I believe in markets setting prices. The market sets the price for a life. Evidently you do not; you believe that under your own peril.
Paul Ryan (R-WI) guts billions from veteran's benefits
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
I believe in markets setting prices. The market sets the price for a life. Evidently you do not; you believe that under your own peril.
Please, I would never do that. Anonymity is the ally of truth. If I were a politician, I would lie my ass off like every other politician, in order to accomplish my political goals.
"These men are the best America has to offer." Total bullshit. They know it's bullshit when they utter it, they just don't care. If you believe otherwise you're willfully ignorant.
Again, in my experience the military men earning good livings were never deployed in actual combat. They worked and excelled in non-combat roles, and that's why they're desirable.
Thank you for furthering my point. I purposely exaggerated to the positive.
Elite troops comprise a tiny fraction of the people fighting battles. I said nothing about them; I've never known any. The vast majority of people in the military are never worthy of being elite troops.
Your military hasn't recently deployed hundreds of thousands of troops in an engagement.
echelon1k1
New Member
That's just not the way it is unfortunately. For example, an AU army rifleman starts on about $40K per annum after basic and advance rifleman's course. An AU special forces soldier has to take a reduction in rank to join a SF capable unit, but starts on around $100K per annum. That's the enlisted door kickers, not management. When deployed, pay only goes up.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I don't believe in the mythical correlation between pay grade and intelligence. Plenty of very smart people have a desire to serve. We find out later that the government we serve has the interests of capital as its highest priority. To people who put on a uniform and believe they are fighting for freedom, money is certainly not a high priority.
This fact is the single reason why I am not a cynical person despite several of my battle buddies having killed themselves. There really are good people who believe they are fighting and risking their butts for people like you who think money is the meaning of life.
I may be an anarchist and a radical left wing dissenter but I have far more in common with those heroic young men than you. You just keep assuming that people like myself are dumb and you'll never figure out why you're a selfish coward. Willingness to risk one's life for others is not stupidity. Altruism is not stupid.
Just because many of those men had GEDs doesn't mean they were dumb, it just means they weren't satisfied as easily as you. Sitting in a class room is no adventure. It takes absolutely no courage and anyone can do it. Even Hellen Keller got an education. Becoming a warrior is something you could never accomplish. You are simply an inferior person.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
AC, from Toke's posts I'm guessing he's an 80's child like I was. Back then, our classmates (for the most part)went into the military because they couldn't either get into college, or make it once there. Especially during the early 80's when there were less labor jobs that could feed a family.
It was different after the 9/11 forced patriotism, but before that, the best and brightest avoided military and most of the grunt makeup was high school drop outs and criminals given a choice of military or jail. After vietnam, we pretty much scraped the bottom of the barrel to fill the hundreds of thousands of unnecessary posts around the world.
Again, this is just in general terms. I appreciate yours or anyone else's service and don't want to diminish it all but we had a 25 year period in this country where joining the military was the last resort for many.
It was different after the 9/11 forced patriotism, but before that, the best and brightest avoided military and most of the grunt makeup was high school drop outs and criminals given a choice of military or jail. After vietnam, we pretty much scraped the bottom of the barrel to fill the hundreds of thousands of unnecessary posts around the world.
Again, this is just in general terms. I appreciate yours or anyone else's service and don't want to diminish it all but we had a 25 year period in this country where joining the military was the last resort for many.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
All of my first sergeants and sergeants major as well as many of my drill sergeants joined in the 80s. While very few of these men ever won any spelling bees the fact is they could lead any unit in the military but engineers and jag goons could not lead infantry units.
Read his posts again ginwilly, before you defend him, understand that he is arguing that infantrymen are dumb simply because they are in combat arms. He is guessing just like you're guessing he grew up in the 80s.
Some of the brightest volunteer for the dangerous work. Many of them do not have what it takes and the military puts them in easier vocations.
Read his posts again ginwilly, before you defend him, understand that he is arguing that infantrymen are dumb simply because they are in combat arms. He is guessing just like you're guessing he grew up in the 80s.
Some of the brightest volunteer for the dangerous work. Many of them do not have what it takes and the military puts them in easier vocations.
I meant post-military.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
For everyone one of those leaders there were thousands more that did 2-4 and came out older. I'm not saying all, I'm just saying it was a rule of thumb in those days.
If your second paragraph is what he is saying then it's just an opinion and I don't agree. If you think the military puts their best and brightest on the front lines, then I will respectfully disagree with you too.
echelon1k1
New Member
Over the last two years US special forces numbers in Afghanistan have risen to around 7000 - operators, not support personnel, in anticipation of conventional troop drawdown.
USSOCOM numbers in 2001 stood at around 30,000 soldiers, today it sits at around 70,000 - that's more than double.
I would have to disagree and state that the US military and its allies are restructuring the order of battle and now has special operations personnel leading virtually all combat operations in nearly all theatres. Apart from Afghanistan and Iraq, your SF people are currently deployed to around 75 countries so it does stand to reason the military is putting their best and brightest on the front lines.
echelon1k1
New Member
Not understanding the relevance, our best and brightest lie with our combat soldiers too. We also have very strict mental screening process for those we do deploy, not everyone serving will be deemed suitable for combat deployments.
Post military I happen to know many front line folks who are now working in the private sectors as motivational speakers making big bucks telling CEOs and upper management funny stories about leadership and decision making. That incudes the officers and the noncomms
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Best physical specimens who are able to follow orders doesn't mean brightest. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Many of the troops we have in Iraq that we claim are not there were former SF that are paid much more handsomely. We've lost a lot of the best and brightest (by your definition) to private security.
I appreciate what these guys do and admit that I wouldn't volunteer to go over there. I am not trying to belittle them at all. My dad was a Korean War (conflict) vet and if he were alive and read that I even questioned any of these guys he'd smack me upside the head. He was army and would tell you that they were much tougher than navy and air force and much smarter than marines. That was his perception and surely he was wrong? A major part of military is brain washing and behavior modification, any vet will admit to this. It has to be this way to work or following orders unconditionally would never happen, and it needs to happen for our military to be successful.
I appreciate what these guys do and admit that I wouldn't volunteer to go over there. I am not trying to belittle them at all. My dad was a Korean War (conflict) vet and if he were alive and read that I even questioned any of these guys he'd smack me upside the head. He was army and would tell you that they were much tougher than navy and air force and much smarter than marines. That was his perception and surely he was wrong? A major part of military is brain washing and behavior modification, any vet will admit to this. It has to be this way to work or following orders unconditionally would never happen, and it needs to happen for our military to be successful.
There is definitely a correlation between pay grade and intelligence. That's indisputable. My original comment was an empathetic one: I feel bad for the people who have been permanently scarred and had their lives ruined. What I said about sending the dumbest, least able [edit: when I refer to ability, I strictly mean raw intellectual ability and nothing else, throughout this whole discussion] people to fight the wars was an indictment of the modern system of self selection that we use to man the military. The government generally picks off the most vulnerable people, the ones with the least ability and few good options. I'm not suggesting that there aren't "very smart people" who want to serve. I've known some. But the fact that smart people also volunteer doesn't alter the truth of what I said.
I'm not saying soldiers are stupid because they're willing to risk their lives.
I would never call someone dumb just because they have a GED. I used the word to mean that we fill our military up with people who have the least intellectual ability. This does not equate to "All people who join the military are morons," which is what you seem to think I meant.
You're equating being trainable and giving/following orders with intelligence. That makes no sense. Being able to perform a certain maneuver or being able to lead a unit has little to do with intellectual ability.
I'm certainly not arguing that "infantryman are dumb simply because they are in combat arms." You're pulling that out of your ass.
echelon1k1
New Member
Again i'd have to disagree regarding the bolded. Many people have the misconception that SF folks are meatheads that can shoot is anything but. An alternative description to best physical specimen would be tactical athlete with the intelligence of a life long geek.
When talking of intelligence these folks are also chosen for their ability to retain knowledge, very quickly, in very short periods of time. I would also stress the objectives they are tasked with often have a high degree of political and diplomatic complexity, meaning the consequences of any such actions undertaken by a SF unit could have serious foreign policy implications and even be viewed as an act of war in some cases. These are not the kind of operations you would trust to anyone but your best and brightest.
I agree though we are losing some of the best to the private sector. the only consolation is in many cases they are contracted back to DOD. Total intelligence solutions comes to mind, a Blackwater subsidiary, almost exclusively hires former Joint special operations Command personnel or individuals of that calibre and puts them back to work contracting for JSOC in places like Pakistan and other 3rd world hell holes. While very convenient and effective, it can also be a concerning as to who provides oversight on such subjects.
My condolences for your father - his service will always be appreciated.
The idea that special forces soldiers have to be particularly smart has no foundation. Qualification is not based on raw intellectual ability.
Are most of them doing that? Definitely not. You're talking about a very small group.
