100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
If you live in post, you get no extra money. Your BAH goes directly into your housing payment or whatever. Only way you make money is if you move off of post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a long process???? in michigan thats im possible, they give u a free rifle at the bank just for opening an account Stop watching farenheight 9/11 hand gun laws differ from rifle laws |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very true, damn single guys getting the shaft
 Of course I was always picking the joes that were on guard and didnt pull it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should rank be automatic?
|
|
Some are lucky enough to fast track, and are great soldiers. Buddy of mine made E7 in 9 years, another made E5 in 2 1/2 or so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should rank be automatic?
|
|
No Bro. Bnoc is for e-6 You go to Beer-noc as a 6, but you cant get your 6 until you have pldc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should rank be automatic?
|
|
E4 and then RCP out if they do not show they deserve the rank of E5. E4 RCP is 9 or 10 years though PLDC (aka: WLC), is a requirement for E6. Don't need it for E5 You do not need pldc (primary leadership development course) for E5 sergeant anymore? IS this the Army we're talking about? rcp used to be E1-E3 6 years and E4 10 years, with a severance check if you were discharged due to it. Required for E6. I went as a 4, know plenty that went after they had their E5(P) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should rank be automatic?
Edited by
Redhat11
on
Tue 01/22/08 10:23 PM
|
|
E4 and then RCP out if they do not show they deserve the rank of E5. E4 RCP is 9 or 10 years though PLDC (aka: WLC), is a requirement for E6. Don't need it for E5 edit: whoops, read it wrong. Thought you meant it was needed for E5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should rank be automatic?
|
|
I don't let the automatic ranking up to E4. I had waivers for promotions before my TIS. I think theres a limit on how many you can get nowadays though. But, I saw several people get their TIS, but didnt get promoted due to them being turds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Anyone
|
|
www.addictinggames.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
marriage in the military
|
|
however the argument used, is that the lower ranks (the line differs with each person) should not be married and with kids as they do not make enough to truly support a family, and bs along those lines. It is thought that (generally speaking) anyone under the rank of E6 (for the army) is not capable of being responsible enough to raise a family along with doing what they have to do for the military. As bad as it sounds, i've seen it happen before. E4's in debt thousands of dollars cause they have a wife and child and only make $1500 a month before taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
marriage in the military
|
|
I don't think that. Only thing that always bothered me were my soldiers (specifically 18yr olds), were always getting married to the first thing they saw, and caused a lot of problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should a soldier.......
|
|
And yes I agree that the geneva convention is only loosely followed at times. However look at the recent history of top military leadership in iraq and what not. A couple years ago it seemed that every other day someone new was being brought up on war crimes or crimes against the geneva convention. Gunatanamo Bay is one example, where the prisoners were being mistreated so grossly. People WERE being prosecuted for such heinous acts. True, but I was refering to the on the ground, in the middle of a firefight aspects. Sorry if I didnt clarify. Yes, those people in guantanamo bay and abhu ghraib are getting cracked down on. But people I know shooting a .50 cal or a mark 19 at a person don't get prosecuted. In the midst of a firefight, no one cares thinks about those kinds of rules, as long as you and your platoon/squad/section/company all survive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should a soldier.......
|
|
:quote:"It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering." We drop bombs all over a city. :/quote: A bomb is NOT dropped over a city to take out just one or two military involved people. Before the order to bomb is given, it has to be decided what the actual cost (death of enemy fighters versus innocent civilians) will be. Let's say there are 1000 people in city alpha. And it is thought that 100 or them are actively working against the us. No the order will not be given to bomb as there will be too high a number of civilian (and innocent) caasualties versus those of enemy personnel. Now lets say that out of 1000, it is believed that 700 of them are militaristic against us. Hell yes it is going to be strongly considered to bomb that city. Okay, then thats 300 non-combatants that will die. I'm pretty sure 1 non-combatant is a "unnececssary loss" That right there is where you have to stop and ask yourself though if you are thinking of being a soldier... "Can I accept that there WILL be innocent lives lost during a war no matter what I do to prevent it?" The sad fact is that there is no way possible to prevent all collaterall damage. The best you can do is to minimalize it to hte lowest amount possible. If you refuse to do soemthing because there is the possibility of one innocent death, then you might as well just lay down and let them do what they want any way. I'm not protesting anything, just stating several rules in the geneva conventions are loosely followed. ROE changes (well, used to) on a daily bases. One day it would be to only engage if you're being engaged. Next day it's "shoot anyone wearing all black" or whatever outfit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should a soldier.......
|
|
Too bad in real life you would still be prosecuted for not folowing the geneva convention, lol Never seen it happen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should a soldier.......
|
|
:quote:"It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering." We drop bombs all over a city. :/quote: A bomb is NOT dropped over a city to take out just one or two military involved people. Before the order to bomb is given, it has to be decided what the actual cost (death of enemy fighters versus innocent civilians) will be. Let's say there are 1000 people in city alpha. And it is thought that 100 or them are actively working against the us. No the order will not be given to bomb as there will be too high a number of civilian (and innocent) caasualties versus those of enemy personnel. Now lets say that out of 1000, it is believed that 700 of them are militaristic against us. Hell yes it is going to be strongly considered to bomb that city. Okay, then thats 300 non-combatants that will die. I'm pretty sure 1 non-combatant is a "unnececssary loss" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should a soldier.......
|
|
If caught doing something against the Geneva conventions, they can suffer worse consequenses for those actions. Those "rules" are loosely followed But as it was stated, if you get caught not following those conventions to the letter, you WILL suffer more hardship and punishment than not. And yes, there is such a thing as an unlawful order. You can not legally give the order to ignore the geneva convention. You also can not legally give certain other orders, such as to kill all non military personell even if they have thrown down their weapons and are lying on the ground with hteir hands on their head (obviously giving up). A soldier CAN refuse to follow such an order. Yes they will probably end up in a court martial cause the person giving the order will not garee that it was unlawful, lol, but you will not be punished or reprimanded or anything if you can show that it was an unlawful order. Yeah but if someone had just blown up your friend then dropped their weapon and started to rau away, 99% of the time you would shoot them without thinking about it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should a soldier.......
|
|
There are always loop holes to the rules, you stating what you did reminded me of things I have been told in the past from people I knew serving over there. One told me that there is always a way around the "rules". I had forgotten that. Like how a .50 cal machine gun isn't supposed to be used against people, so you say you were aiming at their "equipment"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should a soldier.......
Edited by
Redhat11
on
Tue 01/22/08 09:15 PM
|
|
In reference to the geneva conventions:
"It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering." We drop bombs all over a city. "It is forbidden to kill or wound an adversary who surrenders or who can no longer take part in the fighting" Definately not followed often |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should a soldier.......
|
|
If caught doing something against the Geneva conventions, they can suffer worse consequenses for those actions. Those "rules" are loosely followed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should a soldier.......
|
|
The person that is giving the order is in that position for a reason. Just do what you're told, easiest job ever. If I told someone to engage a enemy and they refused, they are endangering myself and everyone else there
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
