Mysterious company dissolves after giving $1 million to pro-Romne

[The Sir]

Primarily, funding makes our military as lethal as it is.

 

And by saying this, you're still denying the high quality of these Soldiers by themselves. Yes, our big money gives us some cool s***. But you still need good men to use that equipment successfully against the enemy. Just giving ten guys a kevlar vest and helmet, some mag pouches and an M4 does not make them an infantry squad.

 

Fund all you want. But without the Soldier who is brave enough to don the armor and carry the rifle, we've got nothing.

[Balta1701]

If you gave a Chinese national, French National, or Russian national, the exact same level of training, funding, and equipment given a U.S. national, would they be inherentlyl worse soldiers because they're not U.S. nationals?

[CrimsonWeltall]

And by saying this, you're still denying the high quality of these Soldiers by themselves.

 

No, I'm not. But the primary reason our military is better than everyone else's is funding.

 

Yes, our big money gives us some cool s***. But you still need good men to use that equipment successfully against the enemy. Just giving ten guys a kevlar vest and helmet, some mag pouches and an M4 does not make them an infantry squad.

 

Right, you need training too.

 

[The Sir]

No, I'm not. But the primary reason our military is better than everyone else's is funding.

 

Right, you need training too.

 

And its NCOs who conduct that training. Yeah, tax dollars pay his salary and give him the training equipment, but he is an excellent teacher and that is his credit alone. Tax dollars help us immensely, but my point remains that it is the men themselves who make this organization what it is. Taxpayers don't go to Afghanistan and pay in blood.

 

Balta, I went to infantry officer training with several foreign nationals. To say they were on par with the Americans in the same course would be an outright lie. Just from my own observations.

[Balta1701]

Balta, I went to infantry officer training with several foreign nationals. To say they were on par with the Americans in the same course would be an outright lie. Just from my own observations.

But that anecdote doesn't answer the question...and presumably there are different backgrounds represented there as well, in terms of educational achievement/language skills, etc.

[The Sir]

But that anecdote doesn't answer the question...and presumably there are different backgrounds represented there as well, in terms of educational achievement/language skills, etc.

 

Meh. This is getting away from my original point, which is that our military is great because of the young men and women who volunteer to die for it, and not because of the taxpayers. Without those great Americans, this organization is nothing.

[BigSqwert]

This whole "f*** everyone else while I pat myself on the back" discussion is getting a bit tired.

[The Sir]

This whole "f*** everyone else while I pat myself on the back" discussion is getting a bit tired.

 

I wasn't going to sit back while people tried to give credit for the military's excellence to everyone except the Soldiers themselves. This isn't about me, this is about defending Soldiers. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

[Balta1701]

I wasn't going to sit back while people tried to give credit for the military's excellence to everyone except the Soldiers themselves. This isn't about me, this is about defending Soldiers. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

You're doing an awful job of defending soldiers.

[Jake]

I think each side here thinks the other side has a more extreme view than the other.

 

Taxpayers/funding are necessary and important as GLI acknowledges.

 

Tax money doesn't mean s*** if somebody doesn't, literally, bite the bullet and actually put their own life on the line. Everyone knows that.

 

All GLI is saying is that risking one's life in a volunteer army is more admirable and remarkable than paying taxes that one only has input on paying indirectly through elections.

[Balta1701]

All GLI is saying is that risking one's life in a volunteer army is more admirable and remarkable than paying taxes that one only has input on paying indirectly through elections.

No one, and I mean no one is going to dispute that.

[The Sir]

No one, and I mean no one is going to dispute that.

 

Some people didn't come off that way, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Besides, I know how worthy our mission is and every Soldier does too. They wouldn't be here if they didn't. I've said my piece and that's it. No use beating a dead horse.

 

Jake, thanks for providing the voice of reason.

[illinilaw08]

Meh. This is getting away from my original point, which is that our military is great because of the young men and women who volunteer to die for it, and not because of the taxpayers. Without those great Americans, this organization is nothing.

 

Silly argument. Soldiers, and their committment to the armed forces certainly make the American military the best in the world. But without the American taxpayer, and the American Congressmen and women funding the DOD, the military is nothing as well.

 

The biggest issue I have with your posts is that you seem to only value soldiers (see an earlier post that you would never vote for a presidential candidate who had not served in the military). Soldiers certainly provide a great service and put themselves in the line of fire for country. But how is that service any greater than that provided by the men and women who work for Doctors Without Borders, AmeriCorps, Teach for America or the Peace Corps. Or what about the police and firemen who put their lives on the line to protect communities. Or the prosecutors and public defenders who take steep paycuts to protect communities (prosecutors) and individual rights (PDs). I would argue that all those people provide as great of a service to the United States of America as our military does.

 

I don't write any of this to attack the armed forces or to in any way attempt to diminish the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. Rather it is to demonstrate that military service is not the only way to serve your country.

[The Sir]

The biggest issue I have with your posts is that you seem to only value soldiers (see an earlier post that you would never vote for a presidential candidate who had not served in the military)

 

In 2012, I'm voting for the Commander in Chief. Aka, my boss. And while I will follow the orders of any CiC because that's what good Soldiers do, I personally will not support a candidate who had not once been in my shoes. I do not believe you are qualified to command the military as a whole without having been in it yourself. That's my personal choice.

[bigruss]

I don't discount the sacrifice that soldiers make for this country, but at the same time not everyone should have to be in the military at some point to be considered even or to be in office. That's asking for a quasi-military state and is really just stupid.

 

As stated, there are other ways to serve the country and humankind in general besides going in the military.

[bigruss]

In 2012, I'm voting for the Commander in Chief. Aka, my boss. And while I will follow the orders of any CiC because that's what good Soldiers do, I personally will not support a candidate who had not once been in my shoes. I do not believe you are qualified to command the military as a whole without having been in it yourself. That's my personal choice.

I understand it's your personal choice, but there is a lot of flawed logic/reasoning in your thinking here.

[The Sir]

I don't discount the sacrifice that soldiers make for this country, but at the same time not everyone should have to be in the military at some point to be considered even or to be in office. That's asking for a quasi-military state and is really just stupid.

 

For me it is. To get my vote, you must unwavering conservative views. You must have remained faithful to your wife. You must have served in the military. You don't have to do these if you don't want my support.

[Balta1701]

For me it is. To get my vote, you must unwavering conservative views. You must have remained faithful to your wife. You must have served in the military. You don't have to do these if you don't want my support.

So it's been a long time since you voted for anything.

[bigruss]

For me it is. To get my vote, you must unwavering conservative views. You must have remained faithful to your wife. You must have served in the military. You don't have to do these if you don't want my support.

So you're asking for more government control? Doesn't seem conservative to me.

 

[BigSqwert]

Love the new avy Russ. LOL

[bigruss]

Love the new avy Russ. LOL

If you haven't done so yet, watch that episode with the cast commentary on, it's pure gold.

[The Sir]

So you're asking for more government control? Doesn't seem conservative to me.

 

When did I say that? All I gave was a list of things a candidate must do to get my vote. I don't see what that has to do with government control.

[CrimsonWeltall]

In your opinion you need every person that wants your vote to have been in the military. Military=government funds, thus you would have to increase government funds to support your needs fo your vote.

 

Huh?

[bigruss]

Huh?

Lol, kinda thought the same thing after I reread it myself.

 

I'm just going to delete and stop at this point as I'm fried from a meeting I was in that was a chore just to get through.

[farmteam]

Maybe I missed something, or only saw it through my blue-tinted sunglasses, but did Obama ever personally take credit for killing Osama? Did he emphasize the role he played in authorizing the mission? Of course, and any politician, I don't care how far to either end of the spectrum, would do the same thing. But I never once read that he personally took more credit than was due.

 

Now, if you're mad at others for giving Obama too much credit, then that's something else...but don't get mad at Obama for that, because that sounds like what you were doing.