[Magnum44]

You are angry it seems because your son was "Guaranteed" 3 years stateside in the service and he didn't get it in a time of war when he volunteered?

You should hear yourself.

I wont argue with you as your argument is personal apparently. I will say I spent a hell of a lot more time overseas in my active duty days than I would have preferred, but it came with the job. I didn't whine about it, and I hope your son handled it like a man better than you did. If he chose to get out I have no problem with that. My respects to him for his service.

[Vermont Lt]

No my argument is based on nearly 40 years of not solving the problem.

Your answer is another 40 years of impotent waste.

It it worth spending trillions to defend against a potential of millions in “damage?” Try using that argument anywhere else. Much of my background is in Risk mitigation and Emergency “response” ( not first responder, but rather corporate response to emergencies.). You plan would be laughed out of every boardroom I’ve ever set foot in. It is not feasible, relevant, or cost effective.

Yeah, I have seen up close and personal what the loss of limb, life, and livelihood due to 40 years of this crap. I recognize that. Do you recognize the lack of logic and steadfast groupthink that your answer represents.

[Shethink13]

I wont argue with you as your argument is personal apparently. I will say I spent a hell of a lot more time overseas in my active duty days than I would have preferred, but it came with the job. I didn't whine about it, and I hope your son handled it like a man better than you did. If he chose to get out I have no problem with that. My respects to him for his service.

Apparently you don't hold the same standard for this "cry-baby" complainer, if there indeed really is one. How come you don't advise him to suck it up because it's part of the job, instead of bad-mouthing his commander-in-chief?