Forum: Author Hangout

Some obvious examples are the troops who are actually involved in combat for several days will have totally different experiences to the troops who don't ever hear a round fired in anger.

What I've said also applies to the first responders because a police officer who never gets a call where they have to deal with a shooting or a dead body has a totally different outlook to one who spends a harsh winter busting down another door or two every week to find the person they're checking on died several days ago. That's especially hard when the people you find all remind you of your recently deceased grandmother.

I suppose the question should be expanded to include first responders in light of that, or at least clarified.

Dead bodies, and how they got that way, I've directly witnessed. People dying is not the worst thing to witness in my opinion either.

To clarify, I specified those who served in the military because some of them spent a lot of time in places that were not of their choosing. Enough time that what they considered home, changed in the time they were away. They may have never heard or taken a shot in anger, but they were removed from their home culture to spend time in another not of their choosing as mentioned. That can include a war zone, or simply stations in alternative cultures.

But, I was very young. Started as a child fighter and got out at 20. I'm not sure how important is age for the feeling of disconnection. But it was surreal to me for the first month or so.

I don't have a book of studies to back up this opinion, but it's my opinion that age is secondary to perspective. If it felt surreal to your perspective, then that is what it was.

I would be curious as to the particulars of that feeling though?

I read that that was a major difference between soldiers coming back from WWII and those from Vietnam. In WWII, they came back by boat which took days. In Vietnam, they went from the battlefield to the states in hours. The WWII guys had a chance to get back to "normal" before interacting with civilians.

The other thing the WW2 guys had going for them was they had a LOT of peers to interact with even once they got home. They also had no need to hide or otherwise conceal their service unless they simply didn't want to talk about it at the prompting of others.

That, and drinking heavily every day was still considered normal behavior back then.

No. The world is actually pretty insane.

It took me a long time to get past the feeling like the whole world was insane and realize it was probably just me.

Definitely not just you.

I don't think the world has really been close to being rational since the turn of the century.

The turn of which century? I don't think the world has ever been all that close to being rational.

The world has long ago cast-off any semblance of sanity.

I remain unconvinced it ever had any semblance of sanity. :)

I remain unconvinced it ever had any semblance of sanity. :)

Someone would be hard pressed to argue against that statement successfully. The perception of sanity is after all highly subjective.

It's interesting but I had a much larger disconnect when I retired than when I got out of the Army. But then there were differences between the two experiences. First the Army was three years between age 17-20 while work was 41 years. And no combat.

Second, relatively no tension in the Army. Humongous tension in the corporate world. Like you it took me three years to decompress from that. Five years before I totally relaxed. Going on 10 years now.

For me, I'd take the Army before corporate America any day. Especially in today's minefield that is the PC culture. But, then again, there are PC worries in the military nowadays also. Still 3 years versus 41 years does make for a differing experience.

Second, relatively no tension in the Army. Humongous tension in the corporate world. Like you it took me three years to decompress from that. Five years before I totally relaxed. Going on 10 years now.

I haven't made the third year yet, I've just started it. I can definitely see your time frame being on the money though. Or at least I hope it is.

More disturbing to think about - sixty years ago, you just about couldn't get elected if you hadn't served. Now, try to find a dozen who did.

He was in the Air National Guard.

More to the point, he was there at a time National Guard units weren't mobilized and sent into combat.

Bush Sr. Flew 58 combat missions in WW2. He was the real thing. His son... not so much.

1966 - 6,350
1967 - 11,363
1968 - 16,899

Drafted US Army mid-1966, married mid-1967, ETS mid-1968.

I was 24 in 1966. Back then I had no problem with DI's making references to the virtue of my parents. It bothered many of the 18yo recruits. Mostly I ignored being yelled at. My cost: a few hours working a mop.

My college BS qualified me for OCS. Due to my need for glasses, I could not qualify for combat arms OCS. "Doc, be sure to write that down." Quartermaster OCS. The joke, not true, was only two QM officer died in 'Nam, one when a mountain of beer cans collapsed on him, the other died laughing. Halfway through OCS my CO had enough evidence that I was not militaristic enough to be an officer.

OCS dropouts were assigned to a holdover company. The Captain in charge put his OCS dropouts in one barracks and only assigned them to guard duty. His ex-OCS holdovers knew how to stand inspection for guard duty and to switch boots and fatigues when actually protecting the base vending machines.

I told everybody I was a computer programmer and actually got assigned to a base in southern Arizona. I had ~15 months until ETS and was worried about that Vietnam thing. I ended up working for a civilian responsible for keeping track of major end items – trucks and generators not food and toilet paper. Shortly before ETS the IBM 7090 was being replaced by a CDC 6500 computer. I was asked how many tape drives does my COBOL program use. I tried to explain that the system input (card images on tape) and system output (print lines on tape) would not be needed and the four sort/merge tapes would be replaced by disk drive sorts. Thus only two tape drives would be needed: old master and new master. I was told not to be cute and answer the question as asked. "Eight tape drives." At the time I knew only six were planned. No clue if the Army changed the order.

At least the Army paid for prenatal visits and the delivery of our son. And I was out. I was back to working as a programmer for the State of California Department of Water Resources and soon took and passed the exams required to advance to where I would have been if not drafted.

More US military personnel have died from training accidents than in wars.

Dept. of Veteran Affairs numbers say about 950,000 deaths from combat or in theater with about 230,000 dead out of theater. Of the 950,000 in theater, about 655,000 are combat deaths. Those out of theater would contains most to the training deaths I'd imagine.

I imagine so. Sort of like the 700 or so dead U.S. soldiers killed in a dry run of the D Day landings just days before the actual landing. Drowned when landing craft were swamped.

Conversely, a lot of deaths from combat may not have been recorded as such. This was especially prevalent during the Civil War when wounds caused actual death months after and far away from the battlefield. They were sometimes not even counted as such even when the wounded were under the auspices of the military. I've seen estimates that put the actual death count at around 1 million when all were added in. So I doubt that any count is precisely accurate.

And declared war has nothing to do with it. That really is a nonsensical term, and has been largely worthless for over 200 years.

I personally agree with you on the validity of the term "declared war".

My question was basically "Is the person who is made the statement below only counting the combat deaths in wars declared by the US Congress?

More US military personnel have died from training accidents than in wars.

If that is the case, the combat deaths during the US Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, 'War on Terror' to name just a few would not be counted - which is a mistake.

Not sure where you are trying to twist this, but more die out of combat than in combat, by a large margin.

This is certainly true, but not all non-combat military deaths are training related.

If you go back to the world wars and farther, I think you would find that the majority of non-combat deaths are from disease.

Who classified the combat related disease deaths as non-combat. Answer, we don't know.

Answer: everyone.

Unless you are referring to deaths caused by bio-weapons, I know of no one who would classified deaths of soldiers from disease as combat related.

I know of no one who would classified deaths of soldiers from disease as combat related.

Doctors often prescribe antibiotics to combat infections.

Soldiers exposed to biological warfare in a combat zone would be classified as combat related death from disease, say anthrax, for example.

Soldiers exposed to biological warfare in a combat zone would be classified as combat related death from disease, say anthrax, for example.

True, but AFIK no one would classify deaths from disease as combat related in cases not involving biological warfare, even if the soldier gets sick in a combat zone.

True, but AFIK no one would classify deaths from disease as combat related in cases not involving biological warfare, even if the soldier gets sick in a combat zone.

Less of an issue in a modern context, but even up through WW1, death from disease as a consequence of wounds received in combat was a very possible outcome.

Gangrene anyone? And that's just naming one.

Less of an issue in a modern context, but even up through WW1, death from disease as a consequence of wounds received in combat was a very possible outcome.

So what?

Should Civil War/WWI trench fever or influenza deaths count as combat related? I say no.

The solution if you want to count septic wounds as combat related is to list those soldiers as having died of the wound.

Covid death. Seriously, that's how things count.

Gee. Wonder who could be coming up with those definitions.

And who could benefit from higher body counts.

And yes, including all conflicts. Not sure where you are trying to twist this, but more die out of combat than in combat, by a large margin.

Not if we're to believe US government data. Combat deaths exceed non combat deaths. See the link in my recent post to Dominions Son.

I don't dispute your numbers. My posts were directed to the entirety of American combat deaths. Or at least from 1787 to 1991. The only possible way that accidental deaths exceeded those of combat historically is if both categories contained huge errors. I think that unlikely.

More recent that that? Yea, I can see accidents exceeding combat deaths given advances in field medicine. But certainly not in the entirety of US history.

Dept. of Veteran Affairs numbers say about 950,000 deaths from combat or in theater with about 230,000 dead out of theater. Of the 950,000 in theater, about 655,000 are combat deaths. Those out of theater would contains most to the training deaths I'd imagine.

That number seems fishy.

With non combat deaths which included accidents (not-necessarily training related) and disease, the US Civil war alone is 655,000 deaths.

WWII is 405K deaths.

Total deaths across all US wars, back to the American Revolution 1,354,664

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

That number seems fishy.

Source: https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf

I'd trust the Veterans Affairs numbers before I'd trust anything out of Wikipedia. I looked at the Wikipedia article because it was there but will note that the combat death numbers are close in both. Also, that the VA numbers are only through 1991, meaning all the recent conflicts aren't included. But, then, they'd not add much to the totals anyhow. So it would seem the disagreement would likely center on how the rest of the deaths are classified.

I'll also note the footnotes in the VA document are revealing. As are the links at the bottom of the Wikipedia article (the only possible use for anything in Wikipedia).

I found some of the ancillary data in the VA document also revealing. For example, the last Union veteran from the Civil War lasted until 1956. The last Union widow died in 2003. Boggles the mind. And would make the casual observer pause at first glance at the very least.

I'd trust the Veterans Affairs numbers before I'd trust anything out of Wikipedia.

I'm on the fence on that. Yes, Wikipedia has some credibility issues, particularly on controversial topics. However the government isn't exactly the most credible source out there either.

You have a point. They do "adjust" numbers at times when the original ones don't fit the narrative, e.g. surface temperature data. Admittedly, it's an ongoing problem. This one, military casualty data, seems more driven by differing definitions though. At least that's my take.

Based on what I have read, training deaths appear to be greater than combat deaths, but I can't determine a ratio.

For recent military conflicts maybe. I rather doubt that would stick once you include WWII and the US Civil War.

ETA: I took a look at the DACS report you linked to.

It only covers 1980 to 2010.

The total military deaths over that 30 year period would be dwarfed by the COMBAT deaths from WWII alone.

The issue isn't that military training has become unreasonably dangerous, it's that combat casualty rates for all military actions over the last 30 years have been extremely low when compared against the World Wars or the US Civil war.

I don't believe there is a 'one' point source to verify combat verses training deaths ratio.

What I do believe is that military training is often dangerous. I further understand that as a factor of time, wars and combat come up on the extreme short end. Since the inception of the United States, armed conflicts take up far less time than the time spent training for them. If I had to place a WAG on it, it would be in the 15:1 range, training:conflict. That ratio would widen further if we broke out training from combat hours within the times of known conflicts such as WW2.

As such, I'm inclined to call the premise of more deaths in training than combat, at a minimum plausible if not fact. Training deaths may not occur in the same statistical density as it does during combat, but there is far more time allowed for those deaths to add up.

And we just get more "disconnected" because people just do not want to believe things like this, which we all know but they can not believe.

I can tell people about my life in the military, but half the time it is like they do not believe me.

There is a recurring theme there.

I've been around and on too many military bases to discount anything like that out of hand. Further, I'd be the worst form of hypocrite if I did.

It is my belief that the majority of people lack sufficient perspective to comprehend what it is you're telling them. After their nice, carefully cultivated, perspective has been assaulted by certain cold realities and cruelties of the world, they shut those thoughts out by dismissing them as untrue or exaggerated.

It doesn't require a military background to experience that either.
The Law of Large Numbers would tell us that the longer a person is exposed to the potential of danger or a given outcome, the more likely that danger or outcome would be realized. It can also be long exposures to potentially positive outcomes as well. LLN applies to both sides of that.

Therein is the problem for the average person. They lack the exposure to make that "connection."

I've personally had lengthy exposures to potentially negative outcomes. Some of which were realized.

It may not have been in a military setting, but I do understand the concept from personal experiences.

I'm inclined to call the premise of more deaths in training than combat, at a minimum plausible if not fact.

I'm not. you could go back to 1950 and still the totality of non-combat deaths likely wouldn't add up to WWII combat deaths. If you go back farther, you have to deal with the fact that prior to WWII, the vast majority of non-combat deaths were from disease, not accidents.

But remember, WWII saw some horrible numbers of training deaths also.

The majority of deaths in the Airborne were from training accidents, IIRC. And that's not including the slaughter of the survivors in poorly planned missions as 'training'.

There were lessons learned in WWII, which is that if you can get the soldier wounded in combat to a medical facility quicker, he had a MUCH higher chance of survival.

There's more to it than that. Non-lethal casualty rates (combat injuries) are way down too.

More US military personnel have died from training accidents than in wars.

Are you talking only about wars declared by Congress or are you including 'police actions' like Korea?

W did about as little towards serving as possible tho. Not quite as bad as Willy, but...

I served in combat arms, did my time humping a rifle. Sorry if it offends, but nothing a civilian experiences matches that. My view is different.

I would agree with that. Just as that experience would never match my own. Civilians could never know what that's like. Conversely, military personnel find the kind of life I've lead disturbing and typically bail out inside five years of trying to live it. The latter being something I've never fully understood.

It's comparing apples and oranges. Where the common ground is in my opinion, is in the disconnect/cognitive dissonance. Totally different starting points, same disconnect in the end.

Attention to detail and commitment.

Those two things are the only skills you think a good president should have??

commitment.

To an insane asylum?

To an insane asylum?

The employees at my company are very committed. In fact, they just committed the last one yesterday.

Not likely.
Courage is also common to both. And stupid pilots are somewhat rare.
Adaptability.
Steadiness.
Loyalty.
Situational awareness.
Stamina.
Need I go on?

Need I go on?

Yes. The attributes you listed seem to be those of a military career, or did you mean to suggest that they apply to both? If so, isn't there a few missing?

It was a partial list of attributes applying to both.

honesty

Why would you use that word when we're discussing politicians?

But he stayed bought?

I seem to remember the most honest US president of recent times was a certain peanut farmer.

The last genuinely honest President was George Washington.

The last genuinely honest President was George Washington

I don't remember anything dishonest about President Adams, even John Quincy Adams.

Harrison would be my bet for doing the least number of dishonest things while in office.

Harrison would be my bet for doing the least number of dishonest things while in office.

Which Harrison?

William Henry Harrison, who was in office for less than a month in 1841 (Died in office of typhoid fever)?

Or

Benjamin Harrison, who at least managed to serve a full term starting in 1889?

William Henry.

Although I'd always heard it was pneumonia, following hypothermia caused by the inauguration, rather than typhoid.

Although I'd always heard it was pneumonia, following hypothermia caused by the inauguration, rather than typhoid.

Per the Wikipedia article on him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison

He died of typhoid, pneumonia or paratyphoid fever 31 days into his term (the shortest tenure), becoming the first president to die in office.[

So that 2/3rds it was some form of typhoid.

Harrison

Several people beat me to the information he died about a month after taking office.

That was the point.

Are you suggesting that the grinning dick is unpunny?

I think more that he deserves to be buried under 16 ton of peanut shells.

I don't remember anything dishonest about President Adams,

I didn't realize you were over 230 years old. :)

total corrupt politician.

that's redundant.

why you guys believe that the skill set of a fighter pilot closely matches the skill set of a 'good' president.?

Not to put too fine a point on it but GHWB was a bomber pilot, not a fighter pilot. Frankly, I don't think the skills were transferable between the two other than the ability to fly a plane.

I don't think being a skillful pilot of either type automatically translates into being a good president. Like REP, I agree that commitment is the key there. That and a willingness to put that commitment before personal or political benefit.

What a president really needs to succeed is strong managerial and political skills. But without commitment to the well being of the country above all, not even that is enough.

Since this is going off topic anyway, it might be interesting to hear why you guys believe that the skill set of a fighter pilot closely matches the skill set of a 'good' president.?

Hear, hear. I always thought it ridiculous that to become a US president nowadays requires:
1 - money, a lot of it so only a wealthy person have a chance
2 - connections, mostly comes along with the money
3 - it helps a lot if you're famous
4 - it helps if you're a god fearing christian or at least accept that you have to fake it because somehow it's expected by a large part of the voters.

None of the above has anything to do with the capabilities required to actually be a good president. If he can do a fair job you're lucky for a few years otherwise you're fucked like with the current one (would have been just as bad with Killery).

A lot of money stuck to the Clinton's fingers when he was Governor. Not as much as when he was running the White B&B, but still...

@Switch Blayde

The Obamas weren't wealthy.

You would be surprised. His net worth at the time of the election was already over $11 million. And it has gone up exponentially since then. His 2007 tax return showed over $4 million in earnings in book sales alone the previous year.

Not exactly in the league of Trump, but he was hardly a pauper living paycheck to paycheck on his earnings in Congress.

The average congressperson enters office with a net worth of under $50,000 (getting elected is expensive).
They are paid a salary of $174,000 per year while buying and maintaining a home in the area with the highest cost of living in the country and a home in their home state.
They leave office a multi-millionaire.

Two terms as a congress-critter and you're set for life.

Congress routinely exempts themselves from laws.

However, having served as a combat pilot, and even having served at all, means the person was prepared to make a commitment to the country instead of just seek to milk the country for what they can get.

I wouldn't bet on that sticking once they join the political set.

Power corrupts.

True, but that does make them better than the ones whose only interest in the political scene is to gain personal money and power over other people.

For a while. Generally not long enough for them to make enough of a name for them selves and acquire the connections needed for a successful presidential campaign.

Power corrupts.

Who was it that said "the last man to trust with power is the one who wants it"?

Who was it that said "the last man to trust with power is the one who wants it"?

I've said it. Though I've usually worded it as No one who seeks power is worthy of it.

Heck, I wouldn't trust myself with that kind of power.

It stayed on topic for an absurdly long time...

It stayed on topic for an absurdly long time...

True. I was pleasantly surprised it made as long as it did.

This thread certainly lost the wheels and the cars.

At least it didn't lose the road. :)

At least it didn't lose the road. :)

Also true, though it had to jump the tracks to get on the road first :)

Bring back the draft. Seriously. Make military service a requirement to hold a seat in the Senate or the House. (Oh, wait, Robert Heinlein had that idea about 60 years ago. He was right.)

Agreed

Such a system would greatly limit the career politician out for their own bank account as very few would finish their 5 year term of enlistment to earn an honorable discharge.

Only if there was a war going on.

Most of them would angle for a 'supply' posting. The most corrupt would get into wherever determines where people get posted, since that's the likeliest person to get bribed a lot.

Most of them would angle for a 'supply' posting. The most corrupt would get into wherever determines where people get posted, since that's the likeliest person to get bribed a lot.

Except "the voters" are all veterans, and if they're trying to be elected into the senate or house, their service records are going to be widely "understood" in ways that haven't happened in a long time in the US.

True. So in times where it looked like peace for the next ten years or so, many would go for combat ready posting.

The UK's Ministry of Defence is led by ex-military types and it's one of the most inefficient government departments, with lots of waste and projects going hugely over their original budgets and delivery dates.

And the rest of the government is better? As far as an inefficiently run department, please explain why the NHS isn't right up there.

However, all positions of authority or political power were reserved solely to be filled by ex- service personnel.

The topic concerns 'cognitive dissonance' adjusting to civilian life after military service. Don't you see a certain contradiction in your suggestion?

I still fail to see why military service makes for an idea politician. The optimum skill sets are different.

It is akin to idiot interviewers asking pop singers about world events. If you break your leg, would your first choice be a famous rap artist to fix it for you?

The truth is that serving in the military isn't on its own proof of anything other than a basic ability. At one end of the scale there are true heroes, at the other, those who barely qualify as cannon fodder or who should be fragged at the earliest opportunity. Away from those extremes there are the majority are who simply do their job. Should they be appreciated for their service? Yes. But having served does not automatically qualify them for a totally different job.

I'm not so sure.
It would get many of them... but a committed sociopath could get through five years as a officer.

Nothing will get them all, but that system will cut down on the number that get through, and thus reduce the number to reach power.

I think you badly underestimate their drive to obtain power.

The sociopath would probably not stick it out to become an officer.

Actually, a sociopath would probably do quite well as a soldier.

Before anyone decides to crucify DS for implying soldiers and sociopaths are similar...

The only real problem with a sociopath is when that individual starts making risk-reward analysis for breaking society's rules, particularly if he's reasonably certain that his chances of being caught are low.

Unlike a psychopath, a sociopath is capable of controlling his actions if he wants to. The problem is in making sure he wants to control himself more than he wants to indulge himself. One who's learned the value of delayed gratification, and who has aspirations that require successful military service... could actually do quite well, particularly because the risk of failing to follow orders pretty much universally exceeds the reward for doing so.

Before anyone decides to crucify DS for implying soldiers and sociopaths are similar

Yes, I was not saying that most soldiers are sociopaths or even that sociopaths would make better soldiers, only that a sociopath would be capable of functioning as a soldier.

I was hoping I had interpreted you correctly. Good to know.

The difficulty would come if he had to undergo an in-depth psychological evaluation.

Suppose he did? If he was functioning and not a serial killer or something, would the military care?

If you were an officer in the military, would you want to work closely with a sociopath?

Serial killers have managed to hide for decades in urban and suburban neighborhoods and when they get caught, none of their neighbors had a fucking clue.

What ever inside us that makes us care about other people is broken in these guys, but they are almost universally very good at faking it.

I am not convinced they would stand out the way you think they would.

We may not identify a person as a sociopath, but most of us can detect that type of attitude and behavior in another person and many 'normal' people are uncomfortable around that type of person. It is not that difficult for a trained and experienced psychiatrist to determine that a person is a sociopath.

I disagree with both statements, especially the former. You should visit your local mental health facilities and volunteer your extra-sensory detection abilities if you think it's that easy for you. Even a properly trained and qualified psychiatrist cannot do so that easily.

The latter assumes sufficient time and access for observation. The problem there is, that time and access usually only comes after they've committed a crime, or had a court or family commit them.

The idea of a heroic grunt standing in front of a bullet for their country is on its way out.

That was never in.

George S Patton: The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.

I'll believe that when soldiers barely older than children no longer die to bullets or IEDs in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's unfortunate, but it happens.

However:

The idea of a heroic grunt standing in front of a bullet for their country is on its way out.

In my mind this implies deliberately stepping in front of a bullet meant for someone else. If that's happening, they are doing it wrong. Go re-read the Patton quote I posted.

According to the definition, a sociopath is a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

We may not identify a person as a sociopath, but most of us can detect that type of attitude and behavior in another person and many 'normal' people are uncomfortable around that type of person. It is not that difficult for a trained and experienced psychiatrist to determine that a person is a sociopath.

It is relatively easy for a sociopath to pass as normal, all they need to do is always ask themselves 'What would a normal person do?' before they act.

If you were an officer in the military, would you want to work closely with a sociopath?

As long as I knew he was motivated, yes. Especially if I knew hew was a sociopath, because then I'd be able to deal with him appropriately. (By which I mean that I'd explain to him, if need be, how his doing what he was told would be in his best interest.)

It doesn't make for an ideal politician, but it does weed out the worst of the scumbags as they won't survive a 5 year enlistment.

Only so long as the scumbag in question didn't have parents or family friends "with connections" that could compensate for their scum-baggery.

It might prevent an AOC, but would do nothing about a John Kerry, John McCain, or George W Bush.

It doesn't make for an ideal politician, but it does weed out the worst of the scumbags as they won't survive a 5 year enlistment.

No, of course it does not make for an ideal politician..!! (Which was my point)

Is surviving a five year enlistment any guarantee of not being a scumbag.? No.

By limiting it to severing in the military, you are stating that nothing else is acceptable, so five years as a firefighter, paramedic, nurse, police etc not only leaves them unable to stand for office, but classifies them as potential scumbags.

Good luck.

I disagree. Five years in the military will either change a scumbag's attitude, or they'll get out before the five years are up, or they'll have a very serious accident.

All of these scumbags served more than 5 years. Many were highly decorated.

Ronald Gene Simmons - Set the record for the largest all-in-the-family slaughter in American history
Robert Lee Yates - "Spokane Serial Killer"
William Bonin - "The Freeway Killer"
David Berkowitz - "Son of Sam"
Arthur Shawcross - "The Genesee River Killer"
Anthony Sowell - "The Cleveland Strangler"
John Allen Muhammad - "The Washington Sniper"
Howard Unruh - America's first rampage killer after taking what came to be known as his "Walk of Death"
Charles Whitman - "The Texas Tower Sniper"
Timothy McVeigh - "The Oklahoma City Bomber"

So no, I don't believe five years in the military "weeds out" scumbags..!!
(Nor do I believe the above are representative of those who served with honour)

Whitman is a poor choice... he repeatedly sought help and reportedly was self-medicating; the brain tumor he had suggests he would've been just a garden variety asshole without it.

And Berkowitz was schizophrenic. That doesn't always manifest early enough...he could've been discharged before symptoms appeared.

So you can name 10 nutcases over many decades against the hundreds of scumbags that got into the US Congress and other political positions for personal power and then abused their positions in ways that got thousands of people killed.

Those in the military were either conscripted or volunteered. All of those in political positions were elected. Thus "voters get the politicians they deserve".

If voters really didn't want those scumbags in office, why did they vote for them? They didn't get elected purely on bought votes.

I never said it was perfect, but better than what the current situation is for the reason they're more likely to be weeded out.

More likely, possibly, but that isn't what you said.

Also, a related benefit in the system set out by Heinlein was that only vets could vote

So less than 8% of the population can vote and the other 92% will be perfectly happy with that?

Again, good luck.

If voters really didn't want those scumbags in office, why did they vote for them?

1. People are stupid.
2. Choosing the least bad option.
3. Party loyalty.

Also, if you have someone who you know is a scumbag, but he claims to agree with you, and he's running against someone you'd actually respect and/or like but you disagree with him completely about most political issues, who would you vote for?

So less than 8% of the population can vote and the other 92% will be perfectly happy with that?

Well, it's 8% plus everyone in the military that would be perfectly happy with it. If the 89% left don't like it, well, they don't have the firepower to do anything about it.

Well, it's 8% plus everyone in the military that would be perfectly happy with it. If the 89% left don't like it, well, they don't have the firepower to do anything about it.

There's a name for that: military dictatorship. Is that really what you want?

Well, it's 8% plus everyone in the military that would be perfectly happy with it. If the 89% left don't like it, well, they don't have the firepower to do anything about it.

There's a name for that: military dictatorship. Is that really what you want?

Military Dictatorship doesn't quite mesh with the Starship Troopers version(from the book).

In a military dictatorship, the Generals rule, and decide who is in charge.

In Starship troopers, anyone who served for 5 years can vote on who is in charge.

And as anyone can serve, that means the "civic minded" persons from any/all demographics are able to participate in the process.

Unlike in a military dictatorship where once it's established, only the ruling Generals make those decisions.

Sergeant John (retired) has no political voice in a dictatorship. He does have one in the Starship Troopers setting however.

The "other knock on" of requiring 5 years of service to simply be able to vote is it also does away with the "low information voter" syndrome so endemic in many advanced democracies.

Just having a large proportion of the voter base being informed would make a world of difference. Even if only 8% of the population was able to vote, so long as the 8% of the population was representative of the population as a whole, I think you'd find most people would be content with it so long as non-veterans aren't treated as 2nd class citizens outside of Governance positions/decisions.

The "other knock on" of requiring 5 years of service to simply be able to vote is it also does away with the "low information voter" syndrome so endemic in many advanced democracies.

I believe that's not borne out by real life. Those leaving the military seem to have a low geopolitical understanding of any actions they were involved in.

AJ

Those leaving the military seem to have a low geopolitical understanding of any actions they were involved in.

Almost everyone is a "low information voter". The opportunity cost of being informed on every issue is extremely high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

Those leaving the military seem to have a low geopolitical understanding of any actions they were involved in.

What kind of geopolitical understanding is needed for "Shoot any motherfucker carrying a weapon who isn't in the right uniform"?

Also, there's the "need to know" issue - grunts don't need to know why they're being given the orders, they just need to know how to carry out those orders.

And anyone who risked their life for the right to vote would most likely be more inclined to try to use that right wisely.

What kind of geopolitical understanding is needed for "Shoot any motherfucker carrying a weapon who isn't in the right uniform"?

Starship Troopers was even easier: "Shoot anything with more then two legs."

I'm not sure... didn't both factions in the book have alien allies?

I'm not sure... didn't both factions in the book have alien allies?

Not that I recall, but maybe I'm just confusing it with the movie.

maybe I'm just confusing it with the movie.

I believe you are. The book is considerably different from the movie.

I'm not sure... didn't both factions in the book have alien allies?

Absolutely. And the Skinnies (humanoid IIRC) started as enemy-allied, and changed sides

Time to read it again, methinks - my decade-old memories are starting to get fuzzy round the edges, I can't remember any more of the allies on either side (although I remember there were some - maybe just mentioned)

Not accusing you, but am sure you can get what I am saying. But yea, us dumb ground pounders don't need to think, don't need to know nothing.

Actually, I was referring to the 'need to know' doctrine. Since any soldier captured is a potential source of information to the enemy, it's best to attempt to ensure that POWs have minimal information to impart. It's also good to let the enemy know that this is policy, so that they'll have less reason for continued torture of said POWs once those men give up the limited intelligence they've been provided with.

I wasn't impugning the knowledge, skills, or intelligence of the troops, merely pointing out the irrelevance of certain information for them to achieve their mission.

And the proper term for Iranians is not 'Arab' it's either 'raghead' or 'camel jockey'. (Now I'm just gonna sit down and wait for a Persian death squad.)

Also "You just do what you are told!" shouldn't be a very effective insult. I mean, other than the occasional illegal order, I'd damn well expect soldiers to follow orders. It's kind of the point. Of the nine different nations' militaries that various friends have serve in, every one expected soldiers to follow every legal order.

And the proper term for Iranians is not 'Arab' it's either 'raghead' or 'camel jockey'. (Now I'm just gonna sit down and wait for a Persian death squad.)

You forgot 'goat fucker' :)

And the proper term for Iranians is not 'Arab' it's either 'raghead' or 'camel jockey'. (Now I'm just gonna sit down and wait for a Persian death squad.)

Nahhh. No death squad for that. Now If you want a fatwa declared against you, equip the goats with chastity belts... just sayin.

Actually, I was referring to the 'need to know' doctrine. Since any soldier captured is a potential source of information to the enemy, it's best to attempt to ensure that POWs have minimal information to impart. It's also good to let the enemy know that this is policy, so that they'll have less reason for continued torture of said POWs once those men give up the limited intelligence they've been provided with.

I wasn't impugning the knowledge, skills, or intelligence of the troops, merely pointing out the irrelevance of certain information for them to achieve their mission.

There is a difference between minimally informed as it pertains to an active military operation and being informed about the meta-level public information that enemy spies could discover by picking up a newspaper printed back on the home front, or watching either CNN or Fox News broadcasts.

How often do soldiers object to illegal orders? I expect it's rarer than hens' teeth.

A friend commented when he was in officer training on the sizable amount of time spent on identifying rapidly what was or wasn't illegal orders, and the other part of the lesson being "If you refuse to follow illegal orders, your career is safe. Follow one, and your career is over, but you'll be in the brig for a while."

Not all militaries bother training their troops that effectively... but based on the Milgram experiments, they should.

Even if I recognized my CO approaching me alone and unarmed, if he had not been cleared in advance and refused to stop, I would drop him. Out of all my duties in the military, that is the one I detested the most.

Thanks for mentioning that, it clears up/confirms something for me. I worked a project designing and constructing demil stations for one particularly troublesome nuke to be demilled back in the early 80's.
During start up operations, I witnessed the guards draw down on a Major that attempted to approach the area. I was never told why, though I suspected it was something like that.

Demil sites for those munitions were in my opinion, not as strict.
Earlier sites such as JACADS were strict start to finish.

Pantex and another similar site were by comparison; the difference between securing the site with cannons and air support, verses BB guns and pistols. It didn't equalize until it was time to lay hands on the actual munitions.

Never set foot on the Anniston site, so I'd be curious what your opinion of it was?

But SFC, we don't HAVE chemical weapons any more.

There are still multiple tons of chemical weapons within the states at the moment. The treaty deadline for there destruction is 2023. I have my doubts that deadline will be met.

Yes, but officially, the US has neither chemical nor biological weapons. Thus the 'response in kind' for use of either would be nuclear.

Yes, but officially, the US has neither chemical nor biological weapons. Thus the 'response in kind' for use of either would be nuclear.

In this case, the word 'officially' is severely wordsmithed. It's only official because they are listed as "to be destroyed."

However, I agree with your take on respond in kind. Any WMD use can be responded to with a nuke "officially."

And the proper term for Iranians is not 'Arab' it's either 'raghead' or 'camel jockey'. (Now I'm just gonna sit down and wait for a Persian death squad.)

Those are not rags (and not towels either) they are little sheets, so properly they are called 'little sheetheads'.

(Note to death squad: My cat wrote this and I have already taken him to the pound for it, have a nice day.)

(Note to death squad: My cat wrote this and I have already taken him to the pound for it, have a nice day.)

First time I read it, I read pond instead of pound.

(Note to death squad: My cat wrote this and I have already taken him to the pound for it, have a nice day.)

They don't care about your cat, only their dogma...

"Oh, you do not know better!" "You just do what you are told!" "Just shoot, don't think!" It still amazes me how bigoted people are in this day and age, and they do not even seem to notice how such things are taken. As in highly offensive.

Not accusing you, but am sure you can get what I am saying. But yea, us dumb ground pounders don't need to think, don't need to know nothing.

Or that those events have potential implications in their life running months/years into their personal future. They're more invested in some of those things than anyone else. It may vary a bit from branch to branch, or specialties within those branches. But there are plenty of highly informed persons in the service as well.

And I'm pretty sure the professional military has more people that are informed rather than of the "Ours is not to question how or why, but simply to do or die."

There also is the matter of the perspective from "having worked in the sausage factory" that informs decisions even absent their being "high information" on certain things.

why Brazil and Argentina are so unusual when compared to the rest of South America.

I would like to know. In Brazil they speak Portuguese (not quite the same language as Portugal) but almost all the rest of South America has variants on Spanish. Argentina had some unusual governments (two Perons), although many countries in South America have had military dictatorships. Argentina had a war with Great Britain over the Falkland Islands which Britain retained. I seem to remember some currency issues, did they use the dollar for a while because their own currency was not valued anywhere? Online I found "Argentina used a fixed 1:1 exchange rate between the Argentine peso and the U.S. dollar from 1991 until 2002." So maybe they didn't actually use the dollar as their own currency.

Brazil tied one of their currencies to the USD at one point as well.

My guess was that maybe the two had the lowest percentage of mountainous regions of the SA countries. And I think they're both net food exporters.

They do now, but it wasn't always so. Prior to the pissing match with OPEC, BIS, and the IMF, they used the Sucre. When they tried to leave OPEC 1998-1999, they were attacked economically. Within the space of a year, they went down to 25,000 to 1 exchange to the USD. They capitulated to OPEC, then took on the USD in a deal with the IMF. OPEC used the IMF and BIS to force that capitulation.

Since about ~2007 there has been an ongoing effort to scrub that particular history and insert a more user friendly version. Wiki is a complete wash for the truth, as are most online sources.

However, magazines and articles still exist from the time. As do people like myself who were on the ground there (working a pipeline project) when their economy went tits up. Public libraries that maintain microfiche and actual magazines such as Forbes and WSJ will still have the pre-scrub history for any that wish to put in the effort to get the truth.

Just this year, they are trying to leave OPEC again. I'm waiting on the hammer to fall on them again for that.

Just having a large proportion of the voter base being informed would make a world of difference. Even if only 8% of the population was able to vote, so long as the 8% of the population was representative of the population as a whole, I think you'd find most people would be content with it so long as non-veterans aren't treated as 2nd class citizens outside of Governance positions/decisions.

You're right, but I was responding to bk69's statement of 8% plus everyone in the military, not the book.
Your statement

Just having a large proportion of the voter base being informed would make a world of difference.

hits the exact problem every election in the world suffers from, but I disagree that you need to serve your country in the military to become informed. To serve in one way or an other builds character but that doesn't necessarily have to be in the military.
There's an interesting law in continuous development in the Netherlands and now also the EU: https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1122&langId=en&intPageId=4995, it's not the same as 'serve before you can vote' but the idea is more or less close. The short of it is that that if you want to receive any benefits you are to do something for it. The original idea in the Netherlands was that young people without any start qualifications (for work) should serve a certain time doing volunteers work in several places to 'become informed about what the world is about', it's main goal to clear the social and knowledge distance to the work force, i.e. social integration. My words but it's the short version of what the idea was.

The military doesn't get a vote, tho. They just know they'll be in the group that chooses who runs thing once their enlistment is over.
If active servicemen got to vote, they could vote to avoid going into battle, even if war was the obvious choice. Instead, they get to vote after they've served. Just like any government, if the military can overpower a civilian uprising, it isn't getting toppled.

The military doesn't get a vote, tho. They just know they'll be in the group that chooses who runs thing once their enlistment is over.
If active servicemen got to vote, they could vote to avoid going into battle, even if war was the obvious choice. Instead, they get to vote after they've served. Just like any government, if the military can overpower a civilian uprising, it isn't getting toppled.

I don't see why being in or having been in the military should be the single decision point to allow government positions; if you think about it maybe that is the exact group that should not be in the government.

If voters really didn't want those scumbags in office, why did they vote for them?

Because 99 time out of 100 it comes down to a choice between scumbag A and scumbag B. There isn't a non-scumbag to vote for.

And the 1 time out of 100, the scumbag incumbent is running unopposed.

Cthulhu 2020: The lesser of three evils.

Cthulhu 2020: The lesser of three evils.

Is his running mate Hastur?

Is his running mate Hastur?

He hasn't picked a running mate yet. His short list is rumored to be Hastur, Cthugha, and Shub-Niggurath.

They all have the ability to serve and to vote

No, they don't. Unless you consider In a good idea to vastly increase the national debt in order to fund everyone spending at least five years in the military...?

Oh, and if that were to happen, the military would be so bloated that the "weeding out" you are expecting would be highly unlikely to happen, given that the majority would be spending five years doing 'make work' trivia.

Oh, and if that were to happen, the military would be so bloated that the "weeding out" you are expecting would be highly unlikely to happen, given that the majority would be spending five years doing 'make work' trivia.

Maybe not, if we were locked in a perpetual war with an unbeatable enemy.

No, they don't. Unless you consider In a good idea to vastly increase the national debt in order to fund everyone spending at least five years in the military...?

National debt to give everyone who isn't in a needed role just three hots and a cot? The military doesn't get to vote, so they can be paid pretty much nothing. They get kept alive (assuming they aren't combat troops) and they get to become citizens rather than civilians once their hitch is over. No need to pay them a lot, or give them a bunch of other inducements. Either they really want to be a citizen, or they don't join. And most people would rather not join. Hell, half the people who can don't bother to vote anyway, why would they join the military just to be allowed to vote?

They didn't get elected purely on bought votes.

And then is "Landslide Lyndon (Johnson). "Johnson won election to the United States Senate from Texas in 1948 after winning the Democratic Party's nomination by an incredibly narrow margin." I have read his campaign waited until his opponent's vote total was known and then added enough votes from lists of dead but registered voters to give Lyndon a very slim majority. "To win by the narrowest of margins -- the 87-vote victory that earned him the derisive nickname of "Landslide Lyndon."

So less than 8% of the population can vote and the other 92% will be perfectly happy with that?

You're missing a key factor in your thought process. The premise of that system also requires all persons to serve in the military. Therefore your percentages would be reversed.

By limiting it to severing in the military, you are stating that nothing else is acceptable, so five years as a firefighter, paramedic, nurse, police etc not only leaves them unable to stand for office, but classifies them as potential scumbags.

IIRC those professions (well maybe not the nurse) required veteran status in order to serve.

five years as a firefighter, paramedic, nurse, police etc not only leaves them unable to stand for office, but classifies them as potential scumbags.

I;m not sure I'd class the one so lightly as 'potential'. More 'likely'.

Why people keep saying it is "military service" when that was never stated I have no idea.

ISTR one of the civics classes discussing why only veterans had the franchise, and it being pointed out that the government was set up by veterans and the system worked when they set it up that way, so why try to fix what wasn't broken... (All hospitals may have been run by the military, tho... so doctors willing to be assigned to any hospital rather than choosing one to work at would likely be considered as vets)

I still fail to see why military service makes for an idea politician. The optimum skill sets are different.

I believe the rationale was that by putting your life on the line for your countrymen, you demonstrated that you considered the benefit of all to be worth more than your own worthless hide. Or something to that effect. The idea certainly appealed to my teenage self when I first read the book at least as much as it does to my old fart self today.

I still fail to see why military service makes for an idea politician. The optimum skill sets are different.

By itself, it doesn't. Just like any other prerequisite, it would be only part of the solution.

Let's assume a widget job that requires certain knowledge and personal characteristics to properly perform and appreciate the job.
If the widget job requires some measure of selflessness, I.E. putting someone else ahead of yourself, would a corporate raider be ideal for the job?
If the widget job had a very specific danger to the individual that involved the potential of ordering others into that danger, would a pacifist or someone who has no idea what they are ordering people into be ideal?

I could go on, but the point is this. Unless you're washing dishes part time, any substantive career comes with prerequisites plural.
Military service would be just one such prerequisite, not 'the' prerequisite.

By itself, it doesn't. Just like any other prerequisite, it would be only part of the solution.

Let's assume a widget job that requires certain knowledge and personal characteristics to properly perform and appreciate the job.

And in one respect, I'd almost like to see a third congressional body created to make use of Heinlein's idea all the same. Only it would be more specialized and limited in its role. Members of that third congressional body can only be veterans, and only veterans could vote in that election. They share "advice" duties with the Senate with regards to foreign affairs, and are also have "consent" roles to play in any matter involving the use of military force.

But while the House and Senate may request their advise and consent on other matters(such as appropriations, regulations, etc) they have no other significant (constitutional) legal function to perform.

It would ostensibly keep the veterans from "warmongering" as they'd need the "civilian arm" of the legislature to fund and support it. But it also means the veterans can keep the civilians from warmongering, as failure to get that body of veterans to consent means it isn't happening(for long).

Edit to add: If that theoretical body existed in 2003, its very likely they would have refused to sign off on Operation Iraqi Freedom in the form it took. They would have likely required another 100,000+ boots on the ground for "securing the peace" after, which Bush failed to do.

And requiring that extra 100K soldiers on the ground would have likely made the invasion a hard pass for much of Congress. "Too expensive."

Only now are they seriously tackling remilitarisation. Those who take the long view will know reunification of Germany was a really bad idea.

Japan is re-arming as well, although that's more as a response to China. They even are starting to work back up to aircraft carriers, although they're calling their seagoing F-35B platforms "Helicopter Destroyers" for the time being.

but military service still represents a dedication to country that is important.

If you make voluntary military service a prerequisite for obtaining political power, you will break that relationship you think is so important.

Those dedicated to obtaining political power will serve without any particular dedication to the country.

ETA: Reinstituting the draft will also break the relationship between service and dedication to the country. Those compelled to serve have no such dedication.

If you make voluntary military service a prerequisite for obtaining political power, you will break that relationship you think is so important.

Those dedicated to obtaining political power will serve without any particular dedication to the country.

ETA: Reinstituting the draft will also break the relationship between service and dedication to the country. Those compelled to serve have no such dedication.

+100, this is the reality of things on this, sadly.

You're close.

Psychopaths lack self-control. Sociopaths are capable of self control, when properly motivated.

Psychopaths have a strong sense of self preservation. To that end, they learn to hide their true self which requires self control.
To a lesser degree, sociopaths are the same.

Their are two kinds of ASPD; the smart ones and the dumb ones. The smarter variant learns to hide earlier, while the dumb ones do not. The latter usually end up committed and or incarcerated which is where they get diagnosed if examined.

The smart ones wait for opportunities they think are survivable with the least ramifications on them.

I am one of many fans that hopes eventually the "true story" from the book is told.

I doubt an accurate rendition of the book will ever see the light of day in today's Hollywood. Too many parts of it don't fit the narrative. For instance, the idea of a meritocracy. For another, the idea that individual characteristics didn't define the individual, e.g. race, gender, etc. For another, pure love of ethics and morality that permeates the entire book.

One part that might would be that females ran the Navy as they were better equipped for it than males. Slightly offset by the fact that there were no women in the Mobile Infantry as they couldn't cut it there. That might not sit well with the sisterhood members who believe that females would make good Navy Seals and Special Ops soldiers.

Heinlein's Starship Troopers is as alien to the modern ethos as The Red Badge of Courage. Love of country just isn't "in" anymore.

This always puzzled me. Who is it racist against? Bugs? And how is "democracy" restricted, when literally anybody can participate? As they stated, even a complete moron who spent 5 years counting bolts walks away with full citizenship rights.

Couldn't have said it any better. And couldn't agree more. But it flies in the face of the present doctrine of "democracy" where all vote.

And my wife, even though she has resided here for over 40 years has yet to apply for her citizenship and can not vote.

It seems quite logical to me that only citizens can vote. You wouldn't want non-citizens to be able to control your election. If 10 million Germans could walk into the Netherlands and have the right to vote the Dutch themselves would have lost the control of their own country.

Did the Dutch vote to bail out the Club Med countries again? Allegedly it was a measure forced through principally by the Germans :-(

I suggest you read up on that months long process again before making assumptions.

I read the bite-sized version in a right-wing publication. Allegedly having to fund the less fiscally prudent countries has turned the Dutch public anti-EU.

Back then the Dutch people voted against the EU in a referendum but were ignored by the politicians. That had nothing to do with the fiscally prudent countries at that time. The pro vs against EU is still around 50-50 nowadays, mostly because a lot of people see more disadvantages than advantages about being in the EU.
The important thing with the current situation is that some countries wanted to just give away presents to Italy and Spain while the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Austria wanted guaranties for economical reforms so that the money wouldn't disappear into a black hole, again.

It seems quite logical to me that only citizens can vote. You wouldn't want non-citizens to be able to control your election. If 10 million Germans could walk into the Netherlands and have the right to vote the Dutch themselves would have lost the control of their own country.

And yet there are some who want to allow Mexicans to vote in the US elections exactly like that, and they paint those opposed to it as racists.

And yet there are some who want to allow Mexicans to vote in the US elections exactly like that, and they paint those opposed to it as racists.

Without registration there's no way to control who is all voting (and how many times) so that's plain stupid.

Without registration there's no way to control who is all voting (and how many times) so that's plain stupid.

The trick is to make it illegal to require proof that they are in fact a legal voter through ID.

The trick is to make it illegal to require proof that they are in fact a legal voter through ID.

With the possible results as I mentioned, mainly not being able to avoid double or even more votes by the same person.

Hey now! Just because they are dead is no reason to deny their right to vote!

Hey now! Just because they are dead is no reason to deny their right to vote!

Without an ID there's no way to register that they have voted. Just step back in line and vote again, no need to dig up dead identities :)

This always puzzled me. Who is it racist against? Bugs? And how is "democracy" restricted, when literally anybody can participate? As they stated, even a complete moron who spent 5 years counting bolts walks away with full citizenship rights.

ISTR that most of the postings were designed to be at the least degrading or insufferably uncomfortable if they weren't dangerous.

I'd rather have basic in the north than those southern hellholes the army and marines have theirs... (Siberia is too big to be certain of, there's a lot of swamp there IIRC.)

Hmmm, not really. Of course, that may be the concept since the main character was Infantry

I remember his induction interview, they jumped right to asking him questions that would eliminate him from K9 duty, which was his third-last choice, second last being MI, and last was everything else, and mentioned several horrible options as reasoning why he didn't care which of those he might get stuck with since they were all as bad as one another in some way.

buy Robert Heinlein

There aren't many people who could afford to do so.

I am one of many fans that hopes eventually the "true story" from the book is told.

It would require a miniseries, much like The Stand.

Maybe one if the streaming services would be willing to produce such...

But the problem, of course, is that it would be considered so politically incorrect that most would consider it toxic.

Just the story of OCS would be a movie by itself. There'd be another movie with his background, basic, and combat before then.

There was some serious differences in the style of the military, for certain... Heinlein's all-volunteer force, versus Haldeman's drafted PhD candidates.

And I really thought Forever War was more about the evolution of society, viewed as an outside observer who was forced out of that society. Still, great book.

For a different twist on that, try Dragon's Egg.

The advantage of Democracy is that if the people who vote make the correct decision slightly more than half the time, the correct decision wins. The problem is that if they make the wrong decision slightly more than half the time, the wrong decision wins. If the voters are right exactly half the time, half the time the wrong decision is made. Although that is my opinion it is supported by statistics. One problem with democracy is finding voters who understand the issues well enough to make the correct decisions. In a representative democracy the need for finding voters who will make the correct decisions shifts to the representatives selected to vote to make the decisions. In the USA that should be the House of Representative and the Senate, or at least the senior leaders there who guide the others. And then the three body problem of Legislature, Executive and Judicial start to affect how decisions are made.

That's part of the beauty of the system the US has, they "crowdsourced the wisdom of the crowd" before crowdsourcing became a thing. They even took "the next step" in making sure it had an "over time" function rather than a "right now" option for anything short of war powers and certain other executive powers.

You have the House to address the "right now" interests of the Democracy, where the angry mob is expected to be given voice every 2 years.

You then also have the Senate, where the body can turn over no more quickly than once every 6 years. With 1/3rd being replaced or re-seated every 2 years. So now that "angry mob" which Democracy is historically so prone towards now has to remain in power for at least 4 years. Which is exceedingly rare for "a mob" to achieve. (The initial form of the Senate had the additional "protection" of being elected via state legislatures, which added another time-lag into the turn-over of the Senate, but we killed that just over 100 years ago)

That also brings us to the President of the US, who also incidentally has to be elected every 4 years. Which happens to be the fastest possible time frame for replacing half of the senate seats(via election).

Mobs generally have short attention spans, and even when they do have a longer one, the longer they run, the more likely it is than organized opposition will appear to counter it politically. So it generally strikes a somewhat happy medium. Between the failings of democracy, and a representative system.

At least until someone made the Senate a directly elected position with no other checks on the Senators. And then someone decided to freeze the size of the House, which has caused the House districts to grow into such a size that it has ceased to properly be representative.

Heinlein had somewhat of an answer to that.
Even if you do not have the time to educate yourself on the issues or candidates you will be able to find things to vote against just by reading the ballot.
Nowhere does it say that you must mark a choice for everything on the ballot (at least not in the US).

The point of serving in this manner is several fold, but primarily to support the nation they live in and call home. Being unwilling to serve, to my mind, means unwilling to support their own home.

I think the benefit is in building a social consciousness, learning to cooperate with your fellow humans, building character, experiencing the difference between good and bad. Primarily "serving your country" I find a rather stupid goal. A country is an artificial limitation of space on this planet. As a learning and character building objective serving the direct community you live in shows each participant the direct results of his behavior and the benefits it brings to the community as a whole while serving your country often leaves you wondering what the hell you are doing it for. There's a reason veterans are treated so badly, a lot of people don't see the necessity of what they were doing while 'serving'.

Primarily "serving your country" I find a rather stupid goal.

We will have to disagree on the stupid remark. Especially since it's not meant in the light you've apparently taken it in.

learning to cooperate with your fellow humans, building character, experiencing the difference between good and bad

That is a secondary product of serving your country.

There's a reason veterans are treated so badly, a lot of people don't see the necessity of what they were doing while 'serving'.

That sentence is contradictory. Are you saying Veterans treat each other badly because they don't understand the necessity?

If nearly everyone served in one capacity or another, it would go a long way towards reducing the negatives of serving. In particular, the treating of Veterans badly. There would still be the occasional asshat out there, but on the whole, the shared experience would make most a bit more understanding.

That dynamic is carried out in modern times every day. Even on a family level. The members of a family may bitch and moan at each other, but normally, if someone outside the family attacks one of there own, they all come together. There are exceptions to that, but as a general rule, it's solid. That extends out to lesser degrees within specific career paths, social groupings, etc.

This is not a subject that can be itemized and picked apart. It requires a holistic approach to understand it fully imo.

We will have to disagree on the stupid remark. Especially since it's not meant in the light you've apparently taken it in.

I apologize, stupid is the wrong word. Not sure what the right word would be (English is not my native language).

That sentence is contradictory. Are you saying Veterans treat each other badly because they don't understand the necessity?

No, from everything I read here and other places (US) veterans are left on their own without help readjusting to civilian life which many have great difficulty with, which in turn causes problems in civilian society itself. The younger generation doesn't understand their problems.

That dynamic is carried out in modern times every day. Even on a family level.

Definitely, family is the smallest unit of community. It's sad that what youngsters should (socially) learn first in the family nowadays often lacks tremendously and that doesn't get better when their community size expands from family, neighbors, friends, to school and beyond. Where serving/social service (volunteering) should expand on things learned inside the family and school it now often is more like a too late reeducation. Not sure if it's still used these days in the US but I remember the "Join the military or go to jail" verdicts, a prime example.

Do you know what the biggest problem I have when adjusting back to "civilian life" is again?

Sounds like veterans have a lot of prejudices to cope with. I'm not from the US so I personally don't know any veterans but I can see where being treated like that is almost like racism.
The "join the military or go to jail" always seemed strange to me so it's good to hear it's no longer an escape. We do have an alternative here called "community service", much like they have in the US I guess but probably with less hours for a comparable offense (max 240 hours here)
Try to avoid the traffic tickets, it's usually safer for yourself and your family ;)

Sounds like veterans have a lot of prejudices to cope with. I'm not from the US so I personally don't know any veterans but I can see where being treated like that is almost like racism.

In some ways, it was worse than outright racism. I witnessed this with my Father, and like him, had to deal with the outright racism as well. Where it differs with racism is that it was and still is occurring in the work place and society in general.

I considered my father a mechanical genius. He wouldn't buy a lawnmower, he would literally make it from scratch with the exception of the polymer bits (rubber hoses, sparkplug wire insulation etc). Valves, block, head, crank shaft, bolts, etc, all cast/forged/machined by hand.

Yet he would be turned down for work. Mushroom detailed the IT end of it, but even blue collar work suffered the same fate to a degree. Add to that, he was Cherokee. There were two strikes against him before he ever showed up for an interview.

In the end, he finally gave up working for someone else and opened his own shop. That shop was successful until the day he passed.

I consider myself fortunate to have been the recipient of his training in my youth, but it wasn't just the mechanical skills, it was also the indirect observations of his life. Including the prejudices inherent from having served in the Army.