Options

Donald Trump Attacks [The US Military]... Again

13435363739

Posts

  • Options
    CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Trump got into a fight with military vets over agent orange in the silliest possible way.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-and-omarosa-had-a-fcking-weird-fight-with-vietnam-vets
    After some vocal public shaming from military veterans and advocates, Trump, accompanied by Manigault-Newman, met with principals from various vets organizations in the Roosevelt Room on March 17, 2017.

    The event nearly degenerated into a uniquely Trumpian trainwreck.

    During this White House meeting, certain details of which have not been previously reported, the president managed to again annoy and confuse U.S. war veterans, this time by getting into a bizarre, protracted argument with Vietnam War vets present about the movie Apocalypse Now and the herbicide Agent Orange.

    “It was really fucking weird,” one attendee bluntly assessed to The Daily Beast.

    The meeting included President Trump and the envoys of nearly a dozen major vets groups—including the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the right-leaning Concerned Veterans for America—as well as senior staffers such as Stephen Miller, Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer, and Manigault-Newman surrounding the large table.
    During the course of the meeting, Weidman brought up the issue of Agent Orange, an extremely notorious component of the U.S. herbicidal warfare on Vietnam. Weidman was imploring the president and his team to permit access to benefits for a broader number of vets who have said they were poisoned by Agent Orange.

    Trump responded by saying, “That’s taken care of,” according to people in the room.

    His reply puzzled the group.

    Attendees began explaining to the president that the VA had not made enough progress on the issue at all, to which Trump responded by abruptly derailing the meeting and asking the attendees if Agent Orange was “that stuff from that movie.”


    He did not initially name the film he was referencing, but it quickly became clear as Trump kept rambling that he was referring to the classic 1979 Francis Ford Coppola epic Apocalypse Now, and specifically the famous helicopter attack scene set to the “Ride of the Valkyries.”

    Source present at the time tell The Daily Beast that multiple people—including Vietnam War veterans—chimed in to inform the president that the Apocalypse Now set piece he was talking about showcased the U.S. military using napalm, not Agent Orange.

    Trump refused to accept that he was mistaken and proceeded to say things like, “no, I think it’s that stuff from that movie.”
    The debate over Apocalypse Now in the Roosevelt Room lasted at least two minutes, according to estimates from those who endured it. The president was not able to call on everyone at the roundtable by the end of the event, in part due to these types of tangents.
    Was John Kelly doing his facepalm?

    I mean, fucking hell. I wasn't born until just before the Vietnam war ended. I've got a passing interest in wartime history, but I'm far from learned. And I still know what Agent Fucking Orange is.

    This man was in military school while Agent Orange was being deployed. He was given five deferments during the period when it was being deployed. His contemporaries suffer from it. And he doesn't appear to know the difference between napalm and Agent Orange.

    The best fucking brain, this guy.

    I was born in the latter half of the fuckin 80s and I know what agent orange is.

    Don't you guys remember that famous line from that movie, "I love the smell of Agent Orange in the morning"?

  • Options
    SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Do you think for a nanosecond Trump has tried to stop torture from the new CIA?

    No. I'm terrified by the public lionizing of actual enablers and defenders of torturers that's happening because Donald Trump dislikes them.

    EDIT: Ah, sorry Elki. Didn't see the post.

    Synthesis on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Guys, I think he thought the Napalm was Agent Orange because of the color of the flames.

  • Options
    GONG-00GONG-00 Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Guys, I think he thought the Napalm was Agent Orange because of the color of the flames.

    Given that Trump sees a combustible orange (Russian) agent whenever he passes a mirror, I can understand his confusion.

    Black lives matter.
    Law and Order ≠ Justice
    ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
    Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
    xu257gunns6e.png
  • Options
    SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Guys, I think he thought the Napalm was Agent Orange because of the color of the flames.

    Given that Trump sees a combustible orange (Russian) agent whenever he passes a mirror, I can understand his confusion.

    Thanks a new one, I thought Orange meant the Netherlands. Or perhaps Northern Ireland. :)

  • Options
    GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Trump got into a fight with military vets over agent orange in the silliest possible way.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-and-omarosa-had-a-fcking-weird-fight-with-vietnam-vets
    After some vocal public shaming from military veterans and advocates, Trump, accompanied by Manigault-Newman, met with principals from various vets organizations in the Roosevelt Room on March 17, 2017.

    The event nearly degenerated into a uniquely Trumpian trainwreck.

    During this White House meeting, certain details of which have not been previously reported, the president managed to again annoy and confuse U.S. war veterans, this time by getting into a bizarre, protracted argument with Vietnam War vets present about the movie Apocalypse Now and the herbicide Agent Orange.

    “It was really fucking weird,” one attendee bluntly assessed to The Daily Beast.

    The meeting included President Trump and the envoys of nearly a dozen major vets groups—including the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the right-leaning Concerned Veterans for America—as well as senior staffers such as Stephen Miller, Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer, and Manigault-Newman surrounding the large table.
    During the course of the meeting, Weidman brought up the issue of Agent Orange, an extremely notorious component of the U.S. herbicidal warfare on Vietnam. Weidman was imploring the president and his team to permit access to benefits for a broader number of vets who have said they were poisoned by Agent Orange.

    Trump responded by saying, “That’s taken care of,” according to people in the room.

    His reply puzzled the group.

    Attendees began explaining to the president that the VA had not made enough progress on the issue at all, to which Trump responded by abruptly derailing the meeting and asking the attendees if Agent Orange was “that stuff from that movie.”


    He did not initially name the film he was referencing, but it quickly became clear as Trump kept rambling that he was referring to the classic 1979 Francis Ford Coppola epic Apocalypse Now, and specifically the famous helicopter attack scene set to the “Ride of the Valkyries.”

    Source present at the time tell The Daily Beast that multiple people—including Vietnam War veterans—chimed in to inform the president that the Apocalypse Now set piece he was talking about showcased the U.S. military using napalm, not Agent Orange.

    Trump refused to accept that he was mistaken and proceeded to say things like, “no, I think it’s that stuff from that movie.”
    The debate over Apocalypse Now in the Roosevelt Room lasted at least two minutes, according to estimates from those who endured it. The president was not able to call on everyone at the roundtable by the end of the event, in part due to these types of tangents.
    Was John Kelly doing his facepalm?

    I mean, fucking hell. I wasn't born until just before the Vietnam war ended. I've got a passing interest in wartime history, but I'm far from learned. And I still know what Agent Fucking Orange is.

    This man was in military school while Agent Orange was being deployed. He was given five deferments during the period when it was being deployed. His contemporaries suffer from it. And he doesn't appear to know the difference between napalm and Agent Orange.

    The best fucking brain, this guy.

    I'm honestly surprised that John's hands haven't molecularly bonded to his face at this point.

  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    He is kind of like Agent Orange

    He kills everything he touches and makes me want to vomit

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    He is kind of like Agent Orange

    He kills everything he touches and makes me want to vomit

    To be even more specific, he was designed and selected in an attempt by those who thought they controlled him to destroy some very specific targets, but a lack of understanding of what they have unleashed has led to even those who created and used him being damaged in the process, in ways which we can barely understand today and will come to regret massively in the future.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    He is kind of like Agent Orange

    He kills everything he touches and makes me want to vomit

    To be even more specific, he was designed and selected in an attempt by those who thought they controlled him to destroy some very specific targets, but a lack of understanding of what they have unleashed has led to even those who created and used him being damaged in the process, in ways which we can barely understand today and will come to regret massively in the future.

    To drag this metaphor out, let's see if he too ends up being vastly more harmful to people in other countries than he already was to Americans.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    He is kind of like Agent Orange

    He kills everything he touches and makes me want to vomit

    To be even more specific, he was designed and selected in an attempt by those who thought they controlled him to destroy some very specific targets, but a lack of understanding of what they have unleashed has led to even those who created and used him being damaged in the process, in ways which we can barely understand today and will come to regret massively in the future.

    To drag this metaphor out, let's see if he too ends up being vastly more harmful to people in other countries than he already was to Americans.

    His stance on climate change can probably handle that part just fine.

  • Options
    SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    He is kind of like Agent Orange

    He kills everything he touches and makes me want to vomit

    To be even more specific, he was designed and selected in an attempt by those who thought they controlled him to destroy some very specific targets, but a lack of understanding of what they have unleashed has led to even those who created and used him being damaged in the process, in ways which we can barely understand today and will come to regret massively in the future.

    To drag this metaphor out, let's see if he too ends up being vastly more harmful to people in other countries than he already was to Americans.

    His stance on climate change can probably handle that part just fine.

    Entirely possible, even probable, though that will make him part of Agent Orange rather than the whole.

  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Stay on topic or this thread will be closed.

    Go to PM or somewhere else if you want to chat about the best metaphors to describe Trump or whatever other non topical thing people have been dumping in here


  • Options
    valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    RickRude wrote: »
    I hate that I spent so many years being a republican and voting republican when I was in the military thinking they were the party for veterans. It's disgusting how they use us and throw us aside.

    I wouldn't beat yourself up over it too much.

    I grew up in a military household with conservative parents and voted for Bush the Lesser once. Kerry's treatment during the 2004 election is what made the facade crack, but its 14 years later and things are very different.

    Republicans these days aren't the ones of old... and by old I mean pre Clinton era where he proved Democrats weren't the tax and spend party by balancing the budget, and where their Southern Strategy started to crack and non-white populations began to grow faster. However, they talk a good game. Republicans know which buttons to push to get their way, and now that they've successfully led a voter oppression campaign in largely blue districts they can focus on a plurality of people and still win. Part of their appeal is that they're the "pro military party" and focus on traditionalism and tribalism laced with nationalistic paranoia and us vs. them mentalities to create a system of belief, an almost religious fervor, because people who buy into the sales pitch of belief systems are far more difficult to sway than people who see a political party as a means of using group pressure to simply enact laws. And because they latch on to these venerable and respected institutions like the Army it becomes difficult to question their motivations, see the NFL protests for reference.

    It's why you see Democrats instantly turning on people who do questionable shit and Republicans vote in literal Nazis, because they're now a modern religion worshipping at the altar of Free Market Jesus and his apostles, Saint Ronnie and Saint Ayn.

    That is the most succinct and accurate description of the modern GOP that I have ever seen. It has always boggled my mind that the party of Eisenhower became this and then I remember... Nixon.

    He fucked up modern politics more than any single politician in recent history. Everything the Republicans are now can be laid at his feet. I'm sure the Dixiecrats would have gone somewhere, but this a-hole actually courted them.

    asxcjbppb2eo.jpg
  • Options
    valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    edited August 2018
    MorganV wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    Trump also managed to sign the defense act named for John McCain and talk about it for half an hour without mentioning John McCain once. He even referred to the act by a generic name in his speech. So on top of his rubbish joke, he failed to mention the veteran with terminal cancer while signing an act named in his honor.


    john McCain sucks, this bill was horseshit, and I hate that the media felt the need to talk about this insignificant breach of decorum rather than the fact that they decided to throw another seventy fucking billion dollars at the pentagon

    The Part I emphasize is the part that really baffles me; I know it's bordering on treason to question military expenditures, but someone needs to point out that aside from the sporadic bombing campaigns and spec ops that are the day to day affairs of the US government, you aren't actually in any major armed conflicts right now, nor are you in a position to actually start one with any of your likely foes (NK is basically safe since trump can't admit that he utterly failed with kim jong and Iran is neither giving you a good causus belli nor logistically feesible).

    So why the need to increase spending by more then 10% particularly when you are slashing any support for the troops on things they actually would benefit from? Like you know: a functional VA.

    Defense contractors are really, really good at bribes.

    Case in point:

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-35-14-trillion-dollar-national-disaster-19985

    Nearly 3 Decades

    $1.4 Trillion


    Can't operate in rain or sort of above medium humidity without its paint stripping off. The paint that is a functional part of its stealth functionality.

    FFS I hate this plane.

    Like I'm not even sure what the point of this plane was, but whatever the initial plan was... its apparently a bad plan cause we spent a trillion and apparently don't have the planes to show for it.

    This looks like the plot from The Pentagon Wars, a comedy (based on a book by Colonel James G. Burton, USAF (retired), that I've been meaning to read), about the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

    As with any film, some liberties with facts are present, but I have it on decent authority (one of my dad's cousins Maj. John Arms, US Army, retired in 1983) that the great sheep chase and the Israelis demanding a shitload of refits on it are spot on. He was in the Army Corps of Engineers and consulted some on the Bradley, roughly after it got the tank cannon, but before the men would be asked to carry/store TOW missiles on their heads.

    It doesn't have a tank cannon. Its a 25 mm autocannon. Its used for taking out light vehicles or Infantry.

    Edit: Sorry, its abpet peeve of mine. Guys at work make fun of me by call8ng it a tank.

    valhalla130 on
    asxcjbppb2eo.jpg
  • Options
    EvermournEvermourn Registered User regular
    RickRude wrote: »
    I hate that I spent so many years being a republican and voting republican when I was in the military thinking they were the party for veterans. It's disgusting how they use us and throw us aside.

    I wouldn't beat yourself up over it too much.

    I grew up in a military household with conservative parents and voted for Bush the Lesser once. Kerry's treatment during the 2004 election is what made the facade crack, but its 14 years later and things are very different.

    Republicans these days aren't the ones of old... and by old I mean pre Clinton era where he proved Democrats weren't the tax and spend party by balancing the budget, and where their Southern Strategy started to crack and non-white populations began to grow faster. However, they talk a good game. Republicans know which buttons to push to get their way, and now that they've successfully led a voter oppression campaign in largely blue districts they can focus on a plurality of people and still win. Part of their appeal is that they're the "pro military party" and focus on traditionalism and tribalism laced with nationalistic paranoia and us vs. them mentalities to create a system of belief, an almost religious fervor, because people who buy into the sales pitch of belief systems are far more difficult to sway than people who see a political party as a means of using group pressure to simply enact laws. And because they latch on to these venerable and respected institutions like the Army it becomes difficult to question their motivations, see the NFL protests for reference.

    It's why you see Democrats instantly turning on people who do questionable shit and Republicans vote in literal Nazis, because they're now a modern religion worshipping at the altar of Free Market Jesus and his apostles, Saint Ronnie and Saint Ayn.

    That is the most succinct and accurate description of the modern GOP that I have ever seen. It has always boggled my mind that the party of Eisenhower became this and then I remember... Nixon.

    He fucked up modern politics more than any single politician in recent history. Everything the Republicans are now can be laid at his feet. I'm sure the Dixiecrats would have gone somewhere, but this a-hole actually courted them.

    You know maybe just a smidge of blame should go to the people who voted for it? Politicians dont do this stuff in a vacuum. If it doesnt get them votes they will probably stop doing it.

  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Evermourn wrote: »
    RickRude wrote: »
    I hate that I spent so many years being a republican and voting republican when I was in the military thinking they were the party for veterans. It's disgusting how they use us and throw us aside.

    I wouldn't beat yourself up over it too much.

    I grew up in a military household with conservative parents and voted for Bush the Lesser once. Kerry's treatment during the 2004 election is what made the facade crack, but its 14 years later and things are very different.

    Republicans these days aren't the ones of old... and by old I mean pre Clinton era where he proved Democrats weren't the tax and spend party by balancing the budget, and where their Southern Strategy started to crack and non-white populations began to grow faster. However, they talk a good game. Republicans know which buttons to push to get their way, and now that they've successfully led a voter oppression campaign in largely blue districts they can focus on a plurality of people and still win. Part of their appeal is that they're the "pro military party" and focus on traditionalism and tribalism laced with nationalistic paranoia and us vs. them mentalities to create a system of belief, an almost religious fervor, because people who buy into the sales pitch of belief systems are far more difficult to sway than people who see a political party as a means of using group pressure to simply enact laws. And because they latch on to these venerable and respected institutions like the Army it becomes difficult to question their motivations, see the NFL protests for reference.

    It's why you see Democrats instantly turning on people who do questionable shit and Republicans vote in literal Nazis, because they're now a modern religion worshipping at the altar of Free Market Jesus and his apostles, Saint Ronnie and Saint Ayn.

    That is the most succinct and accurate description of the modern GOP that I have ever seen. It has always boggled my mind that the party of Eisenhower became this and then I remember... Nixon.

    He fucked up modern politics more than any single politician in recent history. Everything the Republicans are now can be laid at his feet. I'm sure the Dixiecrats would have gone somewhere, but this a-hole actually courted them.

    You know maybe just a smidge of blame should go to the people who voted for it? Politicians dont do this stuff in a vacuum. If it doesnt get them votes they will probably stop doing it.
    Yeah, but if they stop voting for it, what will people do for their war-boners?

    I used to like Brian Williams, but after the fake helicopter claims, I was on the fence. But when he all but orgasmed over Trump's cruise missile attack, on air, I was completely done with him.

    As long as it doesn't mean flag-covered coffins at Dover, too many Americans love seeing weapons of war being used in the field. That there's often some bystander on the other end who is collateral isn't seen as important.

  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    That's hardly unique to the US.

  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    That's hardly unique to the US.
    No, but the US is the one most likely to engage in these foreign excursions.

    I can't recall the last foreign engagement that Australia lead the way on. The last one from the UK was what, the Falklands?

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    That's hardly unique to the US.
    No, but the US is the one most likely to engage in these foreign excursions.

    I can't recall the last foreign engagement that Australia lead the way on. The last one from the UK was what, the Falklands?

    Libya.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    That's hardly unique to the US.
    No, but the US is the one most likely to engage in these foreign excursions.

    I can't recall the last foreign engagement that Australia lead the way on. The last one from the UK was what, the Falklands?

    Libya.

    That was more Italy iirc but yes they were part of the positive public pressure

    Also the UK was number 2 on Iraq 2

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    That's hardly unique to the US.
    No, but the US is the one most likely to engage in these foreign excursions.

    I can't recall the last foreign engagement that Australia lead the way on. The last one from the UK was what, the Falklands?

    The US is more likely to ignore what anyome else is doing, you mean.

  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    That's hardly unique to the US.
    No, but the US is the one most likely to engage in these foreign excursions.

    I can't recall the last foreign engagement that Australia lead the way on. The last one from the UK was what, the Falklands?

    The US is more likely to ignore what anyome else is doing, you mean.

    Not really. Just to explain, I'm an Australian citizen, spending a good portion of my time in Australia. I see the American foreign excursions all the time, and when Australia does participate, it's usually only at America or the UK's urging. Other than local border security, the last thing I can think of that Australia did unilaterally was East Timor, almost 20 years ago, and that very much wasn't "celebrated", like the Syria missile strikes. Similarly the UK participation in Libya was so comparatively small in terms of coverage, I forgot about it.

    But when the US does it, it's fanfare and explosion, theme music and bumper-sticker headlines.

    That might be an incorrect assumption of the facts, but it IS the perception. And that's not to say all interventions are bad. I wish the western world would interject MORE when it comes to genocides and the like. And don't get me wrong, the troops who fight should be treated with respect and dignity, but the whole operation shouldn't be broadcast as a rock show with deadly pyrotechnics.

  • Options
    Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    That's hardly unique to the US.
    No, but the US is the one most likely to engage in these foreign excursions.

    I can't recall the last foreign engagement that Australia lead the way on. The last one from the UK was what, the Falklands?

    Arguably Libya was Franco-British led. Prior to that it would be the intervention into the Sierra Leone civil war in the early 2000s.

    That said, apart from the US most other countries can only maintain one conflict at a time. With most of the Western nations involved in either Afghanistan or Iraq it has limited the amount of military interventionism that was seen previously.

  • Options
    V1mV1m Registered User regular
    And people forget that the Sierra Leone thing went pretty well. It was basically a good idea executed well.

    Whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiich unfortunately gave Blair the idea that it could be easily repeated in Iraq. Welp.

  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Hello as I have said before this isn't a general discuss all things related to the military thread.

    Stay on topic or the thread will be locked.

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    DedwrekkaDedwrekka Metal Hell adjacentRegistered User regular
    The Trump administration has had some really weird conversations with vet organizations which has derailed even talking about VA improvements.
    Attendees began explaining to the president that the VA had not made enough progress on the issue at all, to which Trump responded by abruptly derailing the meeting and asking the attendees if Agent Orange was “that stuff from that movie.”

    He did not initially name the film he was referencing, but it quickly became clear as Trump kept rambling that he was referring to the classic 1979 Francis Ford Coppola epic Apocalypse Now, and specifically the famous helicopter attack scene set to the “Ride of the Valkyries.”

    Source present at the time tell The Daily Beast that multiple people—including Vietnam War veterans—chimed in to inform the president that the Apocalypse Now set piece he was talking about showcased the U.S. military using napalm, not Agent Orange.

    Trump refused to accept that he was mistaken and proceeded to say things like, “no, I think it’s that stuff from that movie.”

    One clue belying the president’s insistence is that the famous Robert Duvall line from the scene in Apocalypse Now, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning,” is not “I love the smell of Agent Orange in the morning.”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-and-omarosa-had-a-fcking-weird-fight-with-vietnam-vets


    The Vietnam Veterans of America, among other veterans groups in attendance, was there to talk about how the VA was not doing enough to cover everyone who may have been affected by Agent Orange, and how the VA could expand that coverage.

    They were also there to discuss getting benefits for veterans who were separated under administrative discharge.
    As a quick primer, there are two major categories of discharge; Administrative Discharge and Punitive Discharge. There's also various forms of retirement that I won't go into right now.
    Punitive discharge happens after a court martial determins the commission of a crime or offense. These are Bad Conduct Discharges and Dishonorable Discharges.
    Administrative discharge includes Honorable, General and Other Than Honorable discharges. Honorable means you left without major issue. General discharge is basically "failed to meet expectations", this is often a result of non-judicial punishment. Other Than Honorable usually means that there was some act or problem that was not fitting with military service, but usually didn't involve a court martial.
    Honorable is the only discharge that automatically gets full access to benefits. Other administrative discharges have the possibility to upgrade discharges after a period of time to gain access to VA benefits. Punitive discharges don't gain access to benefits.

    What the Vietnam Veterans of America was there to discuss was getting access to VA benefits for people discharged with medical issues resulting from service regardless of discharge. The problem is that some military members with TBI, PTSD, body injury, or other issues resulting from service are not discharged Honorably. Sometimes it results in General or Other Than Honorable discharges as a result of misattributing the reason for a failure to meet standards. Not to push the "crazy war vet" narrative, but yes, sometimes military members with medical issues commit crimes and are given Punitive discharges. Not just "guy flips out and beats people", but also "guy deals with pain/mental problems by smoking pot".

    The Vietnam Veterans of America was there to try and get all of these people access to VA benefits.
    And they got derailed by Trump arguing about Agent Orange vs Napalm. According to the article they couldn't even get to everyone because of these tangents, and it was one of the few cases where Trump actually showed up to a meeting.

  • Options
    DedwrekkaDedwrekka Metal Hell adjacentRegistered User regular
    edited August 2018
    The current administration has issued a new "Deploy or Get Out" policy.
    Under this policy anyone who, for more than 12 months, cannot be deployed (excluding pregnancies/postpartum) is to be removed starting October 1st, 2018. This will greatly affect people who are on medical profiles that stop them from taking parts of the PT test, as well as those banned from deployment under older policies.
    This also includes an estimated 1,200 military members with HIV.

    They recently (August 1st) added an addendum to the policy that also exempts a special "wounded warrior" class but that classification is limited to people
    whose injuries were the result of hostile action, meet the criteria for awarding of the Purple Heart, and whose injuries were not the result of their own misconduct
    https://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-officially-exempts-troops-wounded-in-combat-from-nondeployable-separation-policy-1.540656
    Which, honestly leaves out a hell of a lot of people who are injured as part of the job through no fault of their own but are still able to do the work, but because of administrative requirements aren't able to deploy. As well as some truly ridiculous situations as a result of bureaucracy.
    Approximately 11 percent, or 235,000, of the 2.1 million personnel serving on active duty, in the reserves or National Guard are currently non-deployable, Command Sgt. Maj. John Troxell, the senior enlisted adviser to Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford, told Military Times earlier this month.

    Of that total non-deployable force, Troxell said, about 99,000 are on that list for administrative reasons, such as not having all their immunizations or their required dental exams. About 20,000 are not deployable due to pregnancy, and 116,000 are not deployable due to either short- or long-term injuries.

    ...

    However, the secretary did acknowledge that the failure to meet deployability requirements is not always on the individual. The classic example is a situation where someone was unable to get a dental appointment quickly enough and hence did not meet the requirements.

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/02/17/mattis-deploy-or-get-out-rule-is-about-fairness/

    Dedwrekka on
  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    11% are ineligible, and therefore could be discharged, but a small portion of those could be maintained? If that gets to 10%, Donald Trump is LITERALLY trying to decimate the US military.

    But you better not kneel during the anthem. That's a poor message to send.

    MorganV on
  • Options
    GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    I swear everything that this man does with policy has all the grace and precision of a drunk with a chainsaw tied to his foot.

  • Options
    CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    11% are ineligible, and therefore could be discharged, but a small portion of those could be maintained? If that gets to 10%, Donald Trump is LITERALLY* trying to decimate* the US military.

    * Using the correct meaning of the words. I like words. And I'll forever hate the people that codified the change to literally. :)

    This is Mattis. He drinks the Koolaid that its the troops job to shoot and be shot at, fueled by yellow ribbons and handshakes. He wants to remove the people who can't (or don't want to) shoot and be shot at, as well as the people avoiding the fitness tests. Also, he's a Marine. Marine career progression expects members to ask to go without being told to.

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • Options
    AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Damn. And my bro was just deployed because they were having recruitment issues and kept him in despite not meeting physicals.

    Athenor on
    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited August 2018
    I'm sure that it is just a coincidence that this makes room for more mercenary armies.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I'm sure that it is just a coincidence that this makes room for more mercenary armies.

    No, it makes room for multiple deployments with little downtime between, and sending out the Guard and Reserves.

  • Options
    LabelLabel Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    I thought a huge amount of modern military work was in some sort of support role? Thus the term "warfighter" as opposed to just "soldier." As well as a general personnel shortage.

    This seems fucky.

    Label on
  • Options
    DedwrekkaDedwrekka Metal Hell adjacentRegistered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    Damn. And my bro was just deployed because they were having recruitment issues and kept him in despite not meeting physicals.

    If he was able to deploy under a waiver then he's not considered non-deployable for the moment. However, when he comes back, if they make a medical determination that he may be non-deployable for 12 months or more then they can begin administrative separation paperwork unless he gets a waiver from the Secretary of his branch. If they determine that he's "Deployable with limitations" then he is allowed to stay in.

    If anyone wants to read it, the PDF of it is here
    http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/133245p.pdf?ver=2018-08-01-080044-667

    Something I didn't see reported is that the policy calls out Conscientious Objectors, and members with the Sole Survivor status as on the list for removal. Also Deferment From Hostile Fire Zone as well? Which seems especially shitty above and beyond the rest?
    Deferment requirements (Don't read if you're especially worried about military family, it's a kinda odd scenario anyways)
    Deferment is available if a family member (Parent/Child/Spouse) dies/is captured/is fully disabled in a combat zone. So, if say, your father is in the military with you, and one of you dies in a hostile fire zone, the other can say "Look, I really don't want to deploy there now" and request a deferment.

    Sole Survivor is a similar situation that is more limited in scope. Being basically the Sullivan Brothers/Saving Private Ryan "Well you're the only one left" scenario.
    This policy would forcefully kick them out for it where before you could continue serving.

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    Damn. And my bro was just deployed because they were having recruitment issues and kept him in despite not meeting physicals.

    If he was able to deploy under a waiver then he's not considered non-deployable for the moment. However, when he comes back, if they make a medical determination that he may be non-deployable for 12 months or more then they can begin administrative separation paperwork unless he gets a waiver from the Secretary of his branch. If they determine that he's "Deployable with limitations" then he is allowed to stay in.

    If anyone wants to read it, the PDF of it is here
    http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/133245p.pdf?ver=2018-08-01-080044-667

    Something I didn't see reported is that the policy calls out Conscientious Objectors, and members with the Sole Survivor status as on the list for removal. Also Deferment From Hostile Fire Zone as well? Which seems especially shitty above and beyond the rest?
    Deferment requirements (Don't read if you're especially worried about military family, it's a kinda odd scenario anyways)
    Deferment is available if a family member (Parent/Child/Spouse) dies/is captured/is fully disabled in a combat zone. So, if say, your father is in the military with you, and one of you dies in a hostile fire zone, the other can say "Look, I really don't want to deploy there now" and request a deferment.

    Sole Survivor is a similar situation that is more limited in scope. Being basically the Sullivan Brothers/Saving Private Ryan "Well you're the only one left" scenario.
    This policy would forcefully kick them out for it where before you could continue serving.

    What if you have bone spurs?

  • Options
    ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User, Moderator mod
    Hasn't the American military been having enormous staffing/retention problems going back as far as the Iraq war as is? Like the kind of staffing issues that lead to allowing some things to skate by that have no business skating by in the interests of keeping units somewhere near paper strength at the expense of being anywhere near paper capability?

    Like I get the idea of wanting to make sure as much of the military as possible is ready for anything at a moment's notice, but you'd think having a quarter-million nondeployables would at least be a case of "there's a whole lot of Statesside billets these people could fill without doing so at the expense of those sent overseas."

    There's no way a policy like that isn't going to hit the units that can be/are sent abroad in some pretty bad ways, is there?

  • Options
    DedwrekkaDedwrekka Metal Hell adjacentRegistered User regular
    Label wrote: »
    I thought a huge amount of modern military work was in some sort of support role? Thus the term "warfighter" as opposed to just "soldier." As well as a general personnel shortage.

    This seems fucky.


    It is, and has been even back in WWII.

    For context on this issue.

    Basically every job deploys to do that job overseas at some point or another. Even if there aren't atheists in foxholes, there are financial advisors back at base. :biggrin:

    During the just-post 9/11 period there was an notable uptick in recruitment but even that wasn't largely in combat positions.
    The Afghanistan/Iraq War slump in combat position recruitment resulted in both lower and higher standards in the military. Lower standards for recruitment for frontline positions, and higher standards for military members as the branches pushed much harder on the idea that anyone could be called out to fill frontline roles in a pinch. People were called back into service, or essentially forcefully retained in combat roles. Failing out of job training could turn you over to combat roles (Or aircraft maintenance if you're color blind :rotate:). PT tests were revised in the early period of the Afghanistan war, and then revised again around 2010. Each time with ever increasing standards and more swift punishment for failure. Every branch in the military was simultaneously over it's manning limits in general and undermanned in combat positions for almost a decade until they decided that they were going to start pairing down the military manning numbers in the Obama administration. Then it was just mostly undermanned in combat positions.

    There's been a very weird amount of push and pull in military recruitment and retention.

  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    Senator John McCain has died. I really think the sort of thing a president would do is offer condolences and perhaps give time and respect to the family, especially for someone like McCain. Senator McCain was one of the first targets of Trumps ridiculous bullshit during the primary. I didn't really like his politics or care for his personality all that much, but he had a family and he had friends.


    I expect some random shit to be tweeted in 3... 2...1...

  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    We don't have to hypothesize on what Trump will say. Just wait on it, it's inevitable.

    Henroid on
This discussion has been closed.