This is shameful

[revelarts]

... and Revelarts: let me offer you another answer !

Consider ISIS, and the advances it's made (and still wants to make).

Cue a 2-day cessation of air strikes -- because Lefties advocate it.

Two days goes by. ISIS does its damndest to take advantage, and advances as much as it possibly can over the period. All the while, ISIS regards the disappearing air presence as weakness, lack of resolve (if not both).

At the end of those two days, lives would of course have been lost which would've otherwise been safe, and at least relatively secure. Territory would've been taken that it might actually take weeks of bombing runs to reverse 'ownership' of ... costing how many MORE lives ?

How much extra effort and resources would it take to reverse the damage done by forces taking a temporary 2 day hike ??!!?

And consider: ISIS would in all probability regard the 2 day lull as evidence that hostages being beheaded DID have strategic value to them. How many more hostages would eventually die, Revelarts, as a direct consequence of your Leftie 'scruples' ... ??

So you see, a Leftie approach is pure poison. Destructive in the extreme. I don't care how many other Lefties opt to support you in your thinking !!

Drummond consider this, If we were to make an unannounced cessation of war activity on 1 day this month then another day next month the savings could be used to PAY to have more experienced men in uniform STAY ON THE JOB for 5 more years and pay their pensions in full. How much work would it take to replace the decades of experience loss in the field and in arrears if we decommission men because we say we say we can't pay them any longer? is that a solid goal Drummond? why do i have to explain this?! Are you going to pay them? Is England going to send us money to do so?

Don't IMAGINE my "liberal Motives", my so-called "liberal agenda" or make up BS about what i REALLY MEAN, i've stated what i really mean. One solution to real one problem. Don't crazily extrapolate my issue specific comment into a some sinister agenda! Sorry to say that's BS Crazy talk Drummond.

You seem MUCH more obsessed with fighting fantasy liberals and BOGGYMAN liberal polices than creating a sensible effort against the terrorist. Or treating our troops with real respect by making sure thay are getting paid and treated well. All the verbal respect and, RAH RAH US Mil, is nice but when they are homeless on the streets because with PTSD they can't keep a job and the VA isn't giving them SQUAT, all your respect to keep your imagined safety for 2 days won't mean jack.

[Drummond]

Drummond consider this, If we were to make an unannounced cessation of war activity on 1 day this month then another day next month the savings could be used to PAY to have more experienced men in uniform STAY ON THE JOB for 5 more years and pay their pensions in full. is that a solid goal Drummond? don't IMAGINE my "liberal Motives" or make up BS about what i "REALLY MEAN" i've stated what i really mean.

why do i have to explain this?!
You seem MUCH more obsessed with fighting fantasy liberals and BOGGYMAN liberal polices than creating a sensible effort against the terrorist. Or treating our troops with real respect by making sure thay are getting paid and treated well. All the verbal respect and, RAH RAH US Mil, is nice but when they are homeless on the streets because with PSD they can't keep a job and the VA isn't giving them SQUAT all your respect to keep your imagined safety for 2 days won't mean jack.

I'll give you this much. Spacing out your cessation of hostilities over such extended periods is definitely better than the other scenario I addressed.

But even so ... YOU'RE STILL DOING TERRORISTS SOME FAVOURS, FAVOURS THEY'VE IN NO WAY EARNED.

I ask why you're REALLY so keen to make life easier for them ? Easier than it would be otherwise ?

Can you tell me why Lefties keep on doing this ? I'd really like to know !!!!

And anyway, I suggest a tactical flaw to your latest proposal. If ISIS can't discern a pattern in any of that, and it so happened that lulls coincided with hostage beheadings ... how would THAT be perceived ?

Perhaps a hostage beheading would stop such lulls in their tracks, force a rethink ? Or -- would it make not a jot of difference ? Would your determination to give terrorists their breaks actually be too great to involve consideration for the death of the hostage, and his/her family's feelings ?

Regardless, giving ISIS terrorists any breaks at all, WILL be seen as weakness by those terrorists. You might never convince them that it was anything else ... in which case, you are still unacceptably endangering hostage lives to an extent that you wouldn't have been otherwise.

I've nothing at all against your troops being paid well, or getting the utmost respect ... why WOULD I have ?? But, consider ... an emboldened enemy is one that'll be a WORSE enemy for your troops to fight ... harder to defeat, if the enemy's morale is boosted. Is that, Revelarts, your idea of doing your best for your people ???

Give ISIS any breaks at all, and it'll profit THEM, to the detriment of YOUR forces (.. or any other Coalition forces that may ever be involved). Terrorists consider part of their war to be a propaganda war. I have no interest in helping them gain victories on ANY level, at all.

But then - I'm not a Leftie ...

[tailfins]

I'll give you this much. Spacing out your cessation of hostilities over such extended periods is definitely better than the other scenario I addressed.

But even so ... YOU'RE STILL DOING TERRORISTS SOME FAVOURS, FAVOURS THEY'VE IN NO WAY EARNED.

I ask why you're REALLY so keen to make life easier for them ? Easier than it would be otherwise ?

Can you tell me why Lefties keep on doing this ? I'd really like to know !!!!

And anyway, I suggest a tactical flaw to your latest proposal. If ISIS can't discern a pattern in any of that, and it so happened that lulls coincided with hostage beheadings ... how would THAT be perceived ?

Perhaps a hostage beheading would stop such lulls in their tracks, force a rethink ? Or -- would it make not a jot of difference ? Would your determination to give terrorists their breaks actually be too great to involve consideration for the death of the hostage, and his/her family's feelings ?

Regardless, giving ISIS terrorists any breaks at all, WILL be seen as weakness by those terrorists. You might never convince them that it was anything else ... in which case, you are still unacceptably endangering hostage lives to an extent that you wouldn't have been otherwise.

I've nothing at all against your troops being paid well, or getting the utmost respect ... why WOULD I have ?? But, consider ... an emboldened enemy is one that'll be a WORSE enemy for your troops to fight ... harder to defeat, if the enemy's morale is boosted. Is that, Revelarts, your idea of doing your best for your people ???

Give ISIS any breaks at all, and it'll profit THEM, to the detriment of YOUR forces (.. or any other Coalition forces that may ever be involved). Terrorists consider part of their war to be a propaganda war. I have no interest in helping them gain victories on ANY level, at all.

But then - I'm not a Leftie ...

President GW Bush was correct when he said that we deal with those who would harm America on THEIR soil so we don't have to deal with them on OUR soil. Notice that I didn't specify any particular religion.

[Drummond]

President GW Bush was correct when he said that we deal with those who would harm America on THEIR soil so we don't have to deal with them on OUR soil. Notice that I didn't specify any particular religion.

... and he was exactly right. I totally agree. It's the only possible common-sense approach to take. By total contrast, unilaterally deciding to give terrorist enemies BREAKS from their being dealt with, only aids the enemy. Doing it different ways changes the degree of advantage they get, but the advantage IS STILL THERE for them to exploit.

Revelarts scorns my seeing Leftie 'Boogeymen' ... YET ... time and again, I keep seeing that very same line from them. Always, it's some excuse or other to be kind or considerate to terrorists, and wholly needlessly so.

I'm thoroughly fed up with it !!

[I suppose the next plea will have something or other to do with considering terrorists' so-called 'human rights' .... a favourite nonsense the Left indulges in !! .. ??]

[revelarts]

Drummond consider this, If we were to make an unannounced cessation of war activity on 1 day this month then another day next month the savings could be used to PAY to have more experienced men in uniform STAY ON THE JOB for 5 more years and pay their pensions in full. How much work would it take to replace the decades of experience loss in the field and in arrears if we decommission men because we say we say we can't pay them any longer? is that a solid goal Drummond? why do i have to explain this?! Are you going to pay them? Is England going to send us money to do so?

Don't IMAGINE my "liberal Motives", my so-called "liberal agenda" or make up BS about what i REALLY MEAN, i've stated what i really mean. One solution to real one problem. Don't crazily extrapolate my issue specific comment into a some sinister agenda! Sorry to say that's BS Crazy talk Drummond.

You seem MUCH more obsessed with fighting fantasy liberals and BOGGYMAN liberal polices than creating a sensible effort against the terrorist. Or treating our troops with real respect by making sure thay are getting paid and treated well. All the verbal respect and, RAH RAH US Mil, is nice but when they are homeless on the streets because with PTSD they can't keep a job and the VA isn't giving them SQUAT, all your respect to keep your imagined safety for 2 days won't mean jack

I'll give you this much. Spacing out your cessation of hostilities over such extended periods is definitely better than the other scenario I addressed.

But even so ... YOU'RE STILL DOING TERRORISTS SOME FAVOURS, FAVOURS THEY'VE IN NO WAY EARNED.

I ask why you're REALLY so keen to make life easier for them ? Easier than it would be otherwise ?

Can you tell me why Lefties keep on doing this ? I'd really like to know !!!!

And anyway, I suggest a tactical flaw to your latest proposal. If ISIS can't discern a pattern in any of that, and it so happened that lulls coincided with hostage beheadings ... how would THAT be perceived ?

Perhaps a hostage beheading would stop such lulls in their tracks, force a rethink ? Or -- would it make not a jot of difference ? Would your determination to give terrorists their breaks actually be too great to involve consideration for the death of the hostage, and his/her family's feelings ?

Regardless, giving ISIS terrorists any breaks at all, WILL be seen as weakness by those terrorists. You might never convince them that it was anything else ... in which case, you are still unacceptably endangering hostage lives to an extent that you wouldn't have been otherwise.

I've nothing at all against your troops being paid well, or getting the utmost respect ... why WOULD I have ?? But, consider ... an emboldened enemy is one that'll be a WORSE enemy for your troops to fight ... harder to defeat, if the enemy's morale is boosted. Is that, Revelarts, your idea of doing your best for your people ???

Give ISIS any breaks at all, and it'll profit THEM, to the detriment of YOUR forces (.. or any other Coalition forces that may ever be involved). Terrorists consider part of their war to be a propaganda war. I have no interest in helping them gain victories on ANY level, at all.

But then - I'm not a Leftie ...

[Drummond]

You really have no better an answer than 'that' ?

Well, I can't say I blame you ! When I'm right, I'm right ....

[Drummond]

You really have no better an answer than 'that' ?

Well, I can't say I blame you ! When I'm right, I'm right ....

By the way, Revelarts, I asked you to explain why Lefties are so keen to make life easier for terrorists. The question was genuinely meant: I'd really like to have an answer to that !!

So ... I'm asking again. Please explain.

[Abbey Marie]

I think the very DAY he made Captain, he should have been irreversibly entitled to a Captain-level pension. Knocking it down to a lower level is wrong. Seems like he should have grounds for a lawsuit based on that denial.

[fj1200]

I think the very DAY he made Captain, he should have been irreversibly entitled to a Captain-level pension. knocking it down to a lower level is wrong. Seems like he should have grounds for a lawsuit based on that denial.

Why? Seems like common practice. It would keep people from retiring two weeks after being promoted.

[gabosaurus]

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

[jimnyc]

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

Because those other jobs are not placing their lives on the line? Other than police and firemen and similar, and I'm willing to wager folks think they should get similar treatment. Many of these folks gave their entire lives, and can get screwed going into retirement.

[gabosaurus]

Because those other jobs are not placing their lives on the line? Other than police and firemen and similar, and I'm willing to wager folks think they should get similar treatment. Many of these folks gave their entire lives, and can get screwed going into retirement.

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.

[aboutime]

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

Gabby. Instead of dialing 911, or expecting to keep you, and your family safe according to the constitution. The answer to your question should be. How SAFE would you feel calling MACDONALDS, asking one of their workers to protect you and your family?

This is just another case of YOU proving to all of us. How literally DUMB you really are. Despite your claims of education.

[BoogyMan]

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

Because those other "employers" are not charged with the defense of our nation. When the Marxist left-wing scourge of filth that infests DC constantly cuts our defense there will at some point in the future be a reckoning with those in the real world who want to see America fall.

[aboutime]

Because those other "employers" are not charged with the defense of our nation. When the Marxist left-wing scourge of filth that infests DC constantly cuts our defense there will at some point in the future be a reckoning with those in the real world who want to see America fall.

BoogyMan. Don't listen to gabby. She's just a trouble-making, non-thinker, who hates anything, or anyone YOU or I know.

Wonder if she would be asking the same question about downsizing the military if ISIS moved into her Luxurious neighborhood, and began to Behead the Self-proclaimed, Smartest, and Richest Americans first?

Liberals always use the military as their target. On one hand they CLAIM to Love, Admire, and Support the Military. While, at the very same time. They hide the knives behind their back they would use to CUT out large sections of the Military they pretend to love.

Dementia, and Stupidity work hand-in-hand...LIBERALLY SPEAKING.