: Kentucky: Drinking age 18 for military.



Jesda
01-07-08, 05:53 AM
I was just watching the beautiful and articulate Erica Hill on CNN. She interviewed a state rep who wants to lower the drinking age to 18 for active military. In other words, if you're old enough to defend your country, you should be old enough to drink.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/erica.hill.2.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid...e.cnn (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/01/02/troops.drinking.age.cnn)

I look forward to this.

Rolex
01-07-08, 08:36 AM
I was 45 minutes from the Louisiana state line where I went to undergraduate. At the time the legal age of consumption was 18 there, so needless to say we spent our weekends at the clubs on the Northern border of LA getting "pickled." :D I think it's fair to lower the legal age to 18 for service men and women. As said above, if they're mature enough to lay their life on the line for their country they should consider them mature enough to drink alcohol.

93DevilleUSMC
01-07-08, 09:54 AM
I don't drink myself, but I agree with Rolex: anyone who can face enemy fire and shoot back under the worst conditions has more than the maturity needed to consume alcohol.

malcolm
01-07-08, 10:03 AM
Yes and it should be all states.

DRKSIDE
01-07-08, 10:09 AM
so needless to say we spent our weekends at the clubs on the Northern border of LA getting "pickled." :D

This is the main reason it is NOT a good idea. :alchi:

You can already drink at 18 on base (or you could when I was in) where you are less likely to get bombed and try to drive back to your barracks. I don't know many 21 yr olds who can drink "responsibly". I know I felt differently when I was 20 but looking back at it, the ones who can handle the responsibility are the ones who wouldn't do it anyway.

my $.02

Jesda
01-07-08, 10:33 AM
Most of the alcoholics I know are 40+.

You aging burdens should be banned from drinking, driving, and voting.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-07-08, 11:42 AM
In other words, if you're old enough to defend your country, you should be old enough to drink.

:yeah:

dkozloski
01-07-08, 11:52 AM
If you'd picked up as many busted up and burned up Marines alongside the highway as I have you'd be thinking a little differently. An 18 year old in combat being guided by superiors is one thing. A drunken 18 year old behind the wheel of a car is quite another. If it was only himself to consider you might cut some slack but it's everybody that is at risk.

dkozloski
01-07-08, 01:05 PM
It's a sad truth that the reason young men make good soldiers is that they have limited judgement and know no fear. Not good attributes for a drunken motorist on a road near you.

NOT ON MY WATCH
01-07-08, 01:41 PM
I haven't heard all the pros and cons, but my gut feel is that military should be allowed to drink at age 18, but only on base.

DRKSIDE
01-07-08, 02:11 PM
It's a sad truth that the reason young men make good soldiers is that they have limited judgement and know no fear. Not good attributes for a drunken motorist on a road near you.

Exactly. In my experience (USMC 89-94) the military is one big frat party with a couple exceptions... responsibility and firepower. Obviously you are paying attention and are well supervised when you are doing your "job", you know, blowing sh*t up and becoming the #1 fighting force in the history of the world. But when we went on liberty we were nothing more than a gang of kids hell-bent on blowing off the steam of the day's stresses no matter who was in the way. Our judgement was already impaired by a well ingrained sense of indestrutability and cockiness. Adding 12 or so beers to that was like throwing gas on a fire!

Not sure why I lived through it. :hmm:

LS1Mike
01-07-08, 03:28 PM
Most of the alcoholics I know are 40+.

You aging burdens should be banned from drinking, driving, and voting.

I just pissed myself. :histeric:

LS1Mike
01-07-08, 03:31 PM
You only reference the Marines. I know that when I was in the Navy operating a 2 billion dollar submarine and taking care of crypto,
I had a lot more sense and responsibilty then the guys you mention. It takes a lot to get a Top Secret and above clearance and keep it.
The military's stance on Alcohol is lot different then when you guys over the age of 45 were in. DUI and public drunkeness is no longer tolerated and will be punished severly and most likey ruin your career.

dkozloski
01-07-08, 03:58 PM
Fifty years ago in the Navy, being seen in public with a known homosexual or getting behind on payments for an engagement ring resulted in immediate loss of your security clearance. I reported seeing a member of an EOD team popping pills while drinking beer in a bar with his buddies and he left the base under arrest before the following morning. I was in the missile racket handling nukes and I guarranty you there was no monkey business of any kind tolerated. Anything that showed bad judgement or would allow somebody to get a handle on you was a death sentence for your career. One E-5 in our unit got a couple of letters of indebtedness, the old man gave him 30 days to get it cleaned up and he didn't get it done. In a couple more weeks he was out on his ass with a BCD. Security has always been a serious business. Not all 18 year olds are irresponsble but how are you going to sort them out?

LS1Mike
01-07-08, 04:04 PM
You can't, shit not all 30 year olds are responsible.

dkozloski
01-07-08, 04:10 PM
The big difference in the military now compared to back in the day is the widespread use of drugs, not so much the booze. The Viet Nam war brought about the big swing from alcohol to drugs and it's been a huge problem ever since. A large share of the problems attributed to PTSD were actually drug problems. Random testing and a ruthless policy have things pretty much under control now but it still rears its ugly head from time to time.

Submariner409
01-07-08, 05:02 PM
Occasionally, immediately prior to departing on a patrol for 75 +/- days, the local USN narc squad and dog would unexpectedly show up and do a search of the boat. I have personally seen more than one sailor taken into custody and disappear, never to be seen USN again.

When you're operating nuclear powered equipment possibly equipped with nuclear torpedoes and nuclear ballistic missiles, given not only the responsibility but also the piles of misinformation hyped to the public by various greenie groups, any semblance of less than the straight-and-narrow is (and was) not tolerated.

Always remember that a lot of people gave up a lot of their liberties and quite a few more died or lost body parts so some could open their stupid, fat mouths in public and not get shot. .......and it makes not a hoot whether you're 18 or 80: As Dexter Manley once said, "You can shit the fans, but you can't shit the players".

dkozloski
01-07-08, 05:22 PM
The Navy had some great ways to concentrate the minds of immature kids. The submarine guys going to Polaris field schools at FAAWTC Dam Neck were told that if they flunked, they'd be shit canned from subs and on a tin can, coop cleaning before they could say Jack Robinson. Another threat was to be sent to a remote RADAR site in Iceland. Sure enough some guys flunked. Some went to the D & S Piers at Norfolk and Tom Ormsby went to Iceland. One guy was going around bragging and ribbing the others that they were going to let him stay in submarines. After the Thresher went down I saw his name on the list of casualties, Burton Shotwell. Somebody else got the last laugh there.

LS1Mike
01-07-08, 05:23 PM
Always remember that a lot of people gave up a lot of their liberties and quite a few more died or lost body parts so some could open their stupid, fat mouths in public and not get shot. .......and it makes not a hoot whether you're 18 or 80: As Dexter Manley once said, "You can shit the fans, but you can't shit the players".

Said just right.

EcSTSatic
01-07-08, 08:55 PM
If you'd picked up as many busted up and burned up Marines alongside the highway as I have you'd be thinking a little differently. An 18 year old in combat being guided by superiors is one thing. A drunken 18 year old behind the wheel of a car is quite another. If it was only himself to consider you might cut some slack but it's everybody that is at risk.

I resemble that remark! I saw many a marine and squid too drunk to stand up let alone drive, in the local bars that allowed it. Around payday, and locals knew when, these poor slobs would get rolled in some alley or parking lot for everything they had.
I wouldn't have said this when I was in, but 18 is too young for unlimited drinking privileges.

dkozloski
01-07-08, 11:07 PM
When I went in the Navy I was 21 and wound up doing a lot of baby sitting and designated driving.

93DevilleUSMC
01-08-08, 02:55 AM
This is the main reason it is NOT a good idea. :alchi:

You can already drink at 18 on base (or you could when I was in) where you are less likely to get bombed and try to drive back to your barracks. I don't know many 21 yr olds who can drink "responsibly". I know I felt differently when I was 20 but looking back at it, the ones who can handle the responsibility are the ones who wouldn't do it anyway.

my $.02

Actually, the miliatry, or at least the Marine Corps, has gone to the 21 age limit.

93DevilleUSMC
01-08-08, 03:02 AM
(USMC 89-94)

Semper Fi to you, sir!

caddydaddy
01-08-08, 11:22 PM
It's harder to be a drunk in todays military! Three strikes, and you're out!

But on the same theory of being 18 and drinking, why can't military members obtain pistol permits at 18? Damn, at 18 I was certified to fire a 9mm, M16, 12-gauge, .50 BMG and 25mm machine gun! But, I couldn't buy a pistol, or carry one in public? That's the same, WTF!!!!

AMGoff
01-09-08, 12:03 AM
I completely agree with the sentiment that if one is old enough to be wounded or killed in the name of one's country, then they should be granted the right to legally consume alcohol. However, I don't agree with any legislation that grants "rights" to any particular subset of the population while denying it to the population at-large. Sorry, but if you do it for a few you have to do it for all.

Frankly, I don't care what happens on base... if a few soldiers/marines/seamen want to get together on base and have a couple pints, I couldn't care less how old they were. As a civilian, pretty much all the goings on at military installations are none of my concern.. and that's the way it should be. Now when servicemen are off-base, I feel they should have to adhere to all of the laws every other citizen must adhere to. So, if they're going to change the law then they're going to have to do it for everyone... otherwise keep things the way they are.

Honestly, I can't see how this is as big of a deal as it was 30-40 years ago. It would be one thing if numbers were still being called for the draft, but now that we've gone to an all-volunteer force it really doesn't add up... if you're 18 and you enlist, then you have at least some idea of how things are and what you're doing, so therefore you also know that the legal drinking age is 21... pretty cut and dry if you ask me.

I'm pretty certain all of this boils down to the fact that we've got an election year coming up as I honestly wonder how many 18-20 year old servicemen (and women) are causing that much of a stir over this issue. I really see this as nothing more than some incumbent standing on a soapbox and waving a flag all in the name of those disadvantaged young servicemen who can't drink in public... it's hogwash. If he was really that concerned he would be pushing legislation that would raise the minimum age of service to somewhere between 21-25. That's my biggest beef... I honestly think that any and everyone who wants to join the military should have to go to college on the government's dime before they begin basic-training. I know there are already ROTC programs and whatnot in place.. but it's not mandatory. No offense to any of our youngest servicemen, but I'd much rather see a standing force of slightly older, slightly more mature, slightly more educated soldiers than those right out of high-school. I know others will certainly disagree with me on that point.. but either way it would completely rule out all of this drinking age nonsense.

TomDeville
01-09-08, 01:55 AM
God Bless America.:usflag:
The Democratic World
freeloads off thee.:patriot:

God Bless Booze.:cheers::highfive::alchi:

Dumb is a condition,
not an age.
Keep it on Base; with
no critics to engage.

Best Regards,

TomDeville:cool2:
:cool2::cool2:

Spyder
01-09-08, 03:02 AM
AMG...Agreed. Ha, we DO have some common ground! :D

I don't know about a full 4-year education on the governments dime, but I'm pretty sure that I'd vote for at least a certain number of units of general ed being a mandatory requirement before the youngins are allowed to fight. Two years worth of units...or rather 48-60 units if you can do it quicker...would help. Get a little bit of education in them before you train them to go out and make decisions about life and death.

Then again, the way college vs. boot camp is set up it may not be a good intro. College is supposed to help one to think on their own, boot camp forces one to learn to follow orders. Both good traits and skills to have but pretty much at odds with each other. It's those of us who can do both when needed that find a way to excel at whatever it we're doing.

dkozloski
01-09-08, 10:54 AM
With the abandonment of the draft there is only a tiny fraction of the general public that has any idea at all what goes on in the military. It's like trying to speculate on the life style of Martians and compounded by the tendency of military men to stretch the truth about any and all of their experiences. At the local Army base there used to be beer dispensing machines in the barracks and now they are gone. Since the days of Josephus Daniels, alcohol has been prohibited aboard ships of the Navy for both officers and men. There must be a good reason. It's also useful to note that the efforts to lower the drinking age for military are more driven by those selling the stuff than buying.

EcSTSatic
01-09-08, 11:28 AM
Yep, no more grog in the Navy.

dkozloski
01-09-08, 11:45 AM
Grog was a mainstay of the British Navy intended to improve the appetites of the men to where they would eat the rotten rations. The rum ration in the U. S. Navy ended in 1862. All other alcohol was banned in 1914 by then secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels.

cpruitt
01-09-08, 06:03 PM
I haven't heard all the pros and cons, but my gut feel is that military should be allowed to drink at age 18, but only on base.

That sounds like a fair deal to me!

LS1Mike
01-09-08, 10:33 PM
I . No offense to any of our youngest servicemen, but I'd much rather see a standing force of slightly older, slightly more mature, slightly more educated soldiers than those right out of high-school. .
Offense taken.
I hate to tell you that a college education does not guarantee that man.
If you think it does you are surely off base.

What makes you think some butter bar showing up straight out of college knows anything more about a Submarine, tank or the equipment they are operating or in charge of then some guy who went there straight out of highschool and has 4 or 5 years on him, or even the same guy that came straight out of highschool without the 4 or 5 years experience?

I tell you what after 11 years in Subs I will tell that an education is a great thing to have (I encourage everyone to do it!) and gets you that extra cash but most times it means nothing until you get qualified in Submarines. I assume as a J.O. you know some engineering stuff and how the Reactor works. You know math you know english maybe some history and your major. What the **** do you do when you hear "TORPEDO IN THE WATER" or "Con, Radio request to QSL for Traffic"? The important stuff, not what you learned in English 101, because that is importmant when engaging the enemy:rolleyes: College dosen't always make you mature, but I sure as hell know you grow up quick in the Military.
You can't operate anything you can't save me if there is fire and you can't save me from flooding, You don't know ships operations, tatics or even how to lead. Sure you have to respect the rank and most of the guys are garcious and understand what is going on and are very cool, and you learn to respect the person, not just the rank, just like they learn to respect the crew and know their capability, but those guys are learning just as much from the junior guys who run the ship as they from the very senior officers. The Senior officers, the ones that stay are the experienced ones. Guys with 5 years or more in. They know tatics and operation.
Nothing says you can't get an education while you served like I did.

I didn't catch if you served but by that statement I would guess you didn't.

For you guys who think we are just taught to "listen" and "obey" You are surely off your rocker too. You have to be able to think quick and come up with ideas in more stressfull situations then you ever would in a normal job or college.
Take a steal tube filled with electronics, weapons, fuel, oil, nitrogen, oxygen and a Reactor. Now put the same tube 600 feet underwater and tell me you don't mature, tell me you aren't asked to make important decisions and use your brain to keep it operating properly. Your decision could affect the lives of 130 other people and their families. Where do you learn that in College? I didn't.

Spyder
01-09-08, 11:11 PM
I know just as many immature hot headed retard military folks as I do those who graduated college. In fact, without a doubt, I know MORE of them that are military or ex-military who lose their heads over stupid things than those whom have graduated college...

It's not about knowing more about a submarine or tactics or the way a reactor works. It's about understanding life and the way people interact with each other in the world. It's about being able to think for oneself and come to ones own decisions given a variety of input. Life experience is just about the only way for these things to be learned. I know I'd rather have someone that's been through more LIFE in general backing my ass up in a hairy situation than someone that was just thrown on a boat and taught and told to turn the knobs and dial the dials.

Yea, many military folks grow up quick because they are forced to live their lives. Some don't because they are inherently flawed. Without fail, however, the same guy carrying a weapon through the streets of Baghdad is going to make better decisions at 25 than he is at 18. That's just simple logic. With age comes wisdom, to some extent, and that extra couple of years of being alive and seeing the world can totally change someones perspectives on what to do in given situations.

dkozloski
01-09-08, 11:26 PM
If you are present on the bridge of a ship of the U.S. Navy while it's under attack you'll find that the man at the wheel doing the steering is an enlisted Seaman.

Admiral David Farragut was a midshipman(apprentice officer) in the U.S. Navy at the age of 9. At the age of 12 he was in full command of a captured enemy ship, assigned a crew, and ordered to sail it to port. He had the absolute power of life and death over every man on that ship. The Navy doesn't need some self-appointed sand crab to tell it how to conduct it's business and who does what.

Kev
01-09-08, 11:37 PM
I'm 47 and am currently working in a nuclear power plant .... aren't you glad that I don't drink alcohol or take illicit drugs?

LS1Mike
01-09-08, 11:43 PM
I
Without fail, however, the same guy carrying a weapon through the streets of Baghdad is going to make better decisions at 25 than he is at 18. That's just simple logic. With age comes wisdom, to some extent, and that extra couple of years of being alive and seeing the world can totally change someones perspectives on what to do in given situations.
And that right there has nothing at all to do with college, that has to do with age. You can also tell that to the 19 and 20 years old coming back from Iraq that have lost someone...That is a hairy situation. A Fire on submarine that is a hairy situation.
Tell me about your "normal" Hairy everday situation. Which flavor Latte to get down at the local Starbucks.
I have actually gone to college now and have a normal job and will tell you I learned a hell of a lot more on how to deal with stress with a level head then I ever could have in college. I have been out of the Navy since 04 I see the people I work with now that never spent a day in the Military and they complain and whine about stupid shit and stress about some of the most trival things that are not a life and death situation.
What do you think when you go in the Military you do not do the normal stuff everyone else does in life? Like bills, Family, Illness? All the Normal stuff on top of long deployments with seperation from loved ones. You think we turn in to a bunch of robots. We use are brains everyday. We go to leadership course, tech schools and still manage to squeeze in college and family while protecting the rest of the free world.
You think we are just trained to turn switches and push buttons. Who the hell do you think fixes our equipment. Firgures out work arounds when parts are not on board. I don't call up the local geek squad. Try living with the people you work with for months at time. I would bet you don't put the type of trust in your co workers that I use to in mine.

I would guess you didn't serve. I did so I have a better idea of what we do in the Military then what you think you do. Maybe you have watched to much Crimson Tide.

I also have now had the priveledge to live under the umbrella of their service as a Civilian.

I will tell you I never worked with a bunch of more dedicated mature individuals anywhere then I did when I was in the Navy.

LS1Mike
01-09-08, 11:46 PM
I'm 47 and am currently working in a nuclear power plant .... aren't you glad that I don't drink alcohol or take illicit drugs?

You think the Nucs in the Navy show up taking drugs and drinking?

However thanks for not boozing and crakcing it up while operating the big tea pot!!

LS1Mike
01-09-08, 11:51 PM
Human experience shows that people, not organizations or management systems, get things done. For this reason, subordinates must be given authority and responsibility early in their careers. In this way they develop quickly and can help the manager do his work. The manager, of course, remains ultimately responsible and must accept the blame if subordinates make mistakes.

As subordinates develop, work should be constantly added so that no one can finish his job. This serves as a prod and a challenge. It brings out their capabilities and frees the manager to assume added responsibilities. As members of the organization become capable of assuming new and more difficult duties, they develop pride in doing the job well. This attitude soon permeates the entire organization.

One must permit his people the freedom to seek added work and greater responsibility. In my organization, there are no formal job descriptions or organizational charts. Responsibilities are defined in a general way, so that people are not circumscribed. All are permitted to do as they think best and to go to anyone and anywhere for help. Each person then is limited only by his own ability.

Spoken by Admiral Hyman G Rickover father of the nuclear navy.

Read the last paragraph, that is how your United States Military works.

Kev
01-09-08, 11:55 PM
Your point, you think the Nucs in the Navy show up taking drugs and drinking?My point, anyone with life and death/catastrophic responsibility has a much higher risk of failure when mind altering substances are involved.

There are numerous tests used in our nuclear facilities designed to weed out those who might pose such risks. I hope that our armed forces are at least equal if not tougher than that standard when it comes to nuclear power/weapons and high security clearances.

dkozloski
01-09-08, 11:55 PM
At the beginning of WWII the navy had a big problem in the submarine service. The sub skippers were older, more, mature guys, and they weren't getting the job done. They were pulled from the boats and replaced by young cocky guys that were a little more wild and crazy. They went to town and the rest is history. The military is not looking for calm cool and collected responses to every situation. Brashness and action are much admired when the chips are down. Ultimately the training takes over and controls the action.

LS1Mike
01-09-08, 11:57 PM
A major flaw in our system of government, and even in industry, is the latitude allowed to do less than is necessary. Too often officials are willing to accept and adapt to situations they know to be wrong. The tendency is to downplay problems instead of actively trying to correct them. Recognizing this, many subordinates give up, contain their views within themselves, and wait for others to take action. When this happens, the manager is deprived of the experience and ideas of subordinates who generally are more knowledgeable than he in their particular areas.

This is my favorite part.
Rickover may have been a dick but he has a very smart man with good sense of what was going on.

LS1Mike
01-10-08, 12:00 AM
My point, anyone with life and death/catastrophic responsibility has a much higher risk of failure when mind altering substances are involved.

There are numerous tests used in our nuclear facilities designed to weed out those who might pose such risks. I hope that our armed forces are at least equal if not tougher than that standard when it comes to nuclear power/weapons and high security clearances.

They are very good at it, don't worry. I probablly had a piss test at least every 1 to 2 months.
Not to mention the 100,000 programs to try and prevent drinking.

AMGoff
01-10-08, 12:00 AM
Wow... seems like I pushed a button there... unfortunately you took but a snippet of what I said and totally ran off in a direction of your own. When I said "no offense," I meant no offense... I don't feel my remark was disrespectful in anyway. It's what I honestly think and I have my reasons for thinking so. You're spot on, I never served and I had my reasons for not enlisting... however, I do take some offense from the disdainful tone you've taken simply because you served and I didn't. Heaven forbid that I, a mere civilian, comment on what I find to be a flaw in the system. While I find it admirable that such young kids choose to enlist, the fact remains that 18 year old are "younger" than they have ever been in today's world. The fact further remains that because of such, I feel that the minimum age of enlistment should be raised by about four years.... AND further still, proper education holds a vital key to ensuring greater success regardless of the endeavor to be undertaken.

Beyond that, Spyder accurately summed up my sentiment... on this rare occasion he and I seem to be on the same page.

dkozloski
01-10-08, 12:04 AM
My point, anyone with life and death/catastrophic responsibility has a much higher risk of failure when mind altering substances are involved.

There are numerous tests used in our nuclear facilities designed to weed out those who might pose such risks. I hope that our armed forces are at least equal if not tougher than that standard when it comes to nuclear power/weapons and high security clearances.
Every last swinging dick in the military is subject to random drug testing at least as stringent as anything you see. For the technical guys that work on sensitive stuff it's even worse. On top of that they are subject to the UCMJ and the response to a violation of the rules is swift and sure.

The top student in my class of Army helo mechanics working for a civilian A&P ticket was a Spec 5 one day, a buck private the next, and was in the stockade at Ft. Lewis, Washington the day after that after failing a random drug test. He had smoked some weed. He received a dishonorable discharge after his jolt in the slammer.

LS1Mike
01-10-08, 12:11 AM
however, I do take some offense from the disdainful tone you've taken simply because you served and I didn't. Heaven forbid that I, a mere civilian, comment on what I find to be a flaw in the system. While I find it admirable that such young kids choose to enlist,

I have no problem with people who didn't serve, that is fine. I am under no illusion the US would be here today alone with just the Military. Anyone that believes that is just stupid.
My problem is you don't have enough first hand information to even know if it is flaw or not. What are you basing that off of. I can cite tons of examples when someone in that age group of 18-22 has gone above and beyond while in the service and it didn't take four years of college to do it.
I would say it is not flaw as the Military has been doing just fine for over 200 years making sure we all stay free.

Kev
01-10-08, 12:13 AM
They are very good at it, don't worry. I probablly had a piss test at least every 1 to 2 months.
Not to mention the 100,000 programs to try an prevent drinking.


Every last swinging dick in the military is subject to random drug testing at least as stringent as anything you see. For the technical guys that work on sensitive stuff it's even worse. On top of that they are subject to the UCMJ and the response to a violation of the rules is swift and sure.I was being somewhat facetious when I used the term "I hope". There are a few things that our government is very serious about and while they are far from being perfect, they are getting it right a majority of the time. Nuclear regulation is one of them, both in the civilian and military sectors.

Based on my experiences I have high confidence in the safety of their programs.

LS1Mike
01-10-08, 12:19 AM
I was being somewhat facetious when I used the term "I hope". There are a few things that our government is very serious about and while they are far from being perfect, they are getting it right a majority of the time. Nuclear regulation is one of them, both in the civilian and military sectors.

Based on my experiences I have high confidence in the safety of their programs.

I know your joking, that is why I called the reactor the Big Tea Pot, ya know steam?

Kev
01-10-08, 12:21 AM
I feel you dog! :rolleyes:

dkozloski
01-10-08, 12:31 AM
I have no problem with people who didn't serve, that is fine. I am under no illusion the US would be here today alone with just the Military. Anyone that believes that is just stupid.
My problem is you don't have enough first hand information to even know if it is flaw or not. What are basing that off of. I can cite tons of examples when someone in that age group of 18-22 has gone above and beyond while in the service and it didn't take four years of college to do it.
I would say it is not flaw as the Military has been doing just fine for over 200 years making sure we all stay free.
When I was a second class Missile Technician on a DDG I actually had a recent Naval Academy grad assigned to follow me around by the old mustang weapons officer. His instructions were to, "follow this guy around and don't get in his way". The Ensign was actually a really sharp guy and knew what it was all about. It didn't take long for him to realize that my guys had the finest technical training in the world and knew a hell of a lot more about our jobs than he did about his. It was all about respect. We learned from him and he learned from us. We had a great working relationship. We knew we could depend on him and he knew we wouldn't drop him in the shit.

AMGoff
01-10-08, 12:31 AM
That's all well and good... but what I don't understand is why the idea of have slightly older enlistees is such an absurd notion. Frankly, I don't have to know what goes on inside the military nor what is done to whip these kids into shape... but it's pretty easy to reason that if the same techniques are applied to a slightly more mature, slightly more well balanced person, slightly more worldly person then the results would be even greater.

What am I basing these notions off of, you ask? They're based off of my entire adult life of working with and around teenagers. Even compared to only 10-15 years ago, teenagers today are noticeably more immature then they were in preceding generations.. and that's nothing but a product of the society in which we now live.

So... I see what they are before they enlist... and mind you, their reasons for enlisting are as varied as they are. Regardless, it is because of that I think that we would have a much more robust, flexible, versatile standing force better capable of adapting to today's quickly changing world, were said force comprised of slightly older, slightly more mature individuals.

You are, for whatever reason, assuming that I am detracting from the accomplishments and merits of those youngest of servicemen who have already served or are currently serving - which I am NOT in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of that, I still stand by my position... not to insult our servicemen, but to only further improve what it the greatest armed services the world has ever seen.

Just because something is and has been doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.

dkozloski
01-10-08, 12:40 AM
That's all well and good... but what I don't understand is why the idea of have slightly older enlistees is such an absurd notion. Frankly, I don't have to know what goes on inside the military nor what is done to whip these kids into shape... but it's pretty easy to reason that if the same techniques are applied to a slightly more mature, slightly more well balanced person, slightly more worldly person then the results would be even greater.

What am I basing these notions off of, you ask? They're based off of my entire adult life of working with and around teenagers. Even compared to only 10-15 years ago, teenagers today are noticeably more immature then they were in preceding generations.. and that's nothing but a product of the society in which we now live.

So... I see what they are before they enlist... and mind you, their reasons for enlisting are as varied as they are. Regardless, it is because of that I think that we would have a much more robust, flexible, versatile standing force better capable of adapting to today's quickly changing world, were said force comprised of slightly older, slightly more mature individuals.

You are, for whatever reason, assuming that I am detracting from the accomplishments and merits of those youngest of servicemen who have already served or are currently serving - which I am NOT in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of that, I still stand by my position... not to insult our servicemen, but to only further improve what it the greatest armed services the world has ever seen.

Just because something is and has been doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.
Some where you have gotten the wacky idea that everybody in the military is a kid. The age range is from 17 to the 40s and 50s sometimes 60s. It takes years to advance through the ranks. A teenage E-5 is fairly rare. If anything, average age is much higher than it used to be. Pilots advance quicker than surface officers, mainly because they're always getting killed. If you enlist at 17 you can retire at 37 but a lot of guys stay in beyond that.

LS1Mike
01-10-08, 12:53 AM
That's all well and good... but what I don't understand is why the idea of have slightly older enlistees is such an absurd notion. Frankly, I don't have to know what goes on inside the military nor what is done to whip these kids into shape... but it's pretty easy to reason that if the same techniques are applied to a slightly more mature, slightly more well balanced person, slightly more worldly person then the results would be even greater.

What am I basing these notions off of, you ask? They're based off of my entire adult life of working with and around teenagers. Even compared to only 10-15 years ago, teenagers today are noticeably more immature then they were in preceding generations.. and that's nothing but a product of the society in which we now live.

So... I see what they are before they enlist... and mind you, their reasons for enlisting are as varied as they are. Regardless, it is because of that I think that we would have a much more robust, flexible, versatile standing force better capable of adapting to today's quickly changing world, were said force comprised of slightly older, slightly more mature individuals.

You are, for whatever reason, assuming that I am detracting from the accomplishments and merits of those youngest of servicemen who have already served or are currently serving - which I am NOT in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of that, I still stand by my position... not to insult our servicemen, but to only further improve what it the greatest armed services the world has ever seen.

Just because something is and has been doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.

You make a very valid argument, except the guys you are worried about the immature ones, the ones with authority issues. They usually don't last more than a year. Basic training, initial entry training and to their first command. F up and they are gone. I was an insturctor for three years and taught 110 brand new Trident Submarine Force radiomen. Most between the ages of 18 to 22, from my experience is they have been the best and most willing to learn.
It is hard to take someone much older and "mold" them. You have the most problems with the older guys. They don't want to listen. They have already done it all.
No guy with a 4 year college education is going to want to listen to me talk about wave prop and how it affects communications at two oclock in the morning and then do pushups because they can't keep their mouth shut. They would walk out and get a job or stay and have a poor attitude.

Some of my students were boated right from class because they just were not going to cut it. We didn't/don't have time to "fix" the guys like that. It is kind of like triage. Sounds kinda mean and heartless but it is what must be done. Not sure how the other branches do it, but I know that they do.
The end up back out on the street, I would assume these are guys who don't do much with their lives no matter what path they choose in life, but I could be wrong too.
I will say this how about we just agree to disagree?

N0DIH
01-10-08, 01:08 AM
Germany has no drinking age.
Wisconsin has no drinking age for kids as long as the parents are present and are the responsible party for them. If I wanted to give my 6 year old a drink of something I could. Legally.

I spent 8 years in and managed a $2 million in radar repair parts and test equipment. The radar guys had to manage the $8 million radar sets, and the commander had to be ultimately responsible for 5 of those radars.... Yeah, we didn't have too many irresponsible drunks, except maybe the commanders driver..... he got busted.... Many people did drink some, I rarely did, I didn't need to, I had better things to do with my time and $$....

dkozloski
01-10-08, 01:13 AM
Mike, the military has always been plagued by civilian feather merchants that wouldn't be caught dead in the military trying to tell everybody how it should be done when they don't have the first practical notion what goes on. The military still operates on rules that are very similar to what took place in Pharaoh's time. Thank God that when crunch time comes the military will be trained and ready because they ignored all the instant experts with no concept of what the job really requires as far as life skills. The civilians provide support and the military does the fighting with the best trained and most effective force the world has ever known. They didn't get that way by accident. The last thing we need is some civilian that wouldn't last five minutes at crunch time trying to give advice on a subject of which he is totally ignorant. AMGoff butt out. After you have led a line company in a frontal assault you'll be qualified to have an opinion. Until then you're just unwelcome noise.

LS1Mike
01-10-08, 01:25 AM
Mike, the military has always been plagued by civilian feather merchants that wouldn't be caught dead in the military trying to tell everybody how it should be done when they don't have the first practical notion what goes on. The military still operates on rules that are very similar to what took place in Pharaoh's time. Thank God that when crunch time comes the military will be trained and ready because they ignored all the instant experts with no concept of what the job really requires as far as life skills. The civilians provide support and the military does the fighting with the best trained and most effective force the world has ever known. They didn't get that way by accident. The last thing we need is some civilian that wouldn't last five minutes at crunch time trying to give advice on a subject of which he is totally ignorant. AMGoff butt out. After you have led a line company in a frontal assault you'll be qualified to have an opinion. Until then you're just unwelcome noise.

I think it is the life skills comments that bother me the most. You get that and sometimes a lot more than you bargined for in the Military:D. I wouldn't have it any other way. If I didn't learn any life skills how did I manage to get a GS-11 Job in the government, finish college, get married, have a kid, buy a house ya da ya da ya da.
I would never tell anyone to butt out though even if they deserve it. It is the exact reason I joined the Army at 18 and switched over to the Navy everyone is entitled to express their view, even if it is not based off fact, I wanted to make sure no one ever lost that right.
I will leave that to you. You are damn good at it, and are old enough to be doing it! :D

AMGoff
01-10-08, 01:31 AM
Some where you have gotten the wacky idea that everybody in the military is a kid. The age range is from 17 to the 40s and 50s sometimes 60s. It takes years to advance through the ranks. A teenage E-5 is fairly rare. If anything, average age is much higher than it used to be. Pilots advance quicker than surface officers, mainly because they're always getting killed. If you enlist at 17 you can retire at 37 but a lot of guys stay in beyond that.

Somewhere you completely missed that I'm talking specifically about teenagers, what I feel the minimum enlistment age should be, and why I feel that way.

I don't recall once coming up with the wacky idea that everyone is a kid - only the... wait for it... actual kids.


You make a very valid argument, except the guys you are worried about the immature ones, the ones with authority issues. They usually don't last more than a year. Basic training, initial entry training and to their first command. F up and they are gone. I was an insturctor for three years and taught 110 brand new Trident Submarine Force radiomen. Most between the ages of 18 to 22, from my experience is they have been the best and most willing to learn.
It hard to take someone to much older and "mold" them. You have the most problems with the older guys. They don't want to listen. They have already done it all.

Some of my students were boated right from class because they just were not going to cut it. We didn't/don't have time to "fix" the guys like that. It is kind of like triage. Sounds kinda mean and heartless but it is what must be done. Not sure how the other branches do it, but I know that they do.
The end up back out on the street, I would assume these are guys who don't do much with their lives no matter what path they choose in life, but I could be wrong too.
I will say this how about we just agree to disagree?

Agreed to disagree then... and I do see your point, but I find it hard to believe that all of those who are a few years older are incapable of fully assimilating into the force. You're spot on with the observation about those who don't want to do anything with their lives aren't going to no matter what they do. But I'd have to believe that the majority of those slightly older enlistees do make good soldiers... for the simple reason that if a 22 year old decides to join then there's an extra level of conscious dedication. That fact would be further compounded if the minimum age was raised by a few years.

And that's my main point... I strongly believe if everyone would have to wait a few extra years to join, then the overall caliber of enlistees would increase. There would be that extra level all around... and because of which, I strongly believe the number of "wash outs" would drop dramatically.

One of the biggest reasons we moved to an all-volunteer force was because someone, somewhere realized that we would have a more effective military if it were comprised of a higher specialized, higher trained, higher dedicated force, even if it were one of smaller size.

My entire position with this is nothing more than an extension of that theory, and it takes into account and adjusts for the world we live in today.

AMGoff
01-10-08, 01:48 AM
Mike, the military has always been plagued by civilian feather merchants that wouldn't be caught dead in the military trying to tell everybody how it should be done when they don't have the first practical notion what goes on. The military still operates on rules that are very similar to what took place in Pharaoh's time. Thank God that when crunch time comes the military will be trained and ready because they ignored all the instant experts with no concept of what the job really requires as far as life skills. The civilians provide support and the military does the fighting with the best trained and most effective force the world has ever known. They didn't get that way by accident. The last thing we need is some civilian that wouldn't last five minutes at crunch time trying to give advice on a subject of which he is totally ignorant. AMGoff butt out. After you have led a line company in a frontal assault you'll be qualified to have an opinion. Until then you're just unwelcome noise.

Excuse me sir... but frankly you can go diddle yourself. For someone who tries to come across as such a keen observer of history as well as such an incessant purveyor of truth who finds it necessary to provide insight on any and everything, you've just completely discredited everything you've ever said... at least as far as I'm concerned.

I don't care what you've done with your life, but the plain and simple truth is you've done absolutely nothing with it that qualifies you to tell me or anyone else what areas of conversation I am or am not allowed to discuss.

In case you didn't get the memo, such "cowboy diplomacy" has both lost it's luster and been proven to be nonconstructive.

Out of all the hair-brained and cockamamy stuff that gets said on this site, I'd have to say that is the most disappointing thing I've ever seen written on here.

dkozloski
01-10-08, 01:53 AM
There is always that element that thinks that a college education is some kind of annointing that endows the holder with special traits denied the hoi poloi. Of course a military enlisted man would be of a much lower class and could not be depended upon to make complicated decisions especially if he were young. As John Kerry implied, if you don't finish your education "you'll be stuck in Iraq". The average age of a Marine recruit is 19.1 years. Obviously wet behind the ears. Let the marines have him for a year of training and you'll have a lean, mean, fighting machine. Ask him what he does and he'll tell you he blows stuff up and kills people. Nobody does it better.

dkozloski
01-10-08, 02:04 AM
The military is not looking for all the troops to be older, thoughtful, and retrospective. They realize that sometimes the only thing that will get the job done is the resiliancy, and impulsiveness of youth. On top of that, if he survives the test of battle you now have an experienced veteran that has the endurance and healing power of a younger man. It's unfortunate the nation lose it's finest young men to war. That's the way it's always been. The allowable age of enlistment has been raised in the last few years but at the top.

93DevilleUSMC
01-10-08, 02:08 AM
Somewhere you completely missed that I'm talking specifically about teenagers, what I feel the minimum enlistment age should be, and why I feel that way.

I don't recall once coming up with the wacky idea that everyone is a kid - only the... wait for it... actual kids.



Agreed to disagree then... and I do see your point, but I find it hard to believe that all of those who are a few years older are incapable of fully assimilating into the force. You're spot on with the observation about those who don't want to do anything with their lives aren't going to no matter what they do. But I'd have to believe that the majority of those slightly older enlistees do make good soldiers... for the simple reason that if a 22 year old decides to join then there's an extra level of conscious dedication. That fact would be further compounded if the minimum age was raised by a few years.

And that's my main point... I strongly believe if everyone would have to wait a few extra years to join, then the overall caliber of enlistees would increase. There would be that extra level all around... and because of which, I strongly believe the number of "wash outs" would drop dramatically.

One of the biggest reasons we moved to an all-volunteer force was because someone, somewhere realized that we would have a more effective military if it were comprised of a higher specialized, higher trained, higher dedicated force, even if it were one of smaller size.

My entire position with this is nothing more than an extension of that theory, and it takes into account and adjusts for the world we live in today.


From my firsthand experience, the 18-22-year olds who join are more than committed, and, as LS1Mike stated, are more than willing to learn and be molded. Yes, there are maturity issues, and some pretty severe one, but most of the ones who refuse to adapt are weeded out by various means. The ones who aren't eliminated during the first enlistment are usually forced out by the second one.

As far as the college first idea, I disagree with that for this reason: the military would be spending taxpayer dollars on college education for those who have not yet even completed to most basic conditions of their service contracts, namely basic training and a minimum of 180 days service. The idea of the GI Bill being payed after military service is to make sure that someone actually serves, as opposed to just signing up to get college money.

If you have any concerns about the overall caliber of enlistees, consider that the vast majority of the Marine Corps is present in the lower ranks, and that there are far more noncommissioned officers (Corporals through Sergeant Majors/Master Gunnery Sergeants) than officers (2nd Lieutenants through Generals) in the Corps. How well does this play out? Read about how well the Marines fought in Fallujah, to name only one example.

dkozloski
01-10-08, 02:11 AM
Somewhere you completely missed that I'm talking specifically about teenagers, what I feel the minimum enlistment age should be, and why I feel that way.

I don't recall once coming up with the wacky idea that everyone is a kid - only the... wait for it... actual kids.



Agreed to disagree then... and I do see your point, but I find it hard to believe that all of those who are a few years older are incapable of fully assimilating into the force. You're spot on with the observation about those who don't want to do anything with their lives aren't going to no matter what they do. But I'd have to believe that the majority of those slightly older enlistees do make good soldiers... for the simple reason that if a 22 year old decides to join then there's an extra level of conscious dedication. That fact would be further compounded if the minimum age was raised by a few years.

And that's my main point... I strongly believe if everyone would have to wait a few extra years to join, then the overall caliber of enlistees would increase. There would be that extra level all around... and because of which, I strongly believe the number of "wash outs" would drop dramatically.

One of the biggest reasons we moved to an all-volunteer force was because someone, somewhere realized that we would have a more effective military if it were comprised of a higher specialized, higher trained, higher dedicated force, even if it were one of smaller size.

My entire position with this is nothing more than an extension of that theory, and it takes into account and adjusts for the world we live in today.
The reason we moved to an all volunteer force was that the baby boomers were now calling the shots and they didn't lke the idea that their kids might have to serve their country. If the draft were eliminated they were home free and somebody else of a lower class would do their fighting for them. After all the military is just a group of uneducated losers. That's what Kerry implied.

AMGoff
01-10-08, 02:23 AM
When the hell will you get off you liberal-bashing soapbox. Here's a tip - everyone who disagrees with you aren't necessarily liberals. Besides, it's not like you're the epitome of conservative ideals.

dkozloski
01-10-08, 02:30 AM
I'm for reinstating the draft. You can enlist at 17, you are subject to the draft at 18. There are deferments for education but ultimately everybody serves at least two years of national service. The military wouldn't need them all but could take what they wanted. The rest could cut the underbrush in the national forests. Care for the sick and elderly. Repair houses for the homeless. Serve as aids in schools. There are a milion things that young people could do for their country to make them feel they were invested in it's well being. There would be military-like discipline and lots of good hard work. Fresh air, exercise, and the end to adolescent obesity. Nobody stands around on street corners selling drugs. If the parents won't take responsibility and raise their own kids it's a last best chance to learn life skills.

AMGoff
01-10-08, 02:31 AM
From my firsthand experience, the 18-22-year olds who join are more than committed, and, as LS1Mike stated, are more than willing to learn and be molded. Yes, there are maturity issues, and some pretty severe one, but most of the ones who refuse to adapt are weeded out by various means. The ones who aren't eliminated during the first enlistment are usually forced out by the second one.

As far as the college first idea, I disagree with that for this reason: the military would be spending taxpayer dollars on college education for those who have not yet even completed to most basic conditions of their service contracts, namely basic training and a minimum of 180 days service. The idea of the GI Bill being payed after military service is to make sure that someone actually serves, as opposed to just signing up to get college money.

If you have any concerns about the overall caliber of enlistees, consider that the vast majority of the Marine Corps is present in the lower ranks, and that there are far more noncommissioned officers (Corporals through Sergeant Majors/Master Gunnery Sergeants) than officers (2nd Lieutenants through Generals) in the Corps. How well does this play out? Read about how well the Marines fought in Fallujah, to name only one example.

That's perfectly fine, that's your opinion, you're certainly entitled to it, and it's no less valid simply because we differ in them.

I think I've laid my point of view out as clearly as I can... as well as tried to adhere as best as possible to the new "site commandments" laid upon us by the powers that be.

dkozloski
01-10-08, 02:32 AM
When the hell will you get off you liberal-bashing soapbox. Here's a tip - everyone who disagrees with you aren't necessarily liberals. Besides, it's not like you're the epitome of conservative ideals.
Who said anything about liberals. Evidently you thought the shoe fit so you put it on long enough to give me a kick.

It's past your bedtime anyway.

93DevilleUSMC
01-10-08, 02:38 AM
That's perfectly fine, that's your opinion, you're certainly entitled to it, and it's no less valid simply because we differ in them.

I think I've laid my point of view out as clearly as I can... as well as tried to adhere as best as possible to the new "site commandments" laid upon us by the powers that be.

Thanks for the respectful response, sir.

AMGoff
01-10-08, 02:43 AM
After all the military is just a group of uneducated losers. That's what Kerry implied.

Granted, that one was veiled in one of your little innuendos, but if you like I can start sifting through all of your old posts to find blatant examples... you do it all the time. You must have some sort of deep, inherent hatred and/or fear of so-called "liberals" that you obviously make such remarks unconsciously then.

Because really, what other reason would you have to bring up John Kerry? I can think of no one else that has brought him up in the last 2-3 years now. But you did, why? Because you were using a remark by a "liberal" to highlight one of your countless little quips in the debate alone.

Actually though... just thinking about it now... John Kerry did actually serve in the military, so according to you he is entitled to have an opinion... which subsequently means that I'm an even worse American than he is, according to your "logic" anyway.

dkozloski
01-10-08, 03:17 AM
Granted, that one was veiled in one of your little innuendos, but if you like I can start sifting through all of your old posts to find blatant examples... you do it all the time. You must have some sort of deep, inherent hatred and/or fear of so-called "liberals" that you obviously make such remarks unconsciously then.

Because really, what other reason would you have to bring up John Kerry? I can think of no one else that has brought him up in the last 2-3 years now. But you did, why? Because you were using a remark by a "liberal" to highlight one of your countless little quips in the debate alone.

Actually though... just thinking about it now... John Kerry did actually serve in the military, so according to you he is entitled to have an opinion... which subsequently means that I'm an even worse American than he is, according to your "logic" anyway.
Yeah!

dkozloski
01-10-08, 11:21 AM
This discussion has boiled down to two major issues. The first is, do the young men in question have sufficient maturity and supervision to complete their military tasks in an efficient manner? The answer is a resounding yes. If the military can do anything it excells in making men out of boys. The training, conditioning, and supervision these men recieved in their professional lives has producd the finest fighting force the world has ever seen. A recent study shows that young men in the military are more likely to survive their youth than young men in the general population. The biggest killer of young men is car wrecks. The supervision and discipline in these young men's lives has reduced this threat so far that it even compensates for combat deaths. There is no problem in the military with young men knowing how to conduct themselves in their chosen profession.
The second issue is; on their own, out of the view of their superiors, can the young men be trusted to conduct themselves in a safe and sane manner while recreating. The answer is no. They revert back to whatever it is that young men do to kill themselves in civilian life. The ban on underage drinking provides another tool for the military to use to keep the young men out of harms way and also protects the general public. The law, per se, may not prevent underage drinking but it provides a useful tool to discipline the men when they misbehave.
The system is working well the way it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Jesda
01-10-08, 01:11 PM
Yeah, I'd like to see the drinking age for everyone reduced to 0.

dkozloski
01-10-08, 01:30 PM
Yeah, I'd like to see the drinking age for everyone reduced to 0.
Not a good idea. The percentage of children born with FAE and FAS is appalling. My adopted son is a good example. He's almost 17 years old, has a minimal vocabulary, wears diapers, and requires help eating. He has gran mal seizures, He's unable to put his own clothes on. He didn't have a vote on the subject because he was at 0, still in the womb, when he got hammered. It's not a joking matter when helpless children's lives are destroyed.

Jesda
01-11-08, 12:38 AM
Not a good idea. The percentage of children born with FAE and FAS is appalling.

Thats the fault of people OVER the drinking age who can't control themselves while pregnant.