Back From Iraq... And Suddenly Out On The Streets

[CSM]

My opinion is not based on any "FEAR campaign" or other rhetoric of the talking points you fell for.

I clearly presented a case in which every single one of your ideas had been tried and failed, how they failed, and why they still won't work. Yet you still intend to keep on with the same failed tactics.

Embargo didn't work in Iraq, Saddam stole the money he was supposed to use to feed his people and millions died, he used the money to buy influence with our "allies" in order to end the embargo and just months before the 9/11 attack they had begun aguing for just that. At that point the Deulfer report says Saddam would have begun his WMD schedule in earnest and unfettered by the UN whom he had bought with the money to pay for FOOD.

Embargo didn't work in Cuba, and it won't either.

Negotiation didn't work in NK, they simply took our food and money, which they agreed to take in payment for ending their Nuke Weapons program, and used it to feed the scientists and pay for the technology to get Nuclear Weapons all under UN Inspector's noses whom they kicked out one week before announcing that they were now a Nuclear Power.

Every single one of your ideas to "avoid" the war have been tried and failed, we must stop being naive and use a much more effective means of change.

Truthfully, Sagegirl is correct. Those methods MUST be tried before committing troops. They must be tried with the knowledge that they may not work and those negotiations need to be executed with some backing and positions of power. If not, they will surely fail.

 

[CSM]

Agreed, but we can't become afraid to commit the troops. Iraq by many was a claim of not exhausting all methods of diplomacy and what not, how many sanctions and such must one impose before we realize that it's just not working?

No argument from me...that is why I said such negotiations have to be made from a position of power. If you cannot or will not back up your negotiating position, then you are just blowing hot air.

 

[no1tovote4]

Truthfully, Sagegirl is correct. Those methods MUST be tried before committing troops. They must be tried with the knowledge that they may not work and those negotiations need to be executed with some backing and positions of power. If not, they will surely fail.

My point was they had been tried and they had not worked.

In this case in particular and in many other instances as well. I do not know of even one time in which an embargo successfully changed anything.

 

[freeandfun1]

Okay, when I got out, just after Persian Gulf War I, they gave me access to a database of jobs that isn't available to those who are not Vets. There are councillors that talk to you before you go, it is part of your outprocessing that you must visit them, they give you addresses and insure that you have a place to actually go.

That this guy didn't listen or take advantage of these things is foolish, that he would attempt to blame the military for his troubles afterward is beyond the pale.

I forget what the service was called, but that is how I got my first job when I got out after the Persian Gulf War. My unit had to allow me to attend transition classes, etc. that taught me how to write a resume, how to act in job interviews, etc. And like you, I used the database to find a job. A matter-of-fact, I have hired people by posting in that same database since I got out.

 

[freeandfun1]

know how he feels. not due to the military, but the old x wife. came back from korea with the clothes on my back and a duffle bag. and that was it!

Just curious.... when and where did you serve in Korea? Spent three years there myself in 2ID.

 

[Johnney]

Just curious.... when and where did you serve in Korea? Spent three years there myself in 2ID.

cp humphreys 557th mp co in pyongtek 96
and the 57th mp co in waegon in 99. cant remember the cp. Darin was there too.

 

[sagegirl]

My opinion is not based on any "FEAR campaign" or other rhetoric of the talking points you fell for.

I clearly presented a case in which every single one of your ideas had been tried and failed, how they failed, and why they still won't work. Yet you still intend to keep on with the same failed tactics.

Embargo didn't work in Iraq, Saddam stole the money he was supposed to use to feed his people and millions died, he used the money to buy influence with our "allies" in order to end the embargo and just months before the 9/11 attack they had begun aguing for just that. At that point the Deulfer report says Saddam would have begun his WMD schedule in earnest and unfettered by the UN whom he had bought with the money to pay for FOOD.

Embargo didn't work in Cuba, and it won't either.

Negotiation didn't work in NK, they simply took our food and money, which they agreed to take in payment for ending their Nuke Weapons program, and used it to feed the scientists and pay for the technology to get Nuclear Weapons all under UN Inspector's noses whom they kicked out one week before announcing that they were now a Nuclear Power.

Every single one of your ideas to "avoid" the war have been tried and failed, we must stop being naive and use a much more effective means of change.

I am not talking about nice humanitarian embargoes, I would include no terms.....not food for oil , not food and medical relief ....nothing. Completely cut them off and make them suffer. The locals will rise up in revolt and we can consider taking sides (and would probably be much better accepted )once the general population had suffered the ill effects of the embargo.
I think that some of our problem in iraq is that there were wide portions of the society that were not suffereing directly and thus saw our occupation as a major disruption to their way of life. Of course for those who were being murdered and imprisoned no time would have been soon enough....just remember we provided saddam with chemicals and weapons and money when he was considerd our friend.
Sadam was never really our friend or ally, and was able to live lavishly while playing a game of power and corruption without any rules.
More to the point is that we have obsessed on saddam and have not and will not rid the world of terrorists. Wisdom and even handedness will get us much further along in the world today than our military might. Yes we do have to defend ourselves from those who intend to harm us. We must be vigilant and we must know who is the enemy and when to fight.

 

[Johnney]

I forget what the service was called, but that is how I got my first job when I got out after the Persian Gulf War. My unit had to allow me to attend transition classes, etc. that taught me how to write a resume, how to act in job interviews, etc. And like you, I used the database to find a job. A matter-of-fact, I have hired people by posting in that same database since I got out.

that was like ACAP or soemthing like that

 

[CSM]

IMore to the point is that we have obsessed on saddam and have not and will not rid the world of terrorists. Wisdom and even handedness will get us much further along in the world today than our military might. Yes we do have to defend ourselves from those who intend to harm us. We must be vigilant and we must know who is the enemy and when to fight.

I doubt that the world will ever be rid of terrorists no matter who the big dog happens to be. Wisdom and even handedness is only good as long as you have the military might to back it up; what you perceive as wisdom is likely to be perceived as folly by another and you can be sure that no matter how even handed you try to be, there will be those who think you are not only unfair but even prejudiced in your dealings. Unfortunately we do not live in a utopian world.

 

[no1tovote4]

....just remember we provided saddam with chemicals and weapons and money when he was considerd our friend.
Sadam was never really our friend or ally, and was able to live lavishly while playing a game of power and corruption without any rules.
More to the point is that we have obsessed on saddam and have not and will not rid the world of terrorists. Wisdom and even handedness will get us much further along in the world today than our military might. Yes we do have to defend ourselves from those who intend to harm us. We must be vigilant and we must know who is the enemy and when to fight.

Before food for Oil came about this was exactly that type of embargo, however it was seen that millions were dying because they had no access to medicine so they changed it. He used the change to corrupt it and was extremely successful. Nobody was rising up against Saddam, nor would they, because of the power he had in comparison made it so that no amount of rising up would likely be successful.

The whole weapons issue is interesting, I read an article somewhere that proved that we had "given" Saddam about a total of 1% of his weapons, about 80% had come from Russia, France and Germany, the rest from other resources. Also Chemical weapons are very time limited and none of the weapons we had sold him in the Late 70s and Early 80s would have even the slightest chance of being effective.

 

[Merlin1047]

To get back on the original topic - here's the problem as I see it. Some people, like your's truly, are fortunate to have military careers which produce skills that are marketable in the civilian world.

But there are many others no so lucky. Take the kid who enters the service right after high school. Assume he trains as an infantryman, or a paratrooper, a Green Beret, an artilleryman or a tank driver. Not much call for these folks in the civilian market where blowing things up and killing people is not considered a marketable skill - unless you're applying with the mafia.

So perhaps the armed services might consider some training program which gives people like these the chance to train in the career field of their choice while still on the military payroll. It wouldn't have to be all that long - say one year maximum. And the military would not have to be responsible for conducting the program - that could be handed off to universities and trade schools. Not only would such a program benefit vets who find themselves suddenly separated from the service, but from a recruiting viewpoint, it would also make otherwise less desirable military specialties easier to fill.

Vets from WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam had the GI bill to help them through school. The following is what is available now:
============================================
http://www.gibill.va.gov/education/GI_Bill.htm

Description of Current Programs

38 U.S.C. Chapter 32, Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP)

VEAP was the first GI Bill program which required a contribution by the service member. It was available to people who entered on active duty between December 31, 1976, and July 1, 1985. These service members could volunteer to contribute between $25 and $100 a month which would be matched on a 2-for-1 basis by the government. Total contribution by the service person could be no more than $2700, but DOD could make additional contributions, or "kickers", into the fund on behalf of individuals in critical military fields to encourage enlistment or reenlistment in the Armed Forces. In 1996, Public Law 104-275 provided that certain VEAP participants who were on active duty on October 9, 1996, could elect MGIB. The deadline for this election was October 8, 1997. 41,041 veterans and servicepersons took advantage of this opportunity to elect MGIB. Here is a summary of the main features of VEAP:

First entered on active duty after December 31, 1976 and before July 1, 1985
Contributed to VEAP while on active duty and before April 1, 1987
Maximum contribution of $2700
Government matches $2 for $1
Maximum entitlement is 36 months
Must be used within ten years of discharge from the service
Refunds of unused contributions available
Additional "kickers" from DOD
Current full-time VEAP rate is $300 per month plus any DOD "kicker"
38 U.S.C. Chapter 30, Montgomery G. I. Bill - Active Duty Educational Assistance Program (MGIB)

MGIB is the education program for individuals initially entering active duty after June 30, 1985. Payments for MGIB benefits currently represent 78 percent of the total VA educational assistance payments. MGIB was enacted not only to help with the readjustment of discharged service members, but also to support the concept of an all volunteer armed force. With this in mind, a provision was made to allow certain veterans with remaining entitlement under the Vietnam Era GI Bill, to qualify for MGIB benefits if they continued their active duty.

MGIB is available to honorably discharged veterans and to service-members. Although there are a number of categories of eligibles, generally, veterans must:

meet their basic service requirement,
have completed their high school education or its equivalent, and
receive an honorable discharge.
MGIB is a contributory program. Service pay is automatically reduced by $100 per month for 12 months unless the service person declines to participate at the time of enlistment. Individuals on active duty must complete a minimum of two years of continuous active duty to be eligible. Qualified service members with remaining Vietnam Era entitlement are exempt from the pay reduction requirement.

The MGIB benefit rate varies depending on active service and Selected Reserve obligation.

MGIB has proven to be extremely popular among young people enlisting in the services. 94.8 percent of those who enlisted in service in Fiscal Year 1996 enrolled in the program. 75.7 percent of all enlistees since the inception of the program have enrolled.

The following briefly summarizes major MGIB provisions:

Served on active duty after June 30, 1985.
Must fulfill one's basic service obligation.
Must have completed high school.
Received an honorable discharge.
Maximum entitlement is 36 months.
Additional "kicker" as determined by DOD.
Generally must use benefits within 10 years following discharge.


10 U.S.C. Chapter 1606, Montgomery G. I. Bill - Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Program (MGIB-SR)
=======================================

The problem with this bill is that is requires contribution by the service member. That means the lower ranking enlisted people are unable to afford any substantial contribution, if any. But quite often they're the folks who get the worst duty and the most undesirable jobs.

I think the Montgomery bill needs to be changed so that everyone coming out gets the same bennies and the individual contribution is not a requirement. Education subsidies are great, but that doesn't help the person who is suddenly confronted with the need to find a job to support a family.

 

[NATO AIR]

That's a good point Merlin, I hope we can get off this Iraq subject (the decision to go to war and all that) and back on veteran's benefits and the situation for vets getting out. I think the potential one year training program is a great idea, simply because some of these folks need to come out of the military with a definitive, marketable skill that's worth something in the civvy world.

 

[Johnney]

To get back on the original topic - here's the problem as I see it. Some people, like your's truly, are fortunate to have military careers which produce skills that are marketable in the civilian world.

But there are many others no so lucky. Take the kid who enters the service right after high school. Assume he trains as an infantryman, or a paratrooper, a Green Beret, an artilleryman or a tank driver. Not much call for these folks in the civilian market where blowing things up and killing people is not considered a marketable skill - unless you're applying with the mafia.

So perhaps the armed services might consider some training program which gives people like these the chance to train in the career field of their choice while still on the military payroll. It wouldn't have to be all that long - say one year maximum. And the military would not have to be responsible for conducting the program - that could be handed off to universities and trade schools. Not only would such a program benefit vets who find themselves suddenly separated from the service, but from a recruiting viewpoint, it would also make otherwise less desirable military specialties easier to fill.

Vets from WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam had the GI bill to help them through school. The following is what is available now:
============================================
http://www.gibill.va.gov/education/GI_Bill.htm

Description of Current Programs

38 U.S.C. Chapter 32, Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP)

VEAP was the first GI Bill program which required a contribution by the service member. It was available to people who entered on active duty between December 31, 1976, and July 1, 1985. These service members could volunteer to contribute between $25 and $100 a month which would be matched on a 2-for-1 basis by the government. Total contribution by the service person could be no more than $2700, but DOD could make additional contributions, or "kickers", into the fund on behalf of individuals in critical military fields to encourage enlistment or reenlistment in the Armed Forces. In 1996, Public Law 104-275 provided that certain VEAP participants who were on active duty on October 9, 1996, could elect MGIB. The deadline for this election was October 8, 1997. 41,041 veterans and servicepersons took advantage of this opportunity to elect MGIB. Here is a summary of the main features of VEAP:

First entered on active duty after December 31, 1976 and before July 1, 1985
Contributed to VEAP while on active duty and before April 1, 1987
Maximum contribution of $2700
Government matches $2 for $1
Maximum entitlement is 36 months
Must be used within ten years of discharge from the service
Refunds of unused contributions available
Additional "kickers" from DOD
Current full-time VEAP rate is $300 per month plus any DOD "kicker"
38 U.S.C. Chapter 30, Montgomery G. I. Bill - Active Duty Educational Assistance Program (MGIB)

MGIB is the education program for individuals initially entering active duty after June 30, 1985. Payments for MGIB benefits currently represent 78 percent of the total VA educational assistance payments. MGIB was enacted not only to help with the readjustment of discharged service members, but also to support the concept of an all volunteer armed force. With this in mind, a provision was made to allow certain veterans with remaining entitlement under the Vietnam Era GI Bill, to qualify for MGIB benefits if they continued their active duty.

MGIB is available to honorably discharged veterans and to service-members. Although there are a number of categories of eligibles, generally, veterans must:

meet their basic service requirement,
have completed their high school education or its equivalent, and
receive an honorable discharge.
MGIB is a contributory program. Service pay is automatically reduced by $100 per month for 12 months unless the service person declines to participate at the time of enlistment. Individuals on active duty must complete a minimum of two years of continuous active duty to be eligible. Qualified service members with remaining Vietnam Era entitlement are exempt from the pay reduction requirement.

The MGIB benefit rate varies depending on active service and Selected Reserve obligation.

MGIB has proven to be extremely popular among young people enlisting in the services. 94.8 percent of those who enlisted in service in Fiscal Year 1996 enrolled in the program. 75.7 percent of all enlistees since the inception of the program have enrolled.

The following briefly summarizes major MGIB provisions:

Served on active duty after June 30, 1985.
Must fulfill one's basic service obligation.
Must have completed high school.
Received an honorable discharge.
Maximum entitlement is 36 months.
Additional "kicker" as determined by DOD.
Generally must use benefits within 10 years following discharge.


10 U.S.C. Chapter 1606, Montgomery G. I. Bill - Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Program (MGIB-SR)
=======================================

The problem with this bill is that is requires contribution by the service member. That means the lower ranking enlisted people are unable to afford any substantial contribution, if any. But quite often they're the folks who get the worst duty and the most undesirable jobs.

I think the Montgomery bill needs to be changed so that everyone coming out gets the same bennies and the individual contribution is not a requirement.

i know alot of the infantry type of MOS's went on to be cops. ive met a number of them while i was in MPI at Ft Leavenworth.

and as for the MGIB, i used it to get my degrees. it was a healthy chunck. when i first stated out it under 900.00 a month, but after a couple years it rose to just about 1000.00. and to able to use it for repayment of financial aide, or to live on. that was full time student though, average 16 credit hours a semester.

 

[Merlin1047]

and as for the MGIB, i used it to get my degrees. it was a healthy chunck. when i first stated out it under 900.00 a month, but after a couple years it rose to just about 1000.00. and to able to use it for repayment of financial aide, or to live on. that was full time student though, average 16 credit hours a semester.

That's great and you're to be congratulated. But picture yourself coming out of the service with a wife and two rugrats. Your first priority has to be to get an income. Your college will be limited to night classes.

 

[Johnney]

That's great and you're to be congratulated. But picture yourself coming out of the service with a wife and two rugrats. Your first priority has to be to get an income. Your college will be limited to night classes.

thats true, but there is part time too. which is about roughly half of full. but i think you have to take a minimum of like 6 cr hours. im not sure on that part though so dont quote me on it.
i figured i payed into it, its mine to use, im not going to let it go back into the system and not see my money again.

 

[freeandfun1]

To get back on the original topic - here's the problem as I see it. Some people, like your's truly, are fortunate to have military careers which produce skills that are marketable in the civilian world.

But there are many others no so lucky. Take the kid who enters the service right after high school. Assume he trains as an infantryman, or a paratrooper, a Green Beret, an artilleryman or a tank driver. Not much call for these folks in the civilian market where blowing things up and killing people is not considered a marketable skill - unless you're applying with the mafia.

I do not totally agree. Many police departments would rather hire infantryman than MP's once they get out plus, being in the infantry teaches you how to work both within teams and individually.

Maybe my case is totally an unusual one, but I myself dropped out of high school after the 10th grade, joined the Army at 17 as an infantryman (actually, as a 11HE9 which is a TOW gunner - not much use for them in the civilian world), got my GED and when possible, took some college courses. When I got out in 1992 after 7 years, 9 months and 21 days of service, I went to work washing U-Haul trucks to get by while I used my VEAP benefits to attend more college courses. I subseuquently got a job working for an export management company as in writing my resume, I highlighted my "international" experience and my experience leading groups of up to 12 men (was a TOW section leader). It is all how you present yourself and your abilities. Sure, you can't walk in off the street and say, I was a grunt, what kind of job do you have for me? You have to highlight the positives attributes that grunts gain while working in stressful jobs under stressful conditions. Hell, if you do it right, you can make a GI party make it sound like you were a Custodial Engineer.