Begging the political outrage crowd for donations to pay for some gear he totes left in Afghan and didn't just pawn in it in Fayetteville is some senior sham shield action.
To this life-long civilian, this sounds like a soldier's typical griping session. Sure no one likes being hit with a $3500 bill but to blame the top of chain of command for the possible screw-up by the bottom is just nonsensical. The military and government is made up of people, and each person in that organization is perfectly capable of making his own screw-up.
How is the fact that Ms. Raichick is an Orthodox Jew have any relevance to the video. The fact that she is not a military person is but not her religion.
Perhaps the young soldier mistakenly believed the US stamped on all the gear stood for "U're Special". rather than designating it as government property. Thirty years, active & reserve, I paid for everything I lost except for what could be written off as a combat loss. (My next to last year in, I had the pre-retirement gift of a one-year all-expense-paid tour of the Sunni Triangle. Keep firing those HEAT rounds SFC McBeth at the liars, the lazy and the lame brains.
One other thing... She was anonymous and kept her comments to a minimum until she was doxed. After death threats, she went public with support of DeSantis, Ben Shapiro and Tucker. Now she's gone public and adds more Commentary. She is religious and therefore more conservative. Religious Jews are 80/20 or. 90/10 conservative just like Christians.
A very confusing video. Why is the E-4 bitching about $500 to $1,000 dollars worth of missing equipment when the bill says there are $3600 dollars worth of missing equipment? His equipment list has two trenching tools charged to it. Do they add a trenching tool to your bill everytime you lose one? Finally, why do you feel the need to spend $3600 of your money to pay for his missing equipment? T-Shirt sales must be booming if you can afford to do that.
I put my money where my mouth is. I’m not the kind of guy who is going to make a claim and not back it up. In this case, I’m backing it up with my own money.
I knew a guy in Somalia, who got his Kevlar Helmet cracked by a kid with a slingshot rock while on convoy duty. The army made him buy a new helmet. Lmao!
Yeah. I got written up for losing an effin poncho. At end of turn-in there were extra ponchos turned in. Hmmm. I’m pretty sure I hadn’t ‘lost’ it in the field. I’m pretty sure it was ‘acquired’ by a buddy-f****r.
Ryan, I hear 100% what you're saying and you're probably right about this video. That said, you and I probably have countless stories of the military fucking dudes over leaving people like you and I to try and make the best of it.
Just wanted to clarify something. Libsoftiltok didn't create and doesn't create content, with the limited exception of some commentary on the videos she posts. The video was the soldiers. Chaya posts videos of left leaning content creators to draw attention to their own statements. She has historically focused on the left and children exposed to gender ideology. From her perspective she is drawing attention to left positions on social issues. Your video was very informative and appreciated. Thanks for clarifying your hypothesis as the fate of this man's equipment. In her other videos, too often we see the content creators' "junk" in full view, even if that's at a "child friendly drag show"....
Well presented. My comment is that when I run showdowns we line through items we put hands on. I would have guessed that the missing items were the non-highlighted ones. This would help explain the oddness of the training gear. Still suspicious and I don't know how CIF does it on the active side.
Could the discrepancy between the $500 to $1000 the specialist is complaining about and the $3600 on the bill be explained by the highlighted or non-highlighted lines? The $3600 total is obviously printed before the highlights were made.
In that case, maybe some items (be that the highlighted ones or the non-highlighted ones) were returned (or waived on account of having been ordered to leave them behind in Afghanistan), and he's only being charged for the ones actually missing.
I noticed a letter "N" scribbled using the highlighter on at least the first couple of lines -- what significance could that have?
One of the non-highlighted lines was his helmet, which by itself would cost a fairly significant amount. Another was a combat shirt -- I don't see the count column, and I'd expect several shirts to be issued, but if not, then he'd likely have been wearing the shirt when getting out of Afghanistan, which would make it more likely the highlighted lines are the items he's being charged for, but I wouldn't assign a high probability for my interpretation to be correct here because of the assumption made.
(BTW, I think the first entrenching tool line there was the pouch for the entrenching tool, the second one was the entrenching tool itself.)
Disclaimer: I'm not from the US, though I was a conscript in my country's military and have had to sign for and return items with similar forms. But the procedures might be different on that side of the pond.
I think you might be on to something that maybe someone here in/out the US Army could help clear up. It looks like there is a total for the whole sheet that he has possibly already either turned in or was written off in some way judging my the mark outs. I wonder if the $3500+ is even really owed; maybe he really owes a part of that (like the original thought of $500-1000 like you mentioned).
It could be a red highlighter on pink paper to show what is still needed (that alone is just...insane but not impossible) but even so, wouldn't the total still include the things not highlighted? It looks like it is a sheet with writing on it like they are figuring stuff out still and not the final cost.
As someone not in the military I have to admit I'm a bit disturbed about the extent to which an enlisted individuals free speech to critisize the administration seems to be restricted. I get that we don't want the 82nd airborne as a group endorsing someone but shouldn't individual soldiers have the right to say dumb shit about the administration too? Even, or especially, when that relates to their deployment?
You do not have a right to say certain things in the military. I even avoided talking about politics with Jr soldiers, because I did not want to influence them.
I understand that is true as a matter of law. I'm merely expressing my opinion that the extent of these restrictions bother me and I question if that's an appropriate or wise policy.
I was in for 10 years, 1989-1999, so details may have changed. You were free to talk about politics but you had to make it clear you were not representing the Army. The first step in that is to not be in uniform. But even then you could still end up in trouble if you weren’t extremely careful.
Begging the political outrage crowd for donations to pay for some gear he totes left in Afghan and didn't just pawn in it in Fayetteville is some senior sham shield action.
Wonder what Angry Cops video will be about the sham LOL
To this life-long civilian, this sounds like a soldier's typical griping session. Sure no one likes being hit with a $3500 bill but to blame the top of chain of command for the possible screw-up by the bottom is just nonsensical. The military and government is made up of people, and each person in that organization is perfectly capable of making his own screw-up.
How is the fact that Ms. Raichick is an Orthodox Jew have any relevance to the video. The fact that she is not a military person is but not her religion.
It was in her biography, so it seemed like an important thing to mention.
Perhaps the young soldier mistakenly believed the US stamped on all the gear stood for "U're Special". rather than designating it as government property. Thirty years, active & reserve, I paid for everything I lost except for what could be written off as a combat loss. (My next to last year in, I had the pre-retirement gift of a one-year all-expense-paid tour of the Sunni Triangle. Keep firing those HEAT rounds SFC McBeth at the liars, the lazy and the lame brains.
--MAJ CORCORAN, war name "Serpentine" Out.
One other thing... She was anonymous and kept her comments to a minimum until she was doxed. After death threats, she went public with support of DeSantis, Ben Shapiro and Tucker. Now she's gone public and adds more Commentary. She is religious and therefore more conservative. Religious Jews are 80/20 or. 90/10 conservative just like Christians.
A very confusing video. Why is the E-4 bitching about $500 to $1,000 dollars worth of missing equipment when the bill says there are $3600 dollars worth of missing equipment? His equipment list has two trenching tools charged to it. Do they add a trenching tool to your bill everytime you lose one? Finally, why do you feel the need to spend $3600 of your money to pay for his missing equipment? T-Shirt sales must be booming if you can afford to do that.
I put my money where my mouth is. I’m not the kind of guy who is going to make a claim and not back it up. In this case, I’m backing it up with my own money.
Its an E-Tool and the E-tool's cover/molle thing, not 2 E-tools. They're issued as separate items for whatever reason.
Thanks for the clarification and your response. I didn't undrstand that they were two different items.
I knew a guy in Somalia, who got his Kevlar Helmet cracked by a kid with a slingshot rock while on convoy duty. The army made him buy a new helmet. Lmao!
Yeah. I got written up for losing an effin poncho. At end of turn-in there were extra ponchos turned in. Hmmm. I’m pretty sure I hadn’t ‘lost’ it in the field. I’m pretty sure it was ‘acquired’ by a buddy-f****r.
Ryan, I hear 100% what you're saying and you're probably right about this video. That said, you and I probably have countless stories of the military fucking dudes over leaving people like you and I to try and make the best of it.
Just wanted to clarify something. Libsoftiltok didn't create and doesn't create content, with the limited exception of some commentary on the videos she posts. The video was the soldiers. Chaya posts videos of left leaning content creators to draw attention to their own statements. She has historically focused on the left and children exposed to gender ideology. From her perspective she is drawing attention to left positions on social issues. Your video was very informative and appreciated. Thanks for clarifying your hypothesis as the fate of this man's equipment. In her other videos, too often we see the content creators' "junk" in full view, even if that's at a "child friendly drag show"....
Well presented. My comment is that when I run showdowns we line through items we put hands on. I would have guessed that the missing items were the non-highlighted ones. This would help explain the oddness of the training gear. Still suspicious and I don't know how CIF does it on the active side.
Could the discrepancy between the $500 to $1000 the specialist is complaining about and the $3600 on the bill be explained by the highlighted or non-highlighted lines? The $3600 total is obviously printed before the highlights were made.
In that case, maybe some items (be that the highlighted ones or the non-highlighted ones) were returned (or waived on account of having been ordered to leave them behind in Afghanistan), and he's only being charged for the ones actually missing.
I noticed a letter "N" scribbled using the highlighter on at least the first couple of lines -- what significance could that have?
One of the non-highlighted lines was his helmet, which by itself would cost a fairly significant amount. Another was a combat shirt -- I don't see the count column, and I'd expect several shirts to be issued, but if not, then he'd likely have been wearing the shirt when getting out of Afghanistan, which would make it more likely the highlighted lines are the items he's being charged for, but I wouldn't assign a high probability for my interpretation to be correct here because of the assumption made.
(BTW, I think the first entrenching tool line there was the pouch for the entrenching tool, the second one was the entrenching tool itself.)
Disclaimer: I'm not from the US, though I was a conscript in my country's military and have had to sign for and return items with similar forms. But the procedures might be different on that side of the pond.
I think you might be on to something that maybe someone here in/out the US Army could help clear up. It looks like there is a total for the whole sheet that he has possibly already either turned in or was written off in some way judging my the mark outs. I wonder if the $3500+ is even really owed; maybe he really owes a part of that (like the original thought of $500-1000 like you mentioned).
It could be a red highlighter on pink paper to show what is still needed (that alone is just...insane but not impossible) but even so, wouldn't the total still include the things not highlighted? It looks like it is a sheet with writing on it like they are figuring stuff out still and not the final cost.
As someone not in the military I have to admit I'm a bit disturbed about the extent to which an enlisted individuals free speech to critisize the administration seems to be restricted. I get that we don't want the 82nd airborne as a group endorsing someone but shouldn't individual soldiers have the right to say dumb shit about the administration too? Even, or especially, when that relates to their deployment?
You do not have a right to say certain things in the military. I even avoided talking about politics with Jr soldiers, because I did not want to influence them.
I understand that is true as a matter of law. I'm merely expressing my opinion that the extent of these restrictions bother me and I question if that's an appropriate or wise policy.
I was in for 10 years, 1989-1999, so details may have changed. You were free to talk about politics but you had to make it clear you were not representing the Army. The first step in that is to not be in uniform. But even then you could still end up in trouble if you weren’t extremely careful.
Ahh, so the error this soldier made was being in uniform? That's a reasonable rule and I take back my concern.