"Support The Troops"

[SS-18 ICBM]

I'd prefer making them qualified instead of just shoving them down employers' throats.

 

[metatron]

Last time I checked, it was a volunteer gig.

Yeah, but you're not helping out at a bake sale.
You're signing up for a stressful, extremely unhealthy and - additionally - lethally dangerous task that your country has decided someone should do.
That's a bit outside the core stereotype of "volunteer gig".

I'm not from a militaristic society so maybe I just don't get it but why should someone get a head start on anyone else because of a job they chose?

Well, for many American soldiers it's not exactly a "job". I run into this misconception with fellow German leftists all the time:
"Sure, our guys mostly drive tanks around the base so the fuel budget doesn't get cut on bases a thousand miles from EU boundaries and some of them go on camping trips somewhere near Kunduz where they are in marginally more danger than a city cop with a really bad beat. That's a "job".
But that doesn't compare all that well to what some of their guys got to do..."

There's military service. That may be "a job", sure.
But then there's war. War is not "a job".

You and all vets didn't make a sacrifice, you choose to waste 5 years of your life and now expect some kind of special privilege. It's not like there's been a draft in the past 30 years where at least some parts of the GI Bill was needed. The whole institutionalized Vet favoritism in public jobs is causing underqualified and sometimes incompetent people getting jobs over the best candidate. Expanding on the GI Bill would just encourage people to waste their most productive years of their lives in some backwater country with no net benefit to society.

There's nothing to get you chose to be a solider, that doesn't entitle you to any special privilege, you blatantly think that choosing to be a dumb*** gives you the right to have a ridiculous set of entitlements.

The assessment of the cost, of the damaging consequences - that's all fair and well.
But you can hardly blame it on the people who signed up for this.
Civilian leadership backed by public opinion decided there were these tasks that needed doing. Somebody had to do them.
Some people sacrificed real opportunities they would have had in the labor market in order to go, out of a sense of duty or whatever. And you can call that a bad choice if you want to.
But many other people signed up for this because they had nothing else to do, often the very disadvantaged people you would want to see defended in any other context.

And two years from now you - as a Democrat or at least a nose-holding Democratic voter i presume - will vote and advocate in your private life and on the internet to make one of the hypocrits who actively made those wars President.
But yet here you are, implicitly saying that the inner city kid, who effectively had no father because New Jim Crow, who had a "school" that wouldn't qualify as a school anywhere else in the OECD is to blame for making the lazy choice to do this task instead of spending the time on welfare.

Yet again, your concern is very valid, service as an implicit de facto prerequisite for exercise of basic rights (such as labor participation) is one of the most dangerous hazards a pluralistic, democratic society can be exposed to.
But then you should argue that, and cease dissing said kid.

Anyway: What i'd like to insert as an idea here is that, yeah, maybe there's one class of veterans who recieve excessive and unnecessary benefits.
But there may be other classes of veterans for whom the exact opposite is true.

We seem to have no shortage of volunteers under the current system of entitlement.

Is it just the entitlement as a pull factor though?
After all you have no shortage of people with no perspective, no prospects, no other chance in life too.
Well, except for one of those jobs that pay for life plus tuition that the cut-it-or-shut-it people keep fantasizing about.

 

[Tarquelne]

But you can hardly blame it on the people who signed up for this.

Quite.

IME holding service members responsible for a war is extremely common in Europe. But that could easily be more about the circles I moved in than a general attitude.

My experience with young soldiers in the US is that they shouldn't be held accountable. I certainly wouldn't trust them with the responsibility. If they *are* responsible, there's something seriously wrong with the system.

So ... maybe European high schools have better civics courses than US schools. They could hardly be worse. Given that, maybe kids signing up there really are making some sort of well-considered pro-war statement.

Those who should be held responsible are the people, generally civilians, who decided a war was a good idea.

Here's the "IME" with regard to that: If someone has a "support the troops" sticker and they don't have an immediate family member in the military, they're probably a jingoist. Which, in my book, is somebody who doesn't support the troops.

BTW: I think troops are inappropriately lionized about as often as they're inappropriately "dissed." And generally for the exact same reason: Somebody's got a political agenda they want to further. Playing on old ideas of glory and sacrifice are, for example, is nice way of saying "I want somebody to go shoot those guys, and I want you to spend a lot more money to get it done." without actually saying it.

Some people sacrificed real opportunities they would have had in the labor market in order to go, out of a sense of duty or whatever. And you can call that a bad choice if you want to.
But many other people signed up for this because they had nothing else to do, often the very disadvantaged people you would want to see defended in any other context.

Full agreement here.
As someone who thinks universal healthcare is a Good Idea, I'm all in favor of great health benefits for vets. They simply aren't paid enough to make the risks worthwhile without it. (IMO its dubious the risks are worthwhile *with* the health benefits.)

There's plenty of room for discussion as to exactly how much and what benefits vets should get. With health, at least, I'm inclined to try for a very high standard and bring everybody else up to it. With jobs, etc. I acknowledge it'd be easy to overdo, but I think there should be some real benefit to being willing to do the dirty work for the rest of us. Even when this particular "us" wishes, so far as the recent past goes, they'd been asked to do a lot less. The training might be considered enough, but I'd want to compare it to what the civ. job market actually desires.

If you want to look for a place to cut military benefits I'd start with cutting the size of the military. Since we as a nation clearly want to throw big gobs of cash at the government - actions speak louder than words - there are more constructive things to do with the money. Even other things that employ people with poor prospects. (If we're determined to arm them, we could always use more cops, right?)

NB: IME it's not uncommon for service people to have something of a bee in their bonnet about benefits. I find it quite understandable: On the one side they've got a lot of people who say they should get more, but don't give it to them, and keep sending them out to get maimed. On the other side they've got people who so strongly disapprove of the conflicts they've fought in, or jingoism in general, that they're pissed at the service people.

A lot of room there for what the great poets have called "butthurt."

 

[Formaldehyde]

Someone has been watching NASCAR too much. Ironically, previous to 9/11, most everybody on the teams typically continued to go about their business instead of even stopping while the national anthem was being sung. Now they line up and put on a big show to sell overt nationalism to the public. There used to be no troops paraded about to tell the gentlemen to start their engines. But all that miraculously changed after 9/11.

If you really supported the troops in the ways you claim, you would be constantly writing your congressmen demanding to know why the VA is a national disgrace while they pretend to "support the troops". You would be constantly protesting on the streets to stop national guardsmen and reserve troops from being so absurdly misused in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. You would be doing everything you could to assure the US doesn't get into any more of these sorts of nonsensical wars.

Support the troops by doing all you can to assure they no longer needlessly die. That they are not incessantly screwed over by the US government while the politicians who falsely claim to support them send them to these inane wars to die.

 

[Ironsided]

Quite.

IME holding service members responsible for a war is extremely common in Europe. But that could easily be more about the circles I moved in than a general attitude.

It’s not. It’s far less common. It’s however far more common to hold politicians and war hawks responsible before they do something stupid. We have strikes, protest marches, grass root movements on a scale unmatched by the US population who for the most parts seem content with swearing at the TV, voting in self-interest, and post smarmily on the internet.

My experience with young soldiers in the US is that they shouldn't be held accountable. I certainly wouldn't trust them with the responsibility. If they *are* responsible, there's something seriously wrong with the system.

Bradley Manning

So ... maybe European high schools have better civics courses than US schools. They could hardly be worse. Given that, maybe kids signing up there really are making some sort of well-considered pro-war statement.

They get a far less twisted recruitment commercial of the war, for sure:



Link to video.

Those who should be held responsible are the people, generally civilians, who decided a war was a good idea.

Well, if anyone even hints at putting Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld et al. on trial for their crimes most Americans throw a hissy fit. Not in least the troops they shafted. I guess they still hope they will be repaid somehow?

Why don’t veterans drive up to Bush’s ranch and demand him for a job now you’ve lost an arm and a leg and can’t be outside in the day-light because of imaginary enemies in the mountains? I’m sure he can squeeze you into his capitalistic free-market dreamscape where you are supposed to be a fruitful island of freedom-infused self-empowerment and grit. That what is says on the tin he sold you.

And after that is sorted we can discuss the veterans, widows and orphans on the other side of the conflict?

 

[Azale]

I'm generally sympathetic to (most) soldiers because I've seen the recruiting mindscrew put on them, right at the tail end of high school. Lies are told, promises are broken. That being said...

They are slowly chipping away and eroding the benefits we earned. We were guaranteed all of those benefits by contract and now the politicians want to renege on that contract because it's a convenient way to reduce spending to appease their constituents.

Welcome to the rest of the country. Stop agitating just for your particular special interest and get in on the big fight.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I support the troops by not blaming them for military decision. Beyond that I support for instance doctors and teachers just as much.

 

[Tahuti]

I support the troops by not blaming them for military decision. Beyond that I support for instance doctors and teachers just as much.

Soldiers actually risk life and limb and it would be fair if they got much more respect than say, investment bankers.

 

[Borachio]

It's certainly true they deserve more respect than investment bankers.

But who respects investment bankers?

 

[Traitorfish]

I've never quite understood the imperative "support the troops". Which troops? The Provos, perhaps? It's not self-evident that they have any less claim to my support than the British army. They certainly have less innocent blood on their hands, and they're hardly angels themselves.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Soldiers actually risk life and limb and it would be fair if they got much more respect than say, investment bankers.

Not sure this was a disagreement with my statement.

Should I respect people solely for the risks they take in life? What about respect for people who save lives? What about respect for people dedicated to education?

I agree they deserve a lot more respect than investment bankers though. And I wouldn't expect people to respect me because I'm a programmer. My point was that soldiers aren't unique in the amount of respect they gain from me because of the job they do.

 

[JollyRoger]

Didn't many investment bankers risk their lives by working at the World Trade Center, especially after 1993?

 

[Tahuti]

Not sure this was a disagreement with my statement.

Should I respect people solely for the risks they take in life? What about respect for people who save lives? What about respect for people dedicated to education?

Yes and no. I do think modern society fails to appreciate people that have to take risks as part of their job to keep society running. Education is very important as well though, though I do not have any respect for educators who teach what they know are lies.

I agree they deserve a lot more respect than investment bankers though. And I wouldn't expect people to respect me because I'm a programmer. My point was that soldiers aren't unique in the amount of respect they gain from me because of the job they do.

The rationale for respecting programmers usually is that they have skills that are relatively rare.

 

[JollyRoger]

The rationale for respecting programmers usually is that they have skills that are relatively rare.

In this day and age, people with programming skills are no less rare than people with investment banking skills.

 

[Rashiminos]

Civilian leadership backed by public opinion decided there were these tasks that needed doing. Somebody had to do them.

All they needed were a few good pawns.

 

[Tahuti]

In this day and age, people with programming skills are no less rare than people with investment banking skills.

Investment banking however is a job in a largely parasitical economic sector.

 

[JollyRoger]

And the expansions of entitlements proposed in the OP are not parasitical?

 

[Tarquelne]

It’s not. It’s far less common. It’s however far more common to hold politicians and war hawks responsible before they do something stupid.

Sounds nice. We're having enough trouble agreeing what is or isn't stupid.

Sorry, sorry: We're having enough trouble agreeing to what is or isn't true. Simple, easily dis-proven stuff. We'll work on "stupid" - and everything else you mentioned in your post - if that's ever hashed out.

 

[Tarquelne]

And the expansions of entitlements proposed in the OP are not parasitical?

3 and 5 might be OK.

I wouldn't call the others parasitical.

4 is "nuts."
2 is "completely impractical."
1 is ... well, if M. Obama encouraging people to criticize racists is the first step toward a police state, then #1 is "a boot stamping on a human face forever."

 

[warpus]

I saw a boat in South Carolina with a large text written on it: "Veterans on board"

That seemed incredibly.. unprofessional to me.. I imagined the people on the boat to be self-important jerks who are misusing the good name of veteranship to get ahead in life, by getting pity from passers by.

That's great if you served the country and I will thank you if I find out, but walking around with a "I'M A VETERAN, WORSHIP ME" sign seems very douchy to me. Then again our veterans here in Canada don't toot their horn all that much. We respect them, we respect our soldiers, but there is no hero worship type stuff going on, really. Maybe a bit.