http://theblacksphere.net/2013/05/when-freedom-rings-songvideo-for-troopsvets/


When Freedom Rings (Song/Video for Troops/Vets)
Featured, Military/Troops, Videos 24 comments
Memorial Day, observed on the last Monday in May, honors the sacrifice of those Armed Forces men and women who paid the “last full measure of devotion.”
Singer/songwriter, Perry Nunley, wrote “When Freedom Rings” as a musical homage to our fallen, as well as to honor those Vets who have served and Troops who are serving.
Watch and be reminded of the greatest fighting force in the history of the world…and that freedom is not free.

Thank you to all who serve and have served in the military.

I saw this below in the comments section of the link above and thought it was worth reposting.

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.

By Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC.

Thank you to all who serve and have served in the military.

I saw this below in the comments section of the link above and thought it was worth reposting.

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.

By Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC.

+1   

 

From a blog I read:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2013/05/27/what-really-deserves-memorializing/

Sgt Michael Ferschke, 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, USMC
Died 8/10/2008 near Lake Tharthar, Iraq
I didn't know you personally, but the rest of 3rd Recon grieved over your loss.  Rest In Peace.

I'm with you, crazy cat.

I absolutely honor military service. I also despise what all to often motivates use of military force - which isn't the soldier's fault and never was. It is extremely important to make that distinction.

I'd also add Major General Smedley Butler to the list.

I see the point of the blog posted by crazy cat as well as the writing posted by clshade. However, I don't think our soldiers are to blame for that. 

I honor the soldiers who gets sent into harm's way by the commander-in-chiefs (or the real powers that be) who may have the right or the wrong reasons for sending them.  As an institution, the military has been a necessary force but whether they are used for good or bad, that responsibility falls under the hands of our politically elected and influenced leaders. 

Whether at different times our leaders have been misguided or whether they have been right, only God knows for sure and only in time can we tell.  Let's not blame the instrument, but on the leader(s) wielding it as well as the electorate selecting those leaders.

The last year any U.S. citizens were drafted into service was 1973.  For forty years (roughly two generations) we have depended on an all-volunteer force.  Those who selflessly choose military service, and their families, make many sacrifices even in peacetime.

Never belittle the service of any of today's military and vets.  The military follow the orders of our civilian chain of command.  It is their sacrifice, sense of duty, love of country, and dedication to our way of life which we must honor. We are not forced to become members of the military.  This fact alone should raise each member of the service to at least the same status as firefighter or peace officer.  Hero may be less applicable to each member, but these selfless servants of the people of the United States of America should garner automatic respect REGARDLESS of one's politics or war-related opinions.

The last year any U.S. citizens were drafted into service was 1973.  For forty years (roughly two generations) we have depended on an all-volunteer force.  Those who selflessly choose military service, and their families, make many sacrifices even in peacetime.

Never belittle the service of any of today's military and vets.  The military follow the orders of our civilian chain of command.  It is their sacrifice, sense of duty, love of country, and dedication to our way of life which we must honor. We are not forced to become members of the military.  This fact alone should raise each member of the service to at least the same status as firefighter or peace officer.  Hero may be less applicable to each member, but these selfless servants of the people of the United States of America should garner automatic respect REGARDLESS of one's politics or war-related opinions.

THIS!!!! Most of us don't join the Military to be "hero's"...the reasons are many...school, patriotism, etc. But let me tell you something crazy cat, whether you "honor" me or not...is really inconsequential. Look at our Amendments...without the sacrifice of my brothers and sisters, the ability of anyone of us to create blogs and bitch about our Government (as just one example) is a testament that they did their jobs! So don't "honor" my brothers or sisters, but at least take two minutes of your day and thank one of them for the freedoms you still have. Sleep well my friend...a Soldier has got your back!

The last year any U.S. citizens were drafted into service was 1973.  For forty years (roughly two generations) we have depended on an all-volunteer force.  Those who selflessly choose military service, and their families, make many sacrifices even in peacetime.

No draft per se but the Army stop-loss orders basically amounted to involuntary extensions of enlistment terms past their ETS date or used to prevent soldiers from leaving just prior to a combat tour or in the middle of a combat tour. Kinda seems like a little back door draft they have used when they had a manpower shortage or surged. A lot of guys got screwed by stop-loss orders. Some could argue this is a form of a draft but via the back door.

No draft per se but the Army stop-loss orders basically amounted to involuntary extensions of enlistment terms past their ETS date or used to prevent soldiers from leaving just prior to a combat tour or in the middle of a combat tour. Kinda seems like a little back door draft they have used when they had a manpower shortage or surged. A lot of guys got screwed by stop-loss orders. Some could argue this is a form of a draft but via the back door.

Not really...stop loss occurred to ensure units did not lose fighting strength. If Soldier's were set to deploy and they were within their initial 8 year commitment (when you first join, you are committed to 8 years even if you only serve 3 or 4), they were put on stop loss orders. Those Soldiers outside that 8 year commitment were put on rear D and allowed to ETS. I am sure that there were Soldiers who slipped through the cracks as they say, but all Soldiers on stop loss orders were paid an additional $500 per month.

Not really...stop loss occurred to ensure units did not lose fighting strength. If Soldier's were set to deploy and they were within their initial 8 year commitment (when you first join, you are committed to 8 years even if you only serve 3 or 4), they were put on stop loss orders. Those Soldiers outside that 8 year commitment were put on rear D and allowed to ETS. I am sure that there were Soldiers who slipped through the cracks as they say, but all Soldiers on stop loss orders were paid an additional $500 per month.

All true but the point is stop-loss or even stop-movement to some extent was involuntarily. Not saying in anyway this was a draft but unfortunate for the guys and their families on the receiving end, more so if the guy ended up wounded or KIA as a result of it.

All true but the point is stop-loss or even stop-movement to some extent was involuntarily. Not saying in anyway this was a draft but unfortunate for the guys and their families on the receiving end, more so if the guy ended up wounded or KIA as a result of it.

I do see your point...I would say whether that stop loss is an involuntary thing. Sure, units may try not to take you down range, but ultimately, it is out of your control.

One thing to consider about stop-loss.  It was not a draft.  It was a preliminary exercise of what many would have been subject to had they actually separated and gone on reserve status.  A great number are required to serve as reservists, in particular officers, and many more opt in to continue accruing time for government service retirement, education, etc.  Being a reservist entails the same risk of INVOLUNTARY RECALL TO ACTIVE DUTY. 

Once you avail yourself of the opportunities of the military, you also commit yourself to serve at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief.  That is a voluntary act.  If situations exist which alter the time in service you expected, it by no means changes the fact you volunteered.  It just means you are playing a game in which the rules were changed after you agreed to play, and you had no say in whether you agree with the changes.  It sucks, but that's the way our government works.  They make all kinds of promises, but they guarantee NOTHING.

One thing to consider about stop-loss.  It was not a draft.  It was a preliminary exercise of what many would have been subject to had they actually separated and gone on reserve status.  A great number are required to serve as reservists, in particular officers, and many more opt in to continue accruing time for government service retirement, education, etc.  Being a reservist entails the same risk of INVOLUNTARY RECALL TO ACTIVE DUTY. 

Once you avail yourself of the opportunities of the military, you also commit yourself to serve at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief.  That is a voluntary act.  If situations exist which alter the time in service you expected, it by no means changes the fact you volunteered.  It just means you are playing a game in which the rules were changed after you agreed to play, and you had no say in whether you agree with the changes.  It sucks, but that's the way our government works.  They make all kinds of promises, but they guarantee NOTHING.

Generally agree with all but there was much more to it...enough to make DoD rethink Stop-Loss.

I do see your point...I would say whether that stop loss is an involuntary thing. Sure, units may try not to take you down range, but ultimately, it is out of your control.

You state, ”it is beyond their control”…that is exactly my point and it was just an observation to the original comment moosed made that I replied to. I'm not defending anything...just making an observation. It was not only beyond their control, in many cases completely unexpected and down right dirty in some cases. Call it involuntary, beyond their control, forced, directed, etc, etc. The point is that is f%*ked up to involuntarily extend our men and women past their agreed-to separation date who volunteered and served their nation, and most of these personnel have already served at least one tour of combat duty. The $500 a month is meaningless in this discussion. It’s a bad trade off for another tour of getting shot at on a regular basis. There are consequences to multiple or extended combat tours. 

My point is not that it is illegal or is a draft. The original statement was, “…for forty years we have depended on an all-volunteer force”. While true it could be debated since stop-loss and stop-movement is a force management program imposed by our government that involuntarily retains uniformed military beyond their contractually agreed-to separation date. It’s a program that enables the President to suspend the laws relating to promotion, retirement and separation during periods of what he deems a national emergency.

I agree enlisting armed forces are contractually obligated to an eight-year Military Service Obligation (MSO), but it extended beyond the guy fulfilling his 8-year legal contract. Although completely legal, it impacted officers and senior enlisted personnel who had already submitted a voluntary resignation in the case of officers or retirement applications after completing 20-years of active duty military service (application denied). These actions involuntarily continued service members beyond their intended separation date or retirement date. Legal, yes but nevertheless a bad situation.

Here is an excerpt from a CRS Report and this is in combat: Worst case scenario - a soldier who was scheduled to separate from active duty 90 days prior to the deployment date would be involuntarily retained in the unit for those three months plus 12 months of deployment plus up to 90 days of redeployment and transition; a potential involuntary extension of up to 18 months.

Being involuntarily retained, especially for combat operations is demoralizing and increases stress and other associated issues on service members, and poses additional hardships on their families. It also increases the likelihood of being wounded or killed in combat operations, plus increases the risk of them developing PTSD or incurring TBI because of the duration of time in combat, not to mention increased rate of suicides. There are all sorts of other bad things that this creates; I only mentioned a few. The majority of these guys that got retained are the ones doing the heavy lifting in the first place and they stand the greatest risk of being wounded or killed (infantry, EOD, SPEC OPS, medics, etc). Multiple or extended combat tours does take a toll. In 2006, a Army survey exploring how multiple war-zone rotations affect soldiers' mental health stated that “U.S. soldiers serving repeated deployments are 50 percent more likely than those with one tour to suffer from acute combat stress, raising their risk of post-traumatic stress disorder”. This doesn’t take rocket science to figure out. 

This issue was controversial enough to make Congress and the Pentagon take action, so much so that DoD revised the enlistment contract to explicitly explain stop-loss and to provide a briefing prior to any potential recruit signing the enlistment contract, and to provide periodic stop-loss information during a service member’s enlistment. I believe Bill Gates ended the use of stop-loss in 2011.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

Elbridge Thomas Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/) (July 17, 1744 – November 23, 1814) was an American statesman and diplomat, and Vice President of the United States of America, serving under James Madison.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

Elbridge Thomas Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/) (July 17, 1744 – November 23, 1814) was an American statesman and diplomat, and Vice President of the United States of America, serving under James Madison.

Interesting. Is this kind of like what Switzerland has done?  Instead of having a centralized standing army, just make sure everyone is armed and can be called upon to defend itself?

Oh, my.

This is basic US history. I guess it isn't clearly taught in schools, though, so you'd have to seek it out on your own.

The federal military force we maintain today would have horrified the founding fathers to to core. Though there are many good reasons for why things are as they are today. Much has changed since then.

In the early days of the US the Federal government maintained only a small standing army. Small and widely derided as poorly trained and slovenly. Their primary role was to guard the capital. The state militias were the real fighting forces and they were entirely funded and maintained by the State governments. If there was a threat to the country as a whole the local State militia would respond immediately while the others would come under the loose direction of the President to organize an effective, coordinated response.

At the end of the conflict, the Militias returned to the exclusive control of the States. If the conflict lasted a long time the federal forces might be bolstered for the duration... but real men wanted to join the Militias and not the Army. (The Navy was another matter entirely. The Fed always had that power.)

It was the State militias that both protected from Federal consolidation of power and became the federal consolidation of power when the need arose.

The Korean Conflict and the Cold War was the final nail in the coffin of the small Federal Military. We ramped up miraculously for WWII - the entire country was on war footing - but the standing forces were ramped back down after it was over. When Korea hit the Fed found itself with a small, poorly trained and equipped force... and no national ferver on which to build those forces up the way there had been with WWII. So the forces built up for the Korean conflict... and have remained at high levels (compared to pre-WWII) ever since. They have also had something to do every since so we have a large, well equipped and very well trained fighting force that the American public has now accepted as a necessity.

As expensive as the next 14 countries' military forces combined. Ben Franklin did NOT see that coming. This is a very fundamental difference in how the founders saw the Federal Forces, the State Militias and their role in the fulfilling the Second Amendment's purpose compared to how we see them today. That landscape is long gone.

I suspect the FF might see a reason for the military once they get an appreciation for the world political situation these days and how fast things can happen.

What would give them a stroke, is Nappy's DHS federal goon army.  Now, that is something so wildly against all they believed in as to be beyond comprehension.