Republicans Stab Soldiers in the Back . . . Again!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Reservists can only be deployed for 270 days on a single , and they know that they can be called to active duty and deployed at any time.

.

er, is there any precedent for large numbers of reservists being called up for more than say, 100 days in a single year any time since Korea? When we still had a draft and something close to complete mobilization? I think the assumption most reserve/NG guys had was that theyd be called up in relatively short spurts for things like civil disasters - and that theyd only be deployed overseas for a short, intense, conventional war. Not that theyd be overseas for 6 months or more at a time. Now it may be true that this was misreading their enlistments, but it doesnt seem unreasonable in terms of history.

It means they are giving up civilian salaries they expected to keep, which is not the case with respect to the regulars.

Now you can go ahead and change things, sure. And appeal to the letter of the enlistments. But from everything ive heard its Army reserve/NG recruitment/retention that is suffering NOT regular recruitment/retention. So Id like to see what the SOLUTION is.

(I also think that the lack of a general attitude of mobilization is a problem - whos paying for this war - not the taxpayers, but the reservists - if were going to ask for sacrifice, there needs to be sacrifice all around)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Seeing reservists get preferentially taken care of will just breed a huge amount of resentment among the regulars, who are the backbone of the occupation force, the backbone of all the combat capability throughout the military.

Are the regulars pissed about the private employers who make up the difference to reservists?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And I wouldn't go and make a lot of "loans" to Iraq.
Hell. You sat right here and said it was over oil.
If Iraq is so damned rich with oil, let them give us "loans".

Iraqs prewar production was less than 3 million barrels a day. Thats about 1 billion barrels a year. At a profit of $20 a barrel, thats about $20 billion a year. Not enough to fund reconstruction, etc. Now they have sufficient reserves that they could expand production, but THAT will be costly and will take several years.

And they have billions of dollars in debts. Even if a large part of that is forgiven, theyre still prettty deep in a whole.

[cinch]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't think that amount should be made up. It would create a pay disparity between the reserves and other soldiers.

So?

The reservists are giving up their higher-paying civilian lives to sacrifice for their country. They're missing out on a lot of money they could be making, whereas the Regular Soldiers make what they make (they're soldiers, that's their job, they always get paid the same).

It's simple opportunity cost.

Compensate the reservists for what they're losing.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I guess they should have worked for Haliburton.

MY dad used to work for them... but that is not the point...

Chegitz... I am sick and tired of your misdirected criticism. The Republican party is very much pro-military.... not the democats.

[JohnT]

Why should Federal workers be guaranteed a subsidy while state and private workers are not?

Sorry Che, but this is again a situation where the people involved went into with both eyes open and again another situation involving voluntary contracts between private parties that the Left wants to somehow redefine as "exploitation."

We're not buying it.