Got a news link? Where did you hear this?

And why did you post it in "Personal Computing" instead of "Politics"?

fox news tonight no link yet


because sometimes this blog has a mind of it's own.


when i created the post i linked in from genes latest bush attack thread.

i just tried to move it and couldn't.

Yeah before we go off the deep end here why not provide the source of this story. I just happened to have served in the US Military for 20 years and another 10 years as a civil servent working for the government. I have to tell you this would just be a little hard to believe.

A soldier get's injured in the line of duty, but wait you didn't say that. So come on give all the known facts here.   

the soldiers are being asked to return some of their bonus money because they got wounded on duty and couldn't finish their hitch.

this was on the facter tonight. so there is no link yet i just looked. i guess they are one day behind on the web site.

i am sorry that this got put in the wrong slot again.

I just saw this on FOX. It's true. The Pentagon has no comment according to Fox news.
Welcome hoe injured troups.  

I've just checked the major news services, if Fox news had reported this others would have picked it up by now if not directly atleast reporting that Fox new had reported it.



Please be more specific, who reported it? Are you getting this first hand, in other words did you watch it or is this second or third hand? Who is gene and what blog are you talking about?

i am watching the factor right now. bill is on vacation. i don't know the ladies name. they did three stories on it tonight.

the time right now here is 10:58 pm central time. don't know when the first showing actually aired.


this was supposed to go to politics but it ended up here.


gene is our regular bush attacker. gene has never made a post that hasn't attacked bush.

Actually, this is nothing new. When soldiers enlist, or re-enlist with a bonus, they usually get half the bonus when they re-enlist and the other half at a specified point in the future. If the soldier doesn't make it to that specified point, they don't get the second half, and the first half is prorated to the time their service ended.

This is kind of like when the "controversies" over seperate rations and combat pay. The rules have been in place forever, and soldiers often complained about them, but they weren't "controversies" or "scandals" until the press dubbed them to be.

The basic fact is, if the military is feeding a soldier they aren't entitled to separate rations pay. If a soldier's injuries take them out of the combat zone, they are no longer eligible for combat pay... and if the soldier didn't finish the years of the re-enlistment contract, they aren't eligible for the full terms of that contract.

Moved to 'Politics' ....[I hope] ...

this is understandable.




if the soldier is not able to finish his/her job because they got shot on duty they, in my opinion, have fulfilled their contract. if they get out on a section 8 as cpl klinger on mash or on an article 15 as i did tried they haven't.

Daniel, I understand, and part of me feels the same way. It seems they are being "punished" for getting wounded. But it's my experience that the "fixes" to these situations usually ends up worse than the situation itself.

For example

During Desert Storm the press made "controversy" out of the separate rations policy. They pressured Prs. Bush and the pentagon to not only change the policy, but "repay" the soldiers for the separate rations not paid.

The "scandal" was further blown out of perportion when the press brought up how soldiers in military hospitals were being "charged" for their meals because the separate rations weren't being paid them.

When the dust settled, the pentagon decided to "repay" the soldiers. So, basically they were paid for food AND given food. Which means that some soldiers who served got a raise in pay that other soldiers (those ineligible for separate ration pay) weren't given. What made it even worse, some soldiers who were eligible were given the "repayment" while others weren't (there were explanations for this, but I don't remember what they were).

So nothing was "fixed" (because nothing was broken), but some soldiers did get a windfall lump sum payment for really no reason at all.

The fact is, there are a lot of reasons why soldiers entitled to a re-enlistment bonus might lose it through not fault of their own. If they got a bonus for a certain MOS, and that MOS is discontinued; if the rules for an MOS get changed, and that change makes the troop reclass (this happened a lot in the 90s when the rules were changed and colorblind people could no longer serve in Intel MOS's. Colorblind troops were reclassed, and bonuses were recouped.

Equality isn't Equal and Fairness is Never Fair. Yes, there are times when the rules need to be changed, but when those changes are demanded out of "fairness", almost always they end up doing more harm than good.

this is not the same as being shot or blown up.

Nope, but every bit as out of the soldiers hands.

No, it isn't "fair" and there might be legitimate reasons to change that rule... but feeling sorry for them isn't a reason at all.