children having an interest in a military career as a way of paying for college, because one should be responsive to their child's interests. Similarly, one shouldn't plan on pushing them into athletics, or the Peace Corps, or Americorps, or anything else that scholarships are given for. But the primary reason for doing any of those things should be the child's interests – it should not be the scholarships available.
So, is this the forum's collective answer to the OP question? That few to no one on this forum mentions sending kids into the military to pay for college, because it's a moral issue?
No, I don't think that's the consensus at all. I think cats nailed the answer in the very first response:I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college. If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it. I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.
One shouldn't plan on their children having an interest in a military career as a way of paying for college, because one should be responsive to their child's interests. Similarly, one shouldn't plan on pushing them into athletics, or the Peace Corps, or Americorps, or anything else that scholarships are given for. But the primary reason for doing any of those things should be the child's interests – it should not be the scholarships available.
Fair perspective, but doesn't this also apply to going to college itself?
And the idea that parents should have to pay for a portion of a child's college education? In my own case, I have 5 kids; the older two I would not advocate the idea of military service, because they would hate it; two whom I told my wife at ages 4&5 they were destined for either military service or prison, and the fifth doesn't matter because she is obviously intellectually gifted (at 3 years old, no I'm not kidding; and I thought my oldest boy was brilliant) and already has a 4 year ride to any state funded university in Kentucky (again, no I'm not kidding). So what, if anything, am I obliged to do for my older two? And is it immoral for me to direct my middle two boys towards military service?
It's not that you dare to criticize the military that causes people to react badly. A lot of horrible thing have happened under the militayr umbrella. It's the one you have used when doing so.
Even the bolded is one example of that. It's a hugely broad brush statement, and it's simply incorrect. There absolutely are people in the military pointing out problems and atrocities.
So say that there are problems all you want. You are correct. Absolutely. But to say that no one is trying to stop them? Wrong.
And no, the problems of supporting things like pedophiles are not unique to the military. Are you by any chance Catholic? As just one example.
Welcome to the real world, where balancing ethics, differing cultures, different legal systems, and potent combinations of stress, fear, and anxiety turn once-solid western ethics into shady layers of gray.
It's not that you dare to criticize the military that causes people to react badly. A lot of horrible thing have happened under the militayr umbrella. It's the one you have used when doing so.
Even the bolded is one example of that. It's a hugely broad brush statement, and it's simply incorrect. There absolutely are people in the military pointing out problems and atrocities.
OK. I'm willing to be proven wrong. Can you name a few of the current military members you're referring to who are speaking out against what I mentioned? Maybe some of those who are organizing other servicemen to disobey illegal orders? Gitmo has been open for 13 years now. Can you tell me what new processes these people have put in place to prevent torture, kidnapping, illegal detainment, detainment without due process, unnecessary force feeding, and all the rest of what happened at Guantanamo Bay?So say that there are problems all you want. You are correct. Absolutely. But to say that no one is trying to stop them? Wrong.
If there are so many people trying to stop a military that is out of control and operating immorally, but they can't . . . that really speaks to fundamental structural problems with the military itself, doesn't it? I'm still waiting for the evidence of what you claim though.And no, the problems of supporting things like pedophiles are not unique to the military. Are you by any chance Catholic? As just one example.
Just because the Catholic church once supported rapists, that doesn't make it OK for the US Army! The reason that change happened in the Catholic church is that what they were doing got enough publicity and their organization fell into such disrepute that they had to make the changes. It's hard to lecture others on morality when you're obviously morally bereft. I don't see the military getting the same kind of bad word of mouth yet, even though they are equally deserving . . . but you are offended by the harshness of my words. In reality you should be offended by what your military is doing.
Welcome to the real world, where balancing ethics, differing cultures, different legal systems, and potent combinations of stress, fear, and anxiety turn once-solid western ethics into shady layers of gray.
So . . . the innocent people held and tortured in Guantanamo bay, illegal by both US and international law . . . explain exactly where the gray area is there? It looks pretty black and white from over here.
Kidnapping, torture, ignoring international laws, killing civilians wantonly, not following due process . . . the US military has performed terrorist actions, and is continuing to perform them. Repercussions for ethical violation should apply to white guys in a uniform or suit from the US just as much as to brown guys from countries ending in -stan.
Parts of our military, and some of our military members, are flawed, to put it mildly. And I am offended by some of the things our military has done. But I choose to generally be respectful in my words and my tone, and to remember that not everyone, or even most, affiliated with the military are part of the problem, and that in fact many are part of the potential solution.
So . . . the innocent people held and tortured in Guantanamo bay, illegal by both US and international law . . . explain exactly where the gray area is there? It looks pretty black and white from over here.
Kidnapping, torture, ignoring international laws, killing civilians wantonly, not following due process . . . the US military has performed terrorist actions, and is continuing to perform them. Repercussions for ethical violation should apply to white guys in a uniform or suit from the US just as much as to brown guys from countries ending in -stan.
So . . . the innocent people held and tortured in Guantanamo bay, illegal by both US and international law . . . explain exactly where the gray area is there? It looks pretty black and white from over here.
Kidnapping, torture, ignoring international laws, killing civilians wantonly, not following due process . . . the US military has performed terrorist actions, and is continuing to perform them. Repercussions for ethical violation should apply to white guys in a uniform or suit from the US just as much as to brown guys from countries ending in -stan.
I'm having a hard time understanding the references you're making here. Are all of these recent events? Do you have evidence that the military is 'wantonly' (of a cruel or violent action- deliberate and unprovoked) killing civilians? That's a serious charge, I'm going to need evidence that a reasonable person can apply to say that the military, as an organization, is doing that. Gonna call BS on that one.
I also find it amusing that the military spends hundreds of billions of dollars upholding international law, with Carrier battle groups, patrols in contested areas, humanitarian assistance, and yet you accuse them of willfully ignoring international law. Were some ships ordered to break a harbor speed limit? Did they cross to within 11 nm of Iran and get detained on purpose? Did the President order 1 million troops to wantonly eat Cheetos without paying for them? Where's your preponderance of evidence to support this fantastical claim?
How could the detention center be legal at all if Congress has blocked funding for any trials for those still imprisoned there?
There’s no clear answer. The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions. Yet Congress and the executive branch have, through policy and legislation, strenuously avoided implementation of these decisions. The United States has also been chastised repeatedly by other states and the United Nations and its human rights organs that its interpretation of the laws of war concerning the detainees is wrong and against international consensus. Since 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued and reextended precautionary measures against the United States (the equivalent of domestic law injunctive orders), requesting that the United States take urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees determined by a “competent tribunal.”
No one has argued that the military is bereft of crime. No one is saying that's even possible. But stop using red herrings to support your points. "Hey guys, the military is bad because 50 years ago the Mai Lai Massacre happened." Wow, thanks for the newsflash. Give us evidence of systemic problems, policies that break law, large ethical problems. Provide for me those publicly available documents. Don't point to a sample service-member that got a DUI last night and tell me that the entire population is bad. Yes, someone that actually goes out and does this stuff can have a different ethical standpoint than a person that sits safe, comfortable, and arguing on the internet about their 'expert' opinion based on what they heard from the 'news'.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/)
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147)
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Wikileaks-Reveals-CIA-Admitted-Drone-Strikes-Ineffective--20141218-0043.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Wikileaks-Reveals-CIA-Admitted-Drone-Strikes-Ineffective--20141218-0043.html)
I can come up with more. There are an awful lot of oopsies being wantonly made all over women, children, and innocent people.
It was the US supreme court, not me.
How could the detention center be legal at all if Congress has blocked funding for any trials for those still imprisoned there?
There’s no clear answer. The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions. Yet Congress and the executive branch have, through policy and legislation, strenuously avoided implementation of these decisions. The United States has also been chastised repeatedly by other states and the United Nations and its human rights organs that its interpretation of the laws of war concerning the detainees is wrong and against international consensus. Since 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued and reextended precautionary measures against the United States (the equivalent of domestic law injunctive orders), requesting that the United States take urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees determined by a “competent tribunal.”
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/ (http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/)
No one has argued that the military is bereft of crime. No one is saying that's even possible. But stop using red herrings to support your points. "Hey guys, the military is bad because 50 years ago the Mai Lai Massacre happened." Wow, thanks for the newsflash. Give us evidence of systemic problems, policies that break law, large ethical problems. Provide for me those publicly available documents. Don't point to a sample service-member that got a DUI last night and tell me that the entire population is bad. Yes, someone that actually goes out and does this stuff can have a different ethical standpoint than a person that sits safe, comfortable, and arguing on the internet about their 'expert' opinion based on what they heard from the 'news'.The three problems I've talked about (civilian deaths by drone strikes, the illegal Guantanmo Bay facilities, supporting pedophiles in Afghanistan) are ongoing right now. None of them are a one off done by a single serviceman, but large scale problems and the result of institutional policies. I've provided numerous links and information about them. Not sure what else you're looking for.
FFS, it DOES NOT MATTER that the orders come from civilians. It is the individual soldier who is tasked with carrying them out. Do you want to take the chance that you are that individual soldier who is ordered to torture someone or fire on an unarmed civilian? When that order will be given with a lot of communal pressure to obey and probably in a very stressful situation? Do you want to have to make that kind of split-second moral choice?Ok, once again, torture isn't happening anymore. We could have a separate argument about what constitutes torture, but it isn't happening and when it was it wasn't done by the military predominantly.
FFS, it DOES NOT MATTER that the orders come from civilians. It is the individual soldier who is tasked with carrying them out. Do you want to take the chance that you are that individual soldier who is ordered to torture someone or fire on an unarmed civilian? When that order will be given with a lot of communal pressure to obey and probably in a very stressful situation? Do you want to have to make that kind of split-second moral choice?Ok, once again, torture isn't happening anymore. We could have a separate argument about what constitutes torture, but it isn't happening and when it was it wasn't done by the military predominantly.
As to the drone question, while I think the expanding scope is problematic, I have no problem with taking out terrorists. As I said earlier, a great deal of time and effort is made to minimize civilian casualties.
I find it amazing that civilian leadership gets a free pass as we continue to insult the military members, the vast majority of whom serve with honor to protect our way of life.
I was looking for REAL evidence. Documents from the Department of Defense, Congress, GAO, the Supreme Court, the President. You can post all your 2nd-hand articles that you want, I don't have time to sift through them, weed out bias, examine the evidence presented. If you suggest and defend systemic problems, SHOW me these institutional policies. None of this is systemic.
Drone strikes allow us to kill terrorists with a great deal of precision and a lot of time and effort goes in to ensuring as few civilian casualties as possible. Literally hundreds of hours are spent observing a potential target and figuring out the pattern of life information like when women and children are in his vicinity to understand the best time to strike to minimize casualties. I've worked in these programs from an oversight perspective and the number of hours spent observing and collecting this information before a strike is mind-boggling. The drone program has been expanded dramatically under President Obama.
FFS, it DOES NOT MATTER that the orders come from civilians. It is the individual soldier who is tasked with carrying them out. Do you want to take the chance that you are that individual soldier who is ordered to torture someone or fire on an unarmed civilian? When that order will be given with a lot of communal pressure to obey and probably in a very stressful situation? Do you want to have to make that kind of split-second moral choice?
FFS, it DOES NOT MATTER that the orders come from civilians. It is the individual soldier who is tasked with carrying them out. Do you want to take the chance that you are that individual soldier who is ordered to torture someone or fire on an unarmed civilian? When that order will be given with a lot of communal pressure to obey and probably in a very stressful situation? Do you want to have to make that kind of split-second moral choice?
I don't fear having to make those kinds of decisions. Because I believe I have the training to respond correctly. And I believe I have enough strength of character to tread the line, and live with myself afterwards.
Let's put this in some more relatable context.No that would be wrong since the police don't have those kind of authorities. It isn't even a fair comparison. You don't have to like drone warfare, I'm not a huge fan myself, but how else do we fight terrorists? Boots on the ground? Ignore them until they attack us at home? Honestly would like to know what you would recommend.
Say that you live in a duplex. In the other side of the duplex is a suspected murderer. Do you think it would be right for the police to bomb the duplex, killing you, your wife, your children, your visiting grandmother, and the wife and children of the suspected murder? If this scenario isn't OK in your neighborhood, why is it OK in a neighborhood in a foreign country?
No warning, no trial, no evidence presented, no judgement by peers, large numbers of civilian casualties. How would it make your close friends feel towards the police? In what way is this different than a terrorist bombing a building full of civilians?
It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military.
While it's an admirable goal, I'm honestly not as worried about it as I probably should be. The military does the best that it can. They're not perfect, and never will be. I think you have to accept some degree if malfunction in any large organization, especially if the cost to fix it is more than the cost of the problem.
But I suspect folks like GuitarSV are less concerned about the bad apple problems that could theoretically be fixed by "including more moral and talented people in the military". They seem more concerned about the structural, carefully orchestrated problems (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/why-do-so-few-people-consider-military-paying-for-college/msg943363/#msg943363). Not a crazy dude shooting up a mess hall or a soldier offing a bunch of civilians in a warzone, more like the instantaneous murder of an entire city by nuclear weapons. That sort of crime was a carefully thought out and orchestrated act of evil, done with the best of intentions but still evil. Women and children, noncombatants, hospitals and day care centers and nursing homes, all wiped out instantly in a giant mushroom cloud. Then, as if that wasn't terrible enough, we did it all again three days later somewhere else. I'm still not sure what the excuse is for dropping the second one, honestly.
Those sorts of decisions are not the kind of thing that one officer with a conscience can stop. The entire US military carefully planned and plotted to make that happen, because they thought it was the most moral thing to do at the time. Murdering civilians is bad, but America did it. Torture is bad, but America did it. Supporting pedophiles is bad, but America did it. Overthrowing democracies to install dictators is bad, but America did it. Suppressing sexual assault claims within the ranks is bad, but America did it. Assassinating foreign leaders is bad, but America did it. Violating due process is bad, but America did it. Killing American citizens instead of arresting them is bad, but America did it. These are all carefully deliberated policy positions of the US government, not random flukes that could be avoided if we only had better soldiers, and some people find them too problematic to rationalize volunteering for military service. We're still a free country, and as long as we have an all-volunteer force they still get to make that decision.
Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't think Dick Cheney was an evil man, for example, I think he was a tragically misguided man. He tried to do good and failed, and we as a nation bear the scars of countless men like him and the bad decisions they have made. I'd like to believe those scars are recognized exceptions, not our national ideals made manifest.
Yes, this is the point that I was trying to get across originally.
To reiterate (for the third or fourth time) I have no issue with most of the people in the military. To repeat myself . . . you're not a bad person for joining up and wanting to help your country. Those are good intentions.
I do have tremendous issue with some current and morally reprehensible military practices. Especially as there appears to be no end to them because nobody is really admitting that they are wrong. This is at least in part because calling attention to atrocities currently perpetrated by the US military immediately makes a lot of people react to you negatively.
In this thread:
- I've been called uninformed
- I've been told that I hate servicemen
- I've been told that my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not a member of military
- I've been told that most people in the military don't do immoral things on a day to day basis, so we just obviously ignore all the immoral stuff currently happening
- It's been insinuated that I'm hypocritical for pointing out the immoral things in the military, because there are other jobs where immoral things happen
- I've been told that my opinion is heavily influenced by television and movies, therefore my complaints aren't valid
- I've been told that I have a 'hard-on' for criticizing the US government.
- I've been told that my posts are direct attacks on the morals of US servicemen.
Something is badly broken. There appears to be nobody trying to stop the bad things that the US military is currently doing (and the above baseless criticisms are a good indication why they remain so). That means to me, that the problem will never be fixed. There's a chance that any new recruit could be ordered to torture people in an illegal prison camp, to bomb foreign civilians via computer screen, or to help solidify a base of power for child molesters. Even if the chance of getting that assignment is low, does that really sound like a group of people you want to encourage your kid to join up with?
FFS, it DOES NOT MATTER that the orders come from civilians. It is the individual soldier who is tasked with carrying them out. Do you want to take the chance that you are that individual soldier who is ordered to torture someone or fire on an unarmed civilian? When that order will be given with a lot of communal pressure to obey and probably in a very stressful situation? Do you want to have to make that kind of split-second moral choice?
I don't fear having to make those kinds of decisions. Because I believe I have the training to respond correctly. And I believe I have enough strength of character to tread the line, and live with myself afterwards.
Then you are a better man than I, but please do have sympathy for those of us who would not want to be in that position, no matter what the financial benefits.
Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork?
As I said in the thread above, I met a whole bunch of Army Infantry men and women who were all bummed out that their orders to deploy to Iraq had been cancelled. The only reason for their disappointment any of them were able to articulate was that they had been counting on the extra pay that they would get if they were deployed.
For those of you who've been in the military, is it or is it not true that the government pays you extra money if you go overseas to fight? I lost track of how many people in my community returned from overseas deployments and immediately bought new pickup trucks. My guess is that that money must've come from somewhere.
I'd go to jail.FFS, it DOES NOT MATTER that the orders come from civilians. It is the individual soldier who is tasked with carrying them out. Do you want to take the chance that you are that individual soldier who is ordered to torture someone or fire on an unarmed civilian? When that order will be given with a lot of communal pressure to obey and probably in a very stressful situation? Do you want to have to make that kind of split-second moral choice?
I don't fear having to make those kinds of decisions. Because I believe I have the training to respond correctly. And I believe I have enough strength of character to tread the line, and live with myself afterwards.
Then you are a better man than I, but please do have sympathy for those of us who would not want to be in that position, no matter what the financial benefits.
As far as I can tell, I don't hold any judgement against people who choose a civilian path. I think it's honourable to serve your country, but that doesn't automatically make a civilian life dishonourable. It takes a certain kind of courage to know your own strengths. You've examined you conscious, and found yourself a bad match for a volunteer force. I'm curious though, what you would do in a draft situation. If drafted, would you go? Dodge? Does the UK have a defined route for pacifist and contentious objectors?
I respect your opinions, and I agree with your premise that the world would be a much better place if the military wasn't necessary, and I'd wholly support that. However, that idealism isn't likely to spring into being anytime soon. I'd rather have a professional fighting force and not need it, than not have one and need it.
The need for the military, at least in its current incarnation, ended with nuclear proliferation.I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime.
you're missing the point. it's not a minority that are committing a crime. it's 100%: all of it and all of the people who participate.
You're going to have to elaborate on this.
There's not much to elaborate. Fighting for a force and government that has been regularly destabilizing countries for well over 50 years to go kill people is a horrible thing to do.Do you return fire at someone shooting at you who's using a child as a shield?
That dude wouldn't be using a child as a shield if the members of the military didn't invade their country and destroy their cities.It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military.
Again. Oxymoron. The "incident" is participation.
Also your constant "only following orders" line didn't work too well for the Nazis.
Don't interpret this as me apologizing for ISIS. I think the people who join that organization are awful as well.
Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork? If you have any understanding of international relations you understand that we only use the military as a last resort. We spend years leveraging assets with NGOs, the State Department, and various international organizations. Ideally, the goal would be to eliminate or neutralize the threat while it's small and unable to present a threat to our country, rather than waiting for a situation like Germany or Japan rapidly expanding and consolidating power before we intervene.
Not all, but most former members of the military I've known are hawks. They vote Republican, and they like candidates who have military experience and are tough on "defense," i.e., they want to invade other people's countries and take their stuff.QuoteAlso, most people also don't understand that the military is primarily an economic force. The largest threat to our country is economic.
I totally agree with this. The main reasons why our military invades or doesn't invade any given country all have to do with money. The whole moral superiority, patriotism thing is just a ruse to cover up the U.S. government's real agenda.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/)
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147)
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Wikileaks-Reveals-CIA-Admitted-Drone-Strikes-Ineffective--20141218-0043.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Wikileaks-Reveals-CIA-Admitted-Drone-Strikes-Ineffective--20141218-0043.html)
I can come up with more. There are an awful lot of oopsies being wantonly made all over women, children, and innocent people.
Like I said before, the military doesn't pick targets, they don't make the calls. The title of that last article is 'CIA admitted...' That also doesn't fit the definition as 'wanton' as they are clearly provoked strikes against assumed targets. Unless you're saying they deliberately desired the death of civilians. The evidence doesn't support that.It was the US supreme court, not me.
What?How could the detention center be legal at all if Congress has blocked funding for any trials for those still imprisoned there?
There’s no clear answer. The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions. Yet Congress and the executive branch have, through policy and legislation, strenuously avoided implementation of these decisions. The United States has also been chastised repeatedly by other states and the United Nations and its human rights organs that its interpretation of the laws of war concerning the detainees is wrong and against international consensus. Since 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued and reextended precautionary measures against the United States (the equivalent of domestic law injunctive orders), requesting that the United States take urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees determined by a “competent tribunal.”
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/ (http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/)
I agree, that's still ongoing, but I'd hardly consider detaining dangerous terrorists a severe ethical concern. It's clearly a legal and diplomatic concern which needs to be worked out. Legality and funding are two different things. The military is involved in none of that decision making process, it just maintains the facility until ordered to do so. Unfortunately the military can't say no. Imagine that, we work for the government. Once again, blame the civilians running the government, not the military.No one has argued that the military is bereft of crime. No one is saying that's even possible. But stop using red herrings to support your points. "Hey guys, the military is bad because 50 years ago the Mai Lai Massacre happened." Wow, thanks for the newsflash. Give us evidence of systemic problems, policies that break law, large ethical problems. Provide for me those publicly available documents. Don't point to a sample service-member that got a DUI last night and tell me that the entire population is bad. Yes, someone that actually goes out and does this stuff can have a different ethical standpoint than a person that sits safe, comfortable, and arguing on the internet about their 'expert' opinion based on what they heard from the 'news'.The three problems I've talked about (civilian deaths by drone strikes, the illegal Guantanmo Bay facilities, supporting pedophiles in Afghanistan) are ongoing right now. None of them are a one off done by a single serviceman, but large scale problems and the result of institutional policies. I've provided numerous links and information about them. Not sure what else you're looking for.
I was looking for REAL evidence. Documents from the Department of Defense, Congress, GAO, the Supreme Court, the President. You can post all your 2nd-hand articles that you want, I don't have time to sift through them, weed out bias, examine the evidence presented. If you suggest and defend systemic problems, SHOW me these institutional policies. None of this is systemic.
FFS, it DOES NOT MATTER that the orders come from civilians. It is the individual soldier who is tasked with carrying them out. Do you want to take the chance that you are that individual soldier who is ordered to torture someone or fire on an unarmed civilian? When that order will be given with a lot of communal pressure to obey and probably in a very stressful situation? Do you want to have to make that kind of split-second moral choice?Ok, once again, torture isn't happening anymore. We could have a separate argument about what constitutes torture, but it isn't happening and when it was it wasn't done by the military predominantly.
As to the drone question, while I think the expanding scope is problematic, I have no problem with taking out terrorists. As I said earlier, a great deal of time and effort is made to minimize civilian casualties.
I find it amazing that civilian leadership gets a free pass as we continue to insult the military members, the vast majority of whom serve with honor to protect our way of life.
Torture is still happening at Guantanamo Bay. Because there is little hope of the inmates ever seeing a day in court or being released, a lot of them started hunger strikes. The military has been strapping them down to chairs and ramming tubes up their noses to force feed them. The military absolutely knows that what they're doing is wrong too . . . since they have deemed it OK to refuse orders regarding this treatment. (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article20817624.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article20817624.html))
Ah. It's OK because you're 'taking out terrorists'. Granted, you're taking out 9 innocent civilians for each terrorist (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/)) . . . but whatever. You can tell the mothers of the dead children that you tried really hard. They can't be too upset about the matter, it's not like the dead are American! Then of course, we get into the whole matter of executing people without a trial, without public evidence, without checks and balances. Certainly nothing can be wrong with this practice.
Civilian leadership absolutely should not get a free pass. The people responsible for opening Guantanamo Bay should be tried as war criminals. There should also be charges for any soldier involved in the detention of the many innocent people there as well. They are, after all, choosing to follow illegal orders.QuoteI was looking for REAL evidence. Documents from the Department of Defense, Congress, GAO, the Supreme Court, the President. You can post all your 2nd-hand articles that you want, I don't have time to sift through them, weed out bias, examine the evidence presented. If you suggest and defend systemic problems, SHOW me these institutional policies. None of this is systemic.
Mmm. Arguing in bad faith. I'm too lazy to learn on my own, and I've already made up my mind about the way things are. Bring me more evidence that I might reject it out of hand as not being REAL evidence, (admittedly without bothering to first read it).
FFS, it DOES NOT MATTER that the orders come from civilians. It is the individual soldier who is tasked with carrying them out. Do you want to take the chance that you are that individual soldier who is ordered to torture someone or fire on an unarmed civilian? When that order will be given with a lot of communal pressure to obey and probably in a very stressful situation? Do you want to have to make that kind of split-second moral choice?
I don't fear having to make those kinds of decisions. Because I believe I have the training to respond correctly. And I believe I have enough strength of character to tread the line, and live with myself afterwards.
Then you are a better man than I, but please do have sympathy for those of us who would not want to be in that position, no matter what the financial benefits.
As far as I can tell, I don't hold any judgement against people who choose a civilian path. I think it's honourable to serve your country, but that doesn't automatically make a civilian life dishonourable. It takes a certain kind of courage to know your own strengths. You've examined you conscious, and found yourself a bad match for a volunteer force. I'm curious though, what you would do in a draft situation. If drafted, would you go? Dodge? Does the UK have a defined route for pacifist and contentious objectors?
Of course we do "bad" things. No military member will deny that.
You look at the end product of the decisions we make and call us bad because you don't see the alternatives we often face.
We are castigated for supporting unsavory characters around the world, but what decision would you make, GuitarStv, if the alternative to supporting child molesters was having even more people die? Sure, we could plant flowers in Afghanistan and walk away. Do you know what happens then, GuitarStv?
“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”
Then again, you could go to work for GM and have to make a decision on whether or not to spend 10 cents more on a part that might save 4 lives next year, or be a loan officer at a bank where you might have to reject a loan that could destroy someone's life.
If you have facts and evidence that show that the US military is monolithic entity intent on killing innocent people whenever possible on a massive scale, please share it with us.
So now force-feeding people on hunger strikes is torture?
So now force-feeding people on hunger strikes is torture?
That's what the UN Human Rights Council says:
"in cases involving people on hunger strikes, the duty of medical personnel to act ethically and the principle of respect for individuals’ autonomy, among other principles, must be respected. Under these principles, it is unjustifiable to engage in forced feeding of individuals contrary to their informed and voluntary refusal of such a measure."
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13278#sthash.q4Evvf6k.dpuf (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13278#sthash.q4Evvf6k.dpuf)
It's what the World Medical Association cautions doctors about:
"Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially."
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c18/ (http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c18/)
It's also how the person being force fed describes it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4769604.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4769604.stm)
So . . . yeah, looks pretty resoundingly like torture.
Let's put this in some more relatable context.
Say that you live in a duplex. In the other side of the duplex is a suspected murderer. Do you think it would be right for the police to bomb the duplex, killing you, your wife, your children, your visiting grandmother, and the wife and children of the suspected murder? If this scenario isn't OK in your neighborhood, why is it OK in a neighborhood in a foreign country?
No warning, no trial, no evidence presented, no judgement by peers, large numbers of civilian casualties. How would it make your close friends feel towards the police? In what way is this different than a terrorist bombing a building full of civilians?
Let's put this in some more relatable context.
Say that you live in a duplex. In the other side of the duplex is a suspected murderer. Do you think it would be right for the police to bomb the duplex, killing you, your wife, your children, your visiting grandmother, and the wife and children of the suspected murder? If this scenario isn't OK in your neighborhood, why is it OK in a neighborhood in a foreign country?
No warning, no trial, no evidence presented, no judgement by peers, large numbers of civilian casualties. How would it make your close friends feel towards the police? In what way is this different than a terrorist bombing a building full of civilians?
Wow this is comparing two completely different colored apples and oranges. If the police think a suspect in their own neighborhood is a terrorist, they don't need to fire missiles. They're there. They surround the house and attempt to arrest the guy. Explain to me how we're going to do that in a foreign country?
The nations we launch airstrikes into have given us that permission.
Only in rare cases have they given permission for us to go in with ground troops to kill or capture someone. In the case of Bin Laden and a couple guys in Africa we didn't ask and it could have gotten our troops killed for doing so. In war you don't owe the enemy a trial while they're in the field. Particularly if they're unreachable. There's never been a war in the history of war that a civilian wasn't accidentally killed. It's unfortunate, but necessity often outweighs it.
For every building accidentally bombed there were dozens of calls for artillery or air support denied to our own troops because we were too close to civilians. Those denied calls have killed dozens of our own over the last decade. Would we like to fight a war where nobody innocent died? Of course. Until we get to that point, all we have are the tools at our disposal. Apparently you missed my point earlier where we killed over a million civilians in less than four years of WWII mostly through bombing. In the last 14 years we haven't come close. Your example terrorist doesn't give a shit who he's killing. A bus full of civilians is just that. In fact he went after that bus specifically because it nothing but civilians and it makes for eye-catching news on TV. That's the difference between us. And I think it's pretty disturbing you can't see that.
The one American service member who was punished in the investigation that followed was Major Brezler, who had sent the email warning about Mr. Jan, his lawyers said. In one of Major Brezler’s hearings, Marine Corps lawyers warned that information about the police commander’s penchant for abusing boys might be classified. The Marine Corps has initiated proceedings to discharge Major Brezler.
In the article on the U.S. Military's support of pedophiles in Afghanistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html) that @GuitarStv linked above, a U.S. Army captain was "relieved of his command" for beating up a U.S. backed militia commander who had a young boy chained to his bed so he could use him as a sex slave. An Army sergeant who joined in to help beating up the abusive, pedophile Afghan militia commander is being "forcibly retired" by the Army as retaliation for his participation in the beating of the Afghan pedophile.
Okay, so you can say those guys crossed the line by beating the guy up. Maybe they should've gone through the "chain-of-command," and reported it, right? In the same article linked by @GuitarStv above it describes an Army major who sent an email to officers at another base warning them that a militia commander who had recently been transferred to their district was a pedophile and had been abusing boys for years. That was the right thing to do, right, send an email to alert the chain of command that a known pedophile had just been transferred into their district? WRONG! Here's what the military did instead :
Maybe current or former members of the military who are posting to this thread can give us some real life examples of people they know or have heard of who have stood up and reported unethical/immoral practices they observed while in the military and were not punished for their reports?
I'm concerned about the level of moral absolutism here. That's a dangerous attitude. You're basically adopting a stance completely contrary to real world scenarios. It's like you're sitting in a classroom somewhere debating about the utility of war in a sterile environment, while knowing nothing about actual conflict. You don't plan a system around a zero failure rate. You expect civilian deaths, you expect accidents, you have a plan to mitigate, because you can't ever eliminate, moral failings. You measure and estimate acceptable casualty rates. You send Americans into harm's way, knowing that many of them will be shipped home in a cold, flag-draped bag. How many are you willing to let die?
As to allies being pedophiles. It's a legal matter. Troops have no legal authority to enforce international or US law in someone else's country. They can bring up their concerns, give evidence, provide everything necessary, but ultimately international law enforcement decides if it's worth pursuing and you may have diplomatic options. But guess what, absent of due process of law to convict the pedophile, you'll have to probably have to continue working with whomever. And chances are, the pedophile will be the senior 'government' official in that area. Yay.
http://nypost.com/2015/09/25/yes-our-troops-were-ordered-to-ignore-afghan-pedophiles/ (http://nypost.com/2015/09/25/yes-our-troops-were-ordered-to-ignore-afghan-pedophiles/)
Simply put, if you haven't served and you don't understand that, you'll never understand. The Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world with over 3.2 million people working all over the globe. We need more upstanding moral people, so convince your kiddos to sign up for the adventure.
I'm concerned about the level of moral absolutism here. That's a dangerous attitude. You're basically adopting a stance completely contrary to real world scenarios. It's like you're sitting in a classroom somewhere debating about the utility of war in a sterile environment, while knowing nothing about actual conflict. You don't plan a system around a zero failure rate. You expect civilian deaths, you expect accidents, you have a plan to mitigate, because you can't ever eliminate, moral failings. You measure and estimate acceptable casualty rates. You send Americans into harm's way, knowing that many of them will be shipped home in a cold, flag-draped bag. How many are you willing to let die?
As to allies being pedophiles. It's a legal matter. Troops have no legal authority to enforce international or US law in someone else's country. They can bring up their concerns, give evidence, provide everything necessary, but ultimately international law enforcement decides if it's worth pursuing and you may have diplomatic options. But guess what, absent of due process of law to convict the pedophile, you'll have to probably have to continue working with whomever. And chances are, the pedophile will be the senior 'government' official in that area. Yay.
http://nypost.com/2015/09/25/yes-our-troops-were-ordered-to-ignore-afghan-pedophiles/ (http://nypost.com/2015/09/25/yes-our-troops-were-ordered-to-ignore-afghan-pedophiles/)
Simply put, if you haven't served and you don't understand that, you'll never understand. The Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world with over 3.2 million people working all over the globe. We need more upstanding moral people, so convince your kiddos to sign up for the adventure.
How does having more upstanding moral people enlist help anything when pedophiles are raping children in their military camp with full blessing of the powers that be? Especially when the people from the local village are saying that these guys you're putting in power are worse than the guys you're there to save them from?
The point that civilians order the military to do the things that it does is well taken. Given that we all know that U.S. civilian commanders have a well-documented track record of ordering the military to do bad things, the question is, why would honorable, moral people be willing to volunteer to join the military and do the politicians dirty work for them?
I'm not as much concerned about the ethics of individual actions that are taken in the heat of battle, e.g., the commander says, "Shoot!," and soldiers end up inadvertently killing noncombatants. In most cases individual members of the military do what they're told to do because that's how they stay alive, which is completely understandable.
My issue is more with the decision making process that people go through when they're deciding whether or not to join the military in the first place. Why choose to put yourself into a position where you may be "forced" to do bad things? It seems like the answer, which has been confirmed by this thread, is that the military compensates its members quite well for their "work:" highly competitive salaries, excellent benefits, free college, medical care for life...
The argument that more good, honorable, moral people joining the military will, in some way, help to make the military better is disingenuous, IMO, and I think members of this board who are posting in this thread must know this from their experience in the military. Over and over again, I have read and heard accounts of individual members of the military who have spoken up about unethical things they observed while in the military, and in 100% of the cases I've heard about, either nothing happened or their "complaints" caused them to get forced out of the military and ended their careers.
In the article on the U.S. Military's support of pedophiles in Afghanistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html) that @GuitarStv linked above, a U.S. Army captain was "relieved of his command" for beating up a U.S. backed militia commander who had a young boy chained to his bed so he could use him as a sex slave. An Army sergeant who joined in to help beating up the abusive, pedophile Afghan militia commander is being "forcibly retired" by the Army as retaliation for his participation in the beating of the Afghan pedophile.
Okay, so you can say those guys crossed the line by beating the guy up. Maybe they should've gone through the "chain-of-command," and reported it, right? In the same article linked by @GuitarStv above it describes an Army major who sent an email to officers at another base warning them that a militia commander who had recently been transferred to their district was a pedophile and had been abusing boys for years. That was the right thing to do, right, send an email to alert the chain of command that a known pedophile had just been transferred into their district? WRONG! Here's what the military did instead :QuoteThe one American service member who was punished in the investigation that followed was Major Brezler, who had sent the email warning about Mr. Jan, his lawyers said. In one of Major Brezler’s hearings, Marine Corps lawyers warned that information about the police commander’s penchant for abusing boys might be classified. The Marine Corps has initiated proceedings to discharge Major Brezler.
Maybe current or former members of the military who are posting to this thread can give us some real life examples of people they know or have heard of who have stood up and reported unethical/immoral practices they observed while in the military and were not punished for their reports? Maybe the media only reports the bad stuff about the military, so I'm open to hearing from those of you who have first hand experience in the military. Have you ever or have you ever heard of anyone who has challenged the military and actually gotten them to change in a meaningful, positive way?
look at the great strides the military has made in addressing sexual assault. Is that not meaningful, positive change?
look at the great strides the military has made in addressing sexual assault. Is that not meaningful, positive change?
Absolutely, the fact that the military has started to address abuse of it's members by other members as a problem is a meaningful and positive change. Hopefully the changes recently made will largely put an end to the problem.
That this change is only happening recently, and that it hasn't been addressed until now is not a good track record for handling serious problems. If you're only just starting to prevent sexual assault between your comrades, it doesn't bode well for treatment of the guys you're fighting.
I have a question for you though . . . do you think that the military changed their sexual assault policy because the top commanders suddenly decided that it was no longer OK, or because people started to ask hard and pointed questions after many cases of abuse came to light?
One key difference with the military imo is that you are a lot likelier to be in a position to have an impact, both positive and negative. In Iraq, we set up the first US Airbase in the region and every single day felt like extremely critical things. We set up Intel pipelines. We got the Predator mission flying. We set up satcom so people could have internet. We set up air traffic control so planes could land. I repaired the fiber cable for the UXO robots that are mentioned in Hurt Locker (before the movie goes full Hollywood). Going from showering via water bottles, doing laundry in buckets, etc to a full legit base supporting thousands was an experience you won't get in the civilian world.
Likewise, deploying to South America and spending several months building schools, power lines, irrigation, roads, etc in an area where everyone lived in 3 walled shacks at best and the "good" job was being in the military making $30 a month was eye opening. It was also a nice change going to a place where everyone rushed out to wave happily at the military vehicles going by :)
At the end of the day, you are a LOT likelier to be a part of something that has a concrete impact on the world around you if you are in the military. I also think its a lot likelier you will be involved in something like Captain Phillips than Rendition and your life will have been better for those experiences. My anecdotal evidence supports this as pretty much every single one of the 100+ military and ex-military people I've known are glad they joined. Most leave, and I left for reasons mentioned previously about having the freedom to choose where to live etc. But it was a great positive influence in my life. Heck, I look at my wife and her brother and they were pretty similar until she joined the military and that, as Robert Frost would say, made all the difference.
But the question was why we do not/did not sign up. Yes those things are great BUT you have to risk being assigned the other option which is what seems to be the stopping point for many people.Some of us tried to discuss the many positive aspects of military service- life saving, humanitarian aid, environmental protection, stopping human trafficking, etc... - yet no one wanted to hear it. So after awhile you realize the horse is dead and move on to other topics.One key difference with the military imo is that you are a lot likelier to be in a position to have an impact, both positive and negative. In Iraq, we set up the first US Airbase in the region and every single day felt like extremely critical things. We set up Intel pipelines. We got the Predator mission flying. We set up satcom so people could have internet. We set up air traffic control so planes could land. I repaired the fiber cable for the UXO robots that are mentioned in Hurt Locker (before the movie goes full Hollywood). Going from showering via water bottles, doing laundry in buckets, etc to a full legit base supporting thousands was an experience you won't get in the civilian world.
Likewise, deploying to South America and spending several months building schools, power lines, irrigation, roads, etc in an area where everyone lived in 3 walled shacks at best and the "good" job was being in the military making $30 a month was eye opening. It was also a nice change going to a place where everyone rushed out to wave happily at the military vehicles going by :)
At the end of the day, you are a LOT likelier to be a part of something that has a concrete impact on the world around you if you are in the military. I also think its a lot likelier you will be involved in something like Captain Phillips than Rendition and your life will have been better for those experiences. My anecdotal evidence supports this as pretty much every single one of the 100+ military and ex-military people I've known are glad they joined. Most leave, and I left for reasons mentioned previously about having the freedom to choose where to live etc. But it was a great positive influence in my life. Heck, I look at my wife and her brother and they were pretty similar until she joined the military and that, as Robert Frost would say, made all the difference.
Yes. Husband was fortunate enough to deliver life-saving supplies to the Japanese people in the days after the quake and tsunami. For all the evils, there are plenty (and I'd argue far more) of these kinds of experiences. We know people who worked humanitarian and rescue efforts in Katrina, those who've lifted fishermen of sinking boats, and more. Maybe the military does more damage/bad things than civilian companies, but I think they do more good as well.
Of course none of this is a good reason, in and of itself, to enlist or commission (even combined with potentially free schooling), but it seems to be noticeably absent for conversations about all the bad the military does.
My prediction is that if in his first month in office President Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iran, all of the military people posting in this thread would salute and march off to do what they were told, and I'm sorry but that makes me feel physically ill.
My prediction is that if in his first month in office President Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iran, all of the military people posting in this thread would salute and march off to do what they were told, and I'm sorry but that makes me feel physically ill.
Whereas I wish Trump had served in the military. He'd probably be a lot more grounded, sane, and less likely to start a crazy foreign war. As for saluting and marching off to do what we are told, I'm not sure that makes sense. Joining the military doesn't mean you turn off your brain. I drove around base w/ a Kerry bumpersticker and criticized Bush and the invasion of Iraq my entire time in the military.
I never personally had an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and I'm not sure "No Good Reason" is going to hold up with anyone who has had any connection with the 9/11 attacks. If we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead of starting a second war, I think there would be a lot less criticism of the US Military both globally and domestically.
I have heard quite a few arguments against the invasion of Afgahanistan, would you mind detailing what good reason you think we have for invading another country?
My prediction is that if in his first month in office President Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iran, all of the military people posting in this thread would salute and march off to do what they were told, and I'm sorry but that makes me feel physically ill.
Whereas I wish Trump had served in the military. He'd probably be a lot more grounded, sane, and less likely to start a crazy foreign war. As for saluting and marching off to do what we are told, I'm not sure that makes sense. Joining the military doesn't mean you turn off your brain. I drove around base w/ a Kerry bumpersticker and criticized Bush and the invasion of Iraq my entire time in the military.
I never personally had an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and I'm not sure "No Good Reason" is going to hold up with anyone who has had any connection with the 9/11 attacks. If we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead of starting a second war, I think there would be a lot less criticism of the US Military both globally and domestically.
I have heard quite a few arguments against the invasion of Afgahanistan, would you mind detailing what good reason you think we have for invading another country?
My prediction is that if in his first month in office President Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iran, all of the military people posting in this thread would salute and march off to do what they were told, and I'm sorry but that makes me feel physically ill.
Whereas I wish Trump had served in the military. He'd probably be a lot more grounded, sane, and less likely to start a crazy foreign war. As for saluting and marching off to do what we are told, I'm not sure that makes sense. Joining the military doesn't mean you turn off your brain. I drove around base w/ a Kerry bumpersticker and criticized Bush and the invasion of Iraq my entire time in the military.
I never personally had an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and I'm not sure "No Good Reason" is going to hold up with anyone who has had any connection with the 9/11 attacks. If we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead of starting a second war, I think there would be a lot less criticism of the US Military both globally and domestically.
I have heard quite a few arguments against the invasion of Afgahanistan, would you mind detailing what good reason you think we have for invading another country?
My prediction is that if in his first month in office President Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iran, all of the military people posting in this thread would salute and march off to do what they were told, and I'm sorry but that makes me feel physically ill.
Whereas I wish Trump had served in the military. He'd probably be a lot more grounded, sane, and less likely to start a crazy foreign war. As for saluting and marching off to do what we are told, I'm not sure that makes sense. Joining the military doesn't mean you turn off your brain. I drove around base w/ a Kerry bumpersticker and criticized Bush and the invasion of Iraq my entire time in the military.
I never personally had an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and I'm not sure "No Good Reason" is going to hold up with anyone who has had any connection with the 9/11 attacks. If we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead of starting a second war, I think there would be a lot less criticism of the US Military both globally and domestically.
I'd like to hear a take on this too, considering that the Taliban were not Al-Qaeda.
Not exactly:I have heard quite a few arguments against the invasion of Afgahanistan, would you mind detailing what good reason you think we have for invading another country?
My prediction is that if in his first month in office President Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iran, all of the military people posting in this thread would salute and march off to do what they were told, and I'm sorry but that makes me feel physically ill.
Whereas I wish Trump had served in the military. He'd probably be a lot more grounded, sane, and less likely to start a crazy foreign war. As for saluting and marching off to do what we are told, I'm not sure that makes sense. Joining the military doesn't mean you turn off your brain. I drove around base w/ a Kerry bumpersticker and criticized Bush and the invasion of Iraq my entire time in the military.
I never personally had an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and I'm not sure "No Good Reason" is going to hold up with anyone who has had any connection with the 9/11 attacks. If we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead of starting a second war, I think there would be a lot less criticism of the US Military both globally and domestically.
I'd like to hear a take on this too, considering that the Taliban were not Al-Qaeda.
My understanding has been that the Taliban were hosting Al-Qaeda and that they were uncooperative in regards to U.S. calls to hand over Bin Laden who openly accepted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That was why we invaded Afghanistan. Running up to the invasion I was against it, but in the intervening years, unlike my anti-Iraq war position, my attitude has softened and I no longer think it was unreasonable given that Al-Qaeda had committed an act of war against the U.S. and the Afghanistan Taliban were enabling Al-Qaeda.
Not exactly:I have heard quite a few arguments against the invasion of Afgahanistan, would you mind detailing what good reason you think we have for invading another country?
My prediction is that if in his first month in office President Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iran, all of the military people posting in this thread would salute and march off to do what they were told, and I'm sorry but that makes me feel physically ill.
Whereas I wish Trump had served in the military. He'd probably be a lot more grounded, sane, and less likely to start a crazy foreign war. As for saluting and marching off to do what we are told, I'm not sure that makes sense. Joining the military doesn't mean you turn off your brain. I drove around base w/ a Kerry bumpersticker and criticized Bush and the invasion of Iraq my entire time in the military.
I never personally had an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and I'm not sure "No Good Reason" is going to hold up with anyone who has had any connection with the 9/11 attacks. If we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead of starting a second war, I think there would be a lot less criticism of the US Military both globally and domestically.
I'd like to hear a take on this too, considering that the Taliban were not Al-Qaeda.
My understanding has been that the Taliban were hosting Al-Qaeda and that they were uncooperative in regards to U.S. calls to hand over Bin Laden who openly accepted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That was why we invaded Afghanistan. Running up to the invasion I was against it, but in the intervening years, unlike my anti-Iraq war position, my attitude has softened and I no longer think it was unreasonable given that Al-Qaeda had committed an act of war against the U.S. and the Afghanistan Taliban were enabling Al-Qaeda.
The Taliban … refused to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week’s attacks on the United States. … The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan … said Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an “insult to Islam.” (emphasis added)
CNN also provided an explanation for the Taliban’s “refusal,” reporting: “Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks, and Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
"The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.
Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.
"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added."
I agree with on your first statement but not your second. Nor do I think it is right to expect the Taliban to fly in the face of international standards and not require proof (which we did not have) to extradite someone. I think the intervening years have for the most part shown that we should not give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt especially given:Not exactly:I have heard quite a few arguments against the invasion of Afgahanistan, would you mind detailing what good reason you think we have for invading another country?
My prediction is that if in his first month in office President Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iran, all of the military people posting in this thread would salute and march off to do what they were told, and I'm sorry but that makes me feel physically ill.
Whereas I wish Trump had served in the military. He'd probably be a lot more grounded, sane, and less likely to start a crazy foreign war. As for saluting and marching off to do what we are told, I'm not sure that makes sense. Joining the military doesn't mean you turn off your brain. I drove around base w/ a Kerry bumpersticker and criticized Bush and the invasion of Iraq my entire time in the military.
I never personally had an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and I'm not sure "No Good Reason" is going to hold up with anyone who has had any connection with the 9/11 attacks. If we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead of starting a second war, I think there would be a lot less criticism of the US Military both globally and domestically.
I'd like to hear a take on this too, considering that the Taliban were not Al-Qaeda.
My understanding has been that the Taliban were hosting Al-Qaeda and that they were uncooperative in regards to U.S. calls to hand over Bin Laden who openly accepted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That was why we invaded Afghanistan. Running up to the invasion I was against it, but in the intervening years, unlike my anti-Iraq war position, my attitude has softened and I no longer think it was unreasonable given that Al-Qaeda had committed an act of war against the U.S. and the Afghanistan Taliban were enabling Al-Qaeda.
The Taliban … refused to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week’s attacks on the United States. … The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan … said Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an “insult to Islam.” (emphasis added)
CNN also provided an explanation for the Taliban’s “refusal,” reporting: “Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks, and Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
"The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.
Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.
"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added."
Okay, so not as clear cut as I remembered.
Even so, I don't think it unreasonable to assume that the Taliban were merely stalling and had no intention of ever handing Bin Laden and associates over. I think the U.S. leadership realized this early on. Unlike Iraq, I'm willing to give our leadership the benefit of the doubt here. I just don't see that there was any strategic interest or pent up neocon ambition to invade Afghanistan (as there was to invade Iraq) other than to get Bin Laden.
think the intervening years have for the most part validated Bin Laden's involvement as well as the a reasonable expectation that the Taliban were stalling and would have never handed him over,
I agree with on your first statement but not your second. Nor do I think it is right to expect the Taliban to fly in the face of international standards and not require proof (which we did not have) to extradite someone. I think the intervening years have for the most part shown that we should not give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt especially given:Not exactly:I have heard quite a few arguments against the invasion of Afgahanistan, would you mind detailing what good reason you think we have for invading another country?
My prediction is that if in his first month in office President Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iran, all of the military people posting in this thread would salute and march off to do what they were told, and I'm sorry but that makes me feel physically ill.
Whereas I wish Trump had served in the military. He'd probably be a lot more grounded, sane, and less likely to start a crazy foreign war. As for saluting and marching off to do what we are told, I'm not sure that makes sense. Joining the military doesn't mean you turn off your brain. I drove around base w/ a Kerry bumpersticker and criticized Bush and the invasion of Iraq my entire time in the military.
I never personally had an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and I'm not sure "No Good Reason" is going to hold up with anyone who has had any connection with the 9/11 attacks. If we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead of starting a second war, I think there would be a lot less criticism of the US Military both globally and domestically.
I'd like to hear a take on this too, considering that the Taliban were not Al-Qaeda.
My understanding has been that the Taliban were hosting Al-Qaeda and that they were uncooperative in regards to U.S. calls to hand over Bin Laden who openly accepted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That was why we invaded Afghanistan. Running up to the invasion I was against it, but in the intervening years, unlike my anti-Iraq war position, my attitude has softened and I no longer think it was unreasonable given that Al-Qaeda had committed an act of war against the U.S. and the Afghanistan Taliban were enabling Al-Qaeda.
The Taliban … refused to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week’s attacks on the United States. … The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan … said Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an “insult to Islam.” (emphasis added)
CNN also provided an explanation for the Taliban’s “refusal,” reporting: “Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks, and Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
"The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.
Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.
"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added."
Okay, so not as clear cut as I remembered.
Even so, I don't think it unreasonable to assume that the Taliban were merely stalling and had no intention of ever handing Bin Laden and associates over. I think the U.S. leadership realized this early on. Unlike Iraq, I'm willing to give our leadership the benefit of the doubt here. I just don't see that there was any strategic interest or pent up neocon ambition to invade Afghanistan (as there was to invade Iraq) other than to get Bin Laden.
think the intervening years have for the most part validated Bin Laden's involvement as well as the a reasonable expectation that the Taliban were stalling and would have never handed him over,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2
"The report drawn up by the commission's staff said: "From the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the US government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel Bin Laden to a country where he could face justice. The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed."
At a meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials on September 10, a three-phase strategy was agreed.
The Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled to anti-Taliban groups. If both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action.""
Looks to me that they were looking for an excuse.
I am not arguing that he was not responsible, I am saying why would we not have proof? And why should they cooperate without proof? Why do you see the actions of the Taliban as stalling vs acting as a responsible state and requiring proof? And if we had proof, what could it have harmed to show that proof to the Taliban? Then there would be no argument on invading.I agree with on your first statement but not your second. Nor do I think it is right to expect the Taliban to fly in the face of international standards and not require proof (which we did not have) to extradite someone. I think the intervening years have for the most part shown that we should not give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt especially given:Not exactly:I have heard quite a few arguments against the invasion of Afgahanistan, would you mind detailing what good reason you think we have for invading another country?
My prediction is that if in his first month in office President Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iran, all of the military people posting in this thread would salute and march off to do what they were told, and I'm sorry but that makes me feel physically ill.
Whereas I wish Trump had served in the military. He'd probably be a lot more grounded, sane, and less likely to start a crazy foreign war. As for saluting and marching off to do what we are told, I'm not sure that makes sense. Joining the military doesn't mean you turn off your brain. I drove around base w/ a Kerry bumpersticker and criticized Bush and the invasion of Iraq my entire time in the military.
I never personally had an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and I'm not sure "No Good Reason" is going to hold up with anyone who has had any connection with the 9/11 attacks. If we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead of starting a second war, I think there would be a lot less criticism of the US Military both globally and domestically.
I'd like to hear a take on this too, considering that the Taliban were not Al-Qaeda.
My understanding has been that the Taliban were hosting Al-Qaeda and that they were uncooperative in regards to U.S. calls to hand over Bin Laden who openly accepted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That was why we invaded Afghanistan. Running up to the invasion I was against it, but in the intervening years, unlike my anti-Iraq war position, my attitude has softened and I no longer think it was unreasonable given that Al-Qaeda had committed an act of war against the U.S. and the Afghanistan Taliban were enabling Al-Qaeda.
The Taliban … refused to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week’s attacks on the United States. … The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan … said Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an “insult to Islam.” (emphasis added)
CNN also provided an explanation for the Taliban’s “refusal,” reporting: “Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks, and Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
"The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.
Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.
"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added."
Okay, so not as clear cut as I remembered.
Even so, I don't think it unreasonable to assume that the Taliban were merely stalling and had no intention of ever handing Bin Laden and associates over. I think the U.S. leadership realized this early on. Unlike Iraq, I'm willing to give our leadership the benefit of the doubt here. I just don't see that there was any strategic interest or pent up neocon ambition to invade Afghanistan (as there was to invade Iraq) other than to get Bin Laden.
think the intervening years have for the most part validated Bin Laden's involvement as well as the a reasonable expectation that the Taliban were stalling and would have never handed him over,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2
"The report drawn up by the commission's staff said: "From the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the US government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel Bin Laden to a country where he could face justice. The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed."
At a meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials on September 10, a three-phase strategy was agreed.
The Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled to anti-Taliban groups. If both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action.""
Looks to me that they were looking for an excuse.
Everything you write may be very much the truth and I certainly wouldn't put it past some of the Bush Administration neocons. Even so, Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1996, followed by multiple terrorist attacks over the years, culminating in 9/11. Now unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of arguing that 9/11 was NOT the responsibility of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, I still can't fault the decision to invade Afghanistan to get Bin Laden after they destroy the Twin Towers, attack the Pentagon and kill thousands of people. There was no reason to think the Taliban were ever going to cooperate. Sorry, but I just can't find a fault with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the same way I do the invasion of Iraq.
I am not arguing that he was not responsible, I am saying why would we not have proof? And why should they cooperate without proof? Why do you see the actions of the Taliban as stalling vs acting as a responsible state and requiring proof? And if we had proof, what could it have harmed to show that proof to the Taliban? Then there would be no argument on invading.
I am not arguing that he was not responsible, I am saying why would we not have proof? And why should they cooperate without proof? Why do you see the actions of the Taliban as stalling vs acting as a responsible state and requiring proof? And if we had proof, what could it have harmed to show that proof to the Taliban? Then there would be no argument on invading.
This seems absurd. Do you remember the sentiment at the time? Osama attacked the US, on its own soil, in multiple locations. Public approval for invasion was 90+%. When was the last time there was 90% approval for anything military related? Bush's handling of everything into the invasion jumped his approval ratings from the doldrums to some of the highest in history.
Then the Taliban wants to muck around with "show us the proof!". Really? If they were a legit government that disapproved of an action of this magnitude orchestrated on their own soil, they would move heaven and earth to at the very least apprehend Osama and attempt to calm the situation back down. Instead they bothered with "where's the proof?" nonsense. Actions have consequences. Osama's actions had clear consequences, and the Taliban's own choices during this time had consequences of its own.
Had the US kept their focus on Afghanistan and Osama instead of diverting to Iraq and captured Osama in a timely manner and then focused on getting out of Afghanistan there would be almost no debate about this and approval ratings of the decision to invade would still likely be 90+%. The only reason even debating this is not absurd today is because of what decisions were made AFTER the decision to invade.
It's kinda interesting that Osama ended up living in northern Pakistan for so many years, but no attempt to invade Pakistan was made. No sanctions or issues
Then the Taliban wants to muck around with "show us the proof!". Really? If they were a legit government that disapproved of an action of this magnitude orchestrated on their own soil, they would move heaven and earth to at the very least apprehend Osama and attempt to calm the situation back down. Instead they bothered with "where's the proof?" nonsense. Actions have consequences. Osama's actions had clear consequences, and the Taliban's own choices during this time had consequences of its own.
FWIW, I suspect that the Taliban would have had trouble actually finding and then capturing Osama to hand over, so request for proof was largely a delaying tactic on their part. Unfortunately, none of us will ever know if that was the case. That said, the whole 'judge people before you have proof because that's silly nonsense' mindset is what led to Guantanamo Bay and the many innocent people held and tortured there.
I never personally had an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and I'm not sure "No Good Reason" is going to hold up with anyone who has had any connection with the 9/11 attacks. If we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead of starting a second war, I think there would be a lot less criticism of the US Military both globally and domestically.
I'm starting to feel like the people that sound anti-military here, aren't really anti-military. They're mostly anti-government. The military doesn't decide to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. The military doesn't decide to stay there, how many troops are there, what equipment they bring, what funding they have to build and support the local population. The military does NONE of that.
All of these points are points you need to make to the politicians that control the military, Democrat and Republican. The same people that manage your healthcare, education, welfare, social security programs also run the military. Direct your anger, hate, incrimination at the people responsible. There's blood on your hands supporting a government that orders troops to do this, and it's across both parties.
Then the Taliban wants to muck around with "show us the proof!". Really? If they were a legit government that disapproved of an action of this magnitude orchestrated on their own soil, they would move heaven and earth to at the very least apprehend Osama and attempt to calm the situation back down. Instead they bothered with "where's the proof?" nonsense. Actions have consequences. Osama's actions had clear consequences, and the Taliban's own choices during this time had consequences of its own.
FWIW, I suspect that the Taliban would have had trouble actually finding and then capturing Osama to hand over, so request for proof was largely a delaying tactic on their part. Unfortunately, none of us will ever know if that was the case. That said, the whole 'judge people before you have proof because that's silly nonsense' mindset is what led to Guantanamo Bay and the many innocent people held and tortured there.
Quote from: dramaman link=topic=46339.msg956628#msg956628Then the Taliban wants to muck around with "show us the proof!". Really? If they were a legit government that disapproved of an action of this magnitude orchestrated on their own soil, they would move heaven and earth to at the very least apprehend Osama and attempt to calm the situation back down. Instead they bothered with "where's the proof?" nonsense. Actions have consequences. Osama's actions had clear consequences, and the Taliban's own choices during this time had consequences of its own.
FWIW, I suspect that the Taliban would have had trouble actually finding and then capturing Osama to hand over, so request for proof was largely a delaying tactic on their part. Unfortunately, none of us will ever know if that was the case. That said, the whole 'judge people before you have proof because that's silly nonsense' mindset is what led to Guantanamo Bay and the many innocent people held and tortured there.
I don't doubt the Taliban would have had trouble getting their own people to surrender Bin Laden. It just wasn't in their nature to surrender someone who they thought of as a hero for giving the bad ol' U.S. a bloody nose. But that also is consistent with the notion that they would never have cooperated and were not negotiating in good faith. I think the U.S. diplomats realized this and it was determined that armed conflict would be the only way to get Bin Laden. Incidentally that is the very purpose of war -- to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved via diplomacy. Prior to 9/11 it wasn't worth going to war to get Bin Laden. After 9/11, the American people wanted to get Bin Laden so badly that going to war was no problem. Bush did not have to sell the Afghanistan invasion like the way he had to sell the Iraq invasion.
Hang on for a second . . . the Taliban didn't hate Americans. Before 9/11 the US and Taliban were in negotiations for oil rights for the US company Unocal. Dick Cheney was the head of Haliburton who were planning to build a 2 billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan. The US was the source of a lot of money for Afghans and the Taliban.
“I can’t think of a time when we’ve had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It’s almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight. The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is.” - Dick Cheney, 1998
The Taliban are a loosely tied together group and I'm not certain that they had the military power to actually get Osama . . . who had his own small army of followers at the time. At the same time, they couldn't really publicly admit that they were so weak . . . so the US had them in a catch 22. I also suspect that the Taliban were pretty pissed at Osama when he eventually admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks. That didn't happen until 2004 though, three years after the US invaded Afghanistan.
Except at the TIME, we had no proof that he was responsible. If we did, why not produce it? I cannot understand this blind faith when Bush and co has been shown to be lairs.Quote from: dramaman link=topic=46339.msg956628#msg956628Then the Taliban wants to muck around with "show us the proof!". Really? If they were a legit government that disapproved of an action of this magnitude orchestrated on their own soil, they would move heaven and earth to at the very least apprehend Osama and attempt to calm the situation back down. Instead they bothered with "where's the proof?" nonsense. Actions have consequences. Osama's actions had clear consequences, and the Taliban's own choices during this time had consequences of its own.
FWIW, I suspect that the Taliban would have had trouble actually finding and then capturing Osama to hand over, so request for proof was largely a delaying tactic on their part. Unfortunately, none of us will ever know if that was the case. That said, the whole 'judge people before you have proof because that's silly nonsense' mindset is what led to Guantanamo Bay and the many innocent people held and tortured there.
I don't doubt the Taliban would have had trouble getting their own people to surrender Bin Laden. It just wasn't in their nature to surrender someone who they thought of as a hero for giving the bad ol' U.S. a bloody nose. But that also is consistent with the notion that they would never have cooperated and were not negotiating in good faith. I think the U.S. diplomats realized this and it was determined that armed conflict would be the only way to get Bin Laden. Incidentally that is the very purpose of war -- to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved via diplomacy. Prior to 9/11 it wasn't worth going to war to get Bin Laden. After 9/11, the American people wanted to get Bin Laden so badly that going to war was no problem. Bush did not have to sell the Afghanistan invasion like the way he had to sell the Iraq invasion.
Hang on for a second . . . the Taliban didn't hate Americans. Before 9/11 the US and Taliban were in negotiations for oil rights for the US company Unocal. Dick Cheney was the head of Haliburton who were planning to build a 2 billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan. The US was the source of a lot of money for Afghans and the Taliban.
“I can’t think of a time when we’ve had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It’s almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight. The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is.” - Dick Cheney, 1998
The Taliban are a loosely tied together group and I'm not certain that they had the military power to actually get Osama . . . who had his own small army of followers at the time. At the same time, they couldn't really publicly admit that they were so weak . . . so the US had them in a catch 22. I also suspect that the Taliban were pretty pissed at Osama when he eventually admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks. That didn't happen until 2004 though, three years after the US invaded Afghanistan.
Regarding the Taliban, your description of them as a loosely tied together group is what I was thinking of when I was arguing that it would have been difficult to surrender Bin Laden as he would have been viewed as a hero. More precisely, within the Taliban, there were likely a number of conflicting viewpoints regarding Bin Laden and 9/11. Some might have been pro-American, but there likely just as many, particularly those working closest with Bin Laden, who were anti-American. I just don't see there being a reasonable expectation that Bin Laden would get handed over and whether good or bad, after 9/11, I don't think the American people were in a "Let's wait and find out" sort of mood. We were in a "We've been attacked and want the SOB responsible and either hand him over or get out of the way" sort of mood. For what it's worth, I think most of the world understood that and didn't fault us for invading Afghanistan. If only we had just stopped there...
Haven't kept up on this thread much but I see newcomers are still failing to grasp GuitarStv's central argument. Read better, guys. It's not about the merits of any particular action, it's about making an a priori commitment to follow 100% of orders and potentially being placed in a moral dilemma as a result.Do you honestly think that any country should extradite someone with no proof given that international standards are that the request come with proof? Should the US start extraditing to China and Russia on their word?
RE: all this fun on page 8, I have personally been to both Iraq and Afghanistan as a servicemember, and Iraq as a contractor. There is a clear distinction among the causes and level of justification for each. The claim that AQ and Taliban were separate entities is nice and all, but there was significant operational cooperation and even integration in many locales, and some key leaders were official members of both. And likewise, the Taliban's demands for proof regarding 9/11 were largely classic bluster - they could not afford to kowtow to the US on such an issue, even if proof were delivered, and it is exceedingly unlikely they actually cared whether he was responsible. They knew his MO and his ambitions, and had sheltered and supported him for years regardless. Accordingly, I have always fully supported the invasion, right up until the point when we started drawing down resources to hit Iraq, which I always 100% opposed.
It is clear from Project For A New American Century statements easily found online, and GW Bush's documented statements in the 1990s, that Iraq was always a target for neocons awaiting an excuse for a full invasion, as well as a great matter of personal ambition for Bush. He publicly fantasized about being in his father's shoes after the liberation of Kuwait and making a different choice - instead of letting the Iraqi army withdraw to secure its own borders, pushing all the way to Baghdad and deposing Saddam. He, for personal reasons, and his partisan allies, for political and financial ones, had a hard-on for Iraq for a decade before 9/11, and essentially spent the time between 9/11 and early 2003 devising the PR strategy for the pivot there from Afghanistan. And even without being directly involved, I was close enough to some of the war planning operations to have a clear sense that it was only a question of "when", not "if" - long before the UN inspector charade had played out, even while we were publicly claiming we'd gladly leave Saddam in power if he only met our reasonable conditions. Additionally, being primarily a facilities specialist over there, I saw firsthand that the administration's commitment to a lasting footprint in Iraq was greater from the get-go - our presence was larger, better-fortified, and much better funded, and the money says it all.
Meanwhile, we lost bin Laden and nearly lost Afghanistan as the Taliban resurged when we started pulling troops out to feed the other, less-justified, better-resourced, and totally needless war. I personally lost one friend in Afghanistan a few years later as the US tried to restore the level of security first established in 2002.
Accordingly, I've always regarded OIF as one of the most shameful things our nation has ever done. We stayed longer than expected, lost more lives, and spent more money than ever expected, and never achieved our goals. The fallout continues to reverberate - Iraqi refugees were a large factor in the economic strain that tipped Syria into civil war, Iraq itself and the entire ME at large are less stable than before, and we are less secure here in the U.S. We've lost credibility in the international community as more of the lies behind that war are made public. And nobody even knows when the damage will end - the enduring effects could last indefinitely. By comparison, the only real misdeed with Afghanistan is that our callous power brokers fucked it up by not sticking around to finish the job, so they could squander even greater blood and treasure somewhere else and let their fucking cronies collect a percentage.
Maybe I'm totally off base, but I'm pretty sure we did have the intelligence proof at the time - intercepted phone calls and such in the days after 9/11. I can't remember exactly how much was shared with the public at the time. I wouldn't call it blind faith in believing the Bush admin on this. A scenario in which Bush lied, just doesn't pass the common sense test. I mean, if the Bush admin had wanted to lie, they would have pointed the finger at Saddam Hussein from the get go. From everything I understand, Bush was definitely asking leading questions wanting his experts to tell him that Saddam was responsible. Saddam was the big fish and if they were going to lie it would have been to blame Saddam rather than Bin Laden. I fault Bush a lot, but I'm not willing to go down the rabbit hole that everything was one big damn lie. The truth always comes out eventually, like it did with the WMD lie.Except at the TIME, we had no proof that he was responsible. If we did, why not produce it? I cannot understand this blind faith when Bush and co has been shown to be lairs.Quote from: dramaman link=topic=46339.msg956628#msg956628Then the Taliban wants to muck around with "show us the proof!". Really? If they were a legit government that disapproved of an action of this magnitude orchestrated on their own soil, they would move heaven and earth to at the very least apprehend Osama and attempt to calm the situation back down. Instead they bothered with "where's the proof?" nonsense. Actions have consequences. Osama's actions had clear consequences, and the Taliban's own choices during this time had consequences of its own.
FWIW, I suspect that the Taliban would have had trouble actually finding and then capturing Osama to hand over, so request for proof was largely a delaying tactic on their part. Unfortunately, none of us will ever know if that was the case. That said, the whole 'judge people before you have proof because that's silly nonsense' mindset is what led to Guantanamo Bay and the many innocent people held and tortured there.
I don't doubt the Taliban would have had trouble getting their own people to surrender Bin Laden. It just wasn't in their nature to surrender someone who they thought of as a hero for giving the bad ol' U.S. a bloody nose. But that also is consistent with the notion that they would never have cooperated and were not negotiating in good faith. I think the U.S. diplomats realized this and it was determined that armed conflict would be the only way to get Bin Laden. Incidentally that is the very purpose of war -- to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved via diplomacy. Prior to 9/11 it wasn't worth going to war to get Bin Laden. After 9/11, the American people wanted to get Bin Laden so badly that going to war was no problem. Bush did not have to sell the Afghanistan invasion like the way he had to sell the Iraq invasion.
Hang on for a second . . . the Taliban didn't hate Americans. Before 9/11 the US and Taliban were in negotiations for oil rights for the US company Unocal. Dick Cheney was the head of Haliburton who were planning to build a 2 billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan. The US was the source of a lot of money for Afghans and the Taliban.
“I can’t think of a time when we’ve had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It’s almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight. The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is.” - Dick Cheney, 1998
The Taliban are a loosely tied together group and I'm not certain that they had the military power to actually get Osama . . . who had his own small army of followers at the time. At the same time, they couldn't really publicly admit that they were so weak . . . so the US had them in a catch 22. I also suspect that the Taliban were pretty pissed at Osama when he eventually admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks. That didn't happen until 2004 though, three years after the US invaded Afghanistan.
Regarding the Taliban, your description of them as a loosely tied together group is what I was thinking of when I was arguing that it would have been difficult to surrender Bin Laden as he would have been viewed as a hero. More precisely, within the Taliban, there were likely a number of conflicting viewpoints regarding Bin Laden and 9/11. Some might have been pro-American, but there likely just as many, particularly those working closest with Bin Laden, who were anti-American. I just don't see there being a reasonable expectation that Bin Laden would get handed over and whether good or bad, after 9/11, I don't think the American people were in a "Let's wait and find out" sort of mood. We were in a "We've been attacked and want the SOB responsible and either hand him over or get out of the way" sort of mood. For what it's worth, I think most of the world understood that and didn't fault us for invading Afghanistan. If only we had just stopped there...
On the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to bin Laden, as did German intelligence agencies.
At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.
The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.
It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation.
Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.
But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives.
Accordingly, I've always regarded OIF as one of the most shameful things our nation has ever done. We stayed longer than expected, lost more lives, and spent more money than ever expected, and never achieved our goals. The fallout continues to reverberate - Iraqi refugees were a large factor in the economic strain that tipped Syria into civil war, Iraq itself and the entire ME at large are less stable than before, and we are less secure here in the U.S. We've lost credibility in the international community as more of the lies behind that war are made public. And nobody even knows when the damage will end - the enduring effects could last indefinitely. By comparison, the only real misdeed with Afghanistan is that our callous power brokers fucked it up by not sticking around to finish the job, so they could squander even greater blood and treasure somewhere else and let their fucking cronies collect a percentage.
Regarding Bin Laden/Al Qaeda responsibility for 9/11. Wikipedia (for what it's worth) seems to back up my memory that there were intelligence intercepts linking Al Qaeda to 9/11.If you go to the link from German reference it brings you to New York Times article which says "The investigators do not yet have concrete evidence that Mr. bin Laden was the author of the attack, the official said. But he said he had no doubt that it was the work of Al Qaeda, because it ''has exclusively chosen the United States as a target.''"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Assigning_responsibility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Assigning_responsibility)QuoteOn the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to bin Laden, as did German intelligence agencies.
Wikipedia has citations for both of these claims. The first is a link to a news article on a website that is no longer available. The second is a NY Times article talking about the german intelligence intercept.
Regarding what the NSA intercept, here is another news article I found describing what Rumsfeld learned that very day
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/)QuoteAt 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.
The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.
It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation.
Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.
But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives.
What's interesting is that this is all described in the context of the Bush Admin wanting to point fingers at Iraq almost immediately and then having to back off after intelligence tells them that no, Al Qaeda is the responsible party. So yes, the Bush Admin was prone to lie, but their own analysts wouldn't let them lie when it came to who the evidence was pointing to.
Regarding Bin Laden/Al Qaeda responsibility for 9/11. Wikipedia (for what it's worth) seems to back up my memory that there were intelligence intercepts linking Al Qaeda to 9/11.If you go to the link from German reference it brings you to New York Times article which says "The investigators do not yet have concrete evidence that Mr. bin Laden was the author of the attack, the official said. But he said he had no doubt that it was the work of Al Qaeda, because it ''has exclusively chosen the United States as a target.''"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Assigning_responsibility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Assigning_responsibility)QuoteOn the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to bin Laden, as did German intelligence agencies.
Wikipedia has citations for both of these claims. The first is a link to a news article on a website that is no longer available. The second is a NY Times article talking about the german intelligence intercept.
Regarding what the NSA intercept, here is another news article I found describing what Rumsfeld learned that very day
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/)QuoteAt 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.
The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.
It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation.
Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.
But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives.
What's interesting is that this is all described in the context of the Bush Admin wanting to point fingers at Iraq almost immediately and then having to back off after intelligence tells them that no, Al Qaeda is the responsible party. So yes, the Bush Admin was prone to lie, but their own analysts wouldn't let them lie when it came to who the evidence was pointing to.
I believe in rule of law and not of killing someone without first determining if they are guilty. And frankly the idea that we showed no proof that he was implies that we had none, especially given the German reference. Al Qaeda does not mean one man. It would be like saying that we should kill all members of the KKK without proof that they are, because some did illegal things (and frankly immoral things), understandable but not moral or legal (in this country):
http://usuncut.com/politics/anonymous-unhoods-kkk-prominent-politicians/
Should we kill all of them? No, because that is not us as a country, or at least I expect better of my country.
I am now adamantly opposed to both wars and any and every farse of an excuse for starting them. I am glad I got out, and I'm glad I served. One of my old military buddies put it this way "Serving was simultaneously one of the best and worst experiences of my life." Pretty much how I feel.
I am now adamantly opposed to both wars and any and every farse of an excuse for starting them. I am glad I got out, and I'm glad I served. One of my old military buddies put it this way "Serving was simultaneously one of the best and worst experiences of my life." Pretty much how I feel.
I feel this way, also. I don't regret my military service, but I'm not exactly proud of it either. Some people shake my hand and thank me on Veteran's day, so I just smile and play along. It matters a great deal whether you served during a time of peace, a 'just war' or something different. I'd say Afghanistan was a just war when it began, but I can't say it stayed that way. Historically, the last 'just war' was either WW2 or Korea, so it's been a while. I know quite a few vets that feel similarly. There are good reasons that so many vets end up as anti-government 'bitter clingers'. This thread has made me rather self-conflicted, as I can see the truth in both sides rather easily; and it conjures up both good and bad memories.
To my knowledge, at the moment our military isn't doing as much that's clearly wrong as the U.S. is, hence my examples.That is just a difference in degree, not in kind. If you have a moral objection to military service, then it would be honest to have an absolute stance against advising young adults to pursue a military career regardless of the benefits they might receive. You are neither hot, nor cold; GuitarStv.
I don't advise anybody to join up with the military for education benefits. Any military (including Canada). You are putting yourself in a position where you may have to subordinate your sense of right and wrong to someone else.
Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork? If you have any understanding of international relations you understand that we only use the military as a last resort. We spend years leveraging assets with NGOs, the State Department, and various international organizations. Ideally, the goal would be to eliminate or neutralize the threat while it's small and unable to present a threat to our country, rather than waiting for a situation like Germany or Japan rapidly expanding and consolidating power before we intervene.
Not all, but most former members of the military I've known are hawks. They vote Republican, and they like candidates who have military experience and are tough on "defense," i.e., they want to invade other people's countries and take their stuff.QuoteAlso, most people also don't understand that the military is primarily an economic force. The largest threat to our country is economic.
I totally agree with this. The main reasons why our military invades or doesn't invade any given country all have to do with money. The whole moral superiority, patriotism thing is just a ruse to cover up the U.S. government's real agenda.
This is a half-truth at best. You can be strong on defense without wanting to invade anyone. Since we're the first to suffer when we invade a country, the vast majority of us DON'T want to go to war.
When was the last time the military needed to defend the US- seriously. When was the last time the US or its major allies were attacked?
And likewise, the Taliban's demands for proof regarding 9/11 were largely classic bluster - they could not afford to kowtow to the US on such an issue, even if proof were delivered, and it is exceedingly unlikely they actually cared whether he was responsible. They knew his MO and his ambitions, and had sheltered and supported him for years regardless.Wait, what? Did you even read my comment? In context? Beyond the part you bolded?
Do you honestly think that any country should extradite someone with no proof given that international standards are that the request come with proof? Should the US start extraditing to China and Russia on their word?
Yes I did read your entire statement, none of which had any evidence to support your statements. Other than "they knew he did it" and "we know they knew". That is not evidence. And why would you expect more from US than from them. If you are ok with other countries saying "they knew he did it" and "we know they knew", why not ours?And likewise, the Taliban's demands for proof regarding 9/11 were largely classic bluster - they could not afford to kowtow to the US on such an issue, even if proof were delivered, and it is exceedingly unlikely they actually cared whether he was responsible. They knew his MO and his ambitions, and had sheltered and supported him for years regardless.Wait, what? Did you even read my comment? In context? Beyond the part you bolded?
Do you honestly think that any country should extradite someone with no proof given that international standards are that the request come with proof? Should the US start extraditing to China and Russia on their word?
I'd be the last to support the kinds of actions you described, nor did I indicate anywhere in there that evidence should be optional in an extradition demand.
Let me restate, for clarity: the Taliban's recalcitrance was 1) obligatory, regardless of proof; 2) probably not based on any actual doubt about his guilt, and 3) totally predictable, because of cultural norms and their perceived role in the world. They probably knew he did it, or most likely did it, and they definitely didn't care; most importantly, their need to present themselves as the spiritual core of resistance to the Great Satan of the West overrides both of those things.
If the Taliban regained central control of Afghanistan and this all happened again, they'd say no again. They can lose territory and keep their sphere of influence in the FATA, but they can't deliver a revered jihadist to their spiritual enemy and maintain legitimacy. Their ideological support would crumble.