I feel this needs to be further discussed. My hat is off to everyone that served. regardless of the job, rank, branch, or combat. I have no problems with differences of opinions over if a war was just, if we should have fought in it, etc. I have a major problem with those who did not serve having an agenda of bitterness against those who did serve, especially those in combat. They risked their lives for the right for you to post your cry baby posts.
Defending the Military Part 2
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by saturneptune, Jul 8, 2012.
-
-
-
Bitterness against GIs following orders? No, anger against the pols who sold us out to Big Oil.
-
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Or, as in the case of the modern group of so called "national servants", BIG UNIONS!!!:BangHead: -
-
During my short time I was in Kyrgyzstan, I worked with some Dutch army counterparts; they informed me how the unionization of their military was working out. Granted, they could grow their hair long, and their uniform standards weren't as strict; but in order to get any benefits, they had to sign agreements to be employed with the military until age 65. That was a few years back, and things might have changed; but I am *SO* glad we aren't considering such a thing.
-
2. Since I am a dumb GI - what is a "pols"
3. Since we have been sold out to Big Oil ( I assume you mean "blood for Oil") why aren't we paying the same price as some other countries.
4. If you think Big oil makes too much money - then why not buy some stock in those companies?
When one joins the military, he gives up many rights. To have an effective military unit - you must have one leader, and the troops must be prepared and ready to follow that leader.
When in combat there is no time for union meetings. The leaders have be trained to lead and make decisions. Success of the mission is determined in part by loyalty of men to their leader.
On the other hand - troops are trained in the Geneva Convention - in that only "legal orders" are to be obeyed.
For example, if a platoon has a POW- but the platoon leaders wants to "waste" him and directs a GI to kill him - that solider has a responsibility to refuse such an illegal order.
As far as long hair and other uniform standards - there are reasons for those standards. A young Private may not understand them - thus that is why he is a Private.
Is it hard to be in the military - YES - but as the sayings go:
"When the going gets tough, the tough get going" and
"The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war". -
-
Obama and his leftist allies are well on the way to accomplishing what those people could not, primarily because of the stupid agreement the super[stupid]committee reached.
*****************************************************************
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon has warned if the cuts are too deep the Pentagon may have to reintroduce the draft. A memo prepared by Republicans on that committee shows how the the country's overall unemployment rate would rise if these severe defense cuts are triggered.
Nearly 200,000 soldiers and Marines would be let go, and the Armed Service Committee members warn that at least 25 percent of the military's civilian workforce would be furloughed, eliminating at least 200,000 jobs.
And finding employment for returning veterans will be difficult, they warn. The national unemployment rate is currently 9 percent, but unemployment for Iraq and Afghan war vets is 22 percent, and it is 41 percent for wounded vets.
If the deficit super committee fails to reach an agreement, the number of Army battalions will go from 100 to about 60 battalions. The number of Navy ships will go from 288 to 238 - a reduction of two Aircraft Carrier Battle groups. The Air Force would lose more than 400 fighter jets and about 34 strategic bombers.
The biggest jobs cuts would be in Virginia, Texas and California -- where the defense industry supports local economies. Such cuts in the short term may cut the debt but would also cause the national unemployment rate to rise significantly, according to Pentagon officials.
Defense spending will soon be at its lowest level, as a portion of the overall federal budget, since before World War II. The Obama administration has ordered the Pentagon cut its budget by $465 billion over the next decade. In the next two years the Pentagon budget is slated to fall by 10 percent, even without sequestration or the punishment that is automatically triggered if the super committee fails to find a compromise and other savings.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...talks-could-devastate-military/#ixzz208xTXGLi -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I must have changed.
According to FreeAtLast I'm a supporter of our evil, Gestapo government and I never was before. -
>>Bitterness against GIs following orders? No, anger against the pols who sold us out to Big Oil.
>Do you attempt to derail every thread you post to?
READ POST #! -
I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the majority of service people and put the blame of problems primarily on the politics of those leaders not engaged in the front lines.