Okinawa as a Hardship Tour (moved from Teenagers and Foster Movie Theatre)

[TheNoNamedOne]

You what would straighten them/their parent out, catch them on tape, and post it to the net. Just ranting....

I am not sure that would straighten them out. I have overheard some rude talk to parents by dependents. Things seem out of control on many of the homefronts.

Strategically, I don't see why spouses and dependents are accompanied with military personel to forward based theatres of possible conflict and staging areas -- particularly with the more accurate Chinese and N. Korean missile systems always coming on line.

Okinawa should be designated as a hardship duty station and that should mean toughing it out with your job as #1 priority without the distractions of spouses and kids. All the Americans and support personel would then be able to fit on base in all the housing there without pushing up rental costs off base.

[socalheart]

Okinawa should be designated as a hardship duty station and that should mean toughing it out with your job as #1 priority without the distractions of spouses and kids.

Okinawa was once a hardship station. It lead to increased suicides, alcohol related incidences and things like rape and robbery of the local community. I don't agree that turning Okinawa back into a hardship station is worth a bunch of empty local real estate.

Back on the subject though, my husband doesn't like going to the movie theater; something about not being able to smoke while watching. :rolleyes: I don't go so often either, but do enjoy it when I go. I especially like watching sci-fi films on the big screen; like, Star Wars, Star Trek and the like. The big screen makes outer space look better than on a TV. I also have a thing for movie popcorn with loads of fake butter. :p

[DoctorP]

Okinawa was once a hardship station. It lead to increased suicides, alcohol related incidences and things like rape and robbery of the local community. I don't agree that turning Okinawa back into a hardship station is worth a bunch of empty local real estate.


I realize this is offtopic and I will make one reply to this only. Uhh??? concerning the bold text above. What changed by removing the "hardship" tag from Okinawa. Seems to me we still have all of those things happening.

(if you would like to reply and follow this discussion further, PM me and I will split the thread!)

[DoctorP]

I decided to split this part of the discussion off of the original thread. It was I who decided to go down this path, but I think it is worth discussing.

[socalheart]

I said "increased... incidences" at that time. Since families have been integrated into the military community on Okinawa, those incidences have been reduced. I don't deny that they still exist. I simply didn't mention that they still exist as a matter of common sense.
Admittedly, in adding families, the child and spouse abuse incidences have increased here, because there were no children or spouses here previously to have a determinable statistic.
The addition of families has also increased revenue to local communities surrounding military installations, because dependents use off base businesses. I'm not talking about going to bars, but more about shopping, tourism and travel.
Suicide incidences are down, because having a supportive family to go home to is a positive thing. Alchohol related incidences will almost always be an problem for young, single Americans let loose in a bar district. Rape and robbery by military personnel is the stuff that makes newspapers. It has happened, but the incidences have been greatly reduced since. I grew up here as a resident alien while it was a hardship station for the military. From what I've seen, the relationship between the military and local community is better since the families have accompanied the military.
(from a PM I sent, per request)

[TheNoNamedOne]

The fact remains Socal, that Okinawa is a forward based combat staging area. Families are put in direct harm while here. Sure, it looks peaceful now, but the whole region could change quite suddenly.

If war were to erupt, I think the American people deserve to have their fighting men focused solely on their jobs and the enemy -- not them wondering and panicing if their family is going to be able to be evacuated, or abandoning their post in Hansen to drive down to Foster housing to see if their family wasn't hit by the barrage of missiles coming in. That will make focusing on their jobs to a high degree almost impossible.

[socalheart]

I understand that this is a forward operating area. I was in Viet-Nam during the war as a dependant and have been told how difficult it was to get us dependants out even before '75. Having lived overseas as an American for most of my life, I am familiar with where to go and what to take under those circumstances.

Having an accompanied tour is an option for active duty military personnel. It is not required. The military would probably be happy to leave the families stateside, as it costs less monetarily and is less dangerous for families. Of course there should be no dependants stationed with active duty personnel in the middle of Baghdad (for example), but the same can't be said for Okinawa.

When/If Okinawa is ever under threat of siege, you bet my left yellow buttock that my family will fly out as soon as possible. My husband and I have discussed this as much as one might plan a fire escape from the house. Of course I'd want to stay with my husband, but common sense prevails. If as you mention, an extreme happens, and Okinawa is attacked without notice, then Americans should head to a US military base or the US Consulate. The sad thing is, most Americans don't even know where the US Consulate is located.

I believe one of the biggest problems that dependants have while stationed here is that they don't realise they're stationed in a forward operating area. Okinawa is the jump-off point for the PacAF, hence the phrase "keystone of the Pacific." Whether due to the fault of the sponsor or military, many dependants don't realise this. So, many spouses whine, and many children act out. (I'm trying to be nice about it, but "duh!")

[Tempestuous]

I know we discussed the possibility while we were there.
Even the neighbors & I discussed it.

Honestly I don't see someone leaving their stationing at kinser to drive to check on family in the middle of a situation.
One that is just slightly a deriliction of duty. :) Your spouse should have 2 wits about them to know what to do to safely take care of your family.
If not- you have failed them (and yourself by picking yourself such an unintelligent dink that doesn't have the 2wits about them to do whatever it takes to keep themselves and any kids safe) ! As socal mentioned you should be well aware & prepared just as you would with a fire safety or natural disaster plan.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Of course there should be no dependants stationed with active duty personnel in the middle of Baghdad (for example), but the same can't be said for Okinawa.

Why does Baghdad have to be the standard? I think it is more prudent to use potential and highly likely key flashpoints as a standard for designating hardship stations.

I know it is kind of hard to imagine Okinawa now as it looks all built up like a resort in many spots as a place where Chinese missiles could come raining down in a pre-emption of hostilities to Taiwan, but if that were to happen, evacuation of dependents would take away from focusing all available recourses on replying militarily -- either offensively or defensively.

And sorry, Temp, I just don't accept that many of these military people here would not be tempted, or would not, leave their posts to check on family. I have met many immature people here with spouses and with a child thrown in the mix, emotions in such a scenario would clearly come through, and while maybe not all would act on them, enough to hinder unit action could do so.

[ukreal1]

Isn't everyhwere in the world a place where famillies are put in direct harm?..Here is San Diego there is always something on the news about what to do in a terrorist situation and evacuation drills by the emergency services. NYC 911, London July last year, floods, bombs, murders...the list goes on.
Secondly, isn't every military base that is on a coast a jump off point to somewhere else in the world that's having problems? And what would make a child act out more on Okinawa than anywhere else? Just curious so I can make sure my own kid's are kept in check when I am there!

[TheNoNamedOne]

Isn't everyhwere in the world a place where famillies are put in direct harm?

Then why do people consider the degree of safety or danger of neighborhoods when choosing where to rent or purchase a house for their family and kids to grow up in?

[ukreal1]

because you want to be as safe as possible but still anything can happen anyway. You may choose a safe neighborhood away from gang territory but then you could get one of those psycho rich kid killers in your 'safe' school...
I definately want my kids in a safe environment and have heard nothing that Oki is unsafe...really is it? I mean, it is still there since been rebuilt after the war isn't it?
Prosecutor, are you not in Okinawa yourself?

[TheNoNamedOne]

because you want to be as safe as possible but still anything can happen anyway. You may choose a safe neighborhood away from gang territory but then you could get one of those psycho rich kid killers in your 'safe' school...

Exactly! However, that "anything can happen" can be handled in a way so that your whole family isn't at a heightened risk for it. You yourself acknowledge that.

I definately want my kids in a safe environment and have heard nothing that Oki is unsafe...really is it? I mean, it is still there since been rebuilt after the war isn't it?

The discussion is not one of Okinawa per se` being unsafe. In that regards Okinawa is quite safe. What is unsafe is the geopolitical world Okinawa finds itself smack dab in the middle of -- a region where two of the greatest flash points for large military confrontations and casualties exist.

I don't think it wise that families are put on the front lines of flash points. At the front lines, those who have the serious job of protecting national interestes should be required to stay focused on that -- not whether their wife needs to get to the hospital to deliver her baby or remember to stop by the commissary to pick up baby formula, or take the dog to the veterinarian, or a whole hundred other little distractions that the wife's or husband's family can step in to do if they were to remain back in the States until the tour is over.

Prosecutor, are you not in Okinawa yourself?

Yes, but I am not charged with the serious job and duties of protecting the interests of the United States. Even if I were, my personal situation would have no bearing on the soundness of my opinion or argument on the matter. It is a purely analytical one.

[ukreal1]

your reply makes no sense to me, on the one hand you are pretty much saying that famillies on Oki are in immediate danger and on the other you are saying that it is quite safe...
:confused:

your quote: What is unsafe is the geopolitical world Okinawa finds itself smack dab in the middle of -- a region where two of the greatest flash points for large military confrontations and casualties exist.

so would your own family not be effected by confrontation on Oki, whether you are military or not? And in that case, why are you still there? It all goes back to you asking why famillies look for the right neighbored/area, etc...what is the difference between a military family living on Oki and a civilian? It's not like I am going to get on a USS with my kids and dog in tow if a problem arises, I will be in the same US consulate building as you and your family, I presume?

ps: can you or anyone else explain this flash point in more detail to me, thanks

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ukreal1, you used the analogy that there are degrees of dangers within cities, which is a social setting within itself (unless you are thinking San Francisco would attack L.A.). Yes, in the social sense Okinawa is safe.

But I am not referring to the social sense when it comes to families being here as part of a forward deployed staging area for defense (or even offensive action). I am referring to the geopolitical situation.

Why doesn't that make sense? Can't you see the difference between the two? Or are you still thinking there is a possibility San Fran will attack L.A.?

[ukreal1]

read my last message I editted it while you were writing back to me, and no this still does not make sense to me and I don't mind admitting that!!!

[TheNoNamedOne]

so would your own family not be effected by confrontation on Oki, whether you are military or not?

Of course it would! But the mission of the U.S. military at unit level and on up would not be affected by me or my family because I am not in the military being paid to perform a national interest mission.

The main part of my argument is not only for safety of family members, but that the mission be focused on.

...what is the difference between a military family living on Oki and a civilian?

The former is tasked with a national interest mission -- the latter is operating independently of national interests within the private sector following his, her, or their own personal goals.


It's not like I am going to get on a USS with my kids and dog in tow if a problem arises,

During the evacuation of Vietnam, and even other places where citizens had to be evacuated, U.S. ships did have to divert themselves as recourses for evacuating and handling citizens. The military may force you to abandon your dog -- or even kill it. If not considered a part of your family, perhaps that is of little concern to you.

I will be in the same US consulate building as you and your family, I presume?

Have you ever been to the consulate building here? How large do you think it is, and what do you think its holding capacity is?

ps: can you or anyone else explain this flash point in more detail to me, thanks

I've tried. Maybe someone else could. I thought everyone already knew about the Taiwan Straights and Korean flash points in this region. If so, doesn't take much imagination to imagine what war planners have envisioned could happen.

[DougP]

The fact remains Socal, that Okinawa is a forward based combat staging area. Families are put in direct harm while here. Sure, it looks peaceful now, but the whole region could change quite suddenly.

If war were to erupt, I think the American people deserve to have their fighting men focused solely on their jobs and the enemy -- not them wondering and panicing if their family is going to be able to be evacuated, or abandoning their post in Hansen to drive down to Foster housing to see if their family wasn't hit by the barrage of missiles coming in. That will make focusing on their jobs to a high degree almost impossible.

What I'm trying to figure out now is should my wife and I move somewhere else now. There are more than just military members and military families living on this island and if its safe for everyone else I don't see why it can't be safe for military families. True the world could end at any moment but if and when it did I'd rather be near my family. Allowing the service members the right/ ability to be near their families is a good thing IMO. There are more than enough hardship tours out there(Iraq for example) Trust me I was in the army for 10 years(the last 5 here) and when we were deployed the last thing the troops were thinking about was "What if NK or China were to attack would my family be evacuated?" Trust me when we were on the job our minds were very focussed and for those that were married the idea of coming home to see their families after work or deployment helped keep them focussed. Now that I am married, no longer in the military and living here via visa and not under SOFA I don't feel anymore or less at risk then I did before. Just because this is often considered a forward based combat staging area (just like Guam or Hawaii) doesn't make it any more dangerous than let's say NewYork.

[socalheart]

The US Consulate building isn't very big. Having lived on Okinawa for a good part of my life as a civilian, I grew up with an "exit strategy." My father had a box with our passports and shot records (necessary way back then), and at least half a tank of gas in the car always. We also learned how to pack the basics and valuables into one carry-on bag in under 30 minutes. My father was never in the military, but after living in Viet-Nam, he knew how to bug-out. Luckily, Okinawa never had a significant threat back in those days. It was still always nice to know that our US passport would get us onto the MCB during an evacuation. Back then, myth or fact, we all believed that the US government would get us out safely if there were an attack from China or Korea. It's kind of sad to see that people may doubt that security these days.

(Again, only stating my own life experience. I don't speak for all Americans who ever lived on-island. )

[ukreal1]

Of course it would! But the mission of the U.S. military at unit level and on up would not be affected by me or my family because I am not in the military being paid to perform a national interest mission.

The main part of my argument is not only for safety of family members, but that the mission be focused on..

I think this may be the only valid part of your argument actually



The former is tasked with a national interest mission -- the latter is operating independently of national interests within the private sector following his, her, or their own personal goals. .

and your point is?




During the evacuation of Vietnam, and even other places where citizens had to be evacuated, U.S. ships did have to divert themselves as recourses for evacuating and handling citizens. The military may force you to abandon your dog -- or even kill it. If not considered a part of your family, perhaps that is of little concern to you..

yes my dog is a part of my family but at the end of the day if it is between getting myself and 2 kids to safety or putting my dog down, which one do you think I will choose?


Have you ever been to the consulate building here? How large do you think it is, and what do you think its holding capacity is?.

That wasn't my point, my point was the fact that I would be somewhere looking for safety with my family as so would you be, why odes it seem OK for your family to live with you and my husbands family not to live with him, if Oki is an immediate danger to my family then it is to yours too, so why do you live there?



I've tried. Maybe someone else could. I thought everyone already knew about the Taiwan Straights and Korean flash points in this region. If so, doesn't take much imagination to imagine what war planners have envisioned could happen.

Jesus, this is pure risk board game stuff, we are fighting different wars as well these days, for instance, there are terroist sleepers in every state in the USA just waiting...
The only part I don't understand is this flash point stuff which I would like to educate myself on. But this discussion interested me because as a family member going to Oki with 2 precious cargos (my kids), I have never heard anything like this...all I have heard is what a great wonderful opportunity it is for the family, great schools, a new culture for myself and kids to be in, a great tour, etc etc. If I am wrong on this can others please enlighten me 'cause the last time I thought about myself I didn't think I was a naive idiot but maybe I am missing something...
still :confused:

[TheNoNamedOne]

TheProsecutor:
Of course it would! But the mission of the U.S. military at unit level and on up would not be affected by me or my family because I am not in the military being paid to perform a national interest mission.

The main part of my argument is not only for safety of family members, but that the mission be focused on..

I think this may be the only valid part of your argument actually

It is the most important one.

TheProsecutor:
The former is tasked with a national interest mission -- the latter is operating independently of national interests within the private sector following his, her, or their own personal goals. .

and your point is?

What do you mean my point? It is a direct answer to your question! Refresh your memory. Here:

...what is the difference between a military family living on Oki and a civilian?

yes my dog is a part of my family but at the end of the day if it is between getting myself and 2 kids to safety or putting my dog down, which one do you think I will choose?

Then you use the words, "part of my family" lightly. What you are really saying is that your dog is just expendable personal property to be heaved when the going gets rough -- not much different than a dining room table. I am not saying you are wrong for believing that or acting on it, but no need to be disengenuous about its true relationship to you.

That wasn't my point, my point was the fact that I would be somewhere looking for safety with my family as so would you be, why does it seem OK for your family to live with you and my husbands family not to live with him, if Oki is an immediate danger to my family then it is to yours too, so why do you live there?

I live here for personal profit for personal interests. A soldier lives here not for himself, but for the interests of his country. It is irrelevant to the defense of my country if I am not focused on my job or not. It is quite relevant to the defense of the country that a soldier stays fully focused on his job in such an emergency.

Yes, we would both be looking for safety, and if I did go to the consulate for evacuation assistance, we would both be taxing government recourses. The thing is though, as a civilian the government cannot order me to be here without my family or bring any strong actions to persuade me from doing so. I am outside of their system of orders and have no need to follow them.

However, the government can take steps to lessen their recourses used for possible evacuation by eliminating dependents here through designating it as a hardship duty station without accompanied tours. It is a step on their side they can take within their own community to conserve their recourses.

The only part I don't understand is this flash point stuff which I would like to educate myself on. But this discussion interested me because as a family member going to Oki with 2 precious cargos (my kids), I have never heard anything like this...

You mean from your contact with media throughout your whole life you have not heard anything about the tensions between China and Taiwan, and North Korea and South Korea? Did you take a history class or geography class in high school or college? Sounds like to me a negative coming from you on both counts.

...all I have heard is what a great wonderful opportunity it is for the family, great schools, a new culture for myself and kids to be in, a great tour, etc etc.

Oh, all that is true, too. I have already stated that in social terms Okinawa is quite safe and all around pretty good.

If I am wrong on this can others please enlighten me 'cause the last time I thought about myself I didn't think I was a naive idiot but maybe I am missing something...

I wouldn't call you an idiot. The underlined red is adequate.

[DougP]

[INDENT]TheProsecutor:
Of course it would! But the mission of the U.S. military at unit level and on up would not be affected by me or my family because I am not in the military being paid to perform a national interest mission.

I live here for personal profit for personal interests. A soldier lives here not for himself, but for the interests of his country. It is irrelevant to the defense of my country if I am not focused on my job or not. It is quite relevant to the defense of the country that a soldier stays fully focused on his job in such an emergency.

Yes, we would both be looking for safety, and if I did go to the consulate for evacuation assistance, we would both be taxing government recourses. The thing is though, as a civilian the government cannot order me to be here without my family or bring any strong actions to persuade me from doing so. I am outside of their system of orders and have no need to follow them.

However, the government can take steps to lessen their recourses used for possible evacuation by eliminating dependents here through designating it as a hardship duty station without accompanied tours. It is a step on their side they can take within their own community to conserve their recourses.



You mean from your contact with media throughout your whole life you have not heard anything about the tensions between China and Taiwan, and North Korea and South Korea? Did you take a history class or geography class in high school or college? Sounds like to me a negative coming from you on both counts.



Oh, all that is true, too. I have already stated that in social terms Okinawa is quite safe and all around pretty good.



I wouldn't call you an idiot. The underlined red is adequate.

I still think you're a little out there in left field on this topic. I still don't see how having family here adversely affects a soldier's ability to stay focussed on the mission at hand. You might be putting yourself in their shoes and figure that it would keep you from accomplishing your job. There's a lot more behind the curtain here. For the most part its also a service members choice to bring their family over and not all married SMs bring their spouse family.. etc. As I said before I'm no longer in the service so I too live here for personal reasons. But come to think of it I reenlisted to come here back in June of '01. And even though I wasn't married then and I am now if I was still in the service I would put my mission and country first. Like other SMs out there some of us realize that our spouses can handle them selves maybe even better than we can:thumbup:

[TheNoNamedOne]

I still don't see how having family here adversely affects a soldier's ability to stay focussed on the mission at hand.

I don't think it does in times of peace. I think it could in a massive attack on the island. Hell, I see servicemen who can't even control themselves out in town on a night when it is peaceful. Why should I think a serviceman in Hansen would not be taking time out from his duties trying to get through on the cell phone to his wife and children to see if they are safe? The situation is a quite plausible one.

You might be putting yourself in their shoes and figure that it would

It is human nature to care about one's family when they could be in immediate danger and may have suffered or be undergoing attack. To deny that a certain number would not be distracted by such thought is not a very honest appraisel of emotions -- unless you are saying all military personel are immune to that. I don't think they are. Why do you?

... keep you from accomplishing your job.

Did I say it would keep them from accomplishing their job or mission? If I did, then I will retract that. What I did think I suggested was that it would keep them from focusing on their job and that they would be distracted. That lack of focus or distraction could slow down mission accomplishment or even cause death, or risk death to others if everyone is not focused on their jobs and the mission. Do you deny that is a possibility?


There's a lot more behind the curtain here. For the most part its also a service members choice to bring their family over and not all married SMs bring their spouse family.. etc.

That is right, and that is what one of the things that is questioned in this thread -- that it should not be a choice. What it is we already know.

[DougP]

I think the overall morale of those service members who are married and have kids would be worsened by having to face yet another hardship tour over here. Fact is it would be doing alot more damage than good. There would be a lot more geographically single men and women doing single things. I remember what it was like in Korea for those who had to spend a year or more without their families and this was in peacetime. That I found to be more justified, the enemy so to speak was a mere 65km away. It just seems to me(IMO) that denying their right to live with their families in a place as wonderful as this just so a few can feel more secure about whether they'll do their job to the fullest seems a bit selfish. Service members pay taxes too and since they're contributing to their own paychecks and they too are citizens of the country they are sworn to protect I think they at least deserve to be with loved ones as much as possible. So should they make this a hardship tour and to force them to leave their families behind yet again just so a few others that are that meticulous about their(SMs) emotional capacity can sleep better at night? I rather have a lot more family oriented military folk out here than the single young bucks that usually get sent on "unaccompanied" tours. And on another note when your family is here/ with you, I'd like to think it would make someone want to fight harder to preserve it. I know that's not usually the case as accompanied or not quite a few still view this place as just another duty station. Oh and that by the way is another reason why making this a hardship tour wouldn't be a good idea. You wouldn't want a bunch of servicemen pissed off at the world cause they're stuck here without their families.

[N3philum]

^ i agree 100 percent :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

First thing -- Paragraphs are yuor friends.

You wouldn't want a bunch of servicemen pissed off at the world cause they're stuck here without their families.

You think being pissed off because they are here without their family would cause them to do a worse job at focusing on the mission than if missiles were raining down from China or N. Korea on their family?

You seem to think it is more important for a family to play together for a few years on a resort set up island than focus fully on the mission. Since when does having a resort experience with one's family come before the mission in terms of importance?

[P_chan]

First thing -- Paragraphs are yuor friends.

Hmm isn't that kind of a personal attack there? I thought those were against the rules?

I think that okinawa shouldn't be a harship tour. I know the danger is present, but I don't think it is as bad as most people think it is. Besides, living on ANY military base increases the risk of your family being involved in some type of attack on the base.

[ukreal1]

First, I will just ignore the stupid dog remark. Second, I feel quite insulted that you think I learnt nothing from my wonderful council estate school upbringing. Yes, you are right I did not like history and I did not like geography and to be honest I never paid much attention to Asia until I knew I may be moving there one day. But of course I know about s and n korea but I think YOU are missing my point.

My point is this: if it is OK for a civilian and their family to live there then it should also be OK for a military members' family to live there. If missiles come raining down, we are all dead pretty much, so why am I in such imminent danger and you are OK? Don't you get the point I am trying to make?
Do you have kids? a wife?

Anyways, honestly, I think you just like to get a reaction from people and argue for arguments sake...

Maybe San Diego should also be a hardship tour since we are at risk of wild fires and terroism. And N. Carolina too, since the hurricanes can effect a service members focus on their job. In fact, if Oki is such a dangerous region then there should be ONLY unaccompanied military and NO US civilians.

[Muku]

Hmm isn't that kind of a personal attack there? I thought those were against the rules?

Geez then if I tell you that your punctuation or spelling stinks am I personally attacking you as well.

He is right you know, it is a whole hell of a lot easier to read someones posts if they separate them into paragraphs insted of on long never ending sentence. He was telling him in a very kind manner.

It is called common courtesy, now if you think this reply is a personal attack then please feel free to report me to the admin or a moderator here.





I think that okinawa shouldn't be a harship tour. I know the danger is present, but I don't think it is as bad as most people think it is.

What danger? Hell the odds of having something happen to you here are less than the odds of crossing the street in downtown LA and getting hit by a car.

Not as bad....I think the proper phrase would be overexaggerated quite a bit.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Hmm isn't that kind of a personal attack there? I thought those were against the rules?

Not a personal attack at all. Unless you are going to say dk is engaging in personal attacks, too, by telling bokuwa (or was it InDuhUSA?) to try and add formatting to his posts. Just a suggestion from staff to make the reading experience of other members more enjoyable. Nothing more.

I think that okinawa shouldn't be a harship tour. I know the danger is present, but I don't think it is as bad as most people think it is. Besides, living on ANY military base increases the risk of your family being involved in some type of attack on the base.

Looking at the replies here, MOST people do not even think there is a present danger -- let alone "bad."

Living in a region closer to one's potential adversaries increases the risk. I don't think you will find any military expert on record saying that 29 Palms is at the same degree of risk for conflict as are bases in Okinawa. To say that living on any base increases youur risk of attack is just simple whitewashing i.e. downplaying of a problem (in this case risks).

Whitewash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash_%28censorship%29) is a form of censorship via omission in which errors or misdemeanors are deliberately concealed or downplayed. In politics, whitewash is sometimes used to describe a cover-up or a deliberate downplaying of a problem.

[P_chan]

I would take it as a personal attack the way you said it. Kinda telling him that he doesn't know how to wirte a paragraph.

Remeber those terror attacks that were in planning on marine camps in the US? Hmmm, downplaying, yeah....

[dk]

Nah, it's not a personal attack. At least not by my standards. A personal attack would be more along the lines of "Use paragraphs, retard".

If it were me, my response would have been more along the lines of "Holy wall of text batman!", which would probably make the writer feel a little bad, but even that wouldn't be a personal attack. TP was a whole lot more polite than I'd be on a bad day. :p

[Muku]

Remeber those terror attacks that were in planning on marine camps in the US? Hmmm, downplaying, yeah....

Yeah overexaggerting, downplaying or what ever.......key words in this entire sentence.......in the US.

If you havent noticed it yet we are in Japan, and not just Japan, an island called Okinawa. Big difference.

How many terrorist attacks can you count that have been committed here on Okinawa.

I would take it as a personal attack the way you said it
Saying paragraphs are your friend is a personal attack, dude relax a bit, you dont hear the person that wrote the post complaining about it now do you?

Kinda telling him that he doesn't know how to wirte a paragraph.

If I wrote here the spell checker is your friend too. Is that a personal attack?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Remeber those terror attacks that were in planning on marine camps in the US? Hmmm, downplaying, yeah....

Not analogous. There would be no comparison in the logistical nightmare there with here, which would entail moving tens of thousands of dependents away from a war theater.

That is why you are whitewashing. You are downplaying the unique problems here that would magnify the problems of evacuation and focusing on one's job in dealing with adversarries with highly sophisticated weapon systems, by trying to compare or associate it to another example that does not share those unique problems.

What do you think whitewash means? To confirm that you do know what it means, could you give us an example where the problems of one thing are downplayed so that it brings it to the level of lesser or equal concern when compared to another or group?

Here is one:

A: Bush deceived the American public about WMD in Iraq and our reasons for going to war.
B: Well, all politicians lie. Clinton lied about cigars, sex, and orifices.

BAM! Whitewashed!

Your turn.

[DougP]

Ha ha on the paragraph and spell check comments. You have to have thick skin here on "teh internets" I disagree with the whole idea that having family here will cause the troops to "crack" under pressure in a time of crisis.
I do believe that forcing them to spend more time apart when it is absolutely unnecessary will be more detrimental. My opinion I suppose, but it is based on what I have seen in the ten years I've served and not on pure speculation.

[dk]

Clinton lied about cigars?! :scared:

[TheNoNamedOne]

I disagree with the whole idea that having family here will cause the troops to "crack" under pressure in a time of crisis.

Where has anyone said family here will cause troops to crack under pressure? Who are you disagreeing with? No one has said that. Just by stating what you disagree with you are addressing something that does not exist, and is tentamont to erecting a redherring.

I do believe that forcing them to spend more time apart when it is absolutely unnecessary will be more detrimental.

Then why are there wives here alone because their husbands have been deployed from here to other spots where spouses are not permitted to follow? Some go for long stretches of time here while their husbands are deployed. If this is going to be a jump off spot for further deployment, then it is an invalid argument to say that they are here to relieve the pressure from being away from their families.

[DougP]

I don't think it does in times of peace. I think it could in a massive attack on the island. Hell, I see servicemen who can't even control themselves out in town on a night when it is peaceful. Why should I think a serviceman in Hansen would not be taking time out from his duties trying to get through on the cell phone to his wife and children to see if they are safe? The situation is a quite plausible one.



It is human nature to care about one's family when they could be in immediate danger and may have suffered or be undergoing attack. To deny that a certain number would not be distracted by such thought is not a very honest appraisel of emotions -- unless you are saying all military personel are immune to that. I don't think they are. Why do you?



Did I say it would keep them from accomplishing their job or mission? If I did, then I will retract that. What I did think I suggested was that it would keep them from focusing on their job and that they would be distracted. That lack of focus or distraction could slow down mission accomplishment or even cause death, or risk death to others if everyone is not focused on their jobs and the mission. Do you deny that is a possibility?


that's what I was refering to. Yes it could be a possibility, so could a new ice age, and an apocalyptic asteroid collision.

Then why are there wives here alone because their husbands have been deployed from here to other spots where spouses are not permitted to follow? Some go for long stretches of time here while their husbands are deployed. If this is going to be a jump off spot for further deployment, then it is an invalid argument to say that they are here to relieve the pressure from being away from their families.

At least when they do rotate back from said deployment their families are waiting here and not back in America. It would be better then making them wait a few more months for a PCS date to be reunited again only to be shipped off to yet another hardship tour in say Iraq.

[TheNoNamedOne]

First, I will just ignore the stupid dog remark.
Fine, you may do so. If you weren't prepared to persue it, then you should have thought not to even address it when I first put it out there. As it is now, it, as it illustrates your lighthearted use of the phrase "part of the family" is left dangling there.

Second, I feel quite insulted that you think I learnt nothing from my wonderful council estate school upbringing.

I haven't said you learned nothing. Though, I do question what you learned about about China, North Korea, and geography as it concerns Asian history and politics. But, I am quite sure your school offered you many courses other than those, and presume you have other areas of knowledge that is quite accurate.

...but I think YOU are missing my point.

Your point has been noted by me. However, it is not the over-riding point with the most value.

My point is this: if it is OK for a civilian and their family to live there then it should also be OK for a military members' family to live there.

No, because a civilian here not associated in any way with DOD has no larger responsibility than himself and his family as it pertains to national defense. Whether I do my job well or not with missiles raining down on Okinawa is of little value to the defense of U.S. interests. My using the cell phone to try and make contact with them or even driving home to check on their safey, no matter how much or little time that takes away from my job, is not going to impact on defense, where as with military personel it quite plausibly could.

If missiles come raining down, we are all dead pretty much, so why am I in such imminent danger and you are OK? Don't you get the point I am trying to make?

No, it is not a forgone conclusion that we are all pretty much dead. I am quite sure the military has contingency plans for such scenarios in an effort to try and limit loss of life.

Your point is invalid -- or the weaker of valid points. Because equal danger to all is not the most important point. The most important point is mission in defense of national interests -- not makng sure tens of thousands of civilians get evacuated.

The military has the ability to reduce that number simply by making it a hardship unaccompanied duty station. With Japan in good standing with the U.S. and with my freedoms as a civilian, the government cannot really prevent me from being here. They can you by simply issuing direct orders to personel to not assist their families in coming over and to bunk on base and not let civilians who may follow privately have access to base.

Do you have kids? a wife?

Irrelevant. If you have a hard time accepting that, then just presume that I am arguing from the viewpoint of a Devil's Advocate.

Anyways, honestly, I think you just like to get a reaction from people and argue for arguments sake...

I enjoy discussion. That requires that someone replies. I can't see your emotions, so I really am not trying to make you get all up in arms. btw, the filter I use in my mind has your tone coming in smooth and steady. I hope you can ascribe the same tone to my text as well, because that is how I would be speaking if we were face to face -- and with a smile on my face, but it may be an incredulous smile at times.

Maybe San Diego should also be a hardship tour since we are at risk of wild fires and terroism. And N. Carolina too, since the hurricanes can effect a service members focus on their job. In fact, if Oki is such a dangerous region then there should be ONLY unaccompanied military and NO US civilians.

Whitewashing. Already explained a few posts back.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yes it could be a possibility, so could a new ice age, and an apocalyptic asteroid collision.

Why do you think it is you do not hear replies with apathy and futility such as this in public debate by esteemed professors, politicians, philosophers, or even lawyers as they put forth their objections to their opponents views? Or maybe you do. I do not.

If you do, then it should not be hard for you to find some google results of those persons doing so quite frequently.

My thought is that they do not engage in such replies as that is because they are not very intelligent or well thought out -- other than being remarks of futility.

At least when they do rotate back from said deployment their families are waiting here and not back in America. It would be better then making them wait a few more months for a PCS date to be reunited again only to be shipped off to yet another hardship tour in say Iraq.

A few months does not save the argument. Besides, staying back in the states would allow for them to have that support network of extended families and already built up relationships with friends and be less disruptive on the education of children.

btw, have you met those who brag about all the lonely wife action they get when they go to some of the clubs on base? Most of these wives will moan about their husbands being deployed from Okinawa. Perhaps if they had a larger circle of stable friends and family around them they would not get so bored and get the wandering eye while here.

[P_chan]

Did any of you read my post at all, or any of my other posts? I said that their isn't a really big risk of anything happening in okinawa. However, there is still a small risk, as there is once you live on any military base. Next time read before you comment. Yes I know I'm in OKINAWA and you don't have to talk down to me. Like I said, read my posts.


exactly I'm not writing a paper and the computer I have doesn't have spell check. I type fast so I tend to make a typo or two.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Did any of you read my post at all, or any of my other posts?

Yes, it was read.

I said that their isn't a really big risk of anything happening in okinawa. However, there is still a small risk,...

Why do you think there isn't a big risk of anything happening when Okinawa sits right on the edge of a nuclear armed China that has an ongoing grievance with Taiwan and has not ruled out force to take it back, and where America is bound by law to come to Taiwan's defense -- not to mention Taiwan's president often threatening to declare indpendence and China vowing to not let that happen?

Don't forget the unpredictable actions of N. Korea as well which sits nearby and which Okinawa is well within their missiles range capabilities.

If there is no big risk of anything happening, then why such a big military presence here? All these assets are just being wasted here? Military planners are not applying assets where the big risks truely are?

If it is such a small risk, then I would think our presence here would be a small one.

Perhaps the desire to rachet up deterrance rests on the level of risk. I think it does. Why don't you?

... as there is once you live on any military base.

More whitewashing.

...exactly I'm not writing a paper and the computer I have doesn't have spell check. I type fast so I tend to make a typo or two.

Has someone falted you here for a typo? The only thing you've been falted here for has been your innacurate view that a suggestion for paragraphs was a personal insult. Nothing more -- unless I have missed something.

[DougP]

Why do you think it is you do not hear replies with apathy and futility such as this in public debate by esteemed professors, politicians, philosophers, or even lawyers as they put forth their objections to their opponents views? Or maybe you do. I do not.

If you do, then it should not be hard for you to find some google results of those persons doing so quite frequently.

My thought is that they do not engage in such replies as that is because they are not very intelligent or well thought out -- other than being remarks of futility.



A few months does not save the argument. Besides, staying back in the states would allow for them to have that support network of extended families and already built up relationships with friends and be less disruptive on the education of children.

btw, have you met those who brag about all the lonely wife action they get when they go to some of the clubs on base? Most of these wives will moan about their husbands being deployed from Okinawa. Perhaps if they had a larger circle of stable friends and family around them they would not get so bored and get the wandering eye while here.

Are you insinuating that SMs and the families do not have a good support network over here? Also do most bases/ posts in the states have better family support networks? How many of these other bases have you been to?
Not all married couples have a huge circle of friends and family near them when stationed in the states either.

On the subject of cheating that's just an entirely different nut to crack. Trust me lonely wives left back in the states get the "wandering eye" just as easily as they do here. I can speak from personal experience that moving around and changing schools frequently does not adversely affect the education of every child. Although not being with ones family or not having a parent around does. Soldiers are just as likely to be stressed or distracted from their jobs by being separated from their loved ones.

I'm probably not too far off target by saying that distance from ones family and the wandering thoughts that go through a soldiers mind can by just as detrimental. Let's just say wondering if Suzy is cheating on you after the guy next to you is reading a "Dear John" letter can affect one's ability to concentrate on the mission.

You were right, we do have to think of the "human" aspect here. Having one's family in harms way can and probably will give him yet another element of distraction. Also remember on that subject a soldier, marine, airman what have you is never alone. And when he or she gets distrated there's always someone next to him/her to get them on track. Maybe you have to be one to fully understand one in this case.

To displace more families may fix this one little problem here, the one we've been posting about. However it may also create a wave of new ones.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Are you insinuating that SMs and the families do not have a good support network over here?

I am stating that in most cases it is only natural that the better support system will be one that lends itself to being closer to the most number of family members and friends possible. Of course there is a spectrum, ranging from bad, good, better, and best.

Also do most bases/ posts in the states have better family support networks?

I am not sure about the bases and posts -- it may be very well that Okinawa's base support network could be the same. However, that does not change the fact that other members of the family, and even extended family, and friends, are geographically much closer and therefore much more able to support them with their presence in times of need.

For example, it is not so uncommon for women who are pregnant here to fly back to the states to be with their family for the delivery. That may even increase if the husband is deployed from Okinawa. If family did not offer the more support for these women, be it physical or emotional, then why do they fly back? That is just one example off the top of my head. I am sure there are more.

On the subject of cheating that's just an entirely different nut to crack. Trust me lonely wives left back in the states get the "wandering eye" just as easily as they do here.

I don't doubt that. But rumours of it in a small social environment here has a much better chance of reaching the ears of the cuckhold spouse here while the serviceman is forward deployed than if the spouse were back in the States. The real rumor of it having occurred would be a much bigger distraction than just the fear or worry of it.

I can speak from personal experience that moving around and changing schools frequently does not adversely affect the education of every child.

The why all the AFN PSAs to explain and prepare children for the move that could affect them? Haven't you seen them? Obviously if there were not any affect, these PSAs would be unwarranted -- or are these PSAs the magic wand that makes them never manifest?

Although not being with ones family or not having a parent around does.

No disagreement there, other than you contrasting it with "although" linked to the former sentence.

I'm probably not too far off target by saying that distance from ones family and the wandering thoughts that go through a soldiers mind can by just as detrimental. Let's just say wondering if Suzy is cheating on you after the guy next to you is reading a "Dear John" letter can affect one's ability to concentrate on the mission.

I completely agree. But those thoughts and detriments are absorbed by the daily routines of garrison life and time for the most part. If missiles were raining down, that SM would know that they really can't do anything at that particular time being so far away. How would they even confirm their suspicions? They could, but it may take asking friends to look in on her or taking unnanounced leave home to check up.

On the other hand, if Sgt Jones were in Hansen and heard through rumour that Housing Tower #3 on Foster, that where his family lives, took a missile, I think it quite plausible he would consider, if not actually do, call frantically to check on his family or even drive down to find them.

The pandemonium and distraction would be horrendous.

You were right, we do have to think of the "human" aspect here. Having one's family in harms way can and probably will give him yet another element of distraction. Also remember on that subject a soldier, marine, airman what have you is never alone. And when he or she gets distrated there's always someone next to him/her to get them on track. Maybe you have to be one to fully understand one in this case.

And if I told you I was and still hold this belief, what does that do to your point here?

To displace more families may fix this one little problem here, the one we've been posting about. However it may also create a wave of new ones.

Well, the biggest problem is one of mission accomplishment. Have there ever been failures in missions because families were not based with their spouses? I don' think there have been. But we do know of many missions won without the family being forward deployed with their spouse.

[DougP]

The why all the AFN PSAs to explain and prepare children for the move that could affect them? Haven't you seen them? Obviously if there were not any affect, these PSAs would be unwarranted -- or are these PSAs the magic wand that makes them never manifest?

LOL well that is a good point. Then again they have PSAs on AFN all the time telling people not to stick paperclips in electrical sockets. Moving anywhere within or outside the states will have an affect on the children. That's part of the military life and there are also kids outside of the military who have to move around alot. Ask the children which they would prefer. Have their dad or mom leave for 1 to 2 years or have the entire family move to a new place for three. You may get different answers to that question as well LOL. Also since there are a few military spouses here on the forum maybe we should ask them their opinion . Do they understand the risks? Are they and their spouses aware of such risks and are still willing to live here?

No disagreement there, other than you contrasting it with "although" linked to the former sentence.

Point taken :)

I completely agree. But those thoughts and detriments are absorbed by the daily routines of garrison life

Tell that to someone in Iraq

And if I told you I was and still hold this belief, what does that do to your point here?

Nothing. My point, my belief. Based on what I have seen and experienced.
Even though we may not see eye to eye on this subject it wont change the fact I still believe in what I wrote.

Well, the biggest problem is one of mission accomplishment. Have there ever been failures in missions because families were not based with their spouses? I don' think there have been. But we do know of many missions won without the family being forward deployed with their spouse.

How many have been lost because of attacks on areas where family has been present?

[ukreal1]

LOL well that is a good point. Then again they have PSAs on AFN all the time telling people not to stick paperclips in electrical sockets. Moving anywhere within or outside the states will have an affect on the children. That's part of the military life and there are also kids outside of the military who have to move around alot.

What do these PSA's say exactly? Are they similer to the ones that KPBS plays in the morning here explaining to parents to read to their kids, or the ones from Cal first 5 stating that preschool is good for the future or your child. C'mon now prosec', if a child has strong parenting support, then they will be fine. Also, I am hearing very good things about the DOD schools from parents...

Ask the children which they would prefer. Have their dad or mom leave for 1 to 2 years or have the entire family move to a new place for three. You may get different answers to that question as well LOL. Also since there are a few military spouses here on the forum maybe we should ask them their opinion . Do they understand the risks? Are they and their spouses aware of such risks and are still willing to live here??

I can answer that, when my husband first found out he was PCSing, he had the choice N. carolina or Oki. I went back and forward and toyed with the idea of both, but overwhelming amounts of people I asked said OKI. The only real thing that N. Carolina had going for me was the proximity to NYC and London as compared to where I am now and where I may be going (OKI). We decided Oki and when I asked my 7 yr old if she would rather Daddy go for a year and we stay here or if we all go together for 3 yrs, there was no hesitation in her answer.
It may be different for others who have family close, but mine are 6,000 miles away already and my husband's are 3,000 away. my daughter has always travelled well and adjusted well, she makes friends everywhere she goes and is very outgoing and confident. I hope that this experience can open their minds to all that the world has to offer. And that's it.

[ukreal1]

Fine, you may do so. If you weren't prepared to persue it, then you should have thought not to even address it when I first put it out there. As it is now, it, as it illustrates your lighthearted use of the phrase "part of the family" is left dangling there.



I haven't said you learned nothing. Though, I do question what you learned about about China, North Korea, and geography as it concerns Asian history and politics. But, I am quite sure your school offered you many courses other than those, and presume you have other areas of knowledge that is quite accurate.





And let it dangle, I don't care!:p
If I seem naive to you, you are certainly coming across with a rather narcissistic style. I can readily admit I know not much about the region except surface level stuff but you seem to think 'you know it all'. It's very arrogant. But I am sure you already know that!

[TheNoNamedOne]

If I seem naive to you, you are certainly coming across with a rather narcissistic style.

Narcissistic style? You mean self-love for my own style? I am never fully in love or satisfied with my own style. I would like to think I try to experiment with subtle changes in it dependent upon the topic.

I think you have misapplied the word.

I can readily admit I know not much about the region except surface level stuff but you seem to think 'you know it all'. It's very arrogant. But I am sure you already know that!

I do not think I know it all. That is one reason I like discussion or debate. Putting forth my views or opinion, particularly when they cause another to take issue with them and share their knowledge, lets me learn more about the details of the situation that I may not have considered or even knew about prior.

You seem to be wanting to make this more about style, or personal selves, rather than the actual topic.

[TheNoNamedOne]

LOL well that is a good point. Then again they have PSAs on AFN all the time telling people not to stick paperclips in electrical sockets.

lol. Don't think I have ever seen that one.

Also since there are a few military spouses here on the forum maybe we should ask them their opinion . Do they understand the risks? Are they and their spouses aware of such risks and are still willing to live here?

Whether they understand the risk or not, or whatever they are willing to do or not, is not the issue that will affect the efficiency of mission accomplishment in the event of an emergency situation here. It goes witout saying that recourses that could be used to accomplish the mission would have a likely chance of being diverted to protect civilians or evacuate them -- not to mention the human element of emotions which could likely cause enough SMs to be distracted.

TheProsecutor:
I completely agree. But those thoughts and detriments are absorbed by the daily routines of garrison life

Tell that to someone in Iraq

When I say "absorbed" I mean "buffered." That the distance and non distractions keeps a lot (not all) of the sandstorms of family drama or petty (or sometimes major) things from becoming distractions.

The fact that soldiers in Iraq are in a heightened state of danger shows the need to not only protect family members from the potential of incoming mortars by not having them there, but also keeps them more focused on the mission.

Why don't the generals have their wives in the Green Zone with them? After all, the chances of a mortar actually hitting near a wife, that 50m radius to her compared to all the other hundreds of thousands of square meters within the Green Zone is quite small. And having them there would help the Generals with their stress so they can do a better job.

Okinawa is just a bigger Green Zone and the time lags between hostilities are just longer. There has never been a peace agreement signed with N. Korea and they often threaten to turn Japan into a sea of fire and blood. With their missile and weapon technology they litterally could effect a lot of their rhettoric.

TheProsecutor:
And if I told you I was and still hold this belief, what does that do to your point here?

Nothing. My point, my belief. Based on what I have seen and experienced.

Exactly, and that is why it is meaningless to bring up a personal quip like below. There is no "maybe" about the thing. One does not have to be something in order to analyze that thing and to infer that one may have to be when not being able to verify the other's status, is just meaningless banter, as your quote above admits with "nothing."

DougP:
Maybe you have to be one to fully understand one in this case.

How many have been lost because of attacks on areas where family has been present?

What attacks on forward based military installations with family present are there for our analysis? If we look at lost battles, and there are some spouses within those bases, I don't think we can say those losts are due to the presence of spouses. I don't think I have said such a thing.

But there is Corrigador. That is the only one for the present I can think of. Can you think of some others?

[DougP]

Exactly, and that is why it is meaningless to bring up a personal quip like below. There is no "maybe" about the thing. One does not have to be something in order to analyze that thing and to infer that one may have to be when not being able to verify the other's status, is just meaningless banter, as your quote above admits with "nothing."

I need to put an asterix after some of my comments and include a definition below. :) I was pointing out that I believe that will be more than capable of performing their tasks and duties in a military manner even in the event of such a disaster that you describe. The "be one to know one" comment refered to the fact I was one and that's where my faith in their readiness and ability to function even under such stress comes from.

But there is Corrigador. That is the only one for the present I can think of. Can you think of some others?

You mean Corregidor? I've been there as well :) If I remember correctly we won that war too. There were a few military families on Hawaii when it was attacked as well.

I do understand what you mean. I was often an advocate against soldiers getting married while stationed in a unit that went to hot zones all the time.
That's why I waited to get out before I married again. I often prefered to take the unmarried ones or ones without girlfriend issues on missions. Their minds were more focussed. Your point has not been far off target. What I have been trying to suggest this whole time is that the good out weighs the risk. Also even in the event of a complete and utter attack, one that gets past our early warning systems and ADA systems I believe the men and women in uniform will do just fine. I also believe that any duress caused by fear for loved ones under attack will go unnoticed. What I mean by that is that average joes who live outside the fence like me wont be able to tell if Sgt Johny isnt doing his job right because he's trying to reach his family. Probably because as soon as Johny picked up his keitai to call SFC Bulldog slapped it out of his hands. :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

You mean Corregidor? I've been there as well

Yes. Your spelling on that is the right one, and mine is wrong.

If I remember correctly we won that war too. There were a few military families on Hawaii when it was attacked as well.

I have never framed the issue of this as "winning" the war -- simply on staying focused from distractions, not utilizing military recourses by large number of citizens for evacuation, and accomplishing the mission, which would be lasered into as it pertains to forces in Okinawa as either setting up a strong defense or turning into offensive strike back actions.

Winning the war would be a mission higher up in the theater or Central Command.

...if Sgt Johny isnt doing his job right because he's trying to reach his family. Probably because as soon as Johny picked up his keitai to call SFC Bulldog slapped it out of his hands. :)

lol. But some Sgts are sh:tbags as well. I have even met a few StaffNCOs and officers who did not seem to have such high professional standards. The line of standards and conduct would surely be tested in such a situation.

[DougP]

Yes. Your spelling on that is the right one, and mine is wrong.

Honestly just double checking we were talking about the same one. There are a lot of islands in the PI

lol. But some Sgts are sh:tbags as well. I have even met a few StaffNCOs and officers who did not seem to have such high professional standards. The line of standards and conduct would surely be tested in such a situation.

Some good some bad so true. I'm sure we could at least agree that hopefully such a test wont happen here anytime soon or at all if it could be helped.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Agreed. I'm done with this thread.

See all of you in the other categories.

Good talk all!

[ukreal1]

Narcissistic style? You mean self-love for my own style? I am never fully in love or satisfied with my own style. I would like to think I try to experiment with subtle changes in it dependent upon the topic.

I think you have misapplied the word.




Nope. Not misapplied, I am talking in a psychological sense which goes a lot broader than just self love. look it up on DSM or any psychological site...

[Tempestuous]

Nope. Not misapplied, I am talking in a psychological sense which goes a lot broader than just self love. look it up on DSM or any psychological site...

........If memory serves me correctly, and it may not.....I believe UK has a degree or something in psych. In which case she may have a broader understanding of psychological descriptions or meanings than an every day, average Joe.

[Bones]

Just saw this thread, Temp, and I've got to say:

I love UkReal, and some of the responses that I've seen so far from other posters. :D

To be fair, I think that T.P. is truly trying to understand the insanity (in his own mind ) of people intentionally putting their families into harms way, by bringing them to their deployed locations. Most of his other stuff is hearsay...

There are a lot of "DOOM-SAYERS" out there, but they fail to take into account how strong a loving relationship could be. They tend to point out the negatives, but as you and, I know, they tend to underestimate how strong a relationship can be between deployed couples. Just because it can happen, does not mean that it will.

One of the things my wife and I talked about before getting married, is that if I deploy, I may not be coming back. Always made sure that the paperwork was in-place, to make sure that she would be taken care of. Since she's Okinawan, she knew how to keep herself safe, and that I would not come home during a conflict due to a headache.

On the other hand, I've seen a lot of people shopping in uniform when they should be working. I've been in more than one situation, where talking about someone's last date the night before, is more important than trying to serve a customer at the counter at (name the military facility).

So, perhaps, TP might have some valid points as it relates to his current rant.

No longer in uniform myself, and we are moving back to an "FOB" as TP likes to put it. It's a price that you have to pay to stay with the one you love. Or, if you just love the place that you are moving to.:D

We may die, but we'll die together as a family. And who is to say that the same thing couldn't happen anywhere else?

Just my 2 yen worth, but maybe someone out there will get my point.

NBTP


Craving an Orion, or at least a Sapporo Special (Blue Label).

[CGoki]

I am not sure that would straighten them out. I have overheard some rude talk to parents by dependents. Things seem out of control on many of the homefronts.

Strategically, I don't see why spouses and dependents are accompanied with military personel to forward based theatres of possible conflict and staging areas -- particularly with the more accurate Chinese and N. Korean missile systems always coming on line.

Okinawa should be designated as a hardship duty station and that should mean toughing it out with your job as #1 priority without the distractions of spouses and kids. All the Americans and support personel would then be able to fit on base in all the housing there without pushing up rental costs off base.


The problem, simple try to punish your kid and some assclown is reporting you to child services. It's so funny, all these stupid ass rules are made because most likely somebody without children deems it necessary and many wonder why children are so disrespectful these days and what can be done about it. Oh yeah the same people that come up with the rules also love to push ritalin and come up with all kinds of bullshit answers to what can easily be rectified by allowing parents to actually be PARENTS. I can honestly say, I was spanked, even belted, yet I turned into quite the sensible person with good manners and whatnot, the same things these morons say will hurt a child by actually showing them what is right and wrong. If you are one of these people, please end yourself and let society get back on the right track.

[Honduh]

I bet you liked being spanked too.

[DougP]

Nice avatar :)

[CGoki]

I bet you liked being spanked too.


Sure did and still do :w00t::w00t::w00t::thumbup: