Military - May 2007

I know its the tomb the fallen soldiers but why the unkown soldier why not the tomb of fallen soldiers.

2007-05-28 04:01:27 · 18 answers · asked by Roshaun T 1

With the unknown soldier in Arlington and all others that may be unidentified why can't the government and all the medical profession involved identify all the soldiers with today's technology? I remember that they successfully identified an unknown soldier with DNA awhile back (probably a few years back), it was a very large televised event.

2007-05-28 03:53:58 · 19 answers · asked by janet_67_1998 2

your thoughts?

2007-05-28 03:16:50 · 39 answers · asked by Doughboy276 1

bring it on

2007-05-28 02:34:32 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. ... ( Matthew 22:37)

Namaste

Peace and Love

2007-05-28 00:57:38 · 15 answers · asked by digilook 2

I'll be going to college and getting a Bachelors degree, and joining the Military. The only job other then Infantry I have thought about in the Military is a helicopter pilot.

The only reasons why i'm getting a Bachelors degree is so I can hopefully become an Officer, so i'll get paid more and have more benefits. And for that extra knowledge.

Would I need to have a specific type of degree to become an Officer or a helicopter pilot ? If I have a Bachelors of Law, will I still be allowed to be a Pilot/Infantry?

2007-05-28 00:49:00 · 9 answers · asked by D.O... 3

2007-05-28 00:08:28 · 9 answers · asked by Di'tagapayo 7

I can't seem to understand why? it was wrong for the japs to bomb us there, they knew where we were, so why not attack us?, it seems that if we were at war with them, we would have attacked their troops and ships at the docks

2007-05-28 00:02:40 · 10 answers · asked by dowagiac.michigan 1

Total number of nuclear missiles built: 67,500

Peak number of nuclear warheads and bombs in the stockpile/year: 32,193/1966

Number currently in the stockpile : 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)

Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200

Additional strategic and non-strategic warheads not limited by the treaty that the U.S. military wants to retain as a "hedge" against unforeseen future threats: 4,900

Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton)

States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140)

2007-05-27 23:22:40 · 10 answers · asked by genzo 2

how long do i stay there for?? does it depends on what i chose? or i stay there and go home everyone one half year?

2007-05-27 23:09:39 · 6 answers · asked by l1l0n3 1

Did your perspective change over the course of time? if so, how? thank you!

2007-05-27 22:59:02 · 10 answers · asked by henna 2

Every branch of service? Those are my favorite foods.

2007-05-27 22:46:37 · 9 answers · asked by Erika 1

The Barbary Powers (called Barbary “pirates” by most Americans) attacked American civilian and commercial merchant ships (but not military ships) wherever they found them. Prior to the Revolution, American shipping had been protected by the British navy, and during the Revolution by the French navy. After the Revolution, however, America lacked a navy of her own and was therefore left without protection for her shipping. The vulnerable American merchant ships, built for carrying cargoes rather than fighting, were therefore easy prey for the warships of the Barbary Powers, which seized the cargo of the ships as loot and took their seamen (of whom all were considered Christians by the attacking Muslims) and enslaved them. [17]

In 1784, Congress authorized American diplomats John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to negotiate with the Muslim terrorists. [18] Negotiations proceeded, and in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] – that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. [19]

Given this “spiritual” incentive to enslave and make war, the Muslim attacks against American ships and seamen were frequent. In fact, in the span of just one month in 1793, Algiers alone seized ten American ships and enslaved more then one hundred sailors, holding them for sale or ransom. [20] Significantly, when Adams and Jefferson queried the Tripolian Ambassador about the seizure of sailors, he explained:

It was a law that the first who boarded an enemy’s vessel should have one slave more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive to the most desperate valor and enterprise – that it was the practice of their corsairs [fast ships] to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to take a dagger in each hand and another in his mouth and leap on board, which so terrified their enemies that very few ever stood against them. [21]

The enslaving of Christians by Muslims was such a widespread problem that for centuries, French Catholics operated a ministry that raised funding to ransom enslaved seamen. As Jefferson explained:

There is here an order of priests called the Mathurins, the object of whose institutions is the begging of alms for the redemption of captives. About eighteen months ago, they redeemed three hundred, which cost them about fifteen hundred livres [$1,500] apiece. They have agents residing in the Barbary States, who are constantly employed in searching and contracting for the captives of their nation, and they redeem at a lower price than any other people can. [22]

Ransoming Americans was no less expensive, and therefore a very profitable trade for the Muslim terrorists. As John Adams explained:

Isaac Stephens at Algiers. . . . says the price is 6,000 for a master [captain], 4,000 for a mate [officer], and 1,500 for each sailor. The Dey [Muslim ruler] will not abate [drop the price] a sixpence, he says, and will not have anything to say about peace with America. He says the people (that is the sailors, I suppose) are carrying rocks and timber on their backs for nine miles out of the country, over sharp rocks and mountains; that he has an iron round his leg, &c. He begs that we would pay the money for their redemption without sending to Congress, but this is impossible. [23]

In an attempt to secure a release of the kidnapped seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched diplomatic envoys to negotiate terms with the Muslim nations. [24] They secured several treaties of “Peace and Amity” with the Muslim Barbary Powers to ensure “protection” of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. [25] And because America had no threat of force against the Muslims, she was required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (tens of millions in today’s money) of “tribute” (i.e., official extortion) to the Muslim countries to secure the “guarantee” of no attacks. In fact, one Muslim Ambassador told American negotiators that “a perpetual peace could be made” with his nation for the price of 30,000 guineas [$2.3 million today], with an additional 3,000 guineas [$230,000] fee for himself. [26] Having no other recourse, America paid. Sometimes the Muslims even demanded additional “considerations” – such as building and providing a warship as a “gift” to Tripoli, [27] a “gift” frigate to Algiers, [28] paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, [29] etc.

These extortion payments became a significant expense for the American government. In fact, in 1795, payments to Algiers alone (including the ransom payment to free 115 American seamen), totaled nearly one million dollars [30] (and Algiers was just one of the four warring Barbary Powers). Significantly, America had to obtain a loan from Holland to make the payment, [31] and the entire affair displeased Washington, who considered it a “disgrace” to remit funds for that purpose, preferring rather to inflict “chastisement” upon the terrorists. [32] Nevertheless, the best solution at that time was to continue paying the protection money, for America lacked a military, having neither navy nor army (the army was available only on an as-needed basis to be called up from among the people in case they needed to defend themselves; America had no standing army). Disgusted with the payments, Washington lamented:

Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind – or crush them into non-existence. [33]

By the last year of Washington’s presidency, a full sixteen percent of the federal budget was spent on extortion payments. [34] Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, believed that a time would come when not only the economic effects of the extortion payments to the Muslim terrorists would be felt by every American but also that using force would be the only practicable way to end the terrorist attacks. He predicted:

You will probably find the tribute to all these powers make such a proportion of the federal taxes as that every man will feel them sensibly when he pays these taxes. The question is whether their peace or war will be cheapest? . . . If we wish our commerce to be free and uninsulted, we must let these nations see that we have an energy [willingness to use force] which at present they disbelieve. The low opinion they entertain of our powers cannot fail to involve us soon in a naval war. [35]

Eventually, Americans reached the point Jefferson had predicted: not only did they feel the economic effects but they also resented the unprovoked attacks and paying for rights already guaranteed by international law. Therefore, tiring of the largely unsuccessful diplomatic approach, military preparations were urged, thus embracing President George Washington’s wise axiom that:

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. [36]

In the last year of Washington’s presidency, he urged Congress to find the revenues to undertake the construction of a U. S. Navy to defend American interests on the high seas. [37] When John Adams became President, he vigorously pursued those plans, earning the title “Father of the Navy.” [38] Yet Adams was reticent to resort to a military solution – not because he opposed the use of force but rather because he didn’t think the people would fully support that option. [39] Furthermore, he believed that even though the extortion payments were high, the increased revenue produced by American commerce in that region would more than cover the costs. [40] Nevertheless, he longed for the change in international attitude that would result if America used military forces to defend our citizens and our rights.

Because America had adopted a policy of appeasement in response to the terrorist depredations, the Barbary Powers viewed America as weak. In fact, William Eaton, whom Adams had dispatched as American diplomat to Tunis (one of the four terrorist powers), reported to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering that “an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians [is] that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians.” [41] Truly, with no fear of consequence, Muslims found American targets especially inviting, fueling even further attacks.

Adams truly understood the difference that a naval force would make, explaining:

It would be a good occasion to begin a navy. . . . The policy of Christendom [i.e., of the Christian nations not fighting back for their rights] has made cowards of all their [the Christian nations’] sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. I doubt not we could accomplish it if we should set about it in earnest. [42]

By the end of Adams’ administration, extortion payments to the Muslim terrorists accounted for twenty percent of the federal budget. [43]
When Thomas Jefferson became President in 1801, having personally dealt with the Muslim Barbary Powers for almost two decades, he had already concluded that there were only three solutions to the terrorist problem: (1) pay the extortion money, (2) keep all American ships out of international waters (which would destroy American commerce), or (3) use military force to put an end to the attacks. [44] Jefferson discarded the first two options, rejecting the second as a matter of bad policy, and the first because:

I was very unwilling that we should acquiesce in the . . . humiliation of paying a tribute to those lawless pirates. [45]

He supported the third option, acknowledging:

I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace through the medium of war. [46]

Jefferson offered several reasons he believed this would be the best policy, including:

Justice is in favor of this opinion; honor favors it; it will procure us respect in Europe, and respect is a safeguard to interest; . . . [and] I think it least expensive and equally effectual. [47]

Jefferson formed this position long before his presidency; so once inaugurated, he began refusing payments to the offending nations. In response, Tripoli declared war against the United States (and Algiers threatened to do so), [48] thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation. Jefferson, determined to end the two-decades-old terrorist attacks, selected General William Eaton (Adams’ Consul to Tunis) and elevated him to the post of “U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States,” with the assignment to lead an American military expedition against the four terrorist nations. Using the new American Navy built under Adams, Eaton transported the U. S. Marines overseas; and when the offending nations found themselves confronted by imminent American military action, all but Tripoli backed down.

General Eaton therefore led a successful military campaign against Tripoli that freed captured seaman and crushed the terrorist forces. After four years of fighting, in 1805 Tripoli signed a treaty on America’s terms, thus ending their terrorist aggressions. (It is from the Marine Corps’ role in that first conflict with Muslim terrorists from 1801-1805 that the opening line of the Marine Hymn is derived: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli . . .”)

American troops returned home, and the region briefly remained quiet, but by 1807, Muslim Algiers had resumed attacks against American ships and sailors. [49] Jefferson, preoccupied with efforts to avoid war with both Great Britain and France, did not return military forces to the region.

Nevertheless, his actions had brought America its first respite to the decades old attacks; so when he left office, Congress congratulated him, noting:

These are points in your administration which the historian will . . . teach posterity to dwell upon with delight. Nor will he forget . . . the lesson taught the inhabitants of the coast of Barbary – that we have the means of chastising their piratical encroachments and awing them into justice. [50]

2007-05-27 22:13:02 · 10 answers · asked by Emily G 2

what about lieutenant doctors? does the army pay them while they are at serving to pay back for the tuition that the U.S. army covered?

2007-05-27 21:55:11 · 7 answers · asked by aero 2

where the militery humvee are made except the USA?

2007-05-27 21:33:03 · 1 answers · asked by smile 1

now that they have so much technology?

2007-05-27 21:26:26 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous

Every one knew that weapons of mass destruction can not exist after 11 years of stringent sanctions. Even food was obtained by bartering Oil. Hundreds of Children died without medicine. But the US public did not protest then as they do now.
Is that right?

2007-05-27 20:19:38 · 23 answers · asked by ramp 1

After 4 yrs of inactive reserves, he has been called to duty for the army national guard. He has to do basic training again for 3 months. What can he take with him? And what can he take once he is shipped over seas?

2007-05-27 20:06:04 · 11 answers · asked by *star chick* 3

2007-05-27 20:03:51 · 6 answers · asked by chewydog62000 1

My oppinon the Allies Would be America, Eroupean Union, Isreal, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Astrallia, New Zeland, Gods Army

The Axis
Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, Al Quadia, Hezbowla, Syria, Lebenon, Lybia, Satans Army

2007-05-27 19:44:55 · 20 answers · asked by Bob 2

2007-05-27 19:39:16 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-05-27 19:36:01 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

What is the sweetest thing a woman could do or say to a man she loves very much?

I am 32 and he is a 34 year old Naval Officer posted on a ship until the end of the year.

2007-05-27 19:25:10 · 19 answers · asked by MaryMaryMary 2

I dunno...it sounds strange to me. If we ever leave Iraq, the poorly dressed Iraqi 'terrorists' will somehow invade the US and kill people in our shopping malls. Do people really believe that? It seems to me that they could be doing that anyway. This one needs some logical explaination before I'll buy into it. Let's hear it!

2007-05-27 18:53:48 · 14 answers · asked by Noah H 7

They pin it on Al-Qaeda?

Doesn't anyone understand that any terrorist group in Iraq NOW (as opposed to none of them being there BEFORE we invaded), is just a minor player in this ongoing struggle between the Shiites and the Sunnis?

98% of all the torture prisons they've uncovered in the last 4 years (minus Abu Ghraib and Basra) have been directly linked to Shiite death squads.

So they find 42 Iraqi prisoners all tied up and tortured for months, and they claim it's Al-Qaeda?

Um...have we forgotten how many reports said that bodies found in the past were riddled with bullets and showing signs of torture, have all had the clear hallmark of Malaki's Shiite death squads--as reprisals against the Sunni insurgency?

So where does Al-Qaeda fit into this latest "victory"?

I mean, are we going to continue to link Al-Qaeda to EVERYTHING bad going on in Iraq without even bothering to check with our sources?

Is this the best our own US intelligence can come up with?

2007-05-27 18:13:27 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

If the Commander-in-Chief is a crackpot, shouldn't the officer corp at least have the guts to deal with a little career endangerment? GI are getting killed and maimed, in my opinion for nothing. The least they could do attempt to stop this foolishness.

2007-05-27 18:12:31 · 13 answers · asked by Noah H 7

are the majority of sailors gay?
are the only things that sailors do are drinking and fighting with each other?
are the majority of sailors low lifes and thugs?

2007-05-27 18:00:50 · 8 answers · asked by U.S MARINE GREG 2

By standing by and letting the Bush Administration tear it to shreds.

2007-05-27 17:52:23 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm a community college student, and I'm sick of going to school. I am unsure of what career I want to pursue, and I feel like I'm wasting time in school. I don't support the war in Iraq, but I want to see the world. Would joining the military be the right choice?

2007-05-27 17:44:42 · 17 answers · asked by MCG 3

I drive truck for a living and tend to hear more about what is really going on in the world...Did you know there are hundreds if not thousands of Russian tanks south of the Mexican border also did you know there are tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers built up down there as well. I was told that the Russian and Chinese are holding war games...can you believe that? I don't!!!! Do you also know that our government wants to open up our border to 1oo trucking companies from Mexico and let there trucks on our roads? Did you also know that 95% of those trucks are not even close to being able to pass current DOT standards meaning they are so unsafe to operate its beyond belief that our government would allow them to even be here...So what do you think ?

2007-05-27 17:44:33 · 11 answers · asked by The gr8t alien 5