Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with this. You still have the same personalities in the Military, or out of the Military. The only difference is in behavior. The Military gets the behavior it wants by threat of punishment, so for the most part, recruits obey the rules, even if they really don't want to. Its not an automatic morphing machine.
I disagree. While a threat of punishment is there, the military actually "gets what it wants" by incorporating group identification. Nobody throws himself on a grenade by threat of punishment.
Quote:
Look closely at the Military. It helps a few adapt to life better, and it gives a few a superiority complex, and they commit crimes because of it. There are a bunch of them in Court now for murdering Iraqi Civilians because they liked Killing people. Look at the atrocious behavior of our Troops at the Abu Gharib Prison, where prisoners where held with no charges, tortured and killed because they "May" be hiding some thing.
OTOH, of all the soldiers placed in the extreme situation of combat, look at what a small percentage practices such behavior.
I said no. Military people are into physically disciplining their kids, and I can't stand for that.
Not my experience, as a military spouse. We, speaking for my spouse and I, aren't "into" physically disciplining children, at all. My husband and I are both former educators, and are both opposed to corporal punishment.
"Military people" aren't collectively "into" anything. They are individuals with diverse individual values, philosophies, moral codes, and priorities. As such, "military" doesn't collectively "have better values," or "have worse values." Various individuals have whatever values they have. People who serve come from a multitude of different backgrounds that have shaped their values, just like anybody else.
There is no shortage of scumbags in the armed forces, just as in any other career. Having lousy values doesn't necessarily preclude you from serving, or get you in enough trouble to get you booted, depending on how those values affect your conduct and behavior. There is corruption, crime, unethical behavior, bias, discriminatory behavior, hostile work environment, etc. in the military just as in any other workplace. All workplaces should work to address those who perpetrate, and all do, to an extent, but it still happens...in the military just like anywhere else. Being military doesn't automatically mean you have lofty values. You might, you might not.
That's true, but not everybody who wants to enlist will be accepted. The military is pretty choosy about who they take. You have to have a clean juvenile record, have graduated from high school with a pretty decent GPA, and have to have pretty good test scores. They even give credit for post-high school education. The days of taking the scum of the earth and turning them into soldiers is long gone.
Where to start? Or perhaps the question is, if the military does have better values, then what should be the profile, the model of the military person with those values?
The thing is, I worked with officers who wanted things to look good for them while they were there but didn't care if it fell apart right after they signed off on it. Or perhaps those who one would seriously wonder if they bribed people to get their quals signed off. Or those that took off the wedding ring once the ship left the breakwaters. Or commanders who wouldn't write a bad fitrep on someone but rather, just pass them off to someone else.
AT BEST, you have an organization that is good for what it is meant for, fighting wars, but often one might find that your given mission is not accepted by others for their mission. A "viewpoint" I often encountered in the late Cold War in security was, "Why so serious? We have nothing here that anyone would want to steal.".
Now, on the other side of the coin, it is a bad mistake, IMHO, to expect them to be knights. Why? Because the harder you let them play, the harder they will fight.
Since the military comes from the general population their values are going to be about the same with the same percentage of great, average and uh, not so good, and then just plain criminal behavior and values.
The services themselves have higher values but some individuals in them at times fail those standards is my view. Once out of service some stay true to those standards and other don't. No difference if a private or general officer.
Appreciate the comments and rationale. Although not even, the balance is more than I would have guessed.
Realize the questions and answer choices weren't the best as I was attempting to capture the issue and repost it in here, accurately, with accurate choices for answers. All doing this on a small phone with a cracked screen. Original concept came from the NOVA forum.
I think the big change was in the early '80's when most (all?) the services started requiring high school diplomas. The concept was to find servicemen that could focus and complete a long term goal. Significant difference was noted throughout the'80's.
I think the big change was in the early '80's when most (all?) the services started requiring high school diplomas. The concept was to find servicemen that could focus and complete a long term goal. Significant difference was noted throughout the'80's.
Prior to that, in the early-to-mid-70s with the end of the draft and then the end of the Vietnam war, interest in joining the military was so low that the services in general and the Army in particular was forced to enlist nearly the lowest level of ASVAB achievers. The Army's quality problem was a news item, and one congresscritter, William Proxmire, stated that technology should be used to bridge the Army's "intelligence gap." My comment at the time: "Yeah, we can create a tank a moron can drive...but do we want morons driving tanks?"
So when enlistments began to rise again in the early 80s, that rise in educational requirements was from an exceedingly low point in the 70s.
Appreciate the comments and rationale. Although not even, the balance is more than I would have guessed.
Realize the questions and answer choices weren't the best as I was attempting to capture the issue and repost it in here, accurately, with accurate choices for answers. All doing this on a small phone with a cracked screen. Original concept came from the NOVA forum.
I think the big change was in the early '80's when most (all?) the services started requiring high school diplomas. The concept was to find servicemen that could focus and complete a long term goal. Significant difference was noted throughout the'80's.
I did not post a reply...
The big change was not from your claim "in the early '80's when most (all?) the services started requiring high school diplomas." You have a real reference for that? It might have been when the U.S. military draft ended, Jan. 27, 1973...
There are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen. They are all different and their requirements change continuously. Their selection for duty as well as promotions are different...
One final tip. When you create a poll, allow an escape question, like for example "The above does not apply to me". Your poll did not apply to my 22+ years continuous active duty military duty.
Last edited by Poncho_NM; 06-02-2015 at 08:00 PM..
There isn't a correct answer in your poll so I didn't select anything.
While this is certainly the case for a small minority it isn't the case for the overwhelming majority. There are a lot stricter standards to get into the military then there are college, civilian jobs, politics, etc.
Most young people that join the military come with very little baggage and have many different reasons for joining...what they don't have (like many had in the past) is a judge telling them to join the military or get some other form of punishment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
