>Point of order:
>
>Those "not warrior types" receive the exact same training as the
>active duty types, with one weekend a month and 2 weeks in the summer
>for refresher - so if the reservists are not qualified, the active
>duty troops are not qualified much better.
>
I can't speak for all branches of the military but in the Navy training is
hardly uniform. I did basic at Great Lakes and then my "A" school there as
well. Hospital Corpsman. Nobody learned anything about killing. I knew
firefighters, radiomen, engineers, etc. and most of them had never even
held a firearm let alone trained to kill anyone. Many chose the rating they
did so that they would not have to kill. They were getting job training for
the civilian world and just happened to be getting it from Uncle Sam. Many
wanted to do the patriotic thing, help their country, community, whatever
without harming others. You can agree or disagree with their reasoning but
they are not trained killers. After "A" school about 25% (at the time I was
there) of Hospital Corpsmen get sent to basic training with the Marine
Corps (Camp Lejeune sucks). You go through a completely different type of
training than you received initially. Here you will learn to kill even
though you are technically considered non-combatants.
>Similarly, if the "GIs" you speak of made the decisions, eventually
>there would be no military uniforms, no grooming standards, no discipline
>of any sort to distinguish military from any other group of civilians,
>and then where would we be?
>
>Reese
Not that this seems terribly relevant but most officers and many enlistees like their uniforms. They feel it is important for their identity. They generally seek the discipline that the military provides so they would not likely discard that either. I don't know why you would think other
John Thornton