AD

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-asks-armed-citizen-...

Last week, a 24-year old man attacked two recruiting stations, killing four Marines and a Sailor. After this incident, armed civilians have started showing up at recruiting stations to guard the offices, stating that they are doing it because the Pentagon isn't.

While I see where they are coming from, I had reservations about it because of the possible security risk that allowing untrained civilians would have at the stations, to include one incident where one of the guards had a negligent discharge outside of the station. I also mentioned the possibility that any of the armed guards could be an agent working on behalf of ISIS and could turn their weapons on the recruiters, as well as the possibility of a guard harassing potential applicants they personally don't think have any business in the military.

After posting my concerns I was promptly thumbed down repeatedly, called an anti-gun nut, was told that anybody that wants to serve should have no problem seeing open weapons since they will in combat (even though unlike in combat, they wouldn't be armed while going to a recruiting office) and eventually had my comment deleted due to it being repeatedly reported. Since what I posted wasn't popular, what do you think? Should we welcome the armed civilians or are they a security risk?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/politics/pentagon-ma...

Earlier this week, the Secretary of Defense announced that there will be a six month study to determine the impact of removing the ban on allowing transgender men and women to serve.

Depending on the results of the study, the current ban may be lifted. During the six month study, people currently serving that come out as transgender will not be discharged without the approval of senior defense officials.

Some of the things that are being considered are living quarters, hormones in combat zones, and other medical and legal obstacles.

How do you think this will affect the military if the change is put in place?

According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, it is illegal for a debt collector to directly contact your employer to inform them that you are delinquent on a debt and that the only thing that they are allowed to do is verify your employment.

However, I've seen plenty of occasions where AAFES will send letters to commanders letting them know that Private Snuffy is two months late on his Star Card, which eventually causes him to be counseled and threatened with UCMJ while AAFES eventually deducts it out of their pay anyway if their chain of command doesn't escort them to the PX to make a payment.

I'm not saying that Joes shouldn't pay their debts and I am aware why we don't want them to be in debt (bribery, security clearances, etc.). I've had the displeasure of having to counsel someone for missing a payment in the past (we sent him for financial counseling after finding out other issues he was having). However, if AAFES isn't exempt aren't they opening themselves to a eventual class-action lawsuit by disgruntled servicemembers? I know that Visa and Mastercard don't send letters to McDonald's store managers telling them that their fry cook missed a payment.

Something that I noticed over the years is that whenever you counsel a Soldiers the majority of them will put their initials in the agree or disagree blocks.

Looking through ATP 6-22.1, I didn't see anything in there stating that putting your initials in the box was required and I don't remember it being in FM 6-22 either.

Is there some alternate reg stating that we are supposed to initial those boxes or is this just a tradition leaders have been passing down over the years?

It would be nice to hear some opinions and facts from some fellow leaders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/us/military-path...

It was announced Thursday that illegal immigrants can apply to enlist if they are eligible for DACA and can meet the requirements of the MAVNI program.

MAVNI, or Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest, allows immigrants with needed medical or language skills to enlist into the military without citizenship or a Green Card. DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, allows many illegal immigrants who came before their 16th birthday to stay in the US.

According to the current standards of the program most Latino illegal immigrants won't qualify because Spanish isn't on the list of languages the MAVNI is looking for but that doesn't mean it won't change in the future.

Here is my current situation:

1. I am currently in Afghanistan and will be here until next spring.

2. I have access to Xbox Live using an AT&T MiFi 2372 and an Afghanistan sim card.

3. I could download it directly but the connection is SLOW (on a good day I might get two times the speed of dial-up) and it constantly disconnects, meaning I have to constantly watch the screen to verify it didn't sign out of Live and reconnect manually if it does.

It took me three days to download one map pack for MW3 due to constantly having to reconnect. Also, I have a 2GB a month limit and unlike in the US where you just get overage charges over here when you hit your limit the connection just shuts off until you load more credits.

There is an area on our base with a 2meg download wireless connection I could use for free, but for practical reasons I can't bring my Xbox directly there to do it. I could bring my phone and download stuff to it directly or I can take my laptop.

Any suggestions? Once again, I am not asking how to download pirated DLC, I'm asking if it can be legally obtained on a PC after paying for it.

Her dropping to her knees and crying was embarrassing in my opinion and you could hear how mad and confused the audience was. It probably wasn't until the next day or two we found out it was because she was pregnant and they had to write her out of storylines for the next nine months.

WQ: How would you have wrote her out of the WWE that would have been less embarrassing and still made her seem relevant when she returns?

WWE used the death of Randy Savage to get a heel over by being disrespectful like they have been using the death of Jerry Lawler's mother to get Cole more heat?

RIP Randy Savage

Ariel Winter was the WM 27 host when she appeared on the screen?

Other than Wade Barrett, the other winners pretty much faded away. Kaitlyn hasn't been in a match since her win other than being in a battle royal and Kaval was released. On the other hand, three NXT "losers" became tag champions and one is the US champion. Wonder what this season's winner will end up doing.

Otunga said they're under new management but he didn't say who the leader is.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/08/veteran...

Berkeley, California wants to honor Manning as a hero for everything he leaked to Wikileaks. Don't know too many governments in the US who would encourage someone to violate a non-disclosure agreement by revealing classified information but I guess there's a first time for everything.

I've been watching wrestling for over 20 years now and I could remember back in the day when heels were heavily booed and the biggest faces were cheered like there was no tomorrow. Back then, when there was suspicion (but not massive confirmation) that wrestling was scripted people would think heels were really the monsters they portrayed with their character and that faces were really the goody superheroes they portrayed. Now, you may watch a heel on TV try to get boos but they can't get the crowd against them because of their performance (Randy Orton before his turn) or because their Wikipedia talks about all of the good things they do outside of the ring. That combined with the smarks who refuse to go with the show and cheer/boo who they want.

BQ: Which face do you think is a jerk in real life and which heel do you think is way nicer than their on-screen character?

Recruiters were given word yesterday that the program is being restarted on October 18th (subject to change) to new applicants. Do you think it's a good program that should be done more often or do you think otherwise? All opinions are welcome.

*FYI for the people who don't know what it is, MAVNI stands for Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest. The way the program works is that it allows people who are here legally with a visa and been here for at least two years to enlist, normally you would need a Green Card or citizenship. They are required to have a language skill the Army is looking for and can enlist under any MOS that doesn't require a security clearance, it's also open to people who have critical medical skills the Army needs. No moral waivers are authorized and you must get at least a 50 on the ASVAB (a 10 if you speak one of three Middle Eastern dialects and enlist as an 09L). Assuming there are no issues with the USCIS, they can be Naturalized as early as when they graduate from basic training.

At first I thought that I heard it all, but almost everyday it looks like something new is said that makes me wonder where the heck did they hear that. Examples include the following:

1. We get paid less than people who work at McDonald's (if that was true then nobody would join if they could make more flipping burgers).

2. An illegal immigrant can join and gain instant citizenship.

3. Troops live in basic training barracks with drill sergeants screaming at them for their entire enlistment.

And several others have been said.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/...

According to this, an illegal immigrant who has an immediate family member who is currently in the military can apply for parole so they can apply for legal status without having to leave the country and face a possible three or ten year ban. From there, it's assumed they can eventually apply for Permanent Resident status and Naturalization like any other legal immigrant. This policy was supposedly put in place in May.

What is your opinion on it? Do you think it's the right thing, such as a way to keep families together who would otherwise be apart for years? Or do you think it has the potential of being abused, such as the possibility of illegal immigrants paying servicemembers to marry them so they can gain legal status without having to leave the country?

Most of us know that each branch has their piece of the pie when it comes to combat operations, whether it's the Marines, the Air Force, the Navy, or the Army. But I've seen a few people here who are either in right now or who served in the past that blatantly hate other branches or a specific branch, and act like they're full of dirt bags insulting them every chance they get. We know there is pride when you say you're the best but when you take it a step further and say branch A doesn't deserve to wear a uniform and should be disbanded then it falls out of a friendly rivalry and goes towards what 13-year olds who's military experience is on Call of Duty would probably say. What made you feel the way you do? Personally I have no issues with and support anybody who raised their right hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution but it seems like everybody doesn't agree.

*This is specifically meant for people who are currently serving right now and veterans who already served in the past, this isn't meant for people who never served before or are just in the DEP although you can share your opinion.

Was it your recruiter, was it your family or friends, was it because you heard one had better benefits or training than the others, or was it just something you always wanted to do? We all know that no matter what branch you enlist in you have some part in the mission and we all serve under the same flag. But chances are, you may have considered several different options and there was something that made you pick one specific branch over the other.

Everybody knows that the Military category is a just part of the bigger Politics & Government category. Do you think that Y!A should give the military it's own bigger category and then have smaller sections to cover each branch as well? I don't personally think it needs to be split up or that there's anything wrong with the way it's set up now, but it might help out to split up some of the branch-specific questions, such as something that only applies to the Navy or Army.