Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

not true...the military does most everything without

Posted By: Kendra on 2009-04-14
In Reply to: Just shows your ignorance of the military - then...

the blessing of the president directly. However, in this case, you are right. He did give the direct go ahead, although I doubt he planned it. By the way--with your vast knowledge of the military, do you know what the CNO is, let alone who he is without looking it up? I do.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

not true...the military does most everything without
the blessing of the president directly. However, in this case, you are right. He did give the direct go ahead, although I doubt he planned it. By the way--with your vast knowledge of the military, do you know what the CNO is, let alone who it is without looking it up? I do.
That's true - and Barack Obama is a true Patriot too.
Again we can agree to disagree. How John McCain has voted goes against everything I want as a President, but there are an equal number of people to me who feel opposite. That's the way it goes.

Your last comment brought to mind how true that is. Being a true patriot is not harmful in a candidate. John McCain is a patriot. So is Barack Obama.
We ARE the military.
You forget that when it comes time to put themselves on the line, you have just as many Democrats stepping forward as you do Republicans - and many more Dems go on for careers in public service. You think you own the Army? The Marines? The Navy? Well you're wrong. The military is a BIPARTISAN operation. Your problem in understanding this is that you refuse to listen to anything BUT soldiers confirming your tunnel vision. I watched the C-Span coverage of Saturday's march AND the C-Span coverage of Sunday's pro-war attempt. I listen to what all veterans have to say, not just a few that I can brand as like me. You won't have any kind of a realistic view of the whole picture until you consider BOTH sides of the issue.
I was in the military all through the 80s.
Ex-husband is a 100 percent disabled Vietnam vet with PTSD. Currently 1 son in the Army on his 2nd enlistment (in Korea even as we speak, as well as serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq). My other son and daughter-in-law also served in the Army.


The military is not the only way
su
The military could get him...yes
I can't say enough good about our young warriers but they can only follow orders.
How did they get in the military? sm
They ENLISTED. The draft was abolished in 1973 after the end of the Viet Nam War.
If our military can
be waterboarded during training, I think I could handle it for 50K.  That would be a nice payment on my house.  Where do I sign up?
I say let the military do what they have sm
to do to get the information they need. If the media would stay away from the military, battlefields, etc things would not drag on as long as they have. Our soldiers are limited as to what they can do or say to these bunch of terrorist because there is a camera or a microphone, it seems, recording their every word or every move they make.

The enemies of this country do not care what they do to us, but we are suppose to "molly-coddle" the terrorists and for goodness sake, don't "torture" them. Out guys go through more "torture" in boot camp than we are allowed to give to the worst terrorist when trying to get information from them.

Personally I say get the media, the papers, the TV, etc out of the battlefield. Let our soldiers do what they need to do and get back home! I wonder what the soldiers who found Sadam Hussein would have done if the media had not been breathing down their necks? If I had my guess, they probably would have blown him away and stuffed him back in the hole saving a whole lot of hassle and money.
love the military
that is why I want them home.  Cant fight a war without military, so no military, no war.  No immoral, illegal war.  Bush will have to finally face up to facts that he lied about this war, this war is wrong.  Let him send his daughters or let him finish his military duty.  No we are not going to send our sons and daughters to your illegal war, Bush..
The military is not a kid club. sm

Drinking age and fighting is an old and worn out reasoning. Besides, they get all the alcohol they want.   What are we supposed to do with men and women who choose to join the military.  Put it in writing that they will never have to go to war?  And where was the left's outrage when Clinton sent men and women into his little skirmishes.  I never heard a word then.  Never saw one leftie holding a sign that said NO MORE MOGADISHUs.  In fact, the left hardly even mentions it.  Why is that exactly?


I never said all the military supports the war.
That is a flat out untruth. 
How can one's child being in the military sm

equate to a point for foreign affairs experience?  Please explain that to me.  I know a lot of people whose children are in the military, in the war zone and not one of them would say they have foreign affairs experience.  Also, didn't she herself say she doesn't know anything about Iraq. 


And so you think our military isn't fed a load of
they've been sent to do is 'morally right'? Dont' get me wrong, they are brave, upstanding young men and women who believe in the country. But once they sign on that dotted line, they've gotta go & do what they're told during their enlistment. Even if it's for dubious reasons. So what you wanna bet they get fed a WHOLE lotta propaganda.

Suicide rates amongst our military is at an all-time high, as well. Ever wonder why that might be?
The majority of the military

have always been conservative.  However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years.  Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past. 


Cut military spending!
How about we spend less on war and more on the citizens of the United States? Those who have family members in the military whose livelihood depends on war may call this socialism, but I call it common sense!
yes, they enlisted in the military
but they didn't enlist in the war.
I stand behind our military too but
I sure as  heck am not going to stand behind a president who sends our young men  and women in harms way for his own personal gain and that of his oil cronies.  What happened to bin Laden?  Don't tell me that our military men and women couldn't take him out.  And how about McCain saying he knew how to get him.  How anyone who can support this administration and this war is beyond me. Isn't it "Mission Iraqi Freedom" now?  What about 9/11?  Who has paid for that?  And today Iraq has given us "permission" to stay for 3 more years?  Permission???  We have  no business meddling in their business to begin with.  Wasn't Bushes and Sadam friends before they became enemies???
I'm from a military family, too
My grandfather fought in WWI and WWII. He received 5 medals for the battles in WWI in France, plus the French Etagierre. My father and mom's brothers were army. My gf retired in the 1970s. My one uncle retired in 1990 from the Army. My son was in the Marines. They all enlisted.
AND BECAUSE OUR MILITARY IS BROKEN.....

The biggest selling product in the US right now is GUNS. So you think the cowards in this country can't protect themselves? Think again. Your family members weren't drafted and because they made that choice doesn't make everyone else cowards. You insult this country with your pious crap.


You don't need military at our borders.....
that's against our constitution. That's what our National Guard is for, to protect OUR borders. Combat military is not supposed to be involved in this country. I do not want our troops on the borders of my country; I want our national guard sent down to do what they are supposed to do, protect our country against foreign invasion.

I am sick to death of paying for illegals and their anchor babies by the thousands and thousands....

Good question.....why is our country allowing this and then punishing our agents to shoot one of them. Maybe more shooting would stop a lot of their illegal trespassing into our country if they knew they would be shot.
And who never served in the military
and is on record as despising it?  Class?  Obama!
Military does NOTHING with blessings of
You are so very misinformed. You can not compare the CEO of a car company to the United States Military.
Yes, and could put the country and/or our military
nm
I have 4 sons in the military ..sm
and have changed my views on the war. It is not what you hear from the "left", it is not what you see in Hollywood movies, the whole story is not being told by vets who solicit funds for "peace" and "truth" organizations.

The majority of Iraqi do want us there and our help. They do not hold all troops responsible for the acts committed 6 years ago by a few. Several troops have been convicted and sentenced - something no other country would do to it's troops in the same circumstances.

These photos not released are no worse than what we've seen, but they're a talking point for the "left." I expect they will be eventually released and the "left" will be off on another tangent b/c the "torture" meme lost traction.

The "left" isn't interested in law of the land and justice yadayada - they just gnaw at bones of contention and get a warm fuzzy until their "leaders" throw them the next bone.
Comment on enlistees in the military

I notice that repeatedly there is a rhetoric among conservatives that if an 18-year-old (or 19 or 20) signed up, then that was their adult decision and there's no use complaining over it.  War is war and they have to go.


Okay, so why is it fine for an 18-year-old to be considered mature enough to make a major life decision like enlisting in the military but at same time is not allowed to drink alcohol for 3 more years in most states?  So.....he/she can kill folks but not take a drink of beer.  Seems like rather skewed logic.


Secondly, when those folks of ALL ages enlisted they put their faith in the powers that be in this country that their service would be used wisely and that they would NOT have their lives squandered for a highly questionable and suspect war.  To me that is the crux of the matter -- sure they signed up but many of them did not sign up to fight in a spurious and illegal war.  They put their faith in the US military and were let down, as far as I can tell.  Very sad.


Who's REALLY signing up for the military these days.

Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters


By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, August 22, 2005; 8:00 AM


There was an eye-opening article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a few days ago that explored the increasing difficulty the military is having recruiting young people to enlist. As has been well reported in many newspapers, including The Washington Post, the Army and Marines are having a particularly tough time meeting recruitment objectives, in part because of Americans' concern about the war in Iraq.


When you dig deeper into the reason for this phenomenon, it turns out that parents of potential soldiers and sailors are becoming one of the biggest obstacles facing military recruiters. Even top military officials acknowledge this and unveiled a new series of ads this spring targeted at influencers such as parents, teachers and coaches.


But the Post-Gazette raises another issue. There has been much talk about the relationship between race and ethnicity and military recruitment. But what about social and economic class? Are wealthier Americans, who are more likely to be Republicans and therefore more likely to support the war, stepping up to the plate and urging their children and others from their communities to enlist?


Unfortunately, there has been no definitive study on this subject. But it appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.


The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.


But she made it clear that her support only went so far.


Military service isn't for our son, she told Rivera. It isn't for our kind of people.


The Post-Gazette piece focused on parental disapproval of military recruitment efforts, and dealt only tangentially with the larger question of class. What we do know is that recruiting is down across the board and that both the Army and Marines have fallen significantly behind their recruiting goals.


This is what the Army's hired advertising company, Leo Burnett, had to say about the ads targeting influencers that it began running in April: Titled 'Dinner Conversation,' 'Two Things,' 'Good Training' and 'Listening' (Spanish-language ad), the commercials portray moments ranging from a son telling his mother he's found someone to pay for college, to a father praising his son who has just returned from Basic Training for the positive ways in which he's changed. They capture the questions, hopes and concerns parents have about a career serving the United States of America and include families from many different backgrounds.


I asked Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins for further explanation on the intent of the ads.


Clearly it was to talk to influencers, she said. She said studies have shown that today's young people yearn to serve their country in one way or another. The problem is that today the people who influence their decisions are less likely than they were in past generations to recommend [military service].


Why?


In part because the economy is strong, said Robbins. In part because they are concerned about the war. And in part because fewer of them have a direct relationship with the military or have ever served.


So would it be logical to conclude that, if the strong economy is one of the reasons it is more difficult to recruit, the most affluent parents should be the most difficult to reach? After all, their children have more options, including college, than less affluent parents? And if that's true, isn't it somewhat ironic that the military is paying millions of dollars ultimately to influence the behavior of the parents who are among the most likely to be supportive of the war in Iraq?


I disagree with your premise, Robbins said, arguing that the military is represented strongly across the board by people of all income levels and faces challenges in recruiting at all income levels.


Referring to the Post-Gazette anecdote, she said, One woman saying stupid things does not a trend make.


Actually, I did have a premise, but it wasn't unshakable. But because neither the Army nor the Defense Department keeps detailed information about the household incomes of the people who join, it was not easy to prove or disprove.


So let's approach the issue this way: In the 2004 election, household income was a pretty decent indicator of how one might vote. Voters from households making more than $50,000 a year favored Bush 56 percent to 43 percent. Voters making $50,000 or less favored Kerry 55 to 44 percent. Median household income as of 2003 was $43,318, according to the U.S. Census.


The wealthier you become, apparently, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP advantage grows more pronounced for people from households making more than $100,000. People from households with incomes exceeding that amount voted for Bush over Kerry by 58 percent to 41 percent. Those from households making less than $100,000 favored Kerry over Bush 51 to 49 percent. And nearly two-thirds of voters from households making more than $200,000 favored Bush over Kerry.


Those making more than $100,000 made up only 18 percent of the electorate, which explains why Bush won by a narrow 2.5 percentage points in the general election.


This raises all sorts of complicated socioeconomic questions, such as whether the rich expect others to fight their wars for them. Or, asked another way, are they more likely to support the war in Iraq because their families are less likely to carry part of the burden?


Certainly, there are no absolutes here. Many of the wealthy are Democrats, some of whom support the war. Some of whom oppose it. Many of the poor and working class are Republicans, and support the GOP on Iraq.


By looking at long-term trends, it seems logical that some of those most likely to support Bush and his Iraq policy are also those least likely to encourage their children to go into the military at wartime. And it raises questions, such as, if you are among those most likely to support the war, shouldn't you be among those most likely to encourage your child to serve in the military? Shouldn't your socioeconomic group be the most receptive to the recruiters' call? And would there be a recruitment problem at all if the affluent put their money where their mouth is?


Several social scientists have studied the question of economics and class in military enlistment. Many of these studies don't look at the officer ranks, which might tend to counter some of the class argument. But officers, of course, make up a relatively small portion of the military.


Among the more recent studies was one done last year by Robert Cushing, a retired professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. He tracked those who died in Iraq by geography and found that whites from small, mostly poor, rural areas made up a disproportionately large percentage of the casualties in Iraq.


I talked to two other academicians who have studied the issue. Their conclusions, though reached prior to the war in Iraq, were helpful because of their understanding of the historical implications of the class question.


David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organizations at the University of Maryland, said contrary to conventional wisdom both the poorest and the wealthiest people are underrepresented at the bottom of the military ranks, for completely different reasons. This trend held for both from the conscription years of Vietnam through at least the late 1990s.


Poorer people, he said, are likely to be kept out of the military by a range of factors, including higher likelihood of having a criminal record or academic deficiencies or health problems.


Back during Vietnam, the top [economic class] had access for means of staying out of the military, said Segal. The National Guard was known to be a well-to-do white man's club back then. People knew if you if joined the guard you weren't going to go to Vietnam. That included people like Dan Quayle and our current commander in chief. If you were rich, you might have found it easier to get a doctor to certify you as having a condition that precluded you from service. You could get a medical deferment with braces on your teeth, so you would go get braces -- something that was very expensive back then. The wealthy had more access to educational and occupational deferments.


Today's affluent merely see themselves as having more options and are not as enticed by financial incentives, such as money for college, Segal said.


The Army was able to provide socioeconomic data only for the 2002 fiscal year. Its numbers confirm Segal's findings that service members in the highest and lowest income brackets are underrepresented, but because those numbers chronicle enlistments in the year immediately following the 2001 terrorist attacks, it's difficult to ascertain whether this was a normal recruiting year.


Segal and Jerald G. Bachman, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, have studied the correlation between a parental education levels and likelihood for their offspring to enlist.


Examining data from early to mid-1990s, they created five categories, with one being the lowest level. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found the children of the most-educated parents -- those with post-graduate degrees -- were the least likely to join the military. The children of parents with high school diplomas were three times more likely to enlist.


One of the interesting phenomenon of today's politics is that, in general, Republicans tend to be more educated on average than Democrats, with a larger percentage either holding a bachelor's degree or having attended some college. But Democrats represent a larger portion of the super-educated -- that is, those holding graduate degrees. So Democrats are made up of the least and the most educated, with Republicans congregated largely near, but not at, the top.


So how did those near the top of the educational tree do in Segal's and Bachman's study? They were half as likely as those in group two to enlist. And because there are far more people who have been to college or have bachelor's degrees than there are people who have post-graduate degrees, the former group has far more political influence, just in sheer numbers.


While there have been changes in racial and ethnic enlistment trends, with the number of black recruits dropping precipitously since the Iraq war, Segal and Bachman said they've seen nothing to indicate significant changes in the class -- of which education levels is a prime indicator -- trends in the military.


Journalists can get themselves in trouble by drawing simplistic conclusions based on less-than-exhaustive research, and we won't do so here. But we can at least raise the question of whether the rich are more likely to support the war because their loved ones are less likely to die in it.


Comments can be sent to Terry Neal at commentsforneal@washingtonpost.com.


© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive


Permanent military base. sm
This has nothing to do with anything.  We have permanent military bases in many European countries.  That does not mean we are involved in the politics in those countries.  It means, and I have said this three times but I will try again, that when the Iraqi Democratic government is finally in place, they will decide what happens with prisoners of war.  Right now, we are involved in that.  In the future, we won't be.  I am not sure how much clearer I can make it.  Very much to the contrary of what the poster Democrat has posted above, this is not a partisan brouhaha that the media has somehow missed.  They miss very little.  It is something you are misunderstanding.  There is plenty out there on the internet that explains it.  That might be your first step, or, if you are determined to be upset about it, then there is little anyone can do.  Now, having said that, I am off to other boards.  Have a nice day.
Skinheads don't join the military.
They have their own militia.  If you or anyone at the NYT knew how the military works, there is a quite extensive questionnaire before you are inducted and questioning regarding subversive groups.  KKK is one of them.  The KKK has actually greatly dwindled in size. Add to that the fact that the majority of the military now is made of minorities and you get the picture.  Skinheads would not rape a woman of color.  It's not what they do.  In fact, it is the antithesis of what they do. They might kill them, but rape them...no way.  Educate yourself. You just look foolish when you continue to downgrade our military this way.
I come from a long line of military. sm
And none of them feel that way.  To each his own.
I am a firm supporter of the military, but --
My exhusband was a soldier the entire 20 years we were married and is in fact in Iraq right now; my son, whom I love dearly, is graduating from basic training on Friday. I support the military wholeheartedly, but that does not mean I have to support McCain.

I don't believe that our soldiers should be where they are and I don't believe they should have ever been where they are. And I believe that when they come home, they should have better support and better care than they are getting.

But I have the utmost respect for the military and their families and would always hope and pray the best for them. They did after all fight to give me the right to disagree on who their commander-in-chief should be.

That being said, I also do not think that serving in the military should be experience that counts in running the country. Just because McCain is a a war hero and former POW does not make him entitled to be the leader of the United States of America. That would be the same as saying my ex-husband could have that job; he has just as much experience in the military as McCain, not as a POW, but he has served many more years than McCain did.


What about the military votes not being counted? nm
x
Once again, a "civilian military force" that is

ENDORSED BY BUSH.


That little tidbit was conveniently deleted from the link that was provided.


Keep believing all the hype and the lies.  That's your choice, but don't insult me because I can tell the difference.


If they were born on a military base, they
are considered U.S. citizens. Military bases anywhere in the world are considered U.S. soil.
they were not born on a military base either
they have dual citizenship.
Military Funeral Protesters
The people who protest at military funerals are radical homosexual and gay-rights haters led by noted wacko Fred Phelps, Kendra.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/18/usa.gayrights

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/06/btsc.lavandrera.funerals/

Just Google Fred Phelps military funerals.
Just shows your ignorance of the military then..
period. Just because you might not like it, does not change the fact that that's how it works. Nobody acts alone in the military. Any action must be approved by the Commander in Chief - who is the President. So, as much as it KILLS some people to give Obama any credit whatsoever, I'm afraid that is where the credit is due in this case.
Just shows your ignorance of the military
period. Just because you might not like it, does not change the fact that that's how it works. Nobody acts alone in the military. Any action must be approved by the Commander in Chief - who is the President. So, as much as it KILLS some people to give Obama any credit whatsoever, I'm afraid that is where the credit is due in this case - along with the brave men who did the actual physical rescuing.

They were ALL brave and they ALL acted with bravery and intelligence.
Once again, class, WHO is in charge of the military?
.
MOST people who serve in the military are
..
But that's my point, the military HAS turned into a kid club...
For the most part.  The recruiters prey on high school kids.  Let's take a poll out there of how many of you were capable of making truly wise life-impacting decisions at age 17 and 18?  I sure wasn't and my kids certainly weren't able to.  Deciding on college, maybe.  Deciding to party, most certainly.  And the problem with the military is that it is advertised as a ticket to education and world-travel, the recruiters don't advertise it as a one-way ticket to an immoral war.  And as you know, it is extremely hard to "quit" the military if there is a change of heart...... 
But can parent sacrifice their child to the military?

that was the question...


and No most of the country doesn't agree with the self-proclaimed martyr, Sheehan.


George's questionable military service...
flash back to Bill...who stated he hated the military and was too busy smoking pot (but not inhaling) to involve himself in military service. Puleezzeee. And we all know about Bill's...ahem...stones. Lent themselves to interns, black dresses and cigars (ewwwwww I mean REALLYYYYYY) instead of taking care of the country. Yup, there 's somethin' to be proud of!!! (not)
Yep....the rights that the military have fought and died for...
over the years. You know, the might want to say thank you once nin awhile for that too...but that would take common courtesy. Too much to expect I guess. Take, take, take, but never say thank you for those who sacrificed for what is being taken...and taken...and taken FOR GRANTED.
If you are not pro-military action in Iraq (which lead to war)...sm
Then we are on the same side of this debate.
The military leaders are threatening to resign sm
From today's London Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
I understood you perfectly....pull out the military....
and what little stability there is will be gone. I cannot see it going any other way. What exactly do you see happening if we pull the military out? Seriously. What will the insurgents do? What will the sunni and shiite militias do? I am serious...what do you think would happen?
Then we both agree the military poll is very interesting and ....sm
is pretty accurate indicator that our military soldiers trust Obama over McSame.

Thank you for agreeing also that the race is dead even - you forgot the margin of error in there.

NO MORE WARS!!!! FIX OUR ECONOMY FIRST!!!!
Prior military wife myself - know how it works -
x
military man or activist? not a tuff choice in
x
He's not takling about 4H - he's talking about MILITARY TRAINING.
Most of us have kids doing community service in order to qualify for state scholarships already.

But mandating that all young adults be required to undergo military training will result in massive civil unrest, which I would fully support.

And I cannot believe so many people are shrugging this off. Oh, it's only OBAMA'S CHIEF OF STAFF making these assinine statements. As if that somehow makes it innocuous.