I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
.... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Military folks would point out operational experience is the key to
advancement, particularly the officers. I agree that these things are
really better done by single guys but that is not who is in the
military these days.

On 10/23/17 3:16 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Military folks would point out operational experience is the key to
advancement, particularly the officers. I agree that these things are
really better done by single guys but that is not who is in the
military these days.



I think we should take old farts like you, Luddite, Herring, et al,
uniform you up and send you to Niger or wherever. Your lives are pretty
much over, age-wise, and no one depends on you.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.


No.

- It would be unfair to the single soldiers. (Would probably increase the number of marriages
though!)

- Over 50% of Army soldiers are married, and just under 50% have children.

- The higher the rank, the more married. E1-E4 - 35.6%, E7-E9 - 82.8%

- Enlisted leadership of soldiers in combat cannot be demanded only of the 17.2% single NCOs.

I'm in a rush or I'd go on.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.

On 10/23/2017 9:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.


It's good those left behind are well taken care of. It was just a
thought. I am old school, I guess. Still have a tough time with women
in combat also.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:46:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/23/17 3:16 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Military folks would point out operational experience is the key to
advancement, particularly the officers. I agree that these things are
really better done by single guys but that is not who is in the
military these days.



I think we should take old farts like you, Luddite, Herring, et al,
uniform you up and send you to Niger or wherever. Your lives are pretty
much over, age-wise, and no one depends on you.

It is a better idea to just ask why the **** are we in Niger in the
first place and come home.
Virtually all of the terrorism here can be traced back to military
misadventures in 3d world **** holes where we really had no compelling
national interest.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:13:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 9:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.


It's good those left behind are well taken care of. It was just a
thought. I am old school, I guess. Still have a tough time with women
in combat also.


How would the Navy be if married sailors had to remain on shore duty? (Had that thought on the way
home from doctor.)

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:49:28 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:46:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/23/17 3:16 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Military folks would point out operational experience is the key to
advancement, particularly the officers. I agree that these things are
really better done by single guys but that is not who is in the
military these days.



I think we should take old farts like you, Luddite, Herring, et al,
uniform you up and send you to Niger or wherever. Your lives are pretty
much over, age-wise, and no one depends on you.

It is a better idea to just ask why the **** are we in Niger in the
first place and come home.
Virtually all of the terrorism here can be traced back to military
misadventures in 3d world **** holes where we really had no compelling
national interest.

Why grace his stupid f'ing comment with a response?

As to third world ********s, should we just let China have all of Africa?

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:50:33 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:49:28 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:46:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/23/17 3:16 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Military folks would point out operational experience is the key to
advancement, particularly the officers. I agree that these things are
really better done by single guys but that is not who is in the
military these days.



I think we should take old farts like you, Luddite, Herring, et al,
uniform you up and send you to Niger or wherever. Your lives are pretty
much over, age-wise, and no one depends on you.

It is a better idea to just ask why the **** are we in Niger in the
first place and come home.
Virtually all of the terrorism here can be traced back to military
misadventures in 3d world **** holes where we really had no compelling
national interest.

Why grace his stupid f'ing comment with a response?

As to third world ********s, should we just let China have all of Africa?

I would not be all that upset with it. Let them deal with those
terrorists and military dictators. They know how and do not worry
about whether they are nice enough about it.