It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Presidential Executive Order Amending EO 13223

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Thoughts? I especially want to hear vets thoughts on the idea that Trump might reactivate them, just to prevent them from protesting.


I think it is among the stupidest, most overdramatic, paranoid, ridiculously alarmist wild haired speculations I've read on ATS this week... and yes, that includes the Skunk Works and Grey Area threads on ATS.




posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
Does anyone know if I could be recalled even if I was medically discharged? I've been out for 7 years... not really looking to go back on Active Duty. My back hurts...


Can you be recalled? Yes. Medical retirements can be recalled.

Would they keep you? Probably not, unless you made it past a medboard.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I'd need to see a source on that because I hadn't heard that. As far as I know, if you're 60 or going to hit 60 before a recall goes through or a deployment begins, you're not going anywhere.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Thanks



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Well, this just came out. Looks like it actually is a personnel issue as another poster suggested.
www.usatoday.com...

The USAF has been having a severe shortage in drone pilots. It's been going on for awhile now, but the retention issues have been pretty bad. Looks like this EO is going to be used to keep them from quitting.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Aazadan

I'd need to see a source on that because I hadn't heard that. As far as I know, if you're 60 or going to hit 60 before a recall goes through or a deployment begins, you're not going anywhere.


Section 688 would seem to indicate that the elder former officers can agree to serve as defense attaches, but their service and location are entirely dependent on the veteran, himself, agreeing to the post.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I was at Fort Campbell one time, got a call from my OIC.

He said, "I know you have every right to say no, but I really need you at Fort Carson for a month".

I said, "Thank you. I really must refuse this time because I have birthday's and an anniversary and life to get back to".

He coughed and said, "I already booked your flight and called billeting. They'll be expecting you on Monday."


All I could say was, oh rah.

Volun-told.




posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

It may also have something to do with being a quick and simple way to bring back a number of the high ranking officers purged from the services under Obama.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Maybe, but I don't think so. Most of those who got purged were unhinged already, and a good deal compromised, like Flynn.

Even if that weren't the case, there has been a large amount of bloat in upper military ranks over the last several years. We simply have far more than we need given the size of the military. To keep things running efficiently, they should remain discharged.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Shamrock6

I was at Fort Campbell one time, got a call from my OIC.

He said, "I know you have every right to say no, but I really need you at Fort Carson for a month".

I said, "Thank you. I really must refuse this time because I have birthday's and an anniversary and life to get back to".

He coughed and said, "I already booked your flight and called billeting. They'll be expecting you on Monday."


All I could say was, oh rah.

Volun-told.


Asked for volunteers to step forward and everyone else stepped back....



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

Thoughts? I especially want to hear vets thoughts on the idea that Trump might reactivate them, just to prevent them from protesting.


You can protest, just not in uniform and not using the military as part of that protest...



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Aazadan

I'd need to see a source on that because I hadn't heard that. As far as I know, if you're 60 or going to hit 60 before a recall goes through or a deployment begins, you're not going anywhere.


That's what I was saying, they wouldn't bring back officers over 60. The change to this EO removes that. They still might not do it, but there's no longer a policy saying they can't. Which does open things up to either bringing back specific generals, or perhaps a retiring doctor or something where as they couldn't before.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Don't argue with him, he is always right. :-)



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

If you're not willing to debate something in one thread, don't chase me to another thread so you can take shots at me there.

Grow up.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Aazadan

Thoughts? I especially want to hear vets thoughts on the idea that Trump might reactivate them, just to prevent them from protesting.


You can protest, just not in uniform and not using the military as part of that protest...


Ok, that's fair. I should have clarified. It's still a way to silence dissent.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

What a coincidence, so am I.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Where does it lift the age restriction though? I'm not seeing it. Not saying it's not there, just that I don't see it. All I've seen is a change to the numbers that can be recalled or retained.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: intrptr


They are running out of volunteers. Good, maybe people are beginning to see the current endless war cycle for what it is;


Hardly. The services are meeting their recruitment and retention goals.

Officially speaking... thank you officer. You left out the 'endless war' part of my post. Why they need to change it to 'endless recall'.

Endless war begets endless recall, the uS isn't 'winning' either. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine... threatening in Korea and Iran.

What a bunch of dummies, officially speaking.



edit on 20-10-2017 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Officially speaking... thank you officer.


You're welcome, citizen.


You left out the 'endless war' part of my post. Why they need to change it to 'endless recall'.


Yea, because there was nothing to debate there. Sorry the lack of kudos hurt your feelings.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Aazadan

This nothing new....I believe they have always been able to do this.


As far as shutting me up... that'd be easy. Two laps around the platoon with
even a 16 overhead would poptart my heart out like a four-banger toaster.

No worries, really : I got eligible for the draft a month before the Tet. They'll
probably take me back right after somebody evaporates Chesapeake Bay.
edit on 20-10-2017 by derfreebie because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join