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.
No, I actually really do care. Particularly since my uncle went through hell from the ages of 22-65 (when he passed away) due to what he dealt with as a Marine in Vietnam. I don't have rose colored glasses on when it comes to what soldiers deal with, how it negatively impacts the rest of their lives, their families and communities.
So, yeah. I'm happy for your husband. I'm also cognizant that your husband's opinions and experiences do not speak for all vets.
Unlike your uncle in Vietnam, today’s soldiers volunteer. One of the research verified outcomes of that switch is higher satisfaction levels in all types of military assignments, to include deployments and combat, along with better response and outcomes with PSTD, and less lasting resentment. The choice to serve changes the balance of the locus of control in these situations and that does amazing things to improving outlook in negative situations.
While it is true that the attitudes of the husband of the poster you were responding to will not represent all vets, it is more likely to be an accurate reflection of post-1973 vets than what you espouse. Of the vets I know, and I think it’s safe to say I know FAR more than you, with the exception of the profoundly disabled, they will tell you their military service did not overall negatively impact them - and most will go so far as to say it possitively impacted them.
As far as the border, it’s just another deployment they have been sent on by some elected official. The all voluntary military has ingrained in it that it is not their job to question why they are sent somewhere, but to do their mission. They follow orders without question unless it is unlawful. Is everyone happy down there? No. But, for them, it is no different than being sent to Fort Irwin for an extended training session.
And, I will repeat again, what you are complaining about are factors decided by military leaders, primarily the ones also down there living under those same rules, not elected officials.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
But I personally believe people who sign over their lives to their government should be treated very well when circumstances allow.
You're in the middle of a jungle or desert somewhere? Of course its going to suck and it's going to be harder than anything I personally can imagine.
You're sitting in Texas, in your own damn country, and your government can't even provide a generator for it's soldiers? I call BS on that.
I am allowed to have my own opinion on this issue.
well, I think "when circumstances allow" is determined by the military, not by your emotion.
I think this particular situation is similar to the DOD Responds to Hurricane situation. Political stunt or not, It is a quick, emergency, temporary mission. I have to assume build a mess hall like the article suggested is simply not necessary or possible.
If the article focused on "political stunt" , many people would probably agree with it. But the article focuses on "the horrible treatment the troops go through, no phone charger, no air conditioner, no mess hall just MRE", I must say, Sensationalism in the media does not really help the author's argument or the point he/she wanted to make.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 11-16-2018 at 09:46 AM..
When I was in the Army, I asked myself that question often. I could imagine how much better the results would be, if they'd treated us with respect and consideration, instead of making our daily lives so unpleasant. If they'd booted-out about a third of those with sergeant stripes (the ones who were psycho), that would have been a good start. There was a grim joke in our outfit, that if we were ever sent into combat, those guys wouldn't have survived the first battle and it wouldn't have been because of enemy fire.
When I was in basic, a DI was screaming at a recruit on the range, and the recruit turned and shot him. Never saw either one again.
When I was in the Army, I asked myself that question often. I could imagine how much better the results would be, if they'd treated us with respect and consideration, instead of making our daily lives so unpleasant. If they'd booted-out about a third of those with sergeant stripes (the ones who were psycho), that would have been a good start. There was a grim joke in our outfit, that if we were ever sent into combat, those guys wouldn't have survived the first battle and it wouldn't have been because of enemy fire.
I was in an all volunteer unit , every leader from Platoon to the Bull Frog lead from the Point.
Unlike your uncle in Vietnam, today’s soldiers volunteer. One of the research verified outcomes of that switch is higher satisfaction levels in all types of military assignments, to include deployments and combat, along with better response and outcomes with PSTD, and less lasting resentment. The choice to serve changes the balance of the locus of control in these situations and that does amazing things to improving outlook in negative situations.
While it is true that the attitudes of the husband of the poster you were responding to will not represent all vets, it is more likely to be an accurate reflection of post-1973 vets than what you espouse. Of the vets I know, and I think it’s safe to say I know FAR more than you, with the exception of the profoundly disabled, they will tell you their military service did not overall negatively impact them - and most will go so far as to say it possitively impacted them.
As far as the border, it’s just another deployment they have been sent on by some elected official. The all voluntary military has ingrained in it that it is not their job to question why they are sent somewhere, but to do their mission. They follow orders without question unless it is unlawful. Is everyone happy down there? No. But, for them, it is no different than being sent to Fort Irwin for an extended training session.
And, I will repeat again, what you are complaining about are factors decided by military leaders, primarily the ones also down there living under those same rules, not elected officials.
2/3 of the soldiers who served in Vietnam...…….boots on the ground were enlisted/volunteers
It might be informative for you to read this whole thing
I recall an Army training manual of the 70s, I think it was for desert warfare, that weighed hot meals against the other. Of where to consider the soldier who gets something to eat and then gets some hours of sleep against that of them being woken up at midnight to unload the food transport when it rolls in.
As it was said in the 70s, "We never promised you a rose garden".
They had a draft during the 70’s. Bring back the draft, and then we’ll talk.
I don’t see why our troops are treated so poorly when the C in C is a five time draft dodger and didn’t even bother to show up at Arlington on Veterans Day.
They had a draft during the 70’s. Bring back the draft, and then we’ll talk.
I don’t see why our troops are treated so poorly when the C in C is a five time draft dodger and didn’t even bother to show up at Arlington on Veterans Day.
Probably because they're accomplishing some training goals for a "real" deployment.
Remember they aren't getting any additional appropriation. This stunt is coming out of their hides.
They had a draft during the 70’s. Bring back the draft, and then we’ll talk.
I don’t see why our troops are treated so poorly when the C in C is a five time draft dodger and didn’t even bother to show up at Arlington on Veterans Day.
Yes a Dodger like Clinton 5x..and Obama who never even thought of enlisting.
I recall an Army training manual of the 70s, I think it was for desert warfare, that weighed hot meals against the other. Of where to consider the soldier who gets something to eat and then gets some hours of sleep against that of them being woken up at midnight to unload the food transport when it rolls in.
As it was said in the 70s, "We never promised you a rose garden".
What do you mean "So"?
MREs suck. I don't care how many videos the Crazy Russian Hacker makes testing MREs, they suck. But, when you're hungry, suddenly that dehydrated "pork patty" doesn't look too bad...it's still bad, but now they add little bottles of Tobasco sauce so you can drown out the horrid taste.
Tents, MREs, no heating, no cooling - it's called "being in the field". If done for a competition, it can be fun, but if done for an assignment, or if active duty, your required time in the field, it's not that fun. It's not too bad, but then again, I never had to camp out in boiling hot temperatures. I did have to work in the heat and humidity, and it can take down even the strongest - and there's no relief to return to like people do to their homes at the end of the day. As for sleeping, you learn fast which rocks are comfortable, and you learn that "hurry up and wait" means you can take some time to catch up on some lost sleep.
When people think of military, soldiers, and veterans, a lot of times they think about war zones. But what people often fail to recognize is all the time these soldiers put in during no combat time - and quite a bit of it can be unpleasant. And they sure as hell don't get paid what they should get paid.
Yes, they signed up for it, yes they knew there was potential to be extremely uncomfortable, but that still does not warrant a "So?"
These people are at the border, right now, trying to help Border Control who is trying to protect our own damn country, whether the left likes that or not. They could be doing something else, but apparently our politicians, and the people who vote for them, don't seem to care that much about illegal aliens pouring in over the border because nothing ever gets done. There's always someone blocking it despite the fact that at least at one time, in the not too distant past, both sides agreed that illegal aliens were a threat to this country...even the left's favorite, the clown who used to occupy the WH before Trump was elected and sworn in.
These soldiers are there because of them, and the people who voted for them. I think that warrants more than a "So?"
A better comment would have been: "Yeah, it probably sucks, but that's how the military goes", not "So?"
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.
