You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Cold Warriors: 1945-1991?
- Thread starter Meat-Hook
- Start date
There is a little known and interesting issue re this "Cold War Certificate": DoD civil servants are eligible to receive it. This is further proof the Clinton administration -- or maybe our society in general -- "just doesn't get it" regarding military service.
I know -- and I served with -- MANY excellent, dedicated civil servants in the Navy Department. However, the level-of-sacrifice required in the civil service simply does not compare to long-term military duty; for example:
> Where are the lengthy deployments at sea and/or overseas?
> Where are the combat operations and combat training?
> Where are the involuntary PCS moves ever few years?
This note is NOT intended to disparage civilian DoD employees or to denigrate their very real contributions to our national security. Their duties, however, differ remarkably from military responsibilities. The fact that the government now commingles the two is additional evidence that our national "leadership" has a pitifully inadequate understanding of military service.
I know -- and I served with -- MANY excellent, dedicated civil servants in the Navy Department. However, the level-of-sacrifice required in the civil service simply does not compare to long-term military duty; for example:
> Where are the lengthy deployments at sea and/or overseas?
> Where are the combat operations and combat training?
> Where are the involuntary PCS moves ever few years?
This note is NOT intended to disparage civilian DoD employees or to denigrate their very real contributions to our national security. Their duties, however, differ remarkably from military responsibilities. The fact that the government now commingles the two is additional evidence that our national "leadership" has a pitifully inadequate understanding of military service.
RWK:
I have to disagree on this one.... The basis of our constitution is that the people grant government powers for the protection off all. All powers not granted are retained by the states or the people. Thus if it ain't in the constitution the government can not do it.
There is only one article in the constitution that I can see that gives the government the right to have armed agents, such as the doa, fbi, irs and all of the other alphabet's. That artilce is Article 1, section 8 refering to raising armies. Thus any federal agent carrying a gun is part of the military. Although their duties are different from the 'normal' military, they are in fact military organizations.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
I have to disagree on this one.... The basis of our constitution is that the people grant government powers for the protection off all. All powers not granted are retained by the states or the people. Thus if it ain't in the constitution the government can not do it.
There is only one article in the constitution that I can see that gives the government the right to have armed agents, such as the doa, fbi, irs and all of the other alphabet's. That artilce is Article 1, section 8 refering to raising armies. Thus any federal agent carrying a gun is part of the military. Although their duties are different from the 'normal' military, they are in fact military organizations.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
I'll send this information over to my Dad.