Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-07-2012, 12:56 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,732 posts, read 6,784,658 times
Reputation: 2374

Advertisements

This coming from someone who never served in the military to protect HIS country. Or..................is the US really "his" country??? What's next - bring back the draft???

Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay | Military.com

Quote:
The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.
A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:
  • Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
  • On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
  • Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or
  • On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.
Note: Reserve members are also eligible for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2012, 01:03 AM
 
Location: California
37,135 posts, read 42,228,838 times
Reputation: 35019
So what changed and what's the problem? And yeah, I imagine the draft would be brought back, but probably not by Obama, if we go to full fledged war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 01:07 AM
 
16,431 posts, read 22,204,998 times
Reputation: 9623
Are you of the opinion that service members should receive such hazard premiums when they are not in a hostile environment?

There will be no need to bring back the draft in these troubled economic times. The millitary is a paid job with benefits that many would like to have.

Last edited by Bideshi; 02-07-2012 at 01:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 01:21 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,732 posts, read 6,784,658 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
Or you of the opinion that service members should receive such hazard premiums when they are not in a hostile environment?

There will be no need to bring back the draft in these troubled economic times. The millitary is a paid job with benefits that many would like to have.
Anywhere where military is stationed in a country that there is hostile activity deserves more than someone stationed in Germany where there is no threat - risk factor. Are you saying that those who were stationed in Iraq as mechanics weren't at risk of being attacked because they weren't on the front line? Or those mechanics stationed in Afghanistan aren't at risk because they would be located away from the battle? Would the medical personal also be included as not being subjected to hostile activity as hospitals are positioned away from hostile activity?

Is that the reason people voluntarily join the military because it's such a great paying job with such great benefits? If that's the case, why aren't more people voluntarily joining?

I guess you don't have a problem with the benefits that are so generously given by the government to illegal immigrants, but you think it's OK to take away from those who serve in the military.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 01:35 AM
 
1,013 posts, read 910,548 times
Reputation: 489
question to obama why are we in those countries if there is no eminent danger.

which means that rule is pointless.
armies and navies should only be deployed into danger areas.

SO again whats the point of this again?

why dont we bring all our troops back if those stationed are in countries in NO eminent danger...

This reeks of stupidity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 02:20 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,068,169 times
Reputation: 17865
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
Anywhere where military is stationed in a country that there is hostile activity deserves more than someone stationed in Germany where there is no threat - risk factor. Are you saying that those who were stationed in Iraq as mechanics weren't at risk of being attacked because they weren't on the front line?

There is list of "DESIGNATED HOSTILE FIRE OR IMMINENT DANGER PAY AREAS", table at the end of this document:

http://comptroller.defense.gov/fmr/07a/07a_10.pdf


Quote:
Afghanistan - Land area and airspace.
The designated areas are quite broad and include entire countries.


-----edit------

LOL, they have Greece on there:
Quote:
Greece - Land area within a 20-km radius from the
center of Athens (38-01 N, 23-44 E).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 02:57 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,290,027 times
Reputation: 11416
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
Anywhere where military is stationed in a country that there is hostile activity deserves more than someone stationed in Germany where there is no threat - risk factor. Are you saying that those who were stationed in Iraq as mechanics weren't at risk of being attacked because they weren't on the front line? Or those mechanics stationed in Afghanistan aren't at risk because they would be located away from the battle? Would the medical personal also be included as not being subjected to hostile activity as hospitals are positioned away from hostile activity?

Is that the reason people voluntarily join the military because it's such a great paying job with such great benefits? If that's the case, why aren't more people voluntarily joining?

I guess you don't have a problem with the benefits that are so generously given by the government to illegal immigrants, but you think it's OK to take away from those who serve in the military.
Why?
They know what they're getting into when they join.
Duh, we're in a war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 04:17 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,732 posts, read 6,784,658 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
Why?
They know what they're getting into when they join.
Duh, we're in a war.
Duh, the countries that we are at "war" with are the makings of the US. The countries considered hostile didn't declare war on the US, the US declared war and invaded them. In spite of that, Americans joined the military with the belief that they are serving America.

I guess your attitude is that for every American soldier killed or injured it's is just another American who knew what they were getting into. Tough luck, they drew the short straw and didn't get shipped out to a resort post in Germany but to some "hostile" country that didn't declare war on the US, but has an active military US presence, and the price they pay is risk of life or injury and why should they be given combat pay?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 04:29 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,732 posts, read 6,784,658 times
Reputation: 2374
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
There is list of "DESIGNATED HOSTILE FIRE OR IMMINENT DANGER PAY AREAS", table at the end of this document:

http://comptroller.defense.gov/fmr/07a/07a_10.pdf
The breakdown is "hostile" and "imminent". Hostile is active, imminent is potential.

There is the perception of being hostile and there is being actively hostile. Many military are deployed on what the US refers to as "peace keeping" missions, and apparently the US seems to have alot of those missions in place. Obviously if there is no active combat, military should not be compensated with combat pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 04:32 AM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,215,209 times
Reputation: 18824
It's the right decision. Calm down and look at it rationally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:22 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top