'Stop saying "Support the troops"'

[britwrit]

And (to base a complex, grayish argument over a single page I stumbled over on the internet a few months ago: http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/tanks-and-humvees-caps-and-gowns) aren't military officers with a degree compensated far more than their civilian counterparts?

Since we're obviously overpaid, riddle me this. What would you pay this person?

Five years experience. Financial management undergraduate degree. Senior-vice president of a 110-person department responsible for all HR, logistics, communication, security, operations and management for the 580-person organization. Directly responsible for more than $5 million in equipment, including high-tech communications, imagery and computer systems. Helicopter captain (the guy in charge in the helicopter), who holds heavy, multi-engine rotary wing, instrument rating from the FAA. Spends about 1/3 of his time traveling both locally and internationally for work projects.

Well, it's not an analogy I'd even remotely come up with myself. But... if I'm the head of an extremely huge non-profit ogranization.... one who doesn't have the best reputation for handing his non-unionized workforce.... and one who is under going a relatively (considering the sheer size of the NPO) small retrenchment...

$45,000 a year.

This is a person with a skill set who's going to eventually transition upwards out of his position. Either within the organization or out into the private sector. It's inevitable. So with this salary and most of their living expenses paid for, you keep them around long enough to train the next batch of people who are going to move into these jobs.

I realize I was bewailing the state of the economy before but in this case, I'd argue the experience and training makes up for it. It's like someone who graduates from law school, gets a job as an ADA in the big city, then a decade leaves for a lucrative private practice or wins public office.

 

[User 1019]

I think you'd have some vacancies. Starting salaries for an instrument-rated heavy helicopter captain - with no managerial duties - are about $93K, plus expenses and bonus pays.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

This single-mother waitress supported the troops by buying their lunch.

http://www.necn.com/10/10/13/Waitress-gives-back-to-NH-National-Guard/landing_newengland.html?blockID=854865&tagID=58605

Although why are you out buying lunch when your not getting paid, shouldn't you sit at home looking at the walls????????!?????????!!

 

[Alma]

This single-mother waitress supported the troops by buying their lunch.

http://www.necn.com/10/10/13/Waitress-gives-back-to-NH-National-Guard/landing_newengland.html?blockID=854865&tagID=58605

Although why are you out buying lunch when your not getting paid, shouldn't you sit at home looking at the walls????????!?????????!!

Ruby Tuesday couldn't pay for the lunch, though. Ruby Tuesday has a bottom line to maintain.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

This single-mother waitress supported the troops by buying their lunch.

http://www.necn.com/10/10/13/Waitress-gives-back-to-NH-National-Guard/landing_newengland.html?blockID=854865&tagID=58605

Although why are you out buying lunch when your not getting paid, shouldn't you sit at home looking at the walls????????!?????????!!

Ruby Tuesday couldn't pay for the lunch, though. Ruby Tuesday has a bottom line to maintain.

Ruby Tuesday runs a Community GiveBack Program for charities:

http://rubytuesday.com/giving-back

 

[joe]

I've seen people at shopping malls thank recruiters for their service. For what?
Sitting in a plush air conditioned mall trying to sign up 18 yr olds to go to war.

Never judge your importance to the mission by your proximity to the target.

The current troops who signed up for this? They do not get a free pass.

You should Google the 2004 stop-loss order.

Anyone who went to Iraq volunteered. If there were against the war they should have
never signed up.

See above.

And who signs up for volunteer military service, war or not? It's the economically disadvantaged. They sign up for military service because it's that or a dead end minimum wage job or living off government assistance. I'm guessing the fact that we are at war or who we are at war with has very little impact on the decision to join.

You're way off base, here, and most likely don't know many people who serve. I was 25, in a management position at a 40K daily, and made about 45K a year (in 2005 dollars) when I decided to make a career of it. I could be trading bonds in Memphis, working a 9-5.

I wonder what Three Bags Full thinks of this.

I think a lot of people here really just like to hear themselves talk.

I truly wondered what your take on this thread was as a career Army man. I thought your perspective could lend an insider's opinion on the premise. I wasn't trying to be cute.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Again: Some 18-year-olds chose not to go. We revile them to this day as draft dodgers. You can't have it both ways. You can't indict draft dodgers while arguing that those who did go are exempted from independent thought because of their age. Age mitigates it, for sure. So do the circumstances. But a draft card is not a talisman. They chose to go, and that at least subjects their participation to a weighing of the competing factors they faced, draft or no draft. To argue otherwise is an insult to the participants.

Most draft dodgers did not skip the war because it was immoral. They wanted to save
their own ass.

They also skipped it because it was a war that we started, in a country that was little threat to us militarily. As opposed to World War II, when we had war declared on us, and there was a legitimate threat of being attacked.

That'd be a pretty strong motivator right there.

 

[Captain Obvious]

They also skipped it because it was a war that we started, in a country that was little threat to us militarily. As opposed to World War II, when we had war declared on us, and there was a legitimate threat of being attacked.

That'd be a pretty strong motivator right there.

You've watched 1941 too many times. Nationalism is a powerful tool for those in power.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

They also skipped it because it was a war that we started, in a country that was little threat to us militarily. As opposed to World War II, when we had war declared on us, and there was a legitimate threat of being attacked.

That'd be a pretty strong motivator right there.

You've watched 1941 too many times. Nationalism is a powerful tool for those in power.

In 1941 Germans sank five Allied merchant ships off Georgia shores. By late 1943, however, Georgia's coastal defenses had grown so formidable that German submarines no longer entered the state's waters.[/quote[

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/u-boat-attacks-during-world-war-ii

 

[Boom_70]

Again: Some 18-year-olds chose not to go. We revile them to this day as draft dodgers. You can't have it both ways. You can't indict draft dodgers while arguing that those who did go are exempted from independent thought because of their age. Age mitigates it, for sure. So do the circumstances. But a draft card is not a talisman. They chose to go, and that at least subjects their participation to a weighing of the competing factors they faced, draft or no draft. To argue otherwise is an insult to the participants.

Most draft dodgers did not skip the war because it was immoral. They wanted to save
their own ass.

They also skipped it because it was a war that we started, in a country that was little threat to us militarily. As opposed to World War II, when we had war declared on us, and there was a legitimate threat of being attacked.

That'd be a pretty strong motivator right there.

The threat of the time was spread of communism which as we know now was
not as big a threat as it was portrayed.

I doubt there were many 18 year olds savvy enough to know that it was not a
big threat.

 

[waterytart]

They also skipped it because it was a war that we started, in a country that was little threat to us militarily. As opposed to World War II, when we had war declared on us, and there was a legitimate threat of being attacked.

That'd be a pretty strong motivator right there.

You've watched 1941 too many times. Nationalism is a powerful tool for those in power.

You should visit the memorial over the USS Arizona sometime.

 

[User 11148]

I doubt there were many 18 year olds savvy enough to know that it was not a big threat.

I got it in my head there were bunch of middle-aged folks in the halls of government who weren't savvy enough, either ...

 

[Captain Obvious]

They also skipped it because it was a war that we started, in a country that was little threat to us militarily. As opposed to World War II, when we had war declared on us, and there was a legitimate threat of being attacked.

That'd be a pretty strong motivator right there.

You've watched 1941 too many times. Nationalism is a powerful tool for those in power.

You should visit the memorial over the USS Arizona sometime.

Wonder why there are so many military memorials? Nationalism is a powerful tool. It worked after 9/11.

 

[YankeeFan]

The most cynical guy here, the guy who thinks Nationalism is a con, converted to the religion of Joseph Smith, a first class con man.

Sorry, but I don't get it.

 

[Captain Obvious]

The "con" of nationalism isn't all bad. The Super Bowl halftime show is decent most years.