So here's what I'm thinking...my bleeding heart liberal rant...

by changeling 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  changeling

  Do you mean like the way they've done it at West Point for the last couple hundred years or the Naval Academy? You go to school for 4 years, then serve for 5 years. I think for West Point you need about a 3.8-3.9 GPA to even have your application considered.... Is that the lack of brains you are referring to?

  No, that's for the "elite". I'm talking about everyone that enlists. There would be higher standards then there are now but not as stringent as West Point.

  This way the militaty force would be driven by more than brute force, and they would be ready to contribute to society when they return form duty.

  changeling
• 

  Who are you?

  No, that's for the "elite". I'm talking about everyone that enlists. There would be higher standards then there are now but not as stringent as West Point.

  This way the militaty force would be driven by more than brute force, and they would be ready to contribute to society when they return form duty.

  They have relaxed the standards recently, so I could see someone making the point for that small percentage of people that slid in under new rules.

  I'm still not following your sweeping generalizations regarding the "testosterone and not brains" and now "brute force" ....if the generals and officers in charge are highly educated and the methodology used to train the troops is highly focused and disciplined, then I'm not sure where you make your case. I'm also not following your assertion about their ability to contribute to society when they return from duty. Having worked closely for the last 14 years with active duty and retired members of the military, I've found that many of the ones I have met are very balanced and productive members of society....and I will add that those who are not mensa material are still very valuable employess because of the disciplione and training they learned through serving.

  Are you making black and white sweeping statements about the military and those who join because of your preconceived notions about what you think they must be like....and are you the type of person that regularly makes a practice of stereotyping people by race, religion, culture or in this case their line of work?
• 

  Abaddon

  I'm in the 'States on business; saw a Marines recruitment advert on TV whilst having a drink in a bar (and seeing Standford stuff USC) and nearly puked in my glass.

  Yay! Let's glamourise being a trained killer fighting for access to oil.

  I am not saying that there is no need for a millitary, just that making recruitment adverts like pop videos is disgusting.

  As for imposing high educational standards on soldiers... well, that's one way of reducing the number of people in the armed forces.

  I think having the wife or husband and children of heads of state fight to the death in place of conventional warfare is probably the quickest solution to bring about world peace.
• 

  Tatiana

  I think having the wife or husband and children of heads of state fight to the death in place of conventional warfare is probably the quickest solution to bring about world peace.

  Very true. If every politician was required by law to have to send their children to war, we would not go where we have no business being.

  Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.

  - Issac Asimov

  Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

  - Dwight D. Eisenhower
• 

  changeling

  Dear "who are you?': I seemed to have a hit nerve with you. I respect that you work with returning service men and women and are closer to the issue than I am.

  What motivated my "rant" was hearing about the $20,000 sign up bonus, coupled with the lowering of standards. It seems to me that money could be better spent in educating these young men and women. I'm making an assumpton here, but I think those who would be enticed by this bonus would be those with little means and education. It almost feels as though the military is exploiting these people.

  I think that if we gave people an education instead of money they would not only be better prepared for the attrocites of war (psycologically/philosophycally) but they would have some clear direction when they return.

  If war is a necessary evil then in my opinion its goal should be to build a better nation and a better world. That starts with builing better individuals.

  By the way have you seen: "In the Valley of Elah"?

  changeling
• 

  Who are you?

  What motivated my "rant" was hearing about the $20,000 sign up bonus, coupled with the lowering of standards. It seems to me that money could be better spent in educating these young men and women. I'm making an assumpton here, but I think those who would be enticed by this bonus would be those with little means and education. It almost feels as though the military is exploiting these people.

  I think that asking the question...Why have the signing bonuses increased?.... is a valuable topic of conversation. Who is the military currently competing with to meet their recruitment requirements? In my mind it's the contractors that are willing to pay soldiers exiting the services upwards of $100,000 a year to work for the private security firms. The military at one point were offering seasoned soldiers aroud $40-50,000 signing bonuses to join another service after leaving their present one.

  It has been my observation that for those of little means and education, the military offers a legitimate alternative. Serve your time and then take advantage of the educational opportunities that are offered. It is certainly not for everyone and since there is no mandatory draft, it is a free choice made by the individuals.

  I think that if we gave people an education instead of money they would not only be better prepared for the attrocites of war (psycologically/philosophycally) but they would have some clear direction when they return.

  There are philisophical schools of thought that align with serving the country i.e. Utilitarianism, they may not be your choice of ethics or morality but they do none the less exist. A clear direction upon returning would be to take advantage of the free education or remain in the service.

  If war is a necessary evil then in my opinion its goal should be to build a better nation and a better world. That starts with builing better individuals.

  I couldn't agree more...and the individuals that need the most attention are the approximately 160 additional million eligible voters that left the fate of the nation to the 105 million or so responsible citizens who actually got up off their rumps and voted. It is the non-voters that are most responsible for the nations current condition. The military doesn't start wars and if you know anything at all about the dialogue leading up to this war, then you would know that the top military leaders (Gen Shinsecki) advised AGAINST the policies of this administration. It's easy to point fingers at others, but the responsibility lies with each of us as citizens.

  This was my first choice for President in 2004...though I did eventually vote for Kerry

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
• 

  funkyderek

  changeling:

  Clearly your heart's in the right place but I don't see how your suggestions would help.

  What if we changed that? What if instead of signing bonuses and optional payed educations after time served, the military offered an education up front?
  
  What if, in order to enter the militatry you had to pass a test (like SAT's or ACT's) and had to have no criminal record? What if upon admitance, the person had to learn, not only what they teach in boot camp, but obtain a college degree as well?

  So, we find our best and our brightest, we spend money educating them, and then and only then do we ship them off to a war zone? I don't get what this would acheive, except to increase the costs of defence and to dramatically reduce the number of recruits. Oh, and increase the proportion of disenfranchised uneducated people at home.

  I suppose if it was implemented, the ensuing rapid collapse of the military would force the government to take a different approach, but the country would essentially be defenseless.

  What if Community College were free to all?

  You mean what if taxpayers were forced to fund Community College education for everybody who wanted it? Generally, those who would have gone to college anyway would probably find it easier, while those who would not (and probably should not) have gone would go along for the ride, disrupt classes and drop out. Taxes would increase dramatically.

  The positive aspects of your suggestion could be attained by a scholarship system where those with the aptitude and desire to go to college could recieve grants or low-interest loans to help them do so.

  What if those who go on to higher education were compensated by the goverenment? What if they also compensated those of limited means who did not have a criminal record?

  No need. Both those groups are already well compensated by their employers. (Incidentally, they are the people likely to suffer most if your "free college for all" idea were implemented.)
• 

  heathen

  Nah , they need stupid people to do the stupid things without questioning anything . 911 was an inside job . Smart people are dangerous to the NWO.