'Who will raise our children'

"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," Crotty said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21580523/


i guess the diplomatic corp thinks

they are better than the armed forces

hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

if they can no be more diplomatic than this article

they should be fired

Take it to another place, this is not a political kinda sight..

Well with all the single parents serving over there and in some cases both parents,the diplomats should be ashamed of themselves.
I would ask though is the Sullivan law still in effect for the military?

does that cover parents i thought it was only children

---------------------

previous post


No_photo
Joined Thu 08/23/07
Posts: 58

Thu 11/01/07 02:20 PM
Take it to another place, this is not a political kinda sight..

i would say you may not want to come to current events

nor the religion threads if you think that

come back when yer available for a relevant comment

cause obviously you know not of what you speak

may much good come to you and yours

here ya go jax

i guess we both fell into that urban legend

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
The Sullivan Brothers: U.S. Navy Policy Regarding Family Members Serving Together at Sea

Several misconceptions, common during World War II and after, continue to circulate about the Sullivan brothers and the assignment of family members to U.S. Navy ships.

Reference to a "Sullivan Act" in connection with family members serving in the same ship/unit is a popular misconception. The Sullivan Law of 29 May 1911 is a New York State Law dealing with firearms. Although proposed after the death of the five Sullivan Brothers, no "Sullivan Act" was ever enacted by Congress related to family members serving together. Similarly, no President has ever issued any executive order forbidding assignment of family members to the same ship/unit.

Following are nine references that describe the U.S. Navy policy toward the assignment of family members to ships since 1942, and one other article that helps explain this policy.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq72-5.htm

I don't know what it covers .i know that all the children can't serve in the same unit but i wonder how many war orphans we will have when all is said and done??

I think GW BUSH should adopt all the children if they dont have families to go to.....but that would be asking a bit much right??? I mean he makes the parents go out and fight for his oil and that would be a wee too much.......right?

Wow,all this time i thought we had one lol

I do remember the sullivan brothers yes I have dated myself but I don't really care. the sullivan act you refer to was a memo by one admiral saying the members of a family may not serve togeather under his command. or at least that is the way I remember it.

that is how we remembered it but check out

the navy's stand above

should explain my post, I do not remember the brothers personaly just the stir that was created when some other family members wanted to serve togeather during the second world war.

should explain my post, I do not remember the brothers personaly just the stir that was created when some other family members wanted to serve togeather during the second world war.

From what i remember, the brothers asked to be deployed together. I'm not sure how i feel about that. I do remember reading about it in school.

For the person who voted to delete this thread. I have canceled your vote. There is too much of this going on. wrong forum? It's documented news....This is a news forum....Forums are for discussion, and debate. You don't delete a thread simply because you do not like the topic, or the poster. Note the word "moderate" 1 a: avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits <a moderate

That means being fair and impartial. If you are not sure how to vote, then simply do not vote at all please,
Thank you

well said mark

bravo

i have been fighting the

evil delete happy haters for some time now

We should have free health care to I suppose? Gotta love it.....lol

Oh gee what part of the guy who signs your paycheck gets to tell you what you have to do to earn it don't these civil service cry babies understand. If they don't like what they are being asked to do they can quit and find another job, of course they might have to work in the private sector where they would actually be required to work and produce something instead of sit with their nose in the government trough and cry whine, ***** moan and complain. I don't think there are any hooks in their asses holding them to the job they can bail anytime they want.

well i think they are in a voluntary position

kinda kills there if they volunteer to go argument

don't you think

interesting

I'm not sure, but what i am sure of, is the U.S. can defend itself so why keep beating a dead horse? at the expense of not only the economy, but the lives of U.S. citizens. This horse has been dead for so long the maggots are falling from it. The people we "defend" at our expense? and rebuild a country for them? Oh give me a break...These people have fought since the beginning of time. There is no argument against that. Moreover, there is no argument to sustain a reasonable doubt that this will ever change. It is a political war(if one could call it that) It's more of a fallacy. Leading the people to believe in a falsehood, while the people here barely make a living. Who are we oppressing here? I submit it is the people of the United States.
I know this has veered slightly off topic...But i don't believe anyone with good conscience could dispute what i've said. If they in fact can...feel free...enlighten me.

oh we need to sop fighting their fight for sure

we should just build our embassy complex

keep a division on it to protect it

and a carrier force off shore to support it

let them do as they will

Getting back to the original topic. State dept. personnel signed up to fill positions at our facilities at home and abroad. They did NOT sign up to work in war zones. We have something we use in time of war. It's called the military. Let the military fill these positions.