I'd be careful generalising this particular experience beyond the United States. US politics' special combination of pro-military jingoist rhetoric and neglect of actual veteran welfare isn't necessarily a universal.
Lest We Forget
- Thread starter warpus
- Start date
Perhaps. But even in societies that have great veteran's care still treat soldiers and veterans as outsiders. It's like the people like what we do/did for them, but they still see us as somehow...different, or weird. Like we don't belong in "normal" society. I mean, I still remember being watched by managers at some of the jobs I worked after getting out because they were afraid I'd have some sort of PTSD episode. I don't know, it's like people forget that soldiers are still human and when we are done serving, we just want to go back to living our lives like anyone else.
As far as the US is concerned though, I have reached a point where I truly feel both the people and the government are no longer worthy of their protectors. The way soldiers and veterans get treated in this nation, why should we continue to stick our necks out for a people and a government that really don't give a rat's you-know-what about our well-being or whether or not we live or die.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
What it doesnt say is he was shot six times by another Canadian.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
With a camera? Or wait, what happened?
Not today, but I helped vote in a government that has right away decided to pull some Canadians out of harm's way in conflicts we shouldn't be involved in.
I have some hope for this new government we just helped vote in. The last one had Canadian veterans united against it. This new one is looking promising. Here's some of the things they've promised:
- Re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for injured veterans.
- Invest $40 million each year to provide injured veterans with 90 percent of their pre-release salary with inflation indexation.
- Invest $80 million every year to create a new Veterans Education Benefit.
- Re-open the 9 Veterans Affairs service offices.
- Spend $20 million to create two new centres of excellence in veterans’ care.
- Increase the veteran survivor’s pension amount from 50% to 70%.
source
Not today, but I helped vote in a government that has right away decided to pull some Canadians out of harm's way in conflicts we shouldn't be involved in.
I have some hope for this new government we just helped vote in. The last one had Canadian veterans united against it. This new one is looking promising. Here's some of the things they've promised:
- Re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for injured veterans.
- Invest $40 million each year to provide injured veterans with 90 percent of their pre-release salary with inflation indexation.
- Invest $80 million every year to create a new Veterans Education Benefit.
- Re-open the 9 Veterans Affairs service offices.
- Spend $20 million to create two new centres of excellence in veterans’ care.
- Increase the veteran survivor’s pension amount from 50% to 70%.
source
PhroX
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,802
The issue some people, myself to included, have with Remebrance is the inclusivity of it with regards the military, the way it covers all soldiers, combined with the exclusivity of it, in that it treats the military as something special, something above others. Throw in the stigma of criticising it, something that has become increasingly prevalent in today's society (at least in the UK), and the recurrence of the glorification of the military in the media (the depiction of soldiers as "heroes" is all over the place to the point where it's almost the default word for referring to a member of the military) and I am beginning to find it a slightly disturbing spectacle at times. The simple ceremonies, the short silence, remembering those who gave their lives fighting for a cause worth fighting for, or those that had no choice but to fight, I have no issue with. But it is so much more than that.
There was a bit of a media fuss here about a football player (McClean of WBA IIRC) who refused to wear a poppy on his shirt as is the custom around this time of year. He grew up in a town in Ireland where many of the unarmed civilians killed by British troops on Bloody Sunday came from. He argued that he would've be perfect happy to wear a poppy if it was only to remeber those who gave their lives in the two World Wars, but but as it covers everything else, including the Troubles, given what British soldiers had done to people from his hometown, he couldn't in good concience wear it.
And I think that's a perfectly fair argument. Not all soldiers are the same. Not all conflicts are the same. Not all of those who gave their lives did so for things worth giving their lives for. Those that fought in conflicts like the world wars, or those that had little choice about giving their lives in other conflicts (for example, those Americans drafted to fight in Vietnam), are different from those who chose to fight in wars like Iraq (and yes, they did choose to do so - while they might not have specifically wanted to join that war, they volunteered for a military that was only ever going to fight wars like that).
That's not so say I don't think the latter are worthy of some degree of respect and remebrance, or that they shouldn't be well treated by the government. But I don't believe that they are worthy of the same degree as the former group. Hell, I don't believe they are more deserving for any number of other groups of people that have lost their lives in making our world a better place (for a leftfield example, how about construction workers ? While things have improved massively in recent years, building sites are very dangerous, and huge numbers of people have been killed or seriously injured over the last century and beyond. And they have doen so in order to build the world we live in. Without them no roads, no railways, no schools, no hostpitals, no water treatment plants or sewage pipes, no offices, no factories, no sports grounds, no houses. Builders have risked and often given their lives to make our world what it is today, yet when is their Remebrance?)
And yet Remembrance ceremonies put them all soldiers on the same level and puts them on a level that no other group gets. Being a soldier, risking and even giving your life is somthing worthy of repsect. But it is not something uniquely worthy of respect, and the degree of respect is dependant on what you are risking or giving your life for. I'm not by any means calling for such ceremonies to stop. But the way they are viewed, the way people will leap all over the slightest suggestion that someone isn't giving perfect respect to them (hell, look at the way the Sun attempted to discredit Corbyn by lying about his behaviour at the ceremony last weekend), the way that everyone who served is viewed in the same way is to me too far.
Now, much of this I suspect is due to the way the media have started treating the military and everyone associated with it in the last decade or so, which really disturbs me, and so maybe I'm taking out my frustration at that on Remembrance. But too often these days, I see things associated with Remembrance and the treatment of soldiers in general that remind me far to much of the old lie from the poem Arwon posted. We say never again, but the very ceremony is being used to glorify those still fighting and to attack those who criticise the military.
There was a bit of a media fuss here about a football player (McClean of WBA IIRC) who refused to wear a poppy on his shirt as is the custom around this time of year. He grew up in a town in Ireland where many of the unarmed civilians killed by British troops on Bloody Sunday came from. He argued that he would've be perfect happy to wear a poppy if it was only to remeber those who gave their lives in the two World Wars, but but as it covers everything else, including the Troubles, given what British soldiers had done to people from his hometown, he couldn't in good concience wear it.
And I think that's a perfectly fair argument. Not all soldiers are the same. Not all conflicts are the same. Not all of those who gave their lives did so for things worth giving their lives for. Those that fought in conflicts like the world wars, or those that had little choice about giving their lives in other conflicts (for example, those Americans drafted to fight in Vietnam), are different from those who chose to fight in wars like Iraq (and yes, they did choose to do so - while they might not have specifically wanted to join that war, they volunteered for a military that was only ever going to fight wars like that).
That's not so say I don't think the latter are worthy of some degree of respect and remebrance, or that they shouldn't be well treated by the government. But I don't believe that they are worthy of the same degree as the former group. Hell, I don't believe they are more deserving for any number of other groups of people that have lost their lives in making our world a better place (for a leftfield example, how about construction workers ? While things have improved massively in recent years, building sites are very dangerous, and huge numbers of people have been killed or seriously injured over the last century and beyond. And they have doen so in order to build the world we live in. Without them no roads, no railways, no schools, no hostpitals, no water treatment plants or sewage pipes, no offices, no factories, no sports grounds, no houses. Builders have risked and often given their lives to make our world what it is today, yet when is their Remebrance?)
And yet Remembrance ceremonies put them all soldiers on the same level and puts them on a level that no other group gets. Being a soldier, risking and even giving your life is somthing worthy of repsect. But it is not something uniquely worthy of respect, and the degree of respect is dependant on what you are risking or giving your life for. I'm not by any means calling for such ceremonies to stop. But the way they are viewed, the way people will leap all over the slightest suggestion that someone isn't giving perfect respect to them (hell, look at the way the Sun attempted to discredit Corbyn by lying about his behaviour at the ceremony last weekend), the way that everyone who served is viewed in the same way is to me too far.
Now, much of this I suspect is due to the way the media have started treating the military and everyone associated with it in the last decade or so, which really disturbs me, and so maybe I'm taking out my frustration at that on Remembrance. But too often these days, I see things associated with Remembrance and the treatment of soldiers in general that remind me far to much of the old lie from the poem Arwon posted. We say never again, but the very ceremony is being used to glorify those still fighting and to attack those who criticise the military.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I think it's fine to criticize the military, but doing so on Remembrance day seems to me a bit crass.
Remembrance day is to me a day during which we remember the horrors of war, so that it never happens again. I understand that veterans and soldiers and up being walking symbols of this, so the spotlight ends up on them, but in my mind the main point of the whole day is so that we just don't forget.
Then again it seems that in Britain a lot more emphasis is put on the military on this day. Right?
Remembrance day is to me a day during which we remember the horrors of war, so that it never happens again. I understand that veterans and soldiers and up being walking symbols of this, so the spotlight ends up on them, but in my mind the main point of the whole day is so that we just don't forget.
Then again it seems that in Britain a lot more emphasis is put on the military on this day. Right?
PhroX
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,802
I wouldn't personally go out and start bashing the military on Remembrance Sunday. But at the same time I don't think it should be held to be quite as sacred as it is in many quarters, and I don't completely agree with the way the Remembrance ceremonies themselves treat the military as a whole.
The amount of emphasis put on the current military both on Remembrance Sunday and in general seems to have increased in the past decade or so. I feel more and more that it's not just about remembering the past and vowing never again, but about tying in with the whole "supporting our heroes in Afghanistan" and similar [whereas my personal belief is that the best way to remember the fallen is to stop sending young men and women to join them]. It is still centred on the actual Remembrance, but certainly from significant section of the media, it seems to be linked into the growing glorification of the military.
Additionally the requirement to partake in it has become more widespread. The most obvious example is with regards poppies. If you're a public figure, you are pretty much obliged to wear one these days, and it's a major story if someone doesn't. Even 10 years ago, while people in the public eye were encouraged to wear poppies, there wasn't the obligation to do so that there is now. Then there's the way the Sun behaved when there was even the slightest suggestion that Corbyn hadn't followed perfect protocol at the ceremony - I know the Sun as with the rest of Murdoch's bile spewing empire will do anything to attack him, but that the way he bowed to respect the fallen could be considered a means to attack him at all (it's not like he was running around shouting about how the dead soldiers deserved it or anything, it was simply a matter of how exactly he showed his respect for them) highlights the way in which Remembrance is becoming viewed. And it worries me.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That does sound way over the top.
I've heard of people wearing white poppies as a sign that they do not approve of many things the military is doing or has done - but that they do wish to remember nevertheless. I have no idea what sort of response the British media would have to that, though.
I've heard of people wearing white poppies as a sign that they do not approve of many things the military is doing or has done - but that they do wish to remember nevertheless. I have no idea what sort of response the British media would have to that, though.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Fine. Remembrance Day.
For me it's remembrance of the utter futility of violent conflict. Which is a worthwhile thing. If only we could somehow learn a lesson from it, and not keep on repeating the same old mistakes.
But I can't seem to think of the people involved in it as heroes.
As for making our lives full of freedom, I really don't see how that worked out in WW1 at all.
Paint me baffled.
Because they are shown appreciation every single day through appropriate monetary compensation. Even charity workers can make quite a bit of money for themselves. Soldiers on the other hand, are hardly paid appropriately for what their job demands, even during times of peace. So the least society can do is set aside one day where people can pretend like they actually care about their protectors.
EDIT: Plus, there's Labor Day which is supposed to be a celebration of all workers.
Hear, Hear!
That's not always the case globally - my father, when he retires from the ADF, will earn a pension that's still more than my pretty decent full-time public servant salary. My sister and her husband both got substantial cash grants (I think about $18k between them) from the ADF for first home ownership which enabled them to buy a house in spite of Australia's ludicrous housing market. Whenever any of them are posted overseas on warlike service they get their entire pay tax-free, and on warlike deployments they also get substantial daily bonuses ($150 per day in Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan, $85 a day in most oceans near combat zones and in other Gulf countries).
$1000 a week in bonus pay, plus regular pay tax-free was a big reason my father applied for several roles in both theatres during the 2000s - it basically paid off his house.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
"Veterans Day" and "Remembrance Day" were created as more militant alternatives to Armistice Day, which is about celebrating the end of World War One, remembering the horrors of war, and beating swords into plowshares and trying to avoid getting entangled in any more pointless wastes of human life.
I don't see any reason to respect the bravery or sacrifice of those who did not do the due diligence to make sure the cause for which they were fighting was just, especially if they volunteered for the military rather than just submitting to conscription. Their service has not made my life better. Most of our country's military actions have made us less safe, not more. Politicians of course deserve most of the blame for that, but they would not be able to cause such problems if their troops had been conscientious objectors instead of volunteers.
The benefits that politicians promise (and don't always deliver) are more generous than what most of those who join the military would likely find in the private sector while doing jobs that actually help the world more.
However, regardless of whether a soldier was conscripted or volunteered to fight out of a mistaken sense of duty, patriotism, brotherhood, or personal gain, they are still put through some terrible things and deserve pity for what they have experienced.
I spent the holiday at a Habitat for Humanity work site, helping fix up the home of a retired Vietnam veteran with a purple heart. He still has three bullets still lodged in his chest, and from our limited interactions seemed rather psychologically wounded too. We did a lot of landscaping, fixed some siding/soffit, washed the shutters, and repainted his porch. There were jobs inside planned too, but we could not do them due to OSHA regulations. (His dog had defecated so much on all the carpets that we were told we'd need HazMat suits to be legally allowed to work in there.)
I don't see any reason to respect the bravery or sacrifice of those who did not do the due diligence to make sure the cause for which they were fighting was just, especially if they volunteered for the military rather than just submitting to conscription. Their service has not made my life better. Most of our country's military actions have made us less safe, not more. Politicians of course deserve most of the blame for that, but they would not be able to cause such problems if their troops had been conscientious objectors instead of volunteers.
The benefits that politicians promise (and don't always deliver) are more generous than what most of those who join the military would likely find in the private sector while doing jobs that actually help the world more.
However, regardless of whether a soldier was conscripted or volunteered to fight out of a mistaken sense of duty, patriotism, brotherhood, or personal gain, they are still put through some terrible things and deserve pity for what they have experienced.
I spent the holiday at a Habitat for Humanity work site, helping fix up the home of a retired Vietnam veteran with a purple heart. He still has three bullets still lodged in his chest, and from our limited interactions seemed rather psychologically wounded too. We did a lot of landscaping, fixed some siding/soffit, washed the shutters, and repainted his porch. There were jobs inside planned too, but we could not do them due to OSHA regulations. (His dog had defecated so much on all the carpets that we were told we'd need HazMat suits to be legally allowed to work in there.)
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
A couple days I watched a documentary on a Canadian tank division that helped in the invasion of Italy and the eventual capture of Rome. It was "The best tank battles in history" or something like that.
They went through some crazy crap! I had no idea and I sat there and watched in a bit of awe. I would have crapped my pants many times over if I had to go through what they did. I mean, I would have probably died - many of them did... yet they continued on forward and ended up winning key battles and securing key positions.. and had a large impact on how the march towards Rome played out. They did their part in winning that war - if it was lost, I would not be here writing this post today.
So yes, I think that makes those men heroes! If that's not heroism, I don't know what is. They put their lives on the line in the face of seemingly certain death, in order to do their part in reaching a noble goal. If those who have died did not die and if those veterans who are still living did not exist either, we wouldn't have anything to remember all of this by. They are our link. As such they need to be respected for their contributions and their significance, IMO.
Borachio said:
That's what it's ultimately all about for me too, but the veterans and those who died in such conflicts are the symbols that represent that futility.
Or rather I should say I think it's about the human price that needs to be paid when conflicts of such scale come to be. However you want to put it.
What rank is your father though? I ask because if he is a high-ranking NCO or a commissioned officer, he may be making a decent salary in general, but compare it to someone in the private sector who is of an equivalent rank and has equivalent responsibilities and I guarantee his private sector counterpart is making way more than he is. Thus he is still not being compensated appropriately.
And I don't know how the ADF compensates their soldiers, but the US does it based on rank, not on job. So you could have an engineer or a medic that is an E-1 and he/she essentially makes an hourly wage that is lower than a burger-flipper at McDonald's. These are soldiers that have college-level skills and they are being paid what essentially amounts to less than minimum wage if they are of a low rank.
Now I will admit that a soldier can make a pretty decent amount of money when deployed and any wages earned while deployed are tax-exempt up to $95,000. Most enlisted soldiers see their paycheck almost double while they are deployed. But with the wars winding down soldiers are going to be stuck soon with the low standard pay.
By my calculations* the base hourly wage of a member of the United States military ranges from $2.14 to $27.44 depending on rank. And yes, the $27.44 is what our highest ranking generals and admirals are making. Our top military officers are being paid less per hour than damn fashion designers (average hourly pay of $30.22).
*Since the military does not track hours worked and pays by salary rather than hourly wage, calculations were done assuming a 24/7 work week. This is because soldiers can be called into work at anytime of the day on any day and are, thus, never truly "off" from work.
Assuming a 24/7 work week is pretty silly. There's plenty if jobs (medical, IT) with on-call out of hours periods. You get overtime if you work, you get compensation for having to be on standby, but you don't get an hourly rate for just the possibility of being needed. That's certainly how my sister's last posting worked too - periodic planned-in-advance "duty" nights.
At any rate yeah dad got his commission in the 90s, he's been in since he was fifteen. My sister and her husband however are I think OR-3s and still get pretty decent support (again - 18k to buy a house is huge for people in their 20s in this country).
ADF pay structures are a matrix of rank, experience and qualifications. There's a huge shortage of things like lawyers and engineers in the ADF (among other fields) so a lot of that work is done by reservists.
I'm not arguing US non commissioned aren't poorly paid - the thing where many US defence personnel rely on food stamps is generally pretty staggering to Australian military people. Just saying it varies a lot, the US is pretty extreme among rich countries in having such a large and poorly paid military workforce.
In all honesty I wouldn't be thinking about it in terms of what people deserve - that's the just price fallacy and not terribly persuasive whether it's the defence force or if it's teachers or nurses (also generally underpaid by most subjective measures of worth).
I think the explanation lies more in simple labour market explanations. It probably directly relates to the existence of a large working poor in the US. With low minimum wages and expensive tertiary education, the US military really doesn't face much competition in recruiting cheap relatively unskilled labour. And is even aided in such recruitment by schemes which exchange service for college fees.
At any rate yeah dad got his commission in the 90s, he's been in since he was fifteen. My sister and her husband however are I think OR-3s and still get pretty decent support (again - 18k to buy a house is huge for people in their 20s in this country).
ADF pay structures are a matrix of rank, experience and qualifications. There's a huge shortage of things like lawyers and engineers in the ADF (among other fields) so a lot of that work is done by reservists.
I'm not arguing US non commissioned aren't poorly paid - the thing where many US defence personnel rely on food stamps is generally pretty staggering to Australian military people. Just saying it varies a lot, the US is pretty extreme among rich countries in having such a large and poorly paid military workforce.
In all honesty I wouldn't be thinking about it in terms of what people deserve - that's the just price fallacy and not terribly persuasive whether it's the defence force or if it's teachers or nurses (also generally underpaid by most subjective measures of worth).
I think the explanation lies more in simple labour market explanations. It probably directly relates to the existence of a large working poor in the US. With low minimum wages and expensive tertiary education, the US military really doesn't face much competition in recruiting cheap relatively unskilled labour. And is even aided in such recruitment by schemes which exchange service for college fees.
Akka
Moody old mage.
This is pretty badass.
A bit marred by learning that all these wounds were caused by a twitchy CANADIAN machinegunner, though.
Surviving unscathed after storming a fortified enemy position just to be gunned down by your own side is pretty frustrating, isn't it ?
Thorgalaeg
Deity
I know how he felt. The same thing used to happen to me when played Arma 3 online. I hope that machinegunner was banned from WW2 for teamkilling.
