 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
Oh dear. A thread trying to imply that politicians care about other people and have moral values. How the standard of trolling has sunk.
Politicians primarily care about getting elected. Nothing else is allowed to interfere with that. End of story.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
That's a LOT of money. I'm all for getting more money in my pocket but I and most of the other soldiers I serve with realize that any pay increases can't be dramatic. There are just too many troops and too make major pay increases would force us to have a huge increase in the personal Income Tax rate.
How on earth do they plan to pay for that extra $3000 per soldier? |
Note that soldiers won't get one penny more if 1) Bush ends the shadow draft and soldiers aren't involinterally forced to remain in uniform after their enlistments are up, and 2) The troop rotations go back to the traditional 6-8 months in theater instead of Bush's 1 year to 1.5 years.
Without stop lose we would be seeing the largest out flow of experienced NCOs since the early post Veitnam era. Once those folks are gone it takes a generation for new people to gain the needed experience. In short, for the good of the service and to prevent most of our experienced officers and NCOs from leaving the military needs to improve quality of life for average soldiers by seporating them from their families for shorter periods of time and decreasing the op tempo. There are two ways to do this 1) Cut deployments, or 2) increase the number of soldiers so that each soldier spends less time deployed. Bush has refused to do either and instead has forced people to stay in uniform long after their enlistments are up. One soldier who I am in charge of has been stop losed for 10 months and will have to serve for an additional 8 months before he is allowed to go home. That's a year and a half longer then he signed up for. If that isn't a draft then I don't know what is.
Last edited by Oerdin on 02-08-2004 at 19:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
|
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Stop losses are part of being in the military, I've been on the receiving end of two so far. Wasn't necessarily happy about it but didn't complain as it was part of being in the military. If it passes I'm sure Congress will leave enough loopholes to be able to disqualify lots of soldiers. |
The problem as I mentioned before there are two ways to end stop lose and Bush has no interest in either one. Stop lose wasn't used that often and even during Vietnam the policy was that when a man's enlistment was up he went home. The exception was if there was current on going enemy offensives which would make it imprudent to release soldiers. The Tet offensive was one case were a stop lose occured but it lasted less then a month and it only covered people in Vietnam. Can you really claim Bush's army wide stop lose policy is for a temperary military need like occured during the Tet offensive? To compare Bush has stopped lose some people for over three years now.
Last edited by Oerdin on 03-08-2004 at 01:35
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2004 10:16
Cant blame him, though, considering he has no idea what our troops go through 
I also like the democrats' plan to pay $2000 per month to those persons who are involentarially stop losed. . 
|