An Opinionated Rant

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

What are the physical requirements?

So there weren't specific requirements because there didn't really have to be.  It was self-sifting.  Fall out on a ruck march?  Infantry isn't for you.  Can't score 270 on the APFT?  Better get working.  The training itself weeded them out.  Many people didn't go Infantry because they knew this.  
 

As the failure and injury rates have increased, the Army has tried to set standards (requirements).  OPAT was used before BCT.  ACFT was used after.   ACFT is sprint/drag/carry, push-ups, plank, overhead ball toss, dead lift, and run.   It's the same test everyone else takes, you just have to score much higher.

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

So there weren't specific requirements because there didn't really have to be.  It was self-sifting.  Fall out on a ruck march?  Infantry isn't for you.  Can't score 270 on the APFT?  Better get working.  The training itself weeded them out.  Many people didn't go Infantry because they knew this.  
 

As the failure and injury rates have increased, the Army has tried to set standards (requirements).  OPAT was used before BCT.  ACFT was used after.   ACFT is sprint/drag/carry, push-ups, plank, overhead ball toss, dead lift, and run.   It's the same test everyone else takes, you just have to score much higher.

Thanks. 
 

I work out every day, including a five mile run/jog, push ups, sit ups, scissors and jumping jacks, etc. So I’m in decent shape. However, I don’t think I could do what is required of you guys and girls.

[Grunt]

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Thanks. 
 

I work out every day, including a five mile run/jog, push ups, sit ups, scissors and jumping jacks, etc. So I’m in decent shape. However, I don’t think I could do what is required of you guys and girls.

Sure you could.  You have to have a baseline, but 80% of it is mental.   Most things we do, the average male could do if they trained.  

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

t 80% of it is mental

True. Agree there.  

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

 I can’t imagine what it’s like if your very life depends on someone like the coworkers I’m describing  

 

It's a bad feeling.

[NeuroTypical]

16 hours ago, LDSGator said:

17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

rather than just following orders to stand in a line and sign your name and get on a bus. 

 

I’ve never served in the armed forces, but I’ve worked at jobs where your coworkers would rather be anywhere else. I’m not saying everyone has to be 100% every day, that’s not reality.
 

But it’s a real morale killer to be with people day in and day out who are only going through the motions or worse, clearly don’t want to be there.  I can’t imagine what it’s like if your very life depends on someone like the coworkers I’m describing  

I guess I should have clarified my thoughts more.  It's nice that our government doesn't take our dumbest people, those least-able to advocate for themselves, and train them to act as cannon fodder and run into enemy machine gun fire.  There are countless examples throughout human history where nations do exactly that. (Since long before machine guns existed.)

Wasn't thinking about morale, was thinking about crimes against humanity.   

[Just_A_Guy]

At this point, I’m  not 100% sure I want our armed forces to be particularly competent.

I think overall, the Pax Americana has been a good thing—worth fighting a few small-ish wars to preserve, even.  If we maintain it on such terms as befit our highest ideals, it can bring about the best possible conditions for worldwide human flourishing—both material and spiritual.  

But in this day and age, conservatives are wishy-washy about whether they want to preserve it at all; and libs have largely thrown out the value system that made our nation a unique influence for good; they mostly seem to want to preserve American might insofar as they can use it to export the continually-evolving values of the sexual revolution (with a side of fantasizing about using the military to kill right-wingers who won’t toe the line).  In such situations, it’s hard not to conclude that a large standing army is of limited use and may actually be a threat.

It’s all a darned shame.

Edited February 14 by Just_A_Guy

[EH12NG]

Lets all do the wokey pokey! Because that's what its all about. 

 

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 In such situations, it’s hard not to conclude that a large standing army is of limited use and may actually be a threat

Someone got into my libertarian foreign policy books I see? 😜 

[Phoenix_person]

I've been out of the game for a bit, but I always felt like a lot of civilians have a warped view of what military life is like (or should be like). Conservatives think it should be legions of Alpha Males™️ jumping out of helicopters with M60s. Liberals think it should be a peacekeeping force with a minimum capacity for actual violence.

The reality is far more boring. Most servicemembers will never fire a weapon outside of a training environment. This was true at the peak of the "War on Terror", and it's a lot more true today. The most deadly weapons in today's military are run by computers. 

But on the occasions when violence finds us, politics don't matter, especially "identity politics". What matters is staying alive and keeping your buddies alive. The enemy doesn't care if the person they're shooting at is a MAGA warmonger or a transgender leftist pacifist. They're trying to kill you and your job is to kill them first. I don't know where this notion came from that people who don't fit traditional cishet roles aren't fit for combat (and best I can tell, that's what y'all are talking about when you bring up "wokeness" in the military). I've been in the line of fire with LGBTQ soldiers and never had the slightest doubt about their dedication to the mission at hand or their ability/willingness to use lethal force to defend themselves and their unit. I trust them a heckuva lot more than Petey Proud Boy who "almost" joined the Army but didn't because of the wokeification of the military.

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I've been out of the game for a bit, but I always felt like a lot of civilians have a warped view of what military life is like (or should be like). Conservatives think it should be legions of Alpha Males™️ jumping out of helicopters with M60s. Liberals think it should be a peacekeeping force with a minimum capacity for actual violence.

The reality is far more boring. Most servicemembers will never fire a weapon outside of a training environment. This was true at the peak of the "War on Terror", and it's a lot more true today. The most deadly weapons in today's military are run by computers. 

But on the occasions when violence finds us, politics don't matter, especially "identity politics". What matters is staying alive and keeping your buddies alive. The enemy doesn't care if the person they're shooting at is a MAGA warmonger or a transgender leftist pacifist. They're trying to kill you and your job is to kill them first. I don't know where this notion came from that people who don't fit traditional cishet roles aren't fit for combat (and best I can tell, that's what y'all are talking about when you bring up "wokeness" in the military). I've been in the line of fire with LGBTQ soldiers and never had the slightest doubt about their dedication to the mission at hand or their ability/willingness to use lethal force to defend themselves and their unit. I trust them a heckuva lot more than Petey Proud Boy who "almost" joined the Army but didn't because of the wokeification of the military.

Do you think most people who served generally share your opinion? 

[Grunt]

34 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Do you think most people who served generally share your opinion? 

I do.  However, I think LGB is also broken out.  But that isn't what we're talking about.  We're talking about being physically and mentally fit for duty and combat, specifically the job to which you're assigned.    When my peers refer to "woke" in that context, they are generally referring to switching the focus from combat readiness to social politics, which don't have a lot to do with combat readiness. 

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I do.  However, I think LGB is also broken out.  But that isn't what we're talking about.  We're talking about being physically and mentally fit for duty and combat, specifically the job to which you're assigned.    When my peers refer to "woke" in that context, they are generally referring to switching the focus from combat readiness to social politics, which don't have a lot to do with combat readiness. 

Interesting. Thanks. 
 

I cringe when civilians like me try to make military choices. You want women on the front line? You want LGBTQ there too? Poll the people in the armed forces. If they want it, great. If they don’t, great. People like me who never served should keep their mouths shut on this topic. 

Edited February 15 by LDSGator

[Phoenix_person]

55 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Do you think most people who served generally share your opinion? 

I think most people in the military generally respect other people who wear the uniform, even people from demographics that they normally might avoid associating with in civilian life.

17 minutes ago, Grunt said:

When my peers refer to "woke" in that context, they are generally referring to switching the focus from combat readiness to social politics, which don't have a lot to do with combat readiness. 

I'll admit that I've been out of uniform for a little over a decade, so I don't know the current dynamics of military readiness, but my gut reaction is that social politics and combat readiness aren't mutually exclusive, or at least they don't have to be. 

[LDSGator]

19 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

think most people in the military generally respect other people who wear the uniform, even people from demographics that they normally might avoid associating with in civilian life.

I feel the same way about TKD, obviously on a much smaller scale without life or death stakes. Anyone who can step on the mat to compete has my respect, even if I want nothing to do with them in my personal life. And to be fair, I’m sure there are people in TKD who respect me for getting on the mats but want nothing to do with me either when the day is over. 

Edited February 15 by LDSGator

[Grunt]

36 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

 

I'll admit that I've been out of uniform for a little over a decade, so I don't know the current dynamics of military readiness, but my gut reaction is that social politics and combat readiness aren't mutually exclusive, or at least they don't have to be. 

I would disagree with a very strong emphasis on "dis"

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

a MAGA warmonger or a transgender leftist pacifist.

I had that, and I lost it.  My old childhood friend and I were so happy to have found each other on facebook and were gleefully solving all the world's problems by battling it out and arguing online.  Dude was disabled former military, who married a lady who transitioned apparently.

Then COVID lockdowns and social strife occurred, and my buddy's PTSD kicked in, the conversations got so personal for him he just turned nasty.  No more arguing online with the opposite side of the fence.  It's one of the reasons I'm glad you're here, PP.

 

Edited February 15 by NeuroTypical

[Grunt]

30 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I feel the same way about TKD, obviously on a much smaller scale without life or death stakes. Anyone who can step on the mat to compete has my respect, even if I want nothing to do with them in my personal life. And to be fair, I’m sure there are people in TKD who respect me for getting on the mats but want nothing to do with me either when the day is over. 

I think the difference is that many circumstances require us to live with our teams 24/7 and depend on them for our lives.   Unit cohesion and trust is important.   If you can hump your own gear, not to mention the extra gear a team requires, you're a liability.  If you bring your drama to the unit, and the unit isn't allowed to sort it out, you're a liability.  If you can't execute your assigned position due to mental or physical ability, you're a liability.  If your relationship with a member of the team affects your, or their, ability to execute their assignment you're a liability.  Liabilities can lead to mission failure and or team death.  

You don't have to like the person you're serving with, but you have to be able to operate with them.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I think the difference is that many circumstances require us to live with our teams 24/7 and depend on them for our lives.   Unit cohesion and trust is important.   If you can hump your own gear, not to mention the extra gear a team requires, you're a liability.  If you bring your drama to the unit, and the unit isn't allowed to sort it out, you're a liability.  If you can't execute your assigned position due to mental or physical ability, you're a liability.  If your relationship with a member of the team affects your, or their, ability to execute their assignment you're a liability.  Liabilities can lead to mission failure and or team death.  

You don't have to like the person you're serving with, but you have to be able to operate with them.

Agree. Like I said I can’t really relate to life in the military. Nor do I particularly want to, to be honest. 

[Grunt]

Just now, LDSGator said:

Agree. Like I said I can’t really relate to life in the military. Nor do I particularly want to, to be honest. 

Me either.🤓

[LDSGator]

18 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

My old childhood friend and I were so happy to have found each other on facebook

That’s a reason why I never friend anyone from my childhood. I don’t want to ruin the few pleasant memories I have due to adult disagreements. 
 

Sorry it happened to you bro 

[Vort]

23 hours ago, LDSGator said:

That’s a reason why I never friend anyone from my childhood. I don’t want to ruin the few pleasant memories I have due to adult disagreements. 
 

Sorry it happened to you bro 

I just don't friend anyone. Less work that way. Who needs friends when you have the internet?

I remember reading a bio of Karl Marx where the biographer described Marx by saying something like that he "loved people in the aggregate, but not individually". Sounds approximately 180° (that's π radians for you metric folks) away from how God loves people.

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

just don't friend anyone. Less work that way. Who needs friends when you have the internet?

If it works for you, good. I go out with friends all the time in “real life” and I can’t imagine being happy without them in my life. 

 

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

I remember reading a bio of Karl Marx where the biographer described Marx by saying something like that he "loved people in the aggregate, but not individually". Sounds approximately 180° (that's π radians for you metric folks) away from how God loves people.

I totally agree. Marxist ideology is from the devil.    

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

If it works for you, good. I go out with friends all the time in “real life” and I can’t imagine being happy without them in my life.

[LDSGator]

51 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sorry I missed it. Silly me, I pegged you as being lonely and miserable. Imagine that.

Edited February 16 by LDSGator