# Sending pink slips to a war zone



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

In a stunning display of callousness, Defense Department has announced that thousands of soldiers â many serving as commanding officers in Afghanistan â will be notified in the coming weeks that their service to the country is no longer needed. 
Last week, more than 1,100 Army captains â the men and women who know best how to fight this enemy because they have experienced multiple deployments â were told theyâll be retired from the Army. 

You can read more at http://nypost.com/2014/07/09/sending-pink-slips-to-a-war-zone/


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Look at the bright side. The way things are going over here a group of civilians with actual combat and command experience might come in handy if this Country is to survive.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Prolly the letter is addressed to "Dear CORPSEman"-

More proof the Idioitincharge IS an Idiot.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Amazing that giving clean underpants, to Guatemalan children is a waste of taxpayer money, but a 1/2 TRILLION DOLLAR(500 billion)annual U.S. military budget, is money well spent. 

The cuts will still leave us with 440,000 Army troops.

How many do we need?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Amazing that giving clean underpants, to Guatemalan children is a waste of taxpayer money, but a 1/2 TRILLION DOLLAR(500 billion)annual U.S. military budget, is money well spent.
> 
> The cuts will still leave us with 440,000 Army troops.
> 
> How many do we need?


I seriously doubt anyone here has objected to giving children clean underpants. Can you site one?

You better hope you never find out how many troops we need.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

These termination notices just stink. These guys are under enough pressure trying to keep themselves and their troops alive, now they can worry about how they're going to feed their families when they get home.

I got a "Dear Tom" letter in VN, a six pack fixed that (truthfully, the letter was just an excuse for the six pack).


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I seriously doubt anyone here has objected to giving children clean underpants. Can you site one?
> 
> You better hope you never find out how many troops we need.


Some have stated that the right thing to do, is simply turn the children around at the border, refusing to give any assistance.

In America, when we truly needed soldiers, either they volunteered, or in some cases drafted.

Is there some reason, we cannot do this again, if necessary?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Ozarks Tom said:


> These termination notices just stink. These guys are under enough pressure trying to keep themselves and their troops alive, now they can worry about how they're going to feed their families when they get home.


 Sorry but the wars were not intended as 'job creation' programs.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Whenever a Military based is set to close, the negative economic impact on the local community, is almost always the biggest driving force, for keeping it opened. The "mission" is usually secondary.

Welfare, is not only just for the poor.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Old Vet said:


> In a stunning display of callousness, Defense Department has announced that thousands of soldiers â many serving as commanding officers in Afghanistan â will be notified in the coming weeks that their service to the country is no longer needed.
> Last week, more than 1,100 Army captains â the men and women who know best how to fight this enemy because they have experienced multiple deployments â were told theyâll be retired from the Army.
> 
> You can read more at http://nypost.com/2014/07/09/sending-pink-slips-to-a-war-zone/


This administration never ceases to make poor decisions.

Thank you for your service Sir


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Sorry but the wars were not intended as 'job creation' programs.


And here I thought you liberals were all heart. My comment had nothing to do with the reduction in force. My comment was regarding the manner in which it's being handled. Dumping on people in a war zone isn't just bad form, it's stupid.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Some have stated that the right thing to do, is simply turn the children around at the border, refusing to give any assistance.
> 
> In America, when we truly needed soldiers, either they volunteered, or in some cases drafted.
> 
> Is there some reason, we cannot do this again, if necessary?


Here, let me, explain it, in terms, you'll, understand.

First the, children. Yes, they shouldn't be, allowed into the country. That's what, is meant by the, term border enforcement. Once, they are in our, custody, however we do have, a moral obligation, to give them medical, treatment as needed, hygienic conditions, and, humane treatment. Nobody, here has argued, otherwise. The argument, is, whether they should, be allowed to stay.

With the, exception of personal, weapons today's military is, a great deal, more technical, than in the, past. Troop reductions, carried to a, certain level, would create a learning, curve making draftees and new, volunteers useless for a year, or better. We currently, do not have a, full division battle ready, in the entire army. Last I heard, it was, 2 brigades. Just a little, knowledge, of history tells us, our enemies don't send RSVP cards, prior to their mischief.

When the IRS can send billions in bogus refunds, Medicare and Medicaid can lose $60 billion to fraud and abuse, the Dept of Energy can waste billions on "green" crony deals, and the obamas can spend hundred of millions on vacations, cutting the military is obviously agenda driven - not by fiscal concerns.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Sorry but the wars were not intended as 'job creation' programs.


+ + + + + + + + +
Obama, BUT they were. Where'd the $850 BILLION go for them???

http://wakeupblackamerica.blogspot.com/2010/10/obamas-850-billion-dollar-shovel-ready.html?m=1


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Amazing that giving clean underpants, to Guatemalan children is a waste of taxpayer money, but a 1/2 TRILLION DOLLAR(500 billion)annual U.S. military budget, is money well spent.
> 
> The cuts will still leave us with 440,000 Army troops.
> 
> How many do we need?


As is so often the case, you seem to have missed the point...maybe if you weren't rolling your eyes all the time you would see it.

Do you think maybe it would be a little more respectful to our soldiers to wait until they're out of the war zone to tell them they're no longer needed?


----------



## wally (Oct 9, 2007)

Not sure their is a good time to tell anyone they are losing their job. In this situation some will appreciate the heads up and will continue to do the job they were hired for and some will say to heck with it and stop doing their job. The one who quit doing their jobs are the ones we dont need in leadership roles.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Here's a little more information. Reductions in force always hurt someone. Ten months between the notice and actual separation from service doesn't seem that draconian. Other sources I have read state that anyone with 18 years of service will be allowed to serve until their 20th anniversary thus ensuring retirement benefits. Those with 15-18 years will be eligible for some pro-rated benefits. Not ideal but better treatment than many have gotten in the private sector. 
http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/23/army-drawdown-continues-1100-captains-to-be-cut.html


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> As is so often the case, you seem to have missed the point...maybe if you weren't rolling your eyes all the time you would see it.
> 
> Do you think maybe it would be a little more respectful to our soldiers to wait until they're out of the war zone to tell them they're no longer needed?


I didn't miss anything and "respect" has nothing to do with it. These people are professional Soldiers.

Personally I don't care where I was at, if I'm losing my job (happened many times), I want to know _now_, not _later_.

That's the respectable thing to do.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Amazing that giving clean underpants, to Guatemalan children is a waste of taxpayer money, but a 1/2 TRILLION DOLLAR(500 billion)annual U.S. military budget, is money well spent.
> 
> The cuts will still leave us with 440,000 Army troops.
> 
> How many do we need?


Do you know how much $$$ is already allocated to those children? Do you?
The op is about sending notices to soldiers IN A WAR ZONE.
What's your take on that?
I'm sure you think its just fine.
More proof the left has nothing but disdain for our military.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Here, let me, explain it, in terms, you'll, understand.
> 
> First the, children. Yes, they shouldn't be, allowed into the country. That's what, is meant by the, term border enforcement. Once, they are in our, custody, however we do have, a moral obligation, to give them medical, treatment as needed, hygienic conditions, and, humane treatment. Nobody, here has argued, otherwise. The argument, is, whether they should, be allowed to stay.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Here's a little more information. Reductions in force always hurt someone. Ten months between the notice and actual separation from service doesn't seem that draconian. Other sources I have read state that anyone with 18 years of service will be allowed to serve until their 20th anniversary thus ensuring retirement benefits. Those with 15-18 years will be eligible for some pro-rated benefits. Not ideal but better treatment than many have gotten in the private sector.
> http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/23/army-drawdown-continues-1100-captains-to-be-cut.html


So you're just fine w/firing notices sent while in a war zone?
Or just obfuscating?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Here, let me, explain it, in terms, you'll, understand.
> 
> First the, children. Yes, they shouldn't be, allowed into the country. That's what, is meant by the, term border enforcement. Once, they are in our, custody, however we do have, a moral obligation, to give them medical, treatment as needed, hygienic conditions, and, humane treatment. Nobody, here has argued, otherwise. The argument, is, whether they should, be allowed to stay.
> 
> ...


Well, Military Leaders supposedly know (better than you and me) what they need, to have an effective fighting force and there are no major screams, from them.

Regarding history and enemies, 9/11 proved that a huge, traditional Military fighting force, is no longer effective, anyway.

By the time China (or maybe Canada  ) wants to attack wars will be fought with drones and robots, so massive amounts of humans will not be needed.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Do you know how much $$$ is already allocated to those children? Do you?
> The op is about sending notices to soldiers IN A WAR ZONE.
> What's your take on that?
> I'm sure you think its just fine.
> More proof the left has nothing but disdain for our military.


Sorry, but I don't see what being in a "war zone", has to do with anything. They're not receiving the word, hunkered in a foxhole, somewhere.

Like i said, personally I appreciated receiving bad news (maybe this is good news to some of them) _*sooner*_, than _*later*_. 

They might appreciated it too, if they were thinking of purchasing a home, having more kids, or other major life events.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> So you're just fine w/firing notices sent while in a war zone?
> Or just obfuscating?


They're being given 10 months to plan their next moves. They're being given access to programs to help with the transition. In some cases their service will be extended to help them meet retirement dates and goals. I suppose they could be handed the pink slip when they get off the plane from Afghanistan or show up to work one day and be fired and walked out. That's how many of the businesses many on the right believe the government should be modeled after would handle it. I know your premise is that everything done under this administration is somehow wrong and hateful and evil. You are welcome to that opinion. Now , tell me exactly how you would handle this draw down of forces that was necessitated by the budget process.

ETA- the biggest mistake I think they've made is not starting high enough in the command structure. A big reduction in flag level officers would make a better start, IMHO, but of course they ultimately decide who goes.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Back in previous wars guys would shoot themselves in the hand to get out. Now they are being "victimized" by a callous government for taking them out of a warzone. The military does not exist to create jobs, its a massive drain on our resources and its driving up the debt. Some of you conservatives have to wake up and realize that spending needs to be cut across the board.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Amazing that giving clean underpants, to Guatemalan children is a waste of taxpayer money, but a 1/2 TRILLION DOLLAR(500 billion)annual U.S. military budget, is money well spent.
> 
> The cuts will still leave us with 440,000 Army troops.
> 
> How many do we need?


I keep asking myself why you have such a hard time understanding the main point of a conservative objection, or observation. I have to think our minds and points of reference are just too far apart for a common perspective.

Or maybe you just like tweaking people.

Conservatives DO NOT object with dealing with the crisis in the kindest most humanitarian manner.

Conservatives DO object to the reasons and motivations of why we find ourselves in this crisis.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Amazing that giving clean underpants, to Guatemalan children is a waste of taxpayer money, but a 1/2 TRILLION DOLLAR(500 billion)annual U.S. military budget, is money well spent.
> 
> The cuts will still leave us with 440,000 Army troops.
> 
> How many do we need?


I'm embarassed that such remarks can ever be thought appropriate.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Dumping on people in a war zone isn't just bad form, it's stupid.


 Undermanning their mission to chase imaginary WMDs in Iraq was the stupid part. Thank your Chimp-in-Chief for that one.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Twobottom said:


> Back in previous wars guys would shoot themselves in the hand to get out. Now they are being "victimized" by a callous government for taking them out of a warzone. The military does not exist to create jobs,* its a massive drain on our resources and its driving up the debt.* Some of you conservatives have to wake up and realize that spending needs to be cut across the board.


Interesting concept to say the least. The primary purpose (according to the Constitution) of the federal government is to provide protection from foreign invasions.... I have yet to read a single provision in our Constitution to provide ANY social programs. Yet our budget gets split basically 2/3s going to social programs, 1/4 to defense and the remaining scraps go to the other items actually listed in the Constitution (judicial branch, salaries for congress etc) How about we do away with the (unconstitutional) social programs and keep the military? We would have plenty of funding from tax revenue that way, with a real surplus, and no need for more debt!


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The primary purpose (according to the Constitution) of the federal government is to provide protection from foreign invasions.... I have yet to read a single provision in our Constitution to provide ANY social programs.



I agree that we should get rid of the unconstitutional social programs. However, "living document" liberals will argue that the general welfare clause provides authorization for those programs, completely ignoring original intent and language and the time.

In addition, although the Constitution provides authorization for funding a full time navy, it DOES NOT provide for funding a full time standing army. It was intended that an army should only be raised and funded during a time of war, and that's why funds need to be voted on every two years to pay for the army. We're not supposed to have professional career soldiers.

Also, military personnel get cut all the time for not making rank. It's standard procedure, and as far as I know, they've never cared where someone happens to be deployed or stationed when it's time to send out notices. The reason they're going after captains with these notices is simple. There's only so many slots to promote captains to the next rank, and they need to make room for more promising lower ranks to get promoted to captain. Same thing happens in the enlisted ranks.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

where I want to said:


> I'm embarassed that such remarks can ever be thought appropriate.



Do you think I make this stuff up?




> Homeland Security buses carrying illegal immigrant children and families were rerouted Tuesday to a facility in San Diego after American flag-waving protesters blocked the group from reaching a suburban processing center.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/0...ng-illegal-immigrant-children-to-be-rerouted/


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> I didn't miss anything and "respect" has nothing to do with it. These people are professional Soldiers.
> 
> Personally I don't care where I was at, if I'm losing my job (happened many times), I want to know _now_, not _later_.
> 
> That's the respectable thing to do.


I still think it could wait, but you make a good point. I'm sorry I wasn't in a great mood last night when I wrote that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

jtbrandt said:


> I still think it could wait, but you make a good point. I'm sorry I wasn't in a great mood last night when I wrote that.


Probably not my place but award yourself some points.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

greg273 said:


> Undermanning their mission to chase imaginary WMDs in Iraq was the stupid part. Thank your Chimp-in-Chief for that one.


Hmmm...if anyone said that about Obama it would be considered extremely racist...why isn't it when referring to Bush? I don't really care that much, but I am interested in how the distinction is made.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting concept to say the least. The primary purpose (according to the Constitution) of the federal government is to provide protection from foreign invasions.... I have yet to read a single provision in our Constitution to provide ANY social programs. Yet our budget gets split basically 2/3s going to social programs, 1/4 to defense and the remaining scraps go to the other items actually listed in the Constitution (judicial branch, salaries for congress etc) How about we do away with the (unconstitutional) social programs and keep the military? We would have plenty of funding from tax revenue that way, with a real surplus, and no need for more debt!


Or we could get rid of the social programs, cut the military a little, and have even more of a surplus...and still have the best military in the world.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Twobottom said:


> Back in previous wars guys would shoot themselves in the hand to get out. Now they are being "victimized" by a callous government for taking them out of a warzone. The military does not exist to create jobs, its a massive drain on our resources and its driving up the debt. *Some of you conservatives have to wake up and realize that spending needs to be cut across the board*.


I must have missed the headline. You know, the one that reads:
*
IRS, EPA, DOE, DOE, DOJ, BLM, TSA All to see RIFS this year.*

I'll search, but until I see it I'll continue to think reducing the military is purely driven by agenda.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

DOD has always been an up and down agency. There's a crisis and DOD budget gets increased, the crisis ends and DOD gets cut. 
But sending out such notice at such a moment is unnesseccarily inhumane and stupid and rude. The agency could wait, even if it costs some money, until those personnel are at least back in the US.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shoden said:


> I agree that we should get rid of the unconstitutional social programs. However, "living document" liberals will argue that the general welfare clause provides authorization for those programs, completely ignoring original intent and language and the time.


Yeppers, I have seen em do it right here on this forum... they not only totally ignore original intent and language at the time.... they seem to have overlooked article five and its purpose.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

jtbrandt said:


> Or we could get rid of the social programs, cut the military a little, and have even more of a surplus...and *still have the best military in the world.*


I would certainly hope we can maintain that status.... and then some. As evidenced by two previous wars, sometimes our enemies combine forces.... and I never want to see our country coming in second in a gunfight.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

jtbrandt said:


> As is so often the case, you seem to have missed the point...maybe if you weren't rolling your eyes all the time you would see it.
> 
> Do you think maybe it would be a little more respectful to our soldiers to wait until they're out of the war zone to tell them they're no longer needed?


"Respectful" and "Obama" (or his fans) are never seen together
Just another slap in the face of our military by the un-American Idol Obama
What a miserable excuse for a leader.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would certainly hope we can maintain that status.... and then some. As evidenced by two previous wars, sometimes our enemies combine forces.... and I never want to see our country coming in second in a gunfight.


Since we spend more than the next five or more countries combined, we should be able to take any two or three with no problems. It's with unconventional warfare that we face our biggest challenge...and sheer numbers of troops won't win that kind of war for us.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> Since we spend more than the next five or more countries combined, we should be able to take any two or three with no problems. It's with unconventional warfare that we face our biggest challenge...and sheer numbers of troops won't win that kind of war for us.


You're absolutely right, and that points out the irony of the pink slips for Captains. They're the ones with the experience in commanding troops in the "close up and personal" type of warfare we're most likely to find ourselves in.

You can get away with deploying somewhat inexperienced troops if you have experienced command.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting concept to say the least. The primary purpose (according to the Constitution) of the federal government is to provide protection from foreign invasions.... I have yet to read a single provision in our Constitution to provide ANY social programs. Yet our budget gets split basically 2/3s going to social programs, 1/4 to defense and the remaining scraps go to the other items actually listed in the Constitution (judicial branch, salaries for congress etc) How about we do away with the (unconstitutional) social programs and keep the military? We would have plenty of funding from tax revenue that way, with a real surplus, and no need for more debt!


Foreign invasions are about as likely as a flying pig. The constitution does not authorize a standing army to be continually funded. Yet, we spend more on our military than every industrialized nation on earth COMBINED. 50 cents out of every tax dollar goes to military/defense spending.

I'm all for protecting the country, but this absurdly massive military is not at all necessary. This is a force designed to invade, attack, and build a military empire NOT defend our borders. Here's a look at how we stack up:











So, for all of us who are reasonable, it's pretty obvious that building up a military force to this level has nothing at all to do with defense of the borders. We could cut our spending in half and we'd still be spending more than Russia and China COMBINED.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Twobottom said:


> Foreign invasions are about as likely as a flying pig. The constitution does not authorize a standing army to be continually funded. Yet, we spend more on our military than every industrialized nation on earth COMBINED. 50 cents out of every tax dollar goes to military/defense spending.
> 
> I'm all for protecting the country, but this absurdly massive military is not at all necessary. This is a force designed to invade, attack, and build a military empire NOT defend our borders. Here's a look at how we stack up:
> 
> ...


I don't know where you got your numbers, but they couldn't be more wrong when it comes to % of spending. Spending on the military for FY 2014 is 16.6%.
/www.google.com/search?q=federal+spending&tbm=isch&imgil=yPLS_6yxnAErvM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcT5HTF2YAtvEx0DPcc

We've got thousands of places to cut before we start on the military.

ETA: Sorry, can't make the link work. Just google federal spending.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I don't know where you got your numbers, but they couldn't be more wrong when it comes to % of spending. Spending on the military for FY 2014 is 16.6%.
> /www.google.com/search?q=federal+spending&tbm=isch&imgil=yPLS_6yxnAErvM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcT5HTF2YAtvEx0DPcc
> 
> We've got thousands of places to cut before we start on the military.
> ...


What numbers exactly do you object to? I never posted any numbers with regard to % of spending. But I'll tell you that the official government stats with regard to % of spending are way off because they hide alot of defense related spending in other areas.

The facts are that we do spend 50cents out of every TAX DOLLAR ( not 50% of all spending as we know most spending is borrowed, not paid for by taxes. Devil is in the details ). Either way its all unnecessary and unsustainable. Our aggressive interventionist foreign policy has made us less safe. Just a look at those numbers can give us a clue as to how the rest of the world reacts. The obsessive building of the US military forces the rest of the world to compete by building up theirs.

Our aggressive, offensive strategies overseas have resulted in a large body count, as this massive institution lobbies and pressures our government to find reasons to justify it's existence with more war. It is naive to think that such a massive institution can exist purely in service to government without exerting influence over that government. There are people, corporations, and whole communities dependent on the continuation of war for financial gain. This has nothing to do with protecting the borders. It's a business, and for some, a way of life. This is known as the Military Industrial Complex. 

President Eisenhower ( back when republicans were still for keeping government small ) warned us about it. This is speech you should all hear:

"In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex"

[YOUTUBE]A_II0H7X5O4[/YOUTUBE]

What we need to guard our liberty and reverse the toll that the military industrial complex has taken on our freedom and way of life, are deep DEEP cuts to military spending.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Eisenhower was the first Commander in Chief I served under...and by far my favorite.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Twobottom said:


> What numbers exactly do you object to? I never posted any numbers with regard to % of spending. But I'll tell you that the official government stats with regard to % of spending are way off because they hide alot of defense related spending in other areas.
> 
> *The facts are that we do spend 50cents out of every TAX DOLLAR*( not 50% of all spending as we know most spending is borrowed, not paid for by taxes. Devil is in the details ). Either way its all unnecessary and unsustainable. Our aggressive interventionist foreign policy has made us less safe. Just a look at those numbers can give us a clue as to how the rest of the world reacts. The obsessive building of the US military forces the rest of the world to compete by building up theirs.


What makes you think that any of our military is paid for by tax dollars rather than being paid for with that borrowed money? :hysterical: 

The facts are that approximately one fourth of our spending goes to military.... two thirds of our spending.... be it todays tax dollars or tomorrows tax dollars in the form of borrowed money goes to unconstitutional social programs.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Undermanning their mission to chase imaginary WMDs in Iraq was the stupid part. Thank your Chimp-in-Chief for that one.


That's racist.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> That's racist.


 Bwhaaahaha. Cry me a river!! Believe me, the errors of Dubya have nothing to do with race. Kind of like you claim about Obama.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Undermanning their mission to chase imaginary WMDs in Iraq was the stupid part. Thank your Chimp-in-Chief for that one.


Now that sounds racist. For sure


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Bwhaaahaha. Cry me a river!! Believe me, the errors of Dubya have nothing to do with race. Kind of like you claim about Obama.


Chimp in chief was a racist remark, clearly you are one!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Chimp in chief was a racist remark, clearly you are one!


 A chimp or a racist?? Believe me, Dubyas old moniker of 'The Smirking Chimp' had ZERO to do with his race.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> A chimp or a racist?? Believe me, Dubyas old moniker of 'The Smirking Chimp' had ZERO to do with his race.


If you say so! You are what you are!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I live in bizarro-world.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> That's racist.


Yep, it is, but then that's the hypocrisy of an Obama fan.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> A chimp or a racist?? Believe me, Dubyas old moniker of 'The Smirking Chimp' had ZERO to do with his race.


Funny, that's not what you whine about when someone calls MO a chimp
Racist


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> I'm embarassed that such remarks can ever be thought appropriate.


I think it is sad too. I have been horrified by the callous remarks about all of these children at the border by the conservatives on this board. It really is sad Plowjockey had honest grounds for his remark isn't it?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shoden said:


> In addition, although the Constitution provides authorization for funding a full time navy, it DOES NOT provide for funding a full time standing army. It was intended that an army should only be raised and funded during a time of war, and that's why funds need to be voted on every two years to pay for the army. We're not supposed to have professional career soldiers.



You do understand while at the time raising an Army via militias was perfectly reasonable but would be utterly absurd today correct? We aren't talking about grabbing your gun or sword and showing up to line up in rows and fire at the other side anymore. Military equipment is complex and requires constant servicing. Training to use the equipment is also complex. Not to mention the fact that we have people at bases all over the world and people in the Air Force especially working constantly at monitoring the globe for problems. You can't just have nothing but Reservists and National Guard and you sure as anything can't have private militias doing it.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

The people in the military getting cut knew it was coming. They have been cutting drastically for a couple of years now. Nobody getting a pink slip over there is shocked. And all of us would far rather have a decent heads up to make plans rather than somebdy graciously waiting until we get stateside and then getting 6 weeks notice instead. 

Sounds like they have a good program set up for them too. This happens all the time in the military. There were big cuts back in the 90's too and people survived. I do hope they get a better program together to help Vets get into jobs here once they get out. It would be nice if Congress would stop stonewalling Veteran's programs.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Fine, I'll be the first in this thread to call Obama our current Chimp in Chief...darn, it didn't feel as good as I hoped it would...maybe some other ape would be more appropriate....


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Amazing that giving clean underpants, to Guatemalan children is a waste of taxpayer money, but a 1/2 TRILLION DOLLAR(500 billion)annual U.S. military budget, is money well spent.
> 
> The cuts will still leave us with 440,000 Army troops.
> 
> How many do we need?


We need about 600,000 and it's really unfortunate that the morons in the White House are hell bent on cutting the military to the bone when the world becomes more dangerous every day. It's also unfortunate that so many lefties knee jerk support this road to disaster. We'll pay for this stupidity in blood in the very near future.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Well, Military Leaders supposedly know (better than you and me) what they need, to have an effective fighting force and there are no major screams, from them.
> 
> Regarding history and enemies, 9/11 proved that a huge, traditional Military fighting force, is no longer effective, anyway.
> 
> By the time China (or maybe Canada  ) wants to attack wars will be fought with drones and robots, so massive amounts of humans will not be needed.


What a surprise! You've missed the fact that Obama has been depleting military leadership on the basis of political reliability for six years. No wonder there's no noise. There's a lot of noise from retired military officers but I'm sure you prefer to ignore that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> We need about 600,000 and it's really unfortunate that the morons in the White House are hell bent on cutting the military to the bone when the world becomes more dangerous every day. It's also unfortunate that so many lefties knee jerk support this road to disaster. We'll pay for this stupidity in blood in the very near future.


Could you explain your 600,000 member requirement?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Undermanning their mission to chase imaginary WMDs in Iraq was the stupid part. Thank your Chimp-in-Chief for that one.


It is the truly ignorant who think that is all we were there for as well as totally ignorant of the FACTS that all the "Ds" voted for it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> It is the truly ignorant who think that is all we were there for as well as totally ignorant of the FACTS that all the "Ds" voted for it.


 If you're going to attempt to revise history, can you at least try and be a little more accurate? 'All the 'Ds'' did NOT vote for it. There were plenty of dissenting voices, of course they were generally labeled as 'unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers' for daring to question the great leaders half-baked scheme of invasion and occupation.


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> You do understand while at the time raising an Army via militias was perfectly reasonable but would be utterly absurd today correct? We aren't talking about grabbing your gun or sword and showing up to line up in rows and fire at the other side anymore. Military equipment is complex and requires constant servicing. Training to use the equipment is also complex. Not to mention the fact that we have people at bases all over the world and people in the Air Force especially working constantly at monitoring the globe for problems. You can't just have nothing but Reservists and National Guard and you sure as anything can't have private militias doing it.


Yes, I understand that. I'm a veteran, and I come from a heavily military family. However, if that's what is needed now, then amend the constitution instead of just ignoring it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I think it is sad too. I have been horrified by the callous remarks about all of these children at the border by the conservatives on this board. It really is sad Plowjockey had honest grounds for his remark isn't it?


Nonsense- you simply got blow back for accusing every who objected to unlimited immigration of all sorts of evil. Plowjockey said it is good to treat Americans who are risking their lives with callousness- as if they were an unproductive burden.
It just shows a serious disconnect with the reality that you believe that Americans who actually work should get no respect while those who behave badly to America are to be supported- simply because of decisions made on proximity. The worst kind of "the pasture is always greener on the other side of the fence."


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Shoden said:


> Yes, I understand that. I'm a veteran, and I come from a heavily military family. However, if that's what is needed now, then amend the constitution instead of just ignoring it.


 The 'powers that be' have gotten around the '2 year limit' for standing armies by simply re-authorizing the funding on an annual basis. We're on a perpetual war footing, but they will have you believe its food stamps and medicine for old folks that is driving up the debt. 

As far as 'pink slips in a war zone', its more partisan, party-line bickering. If the DOD had waited till they got home, these same people whining now would be complaining that they weren't given enough notice. Around and around it goes.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> You do understand while at the time raising an Army via militias was perfectly reasonable but would be utterly absurd today correct? We aren't talking about grabbing your gun or sword and showing up to line up in rows and fire at the other side anymore. Military equipment is complex and requires constant servicing. Training to use the equipment is also complex. Not to mention the fact that we have people at bases all over the world and people in the Air Force especially working constantly at monitoring the globe for problems. You can't just have nothing but Reservists and National Guard and you sure as anything can't have private militias doing it.


And you blame others for insults rather than arguments. Saying that the idea of militias is out dated is one thing- starting out with a patronizing sarcasm of 'You do understand that" is purposefully antagonizing. Yet you get upset when the threads end up the way they do- at least if the insult is directed at you.

For one thing the originators of the Constitution did not think that allowing militias was creating a standing army. If fact they did not really think of the US as a country but as a confederacy. They had a fear of standing armies being used to create oppression.
As usual the Constitution as originally written and with the Bill of Rights is a document to say what a government CAN'T do to its citizens. They had been through a period of the British trying to confiscate arms to keep the populace from taking action to effectively oppose British imposed laws. So the militia guarantee is to keep the government from disarming and rendering impotent its own citizens. Not for creating a standing army.

I oppose letting masses of children enter illegally, basically by invasion, and that does not make me evil. It has to do with seeing beyond the emotional reaction to children to seeing where this ends up. This is a children's crusade for open boarders. Although you think yourself the epitome of noble sentiments, you refuse to address the issue of what happens when these self declared 'refugees' never stop.

And it does not make me evil to want the government to have enough respect for their soldiers to wait til they are out of danger before taking negative employer action. It does not mean anything than respect for them- it does not mean a declaration to never reduce the size of the military or changing it appropriately or any other extreme view that is being assigned to the argument for the sole purpose of belittling different opinions.

And thank you for no rolling eyes emoticon.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Could you explain your 600,000 member requirement?


Because when it was 570,000 it wasn't quite big enough. I'd like more teeth to tail, even with 600,000. The historical truth is that whenever people try to implement war on the cheap it never works and a whole lot of people die before it gets fixed. That's where we're going now.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> And you blame others for insults rather than arguments. Saying that the idea of militias is out dated is one thing- starting out with a patronizing sarcasm of 'You do understand that" is purposefully antagonizing. Yet you get upset when the threads end up the way they do- at least if the insult is directed at you.
> 
> For one thing the originators of the Constitution did not think that allowing militias was creating a standing army. If fact they did not really think of the US as a country but as a confederacy. They had a fear of standing armies being used to create oppression.
> As usual the Constitution as originally written and with the Bill of Rights is a document to say what a government CAN'T do to its citizens. They had been through a period of the British trying to confiscate arms to keep the populace from taking action to effectively oppose British imposed laws. So the militia guarantee is to keep the government from disarming and rendering impotent its own citizens. Not for creating a standing army.
> ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> Because when it was 570,000 it wasn't quite big enough. I'd like more teeth to tail, even with 600,000. The historical truth is that whenever people try to implement war on the cheap it never works and a whole lot of people die before it gets fixed. That's where we're going now.


I appreciate your answer. While I'll agree that trying to do war on the cheap is a bad idea I don't think having a larger standing army is the answer. Electing people who aren't quite so anxious to enter into unnecessary conflicts is. I fear more the person that feels the need to show off that shiny, big toy than I do the thought that a large ground war necessitating large troop levels will occur in the near term.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> Fine, I'll be the first in this thread to call Obama our current Chimp in Chief...darn, it didn't feel as good as I hoped it would...maybe some other ape would be more appropriate....


Caesar! !!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I appreciate your answer. While I'll agree that trying to do war on the cheap is a bad idea I don't think having a larger standing army is the answer. Electing people who aren't quite so anxious to enter into unnecessary conflicts is. I fear more the person that feels the need to show off that shiny, big toy than I do the thought that a large ground war necessitating large troop levels will occur in the near term.


So, what are you doing to stop this administration from continuing to do exactly that?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> So, what are you doing to stop this administration from continuing to do exactly that?


Well, the first thing I did was vote for Obama rather than John McCain. Other than the surge in Afghanistan, which I opposed but understood, the current administration has kept from putting boots on the ground in any of the myriad of conflicts going on right now. More than a few on the right have advocated for direct intervention in places like Syria, Ukraine, and Africa and I'm glad that policy hasn't been followed. I've learned my neocon lesson.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Well, the first thing I did was vote for Obama rather than John McCain. Other than the surge in Afghanistan, which I opposed but understood, the current administration has kept from putting boots on the ground in any of the myriad of conflicts going on right now. More than a few on the right have advocated for direct intervention in places like Syria, Ukraine, and Africa and I'm glad that policy hasn't been followed. I've learned my neocon lesson.


Libya! That was a direct violation of the war powers act.

I'm actually not hearing much from conservatives about more intervention in the me, that's a good thing. We also have troops in those area's you mentioned!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Libya! That was a direct violation of the war powers act.


 As was Cuba in the 60's, Grenada, Nicaragua,Honduras, Panama,Desert Shield,and Libya the first time Reagan spanked Ghadaffi, just to name a few.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Libya! That was a direct violation of the war powers act.
> 
> I'm actually not hearing much from conservatives about more intervention in the me, that's a good thing. We also have troops in those area's you mentioned!


Care to show me the boots on the ground in Libya? A slightly different level
of response than invading two countries. If you haven't heard the war drums you haven't been listening. You might wish to look up Rick Perry's comments last week about Rand Paul and his reluctance to rush back into battle. Or maybe see what Dick Cheney and his daughter have been talking about. John McCain seems not to have seen a conflict he thinks we shouldn't be involved in. The list goes on and on.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> As was Cuba in the 60's, Grenada, Nicaragua,Honduras, Panama,Desert Shield,and Libya the first time Reagan spanked Ghadaffi, just to name a few.


Who is the current president?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Care to show me the boots on the ground in Libya? A slightly different level
> of response than invading two countries. If you haven't heard the war drums you haven't been listening. You might wish to look up Rick Perry's comments last week about Rand Paul and his reluctance to rush back into battle. Or maybe see what Dick Cheney and his daughter have been talking about. John McCain seems not to have seen a conflict he thinks we shouldn't be involved in. The list goes on and on.


Interesting that you can't remember the Libya deal. One boot, ten thousand, makes no difference in the eyes of the law! I really haven't heard all these conservatives talking about wanting to go to war again! But then again McCain is senile, and not.much of a conservative really. Why is Cheney even relevant? Sorry, but the only war drums I hear beating are coming from this administration! They have a war on Americans!

Eta: google.....Obama Libya, and see what you get!


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

jtbrandt said:


> Or we could get rid of the social programs, cut the military a little, and have even more of a surplus...and still have the best military in the world.


If we cut the social programs than we need to double up our military to stop the riots that will ensue.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Interesting that you can't remember the Libya deal. One boot, ten thousand, makes no difference in the eyes of the law! I really haven't heard all these conservatives talking about wanting to go to war again! But then again McCain is senile, and not.much of a conservative really. Why is Cheney even relevant? Sorry, but the only war drums I hear beating are coming from this administration! They have a war on Americans!
> 
> Eta: google.....Obama Libya, and see what you get!


N
One boot or 1,000 troops makes quite a bit of difference to those boots who are the ones being shot at. The "senile" McCain would be president today if repubs and conservatives had had their way. Cheney is still relevant because it is, in part, the policies of the administration he served in that led us to where we are today. Policies which he continues to defend and advocate for. He's relevant because his daughter is one of the new voices of that wing of the party and advocates going down the same roads. I notice you didn't mention Gov. Perry's comments or the others who have criticized Sen. Paul's stances. 

ETA- when I google Obama, Libya what I don't get is a ground invasion, military occupation, a trillion dollars spent, or thousands of American dead and tens of thousands more wounded.
None of this back and forth changes my opinion that a larger army leads directly to a safer country is a fallacy


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Who is the current president?


 That one guy you like to complain about, even when his policies are similar to the guys you DON'T complain about.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

gweny said:


> If we cut the social programs than we need to double up our military to stop the riots that will ensue.


Until Obama, no president was happy at the idea of using the military internally. But it might be that if more people needed to work to get their iphones, they would be too busy to riot. Although not without a lot of screaming I suppose.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

gweny said:


> If we cut the social programs than we need to double up our military to stop the riots that will ensue.


Good point...the theoretical/hypothetical ideas run into some big problems in reality. We're in deep. No way to get out easily.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> The "senile" McCain would be president today if repubs and conservatives had had their way.


Largely true, but as a conservative, if I had my way McCain would definitely not be president...he wouldn't even be a senator.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I appreciate your answer. While I'll agree that trying to do war on the cheap is a bad idea I don't think having a larger standing army is the answer. Electing people who aren't quite so anxious to enter into unnecessary conflicts is. I fear more the person that feels the need to show off that shiny, big toy than I do the thought that a large ground war necessitating large troop levels will occur in the near term.


I hope you're right. On the other hand, I am very concerned about Iran, very concerned about the new Caliphate, and very, very, very concerned about China. I'll freely admit that though I really like going to China and I like the people there, it also scare the bejeebers out of me and every time I leave the place I think, "We need to nuke this country to radioactive gravel right now." I think there's a reasonable chance we end up with another ground war in Asia and we already fought the Chinese once and it wasn't fun. Probably means I'm paranoid and a bad person but there it is.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> I hope you're right. On the other hand, I am very concerned about Iran, very concerned about the new Caliphate, and very, very, very concerned about China. I'll freely admit that though I really like going to China and I like the people there, it also scare the bejeebers out of me and every time I leave the place I think, "We need to nuke this country to radioactive gravel right now." I think there's a reasonable chance we end up with another ground war in Asia and we already fought the Chinese once and it wasn't fun. Probably means I'm paranoid and a bad person but there it is.


Maybe paranoid and we disagree on much but I'll leave judgement of your character to others. The problem of contemplating a ground war in Asia is that I see no reasonable way of winning one short of the nuclear option.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe paranoid and we disagree on much but I'll leave judgement of your character to others. The problem of contemplating a ground war in Asia is that I see no reasonable way of winning one short of the nuclear option.


I agree. We cannot beat China by having more troops than they do.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> That one guy you like to complain about, even when his policies are similar to the guys you DON'T complain about.


Who was it that I didn't complain about? Wasn't Bush, that's for sure!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> N
> One boot or 1,000 troops makes quite a bit of difference to those boots who are the ones being shot at. The "senile" McCain would be president today if repubs and conservatives had had their way. Cheney is still relevant because it is, in part, the policies of the administration he served in that led us to where we are today. Policies which he continues to defend and advocate for. He's relevant because his daughter is one of the new voices of that wing of the party and advocates going down the same roads. I notice you didn't mention Gov. Perry's comments or the others who have criticized Sen. Paul's stances.
> 
> ETA- when I google Obama, Libya what I don't get is a ground invasion, military occupation, a trillion dollars spent, or thousands of American dead and tens of thousands more wounded.
> None of this back and forth changes my opinion that a larger army leads directly to a safer country is a fallacy


One boot makes a difference because international law, not to mention Constitutional violations have been committed by this administration. 

If you couldn't find any information regarding this on Google, your not even trying. 
1, 876,456 hits! Yeah....nothing there! :shrug:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shoden said:


> Yes, I understand that. I'm a veteran, and I come from a heavily military family. However, if that's what is needed now, then amend the constitution instead of just ignoring it.


I see your point and I agree.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Nonsense- you simply got blow back for accusing every who objected to unlimited immigration of all sorts of evil. Plowjockey said it is good to treat Americans who are risking their lives with callousness- as if they were an unproductive burden.
> It just shows a serious disconnect with the reality that you believe that Americans who actually work should get no respect while those who behave badly to America are to be supported- simply because of decisions made on proximity. The worst kind of "the pasture is always greener on the other side of the fence."


We obviously live in vastly different universes since nothing you said there is true or supportable from my posts.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> We obviously live in vastly different universes since nothing you said there is true or supportable from my posts.


Post # 56 covers both issues


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> And you blame others for insults rather than arguments. Saying that the idea of militias is out dated is one thing- starting out with a patronizing sarcasm of 'You do understand that" is purposefully antagonizing. Yet you get upset when the threads end up the way they do- at least if the insult is directed at you.
> 
> For one thing the originators of the Constitution did not think that allowing militias was creating a standing army. If fact they did not really think of the US as a country but as a confederacy. They had a fear of standing armies being used to create oppression.
> As usual the Constitution as originally written and with the Bill of Rights is a document to say what a government CAN'T do to its citizens. They had been through a period of the British trying to confiscate arms to keep the populace from taking action to effectively oppose British imposed laws. So the militia guarantee is to keep the government from disarming and rendering impotent its own citizens. Not for creating a standing army.
> ...


You should seriously consider putting me on ignore since I seem to irk you rather badly. And you never understand my posts. I also think maybe the children at the border are eating into your conscience because you keep bringing it up in threads that have nothing to do with it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> One boot makes a difference because international law, not to mention Constitutional violations have been committed by this administration.
> 
> If you couldn't find any information regarding this on Google, your not even trying.
> 1, 876,456 hits! Yeah....nothing there! :shrug:


You're right, I'm not trying. You ignore the cries from the right to get more involved militarily in the Middle East and I'll ignore you and we can both go on with our lives.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You're right, I'm not trying. You ignore the cries from the right to get more involved militarily in the Middle East and I'll ignore you and we can both go on with our lives.


I am ignoring anyone who wants to go to war in the ME. We should not be involved in their business, or any other countries business. They need to fend for themselves. But, if we did that, what would liberals whine about?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Glade Runner said:


> What a surprise! You've missed the fact that Obama has been depleting military leadership on the basis of political reliability for six years. No wonder there's no noise. There's a lot of noise from retired military officers but I'm sure you prefer to ignore that.


Retired Military Officers working for Fox News?

For $550 billion per year, you seriously believe that the U.S. does not have an effective fighting force?

We have 12 massive aircraft carriers. Russia and China each have 1 and they are probably not that great.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> You should seriously consider putting me on ignore since I seem to irk you rather badly. And you never understand my posts. I also think maybe the children at the border are eating into your conscience because you keep bringing it up in threads that have nothing to do with it.


I think you try to create irritation. You deliberately insult me by saying my conscience is troubled, ie that I am morally wrong by not agreeing with you and know it. And you think that is ok.
If my posts were as mean as yours I would say that you are upset that your self righteous bullying is challenged- especially sice you are the one who keeps bring up the issue. But I would rather have a discussion of the issues rather than this degenerate exchange.

If you want to have an enlightening debate, then respond to the points people make rather than fall back on belittling them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Retired Military Officers working for Fox News?
> 
> For $550 billion per year, you seriously believe that the U.S. does not have an effective fighting force?
> 
> We have 12 massive aircraft carriers. Russia and China each have 1 and they are probably not that great.


What does that have to do with the meaness of sending layoff notices to soldiers in a war zone?. You hate the militaryz you've made that clear. But does that extend to the soldiers trying to do what is asked of them?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Amazing that giving clean underpants, to Guatemalan children is a waste of taxpayer money, but a 1/2 TRILLION DOLLAR(500 billion)annual U.S. military budget, is money well spent.
> 
> The cuts will still leave us with 440,000 Army troops.
> 
> How many do we need?


Trolling


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

where I want to said:


> What does that have to do with the meaness of sending layoff notices to soldiers in a war zone?. *You hate the militaryz you've made that clear.* But does that extend to the soldiers trying to do what is asked of them?


This a response, i used to expect from a Liberal. I "hate the Military" simply because i see a very bad and expensive problem, of simply throwing money at it?

The Right balks at food stamps, for the poor, but doling out $100k/yr to an aerospace worker, on multi-billion dollar weapons projects, that don't work, are way over budget and way behind schedule (by years), not to mention also with money we do do have, is just ducky.

But i am the one who is out of touch.

But, back to the question, i was accused of trolling.

How many Soldiers do we need, to maintain an effective U.S. fighting force?

Surely you know.

FWIW I'm thrilled we have 12 massive aircraft carriers. 

I also believe that _any_ battle we entered, we would win, even if it has become painfully clear, that we no longer win every war.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

What can I say?

"War zone" or not (Yes I watch Fox News too), if I was losing my job, I sure don't want to find out about it *10 months from now*.

Who would?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

There's nothing that says they have to lose their job 10 months from now. Maybe there should be a slightly longer readjustment period after they get out of the war zone. It would cost relatively little compared to a lot of military nonsense. Then they could have ample notice without worrying about paying the bills distracting them from doing their duty and staying alive, and then when they get back be able to look for another job while they still have one. It's difficult to go on interviews when you're in Afghanistan.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> What does that have to do with the meaness of sending layoff notices to soldiers in a war zone?. You hate the militaryz you've made that clear. But does that extend to the soldiers trying to do what is asked of them?


It is not mean. Have you actually seen one single soldier complaining? No you haven't you have seen talking heads on Fox whining about it. Do you know why soldiers are not whining? Because they knew the cuts were coming and already had a pretty good idea who was getting cut. They also would prefer to know as soon as possible so they can prepare for it. Nobody wants them to wait until they are stateside and only have a few weeks. Soldiers are not wusses.....


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> There's nothing that says they have to lose their job 10 months from now. Maybe there should be a slightly longer readjustment period after they get out of the war zone. It would cost relatively little compared to a lot of military nonsense. Then they could have ample notice without worrying about paying the bills distracting them from doing their duty and staying alive, and then when they get back be able to look for another job while they still have one. It's difficult to go on interviews when you're in Afghanistan.



Honest truth is this has happened tons of times before. If you are in the military you know it isn't a secure job. You can get tossed out for a wide range of reasons. They don't make any effort to help anyone transition out and they work really hard not to pay you anything afterwards no matter how bad they mess you up. The military is not pretty or fair and if you are looking for either you are in the wrong career field. It has always been about the bottom line.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I know all about military nonsense. I was career Navy. From what I hear, the Army is much worse about this kind of thing. I have known quite a few people who got screwed royally by the DOD. And then the VA dysfunction just adds insult to injury. But just because that's the way it is doesn't mean that's the way it has to be.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> I know all about military nonsense. I was career Navy. From what I hear, the Army is much worse about this kind of thing. I have known quite a few people who got screwed royally by the DOD. And then the VA dysfunction just adds insult to injury. But just because that's the way it is doesn't mean that's the way it has to be.


I agree but I think it is safe to assume it won't change. If you gave me a magic wand and a few weeks I would make some massive changes to the military and I could save them loads of money while treating the soldiers very well. Reality is though whenever these cuts happen it's the people at the bottom who suffer for it. And that is the military not Obama and not even Congress. It has nothing to do with any politics but military politics.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I agree but I think it is safe to assume it won't change. If you gave me a magic wand and a few weeks I would make some massive changes to the military and I could save them loads of money while treating the soldiers very well. Reality is though whenever these cuts happen it's the people at the bottom who suffer for it. And that is the military not Obama and not even Congress. It has nothing to do with any politics but military politics.


Since Obama campaigned, and still campaigns when he can, on how better his administration is that any others that have ever been or will ever be, and threw buckets of mud in every direction, he has set himself up to do better. Now when it works out that everything is much harder than he understood, it is reasonable he be held to his own standards. . 

But if he isn't, he could still take his little pen and sign one of those EOs he threatens everyone with and delay this. That would actually be one of the legal ones as it is an executive branch issue totally. He can do it to avoid his duty under the law with deportation of illegals: he can do it here.

And it is mean and small. The military doesn't have to complain for it to be true. The point is the clock on dismissal should not start until a return from combat duty so there is time to get their life in some order. Both for respect for humans caught up in a mess not of their making and as a practical measure with soldiers over seas in combat where much is expected and much can go wrong.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> And it is mean and small. The military doesn't have to complain for it to be true. The point is the clock on dismissal should not start until a return from combat duty so there is time to get their life in some order. Both for respect for humans caught up in a mess not of their making and as a practical measure with soldiers over seas in combat where much is expected and much can go wrong.


I agree with the sentiment. You will rarely hear a soldier complain about their treatment because for the most part they are tough enough to take the BS and they know complaining won't help. But they are suffering from the decisions made by politicians in the Pentagon. And you're right that it is an executive issue. Obama is the boss of every person working in the Pentagon. There are some limitations in regard to funding, but there are a lot of things he could do to improve the situation if he were so inclined.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> I agree with the sentiment. You will rarely hear a soldier complain about their treatment because for the most part they are tough enough to take the BS and they know complaining won't help. But they are suffering from the decisions made by politicians in the Pentagon. And you're right that it is an executive issue. Obama is the boss of every person working in the Pentagon. There are some limitations in regard to funding, but there are a lot of things he could do to improve the situation if he were so inclined.


I would love to hear what you think the President could do to sort out the military. He can't force them to keep people in when they don't have the money to pay them. That is on Congress not him. 

What I would really like to know is how many of those pink slips actually went to soldiers in Afghanistan right now. I would bet it is a tiny percentage.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I would love to hear what you think the President could do to sort out the military. He can't force them to keep people in when they don't have the money to pay them. That is on Congress not him.


He could order them to let people go from stateside before letting them go from Afghanistan. He could retire worthless political officers to save some money to pay the field officers for a little longer. There is plenty of money already appropriated to the military. Congress is not the problem. Obama isn't either. The DOD is. BUT the president has a LOT of authority over how the military is run. Obama probably couldn't fix every little issue, but he could certainly make it LESS idiotic. His biggest obstacle is that he doesn't understand the military. His second biggest is that he doesn't seem to care.



> What I would really like to know is how many of those pink slips actually went to soldiers in Afghanistan right now. I would bet it is a tiny percentage.


And if that's true, it would make it MUCH easier to stop doing it.


----------

