Although Republicans support spending a lot of money of expensive new weapons programs, it is the democrats who increase the salaries paid to enlisted people, who make sure that enlisted people get medical care, and who support educational programs for veterans.

Also, Republicans have tendency to start unnecessary wars that put military personnel in harms way.
I was in the military and I’ve paid attention to what happens in congress. Republicans support the military industrial complex and democrats support the troops.
The question is why do so many enlisted people believe that Repubicans support them.
Most of the military pork that Republicans support goes to the wealthy elite not to soldiers or sailors.
I can see reasons why officers would support republicans: (1) they are thinking about getting a cushy consulting job; and (2) officers tend to think of themselves as aristocrats.
When Clinton cut back on excessive military bases, it did not negatively affect the enlisted people. Republicans would rather spend on star wars defensive systems that never be used than on body armor for soldiers.
I’m not preaching, I’m asking a question. It is a question I’ve been puzzled over for quite some time. It didn’t even bother people that Bush and Cheney were both draft dodgers.
American: that rich people had legal ways of draft dodging doensn’t make it any better. Using your connections to avoid serving isn’t morally superior to moving to Canada.

Share This

We keep spending more on high tech weapons when it is clear that in guerrilla warfare,the only type of war any country would wage against the U.S,. demands boots on the ground. The most effective weapons of the Iraq and Iran wars are rifles, rocket propelled grenades, and IEDs not submarines, tactical fighter aircraft, aircraft carriers, and predator drones.

I fear that the military and our wars are just being used as a conduit to funnel government money to the richest people in the world while attempting to minimize the amount given to real American Heroes.

Still, every time I go through the check out stands at PX the headlines on the Army, Navy times are always that more sailors and soldiers are getting the axe.

Share This

Alot of technology has been out to make soldiers job’s easier and safer. You see it alot on future weapons but also on other news channels. New shorter, lighter, deadlier rifles, new backpack plastic frames that way half the weight of our current ruck sack. And can carry 3 times as much. Tires for strykers that cannot be destroyed, ruined, etc. Jets that are completly invisible to our enemies latest techonlogy. Boots that make you feel like your walking, running on nothing. Yet stronger then our current combat boots. Bullet proof vest that weigh no where near the weight of our current vest. And also cover all the vitals from any type of enemy round. The current vest weighs 60 pounds WITHOUT the metal plates. Figure in the plates it weighs well over 100 pounds. And it just covers the chest. Your sides are comepletly open (your lungs, kidneys can easily be hit). Everything I have been mentioning has been tested, tested, and tested, for years now. We have some brilliant scientist and engineers and yet our military keep denying them. WHY? Yes I am in the army. The weight for an infantry soldier is out ragous. No wonder we end up with sever back problems. Imagine all the lives we could be saving if the DOD started buying all these new safer more lethal gear. Even the f-22 raptor is being phased out cause its "too expensive". It really seems like the military and politicans care more about saving money then saving lives. Am I right or wrong? Please someone explain to me why? My re-enlistment is coming up and I’m really serious about not re-enlisting becasue it just seems like the government really does not give a damn about us soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen anymore.

Share This

Prior to and through the Eighteenth Century, predominate usage of the expression "bear arms" exclusively referred to the profession of military service, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians[3][4][5].

"In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. . . . As a review of the Library of Congress’s data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of ‘bear arms’ and ‘bearing arms’ in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States’ Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia.[3]"

As an example, the expression ‘bear arms’ is contained in the United States Declaration of Independence in the sense of ‘military service’ on a warship, as part of an indictment of the King of Great Britain for conscripting Colonial sailors to serve on British warships.
im not saying that people in the military can have guns but that the term right to bear arms literally meant to have and serve in an army not have your own gun to shoot who you please

Share This

A Somali pirate spots a luxury yacht and discovers that it is perfect to hijack.

As they get closer… all hell breaks loose when the luxury yacht sailors arm themselves with AK-47s, rocket launchers, missile launchers.

Isn’t this the perfect way to stomp some pirate skulls? send in bait to lure the Somali pirates then secretly have the military close by and BAM SURPRISE ATTACK.

Share This