Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 155 posts

Re: Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

#111

Post by Hondor »

grzm wrote: post #105
Hondor wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people joined the Taliban for those reasons, and ISIS and Al Quaeda. Many common criminals commit crime because they need money too. Just because you're desperate, doesn't give you the right to kill people. Just because you feel it serves your country doesn't make it OK to ruin someone else's country. These soldiers complaining about their money helped to destroy Iraq and caused the deaths of 100s of thousands o…

The military in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. It can be used to do bad things. Soldiers in the military who do bad things are responsible for their actions. Is this a fair paraphrasing of your position? If not, please correct me. If I'm understanding that correctly, I can follow that chain of reasoning. It looks like you're also making the claim that if they've done bad things they're not allowed to complain i…

Thanks for your civil response.

I mean soldiers know when they sign up that they might be required to do bad things. They agree to do those bad things to save themselves from poverty/unemployment/etc. I don't think that's right. They're using their own problems to justify creating worse problems for other people.

Not so general as "if you do bad things, you can't complain" but more like "If you do very bad things and kill people and get away with it, you can't complain about minor inconveniences like refinancing your house". Although they are separate issues, since soldiers aren't going to face justice for their crimes, why not look at their lost money as a kind of coincidental punishment?

Re: Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

#112

Post by candiodari »

jcbeard wrote: post #107
Hondor wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just about every war ever has taught us these things over and over again. Maybe if we stop glorifying soldiers, those naive kids will stop believing it. Perhaps we should just admit that soldiers in wars do bad things and are bad people. We managed to convince most Germans that the Nazis were bad and not to be glorified. We partly achieved that with Vietnam veterans. But all the lessons of history were forgotten when…

>And many others, because it presents them with an economic opportunity they would never otherwise have had: college, vocational training, and increased social status. You should show empathy, not sympathy for Soldiers. We don't want your freaking sympathy(from former Soldier), most just want opportunity. If you want to stop people from signing up for the US Army then here's what you have to do: 1) End inequality in…

> 2) End the spiraling healthcare costs (adding a single payer would likely go a long way)

Obamacare was introduced just before the US healthcare system would go into the red (be a net cost for the government, as opposed to a source of income) and delayed that by creating new income for the government. This was not a coincidence.

The whole purpose of Obamacare was to make healthcare less expensive for the government, by putting more of the burden on the population, without being a new tax. It is very far from an accident that healthcare costs have spiraled.

But Obamacare only delayed the government budget drain until somewhere between 2018 and 2020 according to the congressional budget office. So "Obamacare 2" is coming in the next president's term, don't worry. It might even have single payer, as obviously raising costs is not a compelling public message.

But it must raise costs. There's no other option. It must raise costs to get back into balance, as the US government has borrowed massively from the healthcare system and is in no position to pay back any of it, so it cannot be allowed to have more outflows than inflows. The consequences would be too great. Well, actually, unlike most of the rest of the world the US could choose to defund the military to a significant extent and actually get a few more years of healthcare out of it (but we'd be talking 10-20% budget loss for the military at least, and as you point out that would rob more than a few young people of economic opportunity). But it would only delay matters, it can't solve them.

What can you do ? Nothing really. Too few people paying into a system with too many dependents. More kids was the answer, but obviously those would have had to have been born 20-25 years ago. Right now, more kids would only put more load on the system for the first few decades. Massively opening up immigration could work in theory, but if Europe is any indication, it won't.

Of course, all of this is assuming there won't be an economic crisis, and at this point, we're overdue one.

Re: Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

#113

Post by lucio »

>>Robert D’Andrea, a retired Army major and Iraq veteran, was told to return a $20,000 bonus he received in 2008 because auditors could not find a copy of the contract he says he signed.

>>We’d be more than happy to absolve these people of their debts. We just can’t do it. We’d be breaking the law.

- Stop quoting laws at us. We carry weapons

Re: Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

#114

Post by latch »

grzm wrote: post #105
Hondor wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people joined the Taliban for those reasons, and ISIS and Al Quaeda. Many common criminals commit crime because they need money too. Just because you're desperate, doesn't give you the right to kill people. Just because you feel it serves your country doesn't make it OK to ruin someone else's country. These soldiers complaining about their money helped to destroy Iraq and caused the deaths of 100s of thousands o…

The military in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. It can be used to do bad things. Soldiers in the military who do bad things are responsible for their actions. Is this a fair paraphrasing of your position? If not, please correct me. If I'm understanding that correctly, I can follow that chain of reasoning. It looks like you're also making the claim that if they've done bad things they're not allowed to complain i…

Not your parent. This is a complicated situation, but I think you guys are conflating two points.

Is superior orders a valid defense? No. [1]

And while I'm loosely in the camp that feels that the 2nd Iraq war was a war of aggression, this action by the Pentagon is completely unrelated.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

Re: Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

#115

Post by latch »

Hondor wrote: post #111
grzm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. It can be used to do bad things. Soldiers in the military who do bad things are responsible for their actions. Is this a fair paraphrasing of your position? If not, please correct me. If I'm understanding that correctly, I can follow that chain of reasoning. It looks like you're also making the claim that if they've done bad things they're not allowed to complain i…

Thanks for your civil response. I mean soldiers know when they sign up that they might be required to do bad things. They agree to do those bad things to save themselves from poverty/unemployment/etc. I don't think that's right. They're using their own problems to justify creating worse problems for other people. Not so general as "if you do bad things, you can't complain" but more like "If you do very bad things and…

Your heading down a slippery slope. If they did something wrong, they have a right to face and defend themselves against that crime. It seems like you're advocating against due process.

And maybe...maybe, I'd agree that the ends justify the means IF that was the intent. But since this is the Pentagon doling out the punishment . . .

If you believe that the wars were illegal, this is a double whammy. The Pentagon is by far the biggest criminal and they benefit the most from this punishment.

Re: Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

#116

Post by ZoeZoeBee »

apsec112 wrote: post #14
Skeptique wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be poor press to announce that a war is about money, but the veneer of pretense is thin. The Syrian war, especially given Russia's involvement is almost certainly about securing passage for natural gas pipelines. Who thinks the Iraq war was actually about Freedom? That might have been the rallying cry but it was about securing access to oil and securing massive re-building contracts and/or reparation money.…

"The Syrian war, especially given Russia's involvement is almost certainly about securing passage for natural gas pipelines." Do you have a cite for that? No one on any side is building pipelines in Syria anytime soon, because, well, war. Also, pretty sure if I told Suheil al-Hassan or Abu Mohammad al-Julani they were fighting for natural gas pipelines, they'd knock my teeth out.

July 25, 2011 'Islamic pipeline' seeks Euro gas markets

>ASALOUYEH, Iran, July 25 (UPI) -- Iran, Iraq and Syria say they're set to sign an official contract to construct a natural gas pipeline connecting Iran's South Pars field to European customers.

>Iran's state-run Press TV announced that a deal between Iran's interim Oil Minister Mohammad Aliabadi and his Iraqi and Syrian counterparts -- the biggest of its in the kind in the Middle East -- would be signed at Asalouyeh, Iran.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Industry/2011/07/25/...

Something tells me the US is not too keen on Iran-Iraq-Syria joining forces for much of anything, and I do not believe the Russians are too keen on the idea considering their existing natural gas pipeline to the EU and the just proposed one between Russia and Turkey

Re: Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

#117

Post by grzm »

Hondor wrote: post #111
grzm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. It can be used to do bad things. Soldiers in the military who do bad things are responsible for their actions. Is this a fair paraphrasing of your position? If not, please correct me. If I'm understanding that correctly, I can follow that chain of reasoning. It looks like you're also making the claim that if they've done bad things they're not allowed to complain i…

Thanks for your civil response. I mean soldiers know when they sign up that they might be required to do bad things. They agree to do those bad things to save themselves from poverty/unemployment/etc. I don't think that's right. They're using their own problems to justify creating worse problems for other people. Not so general as "if you do bad things, you can't complain" but more like "If you do very bad things and…

And thanks for your clarifications!

I'd like to separate the determination of which acts are good and which are bad from the reasoning of the argument itself. Is that fair?

I think there are many reasons people sign up, and that most people sign up in good faith and don't expect to be asked to do bad things. I don't think they perform some mental calculus like "I'm willing to risk doing bad things to escape poverty".

I can see how one might find a sort of karmic justice in the situation. And it's a part of human psychology to tend to wish bad things on bad people. After all, they deserve it, right? :) I know I'm guilty of feeling this on occasion.

However, I don't agree with it. If you believe the soldiers did very bad things, I wouldn't think the lost money--not associated with the bad acts--would be satisfying justice. Linking them this way could even weaken your stance, opening you up to accusations of wishing ill rather than seeking justice. I don't think such accusations are a good or fair argument--and not one I'm making or implying--but I can imagine someone uncharitably making it.

Does this make sense? I admit it's got aspects of reasoning combined with perception, but I think both need to be taken into account, especially when discussing issues that are potentially controversial.

What do you think?

Re: Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

#118

Post by beachstartup »

brbsix wrote: post #93
dlp211 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly, the vast majority of jobs in the US Army are non-combat. You shouldn't paint with such a broad brush, many who serve do so out of a sense of duty to the nation, to escape a bad situation including poverty or get out of a dying town, and/or to gain access to higher education through the use of tuition assistance and GI Bill programs.

Many people also turn to crime in an attempt to escape poverty or a dying town. Certainly we can have empathy for desperate people making difficult decisions, but it doesn't absolve them of moral agency or place them above scrutiny.

first, blaming the economically disadvantaged foot soldier or mess hall cook or tank mechanic for the contemporary crimes of the political and economic ruling class has got to be the most morally reprehensible thing i've heard on this topic, and carries nearly psychopathic levels of non-empathy.

Re: Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

#119

Post by Hondor »

grzm wrote: post #117
Hondor wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your civil response. I mean soldiers know when they sign up that they might be required to do bad things. They agree to do those bad things to save themselves from poverty/unemployment/etc. I don't think that's right. They're using their own problems to justify creating worse problems for other people. Not so general as "if you do bad things, you can't complain" but more like "If you do very bad things and…

And thanks for your clarifications! I'd like to separate the determination of which acts are good and which are bad from the reasoning of the argument itself. Is that fair? I think there are many reasons people sign up, and that most people sign up in good faith and don't expect to be asked to do bad things. I don't think they perform some mental calculus like "I'm willing to risk doing bad things to escape poverty".…

I agree linking the two unrelated things is a weak argument. My comment was more of a reaction to the opposite linking shown so commonly by many people, which is "They deserve to be treated fairly because they're soldiers". That's they same type of argument as mine but in reverse.

Re: Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses

#120

Post by grzm »

latch wrote: post #114
grzm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. It can be used to do bad things. Soldiers in the military who do bad things are responsible for their actions. Is this a fair paraphrasing of your position? If not, please correct me. If I'm understanding that correctly, I can follow that chain of reasoning. It looks like you're also making the claim that if they've done bad things they're not allowed to complain i…

Not your parent. This is a complicated situation, but I think you guys are conflating two points. Is superior orders a valid defense? No. [1] And while I'm loosely in the camp that feels that the 2nd Iraq war was a war of aggression, this action by the Pentagon is completely unrelated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

> Not your parent.

I'm still wet behind the ears here and am not familiar with all of the jargon. What does this mean? I take it you're scoping your response in some way but it's not clear to me what scope is intended.

If you're responding to my comment ("The military in and of itself isn't necessarily bad"), my only intent was to make sure I understood Hondor, not to make any claims myself. If that wasn't clear, I'll endeavor to be clearer in the future.

Post reply on HN