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.
Should men and women who enlist in combat specific duties or divisions receive more benefits in the the case of pay, benefits, housing etc? I've always found there to be a great divide between people who serve in combat and those who don't. Even among branches, you can enlist in sections that seem more safe: infantry vs communications? We tend to view all soldiers the same but is that really fair? Soldiers don't carry the same risks. People who are serving in combat are taking more risks than those serving on an air force base or ship far from the battle field. Should those soldiers who accept more risk be paid more? Wouldn't this encourage more people to enlist in combat and financially protect the families of those who were slain in combat? Why do we have to look at all people in the military in the same way since those in combat are taking more risks and engaging in more dangerous activity? I'm not trying to start a feud among branches in the military because all people who serve are deserving of honor but don't combat soldiers deserve more honor and rewards? Why are officers paid more when they assume less risk? I find it ironic there are officer tracks in the military. So you can engage in a track that offers less risk, more pay and more leadership? Shouldn't people have to qualify to be officers by serving on the front lines first?
Should men and women who enlist in combat specific duties or divisions receive more benefits in the the case of pay, benefits, housing etc? I've always found there to be a great divide between people who serve in combat and those who don't. After all, doesn't it seem to be a much safer and practical to enlist in the Air Force than the Marine Corps? And even among branches, you can enlist in sections that seem more safe: infantry vs communications? We tend to view all soldiers the same but is that really fair? Soldiers don't carry the same risks. People who are serving in combat are taking more risks than those serving on an air force base or ship far from the battle field. Should those soldiers who accept more risk be paid more? Wouldn't this encourage more people to enlist in combat and financially protect the families of those who were slain in combat? Why do we have to look at all people in the military in the same way since those in combat are taking more risks and engaging in more dangerous activity? I'm not trying to start a feud among branches in the military but it does seem a little unfair wouldn't you agree?
Yes, yes, yes. And while we are at it all the military should get big raises. They are the most under paid of the government employees. I know many will not consider them employees but I do. If the leaches in DC can spend a couple of terms doing nothing and get retirement benefits undeserving I might say, then what the heck are we screwing our military men and women for?
Yes, yes, yes. And while we are at it all the military should get big raises. They are the most under paid of the government employees. I know many will not consider them employees but I do. If the leaches in DC can spend a couple of terms doing nothing and get retirement benefits undeserving I might say, then what the heck are we screwing our military men and women for?
Should men and women who enlist in combat specific duties or divisions receive more benefits in the the case of pay, benefits, housing etc?
They do. It's called...wait for it..............combat pay. I have no idea what "more benefits" otherwise means, since all military members receive full benefits already (free medical, dental, etc etc).
Quote:
People who are serving in combat are taking more risks than those serving on an air force base or ship far from the battle field.
No argument there.
Quote:
financially protect the families of those who were slain in combat?
The military already offers life insurance at dirt cheap prices.
Quote:
Why are officers paid more when they assume less risk?
?? Because they fulfilled all the requirement to become an officer, which are the same for everyone, and because rank isn't all about "risk." PS officers go into combat zones too, FYI, although it's true that the % is lower than enlisted.
Quote:
I find it ironic there are officer tracks in the military.
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean, as it doesn't make sense the way it reads.
Quote:
So you can engage in a track that offers less risk, more pay and more leadership? Shouldn't people have to qualify to be officers by serving on the front lines first?
And what happens when there isn't combat going on? We just don't have any more officers?
Again, being an officer (in fact being in the military) is about a lot more than just risk or combat.
I don't get it either. I've never understood how the military has a separate pathway to become an officer. It seems most logical that a person would need experience to qualify to become an officer. In medicine, you don't become the Chief of Surgery without proving yourself as a surgeon first. It's this way with every other field too. You don't become the Chief of Police without proving yourself as a policeman and starting from the bottom. There is no Chief of Police training that splits up rookies into future Chiefs and then Grunts who patrol the streets.
Should men and women who enlist in combat specific duties or divisions receive more benefits in the the case of pay, benefits, housing etc? I've always found there to be a great divide between people who serve in combat and those who don't. Even among branches, you can enlist in sections that seem more safe: infantry vs communications? We tend to view all soldiers the same but is that really fair? Soldiers don't carry the same risks. People who are serving in combat are taking more risks than those serving on an air force base or ship far from the battle field. Should those soldiers who accept more risk be paid more? Wouldn't this encourage more people to enlist in combat and financially protect the families of those who were slain in combat? Why do we have to look at all people in the military in the same way since those in combat are taking more risks and engaging in more dangerous activity? I'm not trying to start a feud among branches in the military because all people who serve are deserving of honor but don't combat soldiers deserve more honor and rewards? Why are officers paid more when they assume less risk? I find it ironic there are officer tracks in the military. So you can engage in a track that offers less risk, more pay and more leadership? Shouldn't people have to qualify to be officers by serving on the front lines first?
Duh, they already are paid more for serving in a war zone.
And what happens when there isn't combat going on? We just don't have any more officers?
Again, being an officer (in fact being in the military) is about a lot more than just risk or combat.
That has to be the dumbest response I've read here today. So when combat isn't going on we don't have enough people with experience to become officers? All he was saying is that people should qualify to receive officer training instead of having Joe Politicians son from Harvard receive "officer training" when he has never served in combat. Why should he have the privilege of becoming an officer when another kid actually did the time and served on the front lines?
That has to be the dumbest response I've read here today. So when combat isn't going on we don't have enough people with experience to become officers? All he was saying is that people should qualify to receive officer training instead of having Joe Politicians son from Harvard receive "officer training" when he has never served in combat. Why should he have the privilege of becoming an officer when another kid actually did the time and served on the front lines?
Anyone can be a grunt and learn to shoot a gun.
Do you really think that OCS is a piece of cake? It's not.
Most military officers serve in war zones at one time or another.
[MOD CUT]
Last edited by Ibginnie; 03-14-2010 at 08:29 AM..
Reason: off topic
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.
And what happens when there isn't combat going on? We just don't have any more officers?
