"support the troops"

**barbaro** · 25-06-2007, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by navydoubs1977

milkman i couldnt agree more. my pay as a killick submariner is fair infact i belive for the work i do it bladdy amazing lol. however to go away for 6 months out of everyyear for 22yrs isnt worth it.
im a med downgrade at the moment due to a head injury back in 2003. its more than likely i will be med dischrged in the very near future.
i wont miss it one little bit.
The uk navy likes to portray itself as a family, what crap!
its a job thats it, just a job.
this is something i think gets lost on many people they think its a club or a team everyone loves, far from it, i would say 80% of my friends and colleages do not enjoy it. they become trapped with good pay, incentives and strategically given bonuses to keep people in around the times they would be thinking of leaving.

milk:

But I think this is true for many people in the world, regardless of what they do. Not always "trapped" but anchored. At times yes, "trapped."

Originally Posted by Milkman

And the U.S. Navy severely punishes people based upon adultory, or even having platonic friends.

i never knew that. dont think we have anything similar.

Yes, and very brutal. One women, career Navy, one year away from retirement dated a guy who was married. He lied, said he was single. She was Court Martialed and convicted. Lost her retirement, and then committed suicide.

On the other hand, a career Navy man went to a hotel to have sex with a child, while the mother watched, was convicted, sentenced to prison, and recived his pension with a 1-rank deduction.

Insane.

**stroller** · 25-06-2007, 03:05 AM

It's still a boys club.

One of many reasons I couldn't face doing military service.

Dodged out of it, to answer a question from another thread.
But before anyone judges me, think about what it takes to avoid conscription. Had me emigrating to the UK and stay there until I was too old, and yes, they kept putting the age limit up, I had this phone conservation with the officer in charge of tracing me, he told me if I hurried up I could serve in the same unit as my son.

**navydoubs1977** · 25-06-2007, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by Milkman

On the other hand, a career Navy man went to a hotel to have sex with a child, while the mother watched, was convicted, sentenced to prison, and recived his pension with a 1-rank deduction.

should a been shot wanker.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Yes, and very brutal. One women, career Navy, one year away from retirement dated a guy who was married. He lied, said he was single. She was Court Martialed and convicted. Lost her retirement, and then committed suicide.

that just proves the stupidity of the forces. the previous guy gets a ticking off and she is cast out. incredible

i think the us guys make it more of a way of life than we brits do.

**navydoubs1977** · 25-06-2007, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by stroller

It's still a boys club.

perhaps at officer level. the on the ground or sea or air for that matter troops are nt happy. thats the case in the uk forces. our accom is shit proper shit, makes hotel champ pattaya i stayed at last week look like buckingham palace.
the food served even ashore is crap, we desperatly need jamies school dinners lol
the pay unless on subs or special forces or aircrew, is crap.
the shore time in the navy that used to be 2yrs every 3 when i joined is now 6mths every 5yrs. this is not enough for familys with kids.
ive jsut done a degree course paid for by the navy at hms sultan. i was on course with 7-8 guys who were already on subs and 20 who were straight from school. fromthe guys who came from boats only 2 are back on them now the others are leaving, have left, or med discharges.
its crap total crap.
ok rant over!!!
ITS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!

**sabang** · 25-06-2007, 09:10 AM

I was reading up on the Australian navy the other day. Their submarine branch apparently does not pay ahywhere like the same premium to submariners as the Brit's. Also, Australian subs are all poky little diesel electrics- big nuclear subs are considered luxury accomodation in comparison.
So they are desperately short of submariners, they can not even have all of their flotilla out at any one time. I think two boats have to be laid up, basically mothballed, at the moment. Not good out of a grand total of 6 sub's.
So they are looking at following the UK model and upping the pay rates.

**kerux** · 25-06-2007, 11:36 AM

"Military men are "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy."

Zionist and dual Israel/US citizen Henry Kissinger

**sabang** · 25-06-2007, 12:18 PM

I ain't gonna jump into your conspiracy mate, but I must say the more I learn about the back room manipulations and hawkish policies of Kissinger, the more sinister a character he appears to me. He's even involved with the Bush administration, behind closed doors as usual.

**barbaro** · 25-06-2007, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

I ain't gonna jump into your conspiracy mate, but I must say the more I learn about the back room manipulations and hawkish policies of Kissinger, the more sinister a character he appears to me. He's even involved with the Bush administration, behind closed doors as usual.

What's disturbing to me is that they were even having Kissinger secretly visit the White House once a week and "advise" W. Bush and Cheney about Iraq.

Kissinger is very over-rated as a diplomat. Scholar and intellectual who who should stick to writing books and teaching.

**kerux** · 25-06-2007, 08:25 PM

Don't forget Bush initially appointed Kissinger to head the 9/11 Commission. But Kissinger refused to divulge his financial connections.

From the Memory Hole:

The Bush administration has been saying in public for several months that it does not desire an independent inquiry into the gross "failures of intelligence" that left U.S. society defenseless 14 months ago. By announcing that Henry Kissinger will be chairing the inquiry that it did not want, the president has now made the same point in a different way. But the cynicism of the decision and the gross insult to democracy and to the families of the victims that it represents has to be analyzed to be believed.

When in office, Henry Kissinger organized massive deceptions of Congress and public opinion. The most notorious case concerned the "secret bombing" of Cambodia and Laos and the unleashing of unconstitutional methods by Nixon and Kissinger to repress dissent from this illegal and atrocious policy. But Sen. Frank Church's commission of inquiry into the abuses of U.S. intelligence, which focused on illegal assassinations and the subversion of democratic governments overseas, was given incomplete and misleading information by Kissinger, especially on the matter of Chile. Rep. Otis Pike's parallel inquiry in the House (which brought to light Kissinger's personal role in the not-insignificant matter of the betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds, among other offenses) was thwarted by Kissinger at every turn, and its eventual findings were classified. In other words, the new "commission" will be chaired by a man with a long, proven record of concealing evidence and of lying to Congress, the press, and the public.

3) In his second career as an obfuscator and a falsifier, Kissinger appropriated the records of his time at the State Department and took them on a truck to the Rockefeller family estate in New York. He has since been successfully sued for the return of much of this public property, but meanwhile he produced, for profit, three volumes of memoirs that purported to give a full account of his tenure. In several crucial instances, such as his rendering of U.S. diplomacy with China over Vietnam, with apartheid South Africa over Angola, and with Indonesia over the invasion of East Timor (to cite only some of the most conspicuous), declassified documents have since shown him to be a bald-faced liar. Does he deserve a third try at presenting a truthful record after being caught twice as a fabricator? And on such a grave matter as this?

More: The latest Kissinger outrage. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

**navydoubs1977** · 25-06-2007, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

I was reading up on the Australian navy the other day. Their submarine branch apparently does not pay ahywhere like the same premium to submariners as the Brit's. Also, Australian subs are all poky little diesel electrics- big nuclear subs are considered luxury accomodation in comparison. So they are desperately short of submariners, they can not even have all of their flotilla out at any one time. I think two boats have to be laid up, basically mothballed, at the moment. Not good out of a grand total of 6 sub's. So they are looking at following the UK model and upping the pay rates.

you can do an exchange to aussie navy for 12 months from uk. never done it myself as never been a diesel rating.
i belive the pay is less due to us being nuclear. its danger money too but called something different.
aussie boats can go into anyport anywhere in the world.
our boats are limited to jettys with a nuclear licence, us, gib, scotland lol. so we dont get the travel the aussie boats get.
when i was in scotland last 2 S boats were sat along side there with no crew, so that recruitment prob is just the same. infact last yr i think? the navy gave £5000 bonuses to all skimmers who would transfer to subs.
i had a bad head injury in tenerife few yrs ago and there still trying to fix me rather than kick me out, because there is no one to take places.

**raycarey** · 20-09-2007, 08:56 AM

why doesn't the GOP support the troops?

sen jim webb (former sec. of the navy, and actually has a son in iraq) tried to pass legislation that would require troops to have the same amount of time with their families as they do in iraq. for example.....if they serve 15 months in iraq, they get 15 months with their families before they get sent back.....but the republicans voted against it.

btw, in vietnam soldiers served one tour and they were done. there was no requirement to go back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/wa...pjgXQVe9Zm9eLA

**barbaro** · 20-09-2007, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by raycarey

btw, in vietnam soldiers served one tour and they were done. there was no requirement to go back.

Apples and Oranges.

There was a draft for 'Nam, and more teenagers willing to go.

Deployments are longer in the Iraq charade because of lower numbers.

About 3 million Americans in total went to 'Nam with a DEROS date of 365 days.

**raycarey** · 20-09-2007, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

There was a draft for 'Nam

exactly. why isn't there a draft now. what better way to 'support the troops' than to give them the reenforcements they need?

Originally Posted by Milkman

and more teenagers willing to go.

really?

**barbaro** · 20-09-2007, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Milkman

There was a draft for 'Nam

exactly. why isn't there a draft now. what better way to 'support the troops' than to give them the reenforcements they need?

1. There isn't a draft now because drafts don't work. The units of draftees statistically don't work as well together as volunteers.

2. It's not politically feasible.

3. Gen. Abrams made it mandatory for reserves and national guard to be mobilized after 'Nam because it would make foreign wars and troop escalation more in common with the general American public. Under the reserves and nation guard, middle-aged bankers, fathers, teachers, etc get deployed, not just 19 year old from rural areas who couldn't go to college for a deferment or get into the national gaurd and avoid 'Nam.

Originally Posted by Milkman

and more teenagers willing to go.

Raycare:

really?

I assuming the poll results reveal the current cohort of those draftee age would not be inclined as much as the Americans in the 1960s, and up to 1973.

It's not hard to understand why? Different era, different demographics, different conflict, different politics, and different national interests.

'Nam had about 3 million American there.

Iraq has had far, far, less.

The point of even talking about a draft, is stupid to being with.

**raycarey** · 20-09-2007, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

The point of even talking about a draft, is stupid to being with.

oh, sorry. silly me.

**raycarey** · 23-09-2007, 03:30 PM

your desperation is palpable.

but, let's get back on topic to supporting the troops.....has the walter reed scandal been addressed on this thread?

Walter Reed - The Wounded Warrior At Home (washingtonpost.com)
.
.
.
.

cue the crickets, because this thread is about to get real quiet.

**attaboy** · 23-09-2007, 03:57 PM

your desperation is palpable.

did you eat dirt when you were a child? you seem very oral.

**raycarey** · 23-09-2007, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by attaboy

you seem very oral.

you seem obsessed with following me from thread to thread.

**Boon Mee** · 23-09-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

your desperation is palpable.

but, let's get back on topic to supporting the troops.....has the walter reed scandal been addressed on this thread?

Walter Reed - The Wounded Warrior At Home (washingtonpost.com)
.
.
.
.

cue the crickets, because this thread is about to get real quiet.

The Walter Reed scandal is indeed a blackmark in the annals of support for our troops and the General(s) in charge have been dealt with.

Got one better tho - Daily Kos: How to Build An IED.
Those folks definitely don't support our troops now do they?

**raycarey** · 23-09-2007, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

the General(s) in charge have been dealt with.

how were they dealt with?

**Boon Mee** · 23-09-2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

the General(s) in charge have been dealt with.

how were they dealt with?

Demoted/fired as I recall?

**raycarey** · 23-09-2007, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Demoted/fired as I recall?

that's pretty vague.

**Boon Mee** · 23-09-2007, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Demoted/fired as I recall?

that's pretty vague.

Well, the hospital was 'reconditioned' after the appalling coonditions had come to light as well.

**raycarey** · 23-09-2007, 04:22 PM

demoted/fired, huh?

how about retired?

Army surgeon general puts in for retirement - Military News, Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

**Boon Mee** · 23-09-2007, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

demoted/fired, huh?

how about retired?

Army surgeon general puts in for retirement - Military News, Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

OK, well, let's move on.
How about the fact of a segment of the US population that is actively supporting the killing of our troops?

Thread: "support the troops"

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions