[Rhodes22-list] Political:Off to Iraq

[Joseph Hadzima]

Reminds me of a song ... 

o/~
You're in the Army Now, 
You're not behind a plow, 
You'll NEVER GET RICH BY DIGGING A DITCH
You're in the Army now 
o/~

BTW, Parlamentry Government I believe is still considered a
form of "democratic system of govenment", along with  the
Roman, and USA republics.


--- Hank <hnw555 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bill,
> 
> I stand corrected that Al Nouri was elected.  I had
> forgotten that he was
> appointed by their legislators.
> 
> Your entire theory on enlistments is based upon the fact
> that you cannot
> believe that anyone would be in the military for any
> reason other than
> money.  That is simply not true.  NOBODY is in the
> military for the money.
> It just doesn't pay that well.
> 
> The military.com article on Bonuses is baseed upon
> congressional law.  It
> doesn't take into account that all of the services have
> choosen not to
> implement bonuses to the $90K level.  Special Forces
> soldiers can be
> eligible for maybe one bonus in their career as you
> cannot join the special
> forces until you have reached the rank of at least E-4
> (approx. 2 years) and
> after a 6 year enlistment you will have reached a length
> of service where
> you no longer qualify for bonuses.
> 
> Why do you insist on ignoring the facts presented to you
> by both present and
> past members of the military (Phillip and I), rather than
> believing
> something you read on an unofficial, commercial website
> (military.com).
> 
> Hank
> 
> On 10/25/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hank,
> >
> > Visit
> >
> >
>
http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/enlistment-and-reenlistment-bonuses
> >
> > Again, I just don't have time to chase down all the
> facts on matters of
> > little concern to me.
> >
> > These bonuses are being offered because the Army found
> it could not fill
> > its ranks without them.  They also lowered their
> standards.
> >
> > Special forces guys are being offered more. 
> Outsourcing the military
> > has become very expensive.  If we don't match the pay
> offered by outside
> > contractors, people just take off their uniforms and do
> the same jobs
> > for much greater pay.  I understand that truck drivers
> can earn
> > $75,000-$100,000 if they simply put their lives on the
> line for private
> > contractors.  We have more than 20,000 employees of
> private contractors
> > in Iraq right now.  The private contractors are having
> no trouble making
> > their enlistment quotas.
> >
> > We have upped the ante by re-interpreting the Geneva
> Convention.
> > According to our new rules, these people now can be
> classified as "Enemy
> > Combatants" by our enemies and tortured or killed in
> any way we haven't
> > already thought of and specifically prohibited.
> >
> > Bill Effros
> >
> > Hank wrote:
> > > Bill, you do have that wrong.  People are signing up
> because they
> > > believe in
> > > this cause, whether or not you want to believe it. 
> The largest
> > > enlistment
> > > bonuses are, I think, somewhere in the $30,000 range
> and they go to the
> > > hardest jobs to fill, Military Intelligence,
> Translators, etc.  Grunts
> > > get
> > > little or no bonuses as they are much easier to fill.
>  As Phillip said,
> > > bonuses only go to troops in the 1st or 2nd
> re-enlistment.  In my 20
> > > years,
> > > I never received a bonus, as I was not in an "in
> demand" career field.
> > >
> > > Hank
> > >
> > > On 10/25/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hank,
> > >>
> > >> Philip said people who complain about casualties
> can't explain
> > >> reenlistment rates.  I said that signing bonuses
> explain reenlistment
> > >> rates.
> > >>
> > >> I infer from your note that Philip is an officer and
> received a
> > "signing
> > >> bonus" or some other military euphemism for "huge
> amount of money paid
> > >> to induce people to risk their lives".  It is my
> understanding that
> > some
> > >> of these payments are in excess of $100,000.  Do I
> have that wrong?
> > >>
> > >> Bill Effros
> > >>
> > >> Hank wrote:
> > >> > Bill,
> > >> >
> > >> > Once again, you spoke with thinking or checking
> your facts.  Officers
> > >> > do not
> > >> > re-enlist.  Re-enlistment bonuses are only paid to
> enlisted.  Some
> > >> > Officers
> > >> > in certain specialties such as Doctors and
> Dentists get yearly
> > bonuses
> > >> > but
> > >> > this is because of their extensive training and
> desparity with pay in
> > >> the
> > >> > civilian sector.
> > >> >
> > >> > Hank
> > >> >
> > >> > On 10/25/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Brad,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> As Philip well knows, the Army is paying huge
> reenlistment
> > >> bonuses.  In
> > >> >> fact, I believe Philip was one of the recipients.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I have no problem with that, but let's not
> confuse a mercenary army
> > >> with
> > >> >> a patriotic army.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Bill Effros
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 3drecon at comcast.net wrote:
> > >> >> > Brad,
> > >> >> >     The point Ron made about the soldier
> casualties is a common
> > >> >> complaint.  What they cannot explain is why the
> reenlistment and
> > >> >> extension
> > >> >> rate is higher for those who have gone to the
> "sandbox" than in the
> > >> >> general
> > >> >> population.  Everyone, (I say again) Everyone, in
> the military
> > to-day
> > >> >> is a
> > >> >> volunteer.  No one, at this point in time, can
> say they didn't
> > expect
> > >> >> to go
> > >> >> to war (that might have been an argument in 2001
> but not now, an
> > >> >> argument
> > >> >> for which I have little sympathy.  The military
> is not here for
> > >> social
> > >> >> benefit but for fighting).
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > LTC Philip Esteban
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > >> >> > From: "Brad Haslett" <flybrad at gmail.com>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Common leftest screed (thank-you Bill) , I've
> read your post
> > twice
> > >> >> Ron
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> >> still can't find any new ideas.
> > >> >> >>
> 
=== message truncated ===