Posted on May 9, 2016
You have been given the authority to change three things in your branch or DoD wide … What are they?
21.9K
424
271
11
11
0
Policy
DoD
Improvements
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 78
30
30
0
1) Eliminate the reflective belts/vest requirement completely. It used to be just road guards wore them during hours of limited visibilty
2) Reduce the number of General officers and their perks. Guard Bureau had done just fine with a three star heading it, but then NGB gets a seat on the JCS, and instant four star...and nothing changed!
3) Stop the social engineering. The military is here to destroy our enemies, not to appease every hair-brained senator or congressman's politically motivated whim. (I looking directly at
2) Reduce the number of General officers and their perks. Guard Bureau had done just fine with a three star heading it, but then NGB gets a seat on the JCS, and instant four star...and nothing changed!
3) Stop the social engineering. The military is here to destroy our enemies, not to appease every hair-brained senator or congressman's politically motivated whim. (I looking directly at
(30)
(0)
CPL Wilfred Roberge
The Military can be a place for great Social CHANGE (history has proven that) we have never pushed "Agendas" forward during a war like now. I don't like it. I hate going to drill because 75% of the training we get has zero to do with military and 100% to do with "I'm okay your okay, she's okay, he's okay, he's gay, she's gay, I'm sad but don't be sad be glad. It is rediculous!!!!
(0)
(0)
A1C Jeff D.
Maj John Bell - The "Time out" card was true? I thought it was BS. I never had one when in BASIC at Lackland in 1994.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Nichalas Enser
A1C Jeff D. - They never existed, not in the 'common wisdom' way, anyhow.
For a short time during the '90s, the Navy gave recruits business cards with contact numbers of mental health and chaplain services to help reduce the number of after-hours attempted/successful suicides - something like 'Blues Cards'.
Although they could not be held up to stop difficult training or anything, some folks *mistakenly* believed that they could be used to interrupt training and an entire mythology was born!
Everyone likes to think that their generation was special or that their service is 'tougher' and this is just a part of that. Various stories claim that either the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, or Airforce has/uses them, but have never met anyone who has had one. There have been articles in the various ' Times' where they try to track down if it is true and none have found them to be in existence.
For a short time during the '90s, the Navy gave recruits business cards with contact numbers of mental health and chaplain services to help reduce the number of after-hours attempted/successful suicides - something like 'Blues Cards'.
Although they could not be held up to stop difficult training or anything, some folks *mistakenly* believed that they could be used to interrupt training and an entire mythology was born!
Everyone likes to think that their generation was special or that their service is 'tougher' and this is just a part of that. Various stories claim that either the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, or Airforce has/uses them, but have never met anyone who has had one. There have been articles in the various ' Times' where they try to track down if it is true and none have found them to be in existence.
(0)
(0)
25
25
0
1) Stop DOD wide always being PC.
2) Figure out a better way to give units money. I can't even count all the times units have nothing all year then right before the fiscal year ends they buy a bunch of stuff they don't really need. I don't know the solution but their has to be a better way.
3) Demote people who deserve it, not just ones who fail pt. I mean the people that get kicked around units or are in leadership roles in any way that just can do it. Quit paying that person for a job they can't/won't do.
2) Figure out a better way to give units money. I can't even count all the times units have nothing all year then right before the fiscal year ends they buy a bunch of stuff they don't really need. I don't know the solution but their has to be a better way.
3) Demote people who deserve it, not just ones who fail pt. I mean the people that get kicked around units or are in leadership roles in any way that just can do it. Quit paying that person for a job they can't/won't do.
(25)
(0)
23
23
0
1. Throw the entire lengthy acquisitions process out the window and start from scratch. Use consultative services from private industry to help draft our contracts until we have sufficient controls in place to prevent our current predicament with contract laws. Right now we're paying almost $180k for Cumins V12 Diesel for the AAV when the free market is paying somewhere around $5k for the same engine. Almost every MOS in every service has waste of this sort and the short-term high cost of consultants and private industry lawyers will be nothing compared to what we save on new contracts.
2. Institute new policies concerning unit fund allocations. Right now everyone spends so that they get the same amount next year. Ranges will never be "ammo dumps". We should be able to request training and have those funds allocated without the worry that the funds will go away next year.
3. Get rid of the civilian employees and contractors which are eating up the DoD budget when we could have servicemembers do the job cheaper. We've all heard of military higher-ups, officers and enlisted, creating justifications for new positions and then filling that post themselves when they retire at a comfy GS-12 or higher paygrade. I could name several positions off the top of my head. We don't need more garbage careerists sitting around waiting to turn 65 on the DoD's dime without providing actual value to the institution. Also, MFLACs need to go. No accountability and functions identical to the chaplain? Send the chaplains to a course if you want them to have more training, but we don't need more civilians accountable to no one. I'm tired of these garbage, entitled govt union employees who are incompetent, unhelpful, and wasteful by their very nature. I'd decimate MCCS as well, since a large portion of what they "give back" to the Marine community just goes to pay the salaries of their higher-level employees and places like MCRD aren't large enough to offset the cost of most of their services, especially when Miramar has identical services.
2. Institute new policies concerning unit fund allocations. Right now everyone spends so that they get the same amount next year. Ranges will never be "ammo dumps". We should be able to request training and have those funds allocated without the worry that the funds will go away next year.
3. Get rid of the civilian employees and contractors which are eating up the DoD budget when we could have servicemembers do the job cheaper. We've all heard of military higher-ups, officers and enlisted, creating justifications for new positions and then filling that post themselves when they retire at a comfy GS-12 or higher paygrade. I could name several positions off the top of my head. We don't need more garbage careerists sitting around waiting to turn 65 on the DoD's dime without providing actual value to the institution. Also, MFLACs need to go. No accountability and functions identical to the chaplain? Send the chaplains to a course if you want them to have more training, but we don't need more civilians accountable to no one. I'm tired of these garbage, entitled govt union employees who are incompetent, unhelpful, and wasteful by their very nature. I'd decimate MCCS as well, since a large portion of what they "give back" to the Marine community just goes to pay the salaries of their higher-level employees and places like MCRD aren't large enough to offset the cost of most of their services, especially when Miramar has identical services.
(23)
(0)
A1C Charles Lawrence
SPC Alex P. - I just joined this for the purpose of saying how utterly stupid and uninformed your comments are especially your totally uninformed remarkes about the Civil War. It was not liberals who practiced Jim Crow or lost the Civil War. Liberals wanted change they opposed slavery and Conservatives were conservative..they did not want change.
Let me give you a lesson in history. At the time of the Civil war it was the Democratic party that was the pro slavery and conservative party... Lincoln and the Black Republican were called the radical liberals because they were demanding change specificallly the restriction of slavery to where it already existed and its prohibition in the New Territories. After the war the Democrats,. conservatives of the day .. instituted Jim Crow.
For nearly one hundred years after the war the South voted Democratic and was known as the Solid South because of that..but in 1964 a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, got the Civil Rights act passed which outlawed segregation. At that point the Dixicrats,, Southern Democrats pro segregation and against the Civil Rights law,,. left the Democratic party and joined the Republicans where they have remained ever since.
Ignorant uninformed people think that the Democratic party of 1860 is the same as the Democratic part of 1960 and same for the Repubican party.. Originally formed against slavery but now embracing the conservative point of view.
Next time you criticize someone like you just did..dont accuse them of not doing research when you clearly are totally wrong.. There is not a single student of the Civil War who would ever suggest that the Democratic party of pro slavery and Jim Crow was "liberal"
Do some research youself before you criticize others when you clearly dont know what you are talking about!
and your reference to President Obama as Barry tell me all I need to know about you..
Let me give you a lesson in history. At the time of the Civil war it was the Democratic party that was the pro slavery and conservative party... Lincoln and the Black Republican were called the radical liberals because they were demanding change specificallly the restriction of slavery to where it already existed and its prohibition in the New Territories. After the war the Democrats,. conservatives of the day .. instituted Jim Crow.
For nearly one hundred years after the war the South voted Democratic and was known as the Solid South because of that..but in 1964 a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, got the Civil Rights act passed which outlawed segregation. At that point the Dixicrats,, Southern Democrats pro segregation and against the Civil Rights law,,. left the Democratic party and joined the Republicans where they have remained ever since.
Ignorant uninformed people think that the Democratic party of 1860 is the same as the Democratic part of 1960 and same for the Repubican party.. Originally formed against slavery but now embracing the conservative point of view.
Next time you criticize someone like you just did..dont accuse them of not doing research when you clearly are totally wrong.. There is not a single student of the Civil War who would ever suggest that the Democratic party of pro slavery and Jim Crow was "liberal"
Do some research youself before you criticize others when you clearly dont know what you are talking about!
and your reference to President Obama as Barry tell me all I need to know about you..
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
A1C Charles Lawrence - Political Science degree holder here. I understand the anger in terms of feeling insulted by the previous user talking about "libs". It wasn't necessary. However, this post is also factually incorrect. When we're examining the modern political spectrum, and looking to past historical events, you can't cherry-pick ideas to fit your modern ideology. If we're talking about the classical left-right spectrum, anyone who doesn't support a monarchy is "classically liberal". There's also editorialized issues with the GOP-Democrat debate that are ignored, like the Democrats in the Civil War being more focused on states rights and the GOP of 1964 voted in higher percentage terms for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 by a wider margin than the Democrats. Many eras have totally different ideas that offer a mix of views from the left and right of the modern spectrum - and defy categorization in modern terms. The 1940s especially have whole political parties with ideas embraced by the modern right (nationalism) and the modern left (socialism). Applying revisionist history principles to make a certain political party your hero throughout the ages risks creating an overly-tribal mentality that needlessly treats people you disagree with on domestic policy as enemies.
I think we should all step back, remember that we're Americans first, and focus on how to address those issues together.
I think we should all step back, remember that we're Americans first, and focus on how to address those issues together.
(0)
(0)
A1C Charles Lawrence
Thanks Captain but I do resent someone talking about the "crimes " of the liberals and then equating them with the Confederates. I have studied the Civil War for a good many years and most historians, define liberals as those that wanted change and Conservatives as those that did not, and its clear that Lincoln was considered radical because of the changes he wanted. It is also true that those that did not want change, the Conservatives, that bolted from the Union when they did not accept the results of the election of 1860. There is not a single historian anywhere who would say Lincoln and the Abolitionists were Conservatives.
As for states rights, the Democrats of the period were interested in states rights only to the degree that they could use that to defend slavery. They had no problem with states rights in demanding the Federal government enforce the Fugitive Slave law and demanding governors of Northern States be arrested for aggitating on the slave question.
At the time of the war all southernerns including Jefferson Davis and every single state that left the union said it was the threat to slave system that was the reason for the revolt. States rights argument is just a pleasant face for the actual reason. The desire to preserve slavery..a system which they all openly agreed was far superior to any otther
Also you are correct in saying that Republicans voted for the Civil rights act on 1965 in greater numbers than the Democrats. I have heard this before but what is not said is that because of that vote, the Dixicrats left the Democratic party and joined the Repubicans.
And to suggest the modern left embraces socialism is like saying the modern right embraces the KKK.. You are talking complete nonsense based on the actions of a few.
None of this is revisionism. These are well established facts
As for states rights, the Democrats of the period were interested in states rights only to the degree that they could use that to defend slavery. They had no problem with states rights in demanding the Federal government enforce the Fugitive Slave law and demanding governors of Northern States be arrested for aggitating on the slave question.
At the time of the war all southernerns including Jefferson Davis and every single state that left the union said it was the threat to slave system that was the reason for the revolt. States rights argument is just a pleasant face for the actual reason. The desire to preserve slavery..a system which they all openly agreed was far superior to any otther
Also you are correct in saying that Republicans voted for the Civil rights act on 1965 in greater numbers than the Democrats. I have heard this before but what is not said is that because of that vote, the Dixicrats left the Democratic party and joined the Repubicans.
And to suggest the modern left embraces socialism is like saying the modern right embraces the KKK.. You are talking complete nonsense based on the actions of a few.
None of this is revisionism. These are well established facts
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google