Instead of blowing up Iraq

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by prussell

Right now the US government is bribing troops to serve in Iraq and it should end and the money we waste over there could be better spent here i the US, help US families that need it.

How, exactly (and, please give examples. Ones that are well known, documented and easily verified) is the US government 'bribing' troops to serve in Iraq?

That 'it should end' is debatable (part of the democratic process, not merely a dogmatic or fiat statement).

How is the US government 'wasting' money, 'over there'. I would state that there is already too much money 'wasted' over here. It is a trusim that governments 'waste' money. If they were efficient, they would be corporations, not governments.

In Iraq, there is plenty of work to be done (rebuilding a countries infrastructure). This work is best done by the best, most qualified and most experienced people who know how to do the job and get it done right. These people are companies who have done the work (many times) before and know how to manage the job and keep waste out of the mix. This is something governments, by their very nature, cannot do.

Governments are swayed by forces other than reality (politics, special interest groups, political agendas and correctness, graft, re-election campaigns, the media, voters, leftists, dictators, etc) and have too much on thei plate that has no relation to getting the job done. That is why they subcontract such jobs out to companies.

I can tell you, right now, that my nephew, who flies choppers for the Army (1 tour in Afganistan and on his second tour in Iraq) is not bribed.

This is silly talk. It is also the kind of talk that will get you punched in the nose by anyone who has been in, is there now or simply understands reality, as opposed to just spouting out recycled media BS.

Realize. Words have meanings and statements have to be back up with facts. Insinuations are the tools of petulant children and should be treated with no more seriousness than a 2 year old brats tantrum.

Think on this.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by wdecker

How, exactly (and, please give examples. Ones that are well known, documented and easily verified) is the US government 'bribing' troops to serve in Iraq?

That 'it should end' is debatable (part of the democratic process, not merely a dogmatic or fiat statement).

How is the US government 'wasting' money, 'over there'. I would state that there is already too much money 'wasted' over here. It is a trusim that governments 'waste' money. If they were efficient, they would be corporations, not governments.

In Iraq, there is plenty of work to be done (rebuilding a countries infrastructure). This work is best done by the best, most qualified and most experienced people who know how to do the job and get it done right. These people are companies who have done the work (many times) before and know how to manage the job and keep waste out of the mix. This is something governments, by their very nature, cannot do.

Governments are swayed by forces other than reality (politics, special interest groups, political agendas and correctness, graft, re-election campaigns, the media, voters, leftists, dictators, etc) and have too much on thei plate that has no relation to getting the job done. That is why they subcontract such jobs out to companies.

I can tell you, right now, that my nephew, who flies choppers for the Army (1 tour in Afganistan and on his second tour in Iraq) is not bribed.

This is silly talk. It is also the kind of talk that will get you punched in the nose by anyone who has been in, is there now or simply understands reality, as opposed to just spouting out recycled media BS.

Realize. Words have meanings and statements have to be back up with facts. Insinuations are the tools of petulant children and should be treated with no more seriousness than a 2 year old brats tantrum.

Think on this.

Will, I too have a nephew in Iraq, he is 35 and has a wife and two small children at home.

He has been part of home land security since the beginning, here at the Pease airport and with TSA at Logan, in Boston.

They have gone through hard times, be sure of that. the bribery that I spoke of is they offered him $35,000.00 to sign up again and go to Baghdad, sin up for 18 months in Iraq but 6 more years in the army. That to me is bribery.
JMHO

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by prussell

Will, I too have a nephew in Iraq, he is 35 and has a wife and two small children at home.

He has been part of home land security since the beginning, here at the Pease airport and with TSA at Logan, in Boston.

They have gone through hard times, be sure of that. the bribery that I spoke of is they offered him $35,000.00 to sign up again and go to Baghdad, sin up for 18 months in Iraq but 6 more years in the army. That to me is bribery.
JMHO

I would, respectfully, disagree (but honest people can honestly disagree).

I would call it an incentive. He is an adult and can make his own decisions.

We have an all voluntary military now. Give people the right to make their own decisions.

Surely, your nephew should work this out with his wife and make his own decision.

In any case, I will be braying for him to make the decision that is best for him.

Usually, that is all one can do.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by wdecker

I would, respectfully, disagree (but honest people can honestly disagree).

I would call it an incentive. He is an adult and can make his own decisions.

We have an all voluntary military now. Give people the right to make their own decisions.

Surely, your nephew should work this out with his wife and make his own decision.

In any case, I will be braying for him to make the decision that is best for him.

Usually, that is all one can do.

Will you are absolutely right, it's somewhat of a personal thing for me. I thought he should have stayed at home but I'm not him, thanks for you input, I accept it with the knowledge that we have something in common.

IE children in the military.

[William J. Decker]

That is something that we all shouyld learn. Disagreeing without being disagreeable.

I love to argue, not in the negitive connotation, but a free exchange of intellectually honest ideas. But some people take it personally. That is not my intent.

Ultimately, we are all adults and make our own decisions.

Thanks for understanding this point.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by wdecker

That is something that we all shouyld learn. Disagreeing without being disagreeable.

I love to argue, not in the negitive connotation, but a free exchange of intellectually honest ideas. But some people take it personally. That is not my intent.

Ultimately, we are all adults and make our own decisions.

Thanks for understanding this point.

No problem Will, I guess I have an advantage over most. I argue with building inspectors about interpretation of codes all the time, if it did this in a inappropriate manner I would be screwed.

[Doug Edwards, CMI]

As someone who had a lengthy military career, let me clear up this erroneous statement. The military has had reenlistment bonuses for many decades. Long before the War on Terror started. To call it a bribe is an insult to those who are professional soldiers in the service to this country. That is an emotional, irresponsible comment. If someone has made the decision to wear the uniform and service the citizens of our nation and an opportunity to earn a bonus and a reward for their dedicated service, and their training, others who choose not to provide that needed service should gather the facts before making such a statement.
I have avoided saying anything on this thread up to this point as I find the whole argument of why we are there a mute point. I could not let this comment go by unchallenged as it is blatantly false and offensive. As military people, we learn early on not to allow emotions to control our thoughts and actions, as that can get a person killed. We rely on our training.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by dedwards

As someone who had a lengthy military career, let me clear up this erroneous statement. The military has had reenlistment bonuses for many decades. Long before the War on Terror started. To call it a bribe is an insult to those who are professional soldiers in the service to this country. That is an emotional, irresponsible comment. If someone has made the decision to wear the uniform and service the citizens of our nation and an opportunity to earn a bonus and a reward for their dedicated service, and their training, others who choose not to provide that needed service should gather the facts before making such a statement.
I have avoided saying anything on this thread up to this point as I find the whole argument of why we are there a mute point. I could not let this comment go by unchallenged as it is blatantly false and offensive. As military people, we learn early on not to allow emotions to control our thoughts and actions, as that can get a person killed. We rely on our training.

Doug,
With all do respect, I apologize if I offended you, but to insult me because I have my own opinion is just as offensive.

[Michael Larson]

Well said Doug. A greenie for you

To bolster your argument on bonuses I would add this.

It cost much less to retain a trained soldier than to recruit and train a new one to the same level of expertice.

[Peter C. Russell]

Everyone Please, I started this thread to talk about how the resources we spend in IRAQ would be better spent at home, there are a tremendous amount of Americans suffering at here in the states that need our help.

Please let's get back on track and not drift to another subject.

[Michael Larson]

Peter, while I appreciate and share your concern to help fellow Americans, when you titled this post as you did you invited controversy IMHO.

We're comparing apples and oranges here and to present it as a choice is simply an appeal to the emotions IMHO.

[Peter C. Russell]

Here's another example,

I went with the rep. from HUD to look at a mobile home that needed repairs.

When we got there I could not believe what I saw. The owners, husband who mildly mentally challenged, wife, partially disabled due to being in an accident when she was a child, mother was drunk driving, and a very bright son.

Their mobile home had to be condemned, uninhabitable, furnace wasn't working, no storm windows, roof leaked, water heater rotted through the floor.

Through our efforts they received a used mobile home, not the greatest but better than what they had, got fuel assistance and other help.

So my point is and with all DUE respect to you who serve, I understand your point of view, you have seen some terrible things in your line of service and with that said, So have I, right here at home, there is no excuse that so many people suffer here at home while my tax dollars go to another country and get wasted.

JMOH

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Peter, while I appreciate and share your concern to help fellow Americans, when you titled this post as you did you invited controversy IMHO.

We're comparing apples and oranges here and to present it as a choice is simply an appeal to the emotions IMHO.

That was not my intent and you are presenting it as you see it.

My intent was to point out how much help is needed at home and we are wasting tax dollars in Iraq.

[Peter C. Russell]

Wow how predictable are you guys.

Just got a red square for my opinion and you don't have the balls to sign your name.

Give the fact that there are only a couple of people viewing this thread right now it's not hared to figure out who it was.

Next time you give out a red square, stand up and be a man. I don't care if you disagree with me but please, debate this issue with confidence and don't hide in the shadows behind a silly red box.

[Doug Edwards, CMI]

Peter,
You are the one who chose to include the reference to Iraq. There are literally thousands of other places money is being wasted by our government besides national defense. Case in point, "entitlements" (welfare, etc.) accounts for over 60% of the federal budget.
I keep hearing how people "support the troops" but not the war. Let me give it to you from "their" perspective because mine and yours is irrelevant, we are not on the ground over there. If you ask anyone who is or has served in combat they see it this way. "You can not support me if you do not support my mission". Why? because the two are inseparable. You tell one of them you support them but not their mission and they will quickly raise the BS flag.
I did not insult you for having a difference of opinion. I posted to clear up the patently false comment about being "bribed" to stay in the service. Having been involved in hundreds of reenlistments, often young couples use that bonus to buy their first home, plan for the future or start a college fund for their children. The offense was the word BRIBE. You are entitled to your opinion as are all of us. That does not mean I have to agree with it. Again, YOU brought Iraq into the discussion where it was not necessary or warranted. Many of us do charitable work without the need to make a political commentary out of it. If you feel insulted I apologize, but think about those whom you have insulted as well.

No need for me to hide as you know where I stand. Squares mean squat.