Momorider Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, ckf said: It's Catbox I know that but apparently he is now a hook nosed jesus killing POS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Just now, Momorider said: I know that but apparently he is now a hook nosed jesus killing POS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, ckf said: Read that in a drunk Mel Gibson voice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT MXZ XRS Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 16 hours ago, Rounder said: I would like to see non combat vets have services cut, and all that money spent on those that were in combat. Many go through there service never seeing action, yet get the same access to derives that guys fucked up in war get. So a person who sacrifices their life and does 20,24-30 30+ years in the military , and doesn't see any combat shouldn't have as many benefits when the retire? You're fucked in the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 5 minutes ago, SVT Renegade XRS said: So a person who sacrifices their life and does 20,24-30 30+ years in the military , and doesn't see any combat shouldn't have as many benefits when the retire? You're fucked in the head. I don't think that is what he meant and I see your point. That is a serious commitment and deserves all the bennies and respect that should come with it. But to make it simple, a guy that does his 2 or 3 year term in a "no combat zone" and/or served a role primarily as more of a rear echelon support (beans and bullets supply). But still manages to "suffer" from "mental anguish" or some type of chronic mild injury because he fell down somehow shouldn't be clogging the system with those who really need some real support. But, like most government run programs........screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger** Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) Thank you to all the men and women who served. Do not disrespect this thread by using profanity today its about them not us. IMO Edited May 30, 2016 by Badger** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT MXZ XRS Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 49 minutes ago, Zambroski said: I don't think that is what he meant and I see your point. That is a serious commitment and deserves all the bennies and respect that should come with it. But to make it simple, a guy that does his 2 or 3 year term in a "no combat zone" and/or served a role primarily as more of a rear echelon support (beans and bullets supply). But still manages to "suffer" from "mental anguish" or some type of chronic mild injury because he fell down somehow shouldn't be clogging the system with those who really need some real support. But, like most government run programs........screwed. Thats not how I read it. He said non combat vets should have their benefits cut. Which is total BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted May 30, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 30, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 8 minutes ago, SVT Renegade XRS said: Thats not how I read it. He said non combat vets should have their benefits cut. Which is total BS. I agree if that's what he meant. I was just assuming it was more along the lines of what I posted. Soldiers don't usually get the choice to be in an active war zone or not. They can however choose a profession (job) within in a less active branch and/or unit that can keep them out of harms way. Side: I agree with "Axys1". This started off weirdly but it wouldn't hurt to maybe clean it up just a tad if only for the day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 Yeah..I started it off a little strange..but hey I'm cappy. In the first post I was just trying to say mostly that I think the flag being presented to next of kin should be reserved for military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rounder Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Zambroski said: I don't think that is what he meant and I see your point. That is a serious commitment and deserves all the bennies and respect that should come with it. But to make it simple, a guy that does his 2 or 3 year term in a "no combat zone" and/or served a role primarily as more of a rear echelon support (beans and bullets supply). But still manages to "suffer" from "mental anguish" or some type of chronic mild injury because he fell down somehow shouldn't be clogging the system with those who really need some real support. But, like most government run programs........screwed. That is what I meant. Some need support far more than others. There is not much trauma to be had spending your time on a base training and never entering a combat zone. Many do just that yet get all the same perks and bennies as a guy that actually dodged bullets. Obviouslynthose that need help are not getting enough of it, so if they cut back on the ones that did nothing more than hang at a base and focussed more on combat vets we would see better services for those in real need. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 400,000 like it sent out between 41-45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT MXZ XRS Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 On 5/30/2016 at 11:55 AM, Zambroski said: I agree if that's what he meant. I was just assuming it was more along the lines of what I posted. Soldiers don't usually get the choice to be in an active war zone or not. They can however choose a profession (job) within in a less active branch and/or unit that can keep them out of harms way. Side: I agree with "Axys1". This started off weirdly but it wouldn't hurt to maybe clean it up just a tad if only for the day. Well now that yesterday is over, and he confirmed it. I stand by what I said. This Rounder clown is a fucking douche bag thinking that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.