They are offering enlistment bonuses so they don't have to draft. Also, they have to offer monetary incentive because the people of this country are showing their true colors by sitting back, complaining and whining and not supporting our troops and the effort we are making in helping a nation to become independent. What's more, the youth of this country have nothing to stand for, no modern day examples of putting your country and your freedom before money. Everything is about each person and what is due them...more socialistic bull...and not what we can do for our country. Get over yourself and don't bother calling yourself a vet...you wouldn't be talking like that if you were really a vet!
btw...Jeremiah, this administration treats our soldiers much better than Clinton did. Clinton drastically cut their wages.
2007-08-31 17:34:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Oh how I wish this administration were worse than its predecessors during most of my 65 years. This United States will be remembered as the longest living democracy that has been really dead for as long as anyone alive can remember. We will never get a fresh start. This country will just continue to deteriorate due to corruption and greed. So too will the rest of the worlds societies. Global warming will mercifully bring an end to it and if any humanoids survive they will be supplanted as the dominant species by something else that can live better in the new environment, not pollute the environment nor through greed and avarice destroy themselves.
2007-09-01 01:04:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bullfrog21 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, it's not wrong.
Part of a soldier's commitment is to follow the lawful orders of their superiors, up the chain of command.
Inherent in that is necessarily a trust that the superiors are making rational decisions, based on realistic assessments and taking into account the effect on the soldiers -- something that arguably this administration is very much not doing.
So, it's not wrong to be unwilling to serve under someone who you believe is acting against the best interests of the country, or someone who you believe is not competent to make the kind of military decisions that your oath of service demands you trust.
2007-09-01 00:34:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
note to Darlene: those soldiers signed up to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I don't think dying in Iraq was in there anywhere. None of those soldiers HAD to die as this war did NOT have to happen.
2007-09-01 00:38:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by truth seeker 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I went in under Clinton and got out under Bush.
That's all I have to say about that.
You couldn't pay me enough to go in now.
2007-09-01 00:32:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not at all. I applaud your patriotism.
According to Jefferson, when the government no longer responds to the will of the governed, it's not only our right, but our DUTY to revolt.
2007-09-01 00:30:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Chredon 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
No it's not. This administration treats veterans terrible. And the sad thing is that they treat soldiers and their families worse!
2007-09-01 00:29:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jeremiah 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
What branch and unit did you serve in. I don't believe you're a vet. Sorry, but let's have a little proof.
2007-09-01 00:33:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
No it's not, but some may look at it as being "cowardly," but hey, there is nothing wrong with being a coward!
2007-09-01 00:47:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Rocman 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
They don't pay well anyway.
2007-09-01 00:29:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋