Odyssey Dawn... odyssey gone wrong.

[layoutshooter]

Again I will argue the point that it is wrong from my point of view. Your service doesn't end at the time of separation but some time after that according to the commitment you made.

BUT I wonder about the Oath itself, it is about defending the constitution so what action does one take when there isn't a declared war but a police action when an outside force tells us to attack a country?

Shouldn't there be a concern with the possible circumventing of the constitutionally mandated system to declare war against another country and the violation of the oath of enlistment (office)?

All of the people I speak of have NO commitment after this enlistment. When it is up, they are gone. Smart move on their part.

There are few ways to avoid risking you life when our government uses you for their power. One MIGHT be able to find a legal way out but it is rare. Most just get out when their enlistment ends.


Retention is becoming a HUGH problem and NOT for the reasons
the news is reporting. Reenlistment is down for two main reason, at least according to the people I speak with. ONE: the use of the U.S. military, risking their lives, in conflicts where the U.S. has no interest. TWO: treatment of vet, more so for wounded vets, after they get out.

It is always difficult to make a decision. There will always be people who try to avoid combat because they just don't want too. There are, however, there are a few very valid reasons to refuse a combat assignment. An illegal order is one. Being sent into a conflict where the Constitution is NOT under threat. Being sent into combat by a government that is opposed to the Constitution. Being used for domestic law enforcement.

As I said, it is THEIR life. They have an ABSOLUTE right to use it how they chose. NO man nor government has ANY right to control their lives once they chose to say no and get out. Many also believe as I do, the oath to defend and protect the Constitution does NOT end once you get out. There is a large number of people who will resist this government in it's drive to eliminate our Constitution. Also, it is very likely that many active military, reserves and guardsmen will NOT serve in a martial law force if it is used to enforce anti-constitutional actions. Like removing guns from peoples home for one.

 

[greg334]

All of the people I speak of have NO commitment after this enlistment. When it is up, they are gone. Smart move on their part.

Well I would agree but something I read seems to say otherwise. There is something in the contract you sign that said to the effect they can call you up after you walk out the door, I know the vets I work with tell me that, my father had the same thing and even my uncles who served in WW2 and Korea had that and one was called back into service in 1949 after serving in WW2 from '41 to '46 - actually served from '36 to '46 and then from '49 to '53

There are few ways to avoid risking you life when our government uses you for their power. One MIGHT be able to find a legal way out but it is rare. Most just get out when their enlistment ends.

I understand but that's not the point. The point is if they choose to leave the military because of the clown in the WH it is a poor excuse. If they leave because life becomes unbareble because of the conditions in the military, that I understand and would stand by them. Being political is an issue for me with anyone who serves the government in any capacity, not just the military. NOT saying they can't exercise their right to vote, I encourage that but they can't take sides when it comes to political issues or who is their commander.

Retention is becoming a HUGH problem and NOT for the reasons
the news is reporting. Reenlistment is down for two main reason, at least according to the people I speak with. ONE: the use of the U.S. military, risking their lives, in conflicts where the U.S. has no interest.

Also retention is becoming a problem because of society has created a group of people who expect to be compensated for every little thing in life.

TWO: treatment of vet, more so for wounded vets, after they get out.

Well I fully agree with the combat/wounded vet and how we forget about them sometimes but I can't agree that because you choose to put on a uniform and go through the process, your life is in danger hence you need to get something above what you get while you were in. A LOT of people have stepped up in other parts of society and sacrificed much more than the two or three years during an enlistment and get nothing at all after they are finished with their work or job. I would like to see savings in the military budget by cutting a lot of the programs that the contractors are involved with at the same time increasing the benefits and pay for those who are in uniform. Also eliminate the age limits they have in support roles that can be filled with the unemployed and people who want to serve but never got the chance.

It is always difficult to make a decision. There will always be people who try to avoid combat because they just don't want too. There are, however, there are a few very valid reasons to refuse a combat assignment. An illegal order is one. Being sent into a conflict where the Constitution is NOT under threat. Being sent into combat by a government that is opposed to the Constitution. Being used for domestic law enforcement.

OK I get the illegal thing, but that is not defined in the constitution nor it seems to be in parts of other laws, however it is part of treaties and that may be the issue for many.

I also understand refusing combat assignments where there is no real reason for it but then you have a problem with mutiny if they act.

RIGHT now the constitution - the country - is not at risk, either on the national security level or the economic level or even a threat of any invasion so at this point I may be inclined to think that the guy/gal in uniform who is participating in this libya operation is doing it illegally and is violating his/her oath.

The same holds true for another event in our history - the war between the states. Lincoln send US troops to occupy US soil, they fought to preserve the union as a whole but not to protect the constitution, secession didn't attack it, the states who felt the control of the country was in the hands of the few in the north left, leaving the rest of the union alone. SO was he wrong or right?

As I said, it is THEIR life. They have an ABSOLUTE right to use it how they chose. NO man nor government has ANY right to control their lives once they chose to say no and get out. Many also believe as I do, the oath to defend and protect the Constitution does NOT end once you get out. There is a large number of people who will resist this government in it's drive to eliminate our Constitution. Also, it is very likely that many active military, reserves and guardsmen will NOT serve in a martial law force if it is used to enforce anti-constitutional actions. Like removing guns from peoples home for one.

Well actually this is the divide, they don't have the right not to put themselves in harms way to protect the country - the country and constitution is really the same thing. They are there to protect it, meaning they will do what it takes to do that. IF we consider desertion as part of the choice in the military, then we have a serious problem and need to think about our approach to solving it.

 

[layoutshooter]

No one said desertion, they are getting out at the end of their current enlistments. It is their RIGHT to do so. We have NO draft.

I am not quite sure what the lifetime commitment is now. When I got drafted it was 6 years, active, reserves, national guard or inactive reserves combined. NO lifetime commitment for women but that is ANOTHER problem.

SO, you believe that the Nation should renege on contracts? Yep, good way to do business and that is EXACTLY what we are doing with contracts signed by vets. Frankly, I would not even enlist today knowing that the contract being signed was useless. NO contract is worth signing when the party of power, the government, has NO intention of living up to the term of that contract. Let's put it this way. I bought a house using a mortage for financing. After 20 years I just don't feel like paying on it anymore. It's old, it's not worth what I paid for it back then, parts are broken, it no longer fits my needs. It is going to cost more than I am willing to pay so I walk away from it.

THAT is what our wonderful government is doing with vets. Example: When I enlisted part of my contract read that IF I completed 20 years of service I would have free VA health care for life. Fast forward to today. The scumbags in Washington are reneging on that. They are now turning away vets from the VA health care system even though they completed 20 years, or more, according to the contract signed.

It will not surprise me to see service connected injuries, combat injuries etc be excluded from care soon.

You remember your history of the War between the States. Not long prior to that conflict there was a LOT of discussion between serving members of the military as to which side they would fight on if war came about. Those discussions took place in the military academy and in the rank and file.

Those SAME discussions are taking place now, and for good reason. People are deciding what they are going to do IF, and I think when, our government abandons/overturns our Constitution and takes control of the people. Since their oath, the same oath I took, was to protect and defend that Constitution, they have NO moral responsibility to continue to serve. IN FACT, their responsibility would be to fight the government that overturned the Constitution. The United States would NOT exist if the Constitution is gone. It would then be a different nation, based on different ideals, most likely fewer, if any freedoms and a nation where the government controls the People. That is NOT what they signed up to protect. It is there ABSOLUTE right to decide IF they are going to serve the NEW nation, leave the military or FIGHT to restore the rule of the Constitution.

 

[golfournut]

If you enlist, the term is for 6 years. The options when I enlisted was 2,3 or 4 years with the balance being served as either active or inactive reserve. I severed 6 years active duty, when I was discharged, I was out, no reserve time.

Those that chose active reserve, if memory serves me right, do monthly meetings and I think something like 1 or 2 weeks a year in the field training.

When the Marine Corp was created, it was and is at the Presidents disposal. Meaning the President of the United States can deploy US Marines at the will of the Commander in Chief without congressional approval.

All of the other branches of service require congressional approval or declaration of war to deploy.

So, has anyone read or heard about congress approving the Lybian action. I haven't.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[golfournut]

Oh, by the way, it was Truman that sent in the first "Fact Finders" and "Advisors" in 1950.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[layoutshooter]

If you enlist, the term is for 6 years. The options when I enlisted was 2,3 or 4 years with the balance being served as either active or inactive reserve. I severed 6 years active duty, when I was discharged, I was out, no reserve time.

Those that chose active reserve, if memory serves me right, do monthly meetings and I think something like 1 or 2 weeks a year in the field training.

When the Marine Corp was created, it was and is at the Presidents disposal. Meaning the President of the United States can deploy US Marines at the will of the Commander in Chief without congressional approval.

All of the other branches of service require congressional approval or declaration of war to deploy.

So, has anyone read or heard about congress approving the Lybian action. I haven't.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

It is two weeks a year , sometimes more for certain MOSs. When I got out I was in the inactive reserves for 3 years. My "unit" did get activated for about 6 months when there was a little war in the Middle East but I was never required to report. NO women were EVER required to report EXCEPT those who joined the military on their own.

 

[greg334]

You know Layout, there is a more important contract with the people which has been broken more often than any one that has been made to individuals. There is some sort of excuse that had been made to justify the existence of programs like Social Security but that is not a social contract as it is the contract of government to do there job by protecting the country and following the document that we, the people, agreed would be our standard of the government to live by - the constitution.

We the people didn't make those agreements but most of us would not hesitate to fulfill most of them if we had the money and control. The people who came up with the idea that defending the country requires a contract, didn't foresee the problems we would have and furthermore the real underlying issue is cost to create and maintain the closed system of care, retirement and other benefits that military people have as much as the institution that has been built up around the military - which is not in our control or the control of the market.

Even if we wanted to help those out, our hands are tied because of a serious division within in the country, the same exact division that you are basing your demands on - the need to fulfill some sort of contract made by the government.

BUT that's not what the federal government is there to do, it is there to be small and defend the states from outside invasions.

Outside of the seriousness of the system you and others like you live within, we have other more serious problems to deal with as a country, one is our debt and the fact that unless EVERYONE in this country has to seriously sacrifice, there will not be Social Security, Medicare, the VA and other Federal funded programs for anyone to use - we will have run out of money.

With that, the US government failed to live up to one of its most important functions - far far far beyond any 'obligation' to any individual, Defending Our Borders.

BUT you have to ask yourself if you are up to actually wanting to fix the problem or just get what you think you deserve?

Are you willing to also sacrifice like a lot of us who have been "promised" a retirement utopia but never will see it?

Our country didn't depend on contracts to defend our country, nor did we always depend on professional soldiers. We were and in many ways still have a civilian driven defense force, from what founded our country - the militia to the citizen soldier.

There are a lot more willing people to step up and defend our country without contracts or concerns for life time health care. They are willing to put their lives at risk for the purpose of protecting those who are worthy of protecting but they may not live up to any 'standard'.

For the past 100 years, we have moved away from the idea that we, the people, don't have to just defend our selves but rather we need to build nations and spread the most horrid form of government - Democracy.

Returning to actually serving the right purpose for the country easily make it possible to actually fulfill those promises and I am willing to give up something for that - intervention in other countries that have not directly attacked us.

We are reluctant now to let our military do things that do not help us on the world stage for our benefit but to benefit those who are not part of our country because of some political correctness crap. We worry about how people feel about us and when we are willing to step out of their country, they panic and beg us to stay. Many can't get a grip on the idea that our military has only one purpose - to protect our country - but see it as a giant police force.

In our entire history we have been attacked by three countries, Great Britain, Germany and Japan but we have been involved with over 15 conflicts under the guise of various excuses in the past 100 years. IF you want to have those benefits, then those other things, like Korea need to be put on the table to be either cut or justified under the rule of our laws.

 

[golfournut]

Man, woman, gay, k9 or equine, we all bleed green when in the suck.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[layoutshooter]

You know Layout, there is a more important contract with the people which has been broken more often than any one that has been made to individuals. There is some sort of excuse that had been made to justify the existence of programs like Social Security but that is not a social contract as it is the contract of government to do there job by protecting the country and following the document that we, the people, agreed would be our standard of the government to live by - the constitution.

We the people didn't make those agreements but most of us would not hesitate to fulfill most of them if we had the money and control. The people who came up with the idea that defending the country requires a contract, didn't foresee the problems we would have and furthermore the real underlying issue is cost to create and maintain the closed system of care, retirement and other benefits that military people have as much as the institution that has been built up around the military - which is not in our control or the control of the market.

Even if we wanted to help those out, our hands are tied because of a serious division within in the country, the same exact division that you are basing your demands on - the need to fulfill some sort of contract made by the government.

BUT that's not what the federal government is there to do, it is there to be small and defend the states from outside invasions.

Outside of the seriousness of the system you and others like you live within, we have other more serious problems to deal with as a country, one is our debt and the fact that unless EVERYONE in this country has to seriously sacrifice, there will not be Social Security, Medicare, the VA and other Federal funded programs for anyone to use - we will have run out of money.

With that, the US government failed to live up to one of its most important functions - far far far beyond any 'obligation' to any individual, Defending Our Borders.

BUT you have to ask yourself if you are up to actually wanting to fix the problem or just get what you think you deserve?

Are you willing to also sacrifice like a lot of us who have been "promised" a retirement utopia but never will see it?

Our country didn't depend on contracts to defend our country, nor did we always depend on professional soldiers. We were and in many ways still have a civilian driven defense force, from what founded our country - the militia to the citizen soldier.

There are a lot more willing people to step up and defend our country without contracts or concerns for life time health care. They are willing to put their lives at risk for the purpose of protecting those who are worthy of protecting but they may not live up to any 'standard'.

For the past 100 years, we have moved away from the idea that we, the people, don't have to just defend our selves but rather we need to build nations and spread the most horrid form of government - Democracy.

Returning to actually serving the right purpose for the country easily make it possible to actually fulfill those promises and I am willing to give up something for that - intervention in other countries that have not directly attacked us.

We are reluctant now to let our military do things that do not help us on the world stage for our benefit but to benefit those who are not part of our country because of some political correctness crap. We worry about how people feel about us and when we are willing to step out of their country, they panic and beg us to stay. Many can't get a grip on the idea that our military has only one purpose - to protect our country - but see it as a giant police force.

In our entire history we have been attacked by three countries, Great Britain, Germany and Japan but we have been involved with over 15 conflicts under the guise of various excuses in the past 100 years. IF you want to have those benefits, then those other things, like Korea need to be put on the table to be either cut or justified under the rule of our laws.

The PEOPLE wrote that contract. It WAS written by the Congress, passed into LAW and SIGNED. IF ONE contract is not adhered too then NO contract is valid in the Country. It is NO different if you were to sign on with an owner for 60% including the FSC. After 5 years that owner changes his mind and says he cannot afford to pay you that FSC money. Things changed, he wasted his other funds and now needs that money for repairs. He ALSO will REQUIRE you to CONTINUE to drive for him since you signed a contract and are bound to him.

I am not demanding ANYTHING except what was there when I signed on the dotted line. You CANNOT trust ANYONE who will NOT live up to a WRITTEN contract. Shoot, I don't trust anyone who would not live up to a VERBAL contract and a handshake. I would NEVER risk my LIFE for some one or an organization that I cannot TRUST. I do NOT except these fine men to do so. There are already far too many purple hearts in that bunch. No use getting any more when we KNOW that they will ONLY be used as a toilet by the government.

 

[greg334]

Did you actually read what I said?

There is a bigger more important contract - the constitution - and it has been broken too many times to count. If we can not bring ourselves as a country to follow it without exceptions and hold the government to what they are supposed to be doing, than what is the use of enforcing any contract that is made for other things?

Again Layout, I have no problem with people in the military but the problem I am having is this culture of "I deserve" when we as a country can't afford it - on all levels of society.

IT IS not the people's fault that the VA sucks or the military is underpaid but it is the people's fault for voting in the same idiots who say they care and then screw all of us.

The problems with the VA and the military go back to the 1950's, but the problems have not been solved nor are they going to be. The same holds true with health care and so on. ALL of these issues would be solved if people would take the politics of our country a bit more serious and hold those in office to a higher standard. BUT because our society is a mess, we are divided and we can't even fight a war without the backing of the country, we let things go that we should care about.

I go back to what are we doing in other countries when we can't afford to take care of our own who we told we would?

Maybe cutting back on things like Korea and Germany may help us fight the problems domestically, like combat vet care.

Maybe taking it a step further and allowing people to use the system outside the VA, allowing a retirement to become self-directed and maybe just maybe reducing the amount of money we spend on things we don't need in the military by actually reidentifying what the purpose of our military is to serve.

I asked this the other day when I heard the complaining, how many people who have served are willing to fight for those who are serving right now?

It seems not many because if even 15% of those who served stepped up and asked OUR congress what is going on, maybe it would be taken seriously.

Why is it that people who served, don't seem to care?

 

[golfournut]

When I got out in 74, the main reason I left after 6 years was the talk of unions in the military. That was the last straw. I had visions of "attack that machine nest" "not until I talk to my grievance officer". That scared the hell out of me. Not the union, but the possibility of not being able to count on your brother when the crap hit the fan!

Fortunately that never transpired and never became an issue.

Our constitution provides for an election process. It also grants rights and responsibilities to those elected to create, pass and impose laws as they deem necessary. The constitution also provides for a Judicial branch to make sure those laws that are passed are constitutional.

When you vote someone into office, you/we are giving them those rights and responsibilities on a TEMPORARY bases. If you/we don't like it, it is up to us to not send them back.

Then problem is the MAJORITY of the population does not exercise that right. They leave it up to the minority, which in my opinion have become over time the PROFESSIONAL voter and party follower. Third world countries that have intimidation of death if they vote, have a better voter turn out than we do.
If we had a larger participation, there would be a lot less career politicians than we have now. When you only have to smooze a few, the chances of getting reelected are greater.

You want to change the way things are done, it is not by meeting your rep or senator face to face. They are the problem. One on one doesn't do it. Get people registered and out to vote. I am not saying to pick or preach a poison, but to just get them out and vote.

It is one freedom after all, that has not changed.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[layoutshooter]

Did you actually read what I said?

There is a bigger more important contract - the constitution - and it has been broken too many times to count. If we can not bring ourselves as a country to follow it without exceptions and hold the government to what they are supposed to be doing, than what is the use of enforcing any contract that is made for other things?

Again Layout, I have no problem with people in the military but the problem I am having is this culture of "I deserve" when we as a country can't afford it - on all levels of society.

IT IS not the people's fault that the VA sucks or the military is underpaid but it is the people's fault for voting in the same idiots who say they care and then screw all of us.

The problems with the VA and the military go back to the 1950's, but the problems have not been solved nor are they going to be. The same holds true with health care and so on. ALL of these issues would be solved if people would take the politics of our country a bit more serious and hold those in office to a higher standard. BUT because our society is a mess, we are divided and we can't even fight a war without the backing of the country, we let things go that we should care about.

I go back to what are we doing in other countries when we can't afford to take care of our own who we told we would?

Maybe cutting back on things like Korea and Germany may help us fight the problems domestically, like combat vet care.

Maybe taking it a step further and allowing people to use the system outside the VA, allowing a retirement to become self-directed and maybe just maybe reducing the amount of money we spend on things we don't need in the military by actually reidentifying what the purpose of our military is to serve.

I asked this the other day when I heard the complaining, how many people who have served are willing to fight for those who are serving right now?

It seems not many because if even 15% of those who served stepped up and asked OUR congress what is going on, maybe it would be taken seriously.

Why is it that people who served, don't seem to care?

VA funding does not come out of the military funding. Cutting back on troops in Korea etc would have no effect. The money would NOT go to the VA it would go to some welfare bum. I would start by cutting the pay of elected officials (speaking of federal level right now) in half, starting today. I would NOT pay the congress OR president for ANY period when we did not have a passed budget. Don't do your job? NO PAY! Then I would eliminate most aid to other countries. We take care of our own first. THEN eliminate MOST, not all, welfare programs. TOO lazy to work? STARVE, not my problem. I would NOT eliminate ONE PENNY of what was promised to people who EARNED it before EVERY other source of savings was done first.

Funds that are paid for by a

requested​

tax, like the Pittman/Robinson tax 0r the Migratory Bird Stamp fund, CANNOT be used for ANY other purpose other than which the requested tax was intended for and those projects cannot use other government funds OR be cut if they stay within the funding bounds.


Yes IT IS the Peoples fault the VA is messed up. THEY elected the bums.

The military is NOT allowed to participate in government, except for writing there reps and senators and we all know what good that does. Might as well spit up a rope for all the good it will do. What we NEED is a campaign to INFORM young people of what will happen to them if they join, how the contract they sign will NOT be honored. How they are used up and thrown out when they no longer have a use. How there is a VERY good chance that they will NOT receive proper care if wounded or injured in some way while serving. How we expect them to do what they are told, no question, risk death for low wages and then ignore the promises we make them latter. Wonder what THAT would do for retainment and enlistments? I wish I had the money for a nation wide campaign to do that. They should KNOW up front what they are getting into.

 

[greg334]

Layout,

I think you need to settle down a bit, I'm on your side to a point.

The problem is the "I deserve" mentality that drives many who are involved for only what they get out of it, which is not just the military but other places.

You among others preach about how bad it is with many "moochers" on the public teet while hard working people have to pay for all of it, well a lot of people seem to look at the military the same way as say Social Security and welfare because they don't get the importance of the military and how the image of the person who may be defending our country is below a school teacher or the guy who picks up the garbage. They can't tell the difference between someone who can't feed their family while in the military and one who has lost their job, but expects the government to step up and fulfill some social contract with the obligations to the people first.

I asked you a couple times if you are like me, willing to forsake your social security to help out the combat vets who need help, which I really think your answer is no.

I know the way things look I would not get Social Security until I'm 70 or even 72 if at all so I feel if the money can be better spent to provide care for a combat vet or someone else who served to protect our country, than let them have it.

SO I conclude that as much as you did your duty and left on good terms, you still don't get the idea that there are only two fixes, one is to limit the funding of the VA, elimination of the GI bill and cap a lot of the programs (both R&D and benefit programs) for the military OR run everything as it is so we can run out of money and have the country go into the crapper that makes the depression look like boom times. Either thing is going to hurt and it all depends on how much you want to hurt, a little or an awful lot.

The warning is clear, we are living on borrowed time and that time is very short.

I also concluded that in order for me, a citizen of this country, to respect those who have served and not been in combat, there has to be some sort of unified front to change things from those who served who understand the situation and know first hand what the problems are. NOT have the idea that people need to vote people out of office or that active military are limited in their voice and can't do much (which they seem not to be with the Gays in the military question) but rather have those who have the experience be the ones to fight for to correct the problems. WITHOUT this unified front, nothing will get done, the country will continue not to care and those who enlist may still feel disconnected from the rest of the population because they may or may not have put their life on the line.

AND you speak of how bad Obama is and all that. I am involved with combat vets who have serious problem because of PTSD. So far out of four past presidents who refused to push for any recognition for serious mental issues among combat vets, let alone help (including outside therapy), Obama seems to be the first one who had the VA recognized the need for serious changes to their mental health programs - even our useless senator who has something to do with it directly seems to not give a crap. Outside of that, he has cut back on other things (like expansion and building new buildings) to off set the high costs.

Without this change, the vets who I know and those who suffer the same issues would not get the better care that they need, so maybe there is something different this time and you know I'm not a fan of Obama at all but something may be better.

 

[golfournut]

Layout,

I think you need to settle down a bit, I'm on your side to a point.

The problem is the "I deserve" mentality that drives many who are involved for only what they get out of it, which is not just the military but other places.

You among others preach about how bad it is with many "moochers" on the public teet while hard working people have to pay for all of it, well a lot of people seem to look at the military the same way as say Social Security and welfare because they don't get the importance of the military and how the image of the person who may be defending our country is below a school teacher or the guy who picks up the garbage. They can't tell the difference between someone who can't feed their family while in the military and one who has lost their job, but expects the government to step up and fulfill some social contract with the obligations to the people first.

I asked you a couple times if you are like me, willing to forsake your social security to help out the combat vets who need help, which I really think your answer is no.

I know the way things look I would not get Social Security until I'm 70 or even 72 if at all so I feel if the money can be better spent to provide care for a combat vet or someone else who served to protect our country, than let them have it.

SO I conclude that as much as you did your duty and left on good terms, you still don't get the idea that there are only two fixes, one is to limit the funding of the VA, elimination of the GI bill and cap a lot of the programs (both R&D and benefit programs) for the military OR run everything as it is so we can run out of money and have the country go into the crapper that makes the depression look like boom times. Either thing is going to hurt and it all depends on how much you want to hurt, a little or an awful lot.

The warning is clear, we are living on borrowed time and that time is very short.

I also concluded that in order for me, a citizen of this country, to respect those who have served and not been in combat, there has to be some sort of unified front to change things from those who served who understand the situation and know first hand what the problems are. NOT have the idea that people need to vote people out of office or that active military are limited in their voice and can't do much (which they seem not to be with the Gays in the military question) but rather have those who have the experience be the ones to fight for to correct the problems. WITHOUT this unified front, nothing will get done, the country will continue not to care and those who enlist may still feel disconnected from the rest of the population because they may or may not have put their life on the line.

AND you speak of how bad Obama is and all that. I am involved with combat vets who have serious problem because of PTSD. So far out of four past presidents who refused to push for any recognition for serious mental issues among combat vets, let alone help (including outside therapy), Obama seems to be the first one who had the VA recognized the need for serious changes to their mental health programs - even our useless senator who has something to do with it directly seems to not give a crap. Outside of that, he has cut back on other things (like expansion and building new buildings) to off set the high costs.

Without this change, the vets who I know and those who suffer the same issues would not get the better care that they need, so maybe there is something different this time and you know I'm not a fan of Obama at all but something may be better.

Greg, go drive a submarine off a cliff!

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[layoutshooter]

Greg, I am not "unsettled". I understand what you are saying and agree that things need cut. Just NOT in the order most are suggesting.

You keep using the word, "deserve", I remove that word and use "EARN". Welfare bums have the "I deserve it" attitude. They don't EARN their way through life. Cut their money FIRST. CUT the "bennies" that congress gets now and AFTER they retire. NO more life time wage for ex-presidents, senators or congressmen. Cut out aid to other countries. Take care of our own first. Live up to contracts. If the government don't, then I don't have to either. Why should hard working Americans, many who are shot up in service, take it it "the shorts" while banks, car companies, other countries are getting money that was EARNED by hard working Americans and TAKEN from those people BY FORCE and GIVEN to those who DID NOT EARN IT! Just as Social Security money was TAKEN BY FORCE from those who EARNED it. It is THEIR money, NOT the governments. It was STOLEN.