CADsortaGUY
Lifer
If I could <gasp> defend Bow in this instance...Originally posted by: alchemize
"One does not have to serve in the military in order to think. Indeed, I believe it's discouraged."
I know a few folks that might take offense to that. Thanks for the sig material, however
I think what he means is that they are supposed to be trained so well that things are instinct and that following orders becomes second nature - therefore taking the "thinking" out of the soldier.
Now there are a hundred holes in that but I don't think he meant it in the way you may have thought he did.
CkG
...whew - I got my yearly good deed done...with only a couple days to spare.
Hey, Al, I wish I had a quarter for every time someone told me "We're not paying you to think." while I was in the military. It would be close between me and Bill Gates for the wealth quotient.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
They didn't really pay me much, but I did do their thinking for them.
Actually this editorial dovetails into this topic
And the NY Times clip -
Over a third of the Army's active-duty combat troops are now in Iraq, and by spring the Pentagon plans to let most of them come home for urgently needed rest. Many will have served longer than a normal overseas tour and under extremely harsh conditions. When the 130,000 Americans rotate out for home leave, nearly the same number will rotate in. At that point, should the country need to send additional fighters anywhere else in the world, it will have dangerously few of them to spare.
This is the clearest warning yet that the Bush administration is pushing America's peacetime armed forces toward their limits. Washington will not be able to sustain the mismatch between unrealistic White House ambitions and finite Pentagon means much longer without long-term damage to our military strength. The only solution is for the Bush administration to return to foreign policy sanity, starting with a more cooperative, less vindictive approach to European allies who could help share America's military burdens.
Long months under constant threat of rocket attacks, roadside ambushes and deadly confrontations with civilians in Iraq have left tens of thousands of American soldiers tired, jumpy and badly in need of a break, one that should last at least several months. Most American strategists fear at least a temporary upsurge in attacks as the troop rotations get under way and maneuvering to produce an interim Iraqi government intensifies.
Well over 100,000 American troops will be needed for many more months, unless the Bush administration starts wooing NATO allies instead of snubbing them. Eventually, the Iraqi recruits now being hurriedly trained may provide some relief. Yet there are doubts about their military competence and political reliability, and fears that if Washington is in too much of a hurry, it will succeed only in recreating Saddam Hussein's old security forces in new American-issued uniforms.
Meanwhile, if a sudden crisis were to erupt in North Korea, Afghanistan or elsewhere, the Pentagon might be hard pressed to respond. For a time, it could make do by sending tired troops back into action, mobilizing reserves and borrowing forces from areas that are quiet but still highly volatile. Such expedients have severe long-term costs. The White House must recognize the damage its unilateralism is inflicting on the Army and change course before the damage becomes harder to undo.
Actually this editorial dovetails into this topic
And the NY Times clip -
Over a third of the Army's active-duty combat troops are now in Iraq, and by spring the Pentagon plans to let most of them come home for urgently needed rest. Many will have served longer than a normal overseas tour and under extremely harsh conditions. When the 130,000 Americans rotate out for home leave, nearly the same number will rotate in. At that point, should the country need to send additional fighters anywhere else in the world, it will have dangerously few of them to spare.
This is the clearest warning yet that the Bush administration is pushing America's peacetime armed forces toward their limits. Washington will not be able to sustain the mismatch between unrealistic White House ambitions and finite Pentagon means much longer without long-term damage to our military strength. The only solution is for the Bush administration to return to foreign policy sanity, starting with a more cooperative, less vindictive approach to European allies who could help share America's military burdens.
Long months under constant threat of rocket attacks, roadside ambushes and deadly confrontations with civilians in Iraq have left tens of thousands of American soldiers tired, jumpy and badly in need of a break, one that should last at least several months. Most American strategists fear at least a temporary upsurge in attacks as the troop rotations get under way and maneuvering to produce an interim Iraqi government intensifies.
Well over 100,000 American troops will be needed for many more months, unless the Bush administration starts wooing NATO allies instead of snubbing them. Eventually, the Iraqi recruits now being hurriedly trained may provide some relief. Yet there are doubts about their military competence and political reliability, and fears that if Washington is in too much of a hurry, it will succeed only in recreating Saddam Hussein's old security forces in new American-issued uniforms.
Meanwhile, if a sudden crisis were to erupt in North Korea, Afghanistan or elsewhere, the Pentagon might be hard pressed to respond. For a time, it could make do by sending tired troops back into action, mobilizing reserves and borrowing forces from areas that are quiet but still highly volatile. Such expedients have severe long-term costs. The White House must recognize the damage its unilateralism is inflicting on the Army and change course before the damage becomes harder to undo.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Thank you, sir. That is exactly what I meant. Had I intended it as an insult, I might have said thinking is "forbidden" or somehow personalized it to Galt. Having not served myself, I can only go on second-hand impressions. My impression is that the purpose of basic training is to indoctrinate recruits into the Army way of doing things, how to "eat, sleep, and sh!t" if I remember the quote correctly. Recruits are trained to follow orders immediately, without question, without thought.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
If I could <gasp> defend Bow in this instance...Originally posted by: alchemize
"One does not have to serve in the military in order to think. Indeed, I believe it's discouraged."
I know a few folks that might take offense to that. Thanks for the sig material, however
I think what he means is that they are supposed to be trained so well that things are instinct and that following orders becomes second nature - therefore taking the "thinking" out of the soldier.
Now there are a hundred holes in that but I don't think he meant it in the way you may have thought he did.
CkG
...whew - I got my yearly good deed done...with only a couple days to spare.
I don't view that as a flaw. It's a necessary way to keep people alive when they're under fire. Officers are supposed to think, grunts are supposed to do what they're told.
Re. Alchemize, he's still carrying a grudge from a disagreement we had a few weeks ago. If we wants to misrepresent my words, that says far more about him than it does about me.
How is putting your words in my sig a misrepresentation? It was a single line, not taken out of context. Just a nifty little quoteOriginally posted by: Bowfinger
Thank you, sir. That is exactly what I meant. Had I intended it as an insult, I might have said thinking is "forbidden" or somehow personalized it to Galt. Having not served myself, I can only go on second-hand impressions. My impression is that the purpose of basic training is to indoctrinate recruits into the Army way of doing things, how to "eat, sleep, and sh!t" if I remember the quote correctly. Recruits are trained to follow orders immediately, without question, without thought.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
If I could <gasp> defend Bow in this instance...Originally posted by: alchemize
"One does not have to serve in the military in order to think. Indeed, I believe it's discouraged."
I know a few folks that might take offense to that. Thanks for the sig material, however
I think what he means is that they are supposed to be trained so well that things are instinct and that following orders becomes second nature - therefore taking the "thinking" out of the soldier.
Now there are a hundred holes in that but I don't think he meant it in the way you may have thought he did.
CkG
...whew - I got my yearly good deed done...with only a couple days to spare.
I don't view that as a flaw. It's a necessary way to keep people alive when they're under fire. Officers are supposed to think, grunts are supposed to do what they're told.
Re. Alchemize, he's still carrying a grudge from a disagreement we had a few weeks ago. If we wants to misrepresent my words, that says far more about him than it does about me.
Just like I took PrinceofWands out of context? He had his own justification for voting for Saddam Where else am I going to build a nice library of quotes from? Gaard never says anything good
Maybe this one just goes into the vault instead of the sig. PrinceofWands is too classic to stay out.
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,860
- 259
- 126
It makes sense to stop the loss of your experienced personnel. You can recruit and train a private in 8 weeks. The loss of one experienced soldier, NCO or officer in a time of war could cost more lives in sending green inexperienced personnel in thier place.
BTW a retired service person has a LIFETIME commitment.
BTW a retired service person has a LIFETIME commitment.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
That's true. Read the paperwork.
But....is it really voluntary then? People change, expecially kids who they got at 18 young, naive and bought the time they were sold, I'd say only a small fraction read the paperwork to begin with and most think 4 years means just that. 4 years sevice to most.
They sure as hell don't advertise the life long commitment aspect.
I remeber in boot camp I thought about 50% were there under economic duress anyway... From the back waters of the south, unkempt, could barley talk etc so it's very subjective if it would hold up if challanged.
I was retained during the first Gulf conflict because of my specialized MOS (19D-D3). I later joined the Reserves for another stint. My father was Rifted in 1974, after 3 tours in Vietnam with the Buffalo Soldiers. He got a bachelors degree, and rejoined the service in 1979, to remain in until 1990. What I'm getting at is that many will rejoin, despite the hardships.
I agree with Bowfinger.......GASP!!! to the extent that this action will most likely hurt the new recruit efforts, though most career soldiers, and persons with more than one tour in, won't likely be affected to the extent that they won't re-up, or extend their contracts.
I agree with Bowfinger.......GASP!!! to the extent that this action will most likely hurt the new recruit efforts, though most career soldiers, and persons with more than one tour in, won't likely be affected to the extent that they won't re-up, or extend their contracts.
The whole idea of a "voluntary" military is a little suspect. There was a draft during Viet Nam, but it ain't no accident that our black brothers died in disproportionate numbers. I'd like to be clear here. I don't think that tha disproportional death rate was racism. I think it was simply what it has always been. "Working class and poor, report for cannon fodder."
EDITED. Bush, Dean and Sylvester (Rambo) Stallone, all managed to avoid the mess.
In the original article, imagine the guy mentioned in the first paragraph. He's been saving his money. Retirement in sight, he buys a small business. Too bad Charlie!
EDITED. Bush, Dean and Sylvester (Rambo) Stallone, all managed to avoid the mess.
In the original article, imagine the guy mentioned in the first paragraph. He's been saving his money. Retirement in sight, he buys a small business. Too bad Charlie!
Yeah, it's a real bummer for the casual soldiers. It doesn't change the fact that they are needed though. To send a recruit to the front lines is not the way to do business. All combat troops know this in their heart of hearts.
Support troops may or may not need to be kept on, but what do I know, I was never support. Could someone who was, chime in? Do we need to keep on ALL the support, or only the maintenance crews for the Electronics, Armor and Aircraft?
Support troops may or may not need to be kept on, but what do I know, I was never support. Could someone who was, chime in? Do we need to keep on ALL the support, or only the maintenance crews for the Electronics, Armor and Aircraft?
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,860
- 259
- 126
Well ifn you are asking me, being mostly a Maintenance NCO in my career, it makes no difference how technically proficient you are, you still need the beans and bullets, the pay master, the PX and phone services, the spare parts and fuel. Hell even Morale and Welfare is vitally important. Troop Morale is a great measuring tool in the success of a mission. It takes far more support elements than anything else. The Ordnance Corps is the life line of all Armies. IMHO.
Sorry. SF = Special Forces. After 9/11 and before the ramp-up to the current conflict, there was stop-loss initiated for 18 series MOS as well as a few others.
Yep. Instead of "retirement pay" or "pension", the pay is actually a retainer. I refer to my status and pay as "retired" all the time even though my description is incorrect. The US Supreme Court has ruled as such on several occasions.
That is an excellent story! More about my feelings in a moment.
I knew an NCO who was worth over $2 million. That NCO, along with a CPT, inspired me to save and invest years ago.
I also knew a couple of officers who had portfolios exceeding $5 million. In 1985, the U.S. dollar made a 3 percent swing in one day. A Captain in my unit arbitraged, with assistance from his father, over $4 million that day and earned about $100K after commissions.
However, I heard of a $1 million lottery winner who received an early honorable discharge. From my understanding, if the recently realized wealth creates a hardship then one can apply for early seperation.
The story about Tillman is awesome. I mean, here is talented athlete who could have made big bucks in pro sports yet decided to serve his country. The last I heard, he had graduated Ranger school and was at a Battalion. Maybe one of the more informed posters here has heard of him since.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I'm just reading between the lines but it seems if you "earned" it they don't really have a problem but "winfalls" arn't really acceptable. Understandable...the nevo rich tend to be a PIA, while those who earn it are typically from your more millionare next door school or at least behaviorly are more "Sound" all around. Since it's all comes as a package generally, good credit, good bank balance, good behavoir, not rubbing it in someoes face... I could be wrong...just my observation.
And obviously Tillman earned it being in the NFL a few so no prob.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 20K
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
-
Question Geekbench 6 released and calibrated against Core i7-12700
- Started by igor_kavinski
- Replies: 275
Facebook
Twitter