Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[Ted Striker]

How I get one of those Phalanx units on my car????

[Dis]

do you think your car can carry several thousand pounds . Those things run out of ammo in seconds. . Though it only takes a fraction of a second to kill your target.

[Ted Striker]

That's all I need dogg, just a fraction of a seconds to clear the lane.

Maybe I get a big pickup truck and mount in the back.

[Dis]

Weight: 12,500 pounds (5,625 kg) - Later models: 13,600 pounds (6,120 kg)

[Az]

I'll take a vulcan instead, I guess.

[Mr. Harley]

Dis - Patroklos DID NOT serve as an infrantyman, yet I gave him my respect. You distort what I said because, without distortion, your attack is patently false. Unless you are so genuinely stupid as to be unable to see the difference - which I seriously doubt, you can make very intelligent posts when you choose. And you re-editing of my statements is a little too well done. I believe it has now entered our lexicon as swiftboating.

Note, also, I give my respect to EVERY person who serves in the armed forces, you neglected that little quote. Unlessl they show by their actions that they are all gung-ho (note - gung-ho, I assume you DO understand that terminology, don't you) for sending OTHER people into the combat zones, and avoiding that themselves, even when the option (as in that choice has been made available) to serve in aforementioned combat zones is made available. You know if that applies to you - it DOES NOT apply to Patroklos, or Oerdin, for example. Or my sister's late husband.

Kuci - many Europeans do not "have a clue" about the US educational system. Plus the Catholic schools in the US, from what I understand, are more secular, i.e. opt out of religion classes, etc. than in some parts of Europe. Plus the Catholic Church has meddled in politics in Europe alot more, so there are probably quite a few hot buttons over there in that area.

Lonestar, sorry about th 17 year old comment - I scrambled my threads there, and was trying to hurry up my posts before going to bed, I'd already pissed away two hours - I though it was you in some thread who made one about them on ships. However, your comment afterwards -

Yes, it sucks that when a servicemember dies they have to move...but are you honestly saying that 6months isn't enough time to move out? How many have military brats moved during the school year when their parents were alive?

Are you really that ignorant? Seriously. Military "brats", i.e. children, and in fact all children have a very well documented loss in school performance when forced to move in the middle of a school year. Chidlren when they lose a parent also have a STRONG tendency to do worse in school, actual the adjective I would use is "do horribly", when they lose a parent. And you don't see that getting hit with both is a double whammy? Now that is the kind of comment that causes people to utterly lose my respect, not that it matters to you, but to make the point for Drake and Dis.

Your comment about the food stamps and the E-1 with six kids is also false - you playing the old game of using an exaggerated case to make you point, and then to discredit the E-1 with two kids. Then you comment about the $250,000 life insurance.

Good God, man, that is nothing when it comes to raising a child, let alone two or three. It does not come CLOSE to replacing the deceased parent's future earning power, even at Walmart!!! And since they cannot get extra insurance due to being deployed in a combat zone - you are making my point exactly about those who have not been in a fire zone, and suddenly thinking about what their loved ones will do if they die. Sitting safe on a ship let's you have the empathy of a stone when it comes to the chidlren whose parents die over there. This is macabre, me arguing this with someone on active deployment.

[Sikander]

I used to be amused that a Latvian spouting conspiracy theories would have the temerity to accuse others of being "brainwashed". But now it's just getting dull.

[Patroklos]

Note, also, I give my respect to EVERY person who serves in the armed forces, you neglected that little quote. Unlessl they show by their actions that they are all gung-ho (note - gung-ho, I assume you DO understand that terminology, don't you) for sending OTHER people into the combat zones, and avoiding that themselves, even when the option (as in that choice has been made available) to serve in aforementioned combat zones is made available. You know if that applies to you - it DOES NOT apply to Patroklos, or Oerdin, for example. Or my sister's late husband.

I think you are missing a little bit of what I meant. I am what you call "gung-ho" about Iraq, and have no qualms about sending 10 divisions in there to **** some **** up. However, under normal circumstances I would not have an opportunity to go to Iraq because my skill sets are not required. Logistics in the Navy are very different from the Army. It just so happens the Army needs help, and a billet was available. And even though I said I wanted that billet, there is a very good chance I won't get it anyways (alot of competition).

So if there were no billets available over there, and I support sending Army/Marine grunts into the front line, would I then be on your **** list?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Are you really that ignorant? Seriously. Military "brats", i.e. children, and in fact all children have a very well documented loss in school performance when forced to move in the middle of a school year. Chidlren when they lose a parent also have a STRONG tendency to do worse in school, actual the adjective I would use is "do horribly", when they lose a parent.

I would agree. I would also say that It's six months in a housing area where space is always tight. Everywhere I've lived both growing up and in active duty, there is more often than not a squeeze on housing. If there was ample space I'm sure the DoD would let Families hang around for at least as long as a complete school year.

But there ain't.

Your comment about the food stamps and the E-1 with six kids is also false - you playing the old game of using an exaggerated case to make you point, and then to discredit the E-1 with two kids. Then you comment about the $250,000 life insurance.

In my 3+ years in the navy, I have only encountered a handful of sailors on foodstamps. Without fail, all of them were E-3 or below("E-nothing") and had multiple kids. Most were what could be charitibly called "****bags". These were the same guys, who, incidently, wouldn't get their wills done or powers of attorney before deployment.

Just because someone puts on a uniform doesn't mean they suddenly make much better life choices, far from it. Then, when they won't use protection during sex and knock-up their girlfriend/wife/self multiple times they get foodstamps. Or maybe they won't take advantage of mechanisms the DoD provides to reduce expenses, like cookery stuff(pots, pans, utensils) the Family service center provides to families starting out (if they get off their lazy butts and look it up).

Good God, man, that is nothing when it comes to raising a child, let alone two or three. It does not come CLOSE to replacing the deceased parent's future earning power, even at Walmart!!!

What did I say?

The SGLI isn't intended to pay off family, it's intended to help families who lost their primary caregiver some money to cover expenses while they get on their own two feet.

And since they cannot get extra insurance due to being deployed in a combat zone - you are making my point exactly about those who have not been in a fire zone, and suddenly thinking about what their loved ones will do if they die. Sitting safe on a ship let's you have the empathy of a stone when it comes to the chidlren whose parents die over there. This is macabre, me arguing this with someone on active deployment.

Hold on, which service is this that doesn't hammer, from boot camp on (Hell, during processing before boot camp) "we recommend you pay the nominal fee per paycheck so if you kick it your next of kin has money to help out when they get their house in order". Before we deployed we spend weeks every morning listening to people say: "Go get your will done. Go get your power of attorny done. These are services provided for free by the Navy." And everytime there is some moron (or three) that was just too lazy to do it. There are no jumping of hoops, there is no concealment on the part of the Navy about these bennies. And since the entire CENTCOM area (water and all) is considered a "combat zone" then, by your statement, we should have had some sort of restriction on getting insurance, right?

Or are you talking personal Insurance? I know Folks like USAA (which admittidly caters to the DoD) give life insurance policies to servicemen headed to war zones. Can't speak for any other agency though.

[Mr. Harley]

Patroklos - you tried, as in to get deployed in Iraq. The skill set horse hockey - my friend a fast track intel type deployed on nuke subs FYI, easily as speicalized a billet as most of you and he got the offer - only would apply if the person, gung ho (to keep the lexicon consistant) for the intervention in Iraq, was DENIED it due to their billet. You tried. You are not a hippocrit. Wrong, IMHO - but I will respect anyone who takes actions that are ethically consistant with their beliefs. If you hadn't tried, you would be a hippocrit, self-proclaimed by your words and deeds. Not on my **** list, but ethically on a self-made one.

Lonestar - hello. Short on housing, substandard housing, etc. That was wrong when you were a kid (I had a suspicion based on your hot button response) and it is wrong now. I repeat, unlike many of the whiners on both the left and the right - I DON'T PAY ENOUGH TAXES (implicit everyone, including me, get's an increase). Not if we want a first class military and school system, and given that no matter what both parties have shown they are inherently wasteful. In fact the new Repubs are showing themselves as more wasteful than the old Democrats (both are worse than your pre-Reagan Repubs).

Therefor, my premise still holds, and I repeat - it should be a national scandal. Oh, and on the subject of pay, and E1 makes $14,028 on average in the Army, inclusive of most bonuses. Since the food stamps net qualification is $1,306 per month (that is after deducting the cost of your housing) - guess what, an E1 with a wife and ONE child qualifies for food stamps.

Plus, if he is getting deployed, he'd better have that kid, because if he dies they aren't going to help his widow have any. So the pressure to have kids increases, not decreases, for those who are deployed into war zones. And funny enough - guess what - their wives (in the case of male soldiers since you cannot be a lesbian and out in the military) tend to get pregant when their husbands are sent on potentially lethal duty.

Now, I am trying hard not to be thoroughly unpleasant on this one, but before spouting all kinds of pseudo-statistics and strawmen of this idiot you watched, and that one, look at the f*cking regs on food stamps. You are doing in this area exactly what you accused fellow posters who don't understand some of the tech behind the anti-missile systems of doing - except you don't have the same excuse, you have the web and you have the ability to read regs.

As you add E-2 and E-3's, I can add a second child. So don't throw up another strawman. And this is what is so totally weird - I am FOR speding more money on base housing, and the children of those in the military, etc. and I WANT higher taxes to pay for it. Am I missing something here, or do you hold people who want a family early in life, and that every enlisted person deserves to make enough to have - OK, pick a number, one to however many kids without being in poverty.

Finally, and we seem to have a major disagreement here, and again I am puzzled - and remember my family has been through this, and yes he had all the maximums taken out for survivor benefits, he had the will and all that - the fact that the survivor benefits are only designed to "...if you kick it your next of kin has money to help out when they get their house in order".

First, it's LIFE INSURANCE. Life Insurance is supposed to be something you can get that will make up to some degree the lost earning potential of the deceased. In theory you are supposed to be able to take out enough to actually cover the death of a family's primary wage earner with no financial impact to the family. That's the idea. If instead it's a "lump sum so you can survive your transition to a single parent and poverty" amount, then that is criminal.

And if you looked at my posts, I have supported not only here but in other threads the idea that the survivor benefits in our military are crap. FYI I did this long before a family member got killed in the military, though I wasn't here on Apolyton. And we might, just might possibly, get maybe one or two extra recruits if they realized THEIR FAMILY WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF IF THEY DIE WHILE SERVING THEIR COUNTRY, not that the family would get enough money to "get them on their feet."

[Patroklos]

Therefor, my premise still holds, and I repeat - it should be a national scandal. Oh, and on the subject of pay, and E1 makes $14,028 on average in the Army, inclusive of most bonuses. Since the food stamps net qualification is $1,306 per month (that is after deducting the cost of your housing) - guess what, an E1 with a wife and ONE child qualifies for food stamps.

An E-1 with a wife makes $27,193.20 a year, just counting base pay and BAH. A good portion of them are getting other allowances such as flight deck pay.

Don't **** with the DISBO!

Plus, if he is getting deployed, he'd better have that kid, because if he dies they aren't going to help his widow have any.

Should we have a designated impregnator rating? Do you know what the odds are of you being killed in a deployment? Do you knock up your wife before driving to work everyday?

So the pressure to have kids increases, not decreases, for those who are deployed into war zones.

The truth is the exact opposite, as most don't want to leave their loved ones MORE helpless while they are gone. Not fun missing the birth of your child either.

And funny enough - guess what - their wives (in the case of male soldiers since you cannot be a lesbian and out in the military) tend to get pregant when their husbands are sent on potentially lethal duty.

Where are you getting this suff?

Now, I am trying hard not to be thoroughly unpleasant on this one, but before spouting all kinds of pseudo-statistics and strawmen of this idiot you watched, and that one, look at the f*cking regs on food stamps. You are doing in this area exactly what you accused fellow posters who don't understand some of the tech behind the anti-missile systems of doing - except you don't have the same excuse, you have the web and you have the ability to read regs.

There is nothing wrong with food stamps, except of course the stigma society puts on them, which is stupid. People wanting to buy my food for me

First, it's LIFE INSURANCE. Life Insurance is supposed to be something you can get that will make up to some degree the lost earning potential of the deceased. In theory you are supposed to be able to take out enough to actually cover the death of a family's primary wage earner with no financial impact to the family. That's the idea. If instead it's a "lump sum so you can survive your transition to a single parent and poverty" amount, then that is criminal.

It is $250,000!!! And what do you know, effective TODAY, there is now an option to up that to $450,000. And it is cheap as hell. And of course you can have whatever civilian life insurance you want. That is enough money to cover five years of my pay, and am not an E-1 but a LTJG. SGLI is an excellent plan, far superior to what is available to most civilians.

And then you get money from the so called "death benefits."

Don't take this as a flame against you Shawn

[Patroklos]

Patroklos - you tried, as in to get deployed in Iraq.

What I did, was come up on my normal rotation, take a look at the billets open, saw one in Iraq available, and put that as my number one choice. If my skills were not needed, I would not have done so because there would not have been a billet.

The skill set horse hockey - my friend a fast track intel type deployed on nuke subs FYI, easily as speicalized a billet as most of you and he got the offer
- only would apply if the person, gung ho (to keep the lexicon consistant) for the intervention in Iraq, was DENIED it due to their billet.

Sitting not two feet from me right now is a very **** hot DK2, a skillset not required in Iraq. His supports the war. There is no chance that he will ever get an opportunity to go to Iraq. However, he does a very important job because every DDG REQUIRES a DK2 for pay and travel.

You tried. You are not a hippocrit. Wrong, IMHO - but I will respect anyone who takes actions that are ethically consistant with their beliefs. If you hadn't tried, you would be a hippocrit, self-proclaimed by your words and deeds. Not on my **** list, but ethically on a self-made one.

I support drug and arms interdiction in the Carribean. I support the same off the Horn of Africa. I support the naval presence off NK and China. I support the worldwide base infrustructure that in turn supports our deployed troops. And I support Iraq.

All these things are important, but I can only to one at a time. Does that make me a hypocrite on all the others? Because BMSN Timmy is moving stores in Naples with a forklift make him a hypocrite when he supports Iraq, even though that job needs to be done?

Right now however, more than anything else, I support making sure that the crew of my fine warship gets all the pay, benefits, and allowances due to them because of their service, as well as making sure their quality of life is as high as possible through laundry, vending, babershop and ships store, while also standing my fair share of watches to ensure the ship is at its pique of combat readiness. This us my job, my responsibility, and because it is what the Navy needs me to do it is more important to me right now than every billet in Iraq.

[Mr. Harley]

Patroklos - none of the others have any near the rate of casualties. You DID NOT need to put in for the deployment on the ground in what is to all intents and purposes a war zone, even is "Major hostilities are ended." or however he phrased it.

Yes, you have a DK2 - my brother was career navy until he seperated his spine from his pelvis, a very nasty injury, catching a 300 pound patient by himself in the VA Hospital. I know how it works.

I will still repeat my statement. If one is"gung-ho", all worked up, actually, about like you, concerning a dangerous deployment, and then gets the opportunity to go on this deployement, and then does not (and you still do not respond to my point about the push to get people from the Air Force and Navy onto the ground in Iraq) that person is, very simply, a hippocrit.

Not IMHO. By definition. Not as bad as a chickenhawk, those are a paticularly offensive form of hippocrit. But, as long as the opportunity to at least attempt to volunteer is there, and that person does not attempt it,then they are a hippocrit. Now, you specifically are not by YOUR actions. That is why I respect you, even if I very definitely disagree with you.

However, I am not being a hippocrit. And as when I argued once with BK over doing volunteer work with the handicapped from birth, it's easy to preach without actually seeing what those families go through. Hippocracy can take many forms, and while I am not perfect, I try. You are trying, and while you may argue with me over it - you volunteered you schmuck. Now put up and admit you aren't a hippocrit.

Lonestar - you don't know how food stamps work - I'll explain later, look up the net part - it subtracts all those allowances, i.e. things like housing. Tha'ts why I told you net versus gross. And I had heard they were increasing the death benefit, and $450,000 is starting to resemble life insurance.

And where did I get my info? From the number of babies at our unit (our as in local) in it was either Fort Campbell, or Fort Know, that were waiting the them when they got back. Go to the Courier-Journal Web site and do a search on some of their articles, they will find it. They even had a curve showing how astronomically high the number of babies were - sorry guy the wartime baby boom, even if it's just local, is well documented time and time again. It's those fairwell f*cks.

edited because I somehow chopped off the last two paragraphs

[Kuciwalker]

I will still repeat my statement. If one is"gung-ho", all worked up, actually, about like you, concerning a dangerous deployment, and then gets the opportunity to go on this deployement, and then does not (and you still do not respond to my point about the push to get people from the Air Force and Navy onto the ground in Iraq) that person is, very simply, a hippocrit.

Then frankly, being a hypocrite is not anything inherently bad. Under your definition, hypocracy can easily be the best choice from a moral perspective (at least, a utilitarian one).

[Mr. Harley]

Hypocracy - I am so short on sleep and my copy of Word is on the fritz) - is inherently bad (and often it can be evil as well). It is almost never a good, and almost always a poor to bad choice from a moral perspective. And from a utilitarian standpoint - I believe Carl Rove subscribes to that definition of morality, if you care to call it that.

And further, you are just being obnoxious - because I know you are smarter than that. Look up hypocrit (don't trust my spelling ), and look up all the definitions. I somehow think you are going to find precious few with a positive spin on it.