While my fiance was active duty he was referred to a civilian doctor to have surgery. During the surgical procedure a instrument was broken off inside him and left there. He is worse now than before he had surgery. Ultimately the military medically discharged him; he can no longer work. Does anyone know if the military can be sued for referring him to this surgeon? OR, can the military sue on his behalf? His career of 20+ years ended as a result of this surgery.|||1. No, can't sure them for the referral.
2. Sue the operating Dr, the Military will not do it for you.
3. Sad to see a good career ended that way.
4. Good luck to the both of you.|||Make sure he has copies of all of his Medical Records
both Military and Civilian...
File a Disability Compensation Claim with the Dept of VA,
his Treatment for that surgery is Free for Life...
They will back his claim up from
"Date Of Discharge"...
Get in touch with a DAV Service Officer...
(Free Service)
They have Offices in all VA Regional Offices and
most VA Hospitals...
Also file a Disability Claim for Social Security
Disability (SSD) do that tommorow as there
are time constraints on filing.
You can Sue the Civilian Doctor as he is not
covered by the same BS the Military Doctors are.|||he wont be able to sue the military for referring him to a civilian surgeon. thats what the military has to do if they do not have the right treatment or room for him at that time, which is probably why they referred him in the first place. the military did not know before hand that this surgeon was going to break an instrument off in your husband. however, you should be able to sue the surgeon, he definitely shouldnt have his liceanse. i would talk to someone at legal, they can give you more advice on how to go about this.
good luck!|||You can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, I think it's unlikely you would win in this case. The best cause of action is against the doctor that did the surgery. Better get with a lawyer asap because there are strict time limits. Usually 1 or 2 years depending on the state.|||No you cannot sue the military. You can and should sue the civilian surgeon and have him charged with malpractice. Such an incompetent person should never be allowed within 100 miles of a hospital. See the people at the VA hospital, they may be able to help.|||The military cannot be sued for medical malpractice at all. If they could, a referral is not malpractice. The doctor that screwed up is the one who is responsible. The government's only responsibility is for disability pay.|||nope you cant sue the gov. because before he joined the military he signed a paper stating that him or anyone else could not sue the US government for any reason. i don't know about the doctor that did it though. definitely go to the VA|||You can't sue the government and the military is part of the government. I suggest he contact the nearest VA office.|||no. but he CAN sue the surgeon himself for malpractice.|||"Tyler L" is wrong. The other posters are correct.|||Go for it, Call your Lawyer.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
How can i know if my military unit was awarded any combat medals?
I was in the military years ago, i was discharged shortly after returning to the states. How can i find out if my military unit was awarded any medals that i am entitled to?|||Such as what? If the unit still exists try searching for it.
The link to the 7th Cav has a list of unit awards at the bottom. 2nd Bn is the only to get any after Viet Nam.
Any personal awards is a matter of requesting it from the correct location. That depends on the years you served and which branch. start at The National Archives.
SSG US Army 73-82|||If you have acces to a military base, go to the personnel section. They should be able to point you in the right direction.|||ask the question somewhere other than Yahoo...
The link to the 7th Cav has a list of unit awards at the bottom. 2nd Bn is the only to get any after Viet Nam.
Any personal awards is a matter of requesting it from the correct location. That depends on the years you served and which branch. start at The National Archives.
SSG US Army 73-82|||If you have acces to a military base, go to the personnel section. They should be able to point you in the right direction.|||ask the question somewhere other than Yahoo...
How obscene is military propaganda useing Jimi Hendrixe's music in movies when Hendrix is dead?
If he were alive, he would absolutely object to his music being used by a corrupt death machine which serves the only purpose of ruling rich elites that Hendrix sang against. He's dead with no control of his copyrights, and the military takes advantage of that.|||If it was not for thge Military, you would be Mucus, idiot
How did the military help the North win the Civil War?
What are some specifics as to how the Union's military helped them win the Civil War? Please be specific! Thank you!|||First off, the north had many advantages with regard to supplies, manpower and resources. Also, the North had a Navy, the South did not and hoped that Britin or France would help them with that. Neither could enter the war when Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Generals of the North were an incompetent, jealous and bumbling lot until Lincoln recognized that Grant understood how to fight that war. The numbers favored the North and Grant knew that. He was unconcerned about what lee or any of the other confederate generals did, he wanted them to worry about him and they did. The Union army launched a three pronged plan in 1864 under Grant that proved decisive.
1. Grant would pursue Lee and destroy the army of Northern VA
2. Sherman would take Atlanta, destroy the industry there, march to the sea and ruin the countryside, then turn north through the Carolinas hoping to destroy the will of the southern citizenry.
3. Sheridan would sweep the Shenandoah Valley and destroy the breadbasket of the confederacy, starve the soldiers and the people of the CSA.
All ended up successful, thus the CSA could no longer fight.
The Generals of the North were an incompetent, jealous and bumbling lot until Lincoln recognized that Grant understood how to fight that war. The numbers favored the North and Grant knew that. He was unconcerned about what lee or any of the other confederate generals did, he wanted them to worry about him and they did. The Union army launched a three pronged plan in 1864 under Grant that proved decisive.
1. Grant would pursue Lee and destroy the army of Northern VA
2. Sherman would take Atlanta, destroy the industry there, march to the sea and ruin the countryside, then turn north through the Carolinas hoping to destroy the will of the southern citizenry.
3. Sheridan would sweep the Shenandoah Valley and destroy the breadbasket of the confederacy, starve the soldiers and the people of the CSA.
All ended up successful, thus the CSA could no longer fight.
For my military folks what will a good strategy to win in afganistan?
I want people who was in the military or people with military expertise. To answer the question what strategy do we need to adopt so Afghanistan doesn't become vietnam part two. I don't trashy liberals answering this question, no nutcase 9/11 conspiracy theorist answering this question. I want people with military expertise to give what they know.|||The same way we won the cold war, we have to appeal to the new generations and have the old hateful way of thinking die out. It will take years of good will and fighting for that old way to die out.
Killing and destroying will have the same affect as torturing a prisoner, he will hate you and fight back and tell you lies.|||Not to withdraw from Iraq all together but gradually. If we leave right now this will be the next Vietnam. Afganistan is all about the people, if you portray ourselves as a bad person all the future generations will side with the Taliban, etc, causing a huge pain in the *** for us. If you've read the news lately you'll notice that the Taliban is spreading into Pakistan rapidly, we must stop this before we're in 2 countries fighting again. But considering what happened to the Soviets during their war in Afgan we must not follow their step or we might end up like them.|||The same one that has one ever other war.....kill as many of the enemy as possible, destroy their homes, infrastructure and culture....they will get the idea.|||fire Obama... for a start
Killing and destroying will have the same affect as torturing a prisoner, he will hate you and fight back and tell you lies.|||Not to withdraw from Iraq all together but gradually. If we leave right now this will be the next Vietnam. Afganistan is all about the people, if you portray ourselves as a bad person all the future generations will side with the Taliban, etc, causing a huge pain in the *** for us. If you've read the news lately you'll notice that the Taliban is spreading into Pakistan rapidly, we must stop this before we're in 2 countries fighting again. But considering what happened to the Soviets during their war in Afgan we must not follow their step or we might end up like them.|||The same one that has one ever other war.....kill as many of the enemy as possible, destroy their homes, infrastructure and culture....they will get the idea.|||fire Obama... for a start
How will the military tell the difference if the two parties are homosexual?
The difference between fraternization and sexual discrimination? If the same sex have a relationship and they are in the same military unit, if there is a fraternization complaint, can't they complain too and say that they are being discriminated?|||Tyler is reffering to the "Don't ask Don't tell" policy. They don't like gays in the military, or at least gays that are open about it. So complaining about being discriminated against in an organazation that is against homosexualality will more than likely get you nowhere. fraternization is like enlisted fooling around with an officer in their chain of command. Not neccesarilly the same thing as sometimes the officer or enlisted is female and other is male. And its only bad if you do it with someone within your chain of command.|||They get kicked out under DADT...
How long have military surplus stores been in operation in the US?
How long have they been in operation in the Northeastern US?
Have military surplus stores in the US always sold the same sort of things they sell today, or have certain things (like BDUs) been off-limits at times?|||ever since there was military surplus items.
Have military surplus stores in the US always sold the same sort of things they sell today, or have certain things (like BDUs) been off-limits at times?|||ever since there was military surplus items.
How do obsolete military bases and weapons programs help the US taxpayer?
Whenever someone proposes closing an obsolete military base or weapons program, conservatives says that it can't be done because theses programs generate jobs locally. How do taxpayers who do not work near an obsolete base or weapons program benefit from these program they are paying for?|||They do not benefit at all. It is not to the benefit of the country that the urban wealth generating regions are heavily subsidizing the poorer regions (except for food production). Conservatives are always screaming "free market", "small government", but in fact are the biggest proponents of corporate welfare and irresponsible government spending.|||Wow, you really are slower than I thought. Way to go kid.
|||Obsolete? Well, think of the cost of building a new one.
Think of the tax payers that can no longer pay taxes due to unemployment. It only puts more people on the unemployment benefits. Oh, no money coming into the outlining community means economic depression of the whole area. Hey, they need to move to your area to compete with you for work now.
Benefits: people making a living (pay taxes and support local/national economy), sometimes these workers help in the development of new technology or refining current technology, and seriously (unless your a trust fund baby) do you want more competition in the workforce? I think right now the competition for jobs is pretty high.|||You blame conservatives, I was apart of the base realignment and closure act in 1990. Congressmen and women of both parties fought hard not to lose their bases in their districts.... Everyone wants cuts, but just for the other guy, not for them.|||Fine you don't want to support the military.
Okay, but don't come crying to me (a veteran and current active duty soldier) when you need someone to protect you because i'm throwing you to the wolves.|||Three A.F. bases within 40 miles of each other in Ca. March, George and Norton have all become civilian air ports and industrial distribution points. March also still bases the A.F. Reserves.|||Again with the partisan politics.
You don't think liberal law makers defend weapons programs manufactured in their districts?|||Taxpayers either pay to maintain the base or pay to maintain the unemployed when the base is gone.|||They don't an it has to end cuts will be made an the military will see it's share.|||Let's close all our European bases.
let's see how well they stand up without us.
Leave a few in England.
Report Abuse
|||Obsolete? Well, think of the cost of building a new one.
Think of the tax payers that can no longer pay taxes due to unemployment. It only puts more people on the unemployment benefits. Oh, no money coming into the outlining community means economic depression of the whole area. Hey, they need to move to your area to compete with you for work now.
Benefits: people making a living (pay taxes and support local/national economy), sometimes these workers help in the development of new technology or refining current technology, and seriously (unless your a trust fund baby) do you want more competition in the workforce? I think right now the competition for jobs is pretty high.|||You blame conservatives, I was apart of the base realignment and closure act in 1990. Congressmen and women of both parties fought hard not to lose their bases in their districts.... Everyone wants cuts, but just for the other guy, not for them.|||Fine you don't want to support the military.
Okay, but don't come crying to me (a veteran and current active duty soldier) when you need someone to protect you because i'm throwing you to the wolves.|||Three A.F. bases within 40 miles of each other in Ca. March, George and Norton have all become civilian air ports and industrial distribution points. March also still bases the A.F. Reserves.|||Again with the partisan politics.
You don't think liberal law makers defend weapons programs manufactured in their districts?|||Taxpayers either pay to maintain the base or pay to maintain the unemployed when the base is gone.|||They don't an it has to end cuts will be made an the military will see it's share.|||Let's close all our European bases.
let's see how well they stand up without us.
Leave a few in England.
What kind of training does the military needs to start accepting gays in the military?
I didn't even knew there has to be a training into start accepting gays in the military.
Exactly what kind of training is there?? I am gay so i am just curious about this.|||They need to know what their rights and responsibilities are, and they need to know how diffuse and/or deal with a conflict when it arises.|||Just a guess:
diversty training: sort of like "you cannot beat up on the black guys now ( Post WW II) here are in the troops.
or It is "against good order and discipline for , for males to rape female soldiers ( or civilians) ( too common)
maybe " sex in fox holes while under fire is not a good idea"
military is a
" Macho" profession so what is different is scary|||You can find and download the report.
Google
department of defense support plan for implementation|||They add glory holes to the obstacle course|||hahahahaha great answer ashley...be all that you can be|||Not getting involved in what people do in their bedrooms.
Exactly what kind of training is there?? I am gay so i am just curious about this.|||They need to know what their rights and responsibilities are, and they need to know how diffuse and/or deal with a conflict when it arises.|||Just a guess:
diversty training: sort of like "you cannot beat up on the black guys now ( Post WW II) here are in the troops.
or It is "against good order and discipline for , for males to rape female soldiers ( or civilians) ( too common)
maybe " sex in fox holes while under fire is not a good idea"
military is a
" Macho" profession so what is different is scary|||You can find and download the report.
department of defense support plan for implementation|||They add glory holes to the obstacle course|||hahahahaha great answer ashley...be all that you can be|||Not getting involved in what people do in their bedrooms.
Do the military privately acknowledge that the attack on Iraq is a total failure?
4000 US soldiers have died and thousands more innocent Iraqis have been killed by the US military. The world shakes its head and wonders when the US will wake up to its mistake. Do the military privately acknowledge that the illegal attack on Iraq has been a disaster which has ruined the reputation of the US and stigmatised its military as a brutal human rights abusing force?|||First of all. The war is not and has never been illegal. nearly all of congress voted to approve it... (as did most of the united nations) so who are you going to arrest first????
secondly. Saddam Hussein had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. We know this is TRUE because he used chemical weapons on the Kurd's. So I guess that was all a lie and illegal too.
Third. The American military would never acknowledge your claims because they are false. The reputation of the U.S. is fine. I don't see any American military cutting off the heads of innocent people on TV... Do you???
And Lastly, we've been in this war (understand WAR) for more than 5 years. and we just went over 4000 dead. WHY don't you pull your head out of your *** and look at some other statistics: such as how many drunk driving deaths happen every year, or how many children are getting killed with guns... here in the U.S. not overseas... and not in a war zone. You ask a service member about what they do and why they serve. I don't think you'll get an answer from any of them stating ANY of your beliefs. I know this because I served in the Navy for more than 20 years. I patroled the Persian gulf, I boarded (Oil) smugglers there when Saddam was placed under an embargo by the United Nations... He didn't obey any law, he was the one breaking them. As for you, you need to stop watching the (propaganda) news, and maybe put on a uniform.|||why should the military acknowledge a blatant lie perpetrated by the left wing media? you are so screwed up in your thinking it's actually offensive. I hope to God you are not an American|||one persons view aren't necessarily others, keep your opinions to yourself.|||No.|||No and i and glad that old fool Adm. Fallon has retried making way for Gen. Petraeus to run Cent Com|||well perhaps if it was indeed illegal and a failure they might say privately and publicly it was a failure.|||How does it feel to be consistently wrong on all counts? Nothing you say is correct. I think I smell a liberal here.|||The military soldier has a duty to serve his country and you have to do the talking for him. If you believe this is the case what are you going to do about it?|||Invading Iraq accomplished several goals:
1. It removed a harsh dictator from power
2. It gave freedom to an oppressed people
3. It removed the threat to Israel
4. It provided a platform for future US Military Jump-off points
5. It allows the US to exert some influence in the Middle East
and there are a few other reasons that I am not at liberty to discuss at this time for invading Iraq.
Thank you|||I think the term "Total Failure" goes to far. There are many people that disagree on the war whether or not you talk about civillians or members of the military, but it's rare to find anyone military or civillian who thinks it's a "total failure". Most reasonable people can find something that went right, just like the staunchest supporters can find mistakes.
So no. but there is a significant disagreement with the war, much like on the outside. Suprisingly, there was quite a disagreement leading up to the war as well, including General Tommy Franks, the man who lead the invasion of Iraq. Of course, I can't say whether he opposed the war in Iraq itself, it seemed that he was more upset that it was hindering his mission in Afghanistan at the time. Many others in the intelligence community were skeptical of the facts, whether or not they opposed it as a whole, is debatable.
And then here we are, in the 6th year of the war, naturally some will be opposed and some will be in favor, but I can't imagine that you could say there is a consensus opinion.|||Please do some research before you post another stupid question. I'm so sick of you moron liberals coming on these treads trying to convert everyone to your idiotic ways of thinking. please, for everyone on here's sake, go away.|||The attack on Iraq was a total sucess - the Alliance won.
It's the peace we're still fighting.|||My brother has been over there twice. He still believes in what he is doing but I think he will change his mind if he has to go back. He told me once that 50% of his unit thinks that the mission over there is pointless. Good people are dying for nothing.
secondly. Saddam Hussein had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. We know this is TRUE because he used chemical weapons on the Kurd's. So I guess that was all a lie and illegal too.
Third. The American military would never acknowledge your claims because they are false. The reputation of the U.S. is fine. I don't see any American military cutting off the heads of innocent people on TV... Do you???
And Lastly, we've been in this war (understand WAR) for more than 5 years. and we just went over 4000 dead. WHY don't you pull your head out of your *** and look at some other statistics: such as how many drunk driving deaths happen every year, or how many children are getting killed with guns... here in the U.S. not overseas... and not in a war zone. You ask a service member about what they do and why they serve. I don't think you'll get an answer from any of them stating ANY of your beliefs. I know this because I served in the Navy for more than 20 years. I patroled the Persian gulf, I boarded (Oil) smugglers there when Saddam was placed under an embargo by the United Nations... He didn't obey any law, he was the one breaking them. As for you, you need to stop watching the (propaganda) news, and maybe put on a uniform.|||why should the military acknowledge a blatant lie perpetrated by the left wing media? you are so screwed up in your thinking it's actually offensive. I hope to God you are not an American|||one persons view aren't necessarily others, keep your opinions to yourself.|||No.|||No and i and glad that old fool Adm. Fallon has retried making way for Gen. Petraeus to run Cent Com|||well perhaps if it was indeed illegal and a failure they might say privately and publicly it was a failure.|||How does it feel to be consistently wrong on all counts? Nothing you say is correct. I think I smell a liberal here.|||The military soldier has a duty to serve his country and you have to do the talking for him. If you believe this is the case what are you going to do about it?|||Invading Iraq accomplished several goals:
1. It removed a harsh dictator from power
2. It gave freedom to an oppressed people
3. It removed the threat to Israel
4. It provided a platform for future US Military Jump-off points
5. It allows the US to exert some influence in the Middle East
and there are a few other reasons that I am not at liberty to discuss at this time for invading Iraq.
Thank you|||I think the term "Total Failure" goes to far. There are many people that disagree on the war whether or not you talk about civillians or members of the military, but it's rare to find anyone military or civillian who thinks it's a "total failure". Most reasonable people can find something that went right, just like the staunchest supporters can find mistakes.
So no. but there is a significant disagreement with the war, much like on the outside. Suprisingly, there was quite a disagreement leading up to the war as well, including General Tommy Franks, the man who lead the invasion of Iraq. Of course, I can't say whether he opposed the war in Iraq itself, it seemed that he was more upset that it was hindering his mission in Afghanistan at the time. Many others in the intelligence community were skeptical of the facts, whether or not they opposed it as a whole, is debatable.
And then here we are, in the 6th year of the war, naturally some will be opposed and some will be in favor, but I can't imagine that you could say there is a consensus opinion.|||Please do some research before you post another stupid question. I'm so sick of you moron liberals coming on these treads trying to convert everyone to your idiotic ways of thinking. please, for everyone on here's sake, go away.|||The attack on Iraq was a total sucess - the Alliance won.
It's the peace we're still fighting.|||My brother has been over there twice. He still believes in what he is doing but I think he will change his mind if he has to go back. He told me once that 50% of his unit thinks that the mission over there is pointless. Good people are dying for nothing.
What type of military mos do you need to transfer after tour in to swat?
What military mos is best for try to join swat after tour? Also what branch and mos also why?|||military specialty means nothing. you still have to be accepted into the Police academy and be selected for additional training afterward. in fact do NOT assume that any version of MP/MA will be useful in scoring a job as a police officer. it WILL NOT.
all military service does is grant you veteran's preference points on an application for a government job.|||Any military job will be fine. You will have to get out, take a civil service exam, be hired by a police department, attend the police academy, work for several years on the police force, then when an opening comes up apply for and try out for the SWAT team. SWAT has nothing to do with warfare. It is police work. They train you in everything you need to know
all military service does is grant you veteran's preference points on an application for a government job.|||Any military job will be fine. You will have to get out, take a civil service exam, be hired by a police department, attend the police academy, work for several years on the police force, then when an opening comes up apply for and try out for the SWAT team. SWAT has nothing to do with warfare. It is police work. They train you in everything you need to know
Is it fair that McCain has access to classified military documents and Obama doesn't?
I saw on CNN yesterday where McCain has access to classified military documents that Obama doesn't.
The reason supposedly is because McCain is on the military committee that has access to these.
So, how is Obama to campaign against McCain on military issues if McCain already has the inside scoop?
Thoughts?|||It doesn't matter. Obama would lose on the military issue by al landslide against McCain anyway. He's just lucky he has many other issues that he will win vs McCain.|||Yes, i think it's very fair.Look at McCain's military career.He saw %26amp; heard a lot in those years.He was a credit to our military %26amp; when he was held prisoner (5) very long years of his life,he was not in some boy scout camp! Sorry, bo has NO military experience %26amp; starting now,there isn't enough time to explain all of that to him.bo could have joined one of our military choices,put in a few years %26amp; come out knowing a little something about it but he chose to try to get to the big top the fast %26amp; easy way.McCain chose the tough way.He loves this country we have %26amp; more power to him.You can't know unless you been there.|||Yes, it's fair.
Obama could have access to much more info, if he were to quit campaigning long enough to do his job in the senate. He is a member of the Foreign Rel;ations committee, committee on Veterans affairs, committee on Health , Education, Labor and Pensions, and Senate committee on Homeland Security and Government affairs.|||Its just all so unfair. Why don't we let the man that is not president and not on the Senate Armed Services committee have access to documents that no other presidential nominee in history, that wasn't either could, see? I mean, after all, he will be president right? Lets just give him a desk now in the oval office by W's.|||I don't know, Obama seem pretty soft when it come to the military. I really can't imagine him being the guy who will defend the nation incase of National Emergency.
McCain on the hand can send a signal to Al-Qaeda that, if they decided to ever set foot on American soil, he'll make sure that they will be obliterated.|||If Obama wants to see classified stuff, let him get on the appropriate committee, like McCain did! Besides, McCain can't use classified info in the campaign. That's the price he pays for getting to see it. He has to keep it to himself.|||I honestly don't trust Obama with our National Security. His eh....associates alone would keep any normal person from gaining any kind of clearance. Obama can discuss issues that are not clearance sensitive and McCain will NOT discuss anything that is clearance sensitive.
USAF Vet/TS|||he does not have the security clearance to view that type of document. Just because he is a bottom of the barrel senator does not give him that privilege.|||Well experience does have it's benefits, heck Obama probably doesn't even know the ranks of the individuals in the military much less how to lead them.|||Of course its fair. McCain has served in the Armed Forces for many years and is a highly decorated war hero. as for obama campaiging againt mccain on military issues...thats a joke.|||maybe soros will buy the info for him|||too bad, so sad.|||GEE what a bad deal|||My thoughts are McCain fought for our Country once and earned that right. Now he's ready to fight for us again.|||Small detail.
Obama is very intelligent. He probably knows more about the military than McCain does. With or with out those documents Obama can debate on the military and mop the floor with McCain.
The reason supposedly is because McCain is on the military committee that has access to these.
So, how is Obama to campaign against McCain on military issues if McCain already has the inside scoop?
Thoughts?|||It doesn't matter. Obama would lose on the military issue by al landslide against McCain anyway. He's just lucky he has many other issues that he will win vs McCain.|||Yes, i think it's very fair.Look at McCain's military career.He saw %26amp; heard a lot in those years.He was a credit to our military %26amp; when he was held prisoner (5) very long years of his life,he was not in some boy scout camp! Sorry, bo has NO military experience %26amp; starting now,there isn't enough time to explain all of that to him.bo could have joined one of our military choices,put in a few years %26amp; come out knowing a little something about it but he chose to try to get to the big top the fast %26amp; easy way.McCain chose the tough way.He loves this country we have %26amp; more power to him.You can't know unless you been there.|||Yes, it's fair.
Obama could have access to much more info, if he were to quit campaigning long enough to do his job in the senate. He is a member of the Foreign Rel;ations committee, committee on Veterans affairs, committee on Health , Education, Labor and Pensions, and Senate committee on Homeland Security and Government affairs.|||Its just all so unfair. Why don't we let the man that is not president and not on the Senate Armed Services committee have access to documents that no other presidential nominee in history, that wasn't either could, see? I mean, after all, he will be president right? Lets just give him a desk now in the oval office by W's.|||I don't know, Obama seem pretty soft when it come to the military. I really can't imagine him being the guy who will defend the nation incase of National Emergency.
McCain on the hand can send a signal to Al-Qaeda that, if they decided to ever set foot on American soil, he'll make sure that they will be obliterated.|||If Obama wants to see classified stuff, let him get on the appropriate committee, like McCain did! Besides, McCain can't use classified info in the campaign. That's the price he pays for getting to see it. He has to keep it to himself.|||I honestly don't trust Obama with our National Security. His eh....associates alone would keep any normal person from gaining any kind of clearance. Obama can discuss issues that are not clearance sensitive and McCain will NOT discuss anything that is clearance sensitive.
USAF Vet/TS|||he does not have the security clearance to view that type of document. Just because he is a bottom of the barrel senator does not give him that privilege.|||Well experience does have it's benefits, heck Obama probably doesn't even know the ranks of the individuals in the military much less how to lead them.|||Of course its fair. McCain has served in the Armed Forces for many years and is a highly decorated war hero. as for obama campaiging againt mccain on military issues...thats a joke.|||maybe soros will buy the info for him|||too bad, so sad.|||GEE what a bad deal|||My thoughts are McCain fought for our Country once and earned that right. Now he's ready to fight for us again.|||Small detail.
Obama is very intelligent. He probably knows more about the military than McCain does. With or with out those documents Obama can debate on the military and mop the floor with McCain.
What is the military term for the US Army soldiers that pilot the unmanned drones?
I have a friend who is in the US military and he is piloting the unmanned drones. I just want to know what the term is. Are they just called pilots or something else?|||UAV Operator|||Depends on the kind. The bigger ones are flown by officers, mostly known as UAV Pilots. The little ones flown as a platoon asset are just known as raven operators.|||They are UAV Operators.
The Army only uses the small model airplane sized drones
Not the larger ones like the predator|||Combat Systems Officer ( they are pilots but are called CSO's as described )
The Army only uses the small model airplane sized drones
Not the larger ones like the predator|||Combat Systems Officer ( they are pilots but are called CSO's as described )
What are the differeneces between a military medic and a military nurse?
I'm fifteen, and a sophomore in high school. I'm looking into what my options are for after high school, and i figured i should do a bit of research- i want to be in the health care line of work, and i'd like to join the military. Thanks!|||nurses are officers and already have the BSN in hand. the military will not train you to be one.
medics are enlisted and require no prior training. they will teach you everything.|||Medic is trained as a EMT-B - same as ambulance drivers
Nurses have 4 year university degrees in nursing, same as civilian nurses.
You have to earn your degree, then apply for a commission as a nurse, the military doesn't train you to be a nurse.|||Medics are on the battlefield, nurses are in the hostipal.
medics are enlisted and require no prior training. they will teach you everything.|||Medic is trained as a EMT-B - same as ambulance drivers
Nurses have 4 year university degrees in nursing, same as civilian nurses.
You have to earn your degree, then apply for a commission as a nurse, the military doesn't train you to be a nurse.|||Medics are on the battlefield, nurses are in the hostipal.
How would the military allow America to become Socialist?
If Obama really wanted to implement even the most crazy of the fears of the right like; a Socialist America with slave camps, indoctrination, and worst of all more gun control. How, would the military allow all this, would they just blindly follow orders until we all had ID chips in us and there was a one nation world.
No man or organization can rule America without the army. So, I wouldn't be so worried.|||If you do it slow enough, it might not be noticed by the army. It's like the frog and boiling water phenomena.|||too late.
we have socialized police, fire, armed forces, libraries, highway systems, farm aid, corporate welfare, courts, airline inspections, water and drug safety inspectors and on and on.
you don't like any of this, then don't drive to work or turn on a tap for some water or ever call the police or fire department.
you are about 150 years too late with your shrill, frighten, small and traitorous comments basically suggesting that since wacky righties can't win elections anymore that they are now OPENLY HOPING FOR ARMED REVOLT.
have right wingers gone completely insane??????
hoping that the army takes to the streets against american citizens???????
america - love it or leave it!!!
don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you...|||But what if (as relates to any extremist takeover, whether it be far-left socialism or far-right fascism), the military believed they were doing what needed to be done to defend the nation?|||Are you trying to encourage a military takeover? How right-wing and militant, tyrannical, really. Anyway, the U.S. isn't becoming socialist.|||You're a mindless Obama-zombie. You do not think, therefore cannot be worried about issues like this. I'm sure every dictatorship believed that they were also safe because of the military, too.|||He couldn't.
The military (and police forces actually) are organized in such a way that it would be impossible for anyone to do that using the military. It's far too easy for a "rogue" officer to do something against it in that situation.
The military is WAY more trustworthy than the politicians.|||What the hell are you talking about?|||Other than the gun control, it sounds like a GOP wet dream. Conservative seem to be into the authoritarian vibe.|||Slave camps, indoctrination and gun control is not socialism.|||They would have to follow direct orders from the Commander in Chief. No, that's not to say that the orders might somehow get miscontrued along the way ;-)|||There has been indoctrination in public schools.
Liberals own that.
Liberal's have been indoctrinating since hollywood.
Where have you been?|||maybe he is removing the officers with balls quietly as you speak. no?
or the congress that the dems control is slowly taking away military funding. That usually does it more efficiently.
Beware the fox is already inside your henhouse, farmer Joe.|||hey: an armed populous is the best defense against tyranny--and btw: our veterans have been accused of being extremist groups against this administration. thank God they are looking out for us. someone has to. God bless the USA. Go US ARMY!|||Don't think that well ever happen The military is 85% Conservative During Jimmy Carter time 3 high ranking officers had to resign on th e Q/t as they openly talked of standing up to Carter as they felt he was trying to disarm America|||in america, the military is subordinate to civillian authority. read the constitution. the power of commander in chief of the nation's military is vested solely in the person of the president. as long as due process is followed in changing the laws to establish even a communist society, the military would have no choice but to submit to the authority of the civillian government.
pray that the generals continue to obey this precept. a military dictatorship would be far worse than the darkest nightmares today's republicans currently have about obama.
No man or organization can rule America without the army. So, I wouldn't be so worried.|||If you do it slow enough, it might not be noticed by the army. It's like the frog and boiling water phenomena.|||too late.
we have socialized police, fire, armed forces, libraries, highway systems, farm aid, corporate welfare, courts, airline inspections, water and drug safety inspectors and on and on.
you don't like any of this, then don't drive to work or turn on a tap for some water or ever call the police or fire department.
you are about 150 years too late with your shrill, frighten, small and traitorous comments basically suggesting that since wacky righties can't win elections anymore that they are now OPENLY HOPING FOR ARMED REVOLT.
have right wingers gone completely insane??????
hoping that the army takes to the streets against american citizens???????
america - love it or leave it!!!
don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you...|||But what if (as relates to any extremist takeover, whether it be far-left socialism or far-right fascism), the military believed they were doing what needed to be done to defend the nation?|||Are you trying to encourage a military takeover? How right-wing and militant, tyrannical, really. Anyway, the U.S. isn't becoming socialist.|||You're a mindless Obama-zombie. You do not think, therefore cannot be worried about issues like this. I'm sure every dictatorship believed that they were also safe because of the military, too.|||He couldn't.
The military (and police forces actually) are organized in such a way that it would be impossible for anyone to do that using the military. It's far too easy for a "rogue" officer to do something against it in that situation.
The military is WAY more trustworthy than the politicians.|||What the hell are you talking about?|||Other than the gun control, it sounds like a GOP wet dream. Conservative seem to be into the authoritarian vibe.|||Slave camps, indoctrination and gun control is not socialism.|||They would have to follow direct orders from the Commander in Chief. No, that's not to say that the orders might somehow get miscontrued along the way ;-)|||There has been indoctrination in public schools.
Liberals own that.
Liberal's have been indoctrinating since hollywood.
Where have you been?|||maybe he is removing the officers with balls quietly as you speak. no?
or the congress that the dems control is slowly taking away military funding. That usually does it more efficiently.
Beware the fox is already inside your henhouse, farmer Joe.|||hey: an armed populous is the best defense against tyranny--and btw: our veterans have been accused of being extremist groups against this administration. thank God they are looking out for us. someone has to. God bless the USA. Go US ARMY!|||Don't think that well ever happen The military is 85% Conservative During Jimmy Carter time 3 high ranking officers had to resign on th e Q/t as they openly talked of standing up to Carter as they felt he was trying to disarm America|||in america, the military is subordinate to civillian authority. read the constitution. the power of commander in chief of the nation's military is vested solely in the person of the president. as long as due process is followed in changing the laws to establish even a communist society, the military would have no choice but to submit to the authority of the civillian government.
pray that the generals continue to obey this precept. a military dictatorship would be far worse than the darkest nightmares today's republicans currently have about obama.
How would the military allow America to become Socialist?
If Obama really wanted to implement even the most crazy of the fears of the right like; a Socialist America with slave camps, indoctrination, and worst of all more gun control. How, would the military allow all this, would they just blindly follow orders until we all had ID chips in us and there was a one nation world.
No man or organization can rule America without the army. So, I wouldn't be so worried.|||If you do it slow enough, it might not be noticed by the army. It's like the frog and boiling water phenomena.|||too late.
we have socialized police, fire, armed forces, libraries, highway systems, farm aid, corporate welfare, courts, airline inspections, water and drug safety inspectors and on and on.
you don't like any of this, then don't drive to work or turn on a tap for some water or ever call the police or fire department.
you are about 150 years too late with your shrill, frighten, small and traitorous comments basically suggesting that since wacky righties can't win elections anymore that they are now OPENLY HOPING FOR ARMED REVOLT.
have right wingers gone completely insane??????
hoping that the army takes to the streets against american citizens???????
america - love it or leave it!!!
don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you...|||But what if (as relates to any extremist takeover, whether it be far-left socialism or far-right fascism), the military believed they were doing what needed to be done to defend the nation?|||Are you trying to encourage a military takeover? How right-wing and militant, tyrannical, really. Anyway, the U.S. isn't becoming socialist.|||You're a mindless Obama-zombie. You do not think, therefore cannot be worried about issues like this. I'm sure every dictatorship believed that they were also safe because of the military, too.|||He couldn't.
The military (and police forces actually) are organized in such a way that it would be impossible for anyone to do that using the military. It's far too easy for a "rogue" officer to do something against it in that situation.
The military is WAY more trustworthy than the politicians.|||What the hell are you talking about?|||Other than the gun control, it sounds like a GOP wet dream. Conservative seem to be into the authoritarian vibe.|||Slave camps, indoctrination and gun control is not socialism.|||They would have to follow direct orders from the Commander in Chief. No, that's not to say that the orders might somehow get miscontrued along the way ;-)|||There has been indoctrination in public schools.
Liberals own that.
Liberal's have been indoctrinating since hollywood.
Where have you been?|||maybe he is removing the officers with balls quietly as you speak. no?
or the congress that the dems control is slowly taking away military funding. That usually does it more efficiently.
Beware the fox is already inside your henhouse, farmer Joe.|||hey: an armed populous is the best defense against tyranny--and btw: our veterans have been accused of being extremist groups against this administration. thank God they are looking out for us. someone has to. God bless the USA. Go US ARMY!|||Don't think that well ever happen The military is 85% Conservative During Jimmy Carter time 3 high ranking officers had to resign on th e Q/t as they openly talked of standing up to Carter as they felt he was trying to disarm America|||in america, the military is subordinate to civillian authority. read the constitution. the power of commander in chief of the nation's military is vested solely in the person of the president. as long as due process is followed in changing the laws to establish even a communist society, the military would have no choice but to submit to the authority of the civillian government.
pray that the generals continue to obey this precept. a military dictatorship would be far worse than the darkest nightmares today's republicans currently have about obama.
No man or organization can rule America without the army. So, I wouldn't be so worried.|||If you do it slow enough, it might not be noticed by the army. It's like the frog and boiling water phenomena.|||too late.
we have socialized police, fire, armed forces, libraries, highway systems, farm aid, corporate welfare, courts, airline inspections, water and drug safety inspectors and on and on.
you don't like any of this, then don't drive to work or turn on a tap for some water or ever call the police or fire department.
you are about 150 years too late with your shrill, frighten, small and traitorous comments basically suggesting that since wacky righties can't win elections anymore that they are now OPENLY HOPING FOR ARMED REVOLT.
have right wingers gone completely insane??????
hoping that the army takes to the streets against american citizens???????
america - love it or leave it!!!
don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you...|||But what if (as relates to any extremist takeover, whether it be far-left socialism or far-right fascism), the military believed they were doing what needed to be done to defend the nation?|||Are you trying to encourage a military takeover? How right-wing and militant, tyrannical, really. Anyway, the U.S. isn't becoming socialist.|||You're a mindless Obama-zombie. You do not think, therefore cannot be worried about issues like this. I'm sure every dictatorship believed that they were also safe because of the military, too.|||He couldn't.
The military (and police forces actually) are organized in such a way that it would be impossible for anyone to do that using the military. It's far too easy for a "rogue" officer to do something against it in that situation.
The military is WAY more trustworthy than the politicians.|||What the hell are you talking about?|||Other than the gun control, it sounds like a GOP wet dream. Conservative seem to be into the authoritarian vibe.|||Slave camps, indoctrination and gun control is not socialism.|||They would have to follow direct orders from the Commander in Chief. No, that's not to say that the orders might somehow get miscontrued along the way ;-)|||There has been indoctrination in public schools.
Liberals own that.
Liberal's have been indoctrinating since hollywood.
Where have you been?|||maybe he is removing the officers with balls quietly as you speak. no?
or the congress that the dems control is slowly taking away military funding. That usually does it more efficiently.
Beware the fox is already inside your henhouse, farmer Joe.|||hey: an armed populous is the best defense against tyranny--and btw: our veterans have been accused of being extremist groups against this administration. thank God they are looking out for us. someone has to. God bless the USA. Go US ARMY!|||Don't think that well ever happen The military is 85% Conservative During Jimmy Carter time 3 high ranking officers had to resign on th e Q/t as they openly talked of standing up to Carter as they felt he was trying to disarm America|||in america, the military is subordinate to civillian authority. read the constitution. the power of commander in chief of the nation's military is vested solely in the person of the president. as long as due process is followed in changing the laws to establish even a communist society, the military would have no choice but to submit to the authority of the civillian government.
pray that the generals continue to obey this precept. a military dictatorship would be far worse than the darkest nightmares today's republicans currently have about obama.
How do I join a private military without any experience?
I want to join the military, but am not prepared to take the oaths for my country, because by taking the oath, you represent your country and any action taken by your country, and I dont want to be responsible for decisions made by a couple of politicians. You can think what you like about me, but I dont want to hear it.
So back to the question, can I join some private military like Blackwater without any formal experience? Will they accept and give me the training instead?|||It doesn't matter what I think of you; it matters what Blackwater thinks of you. For ANY position, you are required to have "4-8 years of active duty experience in a U.S. military Combat Arms specialty (some positions require a combination of military and law enforcement experience)".|||Uhh...No. The reason they are profitable is because they don't need to give training to their soldiers- the vast majority (if not all) of them come from military and police departments across the world. Do you really think you would stand a chance in an interview room competing against a Green Beret or SEAL???
Xe rep: Mr. "Baby" (haha!). Why do you think we should hire you?
You: I like to play with guns!
Xe rep: Do you have any military experience?
You: Sorta...I have over 2 months total play time on COD. I've prestiged 10 times!
(Xe rep kicks your *** for wasting his time)
And you don't want to fight to "represent politicians" but you do want to fight for businessmen, who are contracted by politicians???|||Don't hate the players. Hate the game.|||Like chris said, who do you think hires businesses like Xe?
So back to the question, can I join some private military like Blackwater without any formal experience? Will they accept and give me the training instead?|||It doesn't matter what I think of you; it matters what Blackwater thinks of you. For ANY position, you are required to have "4-8 years of active duty experience in a U.S. military Combat Arms specialty (some positions require a combination of military and law enforcement experience)".|||Uhh...No. The reason they are profitable is because they don't need to give training to their soldiers- the vast majority (if not all) of them come from military and police departments across the world. Do you really think you would stand a chance in an interview room competing against a Green Beret or SEAL???
Xe rep: Mr. "Baby" (haha!). Why do you think we should hire you?
You: I like to play with guns!
Xe rep: Do you have any military experience?
You: Sorta...I have over 2 months total play time on COD. I've prestiged 10 times!
(Xe rep kicks your *** for wasting his time)
And you don't want to fight to "represent politicians" but you do want to fight for businessmen, who are contracted by politicians???|||Don't hate the players. Hate the game.|||Like chris said, who do you think hires businesses like Xe?
How important is military experience if you want to be Commander in Chief (i.e., President)?
And what type of military experience would be most valuable, in your opinion?|||Let's see. Abraham Lincoln had minimal experience as an elected Captain in the Illinois militia for about two months, and led us through the Civil War.
Woodrow Wilson never served and led us through WWI.
Franklin Roosevelt couldn't have served due to polio, and led America the the brink of victory in World War II.
Harry S. Truman served as an artillery Captain in WWI, and finished WWII and stood up to defend democracy in Korea.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was career military and probably the most boring president ever.
John F. Kennedy served in WWII as a PT Boat commander, and got us involved in Vietnam.
Lyndon Johnson never served, and escalated Vietnam while imposing ridiculous rules of engagement.
George H.W. Bush served as a Navy fighter pilot in WWII and is probably best known for listening to his generals in planning Desert Storm.
His son didn't listen to anyone. He was an Air National Guard pilot. Allegedly.
The current President never served, but seems to be listening to experts when it comes to defense issues.
I've left out Presidents who didn't deal with major wars. Carter was a Navy submariner, Reagan and Army Reservist who made movies, and Nixon had an interesting career in uniform.
The short answer is it's the man, and how he takes advice from experts. I spent 23 years in uniform, serving in combat and advisory roles around the world. Doesn't make me the man to talk to about deploying a carrier battle group and a MEU.|||A naval commander should be a primary candidate.
Those guys play thermo-nuclear war in their dreams.|||Real important...present company (BO) NOT excluded. I take your question on click farther, the guy needs some business background too.|||No experience required, that is what you have Generals for
You need a brain that can solve conflict without loss of life, how to fire a gun doesn't help
How could anyone disagree?|||The particular type of expierence is not as important as the fact that you did a job where you understood that you could be sent into harms way - and might not come back.|||I don't know if military experience is important, but he should have enough military knowledge to know if his military commanders are following the right strategy.
I believe that Lincoln, who had very little military experience, educated himself enough on military matters that he knew what the correct military strategy was to win the Civil War and knew when he finally got the right man (Grant)
Woodrow Wilson never served and led us through WWI.
Franklin Roosevelt couldn't have served due to polio, and led America the the brink of victory in World War II.
Harry S. Truman served as an artillery Captain in WWI, and finished WWII and stood up to defend democracy in Korea.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was career military and probably the most boring president ever.
John F. Kennedy served in WWII as a PT Boat commander, and got us involved in Vietnam.
Lyndon Johnson never served, and escalated Vietnam while imposing ridiculous rules of engagement.
George H.W. Bush served as a Navy fighter pilot in WWII and is probably best known for listening to his generals in planning Desert Storm.
His son didn't listen to anyone. He was an Air National Guard pilot. Allegedly.
The current President never served, but seems to be listening to experts when it comes to defense issues.
I've left out Presidents who didn't deal with major wars. Carter was a Navy submariner, Reagan and Army Reservist who made movies, and Nixon had an interesting career in uniform.
The short answer is it's the man, and how he takes advice from experts. I spent 23 years in uniform, serving in combat and advisory roles around the world. Doesn't make me the man to talk to about deploying a carrier battle group and a MEU.|||A naval commander should be a primary candidate.
Those guys play thermo-nuclear war in their dreams.|||Real important...present company (BO) NOT excluded. I take your question on click farther, the guy needs some business background too.|||No experience required, that is what you have Generals for
You need a brain that can solve conflict without loss of life, how to fire a gun doesn't help
How could anyone disagree?|||The particular type of expierence is not as important as the fact that you did a job where you understood that you could be sent into harms way - and might not come back.|||I don't know if military experience is important, but he should have enough military knowledge to know if his military commanders are following the right strategy.
I believe that Lincoln, who had very little military experience, educated himself enough on military matters that he knew what the correct military strategy was to win the Civil War and knew when he finally got the right man (Grant)
Does the military still train soldiers to use motorcycles?
I am 15 and I want to join the Marine Corps. As of right now I am considering becoming Military Police, and I heard through the grapevine that there are certain parts of the military that train their troops to use motorcycles.
I do not expect to become a bike trooper, if the military even has them, but I was hoping to learn more about the training process:
- Where does this training take place?
- How can I qualify?
- What MOS makes me eligible?
- Etc.
Anything you can tell me is greatly appreciated as well.|||i dont think that the military uses motorcycles anymore or has since ww2. if humvee's arent allowed to go outside the wire anymore then an unarmored open compartment vehicle will definitely not be used. If some delta force special forces undercover operations use them does not make them a military vehicle.
the iraqi army has 3 urals right behind our base tho that i see and envy everyday.|||The Marine Corps uses the Kawasaki M1030 M1 Diesel Military Motorcycles.
They are used by Communication Marines as an alternative for delivering messages if radio's go down
With approximately only 400 bikes in the fleet inventory your chances of being an operator are slime to none|||I have never heard of or seen a military police "bike trooper" in my 12-years of service. I have no reason to believe that they exists.|||Some of the really high speed Special Forces guys are allocated Motorcycles for their missions. But in the marines... you'll never see one in the field.
I do not expect to become a bike trooper, if the military even has them, but I was hoping to learn more about the training process:
- Where does this training take place?
- How can I qualify?
- What MOS makes me eligible?
- Etc.
Anything you can tell me is greatly appreciated as well.|||i dont think that the military uses motorcycles anymore or has since ww2. if humvee's arent allowed to go outside the wire anymore then an unarmored open compartment vehicle will definitely not be used. If some delta force special forces undercover operations use them does not make them a military vehicle.
the iraqi army has 3 urals right behind our base tho that i see and envy everyday.|||The Marine Corps uses the Kawasaki M1030 M1 Diesel Military Motorcycles.
They are used by Communication Marines as an alternative for delivering messages if radio's go down
With approximately only 400 bikes in the fleet inventory your chances of being an operator are slime to none|||I have never heard of or seen a military police "bike trooper" in my 12-years of service. I have no reason to believe that they exists.|||Some of the really high speed Special Forces guys are allocated Motorcycles for their missions. But in the marines... you'll never see one in the field.
What was the military like in the 1930s during the great depression?
Was it one of the more stable careers at the time? Did they continue to have benfits? What hardships did they suffer? Were they always paid? Sorry for all the questions, I'm just looking fir the answers. Couldn't find much on the internet other than the needs of the military came first during this time like civilians could not buy pantyhose with silk and cotton fabric was limited, things like that. Any help would be appreciated.|||You ask about how it was in the '30s and then talk about how it was in the 40's. In the 1930's, with the exception of the Navy, the United States had one of the smallest military forces in the world, the Greek army at that time was larger than ours, we had no Air Force to speak of and our armored corps was in it's infancy. The military was not seen as a career choice by many people, basically the only people that really considered it a career choice were those from military families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)