blzrul Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I'm surprised there was no comment on this today. Cadet Campbell was happy to sign an agreement to serve when he was accepted to Army (hint: we taxpayers cover that, right) but thanks to the Army's new policy he can play NFL football and fulfill his commitment by "recruiting" every Tuesday. In other words, get a free ride on the taxpayers, sign a fat contract, and use the resultant fame to recruit starry-eyed youngsters to sign up and do what HE won't do, even though he agreed to do it. Seems perfectly fair to me. It's not like the war wasn't going on when he started college... I wonder what Pat Tillman would think of this.... Of course, playing for the Lions won't be much of a picnic either, but I betcha more than half the soldiers in Iraq would, if given the chance, rather be doing that than what they're doing. (By the way, the words in quotation marks comprise the exact headline in the paper, for those untutored masses who read the topic title and simultaneously wet their pants AND started foaming at the mouth.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I'm sure most of us would rather be doing that than what we're doing. He's not breaking any rules, it's the Army that changed the rules to allow it. If you don't like it, blame the Army, not the player. He said he heard from many fellow soldiers who thought it was great that he got the opportunity. The Bills just signed a FA fullback from Army that will have the same opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I'm sure most of us would rather be doing that than what we're doing. He's not breaking any rules, it's the Army that changed the rules to allow it. If you don't like it, blame the Army, not the player. He said he heard from many fellow soldiers who thought it was great that he got the opportunity. The Bills just signed a FA fullback from Army that will have the same opportunity. I thought she was blaming the Army. And that's a seriously obnoxious headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 It should read. Player torn from Iraq. Sentenced to 4 years under Matt Millen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 He's not breaking any rules, it's the Army that changed the rules to allow it. If you don't like it, blame the Army, not the player. Probably from the standpoint that the football team provides free publicity to the branch and encourages recruitment. There's also the argument that this is only going to apply to the rare player to temporarily excuse him from full-time service to an alternate role. And when he's done with his playing career, which is an NFL average of ~ 2.3 seasons, guess where he's going to go back to work for 20 years? This is far from desertion. God sends us all on different paths, people. What Pat Tillman would think? Probably that each man has to make his own decisions, given the givens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 Probably from the standpoint that the football team provides free publicity to the branch and encourages recruitment. There's also the argument that this is only going to apply to the rare player to temporarily excuse him from full-time service to an alternate role. And when he's done with his playing career, which is an NFL average of ~ 2.3 seasons, guess where he's going to go back to work for 20 years? This is far from desertion. God sends us all on different paths, people. What Pat Tillman would think? Probably that each man has to make his own decisions, given the givens. That was a little too lucid. You sure you belong here? Seriously though, in terms of value to the U.S. Army, I'm sure having one less cadidiot coming out of West Point is an easy trade when you consider his potential as a PR/recruiting tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 From the looks of the Army guy the Bills just signed, it would take him about two weeks to crush the entire country of Iraq. He could be back in time for training camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 It should read. Player torn from Iraq. Sentenced to 4 years under Matt Millen. Where is the spit take smiley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 Where is the spit take smiley? Hopefully not next to a white and promising college student floater! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 If his celebrity helps bring more people in, then it is a good move for the armed forces. Any way you can recruit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 I'm surprised there was no comment on this today. Cadet Campbell was happy to sign an agreement to serve when he was accepted to Army (hint: we taxpayers cover that, right) but thanks to the Army's new policy he can play NFL football and fulfill his commitment by "recruiting" every Tuesday. In other words, get a free ride on the taxpayers, sign a fat contract, and use the resultant fame to recruit starry-eyed youngsters to sign up and do what HE won't do, even though he agreed to do it. Seems perfectly fair to me. It's not like the war wasn't going on when he started college... I wonder what Pat Tillman would think of this.... Of course, playing for the Lions won't be much of a picnic either, but I betcha more than half the soldiers in Iraq would, if given the chance, rather be doing that than what they're doing. (By the way, the words in quotation marks comprise the exact headline in the paper, for those untutored masses who read the topic title and simultaneously wet their pants AND started foaming at the mouth.) Forget Pat Tillman, what about the State Department diplomats that are being forced to go live in that rat hole Fort Green Zone, or the Stop Loss G.I.s whose enlistments have ended. And what about the moron that will have to go in this guys place? This is wrong. A guy is good at playing a game so he can skip out of his committment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 Forget Pat Tillman, what about the State Department diplomats that are being forced to go live in that rat hole Fort Green Zone, or the Stop Loss G.I.s whose enlistments have ended. And what about the moron that will have to go in this guys place? This is wrong. A guy is good at playing a game so he can skip out of his committment? That just goes to show you have no understanding of the topic at hand. He isn't skipping out- the Army changed the conditions of his commitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 Forget Pat Tillman, what about the State Department diplomats that are being forced to go live in that rat hole Fort Green Zone, or the Stop Loss G.I.s whose enlistments have ended. And what about the moron that will have to go in this guys place? This is wrong. A guy is good at playing a game so he can skip out of his committment? I wouldn't include diplomats, because unlike the military they do have a choice and can quit, so they aren't being forced, it's part of their job description. And the rule wasn't changed until after he was at West Point, so he didn't go in knowing he'd have this option. So again, I don't blame anyone for taking the better option, I blame the civilian leadership for putting our military in the situation they're in with stop-loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 That just goes to show you have no understanding of the topic at hand. He isn't skipping out- the Army changed the conditions of his commitment. So he can play a game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 So he can play a game So? When you sign up for the military, you sign up to be used by your particular branch of service however said branch may choose. If the Army feels they get more value out of someone because of their recruiting potential, so be it. When I was stationed in Korea, in a frontline infantry unit's recon platoon, I was recruited for the US Army Soldier show as a guitar player. I toured the country partly to entertain the soldiers, but also to help spread goodwill among the locals. The Army felt I was better serving their needs that way, and it was their decision. Same in this case. Now go start some anti-Bush thread, or get a better understanding of the reality of the situation. Better yet, STFU... edit: Also, since you are so quick to comment on how the Army should operate, perhaps you could enlighten us as to your military experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 1, 2008 Author Share Posted May 1, 2008 The Army felt I was better serving their needs that way, and it was their decision. Same in this case. Hmm...couldn't shoot straight eh? hahahhaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 Hmm...couldn't shoot straight eh? hahahhaha He was too dangerous to keep around, they took his gun and gave him a guitar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 You libs act like stop loss is something new started by the evil republicans. there has been stop-loss in all modern wars. The novel Catch-22 has a good example of this. The army kept upping the # of missions needed to be flown to qualify to go stateside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 You libs act like stop loss is something new started by the evil republicans. there has been stop-loss in all modern wars. The novel Catch-22 has a good example of this. The army kept upping the # of missions needed to be flown to qualify to go stateside. Dude, it's all Bush's fault... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 You libs act like stop loss is something new started by the evil republicans. there has been stop-loss in all modern wars. The novel Catch-22 has a good example of this. The army kept upping the # of missions needed to be flown to qualify to go stateside. Unless they played football, then they didn't hve to fly anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts