Go to war have your credit ruined

[RetiredGySgt]

I know this is gonna be shocking, But i agree with edward, it is wrong to question the patriotism of anyone who simplies asks, challenges, or doesnt agree with the war, or any war, or a policy or any policy. Should democrats be able to call republicans racist for not supporting something, well everytime, one of us, calls the democrats a traitor or anti-american, for not agreeing with us, or supporting and issue or policy, we are acting badly. And acting badly should not be supported or tolerated, regardless of ones political beliefs. I think its a cheap shot, to call someone an anti-american, and/or traitor, unless they are actually doing so, and we can debate what that is, i think we need more common sense , and lets emotion on this issue of the iraq war, and to be frank, giving our soldiers a bill for anything, during any way is wrong. They signed up voluntarily, and they deserve a raise, free health care, and a better health care system then the va, Let me be clear, im not saying edward should use the language he used, but i can see how you provoked him, and how i might feel the same way as him, this is nothing personal, I have been guilty of calling people anti-american, and i admit, i was an asshole for that, and will never do it again, unless i can prove, someone is actually doing so, not just cause i feel they are.

Off on a wild tangent. This thread has nothing to do with any of that. It has been MILITARY practice for EVER to charge servicemembers for lost or damaged/destroyed equipment they were responsible for. FOREVER. Not suddenly just because Bush is President, not suddenly because of a war in Iraq. It was true in Vietnam as well and I believe it was true in Korea and WW2 as well.

Once again this article provides NO evidence that the military is charging anyone for things they did not damage.lose or destroy themselves. It has to many holes to know if thats what happened or not.

The claim the military should NOT charge personnel for causeing damage or loss to equipment that is THEIR fault is idiotic, and if it were true you would be here arguing the Government was WASTING taxpayers money by allowing it.

If evidence is provided that the Military is charging for things they should not, you will find I and Gunny L will be right there demanding they stop.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Just so you know, Im not saying your wrong, im simply saying, it should be a common sense issue. If a soldiers sells his equipment to get drunk, that is not right, but if he is being shot at and forgets something, i dont see that as fair, but youre right, common sense, not emotion, is the real way to solve the problem.

2 does not apply since the story has no real information on what and where the supposed equipment was lost or destroyed.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with you in this sense, if the damage is deliberate, then yes, I could see holding them accountable, as long as the damage, theft, blah blah is their fault, that is not an unreasonable thing. Our tax dollars are atleast a consideration, and we dont want soldiers being sloppy with our equipment, perhaps, this will be a deterent for soldiers to be negligent with their equipment.

Oh and also, I dont know what tm motive is for posting this article, but I would agree, alot of liberals will blame bush for this, which is unfair, since you mentioned that this policy has been going on forever, i.e. has nothing to do with bush, infact bush has pushed for raises for soldiers k.i.a. and those serving period.

What is your opinion of the v.a. system?

Off on a wild tangent. This thread has nothing to do with any of that. It has been MILITARY practice for EVER to charge servicemembers for lost or damaged/destroyed equipment they were responsible for. FOREVER. Not suddenly just because Bush is President, not suddenly because of a war in Iraq. It was true in Vietnam as well and I believe it was true in Korea and WW2 as well.

Once again this article provides NO evidence that the military is charging anyone for things they did not damage.lose or destroy themselves. It has to many holes to know if thats what happened or not.

The claim the military should NOT charge personnel for causeing damage or loss to equipment that is THEIR fault is idiotic, and if it were true you would be here arguing the Government was WASTING taxpayers money by allowing it.

If evidence is provided that the Military is charging for things they should not, you will find I and Gunny L will be right there demanding they stop.

 

[Edward]

2 does not apply since the story has no real information on what and where the supposed equipment was lost or destroyed.

Actually 2 does apply and your opinion that it doesn't doesn't matter. Prove it doesn't apply or shut the fuck up because no one is going to accept the opinion of ONE GUY (SpiderTuba's words in another thread) as fact. It still hold true that it isn't relevant how the equipment was lost. You don't charge soldiers who fight for their country for lost or destroyed equipment when they served their country and put their lives on the line for us. Now if the government can prove that the equipment was stolen than they should prosecute the current or former soldier for theft of government property but if the property was lost or destroyed in the performance of a soldiers duty you don't charge them. You can try to avoid this issue just like your kind in Congress routinely do. We see it all the time when retards like you instead of posting this shit to this message board speak it on the Senate and House floor. It is still retarded crap regardless of where it is spoken or written.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually 2 does apply and your opinion that it doesn't doesn't matter. Prove it doesn't apply or shut the fuck up because no one is going to accept the opinion of ONE GUY (SpiderTuba's words in another thread) as fact. It still hold true that it isn't relevant how the equipment was lost. You don't charge soldiers who fight for their country for lost or destroyed equipment when they served their country and put their lives on the line for us. Now if the government can prove that the equipment was stolen than they should prosecute the current or former soldier for theft of government property but if the property was lost or destroyed in the performance of a soldiers duty you don't charge them. You can try to avoid this issue just like your kind in Congress routinely do. We see it all the time when retards like you instead of posting this shit to this message board speak it on the Senate and House floor. It is still retarded crap regardless of where it is spoken or written.

The retard is you. The regulations already say you do not get charged for wear and tear nor for actions that were not your fault or out of your control. The policy is in effect to make soldiers take care of and safeguard the equipment in their care that they are responsible for.

IF in this case the military is charging for things beyond the members control then they are wrong. BUT that is a BIG IF, the article does NOT provide any evidence other than the claim by members they do not know anything.

Now to be clear, just for your ignorant ass, THE MILITARY has anal retentive assholes that DO charge for things they should not. BUT this article does NOT prove this is the case. In those cases the individual uses the SAME system that charged him to refute the charge and clear it up.

 

[Gunny]

Again, we have a difference of opinion here, and thats ok. I simply disagree with you calling anti-american or insinuating it. I think its fair for him or anyone of any political party to look at this or any issue and say do i agree or not first, not, well he is a liberal, so he is the enemy. I disagree with democrats on many things, but you know who is my main enemy first and foremost alqueda, both parties must stop name calling, especially when the names are not true, we need to take responsibility for our bad behavior, if we are going to point out others bad behaviour, and we need to stop excusing bad behaviour by pointing out others bad behavior.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Edward]

The retard is you. The regulations already say you do not get charged for wear and tear nor for actions that were not your fault or out of your control. The policy is in effect to make soldiers take care of and safeguard the equipment in their care that they are responsible for.

IF in this case the military is charging for things beyond the members control then they are wrong. BUT that is a BIG IF, the article does NOT provide any evidence other than the claim by members they do not know anything.

Now to be clear, just for your ignorant ass, THE MILITARY has anal retentive assholes that DO charge for things they should not. BUT this article does NOT prove this is the case. In those cases the individual uses the SAME system that charged him to refute the charge and clear it up.

It appears that the retard thinks he can call others retards. The policy is morally wrong. That is what is at issue here. I am not discussing whether the policy exists or what the policy is because that has already been addressed. Second, why the hell would the "individual" use the "same system that charged him" to "refute the charge and clear it up." That is the most idiotic claim you have made to date. In effect you are saying "if your former boss says you owe him money than you must use the company and its current employees to refute the charge and clear it up." Sorry, that isn't how it works except in your twisted mind.

 

[Gunny]

It appears that the retard thinks he can call others retards. The policy is morally wrong. That is what is at issue here. I am not discussing whether the policy exists or what the policy is because that has already been addressed. Second, why the hell would the "individual" use the "same system that charged him" to "refute the charge and clear it up." That is the most idiotic claim you have made to date. In effect you are saying "if your former boss says you owe him money than you must use the company and its current employees to refute the charge and clear it up." Sorry, that isn't how it works except in your twisted mind.

I disagree. The policy is not wrong, and morals has nothing to do with. Some people, as you continually point out, are just stupid as Hell. If you break something at work due to misuse or negligence, are you not held accountable?

That's all this is about. You can issue a private 200 pieces of gear one day, and he'll show up with 100 the next. Half the time it's at Saigon Sam's.

 

[Edward]

I disagree. The policy is not wrong, and morals has nothing to do with. Some people, as you continually point out, are just stupid as Hell. If you break something at work due to misuse or negligence, are you not held accountable?

That's all this is about. You can issue a private 200 pieces of gear one day, and he'll show up with 100 the next. Half the time it's at Saigon Sam's.

Like the news story states the Specialist in question served in the military over four years ago, was dishonorably discharged and his battalion dissolved. When asked the "Army never could tell us what piece of equipment Rodriquez was billed for, nor would they get rid of the debt." Instead their suggestion was "Call your Congressman." Forunately for this man his Senator is going to deal with the Army for him and provide the necessary constituent services to this man and his family. The army hasn't demonstrated that he broke any piece of equipment or that he broke any equipment due to misuse or negligence. If they did have proof of any of this than they would be able to provide it but they don't provide it. Instead, they think of themselves as a business and use our soldiers as property and consider them nothing more than employees and cannon fodder. There is a distinct difference between me breaking something at work and property being lost or damaged while a soldier is fighting for his country. I pay taxes for this kind of thing and unless they can demonstrate that he deliberatly stole or destroyed government property I pay taxes so he doesn't have to pay for damaged or lost property. You can try to avoid this but your support of this policy is also immoral but its to be expected from someone like you.

 

[CSM]

Like the news story states the Specialist in question served in the military over four years ago, was dishonorably discharged and his battalion dissolved. When asked the "Army never could tell us what piece of equipment Rodriquez was billed for, nor would they get rid of the debt." Instead their suggestion was "Call your Congressman." Forunately for this man his Senator is going to deal with the Army for him and provide the necessary constituent services to this man and his family. The army hasn't demonstrated that he broke any piece of equipment or that he broke any equipment due to misuse or negligence. If they did have proof of any of this than they would be able to provide it but they don't provide it. Instead, they think of themselves as a business and use our soldiers as property and consider them nothing more than employees and cannon fodder. There is a distinct difference between me breaking something at work and property being lost or damaged while a soldier is fighting for his country. I pay taxes for this kind of thing and unless they can demonstrate that he deliberatly stole or destroyed government property I pay taxes so he doesn't have to pay for damaged or lost property. You can try to avoid this but your support of this policy is also immoral but its to be expected from someone like you.

Pure unadulterated bullshit. By the time your individual taxes get distibuted, there isn't enough left to buy one soldier a canteen cup. Guess what, I pay taxes too and I want the soldier to pay for neglicence or abuse of his equipment.

 

[Edward]

Pure unadulterated bullshit. By the time your individual taxes get distibuted, there isn't enough left to buy one soldier a canteen cup. Guess what, I pay taxes too and I want the soldier to pay for neglicence or abuse of his equipment.

Guess what, you aren't the only one who pays taxes. You can call what I say bullshit but it is what you say that is bullshit since the Army still can't say what equipment he was charged for. In other words they are charging him for an unspecified piece of equipment. The soldier served his country and put his life on the line and is charged for the use of equipment issued to him by the government. Nothing in this news story shows that this man misused any equipment or was negligent or absued equipment. In fact, the news story demonstrates that the Army is charging him for an un-specified piece of equipment. They won't tell him, or news reporters what equipment he lost or damaged and yet he is expected to pay over $700.00 to the Army for equipment that he apparently lost or damaged and he can't even defend himself because he doesn't know what they claim he lost or damaged.

 

[CSM]

Guess what, you aren't the only one who pays taxes. You can call what I say bullshit but it is what you say that is bullshit since the Army still can't say what equipment he was charged for. In other words they are charging him for an unspecified piece of equipment. The soldier served his country and put his life on the line and is charged for the use of equipment issued to him by the government. Nothing in this news story shows that this man misused any equipment or was negligent or absued equipment. In fact, the news story demonstrates that the Army is charging him for an un-specified piece of equipment. They won't tell him, or news reporters what equipment he lost or damaged and yet he is expected to pay over $700.00 to the Army for equipment that he apparently lost or damaged and he can't even defend himself because he doesn't know what they claim he lost or damaged.

I had forgotten how childish you are...thanks for reminding me in your first sentence.

Since you know absolutley nothing about the Army or how they operate, there is no point in discussing this with you. No go outside and play with the other children. Make sure you go potty first; you wouldn't want to have an accident!

 

[Edward]

I had forgotten how childish you are...thanks for reminding me in your first sentence.

Since you know absolutley nothing about the Army or how they operate, there is no point in discussing this with you. No go outside and play with the other children. Make sure you go potty first; you wouldn't want to have an accident!

I know enough to know that the Soldier's advocate in the news story is right and that you are wrong. That you pay taxes means nothing since you aren't the only one who pays taxes. This soldier is correct in claiming that his being charged for the loss or damage of un-specified piece of equipment is wrong. I also know how the Army operates and have read major portions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is readily available and since we live in a country where people have the right to draw their own conclusions and to consider all the facts and arrive at their own conclusions I think I can and will base my position on what has been said by credible sources instead of by a wannabe military expert on this board when in reality you are probably just a loser who happened to serve in the military and wants to take advantage of that fact to make yourelf some sort of expert on the military and how they operate. I am more than happy to point out that the military is made up of individuals and that they have no more a right to speak on military matters than do civilians who control this country regardless of what you think. This is why when you compare the statements of this soldier, the soldier advocate, the army and a U.S. Senator it is safe to conclude that the policy is incorrect and immoral but since you can't prove otherwise I think you are just being a chicken and trying to avoid the issue. So feel free to call me childish because it only demonstrates that you are retarded and that 100% of the people you vote for have to be of the same low mental caliber.

 

[The Man @ Lunch]

Pure unadulterated bullshit. By the time your individual taxes get distibuted, there isn't enough left to buy one soldier a canteen cup. Guess what, I pay taxes too and I want the soldier to pay for neglicence or abuse of his equipment.

Your attitude reminds me of the Chinese death penalty system. Shoot the convict and send the bill for the bullet to his family.

 

[CSM]

Your attitude reminds me of the Chinese death penalty system. Shoot the convict and send the bill for the bullet to his family.

Yeah I like that philosophy.

 

[Mr. P]

Yeah I like that philosophy.

HoooRahhhhh!!

 

[CSM]

I know enough to know that the Soldier's advocate in the news story is right and that you are wrong. Bullshit...you think you know but you don't. That you pay taxes means nothing since you aren't the only one who pays taxes. That was exactly my point. Just because you pay taxes doesn't mean what you think means a damn thing. This soldier is correct in claiming that his being charged for the loss or damage of un-specified piece of equipment is wrong. Why? Because he says so? I also know how the Army operates... more bullshit...you have no idea because if you did you woldn't even be discussing this... and have read major portions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ... ah, that makes you an expert! so tell me, which part of UCMJ covers loss of property? which is readily available and since we live in a country where people have the right to draw their own conclusions and to consider all the facts and arrive at their own conclusions I think I can and will base my position on what has been said by credible sources Care to tell me what makes them "credible"? I suspect its because you say so. instead of by a wannabe military expert on this board when in reality you are probably just a loser who happened to serve in the military yeah...that just happened... so how long did you serve?...and wants to take advantage of that fact to make yourelf some sort of expert on the military... naw... why should thirty years of experience hold anny weight in this discussion? and how they operate. ! You make no sense at all. I am more than happy to point out that the military is made up of individuals and that they have no more a right to speak on military matters than do civilians who control this country regardless of what you think. YOU are truly an idiot. This is why when you compare the statements of this soldier, the soldier advocate, the army and a U.S. Senator it is safe to conclude that the policy is incorrect and immoral but since you can't prove otherwise I think you are just being a chicken and trying to avoid the issue. Nope...just dont think you are worth the time or effort...as this post proves...So feel free to call me childish because it only demonstrates that you are retarded and that 100% of the people you vote for have to be of the same low mental caliber. That's what calling you childish proves? Some logic you have there

You are one piece of work....

 

[Mr. P]

You are one piece of work....

..and a waste of time, his posts prove it.

 

[Gunny]

You are an idiot. Let me put it this way for you: LET'S HOLD THOSE WHOSE HEADS COULD HAVE BEEN BLOWN OFF WHILE FIGHTING FOR THEIR COUNTRY ACCOUNTABLE FOR DESTRUCTION OF GOV'T PROPERTY DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OR MISUSE.

This has everything to do with supporting the troops and I am outraged that you would suggest otherwise you piece of shit. It is no wonder that they receive these bills because people like you send them. Whose next? Will you send someone who lost their legs in Iraq a bill for their negiligence in the destruction of Gov't property. They joined the military to defend their country only to be stabbed in the back by pieces of shit like you. It doesn't shock me that evil bastards like you are also in the military because they can be found anywhere. I suggest you take your damn head out of your ass motherfucker and get a damn clue. How dare you try to make this into an issue of you sick bastards not betraying our soldiers and negilgence on the part of our brave men and women in uniform. How dare you suggest that you aren't a traitor for choosing to betray them as you have. You dare to suggest that our troops should pay for something that was lost or destroyed in their fighting a war that they often had no say in. It is people like you who should get a bill from these soldiers and their families for their sacrifices. May God damn your kind to hell where you belong.

I'm an idiot because you don't agree with me? Dude, I don't need a lesson from you on why people join the military. I'm retired from it.

How dare you try to make this an issue other than what it is? Accountability for one's actions. Don't give me that slanted, feigned indignation bullshit.

When I was charged for lost equipment I paid the bill without whining about it. Where were YOU to politicize it for me?

The fact is, you've just done another exemplary job of proving yourself a fool. Go get som regs and read up on the topic and get back to me. There is nothing political about the issue, nor statement. The only ones trying to politicize it are you and that imbecile left-wingnut truthDOESN'Tmatter.

 

[Gunny]

Your attitude reminds me of the Chinese death penalty system. Shoot the convict and send the bill for the bullet to his family.

For someone who knows nothing about the miltiary, you sure like to shoot your mouth off about it a lot.