They spend millions dollars each day on the war and when you break something more or less of value, they make you pay for it while you risk your life for them.
It's contractural.Axatar wrote:
They spend millions dollars each day on the war and when you break something more or less of value, they make you pay for it while you risk your life for them.
Just because you wouldn't sign your name to a contract to serve in harm's way doesn't mean its illegal to fight. Plus you are forgetting there are many benefits.
And as a taxpayer wouldn't you want the soldier to reimburse for negligent destruction of taxpayer-funded equipment?
Sorry guys, maybe you've grown to see this as a cost of doing business. I as citizen and a taxpayer feel this is just wrong. Misplaced, yes, lost no. Can you imagine evading enemy fire and dropping a bayonet and saying, oops, I better get that or I'll have to pay for it later. I know that is over reaching but come on. We as a country have asked you to do enough. We did not equip you properly from the beginning, from the wrong boots for desert combat to the wrong hydration packs, to no body armor. Now this.... This is not what the US is about.
What?GATOR591957 wrote:
from the wrong boots for desert combat to the wrong hydration packs, to no body armor. .
As a taxpayer I would much rather know where the missing $19 billion dollars in appropriations are than the 1.5 million they are getting from the troops...Pug wrote:
It's contractural.Axatar wrote:
They spend millions dollars each day on the war and when you break something more or less of value, they make you pay for it while you risk your life for them.
Just because you wouldn't sign your name to a contract to serve in harm's way doesn't mean its illegal to fight. Plus you are forgetting there are many benefits.
And as a taxpayer wouldn't you want the soldier to reimburse for negligent destruction of taxpayer-funded equipment?
I have a friend who's son wrote him that the boots they had received were not for desert combat. They sent him desert combat boots. Same for the hydration pack and body armor. This was early on in the invasion.usmarine2005 wrote:
What?GATOR591957 wrote:
from the wrong boots for desert combat to the wrong hydration packs, to no body armor. .
I still have no idea what that means. Boots are boots. Water is water...whether from a canteen or something else. And my armor was more than I had back in the desert in '98 or in Afghanistan. Adapt and overcome.GATOR591957 wrote:
I have a friend who's son wrote him that the boots they had received were not for desert combat. They sent him desert combat boots. Same for the hydration pack and body armor. This was early on in the invasion.usmarine2005 wrote:
What?GATOR591957 wrote:
from the wrong boots for desert combat to the wrong hydration packs, to no body armor. .
He did he wrote his Dad...lolusmarine2005 wrote:
I still have no idea what that means. Boots are boots. Water is water...whether from a canteen or something else. And my armor was more than I had back in the desert in '98 or in Afghanistan. Adapt and overcome.GATOR591957 wrote:
I have a friend who's son wrote him that the boots they had received were not for desert combat. They sent him desert combat boots. Same for the hydration pack and body armor. This was early on in the invasion.usmarine2005 wrote:
What?
Thats what I did.SgtHeihn wrote:
when I got to my first unit in 98, I had to buy my own gear, the shit they gave me was fubar. I saw a story like this a few months back, a Army Lt. got hit and they had to cut his flak jacket off and his duece gear. When he was in the hospital he got a bill for like $2k for destroyed gov equipment.usmarine2005 wrote:
Oh Christ. You wanna see jerry rigged equipment, go back to the mid 90's. The equipment now is pretty damn good.jonsimon wrote:
More evidence of the US supporting its troops.
When I went to Iraq, I left most of my issued gear here in the states and took personal stuff so I wouldnt have to deal with CIF.
not the point....... but I bought my own shit that I thought was better. That does not mean what is issued is insufficient.GATOR591957 wrote:
He did he wrote his Dad...lolusmarine2005 wrote:
I still have no idea what that means. Boots are boots. Water is water...whether from a canteen or something else. And my armor was more than I had back in the desert in '98 or in Afghanistan. Adapt and overcome.GATOR591957 wrote:
I have a friend who's son wrote him that the boots they had received were not for desert combat. They sent him desert combat boots. Same for the hydration pack and body armor. This was early on in the invasion.
No...it is better than cleaning your gear for inspection.san4 wrote:
That is ridiculous.usmarine2005 wrote:
Same here in '95. I would buy things every pay check until I had a full set. That was my inspection gear and back-up gear.SgtHeihn wrote:
when I got to my first unit in 98, I had to buy my own gear, the shit they gave me was fubar.
Fuck, there's a giant Xerox copier sitting in the Black Sea right now that we wrote off as a field loss, the bill is probably sitting in my mom's mailbox back in the States right now.
I wonder if they'll take an entire TA-50 issue in trade that I got after I cleaned out an AWOL soldier of mine?
I wonder if they'll take an entire TA-50 issue in trade that I got after I cleaned out an AWOL soldier of mine?
Yeah, I guess it makes sense for soldiers to have to pay to avoid cleaning their gear. You'd think they'd make a rule against that though. If clean gear is important they wouldn't let people use a second set just for inspection.usmarine2005 wrote:
No...it is better than cleaning your gear for inspection.san4 wrote:
That is ridiculous.usmarine2005 wrote:
Same here in '95. I would buy things every pay check until I had a full set. That was my inspection gear and back-up gear.
I took back my "ridiculous" post because it's not ridiculous if the standard-issue gear is adequate.
Right, so I would think that in that case you wouldn't be accountable. I would suspect these charges come from things like using your sleeping bag for target practice, or to deter a black market. The military tries to follow every rule, otherwise it would get a little muddled.GATOR591957 wrote:
Can you imagine evading enemy fire and dropping a bayonet and saying, oops, I better get that or I'll have to pay for it later. I know that is over reaching but come on.
I would think we'd want both?GATOR591957 wrote:
As a taxpayer I would much rather know where the missing $19 billion dollars in appropriations are than the 1.5 million they are getting from the troops...
Didn't you start this topic on the $1.5 million?
There's like 1.4 million servicemen, so that's like $1 per soldier right? Although the numbers in this thread are much more than $1.
So...how much of this is due to "losing a canteen while under fire"? Wouldn't you think it'll be much higher than $1.5m due to equipment loss due to combat?
Like marine said...another convenient smear story. Tragic they don't publish those that fight against the charge and win...probably not as interesting.
My understanding listening to the news this morning is the 1.5 million has been billed to just over 1000 soldiers.Pug wrote:
Right, so I would think that in that case you wouldn't be accountable. I would suspect these charges come from things like using your sleeping bag for target practice, or to deter a black market. The military tries to follow every rule, otherwise it would get a little muddled.GATOR591957 wrote:
Can you imagine evading enemy fire and dropping a bayonet and saying, oops, I better get that or I'll have to pay for it later. I know that is over reaching but come on.I would think we'd want both?GATOR591957 wrote:
As a taxpayer I would much rather know where the missing $19 billion dollars in appropriations are than the 1.5 million they are getting from the troops...
Didn't you start this topic on the $1.5 million?
There's like 1.4 million servicemen, so that's like $1 per soldier right? Although the numbers in this thread are much more than $1.
So...how much of this is due to "losing a canteen while under fire"? Wouldn't you think it'll be much higher than $1.5m due to equipment loss due to combat?
Like marine said...another convenient smear story. Tragic they don't publish those that fight against the charge and win...probably not as interesting.
There was a rule against it, but you can be................................creative.san4 wrote:
If clean gear is important they wouldn't let people use a second set just for inspection.
$1,500 each. Ouch.GATOR591957 wrote:
My understanding listening to the news this morning is the 1.5 million has been billed to just over 1000 soldiers.
My point is 1,000 soldiers out of 1.4 million active. If it's a hot zone I would imagine if it was really about losing gear for good reasons (aka oh crap, people are shooting at me), then the number of soldiers affected would be A LOT higher.
Gator, I understand your point that it sucks it's happening, but I got to go with my gut. I do not believe that the US Government is operating this war like a Boy Scout trip. And the 1,000 probably have some sort of way to due process somewhere as an option.
Last edited by Pug (2007-08-02 14:05:00)
If you ran out of ammo and ditched your rifle for an ak on the ground would you eventually have to pay for the discarded rifle?
OMG thats so crap. So what bullets destroy some of your equipment and you have to pay for it your self?? OMg that BS !!!
j/k had to do it. Never saw more people post without reading the topic
Anyway only 1000 soldier fined means that its probably just for extreme negligence.
j/k had to do it. Never saw more people post without reading the topic
Anyway only 1000 soldier fined means that its probably just for extreme negligence.
Lost Magazine Clip (empty) -- $20.00...
Lost Binoculars -- $200.00...
Damaged Rifle -- $2,000.00...
Lost Life -- Priceless
I understand what the military is trying to do. It is not the military's fault. As much as the US government spends on our forces, they are still under funded. It is our government's misguided use of the military that is causing this problem. The military is overextended. And having our military all over the world in countries we are not at war with (S. Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. Saudi Arabia), probably runs counter to democratic principals and having a republican form of government.
Nevertheless, this story ticks me off, too. These men and woman put their lives on the line every day, and they spend months away from their family. Many have higher-paying jobs here, but serve the military out of a sense of duty. Think about Pat Tillman.
As U.S. citizens, I wonder, can we send Bush and congress bills for their wasteful spending, their and negligent destruction of our country and the life and limb of our people? How much has this endless war cost so far?
Anyway, King Bush, here's your bill: $1,000,000,000.00, give or take a billion or two... Dark Lord Cheney, I think you also have some ill-gotten gains to cough off. The Democrats are nearly as bad. I won't go any further about this.
I mean, lets spend half a billion an embassy in Iraq while a bridge, part of the federal interstate system collapses. How do you people (politicians) sleep at night? When will this nonsense end? I really think it is time for a third party that will actually listen to its citizens and not be beholden to special interests and lobbyists.
Lost Binoculars -- $200.00...
Damaged Rifle -- $2,000.00...
Lost Life -- Priceless
I understand what the military is trying to do. It is not the military's fault. As much as the US government spends on our forces, they are still under funded. It is our government's misguided use of the military that is causing this problem. The military is overextended. And having our military all over the world in countries we are not at war with (S. Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. Saudi Arabia), probably runs counter to democratic principals and having a republican form of government.
Nevertheless, this story ticks me off, too. These men and woman put their lives on the line every day, and they spend months away from their family. Many have higher-paying jobs here, but serve the military out of a sense of duty. Think about Pat Tillman.
As U.S. citizens, I wonder, can we send Bush and congress bills for their wasteful spending, their and negligent destruction of our country and the life and limb of our people? How much has this endless war cost so far?
Anyway, King Bush, here's your bill: $1,000,000,000.00, give or take a billion or two... Dark Lord Cheney, I think you also have some ill-gotten gains to cough off. The Democrats are nearly as bad. I won't go any further about this.
I mean, lets spend half a billion an embassy in Iraq while a bridge, part of the federal interstate system collapses. How do you people (politicians) sleep at night? When will this nonsense end? I really think it is time for a third party that will actually listen to its citizens and not be beholden to special interests and lobbyists.
You guys are missing the main reason behind the reason for fines. It forced you to maintain and respect your gear because you never know when you are going to need it when it counts.
I understand. As far as I am aware, the military has always charged guys for lost, stolen or broken gear. But I think people that intentionally steal gear or damage it are few and far between. I also think people are ticked about this becuase of the nature of this conflict as opposed to other wars fought by the US.
I can't resist asking, but keep in mind that anything you say here probably can be used against you in a court of (military) law.usmarine2005 wrote:
There was a rule against it, but you can be................................creative.san4 wrote:
If clean gear is important they wouldn't let people use a second set just for inspection.
I lost a helmet on a parachute jump into Fort Stewart, GA one time. They dropped us, I looked down, and we were at least a mile from the drop zone. (Drop zone was an airfield, all lit up, rotating becan, the whole nine yeards. The dang Air Force still missed the DZ......)
I looked down, water everywhere. At night, asphalt roads, and a river will look alot alike, and they tell you, to take off your helmet, and drop it. Does it go splash, or thud? That will tell you what it is. So, I dropped it, and it went splash. OK, time to prepare for a water landing. No worries, I hit the water, and all went well. I spent the next two hours looking for my helmet and ruksack. I found the ruksack, but no helmet. (Darn, I was forced to wear a soft cap for 10 days in the summer heat of GA, LOL)
At any rate, when we get back, I got a new k-pot, and cover issued to me. However, they said they just changed the airborne SOP to say that we no longer drop our helmets in that situation, so there was a chance I would have to pay for it. This was in 1992. Five years go by, and I get a bill in the mail for the department of defense for $281.35. It took me three months just to figure out what it was for. The helmet and cover, from 1992. I had been honerably discharged in 1994.
I basically said to hell with it, I am not paying, what are they gonna do anyway? Well, come tax time, I was short $281.35 on my federal income tax return. I was ticked, but kind of laughed. Well, next round, I went and applied for a home loan. Well, the creditor says to me, that I have a bad mark on my history, and I would be getting the loan at a higher interest rate. When I looked, there was a bad mark from the Department of Defense, shown as an overdue payment of nine months. The only nick on my credit is that stupid helmet from 1992. 15 years later, that helmet is still on my credit history.
So, ya, it does happen.......
I looked down, water everywhere. At night, asphalt roads, and a river will look alot alike, and they tell you, to take off your helmet, and drop it. Does it go splash, or thud? That will tell you what it is. So, I dropped it, and it went splash. OK, time to prepare for a water landing. No worries, I hit the water, and all went well. I spent the next two hours looking for my helmet and ruksack. I found the ruksack, but no helmet. (Darn, I was forced to wear a soft cap for 10 days in the summer heat of GA, LOL)
At any rate, when we get back, I got a new k-pot, and cover issued to me. However, they said they just changed the airborne SOP to say that we no longer drop our helmets in that situation, so there was a chance I would have to pay for it. This was in 1992. Five years go by, and I get a bill in the mail for the department of defense for $281.35. It took me three months just to figure out what it was for. The helmet and cover, from 1992. I had been honerably discharged in 1994.
I basically said to hell with it, I am not paying, what are they gonna do anyway? Well, come tax time, I was short $281.35 on my federal income tax return. I was ticked, but kind of laughed. Well, next round, I went and applied for a home loan. Well, the creditor says to me, that I have a bad mark on my history, and I would be getting the loan at a higher interest rate. When I looked, there was a bad mark from the Department of Defense, shown as an overdue payment of nine months. The only nick on my credit is that stupid helmet from 1992. 15 years later, that helmet is still on my credit history.
So, ya, it does happen.......
Last edited by dirtracer74 (2007-08-02 16:25:42)
....and now you see just a small part of why I would never willingly die for this country. Our government is ok with bailing out S&Ls, but they have the nerve to charge people that lay down their lives for them.
...so much for gratitude, eh?
...so much for gratitude, eh?