For guys like you the military is all about politics. What you fail to
understand is that for a soldier it's all about duty.


That's true... honor and duty are the highest ideals for any soldier... and they're
not too shabby for anybody else either.


Gould 0738 wrote:
Our soldiers are being asked to perform those duties by people who are
politically motivated.

Chuck, that's *always* the case. Military action whether a "war" or a "low
intensity conflict" or a "police action" or whatever, is the final way of enforcing
political decisions. That's all it is, that's all it has ever been.

One can evaluate the "justness" of any war by some fairly rigid standards. For
example, everybody likes to say that WW2 was a good war, meaning a war for a good
cause. Using the same standards, is the Iraq war "good?"




I respect those who serve in the military.
One can do that without respecting the manner in which the military is used or
managed.

I think what you're trying to say is that IYHO the war in Iraq is not just. It was
not waged as a last resort, it had no impact on the strategic interests of the
U.S., it was not planned in a way to win with minimum casualties, and the aftermath
was not planned at all. IMHO the whole thing was/is a boondoggle to funnel money
into certain pro-Bush/Cheney pockets, and into Dick Cheney's pocket specifically.

No soldier likes to think that he put his life on the line, and his buddies have
been killed, for the sake of enriching some fat old politicians & CEOs who were
draft dodgers back when they were young enough to go to war themselves; and whose
kids are all avoiding military service.



At a time when we have adopted an international posture that says, "Get in line
or we'll come and kick your ass" and "Bring it on!" we can't possibly hope to
be taken seriously when occupying Iraq and Afghanistan has taxed our abilities
almost to the breaking point.

And worse, those wars have put a tremendous debt obligation on the U.S. which will
not go away for many years, if ever. The money spent is gone gone gone, and it did
nothing to increase our national security.



If we had to send troops to North Korea, Libya, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia,
or even to just one or two of those countries, to continue our current
political objectives
where would they come from?

Texas, of course.



Maybe we can do like the British used to do and hire foreign mercenaries. If we
want US soldiers, we need to create a bunch in short order.

The British used mercenaries? Now, the French have their Foreign Legion which is a
mercenary elite force; but AFAIK the Brits never used large numbers of mercenaries
(at least not since the Hessians came over here). They did have a large number of
colonial troops though, for example the Ghurka brigade(s).



Or, we need to rethink the politics of militarism on a global scale.

Well, "we" don't need to, it's the profiteering boneheads in the current
administration who need to rethink... or think in the first place...

Regards
Doug King

JohnH wrote:


An E-5 with over 3 years service makes $1910 per month, excluding housing
allowance. If he has a dependant who lives in non-military quarters in the 22310
zip code, he gets an additional $1400 per month. That's not too shabby.

John H

You ought to re-up, Herring, volunteer for Iraq, catch a landmine while
on guard duty, and save some useful member of society from that fate.
Just think, you can donate a leg to the Bush election campaign...

JohnH wrote:
On 02 Jul 2004 06:32:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

And......the military has repeatedly said they do not want conscripts

Then they better do something to attract a sufficient number of genuine
volunteers.
Maybe the answer is pay. What does an E-3, E-4, or E-5 earn today? (Probably
doesn't compare very well to the six figure salaries that we're paying the
private "security contractors" hired by Kellog, Brown and Root at taxpayer's
ultimate expense. Wonder if KBR is having trouble recruiting?)

Calling out the geezer brigade, (some of whom "volunteered" maybe 15-20 plus
years ago and have been inactive for a very long time), isn't "technically" a
draft.....it's just yarding in a bunch of civilians who would really rather be
somewhere else and doing something else. People who have already served.

Maybe the military doesn't want conscripts, but if we are going to be taken
seriously with our implied threat to occupy any countries that give us too much
krap, we're going to need the manpower to pull that off.

Extending tours of duty, calling up the National Guard, activating the
Reserves, and recalling ex-military doesn't create an impression that we've got
any excess troop strength.


For more details, put "military pay scale" in Google.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Any chance you'll be recalled, John? After all, you drew pay all those
years and did nothing to earn it...

Harry Krause wrote:


You ought to re-up, Herring, volunteer for Iraq, catch a landmine while
on guard duty, and save some useful member of society from that fate.
Just think, you can donate a leg to the Bush election campaign...


Naw, krause doesn't hate anyone. He just wishes them dead. And that
because he disagrees with their politics.

-- Charlie

For more details, put "military pay scale" in Google.

Actually, I did and posted the link here.

Know what I found?

That the lower ranks are earning wages that put them below the poverty level.
Many of our soldiers below the rank of Sargeant would qualify for food stamps,
free school lunches, etc.

I also found "typical" BAQ and uniform allowances closer to $600-800 per month
than the $1400 (probably extreme) example you offered.

And check this out: The US Army Chief of Staff earns under $160,000 a year.
Average pay for a CEO running a private corporation even half as complex as the
US Army is almost $1 million a month.

Tough to keep the best and the brightest in the service with that kind of
disparity.
The USACOS should be earning more money than a moderately successful yacht
broker or real estate salesman.

We should increase military pay. These people work for all of us, doing a
dangerous and important job. They should earn at least as much as their
counterparts do in other government jobs with equal responsibilty, and rather
obviously they do not.

My son will be teaching 8th Grade this fall,
with a beginning pay scale (for a new teacher with a master's degree plus a
certain number of credits) about equal to a beginning Major in the Army. No way
is his responsibility as high as an Army Major.
How could you possibly argue that the military is adequately compensated?
It seems inconsistent somehow.

Is it your position that all other wages should be reduced to the point where
military pay is comparatively attractive?

It would seem reasonable that if the pay were better, we would not be so short
of manpower. As the economy oh-so-slowly improves, (and it is), it will become
ever more difficult to find guys and gals willing to get shot at in hot, desert
climates for $1000 (plus a little) per month.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Then they better do something to attract a sufficient number of genuine
volunteers.
Maybe the answer is pay. What does an E-3, E-4, or E-5 earn today?

..........Check this out........

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/20/pf/s...pay/table.html

There ought to be better pay for the troops.
These numbers are shameful. (Maybe if we paid commensurate with the skills
involved and commitment required there would be more volunteers).



Maybe we ought to cut the pay of Congress and give it to the troops. The
Congress is getting another big raise and blame it on the law requires it.
But they passed the law. And we ought to cut the retirement benefits at the
same time. 1 tour of duty in Congress, and you get about $15,000 month for
the rest of tyour life. And do not have to pay Social Security.

1 tour of duty in Congress, and you get about $15,000 month for
the rest of tyour life. And do not have to pay Social Security.

Are you claiming that after serving a single
term in the House you are pensioned off at
$180,000 per year? That would be a *raise* for most of the people in Congress,
(not counting what they probably siphon off here and there).

Cite?

I find dramatically different information, such as:

• Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement
System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service
Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of
remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

• As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is
funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress
under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan
and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.


Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of
50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at
any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62.
Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to
even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and
the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting
amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final
salary.

Data compiled in 20034 showed 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving
federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. The
average age of those retiring under CSRS was 75.5 and had at least 20 years of
federal service. Those who retired under FERS had an average age of 68.3 years
and 21.6 years of federal service. Their average retirement payment was $3,909
a month.

The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is
$158,100 per year.


My cite?

http://usgovinfo.miningco.com/librar.../aa031200a.htm


Gues you can't believe everything you hear on the radio. :-)

Again, I feel more compassion for your son than for 95% of the majors in the
Army. Hopefully he's going into a nice, uniformed, gender segregated,
Catholic
middle class, middle school where every parent attends every PTSA meeting,
fully supports the school, and mandates homework completion for their
children.

Tell him to get in touch. I'll give him some tips. The first will be to
provide
a "Help Line" for the kids. More later if interested.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Actually, he's teaching in a public school in a lower middle class
neighborhood. A lot of these kids have very few real advantages in life, many
are from homes with revolving Dads, etc.

He's already been through a baptism of fire.

His student teaching last fall was a ridiculous experience. He taught three
classes a day. One of the classes had 50 kids, and 18 of them were on
"special individualized learning" programs.
(State law says there aren't supposed to be more than a handful of these
academically challneged kids in a class at any one time). The "instructing"
teacher spent no time in the classroom after the first week or so of the
semester, and was hiding out in the teachers' lounge. My son spent a lot of
time every day trying to keep discipline in that class, with mixed results.
Some of the kids would simply, and literally say, "**** You" when he'd ask them
to sit down. He was frustrated by that class, and took some heat from the
school's principal over the number of kids he was sending to the office every
day. A couple of them ultimately got kicked out of school entirely over
behavior in that class, and in one case my son was threatened by an angry
parent who was protesting his kid's expulsion.

I gave him a few tips that helped. One of the initial problems he had was
paperwad fights. The school had so much trouble with the stuff kids were
putting into thier lockers, that all the lockers had been welded shut and the
kids were carrying all their books and papers from class to class
in backpacks. (There was stuff in some of those backpacks that would have made
anything ever left in a locker look tame).
The kids would begin wadding up papers when they got to class, and throwing
them, like snowballs, around the room.

I suggested a new routine for the class, and it cured the paperwad fights. When
the kids came into the classroom, they piled all the books and papers not
needed for that class against the back wall. Each student was given *one* piece
of paper to take notes on, and the student had to write their name on the paper
before class began. When the first paperwad flew after this policy went into
effect, my son picked it up, unraveled it, and discovered (surprise) no name.
No big deal. There was
only one kid in that corner of the classroom *without* a piece of paper on his
desk. Busted. Paperwad fights were very rare after the change in paper policy.

He survived the class from hell. His other two classes, with a more normal
number and mix of students, went very well. I was half afraid he'd get washed
out because of all the trouble he was having in the almost-impossible class,
but he wound up with an "A minus" in student teaching which wasn't too bad, all
things considered.

For the last six months he's been substituting in middle schools in the same
district. Remember 8th grade? A substitute was fair game for all the krap you
ever wanted to do but were too smart or scared to pull on the teacher who
would be giving you your semester grade and talking to your parents on
conference night.

(You are in a unique situation to appreciate that)

It's doubtful that he'll have any worse experience than subbing through the
second semester and student teaching.

He can be a very effective teacher. When he was teaching the US Constitution to
college freshmen as a graduate student, the students in his section of that
class consistently outperformed the other two sections of the same class and
scored very well on exams. If he starts to flounder, I'll consider you a ready
resource. Thanks.

Chuck,
I always knew you were a far seeing individual. :-)
Paul
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
snipped
Data compiled in 20034 showed 413 retired Members of Congress were
receiving
federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service.
snipped

Chuck,
I always knew you were a far seeing individual. :-)
Paul

That's the problem with a cut 'n paste.
All the typos get moved as well.

But who knows? It could have been 20034.

One interesting theory says that there is no such thing as time. We are each of
us
still everyone and everywhere we have ever been, and already are everyone and
everywhere we ever will be. These layers of
experience overlap like shades of paint being swirled in a bucket, and all are
contained in a single Cosmic Spark. It is only because the human mind is finite
and compelled to search for linear patterns that we experience the illusion of
progress through an artificial essence we call time.

So, with that in mind, it could just as easily have been 20034. At least that's
my
BS excuse, and I'm stickin' to it! :-)