Why is the US military so horrible towards rape victims?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Sorry for the provocative title, but after reading this article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rape-of-petty-officer-blumer-20130214
and watching this documentary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_War that is the most polite sentence I can think of.

Why the (BLEEP) do men in the military do this? Not just the rape, but also the victim blaming. Especially the victim blaming. I just can't understand this mindset that it's your own fault if somebody drugs you and you then get gang-raped.

Because soldiers are above the law (or so they think).

So much for military discipline.

Because any powerful institution, in the absence of clear oversight, will have a natural tendency to protect its own reputation at the expense of the people it victimizes. See also Penn State, the Catholic Church, the BBC, etc. (Though you could argue that certain aspects of military culture exacerbate the problem, though.)

Probably because she did something immensely stupid. 'Oh hey, let's take this open drink from a strange man!' She rolled for a common sense save and got a natural 0. So, she's an idiot and the men are pigs.

Being a victim doesn't magically exclude you from criticism. Neither does being dead, for that matter.

On the one hand, I can see why she was treated with suspicion in the begining. Her actions were....strange. While drugs would certainly be my first guess, date rape drug would not. Still, an investigation/test should have been made which would have cleared her.

But yea, at least there is quite a bit of pressure for this to change. Whether the military will ride out the pressure and resist any real change is another matter.

(please dont take this next segment as any kind of excuse) I am not surprised that the military suffers from this. One, their reputation is immensely important to their identity. Two, being in the military can be a life or death career, and being in those situations can...change people. Three, I would imagine that military people are not exactly free to alleviate their sexual drives in a healthy manner as free as civilians. Obviously this is all just speculation on my part, but if true can...make the problem worse.

Also, great friends she had.....

The society with the shitastic reputation of rape victim treatment itself might be part of the reason. Just sayin', the military doesn't exist in a vacuum. Add in some people too scared shitless over their own asses and you have a kettle of shit.

It happens when the person that is controlling these reports or are witness to them are your buddies. If someone gets caught telling an officer you have drugs or alcohol underage that person that told you is shamed and possibly beaten. It's kind of like a gang mentality, snitches get stitches. When you can't corroborate a report or it even avoids even being reported because of the buddy buddy system this stuff just runs rampant.

Even if police where put in the mix instead of the army's investigation group you'd still have the he is a soldier mentality. The hero worship we give to every soldier isn't a good thing but it highlights some serious problems associated with any reform to how we handle sexual assaults.

It's odd that a comparison can be made between the US military rape problem among women in the service and in muslim countries where a rape victim is lashed for being adulterous.

Kopikatsu:
Probably because she did something immensely stupid. 'Oh hey, let's take this open drink from a strange man!' She rolled for a common sense save and got a natural 0. So, she's an idiot and the men are pigs.

Being a victim doesn't magically exclude you from criticism. Neither does being dead, for that matter.

Yes, we should never trust any man, at any time, because they are all rapists just waiting to strike. So it is 100% her fault for being raped, because she decided to trust her male comrades.

Absolutely not, this is not how rape is handled. You're engaging in victim blaming, nobody EVER deserves or asks to be raped. This does not happen. Even if she made a stupid decision, that is under NO circumstance justification for her to be raped.

Jayemsal:

Kopikatsu:
Probably because she did something immensely stupid. 'Oh hey, let's take this open drink from a strange man!' She rolled for a common sense save and got a natural 0. So, she's an idiot and the men are pigs.

Being a victim doesn't magically exclude you from criticism. Neither does being dead, for that matter.

Yes, we should never trust any man, at any time, because they are all rapists just waiting to strike. So it is 100% her fault for being raped, because she decided to trust her male comrades.

Absolutely not, this is not how rape is handled. You're engaging in victim blaming, nobody EVER deserves or asks to be raped. This does not happen. Even if she made a stupid decision, that is under NO circumstance justification for her to be raped.

Hyperbole aaand there's another fallacy there, but I forget the name of it.

I didn't say all men are rapists. I said if you drink something from an open container that is not yours, especially one that was given to you by a total stranger, then you're an idiot. That's common sense 101. Gender doesn't factor into the equation.

Kopikatsu:

Jayemsal:

Kopikatsu:
Probably because she did something immensely stupid. 'Oh hey, let's take this open drink from a strange man!' She rolled for a common sense save and got a natural 0. So, she's an idiot and the men are pigs.

Being a victim doesn't magically exclude you from criticism. Neither does being dead, for that matter.

Yes, we should never trust any man, at any time, because they are all rapists just waiting to strike. So it is 100% her fault for being raped, because she decided to trust her male comrades.

Absolutely not, this is not how rape is handled. You're engaging in victim blaming, nobody EVER deserves or asks to be raped. This does not happen. Even if she made a stupid decision, that is under NO circumstance justification for her to be raped.

Hyperbole aaand there's another fallacy there, but I forget the name of it.

I didn't say all men are rapists. I said if you drink something from an open container that is not yours, especially one that was given to you by a total stranger, then you're an idiot. That's common sense 101. Gender doesn't factor into the equation.

So if she's an idiot, she STILL doesnt deserve to be raped..

So what is your point?

Kopikatsu:
Probably because she did something immensely stupid. 'Oh hey, let's take this open drink from a strange man!' She rolled for a common sense save and got a natural 0. So, she's an idiot and the men are pigs.

Being a victim doesn't magically exclude you from criticism. Neither does being dead, for that matter.

Being a victim also doesn't magically make the person who committed the crime less of a problem. We're still talking about a person in our military who is perfectly fine with spiking someone's drink and taking advantage of them. I think if there is any side of this situation we should be more concerned about, it's the terrible human beings within the organization we uphold nearly to a point of fetishism who are waiting to destroy someone's life the moment the opportunity arises.

People make mistakes and do stupid things. That doesn't mean the people who committed the crimes are any less to blame, and nor does it mean the victim doesn't deserve any more blame. If a house gets robbed the criminals are still going to get convicted even if the door was unlocked. The justice system doesn't exist to make idiots aware of their stupidity. It exists to isolate, punish, and if possible correct the people in the world who are a danger to the rest of the public--whether or not they are idiots.

Jayemsal:

Kopikatsu:

Hyperbole aaand there's another fallacy there, but I forget the name of it.

I didn't say all men are rapists. I said if you drink something from an open container that is not yours, especially one that was given to you by a total stranger, then you're an idiot. That's common sense 101. Gender doesn't factor into the equation.

So if she's an idiot, she STILL doesnt deserve to be raped..

So what is your point?

Victim blaming fails as a concept. Should we say that what happened was 100% not the woman's fault? That it's completely safe for anyone to take open drinks from strangers, and if something bad happens, then it was completely not their fault and should not be held accountable in any way, shape, or form?

What happened isn't comparable to, say, a bunch of men grabbing her and then dragging her off against her will and there was nothing she could do about it. Absolving her of all responsibility sends a terrible message and could very well contribute to future incidents.

This shouldn't be seen as 'Oh no, how horrible!' so much as 'And this is why you don't do that.' for other people. Teachable moment.

Kopikatsu:
Probably because she did something immensely stupid. 'Oh hey, let's take this open drink from a strange man!' She rolled for a common sense save and got a natural 0. So, she's an idiot and the men are pigs.

Being a victim doesn't magically exclude you from criticism. Neither does being dead, for that matter.

It wasn't a stranger it was her goddamn fellow solider. Shouldn't someone be able to trust their own military, especially if they are in said military?

Both your posts victim blaming only exacerbates the exact problem that causes these situations.

Kopikatsu:

Jayemsal:

Kopikatsu:

Hyperbole aaand there's another fallacy there, but I forget the name of it.

I didn't say all men are rapists. I said if you drink something from an open container that is not yours, especially one that was given to you by a total stranger, then you're an idiot. That's common sense 101. Gender doesn't factor into the equation.

So if she's an idiot, she STILL doesnt deserve to be raped..

So what is your point?

Victim blaming fails as a concept. Should we say that what happened was 100% not the woman's fault? That it's completely safe for anyone to take open drinks from strangers, and if something bad happens, then it was completely not their fault and should not be held accountable in any way, shape, or form?

What happened isn't comparable to, say, a bunch of men grabbing her and then dragging her off against her will and there was nothing she could do about it. Absolving her of all responsibility sends a terrible message and could very well contribute to future incidents.

This shouldn't be seen as 'Oh no, how horrible!' so much as 'And this is why you don't do that.' for other people. Teachable moment.

So you are perfectly fine absolving the rapist of his actions then.

After all, she was asking for it, right?

I'm finished with you.

Vizanto:

Kopikatsu:
Probably because she did something immensely stupid. 'Oh hey, let's take this open drink from a strange man!' She rolled for a common sense save and got a natural 0. So, she's an idiot and the men are pigs.

Being a victim doesn't magically exclude you from criticism. Neither does being dead, for that matter.

It wasn't a stranger it was her goddamn fellow solider. Shouldn't someone be able to trust their own military, especially if they are in said military?

Both your posts are wildly ignorant victim blaming that only exacerbates the exact problem that causes these situations.

If I worked for, say, Wal-Mart, I would still consider another Wal-Mart employee from two districts over to be a total stranger. Just because we share a profession doesn't mean we're not still total strangers.

And as I mentioned earlier, absolving her of all responsibility only exacerbates the problem. The situation could have been avoided as easily as saying 'No, thank you' to a situation that really warranted that response. If they then ignored her and forced her to drink it or dragged her off against her will, then I would say 'Fuck those guys completely'. But that didn't happen, and so I don't. It's more 65-35 as far as guilt goes.

Jayemsal:

So you are perfectly fine absolving the rapist of his actions then.

After all, she was asking for it, right?

I'm finished with you.

Way 2 reading comprehension, bro.

She was handed a drink at a party, I don't know if you go to a lot of parties, that happens alot. That's not even the crux of the problem. SHE was arrested after being raped, SHE was threatened and thrown under the bus, SHE had no protection by our own military who was eager to try and sweep the whole thing under the rug.

I could still go on about how it doesn't matter what decisions she made, those men chose to drug her and rape her. End of story, their fault, and they should've been prosecuted and it is dismissive attitudes like yours that keep them out of jail.

"Good ol' boys"-club kind of deal, probably? You know, boys will be boys, comrades sticking together.
Never mind the fact that she should've been considered a comrade under attack by criminals, not comrades having some fun with a bitchy girl who needed a hot dicking or something. Yeah, I'm extrapolating and maybe exaggerating, but would it be too hard to think it went something like that? Group mechanics are problematic.

Vizanto:
She was handed a drink at a party, I don't know if you go to a lot of parties, that happens alot. That's not even the crux of the problem. SHE was arrested after being raped, SHE was threatened and thrown under the bus, SHE had no protection by our own military who was eager to try and sweep the whole thing under the rug.

I could still go on about how it doesn't matter what decisions she made, those made chose to drug her and rape her. End of story, their fault, and they should've been prosecuted and it is dismissive attitudes like yours that keep them out of jail.

Uno: Pretty sure that I'm not the legal system. I'm a part of the legal system by virtue of my career, yes, but I am not the legal system. Pretty sure my attitude has little to nothing to do with the matter.

Dos: She was arrested for DUI. Which she was doing. You can argue that it's not her fault, but it's not like she was just thrown in jail because that's just what we do with people who get raped.

Tres: She was brought before a military council because of the aforementioned DUI. It had nothing to do with the alleged rape. After she mentioned that she believed she had been raped (Not that she had been, but that she thought she had been), they sent her to the hospital and told her that she could get a rape kit if she wanted. In what bizzaro world is that 'sweeping it under the rug'?

Quatro: I can point to so, SO many cases of a woman accusing someone of rape, only for it to later turn out that she lied about the entire thing. The woman gets off, but whoever was accused (And those related to the accused) have their lives destroyed either way. Random example, the Duke Lacrosse case. A prostitute accused three Lacrosse players of raping her at a party. The police found that it was bullshit, but even after the case was dropped, one player had lost his scholarship and the coach was forced to resign. Not to mention the sheer vandalism, harassment, and destruction of property that the players had to suffer through because people will immediately jump to the defense of anyone who claims to be a rape victim.

Here is how the legal system works in America. You're innocent until proven guilty, and there is no case unless you can prove a crime occurred. It's entirely possible that she made up the rape story in order to get out of the DUI, because she could get in really deep shit for it. Really deep. If it turns out that she was raped, and they can form a solid case against the rapist(s)? Then great. But until that point (or at least until the rape is proven), immediately leaping to their defense against the big scary world only looks rash and not very well thought out.

Edit: Funfact: After the Duke Lacrosse case, the prostitute in question tried to murder her boyfriend by setting his home on fire (While her daughter was still inside), and now she's going to be standing trial for stabbing her boyfriend to death (Not the same one she tried to burn to death)

Edit 2: Also, you guys are going to have to point to where I said the rapist(s) should get off scott free. Because I'm pretty sure that I never said anything remotely like that, but if everyone is saying it, it must obviously be true, right?

It is a lot, lot more, than just her case and I probably should've clarified that because that's what I assumed is the larger issue, and one that the second link brings up.

I'm not talking about the DUI, obviously that's another story. But as far as I can see, the military has completely this woman's issue. And if you read, you would read that she was completely fucked over by bringing her accusers to light. It is a fucked up situation.

I'm leaping to her defense because the second link brought up that she is not an isolated incident. This is something that is happening, and hopefully something is starting to be done about it.

Vizanto:
It is a lot, lot more, than just her case and I probably should've clarified that because that's what I assumed is the larger issue, and one that the second link brings up.

I'm not talking about the DUI, obviously that's another story. But as far as I can see, the military has completely this woman's issue. And if you read, you would read that she was completely fucked over by bringing her accusers to light. It is a fucked up situation.

I'm leaping to her defense because the second link brought up that she is not an isolated incident. This is something that is happening, and hopefully something is starting to be done about it.

I'll say this, then. This isn't something that can be fixed. I mean, you can try if you want, but it won't change. Why do I say that? Well, sexual conquest has always been a part of the military. I mean, ALWAYS. From the very beginning of the first city-states at the start of human civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape

Feel free to look through the history section.

It is, quite literally, one of the basis's of human behavior. So yeah, you can try to fight it if you want, but any and all efforts are doomed to fail. Especially if maintaining a strong military is a concern, which it is. According to the OP's article, 19,000 service members (And these would only be the people who stayed after being assaulted) admitted to being sexually assaulted in an anonymous DOD survey. Considering that many cases were probably caused by multiple assailants (it's not actually that common for one person to assault multiple people. The most I ever heard of in that case was like...five.), that would be a pretty sizable chunk of the military gone in a time when the US is actually trying to increase recruitment. It won't happen. Probably ever.

The reason why my attitude took a 180 is because if you want to discuss military/war rape as a whole, then the scope has changed drastically. You take men (and women) away from their loved ones, place them in foreign lands for extended periods of time, and train them to kill people/operate in high stress situations, which also enhances aggression and...well...generates a lot of stress. Imagine the situation in prisons, but worse. There you go. Welcome to the military.

tl;dr, the only way to fix the situation in the military is to fix humans. Or just stick most of them on a cocktail of mood altering/emotion suppressing drugs.

On second thought, that last idea might be a keeper. Only about 15-20% of soldiers can bring themselves to kill someone. Stick them on emotion suppressing drugs, and suddenly your army just got a hell of a lot more effective.

Annually my fellow service members and I must take a sexual harassment course and a sexual assault prevention course. In the latter course it teaches you not to do what this service member did which is not traveling in groups with co-workers. I also take another course that states that is called a substance abuse course that teaches you to have a plan with a designated driver.

In my army days every friday before we were sent home we had to have a long speech about bringing the buddy and not to drive if a drink a single drop. We were also taught to even call our bosses to pick us up from any bar rather than hop behind the wheel.

She should have called her boss immediately, if I were her boss, it's my DUTY to bring her home and report the rape to my superiors. If I fail to do this I will be in jail, deservedly so.

All 5 branches of the military go through this training annually. If I don't complete this training I get written up and will be processed out very quickly.

Jayemsal:

So you are perfectly fine absolving the rapist of his actions then.

After all, she was asking for it, right?

I'm finished with you.

I don't agree with him either, but that's not what he said. If your opinion really does have the moral high ground, then you shouldn't need to be dishonest to argue it. His opinion is transparently flawed all by itself. All you've done is make him seem slightly more reasonable in comparison to you, and by association, us. Please don't do that.

McMullen:

Jayemsal:

So you are perfectly fine absolving the rapist of his actions then.

After all, she was asking for it, right?

I'm finished with you.

I don't agree with him either, but that's not what he said. If your opinion really does have the moral high ground, then you shouldn't need to be dishonest to argue it. His opinion is transparently flawed all by itself. All you've done is make him seem slightly more reasonable in comparison to you, and by association, us. Please don't do that.

I suppose I let his insanity get to me.

I've been raped, I've had control over my body taken from me by force. So when someone makes the statement that this is somehow my fault because I made a mistake on who to trust, I take this shit personally.

Not to defend what is obviously a very broken system, but what powerful organisation deals with rape amongst its members well?

Now, the military more or less anywhere is particularly patriarchal, but it's not alone in that.

Xan Krieger:
Because soldiers are above the law (or so they think).

So much for military discipline.

Rape is going to happen regardless of military discipline.

Friendly Lich:
Rape is going to happen regardless of military discipline.

I would guess the point is: Would there be as much rape? Are rape numbers unaffected by military discipline? Personally, though, I'd guess it's less about discipline and more about check-ups, psychological evaluations and support systems within the service.

I swear I read an article about this recently, but part of it is due to a desire by the military, both internally and externally, to appear to be above average when it comes to behavior. Hence a desire to keep it, well, invisible, on the down low, unspoken of and quietly handled.

This is obviously no longer possible in the modern world, but large old organizations tend to move like they are both large and old.

The following is pure guess work:

Part of the military mindset, especially among the more 'frontline' units and services (the marine corp and the army), is the idea of heightened alertness; you have to be wary of enemies, after all. And this constant heightened alertness can cause severe issues when introduces into situations that you don't need to be at that heightened state in, hence some cases of PTSD being about soldiers 'overreacting'.

So part of the, lets say mindset, is that anyone who fails to detect the threat deserved what was coming to them; they failed in their duty, in a strange way.

This is probably hogwash but it is interesting to think about.

As for some of the crap getting thrown above...

Under what situation, even at a bar, is it a good idea to take a drink from total stranger? It's one thing if it's a party, and your with friends, and everyone is drinking out of a keg or something like that.

But if you're in a bar and a random man buys you a drink...call it a society of paranoia, but haven't we all heard the stories at this point of why you should NOT accept drinks from strangers? Indeed, this is the adult and largely female version of 'don't accept candy from strangers'.

She should not be punished for this of course; she was, for she was raped. A cruel and unjustified punishment, but one that happened, and she has to deal with that, and that is punishment in and of itself. She did something stupid, and she paid for it, the same way I would feel sad for someone who died while drinking and driving. You make your decisions and the CONSEQUENCE is you have to live with those decisions. So she's not living consequence free here. She has paid a massive and unbelievably unbalanced consequence for her, from my point of view, bone headed move. Blaming her solely for it is not right, but admitting she made a mistake and she has paid dearly for it seems the most reasonable thing here. And of course making sure those who committed the act must live with the consequences of their actions in a more fair and balanced manner, is all society can do. The fact that those consequences may include a very long sentence time in a, since they are military, military prison..well, that's what freedom is all about really. The freedom to accept the consequences of our actions.

As an aside, as a member of naval intelligence this doubly concerns me. For obvious reasons, I hope you understand, although she is fairly low ranking.

Skeleon:

Friendly Lich:
Rape is going to happen regardless of military discipline.

I would guess the point is: Would there be as much rape? Are rape numbers unaffected by military discipline? Personally, though, I'd guess it's less about discipline and more about check-ups, psychological evaluations and support systems within the service.

Heavier discipline/focus on restraint probably makes the situation worse if anything.

As I mentioned above...take some Marines for example. You pull them away from their loved ones, stick them in a foreign country for 15~ months, train them to kill people, and repeatedly push them into high stress situations. This is not a recipe for success. It's also why rape has always been a big part of war and the military throughout the entirety of our history as a species.

Kopikatsu:
As I mentioned above...take some Marines for example. You pull them away from their loved ones, stick them in a foreign country for 15~ months, train them to kill people, and repeatedly push them into high stress situations. This is not a recipe for success. It's also why rape has always been a big part of war and the military throughout the entirety of our history as a species.

And yet rape-rates differ from military to military and country to country. So why is that?

Now, I'm not going to disagree with you on the training-part.
But perhaps that training itself is part of the problem. I obviously can't tell whether this is the case or not in the USA, but a lot of militaries don't just train you to kill people and push you into high stress situations. A lot of them train people how not to kill people and how to deal with stress besides merely exposing them to it and seeing what happens.

Also, "focus on restraint" is far from what I would argue for anyway. Well, restraint from rape, yes, but not necessarily restraint from sex. Having healthy, consensual outlets would probably be good.

"Why is the US military so horrible towards rape victims?"

Because it's conservative, run by conservatives and acts in a conservative fashion, pandering to the patriarchy of the country. Why did it take so long for women to be able to vote? Why did it take so long for African Americans to be able to vote? Why are gays still looked at as not equal to their straight counterparts?

Men, mostly conservative men, find the need to control everything they don't understand or desire. Consider any type of predominantly male and male led religions including both Christianity and Islam.

Skeleon:

Kopikatsu:
As I mentioned above...take some Marines for example. You pull them away from their loved ones, stick them in a foreign country for 15~ months, train them to kill people, and repeatedly push them into high stress situations. This is not a recipe for success. It's also why rape has always been a big part of war and the military throughout the entirety of our history as a species.

And yet rape-rates differ from military to military and country to country. So why is that?

Now, I'm not going to disagree with you on the training-part.
But perhaps that training itself is part of the problem. I obviously can't tell whether this is the case or not in the USA, but a lot of militaries don't just train you to kill people and push you into high stress situations. A lot of them train people how not to kill people and how to deal with stress besides merely exposing them to it and seeing what happens.

Also, "focus on restraint" is far from what I would argue for anyway. Well, restraint from rape, yes, but not necessarily restraint from sex. Having healthy, consensual outlets would probably be good.

Yes and no. My understanding of general US training methods are 'Use suppressing fire to keep the insurgents in cover, then blow up everything'. The military has estimated that they've fired 250,000 rounds of ammo for every insurgent killed. Approximately 30,000 insurgents have been killed. That's a lot of fuckin' bullets. There have also been numerous ambushes on US assets, and there were times when literally hundreds of IEDs went off every day. Thousands of US soldiers were killed by them. You can find videoes from the soldiers on Youtube, too. Like the one where a window cracks right next to a group of soldiers because a sniper tried to shoot them, but the window was bulletproof. There's also the infamous 'boxer' picture, where a group of soldiers were ambushed so suddenly that they didn't even have time to get fully dressed before engaging the insurgents. Constant mortar bombings, etc. Shit's nerve wracking.

There are a number of possible reasons for the discrepancy. Legal definitions, for one. For example, what constitutes rape in the US is much, MUCH broader than what constitutes rape in the UK. There's also a matter of how widely reported it is, and the social aspects that come with reporting (or not reporting) sexual assault and the like. Different cultures. Different levels of stress and severity. I mean...look at the size of each country's active army. The US has the second largest standing army in the world, almost reaching 1.5 million soldiers. The only one that's higher is China, I think.

Looots of factors.

Kopikatsu:
There's also the infamous 'boxer' picture, where a group of soldiers were ambushed so suddenly that they didn't even have time to get fully dressed before engaging the insurgents.

No, they weren't ambushed (there's a not sudden ambush), their base was attacked. At any given time, any number of soldiers will be out of uniform for one reason or another, and they'd have to stop what they were doing and fight off the attackers. He could just have easily have been in the shower, for example.

Also, (and more to the point) surely the stress applies just as much to the soldiers of the other nations fighting, though they might deal with it better.

Kopikatsu:
I mean...look at the size of each country's active army. The US has the second largest standing army in the world, almost reaching 1.5 million soldiers. The only one that's higher is China, I think.

Looots of factors.

Total size isn't such a factor, but per-capita is a big deal. The US has half again the amount of soldiers per capita as the UK, and 3 times that of Australia. At least some Australian commanders seem to be against increasing the size of the military much, because that'd require lowering the standards, and inevitable problems.

thaluikhain:

No, they weren't ambushed (there's a not sudden ambush), their base was attacked. At any given time, any number of soldiers will be out of uniform for one reason or another, and they'd have to stop what they were doing and fight off the attackers. He could just have easily have been in the shower, for example.

Also, (and more to the point) surely the stress applies just as much to the soldiers of the other nations fighting, though they might deal with it better.

I called it an ambush because it wasn't something they were expecting. One moment everything was hunky dory and then suddenly BULLETS EVERYWHERE. But now I just googled 'Define: Ambush' and realized that I've been using it improperly. Ah wells.

thaluikhain:

Total size isn't such a factor, but per-capita is a big deal. The US has half again the amount of soldiers per capita as the UK, and 3 times that of Australia. At least some Australian commanders seem to be against increasing the size of the military much, because that'd require lowering the standards, and inevitable problems.

We take most anyone. I mean, I'm super, super scrawny, can bench 70lbs, and did poorly in school because I absolutely refused to do homework of any kind ever. I literally get called by an army recruiter like three times a week anyway. They just don't care.

Because it's cheap.

High profile court cases, large pay-outs, recruiting new soldiers to replace those that end up in jail. All of this costs lots of money.

Kopikatsu:
We take most anyone. I mean, I'm super, super scrawny, can bench 70lbs, and did poorly in school because I absolutely refused to do homework of any kind ever. I literally get called by an army recruiter like three times a week anyway. They just don't care.

The way I understand, the goal of the recruiters is to get you to sign up. They are graded by how many they can get to try to enlist, not by how many actually get in. Their job isn't to decide whether or not you're army material, it's just to get you to sign that paperwork and commit to something. They'll decide whether or not you are actually fit for the job after they know you're committed to doing it, I'm assuming because they don't want to waste money giving physicals to people who are likely to just walk away.

Unless I'm wrong, of course.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked