Re: Tradition
«ºTone Caponeº» said:
Actually, since I left active duty under Clinton as a disabled vet, I remember it taking three months for me to be seen for something I was rated as 30% disabled for, and over a year for them to process my claim. My wife got out under Bush (2002) and was seen immediately. Her claim processed in 3 months. Currently my wife has a much easier time being seen then I ever did.
Straw man argument. That has NOTHING to do as to the details of said benefits, how they were taken away, or the attitudes of each administration towards those in the service and prior service.
What you both experienced could be due to a number of people going under review at the same time, and there is quite often backlog periods at certain evaluation levels. Think before you post your petulant idiocy.
Hahahahahaha! Where's your personal experience on this? The Bush administration has done something Clinton could never do: improve pride in the military. There's a reason why most of the military votes Republican. Service benefits are great and are getting much better.
It is pretty pathetic that pride is all the military has. I really don't see what they have to be proud of, quite frankly.
I am not surprised that you feel happy that the benefits are so great; they tend to be whenever they need to use some extra to keep people in. The stupid just grin and nod, but later get a clue.
I'm sorry if I was expecting you to understand the differences between "benefits" and "payoffs", but apparently I need to break out the Officer Crayon for your behalf. When most old salt or vets speak about benefits, they mean what actually matters after they have no more use for you or when they are using US troops' lives for little more than political needs and offer them token recompense. A bit more pay and similar means nothing when they are putting soldiers at risk for poor reasons.
You know, it's funny. I watch people deploying from here with the best in equipment. Not sure where these troops are with the poor equipment. I know there were hang ups with armored vehicles, but in looking at the situation I recall, it appears more of a strategic error on local leaders. You don't move someone from a peaceful area into a dangerous area without first upgrading the armor on their vehicles, which is what they did.
Your frightful ignorance on this subject, especially when it was handled poorly, makes me consider you to be even less honorable as an officer. Of course, shiny new equipment when they leave the US becomes crap within a few months of regular military use, which is what anyone in the field, desert or jungle, can tell you. Damn, you even suck at your "job", but as anyone who has been through real military service, I know that any officer that doesn't actually help pilot anything is pretty useless except for barking orders. The real work was done by the enlisted, in other words.
Where's your credibility in this Rosh? Where's your experience? You just seem happy to try to slam the Republicans, but you are seeing a much different world than most of the military is, and you're trying to apply your perspective to the military. What makes this even worse is the fact that you probably have less military exposure than my 6 year old son.
No, I have experience of the military when it wasn't treated like a video game. It is a pity you're too bent on herd mentality to really see the problems. For someone who says they are proud of the military and what they currently do, you seem to excuse anything that goes on with a cheerfully uncaring attitude and think that posting your duty stations has any sense of merit. So far, you've been a coward in this thread, posting that I need to post my credentials before I speak of this subject, yet you cannot even seem to bother learning about the bare facts yourself. You are, in essence, using your credentials as some method to try and deny that anything wrong is going on, despite the real careless loss of troop lives that you don't care about.
You, sir, are a COWARD.
However, when civilians claim to know that they understand the military and have never been a part of it I have a hard time buying what they are saying.
I find it harder to swallow that an officer shows a distinct lack of integrity. Actually, no, I don't.
Additionally, the part about having a civilian commander in chief is correct, but that doesn't mean the CINC understands the military. That is why he has the Join Chiefs of Staff.
Well, if that is also their attitude towards the troops, which you seem to mirror, then I am not surprised and in fact I am quite disgusted to know that troop welfare has such a low standing on the Pres. and cabinet's agenda.
The condescension comes from the claim that he knew what military people thought (not sure if it was in this thread or another, but that ticked me off). Claiming this is ludicrous, and he was using his divine wisdom to attack the military.
Only if you had read what I wrote instead of what you wanted to read, then you would have a clue. I wasn't attacking the military, in fact I was being quite irate in which the military was being treated, if your prideful ass had bothered to notice. You know, as in "Hey, this isn't right and isn't how the troops should be treated."
Stow the straw man arguments. I attacked the poor validation that Pres Bush and YOU also validated for putting US troops at risk and trashing political relations, based upon after-the-fact evidence.
Try reading what I write instead of making it up in your head, please.
He may have seen stuff like this, but to apply it to the military as a genaralization is ridiculous. I want to know what his experience is because I seriously doubt he has had much exposure to the military if he is coming to the conclusions he has. Sure he may have served, but where, how long, etc...
Versus someone who has no problem posting all of their credentials and has little problems excusing poor troop welfare.
I think you might want to learn something about me that you have missed in the past. I often don't rely on my credentials for anything other than a historical background. The argument and logic behind it should suffice, especially given the news items awhile back that I'm not surprised you have missed. I believe they
weren't on FOX.
I'm sorry you missed the news reports a while back and seem to think that there's so little of that happening and that the US has been just spanky clean in the connections to terrorism and outright terrorist acts dept. It must feel good to go out and get saluted, and otherwise have your brass shined by your buddies. Believe what you will, but I still maintain that your poor attitude and validation for troop welfare makes you a POOR officer.
I suppose it is my burdon to know what the vets of other wars have gone through and try to look at the best possible solution. I thought that should be the mark of a leader, but apparently money makes a leader.
PsychoSniper said:
Youve got the 04 presidentel candites mixed up Rosh, it was Kerry that voted aginst more money to buy equiptment for troops (though to be fair be voted for it before voting aginst it, or however his BS speil went)
That still doesn't say HOW it was spent. Less that is well-placed could do more than something that is ill-used, especially if fraudulent spending is cut down even more.
From what Ive gatherd from troops returning from the sandbox Ive talked too, the 'frontline' troops have what they need, its the national guard and reserve units that are ill equiped in certain areas (something thats been standard for the guard since the end of WW2)
Frontline, those who are specifically equipped and expecting to go in and take locations out. They also are there with the intent to invade a location and have someone else hold.
Those who are on standing orders or convoy orders are, in a word, targets. It comes to the point of stupid logistics officers coming up with the bright idea to send ill-equipped trucks and gear on oil convoys to get soldiers killed. There's a number of other incidents about this, but if people aren't going to care about the how of soldier deaths, I really don't want to bore them with the details that apparently are irrelevant to them.
