"Support The Troops"

[Commodore]

I doubt that even if you restrict it to combat soldiers that you could show their risk of injury is any greater than a number of civilian jobs, such as commercial fishing and logging.

What are you basing that doubt on though? Even the data in your link is flawed for two reasons:

1. It only factors in deaths and not injuries or disabilities as a result of workplace duties or environment.

2. When calculating the military deaths per 100,000 they only took the deaths from Iraq. They didn't factor in the deaths from Afghanistan or those that resulted from training accidents or suicides. And suicides would be applicable for an occupational death count because most soldiers that commit suicide do it because of work related stress. None of the other occupations on that list can claim that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is interesting you mention suicide. That topic has come up a number of times and many people have claimed that it is less than in civilian life.

Occupations with higher death rates also typically have far more injuries as well.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb2427.pdf

 

[Commodore]

It is interesting you mention suicide. That topic has come up a number of times and many people have claimed that it is less than in civilian life.

Occupations with the higher death rates also typically have far more injuries as well.

But how many civilian suicides are a direct result of their chosen profession? The military is one of a very short list of professions that can claim suicide as an occupational hazard.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'd love to see some statistics which clearly show that the suicide rate among combat soldiers was demonstrably higher than the rest.

 

[Commodore]

Also, can you direct me to where the military stats are in the PDF you posted? When running a search for 'military' in the document the only match is: Military armored vehicle, tank, and tank component manufacturing.

So without military numbers to compare it to, the data is irrelevant.

 

[CavLancer]

did I miss out on a war recently, the last anticommunist one I remember is Vietnam, and I did my upmost to support the troops then, by protesting in the streets to get them back home

Its a philosophy.

 

[Commodore]

I'd love to see some statistics which clearly show that the suicide rate among combat soldiers was demonstrably higher than the rest.

Ask and you shall receive:

Among full-time soldiers, the suicide rate soared to 29.7 deaths per 100,000 in 2012, well above a 25.1-per-100,000 rate for civilians of a similar age group during 2010, the latest year available, according to a Pentagon report. Among male soldiers, the rate was 31.8-per-100,000. There were a record 164 soldier-suicides that year.

According to the improved formula they are using, it appears military suicide rates as of 2012 are higher than the overall civilian suicide rate.

 

[Old Hippy]

Ask and you shall receive:



According to the improved formula they are using, it appears military suicide rates as of 2012 are higher than the overall civilian suicide rate.

it is a shocking %, but is it really representive, your got millitary against everyone else, so if their are groups with low suicide rates, which is your point after all, they are diluting the % of the other high suicide groups or the civilian % in general... if that makes any sense at all

 

[Commodore]

it is a shocking %, but is it really representive, your got millitary against everyone else, so if their are groups with low suicide rates, which is your point after all, they are diluting the % of the other high suicide groups or the civilian % in general... if that makes any sense at all

My data still holds because one of Forma's claims was that the overall civilian suicide rate was higher than the military suicide rate. Thus it is perfectly legitimate to compare the overall civilian suicide rate to the military suicide rate.

It is interesting you mention suicide. That topic has come up a number of times and many people have claimed that it is less than in civilian life.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Also, can you direct me to where the military stats are in the PDF you posted? When running a search for 'military' in the document the only match is: Military armored vehicle, tank, and tank component manufacturing.

So without military numbers to compare it to, the data is irrelevant.

Why don't you ask your own military who deliberately hide such information from the public in fear of being called out for their own obvious ineptitude and lack of caring about needless physical injury?

Again, the US Navy clearly showed that injuries and deaths can be drastically curtailed if they only decide to care a bit about their victims by establishing quite reasonable safety requirements which do not impact their ability to still perform their jobs.

Again, you would naturally expect that occupations with high fatality rates would also have commensurately higher injury rates than the average, which is what those statistics actually show.

But go right ahead and find some statistics concerning the US military which shows this isn't the case. That it is actually the case that "most soldiers leave the military with some sort of physical or mental disability", instead of actually being a small fraction which is quite similar to other jobs involving physical labor under hazardous conditions.

Ask and you shall receive:

So you really think that there being 4 more suicides per 100,000 than the civilian population in one single year is all that statistically important, especially when the military has been covering up the increasing number of suicides for years due to Iraq and Afghanistan by claiming the suicide rate in the military was lower than the general public?

 

[downtown]

I didn't read this entire thread, but I think the idea of guaranteeing interviews for Vets is a horrible idea, that will only make the hiring process even longer and convoluted for everybody else. A guy who spent his tour in the army fixing car is not entitled to an interview for say, an executive management job.

There are already a lot of incentives for firms to hire vets, both in positive PR, and in actual tax credits. From my experience on the other side of the desk, we have a problem with either 1) Vets leaving the service without skills that are transferable in the labor market and 2) If they have those skills, they are unable to articulate them well to potential employers (i.e, resumes, poor interviewing skills. I think many of the worst resumes I ever saw came from enlisted men.

Those are real problems, and as a society, we should be concerned about them. But that sounds like a problem with the actual military, not with something that can be fixed effectively with a handout.

I think we owe members of our armed forces a competitive salary, the opportunity for a college education or postsecondary training, and top notch medical care for when they leave the service, especially mental health care.

Above that, I don't see why somebody in the military should get additional special bonuses that others who serve their country do not get, from cops or firefighters in inner city, to Peace Corps members, to AmeriCorps, to certain kinds of teachers or social workers. If we are asking all of those other people to continuously make budget sacrifices, the military should not be exempt.

I think the best way to support the troops is still to not send them places where they will get killed.

 

[Commodore]

Why don't you ask your own military who deliberately hide such information from the public in fear of being called out for their own obvious ineptitude and lack of caring about needless physical injury?

Again, the US Navy clearly showed that injuries and deaths can be drastically curtailed if they only decide to care a bit about their victims by establishing quite reasonable safety requirements which do not impact their ability to still perform their jobs.

Again, you would naturally expect that occupations with high fatality rates would also have commensurately higher injury rates than the average, which is what those statistics actually show.

But go right ahead and find some statistics concerning the US military which shows this isn't the case. That it is actually the case that "most soldiers leave the military with some sort of physical or mental disability", instead of actually being a small fraction which is quite similar to other jobs involving physical labor under hazardous conditions.

So you really think that there being 4 more suicides per 100,000 than the civilian population in one single year is all that statistically important, especially when the military has been covering up the increasing number of suicides for years due to Iraq and Afghanistan by claiming the suicide rate in the military was lower than the general public?

Translation of the above post: "You found data that contradicts my claim as well as exposing legitimate holes in the data I presented, so now I have to attempt to hand wave your data away to save face."

 

[Traitorfish]

To be fair, he's not the one suggesting that high-school drop-outs be given mandatory interviews for the position of Senior Professor of Brain Surgery, Rocket Science & Quantum Mechanics because they spent a few years in uniform.

 

[Commodore]

To be fair, he's not the one suggesting that high-school drop-outs be given mandatory interviews for the position of Senior Professor of Brain Surgery, Rocket Science & Quantum Mechanics because they spent a few years in uniform.

I don't know how they do things in your country, but in the US you do have to at least have a high school level of education to join the military. If you do not have a HS diploma or a GED you cannot join.

But hey, way to stereotype.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Above that, I don't see why somebody in the military should get additional special bonuses that others who serve their country do not get

Because others who serve their country don't require further incentive to want to do it in the first place?

 

[JollyRoger]

I think we can all find ways to support the troops. For example, I have provided intimate companionship to a number of spouses when their hubby was away on tour.

 

[downtown]

Because others who serve their country don't require further incentive to want to do it in the first place?

Sure they do. I wouldn't have become an inner city teacher without a promise of some loan forgiveness and some other perks. It's a terrible job.

 

[CavLancer]

How long do you have to do that job? Being from Jersey I can imagine the hell you must go through daily in DC inner city schools.

 

[downtown]

But hey, way to stereotype.

Okay, fine, you're supporting a guy with a GED to get a mandatory interview for like, surgeon or something. It's essentially the same principle.

How long do you have to do that job? Being from Jersey I can imagine the hell you must go through daily in DC inner city schools.

I only did it for a year, and I had a 1-2 year contract in New Orleans, although DC has similar programs. There are others who work in inner cities, doing things like running food pantries, or various community non profits, that get similar bonuses.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Translation of the above post: "You found data that contradicts my claim as well as exposing legitimate holes in the data I presented, so now I have to attempt to hand wave your data away to save face."

Again, do you really think 4 more suicides per 100,000 for a single year is actually significant?

And I'm still waiting your facts to support your allegation that "most" people in the military have a physical or mental disability when they eventually leave the government subsidized gravy train, instead of being a small fraction like any other occupation involving physical activity.

That merely taking reasonable steps to assure that soldiers are treated properly would not only drastically reduce the suicide level down to the levels they were prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but it would also significantly decrease those who do actually suffer from physical or mental impairment due to their time in the military.

I don't know how they do things in your country, but in the US you do have to at least have a high school level of education to join the military. If you do not have a HS diploma or a GED you cannot join.

You don't seem to know much at all about the military or its requirements.

WASHINGTON — The percent of Army recruits with a high school diploma dropped last year, continuing a trend that has worsened since the start of the Iraq war, according to a report released Tuesday.

National Priorities Project, a research group that analyzes federal data, found that nearly 71 percent of Army recruits graduated from high school in the 2007 budget year. It based its findings on data it obtained from the Defense Department through a Freedom of Information Act request.

All troops must have a high school diploma or an equivalent degree. The military prefers that they have a high school diploma because its studies have shown they are more likely to finish an enlistment term. Still, the Army has paid for some recruits to take preparation classes for the test for a high school equivalency diploma.

The Army's goal is 90 percent high school graduates, which it hasn't met since 2004. Each year since, the number of recruits with at least a high school diploma has steadily declined.

The GED requirement, which can be satisfied once the recruit has joined, also appears to be a scam more than anything else if they cannot function anywhere near the same level as those with high school diplomas.

Army Recruiting More Dropouts

The share of new recruits labeled "high quality" by the Army — those with at least a high-school diploma and who rank in the top half of the military's qualification test — has also dropped markedly since the Iraq war began, from 56.2% in 2005 to 44.6% last year. Recruits from families with annual incomes below $60,000 are over-represented in uniform, the study says, while those from families earning more are under-represented. The higher-income, better-educated recruits are especially prized by the Army because they have the skills needed to master the increasingly complex equipment that now accompanies a military force onto the battlefield. Army officials have acknowledged the steady slide in recruit quality, but insist that no unqualified soldiers are being sent into combat.

But hey, way to stereotype.

You are the one who seems to be stereotyping here by suggesting that those who merely join the military for whatever reason be treated quite differently than everybody else.

This is particularly true since the last time anybody in the military actually had to defend the US from attack by a foreign country was WWII. There are a multitude of reasons to join the military. But doing so to protect this country from any sort of real threat to our continued existence is virtually nonexistent.