Here I was thinking it was the rapists who caused rapes, but obviously its the presence of women that causes it. Must be those short skirts they are wearing all the time. What if instead we made the military like 85% women, at that point we could just kick all the men out for dereliction as they'd be spending their days doing nothing but raping.
Also is the US rape rate 15%? Since the USM rate of 30% was double the US average? 16% ~=15%?
I was going to comment on that as well. A high school dropout could spot the math error there.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Even if the military was all male, rape in the military would still happen. Male to male rape happens in both the armed forces and civilian world. The fact is, males are statistically less likely to report it.
And rape is typically not about sexual fullillment, it's about power over another person.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I am willing to bet quite a bit of money that the military is teeming with these as well, if the amazingly high rate of male-to-female rape is any indication.
It does indeed occur. People are also highly encouraged to come forward about it. Of course, just like in the rest of the U.S., a lot of people don't want to because of embarrassment. Though thanks to training more and more are encouraged to and do so.
Oh, and could you explain why the military should practice all the values of a democracy please?
Quid on
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Nothing wrong with letting people protest for those things.
How the hell would this work
Also seriously, I really would like to know how much or how little you know about how the military works
Because I seriously doubt you know, well, anything about JAG or courts martial or IG or EO or sensing sessions or one of the numerous alternatives that people have in the military to bring up issues/complaints with the leadership and/or punishing wrongdoing
Also also a democracy would be terrible for numerous reasons, chief of which would be that it'd either be completely ineffectual or we'd have like people going on strike right before deployments because "uh...I don't like...the food in the D-FAC! Yeah! Let's go with that"
The military already has a democracy: the one in the country it belongs to.
America's problems are that presently no one has to sacrifice a damn thing when it goes to war. I mean you guys got a tax cut after Iraq was invaded.
soldiers lives, trillions of dollars in debt, increased 'illegal' public monitoring, PITA airport security, increased gas prices and a further degraded public image aside....
The military already has a democracy: the one in the country it belongs to.
America's problems are that presently no one has to sacrifice a damn thing when it goes to war. I mean you guys got a tax cut after Iraq was invaded.
soldiers lives, trillions of dollars in debt, increased 'illegal' public monitoring, PITA airport security, increased gas prices and a further degraded public image aside....
None of this has really affected the American citizen, personally. It's affected soldiers, because they have to fight the war, but there's no rationing, no war bonds, and restrictions on the use of resources - that sort of thing. The country is essentially running a peacetime economy.
electricitylikesme on
0
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
The military already has a democracy: the one in the country it belongs to.
America's problems are that presently no one has to sacrifice a damn thing when it goes to war. I mean you guys got a tax cut after Iraq was invaded.
soldiers lives, trillions of dollars in debt, increased 'illegal' public monitoring, PITA airport security, increased gas prices and a further degraded public image aside....
True, but the American people weren't asked for that. It's nothing like, say, the raised taxed and rationing and war bonds in WW2. It just happened because the people in power went ahead without thought for the consequences.
Shadowen on
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
The military already has a democracy: the one in the country it belongs to.
America's problems are that presently no one has to sacrifice a damn thing when it goes to war. I mean you guys got a tax cut after Iraq was invaded.
soldiers lives, trillions of dollars in debt, increased 'illegal' public monitoring, PITA airport security, increased gas prices and a further degraded public image aside....
True, but the American people weren't asked for that. It's nothing like, say, the raised taxed and rationing and war bonds in WW2. It just happened because the people in power went ahead without thought for the consequences.
So the people in power just sort of seized control from the American people involuntarily huh?
The military already has a democracy: the one in the country it belongs to.
America's problems are that presently no one has to sacrifice a damn thing when it goes to war. I mean you guys got a tax cut after Iraq was invaded.
What about those who have loved ones in the military...which are a lot of Americans. Aren't they affected when their family, boyfriends/girlfriends, friends get sent over seas to war? I'm going to have to deal with that in a couple years my self, and just the thought alone is pretty terrible. I have to worry about someone I love dearly being in danger. Hell, even if someone doesn't know anyone in the military, who wants to know that people are getting sent over seas, and getting killed or injured? That is most definitely a sacrifice.
Also, gas prices were brought up. Paying 30-40 bucks to fill up a car 1-2 times a week if fucking terrible, especially when you can look back not even ten years, and remember only paying 10 bucks a week to travel. Sure there are no war bonds, or rationing, but a lot of Americans are affected whether it's economically, or personally. I would definitely call these things sacrifices.
To say that we aren't sacrificing "a damn thing" is a bit offensive.
The military already has a democracy: the one in the country it belongs to.
America's problems are that presently no one has to sacrifice a damn thing when it goes to war. I mean you guys got a tax cut after Iraq was invaded.
soldiers lives, trillions of dollars in debt, increased 'illegal' public monitoring, PITA airport security, increased gas prices and a further degraded public image aside....
None of this has really affected the American citizen, personally. It's affected soldiers, because they have to fight the war, but there's no rationing, no war bonds, and restrictions on the use of resources - that sort of thing. The country is essentially running a peacetime economy.
thats the difference between going to war as the richest country in the world and going to war as a fledgling industrial nation.
Dunadan019 on
0
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
The military already has a democracy: the one in the country it belongs to.
America's problems are that presently no one has to sacrifice a damn thing when it goes to war. I mean you guys got a tax cut after Iraq was invaded.
soldiers lives, trillions of dollars in debt, increased 'illegal' public monitoring, PITA airport security, increased gas prices and a further degraded public image aside....
True, but the American people weren't asked for that. It's nothing like, say, the raised taxed and rationing and war bonds in WW2. It just happened because the people in power went ahead without thought for the consequences.
So the people in power just sort of seized control from the American people involuntarily huh?
Not to open up this can of worms, but how did Bush get in power again?
And what did he say on the march to war? Go shopping.
If the general public had been asked to sacrifice anything the war would have gotten unpopular much quicker than it did. We have a volunteer military and taxes got cut. It was extremely easy for the vast majority of the population not to really care because they had no emotional or physical investment in how long the war took and what happened once we got over there.
If there had been a draft, or a substantial tax raise, or if goods and services had been rationed, or any other tangible sacrifice to the average joe on the street had been required, people would have thought twice about a full-scale invasion. The war didn't really start to get unpopular until people realized it was stressing the economy and cutting into their wallet.
I'm not saying people were sociopathic regarding what went down, but I do believe that many people felt the war would not impact them in a meaningful way and it made it awfully easy to beat the war drums.
Duffel on
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
The military already has a democracy: the one in the country it belongs to.
America's problems are that presently no one has to sacrifice a damn thing when it goes to war. I mean you guys got a tax cut after Iraq was invaded.
What about those who have loved ones in the military...which are a lot of Americans. Aren't they affected when their family, boyfriends/girlfriends, friends get sent over seas to war? I'm going to have to deal with that in a couple years my self, and just the thought alone is pretty terrible. I have to worry about someone I love dearly being in danger. Hell, even if someone doesn't know anyone in the military, who wants to know that people are getting sent over seas, and getting killed or injured? That is most definitely a sacrifice.
Also, gas prices were brought up. Paying 30-40 bucks to fill up a car 1-2 times a week if fucking terrible, especially when you can look back not even ten years, and remember only paying 10 bucks a week to travel. Sure there are no war bonds, or rationing, but a lot of Americans are affected whether it's economically, or personally. I would definitely call these things sacrifices.
To say that we aren't sacrificing "a damn thing" is a bit offensive.
And to say any of this compared to the types of sacrifices required of the citizens during a war like WWII is daft.
"Compared to the past, American citizens don't experience inconvenience due to war."
"Well we worry about people, and plus gas prices went up!"
Seriously? Come on.
On the topic at hand, a military democracy is equally daft. Its a volunteer outfit; hardly tyranny. It also happens to be, well, a military. To be successful it has to have discipline and cohesion. Two things democracy, at least in the modern American form this discussion is contextually discussing, are terrible at.
Raynaga on
0
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Yeah. On-topic, I think the military is almost as free as it can be. It's almost too free in one way--if crimes outside of things like dereliction of duty committed by individual soldiers (such as the rape issue) were prosecuted more effectively, it would be better overall.
When did I ever compare what's going on now to WW2? For what I'm talking about, that's even a bit irrelevant. Yes, I know that we sacrificed a hell of a lot more during WW2, I'm well aware. But to say we're not sacrificing 'a damn thing' right now, is like I said before, a bit offensive.
We've got an all-volunteer army now, so I fail to see the problem. Everyone going in there should know what they're getting into. If we were still conscripting, this would be a different argument, but we're not.
Why would the military have an internally democratic structure? It's a job that you have to sign up for.
Yeah, you could theoretically be drafted into it against your will, but that's an issue of the external democracy which has not, thanks to a lack of desire on the part of the populace, gotten rid of the draft.
Presuming you weren't drafted, you went into the military knowing (or at least capable of knowing; if you don't know it's your own fault) what would be expected out of you and how you would be compensated. I considered joining the air force after grad school but decided against it because the salary and benefits were significantly lower than the median income for a person in the career field I was applying for. If I were to go to my boss at my non-military job and say that I want a raise and more/better benefits they would evaluate my performance and decide if I deserved what I was asking for. The military already has this system. You do well at your job and show a capability to perform at a higher level of responsibility and you get promoted. There are, eventually, limits imposed by needing special training or there only being a set number of certain ranks allowed at a time, but this is no different from making the jump from flunky to management or your company not wanting to have an excess of project managers or whatever.
The military is a job. It happens to carry a higher risk of death than a lot of jobs, but you know that going in. I don't see a problem with the system.
When did I ever compare what's going on now to WW2? For what I'm talking about, that's even a bit irrelevant. Yes, I know that we sacrificed a hell of a lot more during WW2, I'm well aware. But to say we're not sacrificing 'a damn thing' right now, is like I said before, a bit offensive.
Just saying.
The context of that posters comment was pretty obviously historical. And not that far off-base. I'm not in a military family and my life compared to how it was before the wars is basically the same. It just doesn't affect the average American citizen at all.
When did I ever compare what's going on now to WW2? For what I'm talking about, that's even a bit irrelevant. Yes, I know that we sacrificed a hell of a lot more during WW2, I'm well aware. But to say we're not sacrificing 'a damn thing' right now, is like I said before, a bit offensive.
Just saying.
Because the american citizenry really doesn't, at all
So they think saying "thank you for your service" or putting a yellow ribbon sticker on your car is sacrifice
Or they inversely think that because it's an all-volunteer army and again, they have absolutely no idea what sacrifice means, that we join because we want to commit war crimes or some shit and as a result we don't have an entitlement to complain about the way the military does things and/or we are culpable for the actions of the people in charge
When did I ever compare what's going on now to WW2? For what I'm talking about, that's even a bit irrelevant. Yes, I know that we sacrificed a hell of a lot more during WW2, I'm well aware. But to say we're not sacrificing 'a damn thing' right now, is like I said before, a bit offensive.
Just saying.
The context of that posters comment was pretty obviously historical. And not that far off-base. I'm not in a military family and my life compared to how it was before the wars is basically the same. It just doesn't affect the average American citizen at all.
To say that we aren't sacrificing "a damn thing" is a bit offensive.
Military families sacrifice
That's about it though
Rent said it better than I could.
Eh, yeah alright. I'll agree with that.
Edit: I guess I kind of took it as a personal offense, because this is shit I kind of have to think about, and have had to think about for the past 3 years. I got kind of edgy, my bad.
The military already has a democracy: the one in the country it belongs to.
America's problems are that presently no one has to sacrifice a damn thing when it goes to war. I mean you guys got a tax cut after Iraq was invaded.
soldiers lives, trillions of dollars in debt, increased 'illegal' public monitoring, PITA airport security, increased gas prices and a further degraded public image aside....
True, but the American people weren't asked for that. It's nothing like, say, the raised taxed and rationing and war bonds in WW2. It just happened because the people in power went ahead without thought for the consequences.
So the people in power just sort of seized control from the American people involuntarily huh?
Not to open up this can of worms, but how did Bush get in power again?
Also, gas prices were brought up. Paying 30-40 bucks to fill up a car 1-2 times a week if fucking terrible, especially when you can look back not even ten years, and remember only paying 10 bucks a week to travel.
Pretty sure we pay less for gas than most of the rest of the first world.
Also, gas prices were brought up. Paying 30-40 bucks to fill up a car 1-2 times a week if fucking terrible, especially when you can look back not even ten years, and remember only paying 10 bucks a week to travel. Sure there are no war bonds, or rationing, but a lot of Americans are affected whether it's economically, or personally. I would definitely call these things sacrifices.
To say that we aren't sacrificing "a damn thing" is a bit offensive.
Gas prices were brought up by the oil companies, not the US government, and that had exactly shit to do with terrorism or Iraq.
When I brought up gas prices, it was more of a 'this kind of sucks' type deal. I was focusing more on families. I've already dropped this argument in agreement with Rent/etc though, because I realized I was taking it a bit too personally, and being a bit of a silly goose.
And yet we have brave men and women who are willing to step forward because they know what's at stake. They're willing to sacrifice their lives for this great country. What I'm asking all of you tonight is not to put on a uniform. Put on a bumper sticker. Is it that much to ask? Is it that much to ask to step up and serve your country?
Rent on
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited April 2010
Please make the pain stop?
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
If the general public had been asked to sacrifice anything the war would have gotten unpopular much quicker than it did. We have a volunteer military and taxes got cut. It was extremely easy for the vast majority of the population not to really care because they had no emotional or physical investment in how long the war took and what happened once we got over there.
If there had been a draft, or a substantial tax raise, or if goods and services had been rationed, or any other tangible sacrifice to the average joe on the street had been required, people would have thought twice about a full-scale invasion. The war didn't really start to get unpopular until people realized it was stressing the economy and cutting into their wallet.
I'm not saying people were sociopathic regarding what went down, but I do believe that many people felt the war would not impact them in a meaningful way and it made it awfully easy to beat the war drums.
Man, I remember my unit rolling up to our FOBs in Iraq at the start of our deployment in previously-canvas HMMWVs with some scrap steel from a junkyard bolted to them. And this was over a year and a half into the occupation. A huge number of soldiers died solely because they were not in properly armored vehicles.
Why?
Because it would have been expensive. At any point we could have spent the money to ensure that every last convoy was rolling in properly armored vehicles. It probably wouldn't have even taken long to get the ball rolling...again, the time it takes to retool factories varies wildly as a function of what you're willing to spend doing it. We built entire warhips in weeks during WW2, because we converted to a wartime economy to do it. Now, I'm not saying that would have been reasonable (it wouldn't have), but the point is that rolling a few thousand armored HMMWVs off the line (or lines, after we got a couple more going)...that was within reason.
But we didn't, because it would have required a tax increase instead of a tax cut. And God forbid.
Fuckhead said we "go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we wish we had." Bullshit. At least once the initial invasion is over. At some point we go to war (or rather continue the war) with the Army we're willing to buy, not the Army we'd have to sacrifice to be able to afford.
Anyways, read a pretty interesting thing about how military training is adapting rapidly to deal with the new attitudes and beliefs of the 18 year old recruits - specifically how our social networking raised teenagers are far more in favour of collaborative decision making vs. centralized command structures, how they simply will chafe at commands greatly without understanding the whys and wherefores (or at least, being partially given the whys and wherefores) etc.
There's also a big shift in basic training to adapt to a much more sedentary incoming population more used to sports on TV vs. actual sports. How to get them active and moving, how to build up their core muscles rapidly (not an easy job) and how to re-shape those awful video game fighting instincts.
Unless we want to rant some more about the well known fact that women get raped in the military depressingly often, and the chain of CYA makes sure it never gets reported.
If the general public had been asked to sacrifice anything the war would have gotten unpopular much quicker than it did. We have a volunteer military and taxes got cut. It was extremely easy for the vast majority of the population not to really care because they had no emotional or physical investment in how long the war took and what happened once we got over there.
If there had been a draft, or a substantial tax raise, or if goods and services had been rationed, or any other tangible sacrifice to the average joe on the street had been required, people would have thought twice about a full-scale invasion. The war didn't really start to get unpopular until people realized it was stressing the economy and cutting into their wallet.
I'm not saying people were sociopathic regarding what went down, but I do believe that many people felt the war would not impact them in a meaningful way and it made it awfully easy to beat the war drums.
Man, I remember my unit rolling up to our FOBs in Iraq at the start of our deployment in previously-canvas HMMWVs with some scrap steel from a junkyard bolted to them. And this was over a year and a half into the occupation. A huge number of soldiers died solely because they were not in properly armored vehicles.
Why?
Because it would have been expensive. At any point we could have spent the money to ensure that every last convoy was rolling in properly armored vehicles. It probably wouldn't have even taken long to get the ball rolling...again, the time it takes to retool factories varies wildly as a function of what you're willing to spend doing it. We built entire warhips in weeks during WW2, because we converted to a wartime economy to do it. Now, I'm not saying that would have been reasonable (it wouldn't have), but the point is that rolling a few thousand armored HMMWVs off the line (or lines, after we got a couple more going)...that was within reason.
But we didn't, because it would have required a tax increase instead of a tax cut. And God forbid.
Fuckhead said we "go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we wish we had." Bullshit. At least once the initial invasion is over. At some point we go to war (or rather continue the war) with the Army we're willing to buy, not the Army we'd have to sacrifice to be able to afford.
Hey, remember at that point how there were in fact auto plants being shut down in America?
Auto plants. Plants where they build cars and trucks.
Of course, I'm a Canadian. We couldn't even equip our soldiers with proper camo when they first went to Afghanistan.
If the general public had been asked to sacrifice anything the war would have gotten unpopular much quicker than it did. We have a volunteer military and taxes got cut. It was extremely easy for the vast majority of the population not to really care because they had no emotional or physical investment in how long the war took and what happened once we got over there.
If there had been a draft, or a substantial tax raise, or if goods and services had been rationed, or any other tangible sacrifice to the average joe on the street had been required, people would have thought twice about a full-scale invasion. The war didn't really start to get unpopular until people realized it was stressing the economy and cutting into their wallet.
I'm not saying people were sociopathic regarding what went down, but I do believe that many people felt the war would not impact them in a meaningful way and it made it awfully easy to beat the war drums.
Man, I remember my unit rolling up to our FOBs in Iraq at the start of our deployment in previously-canvas HMMWVs with some scrap steel from a junkyard bolted to them. And this was over a year and a half into the occupation. A huge number of soldiers died solely because they were not in properly armored vehicles.
Why?
Because it would have been expensive. At any point we could have spent the money to ensure that every last convoy was rolling in properly armored vehicles. It probably wouldn't have even taken long to get the ball rolling...again, the time it takes to retool factories varies wildly as a function of what you're willing to spend doing it. We built entire warhips in weeks during WW2, because we converted to a wartime economy to do it. Now, I'm not saying that would have been reasonable (it wouldn't have), but the point is that rolling a few thousand armored HMMWVs off the line (or lines, after we got a couple more going)...that was within reason.
But we didn't, because it would have required a tax increase instead of a tax cut. And God forbid.
Fuckhead said we "go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we wish we had." Bullshit. At least once the initial invasion is over. At some point we go to war (or rather continue the war) with the Army we're willing to buy, not the Army we'd have to sacrifice to be able to afford.
A-Fucking-men.
Bill Maher has a rather prescient book on this back in like 2002 before Iraq even started called "When You Ride Alone You Ride with bin Laden". It was basically a book featuring old WW2 propeganda posters (like "When You Ride Alone You Ride with Hitler" which was about conserving gas in war time) and a bunch of essays of his.
The main thrust? The modern American was never asked to actually GIVE anything for the War on Terror and thus has no stake in it and the whole thing just doesn't effect him. The government has "abdicated the role of helping citizens make connections in time of war".
Discipline in a standing army has kind of been an essential component since the Roman era so ahhh...???
Yeah, I think that's all there is too it. If you want your military to be good at fighting, you need discipline above all else. This comes hand in hand with a strict command structure. You can't stop a battle to come to a consensus on if you storm the trenches or not. More organized militaries have beaten larger and better armed militaries time and time again throughout history.
My question is, who the fuck suggested seriously that a military could be democratic?
If the general public had been asked to sacrifice anything the war would have gotten unpopular much quicker than it did. We have a volunteer military and taxes got cut. It was extremely easy for the vast majority of the population not to really care because they had no emotional or physical investment in how long the war took and what happened once we got over there.
If there had been a draft, or a substantial tax raise, or if goods and services had been rationed, or any other tangible sacrifice to the average joe on the street had been required, people would have thought twice about a full-scale invasion. The war didn't really start to get unpopular until people realized it was stressing the economy and cutting into their wallet.
I'm not saying people were sociopathic regarding what went down, but I do believe that many people felt the war would not impact them in a meaningful way and it made it awfully easy to beat the war drums.
Man, I remember my unit rolling up to our FOBs in Iraq at the start of our deployment in previously-canvas HMMWVs with some scrap steel from a junkyard bolted to them. And this was over a year and a half into the occupation. A huge number of soldiers died solely because they were not in properly armored vehicles.
Why?
Because it would have been expensive. At any point we could have spent the money to ensure that every last convoy was rolling in properly armored vehicles. It probably wouldn't have even taken long to get the ball rolling...again, the time it takes to retool factories varies wildly as a function of what you're willing to spend doing it. We built entire warhips in weeks during WW2, because we converted to a wartime economy to do it. Now, I'm not saying that would have been reasonable (it wouldn't have), but the point is that rolling a few thousand armored HMMWVs off the line (or lines, after we got a couple more going)...that was within reason.
But we didn't, because it would have required a tax increase instead of a tax cut. And God forbid.
Fuckhead said we "go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we wish we had." Bullshit. At least once the initial invasion is over. At some point we go to war (or rather continue the war) with the Army we're willing to buy, not the Army we'd have to sacrifice to be able to afford.
In '07-'08 we still had soft shell HMMWVs, turrets with no shields or armor, and real shitty equipment. When we finally obtained some hard shell HMMWVs, it was a mixture of models in varying configurations, creating all sorts of hell on our mechanics and supply.
Disclipine is important, but I'd like higher ups to drive for it too. I know when I was in the army most of those even a little bit above us regular grunts couldn't give a flying fuck about disclipine. Turned the whole thing into a joke. I think I'm going to join the UN Peacekeeping force sometimes to see if it's any different in real situations.
In response to your question, if there were the same female-male ratio in the general population as the military, then we wouldn't have the problems that we do with rape, or marginalization of women in general. The more your demographic is represented, the less marginalized and abused you tend to be in society. Hegemonically masculine subcultures tend to marginalize women until more of them show up in that subculture. Look at how women were treated in the workplace until more and more of them started showing up.
That's a pretty big oversimplification. The women that were there early on had to launch action over their rampant mistreatment and new laws had to be passed before workplaces started to become friendly enough towards women that more of them opted in. Significant barriers to accessing training had to be subjected to the same effect. It took time and effort and conflict, and the job still isn't done even in the more liberal corners of the world.
Groups of people don't just become magically nicer when you hurl a few more vaginas into the mix - and indeed, the notion of women as a "naturally" civilizing influence is incredibly problematic. Using that notion masks the real causes of social malfunction and even allows them to flourish as the group's diversity increases.
Posts
Looks pretty good to me.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
I was going to comment on that as well. A high school dropout could spot the math error there.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
And rape is typically not about sexual fullillment, it's about power over another person.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
It does indeed occur. People are also highly encouraged to come forward about it. Of course, just like in the rest of the U.S., a lot of people don't want to because of embarrassment. Though thanks to training more and more are encouraged to and do so.
Oh, and could you explain why the military should practice all the values of a democracy please?
How the hell would this work
Also seriously, I really would like to know how much or how little you know about how the military works
Because I seriously doubt you know, well, anything about JAG or courts martial or IG or EO or sensing sessions or one of the numerous alternatives that people have in the military to bring up issues/complaints with the leadership and/or punishing wrongdoing
Also also a democracy would be terrible for numerous reasons, chief of which would be that it'd either be completely ineffectual or we'd have like people going on strike right before deployments because "uh...I don't like...the food in the D-FAC! Yeah! Let's go with that"
America's problems are that presently no one has to sacrifice a damn thing when it goes to war. I mean you guys got a tax cut after Iraq was invaded.
soldiers lives, trillions of dollars in debt, increased 'illegal' public monitoring, PITA airport security, increased gas prices and a further degraded public image aside....
None of this has really affected the American citizen, personally. It's affected soldiers, because they have to fight the war, but there's no rationing, no war bonds, and restrictions on the use of resources - that sort of thing. The country is essentially running a peacetime economy.
True, but the American people weren't asked for that. It's nothing like, say, the raised taxed and rationing and war bonds in WW2. It just happened because the people in power went ahead without thought for the consequences.
So the people in power just sort of seized control from the American people involuntarily huh?
What about those who have loved ones in the military...which are a lot of Americans. Aren't they affected when their family, boyfriends/girlfriends, friends get sent over seas to war? I'm going to have to deal with that in a couple years my self, and just the thought alone is pretty terrible. I have to worry about someone I love dearly being in danger. Hell, even if someone doesn't know anyone in the military, who wants to know that people are getting sent over seas, and getting killed or injured? That is most definitely a sacrifice.
Also, gas prices were brought up. Paying 30-40 bucks to fill up a car 1-2 times a week if fucking terrible, especially when you can look back not even ten years, and remember only paying 10 bucks a week to travel. Sure there are no war bonds, or rationing, but a lot of Americans are affected whether it's economically, or personally. I would definitely call these things sacrifices.
To say that we aren't sacrificing "a damn thing" is a bit offensive.
Check out my art! Buy some prints!
thats the difference between going to war as the richest country in the world and going to war as a fledgling industrial nation.
Not to open up this can of worms, but how did Bush get in power again?
And what did he say on the march to war? Go shopping.
If there had been a draft, or a substantial tax raise, or if goods and services had been rationed, or any other tangible sacrifice to the average joe on the street had been required, people would have thought twice about a full-scale invasion. The war didn't really start to get unpopular until people realized it was stressing the economy and cutting into their wallet.
I'm not saying people were sociopathic regarding what went down, but I do believe that many people felt the war would not impact them in a meaningful way and it made it awfully easy to beat the war drums.
Military families sacrifice
That's about it though
And to say any of this compared to the types of sacrifices required of the citizens during a war like WWII is daft.
"Compared to the past, American citizens don't experience inconvenience due to war."
"Well we worry about people, and plus gas prices went up!"
Seriously? Come on.
On the topic at hand, a military democracy is equally daft. Its a volunteer outfit; hardly tyranny. It also happens to be, well, a military. To be successful it has to have discipline and cohesion. Two things democracy, at least in the modern American form this discussion is contextually discussing, are terrible at.
When did I ever compare what's going on now to WW2? For what I'm talking about, that's even a bit irrelevant. Yes, I know that we sacrificed a hell of a lot more during WW2, I'm well aware. But to say we're not sacrificing 'a damn thing' right now, is like I said before, a bit offensive.
Just saying.
Check out my art! Buy some prints!
Yeah, you could theoretically be drafted into it against your will, but that's an issue of the external democracy which has not, thanks to a lack of desire on the part of the populace, gotten rid of the draft.
Presuming you weren't drafted, you went into the military knowing (or at least capable of knowing; if you don't know it's your own fault) what would be expected out of you and how you would be compensated. I considered joining the air force after grad school but decided against it because the salary and benefits were significantly lower than the median income for a person in the career field I was applying for. If I were to go to my boss at my non-military job and say that I want a raise and more/better benefits they would evaluate my performance and decide if I deserved what I was asking for. The military already has this system. You do well at your job and show a capability to perform at a higher level of responsibility and you get promoted. There are, eventually, limits imposed by needing special training or there only being a set number of certain ranks allowed at a time, but this is no different from making the jump from flunky to management or your company not wanting to have an excess of project managers or whatever.
The military is a job. It happens to carry a higher risk of death than a lot of jobs, but you know that going in. I don't see a problem with the system.
The context of that posters comment was pretty obviously historical. And not that far off-base. I'm not in a military family and my life compared to how it was before the wars is basically the same. It just doesn't affect the average American citizen at all.
Rent said it better than I could.
Because the american citizenry really doesn't, at all
So they think saying "thank you for your service" or putting a yellow ribbon sticker on your car is sacrifice
Or they inversely think that because it's an all-volunteer army and again, they have absolutely no idea what sacrifice means, that we join because we want to commit war crimes or some shit and as a result we don't have an entitlement to complain about the way the military does things and/or we are culpable for the actions of the people in charge
Eh, yeah alright. I'll agree with that.
Edit: I guess I kind of took it as a personal offense, because this is shit I kind of have to think about, and have had to think about for the past 3 years. I got kind of edgy, my bad.
Check out my art! Buy some prints!
So I guess the re-election was a fluke huh?
Too bad, because it's true. Higher gas prices are not a sacrifice.
Gas prices were brought up by the oil companies, not the US government, and that had exactly shit to do with terrorism or Iraq.
Check out my art! Buy some prints!
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Man, I remember my unit rolling up to our FOBs in Iraq at the start of our deployment in previously-canvas HMMWVs with some scrap steel from a junkyard bolted to them. And this was over a year and a half into the occupation. A huge number of soldiers died solely because they were not in properly armored vehicles.
Why?
Because it would have been expensive. At any point we could have spent the money to ensure that every last convoy was rolling in properly armored vehicles. It probably wouldn't have even taken long to get the ball rolling...again, the time it takes to retool factories varies wildly as a function of what you're willing to spend doing it. We built entire warhips in weeks during WW2, because we converted to a wartime economy to do it. Now, I'm not saying that would have been reasonable (it wouldn't have), but the point is that rolling a few thousand armored HMMWVs off the line (or lines, after we got a couple more going)...that was within reason.
But we didn't, because it would have required a tax increase instead of a tax cut. And God forbid.
Fuckhead said we "go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we wish we had." Bullshit. At least once the initial invasion is over. At some point we go to war (or rather continue the war) with the Army we're willing to buy, not the Army we'd have to sacrifice to be able to afford.
Anyways, read a pretty interesting thing about how military training is adapting rapidly to deal with the new attitudes and beliefs of the 18 year old recruits - specifically how our social networking raised teenagers are far more in favour of collaborative decision making vs. centralized command structures, how they simply will chafe at commands greatly without understanding the whys and wherefores (or at least, being partially given the whys and wherefores) etc.
There's also a big shift in basic training to adapt to a much more sedentary incoming population more used to sports on TV vs. actual sports. How to get them active and moving, how to build up their core muscles rapidly (not an easy job) and how to re-shape those awful video game fighting instincts.
Unless we want to rant some more about the well known fact that women get raped in the military depressingly often, and the chain of CYA makes sure it never gets reported.
Hey, remember at that point how there were in fact auto plants being shut down in America?
Auto plants. Plants where they build cars and trucks.
Of course, I'm a Canadian. We couldn't even equip our soldiers with proper camo when they first went to Afghanistan.
This was also that thing which happened in Generation Kill.
A-Fucking-men.
Bill Maher has a rather prescient book on this back in like 2002 before Iraq even started called "When You Ride Alone You Ride with bin Laden". It was basically a book featuring old WW2 propeganda posters (like "When You Ride Alone You Ride with Hitler" which was about conserving gas in war time) and a bunch of essays of his.
The main thrust? The modern American was never asked to actually GIVE anything for the War on Terror and thus has no stake in it and the whole thing just doesn't effect him. The government has "abdicated the role of helping citizens make connections in time of war".
Yeah, I think that's all there is too it. If you want your military to be good at fighting, you need discipline above all else. This comes hand in hand with a strict command structure. You can't stop a battle to come to a consensus on if you storm the trenches or not. More organized militaries have beaten larger and better armed militaries time and time again throughout history.
My question is, who the fuck suggested seriously that a military could be democratic?
In '07-'08 we still had soft shell HMMWVs, turrets with no shields or armor, and real shitty equipment. When we finally obtained some hard shell HMMWVs, it was a mixture of models in varying configurations, creating all sorts of hell on our mechanics and supply.
There is no relation. Quid started this thread with a strawman, and its going to end with a clusterfuck.
That's a pretty big oversimplification. The women that were there early on had to launch action over their rampant mistreatment and new laws had to be passed before workplaces started to become friendly enough towards women that more of them opted in. Significant barriers to accessing training had to be subjected to the same effect. It took time and effort and conflict, and the job still isn't done even in the more liberal corners of the world.
Groups of people don't just become magically nicer when you hurl a few more vaginas into the mix - and indeed, the notion of women as a "naturally" civilizing influence is incredibly problematic. Using that notion masks the real causes of social malfunction and even allows them to flourish as the group's diversity increases.