PDA

View Full Version : Military vs. other jobs


Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 11:28 AM
I made this thread in response to Piscivore not understanding the difference between being in the military and being a garbage man.

Here are a few bullet points for you:

-The training: In the military, depending upon your specific MOS, you have months and months of training to complete before you can even begin your job. Much of this training must be done away from your family sometimes with the only contact being snale mail. Not to mention that you have superiors yelling at you the whole time to make it very stressful. Also, you must meet various standards to complete the training such as physical fitness tests, marksmanship, land navigation, etc. And if you are an officer, you must have also completed an officer commissioning program and have a bachelors degree (That is about 4 years of college in case you didn't know). To be a garbage man the only training is quite minimum.

-Lifestyle: The lifestyle is quite different than that of a garbage man. In the military, you can be called up for deployment at any time. During a deployment, you can be away from your family for as much as 15 months at a time with very minimal contact with your family. You also have to move a lot to places where you don't know anyone and it could even be a different country. Assignment changes often come every 2-4 years. A garbage man stays in the same spot and never has to move.

-Danger: There are various risks during military training, but of course, the real risk comes when you get deployed to a combat zone. Garbage men never have to leave the country and be put in a combat zone.

We will just go with those for starters.

JimBenArm
5th May 2009, 11:36 AM
How about the difference between Submariners and garbage men?

One smells bad and does a dirty job no one wants.

The other collects your trash once a week.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 11:42 AM
How about the difference between Submariners and garbage men?

One smells bad and does a dirty job no one wants.

The other collects your trash once a week.

Don't know much about submariners. I DO know that while they are on the submarine they are away from their families for a great deal of time(And the rest of the world for that matter).

Piscivore
5th May 2009, 11:52 AM
I made this thread in response to Piscivore not understanding the difference between being in the military and being a garbage man.

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Here are a few bullet points for you:

-The training: In the military, depending upon your specific MOS, you have months and months of training to complete before you can even begin your job. Much of this training must be done away from your family sometimes with the only contact being snale mail. Not to mention that you have superiors yelling at you the whole time to make it very stressful. Also, you must meet various standards to complete the training such as physical fitness tests, marksmanship, land navigation, etc. And if you are an officer, you must have also completed an officer commissioning program and have a bachelors degree (That is about 4 years of college in case you didn't know). To be a garbage man the only training is quite minimum.
That seems trivial in relation to the original point. It was not the extent or duration of training on which the original poster based the comparison, but the unpleasantness of the job.

-Lifestyle: The lifestyle is quite different than that of a garbage man. In the military, you can be called up for deployment at any time. During a deployment, you can be away from your family for as much as 15 months at a time with very minimal contact with your family.
Fair enough, but that's just another aspect of the unpleasantness of the job.

You also have to move a lot to places where you don't know anyone and it could even be a different country.
Interesting that you seem to consider this as a negative.

Assignment changes often come every 2-4 years. A garbage man stays in the same spot and never has to move.
Again, this is a trivial difference with regards to the original point.

-Danger: There are various risks during military training, but of course, the real risk comes when you get deployed to a combat zone. Garbage men never have to leave the country and be put in a combat zone.
Garbage men don't get hurt? Jobs in foreign "combat zones" are the only dangerous ones, then? Every job in the US is a safe one?

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 11:57 AM
That seems trivial in relation to the original point. It was not the extent or duration of training on which the original poster based the comparison, but the unpleasantness of the job.


Fair enough, but that's just another aspect of the unpleasantness of the job.


Interesting that you seem to consider this as a negative.


Again, this is a trivial difference with regards to the original point.


Garbage men don't get hurt? Jobs in foreign "combat zones" are the only dangerous ones, then? Every job in the US is a safe one?

It seems you acknowledge the vast differences between being a garbage man and being in the military. Good. Now, would you also acknowledge that people actively trying to kill you is quite a bit different kind of danger than an on the job accident?

JimBenArm
5th May 2009, 12:06 PM
I must take issue with a couple of things in your response, Piscivore.

Being in a foreign country without your family is a negative. Don't care how picturesque it is. It's depressing. Try an unaccompanied tour sometime. It's a hoot!

Secondly, moving every 2-4 years is not trivial. You never get to know anyone in your community on any more than a casual basis, kids (if any) have to constantly change schools, your stuff is constantly being banged up and in a lot of cases destroyed by movers who could give a rat's ass about how it's handled. For added joy, try doing this when you're a single guy stationed on a ship changing home ports from one coast to another, and you need to get a car moved. Loads of laughs!

Thirdly, he didn't say that garbage men don't get hurt. However, the likelyhood would seem to be greater if there is someone actively trying to hurt you that it might happen. Do people generally set roadside bombs for their garbage men? Well, outside of New York?

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 12:11 PM
I must take issue with a couple of things in your response, Piscivore.

Being in a foreign country without your family is a negative. Don't care how picturesque it is. It's depressing. Try an unaccompanied tour sometime. It's a hoot!

Secondly, moving every 2-4 years is not trivial. You never get to know anyone in your community on any more than a casual basis, kids (if any) have to constantly change schools, your stuff is constantly being banged up and in a lot of cases destroyed by movers who could give a rat's ass about how it's handled. For added joy, try doing this when you're a single guy stationed on a ship changing home ports from one coast to another, and you need to get a car moved. Loads of laughs!

Thirdly, he didn't say that garbage men don't get hurt. However, the likelyhood would seem to be greater if there is someone actively trying to hurt you that it might happen. Do people generally set roadside bombs for their garbage men? Well, outside of New York?

Good point. Many people don't sit down and think how crappy it can be to move all of the time. I don't know about you, but I hate moving! Not to mention you always have to get your license changed, mailing address, call the banks and change your address information, make new friends, damaged goods, etc etc. You outlined it pretty well.

Piscivore
5th May 2009, 12:16 PM
I must take issue with a couple of things in your response, Piscivore.

Being in a foreign country without your family is a negative. Don't care how picturesque it is. It's depressing. Try an unaccompanied tour sometime. It's a hoot!

Well, I spent five weeks in Asia without thinking of my family once, but I'm self-centered like that. :)

Secondly, moving every 2-4 years is not trivial. You never get to know anyone in your community on any more than a casual basis, kids (if any) have to constantly change schools, your stuff is constantly being banged up and in a lot of cases destroyed by movers who could give a rat's ass about how it's handled. For added joy, try doing this when you're a single guy stationed on a ship changing home ports from one coast to another, and you need to get a car moved. Loads of laughs!

Thirdly, he didn't say that garbage men don't get hurt. However, the likelyhood would seem to be greater if there is someone actively trying to hurt you that it might happen. Do people generally set roadside bombs for their garbage men? Well, outside of New York?
Fair enough.

gumboot
5th May 2009, 03:41 PM
Good point. Many people don't sit down and think how crappy it can be to move all of the time. I don't know about you, but I hate moving! Not to mention you always have to get your license changed, mailing address, call the banks and change your address information, make new friends, damaged goods, etc etc. You outlined it pretty well.


I'm an Air Force brat so I can attest to how disrupting it is to constantly move as a child. Every couple of years your entire life is uprooted, you have to say goodbye to your friends forever, and you're dumped into some new, alien town and school where no one knows you, and you have to start the long hard process of making friends again. Only to repeat the cycle, just as you're settling in.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 03:42 PM
I'm an Air Force brat so I can attest to how disrupting it is to constantly move as a child. Every couple of years your entire life is uprooted, you have to say goodbye to your friends forever, and you're dumped into some new, alien town and school where no one knows you, and you have to start the long hard process of making friends again. Only to repeat the cycle, just as you're settling in.

Yup. I think piscivore gets the idea now and realizes that there is a huge difference between garbage men and military.

Undesired Walrus
5th May 2009, 04:05 PM
You aren't buggered as much if you are a garbage man, that is true. Those guys never shower.

VulcanWay
5th May 2009, 04:07 PM
Being a veteran myself, I can tell you that the biggest difference between a garbage collector and a military person is the Uniform Code of Military Justice (that's in the US, though I'm sure every other modern military has something very similar). Basically, in addition to following the laws of the land, you have an extra set of laws that you have to follow.

The effects of it can be as far reaching as losing some of your very rights as an American. On a military base, or just as a military person, there is no such thing as freedom from search and seizure. Your freedom of speech can be severely curtailed. You are basically government property.

As a garbage man, you can also tell your boss to screw off, quit the job, and sit around in your undies drinking beer all day for as long as your money lasts. Try that in the military and you'll quickly find yourself in prison "making big ones into little ones."

This is not to say that it is a horrible thing to be in the military - I wish that more high school grads would go into the armed services for a bit for more reasons than one. You do get to experience the world in a way that no one outside of a military force ever will, but there are sacrifices to be made...

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 04:16 PM
Being a veteran myself, I can tell you that the biggest difference between a garbage collector and a military person is the Uniform Code of Military Justice (that's in the US, though I'm sure every other modern military has something very similar). Basically, in addition to following the laws of the land, you have an extra set of laws that you have to follow.

The effects of it can be as far reaching as losing some of your very rights as an American. On a military base, or just as a military person, there is no such thing as freedom from search and seizure. Your freedom of speech can be severely curtailed. You are basically government property.

As a garbage man, you can also tell your boss to screw off, quit the job, and sit around in your undies drinking beer all day for as long as your money lasts. Try that in the military and you'll quickly find yourself in prison "making big ones into little ones."

This is not to say that it is a horrible thing to be in the military - I wish that more high school grads would go into the armed services for a bit for more reasons than one. You do get to experience the world in a way that no one outside of a military force ever will, but there are sacrifices to be made...

The differences are quite vast. That's why I started a thread for this topic because I was kind of taken back when piscivore suggested there was no difference. And another difference if you are an officer or any sort of leader in the military, the decisions you make could me life or death for your men. That is a lot responsibility to have.

Piscivore
5th May 2009, 04:18 PM
The differences are quite vast. That's why I started a thread for this topic because I was kind of taken back when piscivore suggested there was no difference.

Now wait a minute, I didn't say there was no difference, I just said it wasn't immediately "glaringly obvious" to me. :)

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 04:20 PM
Now wait a minute, I didn't say there was no difference, I just said it wasn't immediately "glaringly obvious" to me. :)

But now it is?

paximperium
5th May 2009, 04:41 PM
Garbage men have Unions; military men don't.

Fitter
5th May 2009, 06:53 PM
Garbage men have Unions; military men don't.

You've never trained with the Belgiques, have you?;)

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 07:04 PM
You also have to move a lot to places where you don't know anyone and it could even be a different country.

If that's such a bad thing, it explains a lot of the ignorant xenophobia I've seen.

It could EVEN BE ANOTHER COUNTRY! OMG!

How absolutely horrid! It could be FRANCE! It can be GERMANY! It's not the US! AUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!

Autolite
5th May 2009, 07:11 PM
Actually I pity the garbage men. They never get to play with high explosives, automatic weapons or armored assault vehicles...
(Well almost never I would suspect). :D

Radically Rethinking
5th May 2009, 07:32 PM
You also have to move a lot to places where you don't know anyone and it could even be a different country.

This is actually one of the reasons I joined.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 08:02 PM
If that's such a bad thing, it explains a lot of the ignorant xenophobia I've seen.

It could EVEN BE ANOTHER COUNTRY! OMG!

How absolutely horrid! It could be FRANCE! It can be GERMANY! It's not the US! AUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!

Hmmm. You aren't in the military are you? Do you not see the difference between moving countries and moving to a different state? I am not saying that the different country itself is awful. I am saying that moving to a foreign country is much more difficult on a family than simply moving states. For example, if you move states, it is much easier for family members to buy a plane ticket and go visit your family. Sometimes you may even still be within driving distance. If you are over seas, it becomes much more complex. Try and think a little more outside the box (Actually it just requires common sense, but yous ee what I mean).

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 08:03 PM
This is actually one of the reasons I joined.

Yes there are exciting aspects of it, but it can be very hard on a family.

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 08:07 PM
Hmmm. You aren't in the military are you? Do you not see the difference between moving countries and moving to a different state?My mother and father worked for the military as civilians (as an accountant, mostly, on my mother's side, and for both the Air Force and now the Army). I have lived in South Korea, I was born in Germany, and I have been over much of the world. I've lived in Rammstein, Taegu, Seoul, and various other locations that I can't even remember anymore. I'm soon going to be visiting my mother in Heidelberg, Germany.

I am not saying that the different country itself is awful. I am saying that moving to a foreign country is much more difficult on a family than simply moving states.If they did not often move into a military base, which allows for many luxuries from home, I would not disagree.

And even I lived off-base more often than not, such as in South Korea (both in Taegu and Seoul).

For example, if you move states, it is much easier for family members to buy a plane ticket and go visit your family. Sometimes you may even still be within driving distance. If you are over seas, it becomes much more complex. Try and think a little more outside the box (Actually it just requires common sense, but yous ee what I mean).

Oh, my heart weeps. Even in another state, when you're working for the military as a soldier, you're generally expected to be spending more time with the soldiery than you are outside.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 08:43 PM
My mother and father worked for the military as civilians (as an accountant, mostly, on my mother's side, and for both the Air Force and now the Army). I have lived in South Korea, I was born in Germany, and I have been over much of the world. I've lived in Rammstein, Taegu, Seoul, and various other locations that I can't even remember anymore. I'm soon going to be visiting my mother in Heidelberg, Germany.

If they did not often move into a military base, which allows for many luxuries from home, I would not disagree.

And even I lived off-base more often than not, such as in South Korea (both in Taegu and Seoul).



Oh, my heart weeps. Even in another state, when you're working for the military as a soldier, you're generally expected to be spending more time with the soldiery than you are outside.

What you have posted here has precisely dick to do with what is being discussed. Do you or do you not agree that uprooting a family to a different country is much more difficult than uprooting to a different state? Hint: The answer is quite simple. Take your time.

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 08:44 PM
What you have posted here has precisely dick to do with what is being discussed. Do you or do you not agree that uprooting a family to a different country is much more difficult than uprooting to a different state? Hint: The answer is quite simple. Take your time.

Maybe I don't really care about what's being discussed, because I actually value my experiences in another country?

Maybe unlike you, I actually have lots of experiences with both... moving into another country, and moving into another state, as a family.

Maybe unlike you, my parents have actually done something for this country, and aren't all "MOVING INTO ANOTHER COUNTRY, THE HORROR" about it. Hell, people over at 19th TAACOM are still begging my mother to come back, because she actually did something there.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 08:50 PM
Maybe I don't really care about what's being discussed, because I actually value my experiences in another country?

Maybe unlike you, I actually have lots of experiences with both... moving into another country, and moving into another state.

Ok. Grace me with your experience. Answer the question. Which is easier, moving an entire family to another state or moving them to another country?

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 08:52 PM
Ok. Grace me with your experience. Answer the question. Which is easier, moving an entire family to another state or moving them to another country?

Personal experience: Both have been about equivalent, actually. And the advantages more than make up for the disadvantages. It's not just "exciting!", it's a whole new set of experiences, something which I value very much.

If I want to visit my grandmother, the only difference from going to visit her from Korea, and going to visit her from Texas, are the length of the flights (and going national as opposed to international). Of course, in my experience, my grandmother wouldn't want to leave her area because of fear of getting away from her personal doctors, so I admit my situation is somewhat uncommon. However, when my mother wanted me to travel with her, guess who picks up the tab? The Govt. This goes for spouses and children.

You'd think that language would be a major problem, but more people actually speak English around the military bases.

So, overall, I'd say that your statement here:

Hint: The answer is quite simple. Take your time

Is either a lie or a sign of your ignorance. Pick one. Because it sure as hell doesn't seem simple to me.

Now, please. What have been your experiences? Surely you're a master here, or you wouldn't act like it's OH SO OBVIOUS.

Question, Quad: I may eventually have the chance to be able to study at the University of Heidelberg. Is this good or bad, because it isn't an American University? Yes/No.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 09:03 PM
Personal experience: Both have been about equivalent, actually.

If I want to visit my grandmother, the only difference from going to visit her from Korea, and going to visit her from Texas, are the length of the flights (and going national as opposed to international). Of course, in my experience, my grandmother wouldn't want to leave her area because of fear of getting away from her personal doctors, so I admit my situation is somewhat uncommon. However, when my mother wanted me to travel with her, guess who picks up the tab? The Govt. This goes for spouses and children.

You'd think that language would be a major problem, but more people actually speak English around the military bases.

Now, please. What have been your experiences? Surely you're a master here, or you wouldn't act like it's OH SO OBVIOUS.

Question, Quad: I may eventually have the chance to be able to study at the University of Heidelberg. Is this good or bad, because it isn't an American University? Yes/No.

I have moved many states, but have not yet had to move my family to another country. While I have not done this yet, I have spoken with many other military members who have and I am well aware of the differences in moving to a different country and moving to a different state. As you said, your family can't really come visit you as much in a different country and it is much more difficult for friends to visit. This is undeniable. Not to mention the flight time is sooo much longer. Flying international is much more complicated that flying national (I have flown to another country before). The use of phones also becomes difficult as well (not to mention the different time zones). I noticed you still are not outright answering the question, and are trying to avoid it. Lets try one more time. Which is easier, moving to a different country or a different state?

And I know nothing of the University of Heidelberg. If it is a good school then go for it. Sounds like a great experience. How is this relevant?

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 09:06 PM
I have moved many states, but have not yet had to move my family to another country. While I have not done this yet, I have spoken with many other military members who have and I am well aware of the differences in moving to a different country and moving to a different state. As you said, your family can't really come visit you as much in a different country and it is much more difficult for friends to visit. This is undeniable. Not to mention the flight time is sooo much longer.Oh, a few extra few hours on the plane. The horror. The horror.

I just talked with my mom, who is in Germany while I'm in the U.S., over the phone a few hours ago. The costs are relatively cheap to what they used to be, and the only real problem is the long number (and time zone differences). If you really find that so horrible, you really need to grow a backbone.

Flying international is much more complicated that flying national (I have flown to another country before). The use of phones also becomes difficult as well (not to mention the different time zones). I noticed you still are not outright answering the question, and are trying to avoid it. Lets try one more time. Which is easier, moving to a different country or a different state?My stance is that it is not as simple as you make it out to be. For the cost, there is a benefit, but you ignore that because it is inconvenient to your point. To your simplistic view, there is nothing but costs and little to no benefit (or you ignore the benefit because you find it "irrelevant"_

You say "It's so hard to keep in touch!", but ignore that the family that does go actually gets advantages in that country, and the military even picks up the really big bills if the family member involved is applicable (spouse, children that are young enough).

And I know nothing of the University of Heidelberg. If it is a good school then go for it. Sounds like a great experience. How is this relevant?

If my mother was not working for the military, I would have not have the chance to apply there at all.

You tell me how the hell that is irrelevant.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 09:12 PM
Oh, a few extra few hours on the plane. The horror. The horror.

My stance is that it is not as simple as you make it out to be. For the cost, there is a benefit, but you ignore that because it is inconvenient to your point.

You say "It's so hard to keep in touch!", but ignore that the family that does go actually gets advantages in that country.



If my mother was not working for the military, I would have not have the chance to apply there at all.

You tell me how the hell that is irrelevant.

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone reading that moving a family to a different country is difficult. I never said that there weren't any little perks, but you can't deny the fact that it can be hard on a family moving all the time.

And that's cool that you can go to that university. Your mom gave you that opportunity by being in the military. That is a perk about moving to a different country. Cool. Once again, I never said that there were not any perks.

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 09:15 PM
I think it's pretty obvious to anyone reading that moving a family to a different country is difficult. I never said that there weren't any little perks, but you can't deny the fact that it can be hard on a family moving all the time.

And that's cool that you can go to that university. Your mom gave you that opportunity by being in the military. That is a perk about moving to a different country. Cool. Once again, I never said that there were not any perks.

You're citing this whole thing as a reason to demonstrate that being in the military is more difficult than any other job.

The "perks" you make out to be small little things. It's like you shrug your shoulders and say "meh. It's just France. You get some extra wine. What's the dealio?" No, these are more than "perks", they're outright advantageous and should be leapt on by anyone with any kind of love of life.

In Economics, if you only factor the costs without ever factoring the benefits of any decision, you end up doing nothing at all. The same is true in anything else in life.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 09:17 PM
You're citing this whole thing as a reason to demonstrate that being in the military is more difficult than any other job.

The "perks" you make out to be small little things. It's like you shrug your shoulders and say "meh. It's just France. You get some extra wine. What's the dealio?" No, these are more than "perks", they're outright advantageous and should be leapt on by anyone with any kind of love of life.

In Economics, if you only factor the costs without ever factoring the benefits of any decision, you end up doing nothing at all. The same is true in anything else in life.

I guess this is an important question. Do you have a wife and kids?

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 09:19 PM
So my perspective as a child is less important than as a husband? So it's still a horrible thing to undergo even if it's not hard on the child, and even gives them huge new experiences? If you're a father, do you care at all about your kids?

And no, I don't.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 09:30 PM
So my perspective as a child is less important than as a husband? So it's still a horrible thing to undergo even if it's not hard on the child, and even gives them huge new experiences? If you're a father, do you care at all about your kids?

And no, I don't.

Your experience it was not hard. Got it. Everyone has different experiences. Perhaps you didn't make very many friends as a child and that is why you had no problem leaving them every few years and trying to make new ones? Everyone is different. I must say I found it hard to leave friends as a child when I had to move. It also sucked making new ones.

Like I said, I am not saying that moving to a different country can be all bad, but it can be very hard on a family. And remember, this thread is about being IN the military. The responsibilities and stress you feel having to move your entire family is much different than a child just going wherever you send them. You don't have a spouse and kids so you have not felt this stress (And you are not in the military correct?).

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 09:39 PM
Your experience it was not hard. Got it. Everyone has different experiences. Perhaps you didn't make very many friends as a child and that is why you had no problem leaving them every few years and trying to make new ones? Everyone is different.

Yes, that's more true than it is false, but in reality I did make friends; I made them over the internet. The girl I know in Singapore is more or less a childhood friend; I've had her as a friend for practically a decade now, I think. I talk with someone in Illinois, I met him before the girl in Singapore.

I must say I found it hard to leave friends as a child when I had to move. It also sucked making new ones.I wouldn't say that making new ones "sucked" for me. I usually found someone to talk to alright in new countries, and kept in touch with old ones through the internet.


Like I said, I am not saying that moving to a different country can be all bad, but it can be very hard on a family.
So can moving into another state -- making new friends is still just as much an issue when you're in a new state.

You say that experiences for everyone is different. Okay. But on average, which comes out ahead? Benefits or costs?

And remember, this thread is about being IN the military. The responsibilities and stress you feel having to move your entire family is much different than a child just going wherever you send them.
But if your children and spouse benefits from the experience, then why is it so terrible a thing? It's also difficult to study to become a doctor, but the benefits is easily matched by the costs.

You don't have a spouse and kids so you have not felt this stress (And you are not in the military correct?).

No, I'm not. But if you're going to say "You have to do it to know it", then you might as well cancel the thread or make it "military only".






And you'd probably have a very good point if you brought up going to Iraq or a warzone, though... that's a totally different experience.

quarky
5th May 2009, 09:40 PM
Why brag or complain about life in the military if it is a choice one makes?
Imagine being drafted into garbage pick-up?

No one calls garbage men "Heroes".
Why join the military? is the sacrifice what appeals, or the 'percs'?

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 09:45 PM
Yes, that's more true than it is false, but in reality I did make friends; I made them over the internet. The girl I know in Singapore is more or less a childhood friend; I've had her as a friend for practically a decade now, I think. I talk with someone in Illinois, I met him before the girl in Singapore.

I wouldn't say that making new ones "sucked" for me. I usually found someone to talk to alright in new countries, and kept in touch with old ones through the internet.



So can moving into another state -- making new friends is still just as much an issue as being in a new state.

You say that experiences for everyone is different. Okay. But on average, which comes out ahead? Benefits or costs?


But if your children and spouse benefits from the experience, then why is it so terrible a thing? It's also difficult to study to become a doctor, but the benefits is easily matched by the costs.



No, I'm not. But if you're going to say "You have to do it to know it", then you might as well cancel the thread or make it "military only".






And you'd probably have a very good point if you brought up going to Iraq or a warzone, though... that's a totally different experience.

Ok. I don't think this argument is getting anywhere. Basically, there are pros and cons to moving over seas. We both understand that. Remember this thread is about the differences between being a garbage man and being in the military. A garbage man does not have to uproot a family and go over seas, whether you see that as a plus or not.

And I did address the combat zone portion in the OP. Needless to say, your family doesn't get to accompany you for that part and is MUCH different than going to somewhere like Korea or Germany.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 09:48 PM
Why brag or complain about life in the military if it is a choice one makes?
Imagine being drafted into garbage pick-up?

No one calls garbage men "Heroes".
Why join the military? is the sacrifice what appeals, or the 'percs'?

I am neither bragging nor complaining. I am just stating the huge differences between the two occupations. The reason people in the military are more highly regarded than garbage men is because people make that choice to go through the sacrifices that come with military service.

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 09:48 PM
Ok. I don't think this argument is getting anywhere. Basically, there are pros and cons to moving over seas. We both understand that. Remember this thread is about the differences between being a garbage man and being in the military.The suggestion has been than being in the military is worse (and thus, deserves more respect) than being a garbage man. Or else why spend so much time drawing the distinction?

A garbage man does not have to uproot a family and go over seas, whether you see that as a plus or not. Some families travel naturally, and never set down roots in the first place, but yes.

And I did address the combat zone portion in the OP. Needless to say, your family doesn't get to accompany you for that part and is MUCH different than going to somewhere like Korea or Germany.

Yeap.

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 09:51 PM
I am neither bragging nor complaining. I am just stating the huge differences between the two occupations. The reason people in the military are more highly regarded than garbage men is because people make that choice to go through the sacrifices that come with military service.
But they also get many benefits. Government-paid education. Government-paid travel. New experiences. Steady paycheck. Then there's veteran's benefits, and the respect you usually get. In a poor economy, more people enlist, because of all that I just mentioned.

Costs vs. Benefits. Yet both garbage man and military soldier are utterly necessary for our civilization to continue.

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 09:52 PM
The suggestion has been than being in the military is worse (and thus, deserves more respect) than being a garbage man. Or else why spend so much time drawing the distinction?



This just depends on what kind of person you are. If you are the type of family that has no problem uprooting and moving all the time then being in the military is not a problem. But I have seen many families who have struggled with all the moving in the military and that is why I would say it is more difficult than being a garbage man.

Lonewulf
5th May 2009, 09:54 PM
Well, you know what they say about confirmation bias. :)

Quad4_72
5th May 2009, 10:00 PM
But they also get many benefits. Government-paid education. Government-paid travel. New experiences. Steady paycheck. Then there's veteran's benefits, and the respect you usually get. In a poor economy, more people enlist, because of all that I just mentioned.

Costs vs. Benefits. Yet both garbage man and military soldier are utterly necessary for our civilization to continue.

The main difference of course is the whole war thing (pretty big difference mind you). And you act like you can just travel where you want whenever you want with the government if you are in the military. Doesn't work like that. You have to obtain a pass or take leave if you want to leave base over 150 miles. This must be submitted to your commander. Then you have to find a military flight that is going where you want if you don't want to pay for the ticket.

With the education, yes they will pay for your college. Of course, you must incur additional service obligations. For example, you have to add an extra three years to your contract if you want to get your masters. Same thing goes for your bachelors.

Hell I love the military. But like i said, it takes a lot more to be in the military than it does to be a garbage man.

quarky
6th May 2009, 06:11 AM
Actually, the Army will take people that couldn't get a job as a garbage man.

Guybrush Threepwood
6th May 2009, 06:32 AM
I am neither bragging nor complaining. I am just stating the huge differences between the two occupations. The reason people in the military are more highly regarded than garbage men is because people make that choice to go through the sacrifices that come with military service.

Regarded by whom? I'm not dissing anyone in the military here, but if I had to make a choice between eliminating garbage men or the military from this country, I'd choose to keep getting my bins emptied.

JimBenArm
6th May 2009, 06:34 AM
Regarded by whom? I'm not dissing anyone in the military here, but if I had to make a choice between eliminating garbage men or the military from this country, I'd choose to keep getting my bins emptied.
And the trains running on time?

Guybrush Threepwood
6th May 2009, 06:36 AM
And the trains running on time?

You've lost me there, Mussolini or something??? but I'm not sure how that would apply.

Quad4_72
6th May 2009, 09:42 AM
Regarded by whom? I'm not dissing anyone in the military here, but if I had to make a choice between eliminating garbage men or the military from this country, I'd choose to keep getting my bins emptied.

Lol. Ridiculous. If we had to, it would much easier to ship our garbage to remote location on our own then to have no military to defend our country. Actually, we probably wouldn't have much of a country at all without our military.

Guybrush Threepwood
6th May 2009, 12:39 PM
Lol. Ridiculous. If we had to, it would much easier to ship our garbage to remote location on our own then to have no military to defend our country. Actually, we probably wouldn't have much of a country at all without our military.

No, it wouldn't. The military has never provided a useful service for this country since it's creation. The garbage men provide one every week that has far more utility to me. There is an argument to be made that at some undefined point in the future a threat might arise that the military would be able to neutralise, however I think the probability of that is small enough that the investment isn't worth it.

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 12:42 PM
No, it wouldn't. The military has never provided a useful service for this country since it's creation.

Uuuuuhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... no. Sorry, but on this, I have to agree with Quad, the military has provided many services, even outside of warfare.

Have you heard of Operation Paintbrush? Tip: It's where a bunch of U.S. Army soldiers went around with paintbrushes, and applied them to poor housing in the area for free. I was a part of one of those operations, as was my mother, because civilians and family members (and friends, and pretty much anyone) could contribute.

This has the side effect of upping the quality of housing, which also has the fact of bringing wealth to the poor in an indirect way.

Please tell me how this is "not providing a useful service for this country", even if you accept that the deterrence factor of the military, and their various combat operations throughout time (especially in WWII) are not useful?

Careyp74
6th May 2009, 12:58 PM
How about the difference between Submariners and garbage men?

One smells bad and does a dirty job no one wants.

The other collects your trash once a week.

Yeah, that's the amine in the air scrubber system that gets into your clothes and skin, and doesn't wash out easily, mixed with diesel fuel vapor.

Guybrush Threepwood
6th May 2009, 01:01 PM
Uuuuuhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... no. Sorry, but on this, I have to agree with Quad, the military has provided many services, even outside of warfare.

Have you heard of Operation Paintbrush? Tip: It's where a bunch of U.S. Army soldiers went around with paintbrushes, and applied them to poor housing in the area for free. I was a part of one of those operations, as was my mother, because civilians and family members (and friends, and pretty much anyone) could contribute.

This has the side effect of upping the quality of housing, which also has the fact of bringing wealth to the poor in an indirect way.

Please tell me how this is "not providing a useful service for this country", even if you accept that the deterrence factor of the military, and their various combat operations throughout time (especially in WWII) are not useful?

Srsly? That's an answer to my post? An organisation with a $500B+ annual budget, and you justify it's existence by saying it once painted some houses? Surely you could come up with a better response to what you presumably perceived as a hyperbolic attack.

Before this derails the thread any more, I should apologise, I have been exorcising a small personal bugbear of mine about US posters writing about issues from an American viewpoint as if they are universal, when they are not.
What I wrote, is I believe, true for where I'm writing from. The larger point I was trying to make is that the US veneration of the military is not something which is true in every other country.

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 01:03 PM
Srsly? That's an answer to my post? An organisation with a $500B+ annual budget, and you justify it's existence by saying it once painted some houses? Surely you could come up with a better response to what you presumably perceived as a hyperbolic attack.It was just one example, genius. When did I say that they only painted some houses?

It was direct and uncontrovertible evidence that even the military can be made useful while not directly at war, even ignoring such obvious things as deterrence factor.

geni
6th May 2009, 01:04 PM
No, it wouldn't. The military has never provided a useful service for this country since it's creation.

1812 and all that?

Guybrush Threepwood
6th May 2009, 01:12 PM
The military has never provided a useful service for this country since it's creation. 1812 and all that?

Ahem, did you not read the bold bit?

Quad4_72
6th May 2009, 01:13 PM
No, it wouldn't. The military has never provided a useful service for this country since it's creation. The garbage men provide one every week that has far more utility to me. There is an argument to be made that at some undefined point in the future a threat might arise that the military would be able to neutralise, however I think the probability of that is small enough that the investment isn't worth it.

Do you happen to know the function of the national guard? Are you aware of all the natural disasters the national guard has provided relief for? This is just one example by the way.

Guybrush Threepwood
6th May 2009, 01:16 PM
Do you happen to know the function of the national guard? Are you aware of all the natural disasters the national guard has provided relief for? This is just one example by the way.

Erm.... FEMA with a $450B budget couldn't do that for you? That's $50B saved right off.

Quad4_72
6th May 2009, 01:24 PM
Erm.... FEMA with a $450B budget couldn't do that for you? That's $50B saved right off.

You said the military has never provided a useful service since its creation. Are you suggesting that disaster relief is not useful?

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 01:24 PM
Move those goal posts! Move 'em!

(Wow, I ended up on Quad's side rather quickly there...)

Guybrush Threepwood
6th May 2009, 01:29 PM
You said the military has never provided a useful service since its creation. Are you suggesting that disaster relief is not useful?

That is not what I said, however to clarify, I meant that they have never provided a useful service by virtue of being the military, not that they have never done something useful that another organisation could have done as well or better, like painting houses or getting kittens out of trees.

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 01:30 PM
You said the military has never provided a useful service since its creation

That is not what I said,

No, it wouldn't. The military has never provided a useful service for this country since it's creation.

o.O

Quad4_72
6th May 2009, 01:33 PM
That is not what I said, however to clarify, I meant that they have never provided a useful service by virtue of being the military, not that they have never done something useful that another organisation could have done as well or better, like painting houses or getting kittens out of trees.

Is the creation of our country useful? Would not have happened without the military. How about the liberation of Europe during WWII? That would not have happened without our military. Oh and all this nonsense you are spewing over the internet? Yeah without our military you probably would not have the right to free speech such as this.

Quad4_72
6th May 2009, 01:35 PM
o.O

Lol. I think he is trying to back track a bit.

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 01:35 PM
To be absolutely clear: I do not posit, nor have I ever posited, that the military is useless. I just think that they get waaay too much respect.

We talk about the military that started the U.S., but we also seem to forget that many of the founding fathers were politicians and lawyers, and did not necessarily fire a gun themselves.

Thomas Paine, for instance, did not fight with a gun, he fought with his pen.

Guybrush Threepwood
6th May 2009, 01:37 PM
The military has never provided a useful service for this country since it's creation.

You said the military has never provided a useful service since its creation.

That is not what I said,

So, Lonewulf, can I cut any three words from any statement of yours I quote in future and you won't complain about misquoting? The words Quad4_72 snipped changed the meaning of that sentence completely.

Guybrush Threepwood
6th May 2009, 01:45 PM
Is the creation of our country useful?
To you probably yes, to me not necessarily, it would be different but it's not possible to prove it would be worse

How about the liberation of Europe during WWII? That would not have happened without our military.
Arguable, it would not have occurred when it did, or how it did, but it would have happened at some point. Whether the world as it exists now would be better or worse is unprovable.

Oh and all this nonsense you are spewing over the internet? Yeah without our military you probably would not have the right to free speech such as this.
That one is just a complete evidence free assertion.

Even if I agreed wholeheartedly with your post above, it still would not be a counter to my original statement.

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 01:51 PM
Whether the world as it exists now would be better or worse is unprovable.

Because MORE good could possibly have come from Germans setting up more and more death camps. :rolleyes:

Quad4_72
6th May 2009, 02:02 PM
Because MORE good could possibly have come from Germans setting up more and more death camps. :rolleyes:

I am thinking further discourse with him is probably not rational.

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 02:07 PM
I am thinking further discourse with him is probably not rational.

I'm honestly going to have to agree.

rwguinn
6th May 2009, 02:08 PM
:DI am thinking further discourse with him is probably not rational.

I'm honestly going to have to agree.
The SKY IS FALLING! tHE SKY IS FALLING!:D

Quad4_72
6th May 2009, 02:10 PM
:D


The SKY IS FALLING! tHE SKY IS FALLING!:D

Haha. Hey now, I see you over at the 9/11 CT sub section still engaging with those nutters all the time.

Nogbad
6th May 2009, 02:13 PM
Yes there are exciting aspects of it, but it can be very hard on a family.

You've convinced me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sefBxotgX0I

Guybrush Threepwood
6th May 2009, 02:13 PM
I am thinking further discourse with him is probably not rational.

That may be true. I agree that had the US not fought in Europe in WWII, then significant sections of the European population would have suffered more, however I don't believe that you can prove that the world now in 2009 is demonstrably better than it would have been following a German victory.
You have also never addressed my original point, instead producing examples of things the US military has done, which however earth shaking they are, are not relevant to my statement.

Oliver
6th May 2009, 03:33 PM
I made this thread in response to Piscivore not understanding the difference between being in the military and being a garbage man.


Actually, here in Germany the ones signing up for a military career - and in contrast to the ones being drafted - are called "Zivilversager", which literally translates to "Civil-Loser". :boxedin:

Quad4_72
6th May 2009, 03:40 PM
Actually, here in Germany the ones signing up for a military career - and in contrast to the ones being drafted - are called "Zivilversager", which literally translates to "Civil-Loser". :boxedin:

Yes there are ignorant people everywhere. Very good point Oliver.

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 04:01 PM
The German military really doesn't amount to much.

The stereotype is that they all just sit around drinking beer. Since no one really trusts them to become a large military force thanks to past memories, though, that's kind of the way it is.

Oliver
6th May 2009, 04:16 PM
The German military really doesn't amount to much.

The stereotype is that they all just sit around drinking beer. Since no one really trusts them to become a large military force thanks to past memories, though, that's kind of the way it is.


You have to consider that the term "Zivilversager" refers to people who voluntarily sign up for the military because they didn't make it in the free market. And this is no national matter. In fact, the Army/Navy/Airforce are the only alternative to a lot of people.

geni
6th May 2009, 05:16 PM
Is the creation of our country useful? Would not have happened without the military. How about the liberation of Europe during WWII? That would not have happened without our military.

Depends where the soviets got to.

Quad4_72
6th May 2009, 06:12 PM
Depends where the soviets got to.

This is true. But they were hurting pretty bad. If Germany had not been fighting the United States, they could have probably made it all the way to Moscow. The soviets would never have made it out of their country.

Darth Rotor
6th May 2009, 06:18 PM
This is true. But they were hurting pretty bad. If Germany had not been fighting the United States, they could have probably made it all the way to Moscow. The soviets would never have made it out of their country.

Quad: a note on thread title.

Miiltary versus other professions. ;)

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 06:20 PM
He's right.

Also, the only reason I curse him out as a pedant is because I didn't catch that myself.

Darth Rotor
6th May 2009, 06:22 PM
He's right.

Also, the only reason I curse him out as a pedant is because I didn't catch that myself.
My lupine friend, I feel as though you and I are almost in IRC at the moment.

I have also ordered a surprise for you. May take me a few weeks to get it.

And then I must find a way to SA to get it to you.

And to buy Elizabeth I a beer. And you.

DR

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 06:27 PM
That was... uhm... what?

No one on an internet forum has ever gotten me a gift before. :D

I'll be leaving the U.S. by the 18th, so you may have to send it to Germany.

gumboot
6th May 2009, 06:44 PM
Ahem, did you not read the bold bit?

I suspect he did... but perhaps you need to brush up on your US history...

The United States armed forces are the overall unified military forces of the United States. The United States military was first formed by the second Continental Congress to defend the new nation against the British Empire in the American Revolutionary War. The Army, Marine Corps, and Navy were commissioned in 1775, in anticipation of the declaration of independence in 1776.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military)

Now, granted I've been told before that I'm not fantastic at maths, but does the year 1775 come before or after 1812?

gumboot
6th May 2009, 06:49 PM
You have to consider that the term "Zivilversager" refers to people who voluntarily sign up for the military because they didn't make it in the free market. And this is no national matter. In fact, the Army/Navy/Airforce are the only alternative to a lot of people.


I cannot speak for many other military forces, but I've several times read interesting articles about the US Army, where a manpower crisis is discussed, as the increasingly sophisticated nature of military power and technology means that even your basic grunt now must have an above average intelligence to do their job. This is problematic for an occupation that has historically relied on the "scum of the earth" (as the Iron Duke called them) and thus tends not to attract high caliber persons.

There's even further reaching consequences of such a situation for society as a whole; it used to be that the armed forces were a place to send the "civil losers" of society, where they could still make something of themselves. However when even the Army turns away these "civil losers" as not up to level, where now do these persons go?

The Marines? :boxedin:

Lonewulf
6th May 2009, 06:54 PM
That's, uhm... that's...

Holy ****, Gumboot, you just blew my mind. That's actually potentially a real problem.

If military service remains a high point of respect and make one more able in politics and business, this may also make us more and more into a meritocracy...

Quad4_72
6th May 2009, 07:57 PM
I cannot speak for many other military forces, but I've several times read interesting articles about the US Army, where a manpower crisis is discussed, as the increasingly sophisticated nature of military power and technology means that even your basic grunt now must have an above average intelligence to do their job. This is problematic for an occupation that has historically relied on the "scum of the earth" (as the Iron Duke called them) and thus tends not to attract high caliber persons.

There's even further reaching consequences of such a situation for society as a whole; it used to be that the armed forces were a place to send the "civil losers" of society, where they could still make something of themselves. However when even the Army turns away these "civil losers" as not up to level, where now do these persons go?

The Marines? :boxedin:

Lets not forget now, the leaders in the army (such as myself) are college educated. To advance above the rank of major, you must have a masters. Also, many of the NCOs have college degrees as well.

Darth Rotor
6th May 2009, 08:01 PM
That was... uhm... what?

No one on an internet forum has ever gotten me a gift before. :D

I'll be leaving the U.S. by the 18th, so you may have to send it to Germany.
Keep in touch, I will find a way. It has to arrive, first. I just had the idea this morning.

DR

Darth Rotor
6th May 2009, 08:03 PM
However when even the Army turns away these "civil losers" as not up to level, where now do these persons go?

The Marines? :boxedin:
Nope. Marines are sorta selective, similar threshold to the Army.

DR

Guybrush Threepwood
7th May 2009, 12:06 AM
I suspect he did... but perhaps you need to brush up on your US history...



Now, granted I've been told before that I'm not fantastic at maths, but does the year 1775 come before or after 1812?

Your maths looks fine to me. Now can you explain why US history has any relevance to my exchange with geni?

arthwollipot
7th May 2009, 01:04 AM
I'm sorry I didn't notice this thread before.

I may well have been the instigator of the original argument, when I said:

I commend and admire Quad4_72 and anyone else who has chosen to serve in uniform for doing a nasty, nasty job that I would never, ever do myself. But then again, I commend and admire garbage collectors for the same reason.In retrospect this statement is too easily misinterpreted. I do commend and admire garbage collectors, for the same reason. That reason is that they to a difficult and necessary job that I would never do. The way I worded it made it sound like I felt that the military were no better than the garbologists. I apologise for that, because that is not at all how I feel. Grant me a moment to explain.

You were talking about the differences between garbology and the military. I'm pointing out the similarities.

Being in the military and being a garbage collector are both jobs that are, to use a single word to describe a complex concept, "difficult". They are difficult in different ways, and I would in fact say that the military is more difficult, what with the threat of being shot and killed and all. Hence, "nasty, nasty jobs".

What I didn't mention in my original statement is my opinion that they are both jobs that are necessary. The garbage collectors because without them the garbage would pile up and cause stink and disease, and the military because sometimes in desparate situations a nation must resort to violence to prevent harm to innocents (see the Pacifism thread for why I think violence should be a last resort).

And they are both jobs that I would never, ever do - garbology because it's dirty and stinky and involves getting up too early in the morning, and the military because I'm an antiauthoritarian pacifist and it involves getting up too early in the morning.

So that's where I was coming from when I made the whole "garbologists are the same as the military" statement. I apologise for the misunderstandings that arose because of my poor choice of words. I did not mean to say that I thought the military were no better than garbage collectors, although I am aware that that's how it appeared.

gumboot
7th May 2009, 01:13 AM
Your maths looks fine to me. Now can you explain why US history has any relevance to my exchange with geni?


You may have missed it, but this thread was started by Quad and he's talking about the US Military. The clue is in his avatar.

If you're going to respond to Quad and then go off on a tangent about a totally different country, you have an obligation to make it clear you're talking about a different country, and at the very least to identify what that nation is.

No doubt Geni can clarify, but I think you'll find they were referring to the War of 1812 which was fought between the United States of America and the Empire of Great Britain. Both of these nations had existing armed forces prior to the war in question.

For the record, I'm not an American either. But I'm smart enough to realise that most posters on these forums are American and most discussions in these forums are therefore informed by an American world view.

If I want to inject an outside world view into the discussion I have the intelligence and manners to actually make it clear I'm talking about a different country and offering a different perspective, instead of just whining about Americans always talking about America.

And people wonder why Americans get pissed off at foreigners...:rolleyes:

arthwollipot
7th May 2009, 01:15 AM
I wonder what proportion of posters here are from America?

Time to make a poll!

Guybrush Threepwood
7th May 2009, 01:43 AM
You may have missed it, but this thread was started by Quad and he's talking about the US Military. The clue is in his avatar.

If you're going to respond to Quad and then go off on a tangent about a totally different country, you have an obligation to make it clear you're talking about a different country, and at the very least to identify what that nation is.

No doubt Geni can clarify, but I think you'll find they were referring to the War of 1812 which was fought between the United States of America and the Empire of Great Britain. Both of these nations had existing armed forces prior to the war in question.

For the record, I'm not an American either. But I'm smart enough to realise that most posters on these forums are American and most discussions in these forums are therefore informed by an American world view.

If I want to inject an outside world view into the discussion I have the intelligence and manners to actually make it clear I'm talking about a different country and offering a different perspective, instead of just whining about Americans always talking about America.

And people wonder why Americans get pissed off at foreigners...:rolleyes:

Good point, another poster addressed it earlier in the thread here. Other post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4687842#post4687842)

How does Quad4_72's Avatar show he's in the US military? it looks like a funny hat to me. The OP refers to the military and garbage men without making the nationality explicit, as this is an international forum, I presumed we were all able to write from our own viewpoints and did so.
I was aware when I wrote it that my first post was open to misinterpretation, however, I always check as far as I am able where a poster is from before I respond, and expect similar courtesy from others. Once it was clear that my first post had been misinterpreted, I clarified it, which didn't make much difference, so I carried on regardless. Possibly a bit small minded and petty of me, but hey, it's only the internet.

If you want to know where I'm from, and where I'm referring to when I say 'This Country' the clue is under my avatar.

arthwollipot
7th May 2009, 01:45 AM
Everyone please go and vote in my Are you an American? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=142145) poll.

gumboot
7th May 2009, 05:03 AM
Good point, another poster addressed it earlier in the thread here. Other post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4687842#post4687842)

How does Quad4_72's Avatar show he's in the US military? it looks like a funny hat to me.

It's a US Armoured Cavalry badge.



The OP refers to the military and garbage men without making the nationality explicit, as this is an international forum, I presumed we were all able to write from our own viewpoints and did so.

You weren't just writing about your own viewpoint though, you were directly responding to another poster, who was clearly talking about their country.

Here's how it went down:

Quad: Our military helps our country more than garbage men.
You: The military has never helped this country since it was created.
Geni: How about the war of 1812?

It's abundantly clear that the nation being discussed is the nation Quad is talking about, which is the USA. If your comment was about Ireland, it's entirely irrelevant and meaningless as a response to Quad.

See the problem?

It's one thing to offer your opinion, from the perspective of your own country, on a general issue. It's quite another to attempt to directly refute another poster's remarks by using your own country.

Consider:

Tom: Our police are corrupt.
Michael: That's not true, police in this country are trustworthy!

Then clarify the nations:

Tom: American police are corrupt.
Michael: That's not true, police in Australia are trustworthy!

See how irrelevant that is?

And what further perplexes me is your "clarification":

"The larger point I was trying to make is that the US veneration of the military is not something which is true in every other country."

Has it occurred to you that the reason the US military is more highly regarded by its countrymen than, say, the Irish military, is because the US military has actually made substantial contributions to the USA, and the Irish military has not for its country?


I was aware when I wrote it that my first post was open to misinterpretation, however, I always check as far as I am able where a poster is from before I respond, and expect similar courtesy from others. Once it was clear that my first post had been misinterpreted, I clarified it, which didn't make much difference, so I carried on regardless. Possibly a bit small minded and petty of me, but hey, it's only the internet.

Indeed.


If you want to know where I'm from, and where I'm referring to when I say 'This Country' the clue is under my avatar.

I have a few ancestors who fought in the Civil War who might feel like the military did some good for the Republic of Ireland, like, for example, helped it to exist. You might not agree.

Guybrush Threepwood
7th May 2009, 05:22 AM
I have a few ancestors who fought in the Civil War who might feel like the military did some good for the Republic of Ireland, like, for example, helped it to exist. You might not agree.

Correct, I disagree strongly that the contribution of the military to either side of the civil war did anything positive, particularly not in the sense of helping an already existing nation to exist.

In the Anglo-Irish war two years earlier, their contribution was more positive.

My first post was pointing out that the military had done nothing for me for 90 years whereas the garbage men do something every week, not that the military have never done anything ever.

Bob Klase
7th May 2009, 08:38 AM
In 15 years since I retired from the army I've had occasional conversations with people who want to emphasize how 'lucky' I am. Many of them went something like this:

Hypothetical Person (HP): You really have it pretty good, you got to retire with a lifetime paycheck after just 20 years.

Me: Actually I stayed 25 years. After 20 years the retired pay isn't that much for most people.

(HP): But you get 50% of your pay after 20 years.

Me: You get 50% of your 'base' pay after 20 years. Since your paycheck also includes things like a housing allowance, food allowance and hazardous duty pay your 50% retirement usually works out to less than 40% of your paycheck.

(HP): And you get free medical and dental care.

Me: Medical care is cheap, but there are co-pays for many things and dental care is not free- you have to join a dental plan that's not much cheaper than what most people pay for.

(HP): Well, you still got it pretty good for just working 20 years.

Me: So if it's such a great deal, why didn't you spend 20 years in the military?

(HP): Oh, I couldn't put up with that crap for 20 years. I'd rather be garbageman.

Lonewulf
7th May 2009, 08:44 AM
And being a (pseudo?)military brat, I also have my own perspective, as does my mother, who's widely respected in many military bases for her hard work and "can do" attitude. 19th TAACOM is still begging her to come back.

Not all of us are going to have the same perspectives on the issue, and the U.S. military does offer benefits, to try to draw in new recruits and to award those that want to make military life their career. While you may not find those benefits good for yourself, there are others that do -- and there are those that join purely for the benefits (such as when economic times are hard and they can't find a job).

geni
7th May 2009, 12:25 PM
This is true. But they were hurting pretty bad. If Germany had not been fighting the United States, they could have probably made it all the way to Moscow. The soviets would never have made it out of their country.

They effectively did make it to moscow. The soviet counter offensive began on December 5, 1941.

Operation Uranus started when the US was mostly engageing Vichy France of all people.

No there is little to suggest that the soveits couldn't have won without the US army. US equipment on the other hand? Well US factories were a far more decisive factor in the downfall of Hitler than it's troops were.

Lonewulf
7th May 2009, 12:59 PM
"making it to Moscow" wasn't the issue.

"Making it to Moscow with limited supplies, lack of proper winter clothing, in Winter (because Hitler was "smart" enough to follow Napolean's itinerary), and while the Russians slashed and burned all of their own supplies"... that was an issue.

Quad4_72
7th May 2009, 03:38 PM
How does Quad4_72's Avatar show he's in the US military? it looks like a funny hat to me.

Lol. Yes gumboot is correct it is the insignia for the armor branch. If you look closely at it, there is a tank in front of two sabers.

Lonewulf
7th May 2009, 03:40 PM
"It's not a hat! It's a snake swallowing an elephant!"

Kudos to whoever catches the reference.

quarky
7th May 2009, 07:18 PM
Big snake?
Small elephant?

gumboot
7th May 2009, 07:27 PM
"It's not a hat! It's a snake swallowing an elephant!"

Kudos to whoever catches the reference.


Better than a sheep inside a box... ;)

ETA.

The picture in question (http://wordaligned.org/images/little-prince-boa.jpg), from The Little Prince.

Lonewulf
8th May 2009, 04:04 AM
Big snake?
Small elephant?

Reference recognition failed. You lose 50 geek points.

gumboot wins the thread.

foxholeatheist
8th May 2009, 04:14 AM
I cannot speak for many other military forces, but I've several times read interesting articles about the US Army, where a manpower crisis is discussed, as the increasingly sophisticated nature of military power and technology means that even your basic grunt now must have an above average intelligence to do their job. This is problematic for an occupation that has historically relied on the "scum of the earth" (as the Iron Duke called them) and thus tends not to attract high caliber persons.

There's even further reaching consequences of such a situation for society as a whole; it used to be that the armed forces were a place to send the "civil losers" of society, where they could still make something of themselves. However when even the Army turns away these "civil losers" as not up to level, where now do these persons go?

The Marines? :boxedin:

I know, I know, I'm late but whoa... I never thought about this before.

I am in Iraq now and a few nights ago we had a SIGACT against the tank I was riding in. Myself, the TC and the Driver had to all go write up sworn statements. I have never seen such bad spelling in my life.
"Then the car there where we were was commming up behind..." No exaggeration.

But put the same people in the M1A2... they may be "civil losers" but they can hit up a ballistic solution in no time and get that HEAT down range before the target knows what.

gumboot
8th May 2009, 06:42 AM
I know, I know, I'm late but whoa... I never thought about this before.

I am in Iraq now and a few nights ago we had a SIGACT against the tank I was riding in. Myself, the TC and the Driver had to all go write up sworn statements. I have never seen such bad spelling in my life.
"Then the car there where we were was commming up behind..." No exaggeration.

But put the same people in the M1A2... they may be "civil losers" but they can hit up a ballistic solution in no time and get that HEAT down range before the target knows what.



Aye, just what I'm talking about. And if you look at the sort of Land Warrior programmes the Army is developing, even the lowly infantryman of the future will need to be pretty intelligent to function. The days of sending our low lifes off to fight our wars are over.

Oh and foxholeatheist, welcome to the forums. And stay safe.

quarky
8th May 2009, 07:25 AM
Reference recognition failed. You lose 50 geek points.

gumboot wins the thread.

dagnabbit.

(must win back points)

foxholeatheist
9th May 2009, 03:10 AM
Keep in mind also that most of the real high tech high speed stuff is used by SF and Rangers and not your typical high school dropout grunt. They would be fairly familiar with the equipment before they're actually asked to use it anyway, their NCOs and officers would make sure of that. The lowlifes will always go first, that will never change. What's asked of them has. That's an incredibly valid point though.

Funny, a few weeks ago at a big FOB I saw some ANZAC soldiers and wished them a happy ANZAC day. I think I impressed them with my command of Aussie/Kiwi slang.

gumboot
10th May 2009, 05:00 AM
Keep in mind also that most of the real high tech high speed stuff is used by SF and Rangers and not your typical high school dropout grunt.

This might be true, but the clear intention of programmes like Land Warrior is to make all soldiers high-tech, not just Special Forces.


Funny, a few weeks ago at a big FOB I saw some ANZAC soldiers and wished them a happy ANZAC day. I think I impressed them with my command of Aussie/Kiwi slang.

They must have been Aussies, we don't have anyone in Iraq.

Cainkane1
10th May 2009, 05:59 AM
Well the military offers good benefits and early retirement. You stay in 20 years and when you get out you can get another job. You are a "double dipper" salary wise. If you ever get down and out and have no medical insurance you can always go to the VA hospital. A lifetime salary can be a good thing. I imagine people with these advantages often feel more secure than those without.

I know a dental technician who set up his own dental lab after he retired from the army. He's retired now and he gets his saved money, his retirement military pay and social security. He sent his two children through college and he lives in a nice home. The army made this mans life very livable.