Perhaps you read in the Los Angeles Times last week a really obscene story about National Guardsmen and women being forced to pay back to the Pentagon enlistment bonuses of many thousands of dollars. People were losing their houses, after doing tours in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, because under enlistment quota pressures, a couple few people gave out more in bonuses to entice them to GO KILL PEOPLE AND POSSIBLY BE KILLED than was properly allowed!
I was not there at the time of the draft but I sure do think we would be better served as a democracy by a military that was substantially composed of citizen soldiers and not solely a permanent professional expeditionary force. The way we have it now, all the sacrifices are squeezed out of a very small group of people. The rest of us have no skin in the bloody process of being a world wide quasi imperial power.
She should totally start putting things with" got away with Benghazi" in the subject line and then write things she doesn't want congress to do so they'll emergency session to do them just out of spite.
I am always impressed when I meet men and women in the armed forces by the deeply held sense of patriotism that seems to be at the core of their motivations. I have a few in my extended family. I doubt we would ever vote for the same candidates but they are rightfully proud that the impact of what they did or do is that we both have the freedom to make those choices.
The Editrix got it right in one. Of course. This is 100% congress' problem to fix. The executive has done what can be done from that end of it. Order the repayments stopped. But the DoD HAS to collect the money under current law. They have to.
The only way to stop that from happening is for Congress to address it and make it right by paying the bonuses promised and repaying any bonus money already collected. There also needs to be some sort of punishment for the ones who gave out the bonuses to begin with but I doubt that will happen. There have been some rumblings that they might address it in the lame duck session, but they are on break again and are defiantly not going to come back for some vets. So much easier to blame the administration for all the problems, " See how much Demorats hate the Soldiers and vets? See? Vote for a R and we'll think about fixing this some time. USA, USA, USA!!!111!1oNE!!"
I'm not sure I agree, but only because there's almost never any proof given that what our armed forces do protects our freedoms at all. It sure sounds nice and patriotic on a bumper sticker, but I'm more into evidence-based arguments.
The quota is usually on the recruiters to get X number of bodies into the service per month. Usually it's 2 per recruiter per month. At the height of the Iraq war some of the recruiting commands made it 3 or 4 per. There was a rash of recruiter suicides during that phase because they couldn't make numbers. Not making your recruiting goals is a career ender for when you leave recruiting and go back to regular service.
We go where we are sent by our civilian leadership. Full stop. Be it war or a humanitarian relief mission or anything in between, we go where we are sent and accomplish the mission given to us. There are all kinds or reasons why no one would want the military unilaterally deciding what it will do or not do. So if we want the military to not protect the multi-nationals, we need better civilian leadership.
You mean defend American interests overseas. There's no way America itself is going to be invaded.
The? An in, implying only one other?
there are no words..."claw-back"there should be better(sic) ones, but i donut knoem
That's OK, it was a deplorable basket.
I was not there at the time of the draft but I sure do think we would be better served as a democracy by a military that was substantially composed of citizen soldiers and not solely a permanent professional expeditionary force. The way we have it now, all the sacrifices are squeezed out of a very small group of people. The rest of us have no skin in the bloody process of being a world wide quasi imperial power.
She should totally start putting things with" got away with Benghazi" in the subject line and then write things she doesn't want congress to do so they'll emergency session to do them just out of spite.
A professional army is required to protect the empire our freedumbs.
I am always impressed when I meet men and women in the armed forces by the deeply held sense of patriotism that seems to be at the core of their motivations. I have a few in my extended family. I doubt we would ever vote for the same candidates but they are rightfully proud that the impact of what they did or do is that we both have the freedom to make those choices.
I would not be surprised if there was a quota system in the DOD similar to the one found at Wells Fargo. I would be astounded if there was not.
The Editrix got it right in one. Of course. This is 100% congress' problem to fix. The executive has done what can be done from that end of it. Order the repayments stopped. But the DoD HAS to collect the money under current law. They have to.
The only way to stop that from happening is for Congress to address it and make it right by paying the bonuses promised and repaying any bonus money already collected. There also needs to be some sort of punishment for the ones who gave out the bonuses to begin with but I doubt that will happen. There have been some rumblings that they might address it in the lame duck session, but they are on break again and are defiantly not going to come back for some vets. So much easier to blame the administration for all the problems, " See how much Demorats hate the Soldiers and vets? See? Vote for a R and we'll think about fixing this some time. USA, USA, USA!!!111!1oNE!!"
He's a total Issa hole.
I'm not sure I agree, but only because there's almost never any proof given that what our armed forces do protects our freedoms at all. It sure sounds nice and patriotic on a bumper sticker, but I'm more into evidence-based arguments.
Issa is a ass.
The quota is usually on the recruiters to get X number of bodies into the service per month. Usually it's 2 per recruiter per month. At the height of the Iraq war some of the recruiting commands made it 3 or 4 per. There was a rash of recruiter suicides during that phase because they couldn't make numbers. Not making your recruiting goals is a career ender for when you leave recruiting and go back to regular service.
Unfortunately,what they protect is multi-national corporations,not our freedoms.
We go where we are sent by our civilian leadership. Full stop. Be it war or a humanitarian relief mission or anything in between, we go where we are sent and accomplish the mission given to us. There are all kinds or reasons why no one would want the military unilaterally deciding what it will do or not do. So if we want the military to not protect the multi-nationals, we need better civilian leadership.