This is shameful

[SassyLady]

Why is it acceptable for every employer in the country (including the government) to downsize their work force except the military?

Because the other government agencies haven't made commitment to give their life for you to maintain your lifestyle of freedom and because they deserve better than any other government agency.

Do you really think we need more bureaucrats and soldiers?

[SassyLady]

There are tons of people out there who have given their entire lives to their employers and ended out on the street. They pay into retirement plans and set back money and still end up with nothing. They are out on the street with few options.
One positive part of the military as that it teaches you specific skills. You are much more employable than others that lose their jobs.

And, that makes it alright to screw our military personnel?

Working for the same company your entire career does not even equate to a soldier willing to give his life for you. I think anyone who is willing to give their life ... military, law enforcement and firemen deserve to be well compensated.... way more than the average government worker.

[Mighty10th]

This is nothing new....back in the Vietnam days they would rift majors to an enlisted soldier. I went thru the drawdown in the 90s that was planned by the bush administration and executed under Clinton......many NCOs were getting QMP'd. They chose the ones with bad stuff in their records ....and 6 months prior...they warned all of us to get stuff out of our records if we could and warned us of the cuts.

As far as this captain...how could have almost 20 years or so and still be a captain? Most good officers make that rank in 5 years or less. No doubt he was not cream of the crop. He may not have done anything wrong but its obvious he wasn't a stellar officer either. Officers have a very tough rating system. Its unfortunate they bounced him back to his last enlisted rank but that happens to enlisted too. An E-8 has to have at least 2 years at that rank before he can retire as one.

Its never a good time for anyone to serve thru a downsizing.

[gabosaurus]

And, that makes it alright to screw our military personnel?

Working for the same company your entire career does not even equate to a soldier willing to give his life for you. I think anyone who is willing to give their life ... military, law enforcement and firemen deserve to be well compensated.... way more than the average government worker.

In a sane society, we would keep all the rank and file soldiers and eliminate 50 percent of the Pentagon beaucracy. But that is not how business or government work. They overpay the excessive dead wood and cut from the lesser compensated bottom.
If you need to cut the budget, you have to cut all areas. The military has as much dead wood as anywhere. We have too many outdated weapons programs and too many unnecessary military installations. But no one wants to have their cash cow sacrificed.
I find it intriguing that the upper echelons of society are OK with sacrificing jobs to allow companies to move overseas in search of greater profits, but they want to see any piece of the military eliminated.
If it's not necessary, you get rid of it. Like I said before, members of the military are more hireable than many other occupations because they are taught vital skills.

[aboutime]

In a sane society, we would keep all the rank and file soldiers and eliminate 50 percent of the Pentagon beaucracy. But that is not how business or government work. They overpay the excessive dead wood and cut from the lesser compensated bottom.
If you need to cut the budget, you have to cut all areas. The military has as much dead wood as anywhere. We have too many outdated weapons programs and too many unnecessary military installations. But no one wants to have their cash cow sacrificed.
I find it intriguing that the upper echelons of society are OK with sacrificing jobs to allow companies to move overseas in search of greater profits, but they want to see any piece of the military eliminated.
If it's not necessary, you get rid of it. Like I said before, members of the military are more hireable than many other occupations because they are taught vital skills.

In a sane, non-Obama society, you would keep and maintain the trained, experienced, seasoned Leaders for those Rank, and File soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. Like Obama's administration. Without a leader, we have near Mob Rule, that hinges on Anarchy. Just look at what is taking place in the streets of major cities today. AL SHARPTON is pretending to be IN CHARGE, while Obama tells everybody to KEEP FIGHTING against laws Not even He will follow.

[Kathianne]

These decisions continue to baffle me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/us...taff.html?_r=0

That is beyond shameful. I do wonder if there is a remedy via West Point officers? So wrong.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is nothing new....back in the Vietnam days they would rift majors to an enlisted soldier. I went thru the drawdown in the 90s that was planned by the bush administration and executed under Clinton......many NCOs were getting QMP'd. They chose the ones with bad stuff in their records ....and 6 months prior...they warned all of us to get stuff out of our records if we could and warned us of the cuts.

As far as this captain...how could have almost 20 years or so and still be a captain? Most good officers make that rank in 5 years or less. No doubt he was not cream of the crop. He may not have done anything wrong but its obvious he wasn't a stellar officer either. Officers have a very tough rating system. Its unfortunate they bounced him back to his last enlisted rank but that happens to enlisted too. An E-8 has to have at least 2 years at that rank before he can retire as one.

Its never a good time for anyone to serve thru a downsizing.

I went thru the drawdown in the 90s that was planned by the bush administration and executed under Clinton......many NCOs were getting QMP'd.

^^^^^^^^^^^ HOW ABOUT SOME LINKED SOURCES TO VERY THE FACTS AND STATS YOU JUST CLAIMED IN THAT STATEMENT, ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT IT WAS PLANNED BY BUSH AND THEN EXECUTED BY CLINTON.
[QUOTE]

As far as this captain...how could have almost 20 years or so and still be a captain?

^^^ Subject is not whether he was a "good" captain since no evidence has been presented that only bad officers are being reduced in rank or canned. The Obama purge is not about improving quality, it is about saving money and thus weakening our military.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[QUOTE=Tyr-Ziu Saxnot;716171]^^^^^^^^^^^ HOW ABOUT SOME LINKED SOURCES TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND STATS YOU JUST CLAIMED IN THAT STATEMENT, ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT IT WAS PLANNED BY BUSH AND THEN EXECUTED BY CLINTON.

^^^ Subject is not whether he was a "good" captain since no evidence has been presented that only bad officers are being reduced in rank or canned. The Obama purge is not about improving quality, it is about saving money and thus weakening our military.-Tyr

hmmmmmm....

[fj1200]

hmmmmmm....

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the Army once again reduced its size during the early 1990s, going from 780,000 soldiers to 480,000.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...ion/2013/05/08

Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940–2011¹

Year	Army	Air Force	Navy	Marine Corps	Total
1940	269,023		160,997	28,345	458,365
1945	8,266,373		3,319,586	469,925	12,055,884
1950	593,167	411,277	380,739	74,279	1,459,462
1955	1,109,296	959,946	660,695	205,170	2,935,107
1960	873,078	814,752	616,987	170,621	2,475,438
1965	969,066	824,662	669,985	190,213	2,653,926
1970	1,322,548	791,349	691,126	259,737	3,064,760
1975	784,333	612,751	535,085	195,951	2,128,120
1980	777,036	557,969	527,153	188,469	2,050,627
1985	780,787	601,515	570,705	198,025	2,151,032
1990	732,403	535,233	579,417	196,652	2,043,705
1991	710,821	510,432	570,262	194,040	1,985,555
1992	610,450	470,315	541,886	184,529	1,807,177
1993	572,423	444,351	509,950	178,379	1,705,103
1994	541,343	426,327	468,662	174,158	1,610,490
1995	508,559	400,409	434,617	174,639	1,518,224
1996	491,103	389,001	416,735	174,883	1,471,722
1997	491,707	377,385	395,564	173,906	1,438,562
1998	483,880	367,470	382,338	173,142	1,406,830
1999	479,426	360,590	373,046	172,641	1,385,703
2000	482,170	355,654	373,193	173,321	1,384,338

Read more: Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940–2011 | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A00045...#ixzz3KNG3aX1S

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...ion/2013/05/08

Posted as you miss the main point. The military purge bambastard is doing is getting rid of highly trained and more importantly experience military officers. Those officers took many years and even decades to reach that level--they can not be replaced in a one or two year rush , even if we had that much time in a major World War type breakout--which we would not!!
Think first 6 months of ww2 , we were caught with our pants down and our collective asses hanging out to be kicked.
And that sad state of affairs was because of thinking like Obama/crew espouse and implement.
That you show past stages where liberal idiots got their way and downsized plus ill equipped our military means nothing .
Nobody ever said its never been down before!
And I asked a question of another member where he got his facts and to give specifics, you trot out this which only proves the ffing mistake has been made before!
Hell, I myself point that out as a reason its a mistake and I use the WW2 EXAMPLE TO DO THAT.

His statement still stands to be proven with facts and specifics directly relating to the totality of his statement.
Perhaps let him try to explain /answer directly for his own words.......

Your presentation merely proves previous follies.....-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

We have the largest, best trained and best equipped military in the world. If we it by a third, we would still have same.
Like pretty much everything in the government, the Pentagon has a huge amount of unnecessary fat.

You people complain endlessly about budget surplus and excessive government spending, then you want more of the same.
Yeah, I know, cut everything except where I am.

[fj1200]

Posted as you miss the main point. The military purge bambastard is doing is getting rid of highly trained and more importantly experience military officers.

Ah yes, the narrative never changes.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ah yes, the narrative never changes.

Yes, TRUTH never changes..
You obviously have a problem with that reality!
That you can not remake it frustrates you so you belittle others that deal in it..
Which is entirely your problem not any of mine.
Well, except when it leads you to make grossly mistaken and silly comments...Tyr

[Drummond]

We have the largest, best trained and best equipped military in the world. If we it by a third, we would still have same.
Like pretty much everything in the government, the Pentagon has a huge amount of unnecessary fat.

I 'wonder why' it is that Lefties consistently offer up arguments for greater military weakness ? Why they're so intent upon cutting back on the means to ensure a nation's security ?

Regardless of the fact that the US military is 'so large' .. it's also a fact that the world has seen, and has HAD to see it deployed in substantial numbers in multiples of trouble spots. Gabby, even if you think you see that your military is too large for your current needs, you cannot possibly know what your FUTURE needs will be.

We know that there are many terrorist groups in the world, for example. What if they work to destabilise Governments, creating Failed States, from which repetitions of 2001's Afghanistan could be established ? Would a weaker military make it a lot harder to resist, or fix, such scenarios ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I 'wonder why' it is that Lefties consistently offer up arguments for greater military weakness ? Why they're so intent upon cutting back on the means to ensure a nation's security ?

Regardless of the fact that the US military is 'so large' .. it's also a fact that the world has seen, and has HAD to see it deployed in substantial numbers in multiples of trouble spots. Gabby, even if you think you see that your military is too large for your current needs, you cannot possibly know what your FUTURE needs will be.

We know that there are many terrorist groups in the world, for example. What if they work to destabilise Governments, creating Failed States, from which repetitions of 2001's Afghanistan could be established ? Would a weaker military make it a lot harder to resist, or fix, such scenarios ?

Its the old- "head in the sand syndrome". fj seems to have it too. Reality is a beast to be denied.
While Russia and China both ramp up their militaries we are cutting ours and demoralizing it too. Never think bamscum does this for no deeply planned reason. He is doing so to weaken/lesson our world influence.
He longs for the day that we as a nation must beg socialist nations to let us trade, our even protect our own interests not only overseas but here as well!
We must be degraded to the point we are so weak that renounce our sovereignty and void our Constitution--that's the globalist plan-- the ffing bamscum is a globalist puppet engaged in treason daily. Fact.. -Tyr