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.

 

Without our soldiers there is nothing, so why not pay them more?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Without our soldiers, there is nothing. No goverment, no president to sit his ass down in the White House all day, with his luxuries, and conspire crap up, no nation, no democracy, absolutely nothing!

The soldiers of not only USA, but of every nation, put their lives on the line everyday, to fight for what they believe in. They may even loose limbs, and die from what they do.

What they do is the hardest job in the world. So why not pay our troops more money? If our troops were paid more, (Im sure even though they love what they do or they wouldn't be doing it) it would make them feel better, and help get # done.

However, if they were only in it for the money then there is no point. They minus well go in for being a mercenary/assassin, thats most likely where the money is. But come on U.S. goverment, show these boys how much you really appreciate them and show some respect, and pay them a little bit more. Because you wouldn't be here without them!




posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jca2005
 


um... we are something without a military. the USA didn't have a standing army until after WW2. a military isn't necessary to ensure democracy unless said democracy is under attack from a credible threat.

hell, good ol' george washington gave a nice speech on how we should avoid a standing army.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Our soldiers help insure there is something.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
You see those billions are needed for Halliburton. The troops have never "donated" millions to the GOP or had a VP in office. Sure they had soldiers in office, Ike a big one, but lately they haven't "donated" millions to the GOP.

So, until the soldiers donate millions of dollars to the GOP they won't get as much money as the billionaires.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jca2005
 


the argument falls apart when there are instances when we had both something and no soldiers

exactly HOW do they insure that there is something?
last time i checked it was WE THE PEOPLE that insured it, not the soldiers



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by jca2005
 


the argument falls apart when there are instances when we had both something and no soldiers

exactly HOW do they insure that there is something?
last time i checked it was WE THE PEOPLE that insured it, not the soldiers


Yes well, the people aren't highly trained to protect themselves and everyone else. Thats what soldiers are for. To protect their country.

If we did not have an army, then anyone could just come in here, and blow us to smithereens. Normal people with weapons, and not the training to use them can't help insure anything in case something were to happen to their country, like an invasion.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by jca2005]



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
hmmm... seems to me it's just that sort of paranoia that breeds aggression in the first place... if a bully thinks you're afraid of him, you're a target... if not, they think twice... imo



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
hell, good ol' george washington gave a nice speech on how we should avoid a standing army.


Show me a valid reference to this speech. Washington was a general, and put his life at risk, including the soldiers under him, for his country.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by jca2005]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jca2005
 


but we aren't under constant threat of invasion, thus your premise is completely ridiculous. we don't need an army to defend things... and if certain countries really wanted to just blow the crap out of us, they'd have to realize our massive nuclear deterrent...

we don't need soldiers, we have nukes.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
we don't need soldiers, we have nukes.


What are our nukes going to do, if we are actually being invaded? Blow our land up? Nope you deploy troops. And even if we didn't have a standing army, and we had to go to war, we will have an army then.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The US did not have a standing army until after WW2?

Wrong

The United States Army was created on June 14th 1775 and has existed ever since then. From 1783 until 1790 it was called the United States Frontier Constabulary Force and from 1790 until 1797 it was called the Legion of the United States before finally being renamed the United States Army in 1797. However, the US Army was traditionally very small during peacetime up until the late 1800s for example; when we declared war on Britain in 1812 the entire US Army only numbered about 6,700 officers and enlisted men.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by ChrisF231]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jca2005

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
we don't need soldiers, we have nukes.


What are our nukes going to do, if we are actually being invaded? Blow our land up? Nope you deploy troops. And even if we didn't have a standing army, and we had to go to war, we will have an army then.


a nuke is called a deterrent. they're a threat of "you invade us, we turn your country to glass"

what good is an invasion force if we get rid of the country that launches the attack?

oh, another thing...
we don't pay soldiers more because pretty much any jane/joe can be a soldier with adequate training and conditioning.
and it doesn't even take that much of it.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
a nuke is called a deterrent. they're a threat of "you invade us, we turn your country to glass"

what good is an invasion force if we get rid of the country that launches the attack?


Thats great to have nukes however, soldiers are the ones who deploy them. Air Force men drop them. Are you saying we can just launch them from washington or somewhere? Are troops have to deliver those nukes.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by jca2005
 


we don't need an air force for nukes, we have ICBMs. all we need are technicians to deploy them, not troops.

and again, i already told you why we don't pay them more, it's a profession that almost anyone can carry out.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I'm with you. It's crazy what we pay mercenaries when we have trained patriots we could pay a real salary so their spouses didn't have to go on food stamps.

Why shouldn't a guy that busts his hump 16 hours a day make at least as much as a hump doing 8 hours in a WalMart?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by RANT
 


maybe because the guy busting his hump at walmart is getting all of his food, shelter, and transportation provided for him...

the military actually spends quite a bit on soldiers
...and it's not like the US needs to spend MORE on the military than it already does.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join