What have you done for me lately?

[lookout123]

I think that is fucked up. I'm sure the guys at the top of that pyramid are buddies with or members of the bush/cheney/binladen consortium.

this is not a new thing with Bush. it has always been there, but was largely accelerated with the massive drawdown in the early '90's. and of course the civilians are paid more - you aren't providing 100% medical, life, legal, education, training benefits as you would for a GI.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by lookout123

this is not a new thing with Bush. it has always been there, but was largely accelerated with the massive drawdown in the early '90's. and of course the civilians are paid more - you aren't providing 100% medical, life, legal, education, training benefits as you would for a GI.

Point taken, corruption/cronyism isn't new.

I'm still not sure why civilians should be doing the job of the military. I have read that it is getting increasingly hard to find enlistees who are suitable for the military, but still, I imagine an army (in the generic sense) should be able to cook and clean etc for itself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

you aren't providing 100% medical, life, legal, education, training benefits as you would for a GI.

Not so sure were not paying those PLUS a tidy profit to those peoples employer?

[wolf]

I don't think the migras that they have peeling the potatoes get insurance benefits.

[lookout123]

the theory is that someone who serves even one enlistment is entitled to a variety of life long benefits. during the drawdown and through the late '90's it began to make sense that if we can only have X number of troops rather than 2X then we better make them count. they need to be warriors or direct support for a trigger puller. accountants, HR, kitchen help, postal workers, communications, etc. don't have to be warrior trained in most cases - make 'em civvies. they get a larger annual pay package, but fewer benefits. as an added bonus, you have greater continuity on an installation because your civvies aren't PCSing every 2/3 years.

[lookout123]

that is thetruth. when i was in KSA and a few other spots we had pakistani and yemenese contractors for all the mess halls. the entire base went down with food poisoning because of their less than stellar understanding of bacteria. i refused to eat in the chow hall shortly after arriving in country, so by eating fresh baked bread from a local bakery i never got sick.

[lookout123]

have you heard the one about the US Senate voting 98-0 to allow the Boy Scouts to meet on military bases and continue receiving support?

yep, it happened within the past week, but not a lot being said about it. can't even find a story about it right now.

Originally Posted by wolf

I don't think the migras that they have peeling the potatoes get insurance benefits.

Believe it or not, the potato peelers in the First Gulf War, anyhow, were Arabs. My friend who served in the first wave of the tank assault there said that one of his duties was to patrol the kitchen with his gun by his side while meals were cooked for his company. You never know what Abdul might take it into his mind to slip into the mashed potatoes, right?

Seems like we were better off in the good old days when KP meant peeling the potatoes yourself, not standing with a loaded gun, watching someone else do it.

[BrianR]

one enlistment does NOT qualify one for lifelong benefits. Even the GI bill expires after ten years. Everything else stops when you turn in your green card. Unless you are injured and receive disability. Other than that, one must retire after twenty years to get lifetime benefits. And those suck, they're not what one gets on active duty. They mostly consist of commissary privileges and MWR access.

I know of which I speak.

[lookout123]

how about the VA hospital? national cemetary? VA loans? there are benefits, no matter how small they seem when multiplied by the number of folks eligible it adds up to a very large number.

[BrianR]

Originally Posted by lookout123

how about the VA hospital? national cemetary? VA loans? there are benefits, no matter how small they seem when multiplied by the number of folks eligible it adds up to a very large number.

Bah. Just TRY getting treatment at a VA hospital. I did. I am entitled to those lifetime benefits at a VA hospital. It took me eight months just to get an appt to SEE a doctor. Tests would have taken longer had I not kept meticulous records ten years ago. One can die of old age before being treated there. If you don't have a blue ID card, forget it. And they'll tell you so right at the Admissions desk too.

VA loans. Okay, I give you this one. ANY veteran can borrow money, which still must be paid back with interest, albeit lower interest than the general pubic pays to a bank or mortgage company. Nothing is guaranteed however. You still have to qualify and repay. And there are restrictions on the size of the loan too. No multi-million dollar mansions...I'll have to look up the size limit for you. It's something like $235,000 maximum.

Brian

[lookout123]

Brian I know that benefits aren't the greatest but they are there. depending on the area, it may be hard to get what is rightfully yours, but that is the red tape around the benefit. i've had dealings with the VA hospitals in chicago and also phoenix. it isn't the greatest experience, but it is there. i worked in a gov't position while in college serving vets (i am one as well) our entire job was to help ANY veteran who walked in A) find a job - some menial, some management B) skill retraining, C) coordinate education benefits, D) assist in health benefits. it was all absolutely cost free for the vet. it isn't exciting and no one was doing cartwheels at the glory of the benefits, but they are benefits, nonetheless. each service does cost something. multiply the services rendered by literally thousands upon thousands of people and you come up to a fairly large number.

now contrast that to a paycheck that you give a contractor. when the job stops, the benefits stop.

and the VA loan obviously has to be paid back. the lending guidelines are more forgiving for the vet though.

[BigV]

This has been a very interesting thread, lookout123. Thanks for starting it. There have been a couple of landmarks for me in it. I got a nice compliment from Pie. Thank you very much. I look forward to your replies. I saw posts from Happy Monkey, footfootfoot and mrnoodle with which I agree (at least the second half), to my surprise. That was very well put, both articulate and insightful. I even got sassed by xoxoxoBruce. Hehehe, "brown shirts", I get it. Cute. You should read your own sig.

I read posts that stimulated more questions, about my own motivations and those of my government. Regarding these last two.

richlevy, I was unclear about your seeming exclusion of the armed forces in your statement.

Originally Posted by richlevy

I appreciate the good work of the Scouts. I was a Cub Scout a long time ago. However, as good citizens, the Scouting organization should be the first to understand the need to uphold principals, and one principal of this nation is that individuals should not be forced to have their taxes go to support organizations which actively discriminate against them (except for the armed forces). This includes the use of public resources.

What do you mean, that the armed forces may legitimately actively discriminate? If so, how and why? If not, please help me understand your remarks.

As to the difference between tolerance and being selective versus segregation, that's a very difficult question. In my heart, I think I'm being tolerant and selective when I'm on the inside, and being segregated against when I'm on the outside. That's human nature, I reckon. When is it acceptable and unacceptable? I think more details are needed to make an informed decision. I don't think any scenario beyond the comically simple could be decided with strict rules.

As to the military policy of having soldiers just for the shooting parts, and not for the support parts, I see the motivations for such a strategy. And here at home I think the good largely outweighs the bad. I think in the field, that policy shows it's weaknesses. I am not a policy expert in military matters, or in accounting. But I do get the sense that in dangerous environments, like theaters of battle, that saving money at the expense of defense/offense in depth has proven to have shortcomings. I imagine the Maginot Line--very strong against a frontal attack, but once flanked, no strength behind it. I don't mean this in a tactical sense, but that in the field, I can imagine that it would be a good idea to expect the cooks and the clerks and the mechanics and the medics to be able to fight, if needed.

[lookout123]

A) medics can't fight without sacrificing the (purely imagined) protection of the Geneva Convention.

B) the military is allowed age descrimination and sexual discrimination for, i feel, fairly obvious reasons.

C) A large flaw in the "let's hire civilian contractors" push is what we are now seeing and hearing in the media. we have a sufficient number of trigger pullers to take the fight to the enemy, it is the soft troop strength that we are having problems with.

Example: If you have 1,000 trained GI's in skill set "A" and you have global conflicts that require that 100 of them be deployed at all times - you can rotate indefinitely without much problem. at a 6 month deployment you can go 4-5 years without redeploying the same individuals. If you replace 800 of those trained GI's with civilians who are nondeployable then you have to rotate your remaining 200 troops one after another. that burns them out and their are other problems that pop up with the situation.

oversimplified, yes - but an accurate representation of what has happened inthe US military since 1990.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

~~snip~~ sassed by xoxoxoBruce.[/url] Hehehe, "brown shirts", I get it. Cute. You should read your own sig. ~~snip~~

I've read it. You'll find out what happens when you abuse that dog if you ever accuse me of being a troll again. :p