Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay

  1. #1
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay


  2. #2
    Senior Member gresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Age
    24
    Posts
    6,531

    Default

    Idiotic if true.

  3. #3
    Senior Member plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,315

    Default

    http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67030

    is this what the guy was pissed about? A measure forced onto the President by the Conservatives who wanted to cut spending? yeah, very funny!

  4. #4
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by plato View Post
    http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67030

    is this what the guy was pissed about? A measure forced onto the President by the Conservatives who wanted to cut spending? yeah, very funny!
    Thanks for pointing that out. So although Obama apparently signed it without objection, I guess the more pertinent point is, exactly who inserted that provision into the bill? To blindly assume it was 'conservatives' is not valid. Bills such as this are composed by bipartisan committees. It is fair to say that if 'conservatives' object to this provision, they surely screwed up by letting it into the bill without noticing. If they knew about and did not object to this modification of combat pay rules, then they are absolutely culpable.

  5. #5
    Senior Member plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    Thanks for pointing that out. So although Obama apparently signed it without objection, I guess the more pertinent point is, who inserted that provision into the bill?
    NO ONE inserted it! There is such NO Provision requiring :"[*******#333333]Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay"!
    [/COLOR]
    The bill was a Republican bill and went back and forth many times already. If the President didn't sign it, then the troops would go without pay.

  6. #6
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow

    From your article link:
    Service members now will receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas, Pentagon officials said here today.
    ---
    The act called for DOD to pay service members imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in areas that qualify for the pay. In the past, service members received $225 per month if they spent any time that month in an area where the pay was authorized. “This is a more targeted way of handling that pay,” Kirby said.
    Got it.

  7. #7
    Senior Member plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,315

    Default

    Two points here:

    one, you don't complain about something that doesn't exist.

    two, even if it does exist. The Republicans should bear at least half the blames (minimum). It is their fxxking bill!



    A retired 1st Sergeant wrote this? WOW! All he had to do was to contact some of his buddies to confirm!

  8. #8
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow

    As I said, we do not know for sure who inserted that provision into the bill. If the Repubs did, they bear the lion's share of the blame. If not, they are to blame for not seeing, objecting to and removing it. Regardless, Obama signed it into law, and he bears the blame for not objecting and demanding a revision, even if he did 'have to' sign it.

  9. #9
    Senior Member plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    As I said, we do not know for sure who inserted that provision into the bill. If the Repubs did, they bear the lion's share of the blame. If not, they are to blame for not seeing, objecting to and removing it. Regardless, Obama signed it into law, and he bears the blame for not objecting and demanding a revision, even if he did 'have to' sign it.
    You cannot know because there is NO such provision! get it! You don't need to be fired upon to receive combat pay!

  10. #10
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by plato View Post
    You cannot know because there is NO such provision! get it! You don't need to be fired upon to receive combat pay!
    Apparently you missed post #6. Take a deep breath, and stop hyperventilating.

  11. #11
    Member Vagabundo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Belton Tx
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    As I said, we do not know for sure who inserted that provision into the bill. If the Repubs did, they bear the lion's share of the blame. If not, they are to blame for not seeing, objecting to and removing it. Regardless, Obama signed it into law, and he bears the blame for not objecting and demanding a revision, even if he did 'have to' sign it.

    Sounds kinda insane that that'll actually happen. Although I can remember being stationed in Sarajevo and seeing resupply flights from germany land and watch 30 odd airforce remfs stepping off for an hour to snag that month of extra pay. Always thought it was funny and they certainly weren't shy about admitting to it. But Im still sort of confused is this destined for policy or is it alot of guy's interpretation?

  12. #12
    Senior Member plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    Apparently you missed post #6. Take a deep breath, and stop hyperventilating.
    what did I miss in your post #6? The title of your thread is "[*******#333333]Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay". Your post #6 has anything to do with how to qualify for combat pay? I am telling you there is no requirement "to be fired upon to receive combat pay". You just need to be in country.



    [/COLOR]

  13. #13
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by plato View Post
    what did I miss in your post #6? The title of your thread is "[*******#333333]Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay". Your post #6 has anything to do with how to qualify for combat pay? I am telling you there is no requirement "to be fired upon to receive combat pay". You just need to be in country. [/COLOR]
    [*******#333333]Wow! I thought I made myself understood in plain English. In post #6 I quoted the article you linked to explaining the real situation, and said "got it", denoting that I understood your correction. What is not clear to you about this? Any further responses on this on my part would be a waste of time if you do not get it by now, so you are on your own going forward. Our conversation is at an end.[/COLOR]

  14. #14
    Senior Member plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    [*******#333333]Wow! I thought I made myself understood in plain English. In post #6 I quoted the article you linked to explaining the real situation, and said "got it", denoting that I understood your correction. What is not clear to you about this? Any further responses on this on my part would be a waste of time if you do not get it by now, so you are on your own going forward. Our conversation is at an end.[/COLOR]
    What is clear to you might not be clear to me. Your post here caused some confusions:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    As I said, we do not know for sure who inserted that provision into the bill. If the Repubs did, they bear the lion's share of the blame. If not, they are to blame for not seeing, objecting to and removing it. Regardless, Obama signed it into law, and he bears the blame for not objecting and demanding a revision, even if he did 'have to' sign it.
    I thought you were still talking about the provision that doesn't exist

  15. #15
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by plato View Post
    What is clear to you might not be clear to me. Your post here caused some confusions:
    Okay, sorry if I was unclear. I was talking about the modifications to the combat pay rules (the actual ones pointed out in your article), and who was to blame for that. Again, my apologies if my 'plain English' was not so plain as I thought.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •