X. Benedict Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 Actually, no... http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm 516933[/snapback] I wonder if some defense attorney has ever shown this to a jury. "Some say it is a totally unnatural act, but observe the mallard...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Actually, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here who believes the high-profile weapons programs are more important than the people. 517083[/snapback] Didn't say those types are here on this board. Was mentioning the ones we elect to Congress and the White House who say they care about the troops first and foremost, but when it comes time to actually take care of the troops by giving them the care they need, it's like, "Who're you?". Guys in my other brother's unit have just come back from Iraq with some weird-ass medical issues, one whose "thyroid has stopped working" and another whose body is no longer producing red blood cells. They are getting the run-around. We saw one of them break down on national TV last week, but only b/c of the fact that he got caught. I will give the cursory "it's not just Republicans" thingie, but damned if it doesn't seem like it, and it's at least not the macrocosm impression that America is now realizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope zimli Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Didn't say those types are here on this board. Was mentioning the ones we elect to Congress and the White House who say they care about the troops first and foremost, but when it comes time to actually take care of the troops by giving them the care they need, it's like, "Who're you?". Guys in my other brother's unit have just come back from Iraq with some weird-ass medical issues, one whose "thyroid has stopped working" and another whose body is no longer producing red blood cells. They are getting the run-around. We saw one of them break down on national TV last week, but only b/c of the fact that he got caught. I will give the cursory "it's not just Republicans" thingie, but damned if it doesn't seem like it, and it's at least not the macrocosm impression that America is now realizing. 517124[/snapback] Plus ca change.. Thirty five years of watching viet vets die of cancers and their children with birth defects and deformities from Agent Orange has led me to be less than surprised at the treatment returning vets are getting after Iraq. I do volunteer work at the VA across the street and the stories I hear are really hair-raising. Not surprising that the folks who got us into this mess, who couldn't run the mess, who can't get out of this mess, can't deal with the results of this mess when it involves our veterans. The soldiers look good in uniform backing up our commander in chief at his speeches (does he ever talk in front of civilian audiences these days?) but let get them get a piece of metal in them or lose a leg and we forget all about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 We saw one of them break down on national TV last week, but only b/c of the fact that he got caught. I will give the cursory "it's not just Republicans" thingie, but damned if it doesn't seem like it, and it's at least not the macrocosm impression that America is now realizing. 517124[/snapback] I see your point...and I'd stipulate the only reason it seems like the Republicans are responsible is because they happen to be running things now. I recall most of the same sh-- during Clinton's reign, and I'm sure it'll go on well past Bush's. It's just non-partisan pork politics...your average senator or congressman isn't responsible for the troops, he's responsible for his state or district, so he's going to favor dumping a billion dollars into a project that gets manufactured in his state over a couple hundred million to increase soldier's health and retention rates. And it is, for the most part, a congressional issue. I read about some bloated program or another (DD(X), LCS, JSF, FCS) every other week in Defense News and cringe. Congress is actually forcing the Navy to buy ships the Navy doesn't want, to keep shipyards working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Despite what weapons-system Republicans might tell you, the servicemen and -women are the backbone of the military. They invested a lot of money in his training, and you don't piss that away over a few thousand $ pay increase. 517042[/snapback] What on earth possessed you to post this? You gained some serious credibility in this thread with the military guys, but just that fast you pissed it away. Way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Despite what weapons-system Republicans might tell you, the servicemen and -women are the backbone of the military. They invested a lot of money in his training, and you don't piss that away over a few thousand $ pay increase. 517042[/snapback] Uh, I served for 12 years. In the Air Force. The Air Force doesn't have Sergeant Majors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Plus ca change.. Thirty five years of watching viet vets die of cancers and their children with birth defects and deformities from Agent Orange has led me to be less than surprised at the treatment returning vets are getting after Iraq. I do volunteer work at the VA across the street and the stories I hear are really hair-raising. Not surprising that the folks who got us into this mess, who couldn't run the mess, who can't get out of this mess, can't deal with the results of this mess when it involves our veterans. The soldiers look good in uniform backing up our commander in chief at his speeches (does he ever talk in front of civilian audiences these days?) but let get them get a piece of metal in them or lose a leg and we forget all about them. 517177[/snapback] Good thing Congressional Democrats like John Kerry have been working so hard to make changes, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Uh, I served for 12 years. In the Air Force. The Air Force doesn't have Sergeant Majors. 517306[/snapback] The Marines do not have Sergeant Majors either. They are Sergeants Major. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 What on earth possessed you to post this? You gained some serious credibility in this thread with the military guys, but just that fast you pissed it away. Way to go. 517228[/snapback] Notice that "weapons-system Republican" is like saying pro-choice Democrat or Sunny-D-dispensing soccer mom. By far, it doesn't mean that there are no exceptions to this. People want to advance; the U.S. military can increase their rank and pay them a several thousand more or let a $100,000 investment walk out the door. Guess which one they pick w/o batting an eyelash? Advancements was the subject of the topic. And, I could really give a sh-- if I get "credibility" (read: buddy status) with you. Uh, I served for 12 years. In the Air Force. The Air Force doesn't have Sergeant Majors. 517306[/snapback] Chief Master Sgt. My mistake. Tho in parlance or for an equivalence factor, I've seen them called Sgt. Major. Like... here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Notice that "weapons-system Republican" is like saying pro-choice Democrat or Sunny-D-dispensing soccer mom. By far, it doesn't mean that there are no exceptions to this. People want to advance; the U.S. military can increase their rank and pay them a several thousand more or let a $100,000 investment walk out the door. Guess which one they pick w/o batting an eyelash? Advancements was the subject of the topic. And, I could really give a sh-- if I get "credibility" (read: buddy status) with you. Your figure is a bit off. Special Forces guys cost about between three and six times that figure to train. Generally, they don't give guys stripes to stay in - they give them ALOT of money. Some up to $150K. Chief Master Sgt. My mistake. Tho in parlance or for an equivalence factor, I've seen them called Sgt. Major. Like... here. 517379[/snapback] The rank of CMSgt was created in 1959. Whether you've seen it or not it is incorrect and were you to address a Chief as "Sergeant Major" you would be corrected VERY quickly, just as you would if you called a Sergeant Major "Chief". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Notice that "weapons-system Republican" is like saying pro-choice Democrat or Sunny-D-dispensing soccer mom. By far, it doesn't mean that there are no exceptions to this. 517379[/snapback] Of course, the fact that you refer to "exceptions" indicates in and of itself that the rule is that it's a Republican thing. It's not; it's actually rather evenly bipartisan...although if you really pressed me, I'd point out that the screwing of GIs started with the democratic-controlled Congress' "Peace Dividend" under King Bush I, and really gained steam under the Clinton administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Notice that "weapons-system Republican" is like saying pro-choice Democrat or Sunny-D-dispensing soccer mom. By far, it doesn't mean that there are no exceptions to this. People want to advance; the U.S. military can increase their rank and pay them a several thousand more or let a $100,000 investment walk out the door. Guess which one they pick w/o batting an eyelash? Advancements was the subject of the topic. And, I could really give a sh-- if I get "credibility" (read: buddy status) with you.Chief Master Sgt. My mistake. Tho in parlance or for an equivalence factor, I've seen them called Sgt. Major. Like... here. 517379[/snapback] Yes I understand that we were talking about advancement, and that's why I couldn't understand your asinine post. You couldn't help yourself and had to take a shot at the Republicans when the conversation was anything but political. Tom calls you on it before I had a chance to post and there you go with the whole song and dance about the injured troops and all, and play the emotion card. Slick move. So my question to you now is, who authorizes these huge re-enlistment bonuses for retention? Someone has to authorize it, so is it only the smart non-weapons systems Democrats that have the foresight in this matter? I don't know why I'm even going to bring this up, but what the fudge... My father was discharged in 1965 from the Air Force at the age of 27 for a heart condition he developed while on active duty. Seems he had an infection while stationed in Spain that left scar tissue on his aortic valve. From that point on it only closed 3/4 of the way until he had it replaced with an artifical valve in 1986. He got the run around way back then as well, but since my grandfather was an MD my father fought it and received full retirement benefits from then on. 1965... whose watch was that on, and what war were we fighting then? The point is, this sh-- has been going on forever and to flat out slander the Republicans like you chose to do is wrong. No biggie, you're just misinformed, and there's no harm in that. And by the way, you weren't scoring points with me earlier, I was referring to the other guys. Well except for VABills as I think he was only in this thread to pump himself up and try to impress the rest of us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 My dog's bigger than your dog... My dog's bigger than yours! My dog's bigger - cause he gets subsidized... My dog's bigger than yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 My dog's bigger than your dog...My dog's bigger than yours! My dog's bigger - cause he gets subsidized... My dog's bigger than yours. 517637[/snapback] Doubt it. There's a reason why my dog's name is Falstaff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Doubt it. There's a reason why my dog's name is Falstaff. 517870[/snapback] I grew up with St. Bernards. Before they got inbred and were the most lovable self moving, drooling throw rugs in the world. I don't have a dog now. No cat, no fish. Hard to have a pet when you both live in Alexandria, and travel. Thought about a python, since you only have to feed them once a month. Hard to scratch them behind the ears while you're watching TV, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 2, 2005 Author Share Posted December 2, 2005 I grew up with St. Bernards. Before they got inbred and were the most lovable self moving, drooling throw rugs in the world. I don't have a dog now. No cat, no fish. Hard to have a pet when you both live in Alexandria, and travel. Thought about a python, since you only have to feed them once a month. Hard to scratch them behind the ears while you're watching TV, though. 517874[/snapback] Near my parts, Dogs have been disappearing. Everyone thinks it has been coyotes killing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Near my parts, Dogs have been disappearing. Everyone thinks it has been coyotes killing them. 517877[/snapback] Were I you, I wouldn't say a lot about having pets around my parts. Just a suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Were I you, I wouldn't say a lot about having pets around my parts. Just a suggestion. 517896[/snapback] Well only goats have to worry about being near your parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Near my parts, Dogs have been disappearing. Everyone thinks it has been coyotes killing them. 517877[/snapback] If I were near your parts, I'd disappear too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Yes I understand that we were talking about advancement, and that's why I couldn't understand your asinine post. You couldn't help yourself and had to take a shot at the Republicans when the conversation was anything but political. Tom calls you on it before I had a chance to post and there you go with the whole song and dance about the injured troops and all, and play the emotion card. Slick move. So my question to you now is, who authorizes these huge re-enlistment bonuses for retention? Someone has to authorize it, so is it only the smart non-weapons systems Democrats that have the foresight in this matter? I don't know why I'm even going to bring this up, but what the fudge... My father was discharged in 1965 from the Air Force at the age of 27 for a heart condition he developed while on active duty. Seems he had an infection while stationed in Spain that left scar tissue on his aortic valve. From that point on it only closed 3/4 of the way until he had it replaced with an artifical valve in 1986. He got the run around way back then as well, but since my grandfather was an MD my father fought it and received full retirement benefits from then on. 1965... whose watch was that on, and what war were we fighting then? The point is, this sh-- has been going on forever and to flat out slander the Republicans like you chose to do is wrong. No biggie, you're just misinformed, and there's no harm in that. And by the way, you weren't scoring points with me earlier, I was referring to the other guys. Well except for VABills as I think he was only in this thread to pump himself up and try to impress the rest of us... 517615[/snapback] I just find it unconscionable that people who serve and need benefits to cover things that happened to them while they were fighting for our country then need to fight a system that, well, used them. I don't care whether the government in place uses an elephant or a donkey. Your point that that's just the way it is.... In the last election, the only one I heard say anything about properly funding the VA, etc. was Kerry. Maybe Pres. Bush did, and I do remember reading some good interviews in 'American Legion' from congress members making promises and then nothing happened. "WS Repubs" probably was received with much more rancor than was intended. It's just sad that they'll spend so much time and money trying to fix other things that are fundamentally a lot harder to fix than the VA and don't have near the positive effects. Social Security for one thing; Bush touched the third rail before doing right by our veterans. If the White House and Congress were to push for more veteran's funding, I would dare any pol to oppose it b/c for sure they won't be re-elected. It's easy to say, 'Well they didn't do it either' as a reason why you're not going to do it. Where the people in charge disburse our tax dollars is the prime way we can measure how much they seriously care about something. You can't take these people by the words they speak. Only when the willpower to do something is high enough does anything get done simply b/c doing it is the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts