Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

philosophy -> Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 1:48:11 AM)

.......on several threads many people who have served in the military often use that experience to illuminate their thoughts. After all it is a unique type of experience. However, it does seem sometimes as if the very fact of having served is claimed as making them better citizens, more important. At the time they were paid to do the work. So what continuing claim do they have on society? Why is this different to, say, a nurse with many years experience? Or a teacher?
Surely being in the military is merely one of many types of unique, socially valuable experience, shouldn't all people whose work contributes to society should be valued equally?



Quivver -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 2:16:43 AM)

From my obversvations ~most~ of those that have served their country
are light years ahead of many of those who have not.  They seem to be better equipt to handle life.  I'm sure it's just a personal thing with me, but I'll take a Military friend/partner or Dominant anyday over one who has not done their time.  I honestly do belive that thru their service they come home as better individuals. 

just my .02

Q



meatcleaver -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 2:22:37 AM)

If you volunteer or you are conscripted I would imagine are two different experiences and many people join up with war being the last thing on their minds. If you remember in the 70s the military was advertised as a way to travel and have adventure and then the Falklands came along and huh-oh, they put them on a boat to have a little adventure with teh Argies. Soldiering is a skill and a vocation and like policemen, when they are needed we are thankful for them and when they aren't we see them as a social problem. However, in WWII you were more likely to die in a coalmine than in a uniform apparently, as you circumvented safety to get as much coal out of the ground as you could. All in the name of the war effort and without the acknowledgment. It's a mixed bag but if the country was really in danger, we would all be wearing uniforms, professional soldiers keep the pumps ready for priming so a military can be built up in emergency.

I'm not convinced the experience of serving in the military gives a person added political insight into a conflict in which they served, probably less because no one wants to think they were part of a criminal act.



xGoddessx -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 2:33:55 AM)

My Daddy is in the Army, actually stationed in Iraq right now.  I don't know that he has any better insight into things, I just think he has had tons of experiences that are unique to someone serving during wartime. 
 
Does this make him superior to someone who hasn't served?  No, I don't believe so.  It just gives him a different viewpoint into maybe how something works, or a different type of maturity.  I have noticed that people I have talked to that have served, have an "I want it, and I will make it happen" type of attitude.  I am sure that others have this, it's just something I have noticed as a common thread among military personnel.
 
Not sure if that all made any sense, but hopefully it came across the way I intended.
 
~G~



Chaingang -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 6:28:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quivver
From my obversvations ~most~ of those that have served their country are light years ahead of many of those who have not.  They seem to be better equipt to handle life. 


This must vary a lot from case to case. A lot of men are total assholes going in and total assholes coming out of the military. Most people gain nothing from combat except how to express emotions as if they were fear biting dogs.

Scene-wise: I like some people on the boards because I like them, not because they served or are serving in the military. I think people are exceptional because of who they are and not because it can be trained into them. That raises the question of whether a mediocre person can be trained into someone better, and the answer is yes. I am just not at all sure that military service is specifically the reason for it. Most people just need to mature and life experience does that for one, military service or no military service. Young men in particular mature a lot between ages 20-30. So this is the old, correlative versus causal relationship problem.

Most young men just have to have some sense knocked into them. They start by thinking life is going to be a cake walk in every instance and quickly learn otherwise. Maybe the military is one way to learn that, but there are hundreds of other ways too.

I think another question at stake here is whether soldiers, policemen or firemen are some kind of heroes by mere virtue of their chosen professions. Personally, the fact that someone served in the military is almost always meaningless to me - in fact, I might take it as a slight negative (just my opinion). I have little use for most policeman, they rarely do more than collect taxes by way of fines for the corporate interests of the cities they serve; and frankly, I can't remember a time when an interaction with a policeman helped me in any way, whereas I have had to pay some fines because some asshole cops were keen to make their quotas and willing to lie about what I did on the road (yes, there's a few stories here). Policeman make me continually wonder: "Aren't there any real crimes you should be investigating?"

Firemen are heroes - that's a very short list. Almost every time you interact with firemen they are doing you or society as a whole a service, sometimes (and somewhat foolishly in my view) with their lives or well-being partly at risk. You can't argue with that.

Doctors and nurses aren't heroes in the same way, but most often do more to help than to harm. But those are still very respectable professions.



meatcleaver -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 7:26:32 AM)

To take chain's view a step further. Sewage and water workers probably save more lives than anyone and hit hardly anyones radar screen.

I have sympathy with the military because they have to put their life in danger for some corrupt politician's whim without being able to refuse, unless they put themselves in the firing line of being accused of cowardice.



juliaoceania -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 8:27:16 AM)

What I have noticed is that most veterans I have met did not expect anything from society except that which they are promised. I think it is upsetting to them when they are forgotten by cutting their benefits and not honoring the deal that was made with them. When someone is damaged in service to this country (think Gulf War Syndrome) and the government refuses to honor it, veterans are troubled.

I have met veterans that thought the fact they served made their voice superior in society to other people's... it made them "special" and who lorded it over people that what they thought was more valuable because they "served". There are assholes in every group. I have seen these same types put in their place by other veterans too. Most notably a peace protest I went to there were veterans against the protest, and then there were veterans protesting... so who is more unique or special?

For the most part what I see is lip service paid to honoring vets. I buy trinkets from vets at every opportunity, because I know my country lets these people down, and does not honor them where it counts... the way that was promised. Our governent doesn't give a rat's ass about them..



meatcleaver -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 8:46:07 AM)

Kipling's poem Tommy (nickname for a squaddie) recognised that troops weren't appreciated.


I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer,
 The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
 The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
 I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

 I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
 They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
 They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
 But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

 Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
 Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
 An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
 Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

 We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
 But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
 An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
 Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

 You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all:
 We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
 Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
 The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!



Lordandmaster -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 9:35:33 AM)

I know what you're talking about, and it annoys me too, but other people use the same kind of tactic.  For instance, how many times have you heard statements like, "As a mother, I believe ..." (or "I'm a mother, and I think ...")?  Politicians try this bullshit all the time--and evidently it works, because they keep getting elected.  "Well, I've had lots of experience building a huge health-care empire and as such I know a lot about how to fix this here fiscal crisis we have."  (Don't let me get started on the shady backroom deals that propped up Perot and Frist health-care empires.)  Basically, everyone thinks their own experience is unique and invaluable--and everyone else's isn't worth a fiddler's fart.  It's pretty much the way most people feel about intelligence, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.......on several threads many people who have served in the military often use that experience to illuminate their thoughts. After all it is a unique type of experience. However, it does seem sometimes as if the very fact of having served is claimed as making them better citizens, more important. At the time they were paid to do the work. So what continuing claim do they have on society? Why is this different to, say, a nurse with many years experience? Or a teacher?
Surely being in the military is merely one of many types of unique, socially valuable experience, shouldn't all people whose work contributes to society should be valued equally?




philosophy -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 10:35:04 AM)

On another thread some time ago someone made a chance remark admiring the political system espoused in Heinlein's 'Starship Troopers'.....in that book basically you got to be a voting citizen only if you were prepared to put in time in the military. Quite frankly, i'm not sure that there aren't significent parts of western society who see such a state as a good thing.
It worries me to an extent, but i am curious as to how others would react to such an idea.



Chaingang -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 11:11:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
On another thread some time ago someone made a chance remark admiring the political system espoused in Heinlein's 'Starship Troopers'.....in that book basically you got to be a voting citizen only if you were prepared to put in time in the military. Quite frankly, i'm not sure that there aren't significent parts of western society who see such a state as a good thing.
It worries me to an extent, but i am curious as to how others would react to such an idea.


Speaking for the U.S. here, Philosophy...

It's the same crap you get when you limit the vote for any reason. The poll tax limited the vote to the wealthy, and then we had laws that favored those already possessed of real property and disfavored those trying to attain that status. We've had age limitations which meant certain age groups were effectively discriminated against. We've had race and sex based discrimination in voting. And so it goes...

Limiting the vote to only those of military experience would most likely create a warrior nation continually spoiling for war. I'm sure it would make the arms industries happy, but does it make for a nation that would make the rest of the world or even ourselves happy? Probably not. The answer to a problem is not always: "To the victor go the spoils." A nation is more than just its ability to make war.

The U.S. was founded on the principles of "life, liberty and property." But Jefferson spoke of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in his Declaration of Independence. Was it a mistake or did he mean something by it?

-----

PROPERTY. The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. 6 Binn. 98; 4 Pet. 511; 17 Johns. 283; 14 East, 370; 11 East, 290, 518. It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law. See Things.

2. All things are not the subject of property the sea, the air, and the like, cannot be appropriated; every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive right in them. When things are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from meddling with them, or from interfering about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right, can have any, claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as, he pleases; so that property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right to use those things, but a right to dispose of them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving them away to any other person, without any consideration, or even throwing them away. Rutherf. Inst. 20; Domat, liv. prel. tit. 3; Poth. Des Choses; 18 Vin. Ab. 63; 7 Com. Dig. 175; Com. Dig. Biens. See also 2 B. & C. 281; S. C. 9 E. C. L. R. 87; 3 D. & R. 394; 9 B. & C. 396; S. C. 17 E. C. L. R. 404; 1 C. & M. 39; 4 Call, 472; 18 Ves. 193; 6 Bing. 630.

3. Property is divided into real property, (q. v.) and personal property. (q. v.) Vide Estate; Things.

4. Property is also divided, when it consists of goods and chattels, into absolute and qualified. Absolute property is that which is our own, without any qualification whatever; as when a man is the owner of a watch, a book, or other inanimate thing: or of a horse, a sheep, or other animal, which never had its natural liberty in a wild state.

5. Qualified property consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they have redueed to their own possession, and which are kept subject to their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like, which are his own while he has possession of them, but as soon as his possession is lost, his property is gone, unless the animals, go animo revertendi. 2 Bl. Com. 396; 3 Binn. 546.

6. But property in personal goods may be absolute or qualified without ally relation to the nature of the subject-matter, but simply because more persons than one have an interest in it, or because the right of property is separated from the possession. A bailee of goods, though not the owner, has a qualified property in them; while the owner has the absolute property. Vide, Bailee; Bailment.

7. Personal property is further divided into property in possession, and property or choses in action. (q. v.)

8. Property is again divided into corporeal and incorporeal. The former comprehends such property as is perceptible to the senses, as lands, houses, goods, merchandise and the like; the latter consists in legal rights, as choses in action, easements, and the like.

9. Property is lost, in general, in three ways, by the act of man, by the act of law, and by the act of God.

10. - 1. It is lost by the act of man by, 1st. Alienation; but in order to do this, the owner must have a legal capacity to make a contract. 2d. By the voluntary abandonment of the thing; but unless the abandonment be purely voluntary, the title to the property is not lost; as, if things be thrown into the sea to save the ship, the right is not lost. Poth. h. t., n. 270; 3 Toull. ii. 346. But even a voluntary abandonment does not deprive the former owner from taking possessiou of the thing abandoned, at any time before another takes possession of it.

11. - 2. The title to property is lost by operation of law. 1st. By the forced sale, under a lawful process, of the property of a debtor to satisfy a judgment, sentence, or decree rendered against him, to compel him to fulfil his obligations. 2d. By confiscation, or sentence of a criminal court. 3d. By prescription. 4th. By civil death. 6th. By capture of a public enemy.

12. - 3. The title to property is lost by the act of God, as in the case of the death of slaves or animals, or in the total destruction of a thing; for example, if a house be swallowed up by an opening in the earth during an earthquake.

13. It is proper to observe that in some cases, the moment that the owner loses his possession, he also loses his property or right in the thing: animals ferae naturae, as mentioned above, belong to the owner only while he retains the possession of them. But, in general,' the loss of possession does not impair the right of property, for the owner may recover it within a certain time allowed by law. Vide, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm
or

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_p.htm

-----

I know that if you look up the word "property" in American Jurisprudence you will find a lifetime's worth of references to research.

But in the main, property is more than just gold or real estate - it's everything meaningful to a citizen of the modern world. I think that's what Jefferson was getting at - it's more than just material wealth.

Given that, it's impossible to consider the U.S. could properly be represented by one segment of its population - esp. a warrior class. Our sole ideal cannot be war.



popeye1250 -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 11:12:22 AM)

Well, being a veteran of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard I've done and seen things in the military that I never would have seen and done in civilian life.
And I do have that "can do" attitude in life because after doing so many harroing, dangerous things in the military civilian life is a breeze.
What other people consider "problems" in life I just walk around or through. And it's helped my leadership and especially my organizational skills immensely!
(It's called, "What they don't teach you in Harvard Business School.")
It also teaches you discipline, self control, and respect.
I'd hire a veteran without a college "degree" over a college graduate anyday in business.
I'd get a lot more bang for the buck.
A lot of the management techniques that they teach in colleges and universities come from the military.



pahunkboy -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 11:17:23 AM)

this question is kinda like are fireman and policeman heros.

to US vets I say thank you for serving.

i never understood tho why  an oddball firefigther set fires.....  yikes.

there are many callings in life that desever a big thank you. so i wouldnt place any at the #1 spot too quickly.....



KenDckey -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 11:30:19 AM)

As an Army retiree with a son who retired from the Army last Thursday and another son who served in the Navy and a step son that retired from the Navy my beliefs are:

1.  the military, regardless of branch, helps young people grow up quicker and helps them become better citizens, more responsible for their lives and thier families lives.

2.  the individual soldier has had his/her benefits erroded.  When I went in the Army I was promissed full social security and my retirement (provided I spent my 20 years).  Well I did.   Now I will only be eligible to the amount which is greater (even when combined) and free medical for life (I pay for medical coverage and have a co-pay on my scripts).

3.  I believe that all young people, male and female, with or without families, regardless of most disabilities, should spend time in the military.  I believe it helps them later on in life.

4.  I believe that the military teaches what colleges and universities don't - the ability to think through a tough problem with positive outcomes.  Some people call this common sense.

5.  As an 18 yr old in 1967 I was in charge of millions of dollars as a contract administrator.   You don't get that in civilian life.

6.  The military teaches a good work ethic.

7.  I don't believe that a career in the military is for everyone.  I think it takes a special personality to put up with the 20 hr days and 7 day weeks with the associated BS that goes along with it.

I also feel that the peace corps is a good alternative.  the majority of people that I know that have been in the peace corps are very responsible adults.



WhipTheHip -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 11:38:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
......on several threads many people who have served in the military often use that experience to illuminate their thoughts. After all it is a unique type of experience. However, it does seem sometimes as if the very fact of having served is claimed as making them better citizens, more important. At the time they were paid to do the work. So what continuing claim do they have on society? Why is this different to, say, a nurse with many years experience? Or a teacher?
Surely being in the military is merely one of many types of unique, socially valuable experience, shouldn't all people whose work contributes to society should be valued equally?


In general, I don't like people who volunteer to become soldiers.  They are not my type of person. 
They tend to be conservative, repressed and aggressive.  But one BIG difference is they risk
their lives in a big way for us.   That makes them special.  It is the soldiers of a country that
prevent the citizens of a country from being conquered by some repressive country.



Chaingang -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 11:44:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
It is the soldiers of a country that prevent the citizens of a country from being conquered by some repressive country.


Let's not confuse a militia with the military. A professional, volunteer soldier is ultimately a kind of mercenary.

And what if the repressive government was our own? On which side would the soldiers be? Would they just follow orders and gun down their fellow citizens?

Look around you. The answers are a part of history.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 12:44:59 PM)

Of course, that statement makes me wonder how many employees you've hired in your life, but I'll refrain from asking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I'd hire a veteran without a college "degree" over a college graduate anyday in business.
I'd get a lot more bang for the buck.



KenDckey -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 1:03:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
......on several threads many people who have served in the military often use that experience to illuminate their thoughts. After all it is a unique type of experience. However, it does seem sometimes as if the very fact of having served is claimed as making them better citizens, more important. At the time they were paid to do the work. So what continuing claim do they have on society? Why is this different to, say, a nurse with many years experience? Or a teacher?
Surely being in the military is merely one of many types of unique, socially valuable experience, shouldn't all people whose work contributes to society should be valued equally?


In general, I don't like people who volunteer to become soldiers.  They are not my type of person. 
They tend to be conservative, repressed and aggressive.  But one BIG difference is they risk
their lives in a big way for us.   That makes them special.  It is the soldiers of a country that
prevent the citizens of a country from being conquered by some repressive country.


I agree that former military, especially those who spent over 10 years in, are somewhat conservative, repressed (in their emotions) and agressive (at work).

You have to be somewhat conservative in order to save the lives of those under your command.   You don't want to waste that resource by sending them off on some cause without totally thinking the problems completely through.

The military does teach you to respress your emotions.  In combat, you don't have time to grieve over some poor soul who got shot, maimed or killed.  If you are standing around grieving over "johnny" then you make a really good target to hit.

The military teaches you to be agressive, with that 'CAN DO" attitude.  they plan things out then carry them out.   I know that in business and other governments that is frounded upon, but guess who moves up financially faster?  I prefer the person who will get the job done and move on to the next task.



prdslave -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 1:04:55 PM)

People join the military for all different reasons. My dad joined because he figured he'd be drafted (Vietnam Era). I joined because at almost 18, I had no idea what I wanted out of life (big surprise there) and college wasnt working out (somehow instructors got upset when I didnt attend class).

I made my way through Boot, and AIT. Came out on the other side in good physical form, with job skills. I served my term, and generally think I came out ahead for it. I dont consider my self any better of a person than my friends that did not serve. What I do consider is that I am a better person for serving - meaning that I have improved as a person. Another benefit is the ability to go back to school once I was out, and actually benefit from the classes, and work towards a degree. And without my military experience Id not have gotten my current job, because I first really learned about teching PCs in the Army.

If Id not have had kids, Id probably still be in the military, and Im toying with the idea of joining the reserves. Like another poster, I also believe that most of todays 18-20 year olds would benefit from a stint in some sort of service, whether it be Peace Corps, or a branch of the military.



KenDckey -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (8/24/2006 1:11:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Of course, that statement makes me wonder how many employees you've hired in your life, but I'll refrain from asking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I'd hire a veteran without a college "degree" over a college graduate anyday in business.
I'd get a lot more bang for the buck.



I am a 20 year veteran.   I have been a contract administrator, in charge of millions of dollars.   I have been a computer programmer.  I am one year short of being qualified for my masters in Logistics.   I have a national certification in Occupational Safety and Health.  I represented the United States in a Maritine Law dispute.  I have both prosecuted and defended over 100 judicial and non-judical cases and never lost (I plead some down but I don't consider that a total loss).

AND I ONLY HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION.   Colleges teach a lot of theory, but lack the practicle experience and politics to get things done (agressiveness).



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.140625