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.
When were you in? Because what you have said is simply untrue. And were you active duty or one of the other two?
To begin with, prior to Desert Storm, even on active duty, the time in grade for 2Lt was 18 months to 2 years. The time for 1LT was about the same. Those numbers have mostly been less since Desert Storm, and there were times they were more especially around the end of the Vietnam Era, and towards the end of it. Additionally, the times were always more for the Guard and Reserves, unless they have had some significant deployment time, sometimes up to twice as long. What's more at one time period, including the Vietnam Era, in some states you were only promoted in the Guard if you found a slot that was vacant in the next rank that you could move into. Up or Out was not a policy until the very late 70's, so you had people that were LTs for 10-12 years, even on active duty. We met a guy at the beginning of my husband's career who was an LT for 15 years!
By the way, the promotion rate to Captain in the late 80's in some branches of the Army was in the 70 percent range - and they had boards for the rank of LT and CPT back then.
12 years active AF, one year Reserve Army, 2 years Army PANG and 6 years AF Reserves.
The other reason that you did not mention and this happens especially in the guard, if you do not fullfil all of your training and meet the attendance requirement you will not get promoted either. Pilots especially good ones are normally Captains and above. I just find it hard to believe that anyone that was so connected as Bush was not to obtain the rank of at least Capt, unless he was a complete jackup or did not attend all of his drills.
Not that this is the worst thing we've seen from Democrats. But to seriously attack someone for even mentioning they served, unlike one who would bash someone for it, is despicable. Shame on them and the liberals that will come in here and defend it. Not that we should be shocked. You people will defend comparing non-liberals to suicide bombers/terrorists. You are that disgusting and pathetic.
The overwhelming majority of threads started by republicans are childish, manipulative, and hide the fact republican deficits have destroyed this country.
But this is a republican thread that is justified. Tom Cotton risked his life for America and no one should be criticizing his military service.
The other reason that you did not mention and this happens especially in the guard, if you do not fullfil all of your training and meet the attendance requirement you will not get promoted either. Pilots especially good ones are normally Captains and above. I just find it hard to believe that anyone that was so connected as Bush was not to obtain the rank of at least Capt, unless he was a complete jackup or did not attend all of his drills.
My understanding is that he did indeed have less than stellar attendence, but you are very wrong about your assumptions of rank progression in the guard during the time he was in. But more to the point, even what you are saying now does not support the statement below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
If you want any further proof may you can ask any officer in any branch of the service how stupid do you have to be to have the rank of Lt for six years.
Plenty of people in the Guard and Reserves at the time had the rank of lieutenant for over 6 years and no officer would say it is proof they were stupid because of it. There were plenty of men who served honorably at the time who were in the same boat. How the military operates today is not, at least in this case, how it operated then. Like I said Up or Out didn't show up until the 80's.
My understanding is that he did indeed have less than stellar attendence, but you are very wrong about your assumptions of rank progression in the guard during the time he was in. But more to the point, even what you are saying now does not support the statement below.
Plenty of people in the Guard and Reserves at the time had the rank of lieutenant for over 6 years and no officer would say it is proof they were stupid because of it. There were plenty of men who served honorably at the time who were in the same boat. How the military operates today is not, at least in this case, how it operated then. Like I said Up or Out didn't show up until the 80's.
Ok, I will for arguement sake take your word for it. I still believe that if he would have actually attended regularly and gain some valuable knowledge I believe not as many lives would not have been lost due to his taunting and showboating.
Um, no one was bashing Kerry for serving. It was his actions and words they bashed him for related to it all. Nice try though.
No one is bashing anyone for serving. I am sorry you are not getting the point. They are talking about people who think military service alone qualifies them to serve in Congress.
The attack on Kerry's combat service was an example of bashing someone for serving. You can't get around that.
Not that this is the worst thing we've seen from Democrats. But to seriously attack someone for even mentioning they served, unlike one who would bash someone for it, is despicable. Shame on them and the liberals that will come in here and defend it. Not that we should be shocked. You people will defend comparing non-liberals to suicide bombers/terrorists. You are that disgusting and pathetic.
This is a glimpse of the actual first steps in the mandate for fairness in Obama's war on America. The Liberal dems are saying that your service to your country should not be considered during an election. In other words they are defining for America what is a valid voting criteria.
This of course flies in the face of the tradition of being able to cast a vote for whatever reason you wish, good or bad without question. As evidenced by obama's first election.
You can cast your vote in the belief you will get a free cell phone but you are not to consider a candidate had signed a contract to give his life for his country. It's only FAIR in Obama's socialist agenda.
We patiently await the next dictum of Fairnesss to be imposed... by obama's the dept of social justice.
You are still unclear on the concept. Like the old joke of the bear and the hikers, I don't have to know everything.
I only need to know more than you.
You have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread that you are objectively ignorant regarding both the claims of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and the actual record of John Kerry's heroic service in Vietnam. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of established, objective fact.
Certainly, people can have any opinion on anything. But the falling boulder will still crush you, regardless of your opinion regarding its reality.
"You have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread that you are objectively ignorant regarding both the claims of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"
No, you have ONLY recited what YOUR opinion is.
You choose to believe what you want and I will choose to believe what I want.
Reading the responses in this thread is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Nine pages long, at least six pages is about Kerry as if Kerry really has anything to do with the OP.
Yes, we got it. There are Right Wing Super Turds out there. This is not news. We also got it, simply serving in the Armed force is NOT enough to run for office. Military service does not render you immune to criticism of having an inflated ego. We got all that. Thanks to the CD community and the public and media for putting Veterans emotions and ego in check!
But like it or not, admit it or not, military service is still credential. One certainly can mention, talk about, and be proud about it. As a voter, I am always interested in finding out candidates, so I can make a smart voting decision.
In my most humble opinion, Political Candidates can be judged in the following ways: the positions they take on issues and the leadership qualities and experience they would bring to office. Both are important.
Military service is certainly not enough, but military service might show a candidate's qualities of good leadership skills. Let the voters decide.
Since when mention somebody's military service = entitlement issue
Mark Pryor has certainly shown desperation. The only person he is embarrassing is himself. Not a very smart move.
The person who'd be wrong is you, but obviously you decided to act obtuse in an attempt to avoid it.
Nice to see your brain functions are in proper order.
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.
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.
