Or would you do it for less, more, or never?
2007-05-10 17:08:08 · 22 answers · asked by daff73 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
nope. i have 3 young children and i want 2 be around 2 watch them grow up. i won't even get started on my war thoughts. i will say i have every bit of respect 4 our troops over there. they have more balls than i do.
2007-05-10 17:16:53 · answer #1 · answered by jenn 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I assume from the description that you're talking about a government job or contracted position. The military doesn't pay anywhere near that, so I wouldn't call it 'to serve' if you're just doing it for money. 'To Serve' would imply that you're doing it for a higher purpose.
but to answer your question, sure I'd go back again if I wasn't a single parent with a toddler...better chance of survival now that the mortars and rockets aren't falling every day and better pay than living in some American cities (Washington DC or Detroit come to mind).
Of course, your living conditions would be worse...you're pretty much restricted on movement in the Green Zone, but hey, for that kind of cash, I can put up with a lot, I'd go back.
2007-05-10 17:23:16 · answer #2 · answered by VodkaTonic 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I did 5 months at E4 pay, and I've completed 5 months of an undisclosed amount of time at E5 pay. Either way I'm set to make less than $100,000 in a year. So yes, I would.
2007-05-10 17:12:52 · answer #3 · answered by DOOM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Does ur life cost this mount of money few $100,000. Do you think u would come back?!
& it's not serving ur country cuz Iraq can't harm a fly now
2007-05-10 17:17:07 · answer #4 · answered by playtime 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't do it, becuae the Iraq War goes against my moral beliefs, which I feel are much more valuable than $100 000. I make alot less than that right now a year, and but I'm comfortable, and most importantly, I'm not in any position that jeopardizes what I believe in... and I'm not hurting anyone.
2007-05-10 17:17:48 · answer #5 · answered by MattH 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The soldiers there now are doing it for a lot less. I say we bring them all back as soon as possible and then with the billions saved from no longer being there, give it to each one of them.
2007-05-10 17:15:13 · answer #6 · answered by David M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't everyone take the offer?
Being on a fishing boat in the North Atlantic is more dangerous than being in Iraq.
The stats are 4,000 out of over at least 750,000 soldiers that rotated in and out of Iraq over a five year period. That puts the odds at under one half of one percent over a five year period.
"Injury-related death rate of 20-35-year-old men in the states in 2002: .086%
Death rate of soldiers in Iraq between 2003 and 2006: .153%"
2007-05-10 17:12:08 · answer #7 · answered by a bush family member 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, I would not . I don't support President Bush in rushing to war. I don't beleive that Americans are being told the truth of what is going over there. My brother is in Kuwait and he told me they don;t tell us everything that happens over there and that they tell us what they want to know. It's a shame when you can't trust your own government. This is why I say NO!
2007-05-10 17:19:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No.!! I absolutely agree totally with truth se's answer. These soldiers should be right here in the good ole USA guarding our borders etc, .........
2007-05-10 17:23:31 · answer #9 · answered by Giddyup 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No .... that war is NOT about fighting FOR America. It is NOT about fighting to protect our freedoms. It is not worth anyone dying for. If the Iraqis wanted a Democracy, they would have already been fighting for it. They weren't. And most of all, it was NOT, I repeat NOT, about terrorism.
so what the hell was it all about?????????????/
2007-05-10 17:14:09 · answer #10 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋