Vantage, you are not keeping America safe for me, you are keeping it safe for yourself and those you judge worthy of saving. You present yourself as the mildest mannered member of an elitist group of "brothers-in-arms" protecting selected groups from enslavement and deprivation. Sounds like another famous group with the same high goals. The Nazi SS. Your rhetoric is much lke theirs
Let me preface by saying I was rather drunk last night, and that resulted in an overly emotional response, and for that, I apologize.
The end to Vietnam was indeed tragic. But again I ask you, what was the alternative? Should we have stayed and lost tens of thousands of more American lives? Maybe we should've just had a coup, and taken over Washington for ourselves! What would your battle plan have been to appease everyone, since you apparently have some magic gift that makes all parties involved happy with their end of the deal, but you just won't let any one else in on your secret.
So BaadVR4, how do we follow the orders of our bosses, the taxpayers, all the while giving everyone else what they want? You can't sit in your castle of noble ideas and preach cheer and presents for everyone, yet offer no plan on how to accomplish such a thing.
I'm not out to condemn anyone, particularly service members, regardless if that's what you believe or not. The bottom line is, everyone knew this pendulum would swing back and the military would see drastic cuts. They didn't just randomly pull this rabbit out of the hat.
Yea, you got me down to a T. :rolleyes: Could you do me a favor and help enlighten me. Who exactly do I want to protect, and who am I trying to enslave?Quote:
Originally Posted by BaadVR4
I get kinda scratchy when I see all you guys going at each other - even given the commonalities of your experience, it's not at all surprising to see the variety of reactions to the methods employed to down-size our forces.
These are tough times all around, but the fact that the same politicians who presided over our economic collapse are directing the draw-down from a relatively comfortable remove is particularly galling - incompetence on parade.
They will no doubt complain about their own hardships in making their stupid decisions.
I really hope we do a better job electing people going forward.
Vantage, those are questions only you can answer.
I never said we should give everyone everything they WANT. I only want to give everyone what they need to have a fighting chance to survive.
j2k4 has stated it well. We allow billions of dollars in benefits for non-citizens who are not even in the country legally. Why? Well, depending on which political side you're on, rounding them up and deporting them is either "inhumane" or not cost effective. And those same self-serving hypocrites will separate American citizens who have stood in harm's way to protect our freedom and kick them out the door without so much as a "hello", "goodbye" or "kiss my ass"?
How can you defend that kind of callous disregard for the hardship visited on those separated this way? I don't care how much you try to disguise the issue with cries of "force end strength is inevitable" or "it's just the way it is", the truth is we are changing the rules and disregarding who it hurts. It's like saying "rape is inevitable, so lay back and enjoy it".
I think the commonality of experiences is only a small part of our end product view point. I think personal world perspective plays a far greater role in shaping our mindset. For the first several years of my military service, my world view was ego-centric. As my authority/responsibility expanded, my perspective changed to being more outward. By the time I retired, I had come to understand that people are not the most important asset, they are the ONLY important asset. True, you have to have airplanes to have an Air Force and ships to have a Navy. But none of those assets matter without the people to man/maintain them. Period.
What value do you place on going "in harm's way"? For standing at the gates of hell and NOT yielding? You don't. Those acts are beyond price. Yes, there are those who "play the system" and fake injury/disability. But those folks are just as prevalent in the private sector. We don't treat civilian workers who lose their jobs this way. We don't change the rules on them and them kick them to the curb. Why would we treat our service men and women this way? Because we can. At least that's the way the politicians and beancounters see it. And that's why the Navy wife wrote the letter to the MCPON. To try to do something about an egregious wrong. To try to prevent the next Petty Officer Hatfield.
One last comment/opinion. Vantage, it is always better to give reasoned thought to a statement before you make it. A long time ago, I was told about the Loud Mouth's Prayer: "Lord, make my words tasty and filling. For, tomorrow, I may have to eat them." All of us have eaten the odd syllable or two.
Here's a plan. Every politician/civil servant who makes over $100,000.00 per year donates the amount over $100,000.00 to a fund that uses the donated money to provide transitional services (including grants) to separated members in need.
Oops. I forgot. We're not allowed to touch our sacred cows or their nice little paychecks. Especially not for something as worthless as an ex-service member.
And we wonder why they feel so useless they see suicide as the only way to be of use to their families. At lease that way the spouse gets the insurance.
Tell me, Vantage, if you value and honor your own service so much, why don't you value and honor theirs? Is it because they lacked the means to make themselves "untouchable"? Does that make their wives and children less valuable, too?
I'm with you, there; fits the current popular trend, too - no more target-rich environment than the U.S. Congress. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BaadVR4
If I had my way, every elected federal official would have his/her term extended indefinitely, their pay stopped, their assets frozen and they and their families would be provided food stamps for food and moved to government housing. They would remain in this status until the top ten problems (as defined by a nation wide poll) were fixed.
I'm willing to bet the deficit, balanced budget, unemployment, dependency on foreign oil and illegal immigration would magically find solutions in less than 60 days.
A politician's ONLY goal is getting elected/re-elected. And he/she will do WHATEVER it takes to achieve that goal. If we want to talk about welfare on the federal dime, there it is.
I'm not sure whether the American electorate lacks the will or lacks the process to fix our federal government, but it is more than broken, it is actively bleeding us dry. But that is a whole 'nother discussion.
Or as someone said, "we have become a nation of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers". And 99+per cent of federal elected officials are lawyers.
i have zero respect for anyone who uses the "i was drunk" excuse. NONE WHATSOEVER.