4 ms·

As I read this post I kept thinking you had a rough time in service. This doesn’t match my experience at all. Then I saw at the end you didn’t serve, made assum

As I read this post I kept thinking you had a rough time in service. This doesn’t match my experience at all. Then I saw at the end you didn’t serve, made assumptions based on stories, and had an axe to grind. > The most important thing to realize about military service is that you sign away all your citizenship rights (free speech, etc.) when you sign up for the service. False. I can say the same things as any citizen outside of my uniform. I am a US citizen with rights. I signed away no such rights. > The other thing to realize is that, at least in the USA, they'll do everything they can to deny you medical benefits for injuries suffered in basic training, and this will persist after you get out False. I have had access to every medical care I’ve needed, for free, for myself and family. This includes four major surgeries. I can go to an ER for free any time we have an issue. Zero stresses over medical expenses here. > the 'educational assistance' is barely enough for a two-year vocational training program, certainly nowhere near enough for a full four-year college degree. False. The military completely paid for my undergrad and masters at a high quality university (50k+/yr). Zero loans. They subsidized a second masters in software engineering. After all this I still have my full GI bill that I can use for myself or pass off to my kids for their undergrad. > If you're a teenage with zero alternative options and are completely desperate for a way out of an urban slum nightmare or a poverty-stricken rural life, the military is there as an option. Or if you wanted to serve with every opportunity in the world in front of you, the military is an option.

throwaway675309 5y ago
He's not totally wrong. If you enlist in the army and later during your service they tap you for a conflict which you have ideological differences with, YOU ARE GOING irrespective of your convictions... unless you want a military tribunal and possible jail time.
- Diesel555 5y ago
  > they tap you for a conflict which you have ideological differences with, YOU ARE GOING irrespective of your convictions Your statement is not entirely true, it is not irrespective of convictions. A conscientious objector is defined as either: A member who, by reason of conscientious objection, sincerely objects to participation in military service of any kind in war in any form. or A member who, by reason of conscientious objection, sincerely objects to participation as a combatant in war in any form, but whose convictions are such as to permit military service in a noncombatant status. Also referred to as noncombatant duties or noncombatant service. Yes there is an application which can be denied. Here is a GAO report on the rates of that. In an all volunteer force the numbers requested are pretty small. Text version: https://www.gao.gov/assets/a267698.html https://www.gao.gov/assets/a267698.html PDF version: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-07-1196.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-07-1196.pdf
  - ak217 5y ago
    I think you're being deliberately obtuse as to the parent poster's point. In 2003 the military was abused to start an illegal war that many knew from the start was wrong and had ideological objections. The Iraq war had a grievous effect on morale and on our moral standing in the world. Most of us are quite willing to defend our country by force, the question is how to avoid being sent into another pet project like that. If we want the military to be respected and prestigious, we need more robust protections against what happened in 2003.
ryan_lane 5y ago
> False. I can say the same things as any citizen outside of my uniform. I am a US citizen with rights. I signed away no such rights. You're not allowed to say disparaging things about anyone in your command chain, which goes up to the president. There's also limits on your political speech, in relation to making political statements in favor of candidates. The limits on your political speech aren't limited to service members, but also includes a pretty decent percentage of federal employees. > False. The military completely paid for my undergrad and masters at a high quality university (50k+/yr). Zero loans. They subsidized a second masters in software engineering. After all this I still have my full GI bill that I can use for myself or pass off to my kids for their undergrad. I'm glad that the GI bill worked well for you. It does for most people, but note that not everyone gets the GI bill benefits they are promised. I don't agree with the OP that it doesn't cover enough for a four-year college, especially if you're going to a state school. > Or if you wanted to serve with every opportunity in the world in front of you, the military is an option. I agree with you, in general, but it's important to note that the benefit one gets, vs the risks one takes are heavily correlated to ones status prior to entering. If you're poor, with poor education opportunities in your past, the likelihood of being enlisted, and being in a more dangerous service (and post) are substantially higher. If you're rich and had good educational opportunities, it's likely you'll be an officer, in a better service and post, with relatively low risk (and substantially higher pay).
- Diesel555 5y ago
  > You're not allowed to say disparaging things about anyone in your command chain, which goes up to the president. There's also limits on your political speech, in relation to making political statements in favor of candidates. You are right, there are more restrictions for me. I'll change my evaluation of "you sign away all your citizenship rights" to mostly false. The OP made a rather encompassing assertion. I still retain most of my rights as a US citizen. For anyone reading this that is curious, we do agree to a new law code. It's the Uniform Code of Military Justice. One aspect is that it ensures service members are held accountable to laws in countries where there may be drastically different laws. It also includes provisions such as article 88 which states: > Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. And article 89 also limits speech more than an average citizen. > not everyone gets the GI bill benefits they are promised I'd be curious to hear the facts behind this assertion. The regulations are pretty clear on how to qualify. I've never seen someone qualified then denied.

throwaway675309 5y ago

He's not totally wrong. If you enlist in the army and later during your service they tap you for a conflict which you have ideological differences with, YOU ARE GOING irrespective of your convictions... unless you want a military tribunal and possible jail time.

Diesel555 5y ago
> they tap you for a conflict which you have ideological differences with, YOU ARE GOING irrespective of your convictions Your statement is not entirely true, it is not irrespective of convictions. A conscientious objector is defined as either: A member who, by reason of conscientious objection, sincerely objects to participation in military service of any kind in war in any form. or A member who, by reason of conscientious objection, sincerely objects to participation as a combatant in war in any form, but whose convictions are such as to permit military service in a noncombatant status. Also referred to as noncombatant duties or noncombatant service. Yes there is an application which can be denied. Here is a GAO report on the rates of that. In an all volunteer force the numbers requested are pretty small. Text version: https://www.gao.gov/assets/a267698.html https://www.gao.gov/assets/a267698.html PDF version: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-07-1196.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-07-1196.pdf
- ak217 5y ago
  I think you're being deliberately obtuse as to the parent poster's point. In 2003 the military was abused to start an illegal war that many knew from the start was wrong and had ideological objections. The Iraq war had a grievous effect on morale and on our moral standing in the world. Most of us are quite willing to defend our country by force, the question is how to avoid being sent into another pet project like that. If we want the military to be respected and prestigious, we need more robust protections against what happened in 2003.

ryan_lane 5y ago

> False. I can say the same things as any citizen outside of my uniform. I am a US citizen with rights. I signed away no such rights. You're not allowed to say disparaging things about anyone in your command chain, which goes up to the president. There's also limits on your political speech, in relation to making political statements in favor of candidates. The limits on your political speech aren't limited to service members, but also includes a pretty decent percentage of federal employees. > False. The military completely paid for my undergrad and masters at a high quality university (50k+/yr). Zero loans. They subsidized a second masters in software engineering. After all this I still have my full GI bill that I can use for myself or pass off to my kids for their undergrad. I'm glad that the GI bill worked well for you. It does for most people, but note that not everyone gets the GI bill benefits they are promised. I don't agree with the OP that it doesn't cover enough for a four-year college, especially if you're going to a state school. > Or if you wanted to serve with every opportunity in the world in front of you, the military is an option. I agree with you, in general, but it's important to note that the benefit one gets, vs the risks one takes are heavily correlated to ones status prior to entering. If you're poor, with poor education opportunities in your past, the likelihood of being enlisted, and being in a more dangerous service (and post) are substantially higher. If you're rich and had good educational opportunities, it's likely you'll be an officer, in a better service and post, with relatively low risk (and substantially higher pay).

Diesel555 5y ago
> You're not allowed to say disparaging things about anyone in your command chain, which goes up to the president. There's also limits on your political speech, in relation to making political statements in favor of candidates. You are right, there are more restrictions for me. I'll change my evaluation of "you sign away all your citizenship rights" to mostly false. The OP made a rather encompassing assertion. I still retain most of my rights as a US citizen. For anyone reading this that is curious, we do agree to a new law code. It's the Uniform Code of Military Justice. One aspect is that it ensures service members are held accountable to laws in countries where there may be drastically different laws. It also includes provisions such as article 88 which states: > Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. And article 89 also limits speech more than an average citizen. > not everyone gets the GI bill benefits they are promised I'd be curious to hear the facts behind this assertion. The regulations are pretty clear on how to qualify. I've never seen someone qualified then denied.