oh good, by dint of presidential fiat my country's military is being gutted today

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Would that be Dionysus?

Or perhaps Hephaestus?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

Or perhaps Hephaestus?

Did the Buddha ever visit Greece?

[dragoon500ly]

Just because the cavalry lends diginity to an otherwise vulgar brawl....

Besides, where else can you get that combination of lots of leather, really cool boots, spurs and a long...sword?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Besides, where else can you get that combination of lots of leather, really cool boots, spurs and a long...sword?

Now you're just being boastful

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Besides, where else can you get that combination of lots of leather, really cool boots, spurs and a long...sword?

Any given Saturday night out with Targ... I mean, these guys.

[Medic]

Originally Posted by weswood

I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I have to ask what Christian fundamentalist sect kills a woman by stoning for having extramarital sex?

I really do agree with you but I keep hearing how Christians are no better than Muslims. Maybe at one time, over 200 years ago, we had the Inquisition and witch burning, but we're over it.

Not by stoning but I've read quite a few reports about those Christian-sect families that consider every ailment an act of god and do not take their kids to see the doctor, effectively causing the death of the said child of an illness that could be treated. Also, there has been quite a bit of pedophilia in one of the sects common in Finland. And while extramarital sex has not caused any stoning to death, I know quite a number of cases where a slight infringement of the sect rules has led to banishment from the said sect in a degree where the parents of the said offender have disowned their child.

It's funny, how Christians consider their own religion as morally superior and a religion of peace, love and forgiveness, while there are so many immoral (and illegal) deeds committed by officials of the religion. The majority of all wars on the planet have been fought by Christians. The denial of same-sex marriages (because marriage is said to be sacred) and the bullshit revolving around that theme - which actually, being discussed in the Finnish TV in a panel caused a huge wave of resignations from the church. Also, when looking at the peace, love and forgiveness of the Americans (really, I don't have anything agaist you guys in general) - the way some Christians over there talk about us atheists, saying we should all be killed or at least driven out pf the U.S. - I think I can pretty much rest my case...

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Medic

Not by stoning but I've read quite a few reports about those Christian-sect families that consider every ailment an act of god and do not take their kids to see the doctor, effectively causing the death of the said child of an illness that could be treated.

It’s awful how children suffer for the deeds and misdeeds of adults.

Originally Posted by Medic

It's funny, how Christians consider their own religion as morally superior and a religion of peace, love and forgiveness, while there are so many immoral (and illegal) deeds committed by officials of the religion.

Religions are practiced by people who turn their backs on the premises of the faith. The most devout among us fail to live up to the standards of our faiths. Some of us fail more than others.

Originally Posted by Medic

The majority of all wars on the planet have been fought by Christians.

A statement like this requires substantiation.

Originally Posted by Medic

Also, when looking at the peace, love and forgiveness of the Americans (really, I don't have anything agaist you guys in general) - the way some Christians over there talk about us atheists, saying we should all be killed or at least driven out pf the U.S. - I think I can pretty much rest my case...

Assessing Christianity, or American branches thereof, based on the rantings of extremist yahoos is like assessing Islam based on the actions and words of the Wahabbists.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Any given Saturday night out with Targ... I mean, these guys.

Hey, someone has been in my neck of the woods! That's an ordinary Thursday night in some parts of San Francisco.

[Legbreaker]

Hmm, first it's wallabies, then it's leather and chains....
Are you trying to tell us something Web?

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Single parents. Thanks for your help. He is a severance check equal to six months. Buh-bye.

Why? not sure, something wrong with single parents? dose'nt the US Military pay for childcare when deployed or out in the feild?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Why? not sure, something wrong with single parents? dose'nt the US Military pay for childcare when deployed or out in the feild?

No.

This extends into all manner of the duty day. Single parents late for PT formations because of child care. Single parents not assigned duties like Charge of Quarters because it is over night or a week end and a sitter isn't available. Exercises, and all other Details, Duties, and Commitments carried by all the other Soldiers in the Unit (married with children, or Single and childless). Throw in the allowances for quarters, separate rations, and a host of other perks and single parents (mostly female) have become an epidemic. It drains man hours and it is poor for morale to see someone else having the easy life while everyone else commits extra to make it happen.

[Webstral]

I agree with the idea that single parent soldiers are a problem for the force. However, I’m wary of any policy that issues marching orders to any single parent soldier automatically. For one thing, Congress will squawk that the policy is discriminatory against women. Female members of Congress will bleat that divorce essentially will oblige a female parent and soldier to choose between soldiering and parenthood. Husbands therefore will gain control over the careers of female soldiers by threatening divorce, therefore threatening female parents and soldiers to make the terrible choice. The female members of Congress would have a point.

Of course, putting them in the rear permanently imposes on everybody else who isn’t a single parent soldier. In the 1980’s, this was not a big deal. However, after 9/11 and the start of the year-out/year-home cycle, the problem with granting some soldiers permanent nondeployable status reared its ugly head.

There is a solution that the Army has been loathe to put into practice: allow single parent soldiers to have 1-2 family members considered dependents. The military is firmly wedded to the ideal of the nuclear family. This is a wonderful ideal, but it’s not realistic. If a female soldier parent finds herself divorced, rather than throw her and the Army’s investment in her skills out the door, give her a grace period to bring in a family member or two who become new dependents. These people then play the role that the spouse is supposed to play in terms of child care, etc. If the single parent soldier is unable to meet the deadline, then she gets the boot. The candidates for special dependent might be mother, father, brother, sister, adult child, or even grandparent. I’d be open to discussing whether uncles, aunts, and cousins ought to be considered.

Here’s the bottom line for me: children are a forever commitment, marriages end, and the force needs skilled professionals to stay in. Any jackasses can run off to Vegas and get married, thereby entering a special legal status that makes massive impositions on the military. Having kids is even easier. A force based on fidelity and commitment needs to recognize which commitments are more durable than others and work with the lasting ones to keep its skilled personnel in the force. If that means being flexible about who is called a dependent and gets to enjoy the privileges of post life, so be it.

[pmulcahy11b]

Another exception for single parents should be those who lose a spouse due to disease, accidents, murder (by someone else other than the service member, of course!), or other unforeseen circumstances. These troops can be used at home to do paperwork, as trainers, intel work in places like the Pentagon, or a myriad of other jobs that do not require a soldier to be deployable.

I mean, think about it. "Jones, it's damn awful that your wife was murdered, but now I'm going to have to chapter you out because she screwed up and got herself killed." That's just shitty.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Any given Saturday night out with Targ... I mean, these guys.

LOL! I'm glad you got me on a good angle with that shot.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

It drains man hours and it is poor for morale to see someone else having the easy life while everyone else commits extra to make it happen.

The life of a single parent is not the easy life. I have two children under three. My wife and I can barely keep things going with only one of us working. A single soldier pulling a normal duty day, then playing mommy at night, does not have it easy. What she has is an inequitable distribution of soldiering duties because other soldiers have to pick up the slack so she can meet her commitments to her kids. In a sense, the unit becomes her support network when other soldiers take up duties that rightfully belong to her. That needs to stop. But never would I characterize the life of a single parent as being the easy life.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I mean, think about it. "Jones, it's damn awful that your wife was murdered, but now I'm going to have to chapter you out because she screwed up and got herself killed." That's just shitty.

Or, "Jones, it's a shame your husband was KIA in the sandbox. Too bad for your fifteen year investment, too, because we're kicking your freeloading ass and your two kids out on the street. I don't know where we'll find another senior interrogator who speaks Arabic to replace you, but this man's Army ain't no place for a single parent."

All that said, I agree with the premise that family responsibilities have caused the burden of work and responsibilities to be shifted onto the backs of soldiers who have either a sufficient family support structure or who have no family commitments. Single parent soldiers should not be allowed to enlist unless they have a "special dependent" who can meet whatever criteria the Dept of Defense sees fit to impose for said special dependents.

[Legbreaker]

On the other hand perhaps the military could step up here and offer free long term childcare for single parents while they're deployed/on duty? Give them a headstart on indoctrinating the next generation of mindless zombies/infantry soldiers.
Could even extend it to cover other single parent family and orphans.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

On the other hand perhaps the military could step up here and offer free long term childcare for single parents while they're deployed/on duty?

Part of me likes the idea, part of me does not. The big drawback is that child care is the duty of the family, not the service. I suggest a "special depenedent" because a family member cares for the child(ren). Yes, the service member is drawing additional pay for having a family, but this is no different than the traditional model of nuclear family with dad wearing the uniform and mom raising the kids. The single parent soldier just inserts another member of the family into the child care role. No additional expenses or special privileges need be invoked.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Give them a headstart on indoctrinating the next generation of mindless zombies/infantry soldiers.

We prefer the term "young patriots" for our zombies.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Webstral

The life of a single parent is not the easy life. I have two children under three. My wife and I can barely keep things going with only one of us working. A single soldier pulling a normal duty day, then playing mommy at night, does not have it easy. What she has is an inequitable distribution of soldiering duties because other soldiers have to pick up the slack so she can meet her commitments to her kids. In a sense, the unit becomes her support network when other soldiers take up duties that rightfully belong to her. That needs to stop. But never would I characterize the life of a single parent as being the easy life.

Military life has but few civilian analogs possibly police, fire fighters, some federal agents. Why should everyone else pickup the slack, and even be paid less (no BAH, no BAS) in the case of single soldiers. In the mean time Ms. Single Mom works 40 hours with nights, weekends, and holidays hers because childcare is difficult or more expensive. Why should the tax payer foot the bill? Why should you pay more taxes so that Ms. "Did not get married" can have free child care along with the free health care? Who enlisted to be that single parents support network? Who enlisted to work sixty hours so that Miss "Doin it on my own" doesn't have to go over 40? When did the quality of someones elses family time become a priority for National Defense?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I agree with the idea that single parent soldiers are a problem for the force. However, I’m wary of any policy that issues marching orders to any single parent soldier automatically. For one thing, Congress will squawk that the policy is discriminatory against women. Female members of Congress will bleat that divorce essentially will oblige a female parent and soldier to choose between soldiering and parenthood. Husbands therefore will gain control over the careers of female soldiers by threatening divorce, therefore threatening female parents and soldiers to make the terrible choice. The female members of Congress would have a point.

Of course, putting them in the rear permanently imposes on everybody else who isn’t a single parent soldier. In the 1980’s, this was not a big deal. However, after 9/11 and the start of the year-out/year-home cycle, the problem with granting some soldiers permanent nondeployable status reared its ugly head.

There is a solution that the Army has been loathe to put into practice: allow single parent soldiers to have 1-2 family members considered dependents. The military is firmly wedded to the ideal of the nuclear family. This is a wonderful ideal, but it’s not realistic. If a female soldier parent finds herself divorced, rather than throw her and the Army’s investment in her skills out the door, give her a grace period to bring in a family member or two who become new dependents. These people then play the role that the spouse is supposed to play in terms of child care, etc. If the single parent soldier is unable to meet the deadline, then she gets the boot. The candidates for special dependent might be mother, father, brother, sister, adult child, or even grandparent. I’d be open to discussing whether uncles, aunts, and cousins ought to be considered.

Here’s the bottom line for me: children are a forever commitment, marriages end, and the force needs skilled professionals to stay in. Any jackasses can run off to Vegas and get married, thereby entering a special legal status that makes massive impositions on the military. Having kids is even easier. A force based on fidelity and commitment needs to recognize which commitments are more durable than others and work with the lasting ones to keep its skilled personnel in the force. If that means being flexible about who is called a dependent and gets to enjoy the privileges of post life, so be it.

*edited to fix typos and clarity*
Bullshit. <--------- I still stand by that. This just adds a dependent increasing the BAS and BAH for the Single Mom further increasing costs. This also assumes that there is a dependent relative capable of providing child care, willing to provide child care, and dependable to do it at a moments notice. That dependent would also have to move with Single Mom on each transfer to a new assignment.

That is more crowd pleasing for the masses. A populist view that every one should be cared for, and it is the duty of someone else to care for them.

That someone else is frequently named as a governmental entity.

Bullshit. It is the taxpayer. Other Soldiers and Civilians are working harder and taking home less because some self centered twat can't take adult precautions and not cause a pregnancy. Males are not immune from this scorn either.

The purpose of an Army is not to provide affordable childcare.

The purpose of an Army is to fight their Nations Wars and win them.

Cut
the
Fat.

Your idea creates entitlement for some other sub par slacker to set themselves up at the government trough. Not Fair.

Indeed it creates another dependent to care for the Child. One the Single Mom will receive supplementary pay for just to care for two.

I am all about pay and incentives! A twenty year retirement sets so many out with a pension at age 38! Current medicine makes having children, even having In Vitro with ova harvested at age 18, very, very possible. Frozen ova and sperm would be a minor cost and a huge savings compared to all the childcare costs incurred by an organization meant to fight wars. Even paying women a bonus for the implantation of a long term birth control device like norplant for instance is preferable to all the facilities on post now.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Or, "Jones, it's a shame your husband was KIA in the sandbox. Too bad for your fifteen year investment, too, because we're kicking your freeloading ass and your two kids out on the street. I don't know where we'll find another senior interrogator who speaks Arabic to replace you, but this man's Army ain't no place for a single parent."

All that said, I agree with the premise that family responsibilities have caused the burden of work and responsibilities to be shifted onto the backs of soldiers who have either a sufficient family support structure or who have no family commitments. Single parent soldiers should not be allowed to enlist unless they have a "special dependent" who can meet whatever criteria the Dept of Defense sees fit to impose for said special dependents.

This falls upon a special board. One that should be blind to race, gender, age, and other identifiers. A board that is convened solely for the purposes of retention. The official records of the Soldier should indicate their commitment to their profession of Soldier. The military schools they have attended, the correspodence the have completed, the civilian education they have amassed, the voluntary stuff like submissions for military schools, service clubs, and other voluntary community activities. That board shouldn't see just the latest PT test and weigh in but every single test from day one. That board should not see just the latest weapons qualifications but every single one. That board should also be presented with a report from the National Crime Information Computer aka the FBI database so that minor and major criminal offenders are in consideration too.

Skill ultimately can be bought.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

On the other hand perhaps the military could step up here and offer free long term childcare for single parents while they're deployed/on duty? Give them a headstart on indoctrinating the next generation of mindless zombies/infantry soldiers.
Could even extend it to cover other single parent family and orphans.

Pragmatic, however unpopular in a Republic were in Military Service is voluntary.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Pragmatic, however unpopular in a Republic were in Military Service is voluntary.

I've often thought that government service (not necessarily military service) should be required in almost all cases. Not everyone is cut out to be military, but you might want to send a doctor or nurse to an underprivileged area, have people work on urban renewal projects, build and repair infrastructure, or otherwise use whatever skills to contribute to their country. They could even be taught skills, like doing a stint in the military does, in return for their service. College money or technical school money could be negotiated for at enlistment time.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I've often thought that government service (not necessarily military service) should be required in almost all cases. Not everyone is cut out to be military, but you might want to send a doctor or nurse to an underprivileged area, have people work on urban renewal projects, build and repair infrastructure, or otherwise use whatever skills to contribute to their country. They could even be taught skills, like doing a stint in the military does, in return for their service. College money or technical school money could be negotiated for at enlistment time.

This comes back to the issue of FRANCHISE or the issue of the VOTE.

How do you limit the quality of the vote to those qualified to vote??

[atiff]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

This comes back to the issue of FRANCHISE or the issue of the VOTE.

How do you limit the quality of the vote to those qualified to vote??

Starship Troopers?

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by atiff

Starship Troopers?

That depends....are you sticking with the traditional Heinlein Starship Troops or are you going with the watered-down, touchy feel goody Hollywood version?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Pragmatic, however unpopular in a Republic were in Military Service is voluntary.

Umm, everyone does realise this was a tongue in cheek suggestion and not to have been taken seriously?

[Webstral]

There is clearly a good deal of feeling underlying your position, Army Sgt. I'm glad of it, because those who love the Army are the most focused on the good of the Army. Your assertions deserve a well-considered reply. I'm not going to be in a position to write such a thing today, so a well-considered reply will have to wait until tomorrow, for the most part.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

This falls upon a special board. One that should be blind to race, gender, age, and other identifiers. A board that is convened solely for the purposes of retention. The official records of the Soldier should indicate their commitment to their profession of Soldier. The military schools they have attended, the correspodence the have completed, the civilian education they have amassed, the voluntary stuff like submissions for military schools, service clubs, and other voluntary community activities. That board shouldn't see just the latest PT test and weigh in but every single test from day one. That board should not see just the latest weapons qualifications but every single one. That board should also be presented with a report from the National Crime Information Computer aka the FBI database so that minor and major criminal offenders are in consideration too.

I couldn't agree more. I will point out, though, that this idea flies in the face of an automatic severance for all single parent soldiers.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Skill ultimately can be bought.

No, it cannot. To be certain, money is involved. Failure to pay probably will result in a lack of needed skills. But the skills of the senior NCOs cannot be purchased like software or a weapons system. The skills that are the backbone of the force must be grown and developed over years of training and hard experience. Again, money is involved; but we cannot slap down a quarter-million dollars and get a quality sergeant first class off the shelf. Commodifying human qualities is the mistake made by capitalists; the assumption that money solves all problems belongs to people who have plenty of money and little practical experience. You don't strike me as a capitalist (not to be confused with someone who views capitalism as the engine of economic growth) or as someone who has more money than sense, Army Sgt.

Now, before anyone gets up in arms about how the idea of growing the skills of the senior NCOs has some sort of direct correlation to the young single moms making careers in the rear while other soldiers pull their weight, there is no direct correlation. I make it practice to point out fallacy where it appears. When I fail to do so, the unaddressed fallacy often reappears and bites me; ergo, I address it when it appears.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Webstral

There is clearly a good deal of feeling underlying your position, Army Sgt. I'm glad of it, because those who love the Army are the most focused on the good of the Army. Your assertions deserve a well-considered reply. I'm not going to be in a position to write such a thing today, so a well-considered reply will have to wait until tomorrow, for the most part.

I was an MP so all those Units are mixed Genders. I just have personal experience in the matter. I have been in units where the pregnant females made a platoon strength element. A Floor Platoon Corps MP Company that cannot in actuality field four platoons. In Garrison that means that Four under strength Platoons. Each with three Squads instead of four. If not two and a half. When it is deployment time for Training or for War what happens? Three platoons and then a Platoon is borrowed from another unit. All those females make up a huge rear detachment. A Lieutenant, a Platoon Sergeant, then Squad Leaders, and Team Leaders get screwed. They do not get that experience (ok well the metric F-Ton of paperwork) in Leadership on the ground doing their tasks. That kills their promotion down the road, especially Lieutenants. The problem then transitions into one of morale all the way down, not just the usual privates griping because it is not yet happy screw off time.

Originally Posted by Webstral

I couldn't agree more. I will point out, though, that this idea flies in the face of an automatic severance for all single parent soldiers.

That was in reply to the special "What if" of a long term NCO with a critical skill. That is unusual, since most of the single mom problem is first termers at or below the grade of E4. Those get the severance and the automatic not optional drop as it is now.

Originally Posted by Webstral

No, it cannot. To be certain, money is involved. Failure to pay probably will result in a lack of needed skills. But the skills of the senior NCOs cannot be purchased like software or a weapons system. The skills that are the backbone of the force must be grown and developed over years of training and hard experience. Again, money is involved; but we cannot slap down a quarter-million dollars and get a quality sergeant first class off the shelf. Commodifying human qualities is the mistake made by capitalists; the assumption that money solves all problems belongs to people who have plenty of money and little practical experience. You don't strike me as a capitalist (not to be confused with someone who views capitalism as the engine of economic growth) or as someone who has more money than sense, Army Sgt.

Most certainly is. Those Private Military Contractors like Blackwater gutted the MP Corp in 2004 and 2005. Two E7 Platoon Sergeants in addition to many E6 Staff Sergeants left. There were at least 8 Corporals and that promotion seldom happens just to fill Team Leader slots.

Even with the bonus pays and tax free the Army pay couldn't touch the $100,000 tax free pays going to PMCs.

I think what your speaking of is Training and that is something the Army is reluctant to invest in. Hence my above rant about NCO schooling. It is why I think that the first school the "Primary Leadership Development Course" should be a year long hardship tour and one that a person probably re-enlisted just to be eligible. Just like why the Military likes 16-18 year old recruits. You got them. Their still malleable and impressionable after a year of schooling the traits the Army needs will be ingrained in so deeply that it won't be conscious thought. Your going to wash out some their just going to fail on their own account, still better than finding out when the bullets are for real.

Originally Posted by Webstral

Now, before anyone gets up in arms about how the idea of growing the skills of the senior NCOs has some sort of direct correlation to the young single moms making careers in the rear while other soldiers pull their weight, there is no direct correlation. I make it practice to point out fallacy where it appears. When I fail to do so, the unaddressed fallacy often reappears and bites me; ergo, I address it when it appears.

Thought this went without saying?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Umm, everyone does realise this was a tongue in cheek suggestion and not to have been taken seriously?

Meh, who's angry?