Andrew: your last post was "cute." And I am sure a lot of folks are impressed with your ability to post the list of recruiters.
But you did not answer two questions. 1. What was your source for the comment about the recruiting being the lowest since.... And 2. Do you not believe that we are in an Epic Struggle?
And I'll comment on Waywards post
+0
permalink
TODAY'S HIGHLIGHTS
Army Fires Commander of Walter Reed
The commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center was fired yesterday after the Army said it had lost trust and confidence in his leadership in the wake of a scandal over outpatient treatment of wounded troops at the Northwest Washington hospital complex.
"...and so it goes." KV
+0
permalink
TODAY'S HIGHLIGHTS
Army Fires Commander of Walter Reed
The commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center was fired yesterday after the Army said it had lost trust and confidence in his leadership in the wake of a scandal over outpatient treatment of wounded troops at the Northwest Washington hospital complex.
"...and so it goes." KV- PAPPY
Another casualty of the evil liberal Hollywood-elitist media's campaign against our righteous military heroes!
+0
permalink
Andrew: your last post was "cute." And I am sure a lot of folks are impressed with your ability to post the list of recruiters.
But you did not answer two questions. 1. What was your source for the comment about the recruiting being the lowest since.... And 2. Do you not believe that we are in an Epic Struggle?
And I'll comment on Waywards post
+0
permalink
Excellent points, Wayward.
But Al Quaeda has an Army. Just not a standing Army. They have their shadowy soldiers and the training camps to teach them their deadly crafts.
And they have the schools where they teach the children that the USA is the Big Satan. And they also teach them to exploit our greatest strength to their advantage, That strength they exploit is our openess and the guarantee of a trial, and freedom from brutal treatment, They exploit that. That's why, to be effective in dealing with them the military solution works.
Law enforcement advocates want to read them their rights, get them lawyers and tie the courts up with their cases. They sneer at our system of justice and do not fear imprisonment from us. They have to be made to fear the consequencies of tangling with our forces.
And it will take the military working with other agencies to cut off arms and money for AL Quaeda.
Iraq at the time was the thing to do. And no doubt a lot of mistakes have been made. But we really do not have a choice now about leaving the job undone. And you're right about poor post war planning. And about the 20-20 vision thing, is hindsight....
The fight is underway. I am not sure we can do anything other than take the fight to the enemy and exact a huge price from him that would allow everyone to down swords and go home, without fear of another disaster like 9-11, or worse.
But Al Quaeda has an Army. Just not a standing Army. They have their shadowy soldiers and the training camps to teach them their deadly crafts.
And they have the schools where they teach the children that the USA is the Big Satan. And they also teach them to exploit our greatest strength to their advantage, That strength they exploit is our openess and the guarantee of a trial, and freedom from brutal treatment, They exploit that. That's why, to be effective in dealing with them the military solution works.
Law enforcement advocates want to read them their rights, get them lawyers and tie the courts up with their cases. They sneer at our system of justice and do not fear imprisonment from us. They have to be made to fear the consequencies of tangling with our forces.
And it will take the military working with other agencies to cut off arms and money for AL Quaeda.
Iraq at the time was the thing to do. And no doubt a lot of mistakes have been made. But we really do not have a choice now about leaving the job undone. And you're right about poor post war planning. And about the 20-20 vision thing, is hindsight....
The fight is underway. I am not sure we can do anything other than take the fight to the enemy and exact a huge price from him that would allow everyone to down swords and go home, without fear of another disaster like 9-11, or worse.
+0
permalink
Veteran Care to Be Reviewed After Firing of General
By DAVID S. CLOUD
WASHINGTON, March 2 — President Bush has ordered a top-to-bottom investigation into the medical care available to returning veterans, the White House said today, a day after the firing of the two-star general in charge of Walter Reed Army Medical Center over shabby conditions there.
"...and so it goes." KV
+0
permalink
Didn't any of you all see or did you just choose not to comment on an article in Feb. 13 AIM about cuts to Veteran benefits to balance the budget. This will affect all those who are serving so valiantly and their survivers. This was in the President's budget given to Congress. This was not an article on an isolated incident within the military hospital system that Newsweek chose to blow out of preportion. Outragious? yes. The miitary is reworking a plan to expedite these soldiers orders. (Able to return to duty or benefits due from their injuries on release)
Bet you didn't read the letter to the editor today that refered to this cut in bernefits.
Whether the war is right or wrong or how it compares to other conflicts is not the point. Support the troops by contacting your Congress person of this indignity to them their dependants and survivers.- Petunia
Veterans face consecutive health care budget cuts
February 13, 2007
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now -- even as severely wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.
Mr. Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.
After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years -- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.
The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent Veterans Administration budget trends -- its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Mr. Bush took office -- sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.
"...and so it goes." KV
+0
permalink
Secretary of the Army Steps Down
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey resigned Friday as the Bush administration struggled to cope with the fallout from a scandal over substandard conditions for wounded Iraq soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
The surprise move came one day after Harvey fired the two-star general in charge of the medical center in response to disclosures of problems at the hospital compound.
"...and so it goes." KV
+0
permalink
Regarding the military recruiting crisis we face:
I am alluding to the last fiscal year for the army 05-06. While it is true that we've had some good months and some bad months, this particular fiscal year was really bad.
Articles to backup my claim about a recruiting shortfall:
http://www.military.com/recruiting/bonus-center/news/army-increases-enlistment-bonuses
"By the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, the Army closed out one of its most difficult recruiting periods in decades, falling more than 6,600 recruits short of its annual goal of 80,000. It was the first shortfall since 1999, and the largest in 26 years."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1582328,00.html
"The US army is expected to have enlisted 73,000 personnel in the 12 months to the end of September, well short of its 80,000 target. Although the figures have yet to be confirmed officially, the expected 7,000 shortfall would be the largest - in absolute number as well as in percentage terms - since 1979, according to army records."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/national/05recruit.html?ex=1296795600&en;=8ebadb74535d008e&ei;=5088&partner;=rssnyt&emc;=rss
"for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the Army, the Army Reserve and the National Guard all fell short of their recruiting goals. The active-duty Army missed its target of 80,000 recruits by about 8 percent, its biggest shortfall since 1979."
http://www.armedforcescareers.com/articles/article14.html
"When asked why the Army faces its biggest recruiting shortfall in 20 years or why the Air Force may miss its goal for the first time since 1979, the Pentagon has a standard reply: ''It's the economy.''
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/
"The personnel problems are acute. The Air National Guard, for example, missed its recruiting target by 14 percent last year. And the regular Army missed its goal by 8 percent, its largest recruiting shortfall since 1979."
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/3667_0_3_0_C/
This is a conservative hit piece blaming the media for the recruiting shortfall, but they still acknowledge a shortfall:
"The problem in U.S. military recruiting demonstrates the effectiveness of their insidious campaign."
etc, etc, etc.
It isn't all rosy, guys. I certainly acknowledge some months have been better than others.
Here is the part about lowering recruiting goals to fudge the numbers and make it look like they're doing good:
Lowering aptitude standards:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-09-army-recruiting_x.htm
"The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.
The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15197832/
"About 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving."
Other attempts to lower recruiting goals to pull a fast one on the public:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08recruit.html?ei=5088&en;=faa52ff4db8ded4e&ex;=1275883200&partner;=rssnyt&emc;=rss&pagewanted;=print
"Even after reducing its recruiting target for May, the Army missed it by about 25 percent, Army officials said on Tuesday. The shortfall would have been even bigger had the Army stuck to its original goal for the month.
Early last month, the Army, with no public notice, lowered its long-stated May goal to 6,700 recruits from 8,050."
JD, you just got slammed down.
I am alluding to the last fiscal year for the army 05-06. While it is true that we've had some good months and some bad months, this particular fiscal year was really bad.
Articles to backup my claim about a recruiting shortfall:
http://www.military.com/recruiting/bonus-center/news/army-increases-enlistment-bonuses
"By the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, the Army closed out one of its most difficult recruiting periods in decades, falling more than 6,600 recruits short of its annual goal of 80,000. It was the first shortfall since 1999, and the largest in 26 years."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1582328,00.html
"The US army is expected to have enlisted 73,000 personnel in the 12 months to the end of September, well short of its 80,000 target. Although the figures have yet to be confirmed officially, the expected 7,000 shortfall would be the largest - in absolute number as well as in percentage terms - since 1979, according to army records."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/national/05recruit.html?ex=1296795600&en;=8ebadb74535d008e&ei;=5088&partner;=rssnyt&emc;=rss
"for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the Army, the Army Reserve and the National Guard all fell short of their recruiting goals. The active-duty Army missed its target of 80,000 recruits by about 8 percent, its biggest shortfall since 1979."
http://www.armedforcescareers.com/articles/article14.html
"When asked why the Army faces its biggest recruiting shortfall in 20 years or why the Air Force may miss its goal for the first time since 1979, the Pentagon has a standard reply: ''It's the economy.''
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/
"The personnel problems are acute. The Air National Guard, for example, missed its recruiting target by 14 percent last year. And the regular Army missed its goal by 8 percent, its largest recruiting shortfall since 1979."
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/3667_0_3_0_C/
This is a conservative hit piece blaming the media for the recruiting shortfall, but they still acknowledge a shortfall:
"The problem in U.S. military recruiting demonstrates the effectiveness of their insidious campaign."
etc, etc, etc.
It isn't all rosy, guys. I certainly acknowledge some months have been better than others.
Here is the part about lowering recruiting goals to fudge the numbers and make it look like they're doing good:
Lowering aptitude standards:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-09-army-recruiting_x.htm
"The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.
The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15197832/
"About 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving."
Other attempts to lower recruiting goals to pull a fast one on the public:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08recruit.html?ei=5088&en;=faa52ff4db8ded4e&ex;=1275883200&partner;=rssnyt&emc;=rss&pagewanted;=print
"Even after reducing its recruiting target for May, the Army missed it by about 25 percent, Army officials said on Tuesday. The shortfall would have been even bigger had the Army stuck to its original goal for the month.
Early last month, the Army, with no public notice, lowered its long-stated May goal to 6,700 recruits from 8,050."
JD, you just got slammed down.
+0
permalink
Excellent points, Wayward.
But Al Quaeda has an Army. Just not a standing Army. They have their shadowy soldiers and the training camps to teach them their deadly crafts.
And they have the schools where they teach the children that the USA is the Big Satan. And they also teach them to exploit our greatest strength to their advantage, That strength they exploit is our openess and the guarantee of a trial, and freedom from brutal treatment, They exploit that. That's why, to be effective in dealing with them the military solution works.
Law enforcement advocates want to read them their rights, get them lawyers and tie the courts up with their cases. They sneer at our system of justice and do not fear imprisonment from us. They have to be made to fear the consequencies of tangling with our forces.
And it will take the military working with other agencies to cut off arms and money for AL Quaeda.
Iraq at the time was the thing to do. And no doubt a lot of mistakes have been made. But we really do not have a choice now about leaving the job undone. And you're right about poor post war planning. And about the 20-20 vision thing, is hindsight....
The fight is underway. I am not sure we can do anything other than take the fight to the enemy and exact a huge price from him that would allow everyone to down swords and go home, without fear of another disaster like 9-11, or worse.- ed evans
It looks like we are using a slightly different definition of the term "Army". Al Qaeda has plenty of people willing to fight, but they have no tanks, helicopters, command and control structure or any other equipment that a modern military would be expected to have. That is what I meant by "no Army".
You are right in that Al Qaeda will exploit our system of laws and judicial protections. However, we cannot sacrifice freedom in order to save it. That defeats the whole purpose of why we are fighting.
Likewise, there is no guarantee that heavy handed tactics will work either. The Russians have been trying this for years in Chechnya, and it hasn't solved their terrorism problem.
And yes, I do believe that alleged terrorists should have access to the courts. This is necessary so that we can sort out the ones who are actually terrorists, and should be punished, from those who were just mistaken for terrorists, and should be freed.
Finally, the problem with fighting until the enemy decides to go home is that there is no one to tell the enemy to stop fighting. The Japanese were willing to die for the Emperor in WWII, but there was an Emperor who could tell them it was time to surrender. There is no Emperor, no Pope, or any other equivalent in the Middle East who can tell the people to lay down their arms.
We saw this in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Yassir Arafat and Fatah may have been convinced to negotiate for peace, but Hamas was not. One terrorist group just replaced the other. Victory in the "war on terror" is very hard to define and achieve.
However, I will agree with you on one thing. I am very disappointed with what Congress is doing with the situation in Iraq. Either we need to be in Iraq or we don't. If we don't need to be in there, we need to form a plan to get out. If we do need to be in there, we need clearly defined goals for victory and a plan to get there. The cowardice and indecision of Congress to maintain a status quo that is not working will just send more of our troops to die for no good reason.
(Republicans shouldn't pat themselves on the back either. They had their chance in Congress to demand accountability from the White House and the DoD and they failed to do so. This is one reason why they are out of power.)
+0
permalink
Andrew--
On top of which the Services have expanding the granting of ‘moral waivers’ which lets in enlistees that have been convicted of misdemeanors and even some felonies. This obviously because of the recruiting slowdown.
Last year waivers were granted to I of every 10 Army recruits.
In the last three years over 125,000 ‘moral waivers’ have been granted by the four services.
Most Army waivers were for serious misdemeanors such as aggravated assault, robbery, burglary and vehicular homicide.. 900 ‘waivers’ were for felonies.
Yes, kids who have had minor scrapes with the law do turn their lives around in the military.
But when the crimes involve weapons, vehicular homicide or sexual abuse, such enlistees can constitute a danger to their buddies and the civilians they are supposed to protect. This is particularly alarming because of the lack of counciling and supervision of these people.
“…and so it goes.” KV
On top of which the Services have expanding the granting of ‘moral waivers’ which lets in enlistees that have been convicted of misdemeanors and even some felonies. This obviously because of the recruiting slowdown.
Last year waivers were granted to I of every 10 Army recruits.
In the last three years over 125,000 ‘moral waivers’ have been granted by the four services.
Most Army waivers were for serious misdemeanors such as aggravated assault, robbery, burglary and vehicular homicide.. 900 ‘waivers’ were for felonies.
Yes, kids who have had minor scrapes with the law do turn their lives around in the military.
But when the crimes involve weapons, vehicular homicide or sexual abuse, such enlistees can constitute a danger to their buddies and the civilians they are supposed to protect. This is particularly alarming because of the lack of counciling and supervision of these people.
“…and so it goes.” KV
+0
permalink
Hmm It appears that Andrew, PAPPY, and Wayward have this discussion under control. I will just make one (or two ) small points.
Point 1. The POTUS being a leader. No. George Bush couldn't lead his way from a paper sack. He has been an incompetent bumbler his entire life. The vast majority of the reason for entering the war in the first place was actually the neoconservative "Wolfowitz Doctrine", which held that Iraq was the key to establishing democracy in the Middle east. Every justification used to drag well meaning Americans to support the war has been a smokescreen.
The president was recently asked by a member of the armed services (I believe a corporal in the ARMY) on NPR what he would do if the 'surge' failed. Bush's answer (in paraphrase): that having a plan b was just planning to fail.
WHAT KIND OF LEADER IS THAT? A person who sends people to die for an ideological goal with only a half-baked plan is NOT a leader.
Nobody plans to fail, they just fail to plan.
Point 2.
This war (can we even call it that? Did congress ever actually declare war?) has done ZERO to improve our safety. Every day it continues is another day that we recruit members of Al-Quaeda (or however it's spelled) because people in the middle east see our presence as American Imperialism. All the people we are 'fighting over there' never would have come over here. If our qualification were spreading democracy or attacking the homeland of terrorists, then we should be in Saudi Arabia.
That said. WE BROKE IT. WE BOUGHT IT. But if there isn't a fix, then we need to get the hell out.
Point 1. The POTUS being a leader. No. George Bush couldn't lead his way from a paper sack. He has been an incompetent bumbler his entire life. The vast majority of the reason for entering the war in the first place was actually the neoconservative "Wolfowitz Doctrine", which held that Iraq was the key to establishing democracy in the Middle east. Every justification used to drag well meaning Americans to support the war has been a smokescreen.
The president was recently asked by a member of the armed services (I believe a corporal in the ARMY) on NPR what he would do if the 'surge' failed. Bush's answer (in paraphrase): that having a plan b was just planning to fail.
WHAT KIND OF LEADER IS THAT? A person who sends people to die for an ideological goal with only a half-baked plan is NOT a leader.
Nobody plans to fail, they just fail to plan.
Point 2.
This war (can we even call it that? Did congress ever actually declare war?) has done ZERO to improve our safety. Every day it continues is another day that we recruit members of Al-Quaeda (or however it's spelled) because people in the middle east see our presence as American Imperialism. All the people we are 'fighting over there' never would have come over here. If our qualification were spreading democracy or attacking the homeland of terrorists, then we should be in Saudi Arabia.
That said. WE BROKE IT. WE BOUGHT IT. But if there isn't a fix, then we need to get the hell out.
+0
permalink
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.-Nursery Rhyme
The reason we tell kids these things is to prepare them for the future... It's taken conservatives a while to finally admit that Iraq is broken.
Iraq was every bit as fragile as an egg and no military force in the world can put it back together again.
+0
permalink
JD, you just got slammed down.- ahammett
What do you mean JD just got slammed down. Seems to me he made his points and supported them with his views.
AS for your sources, you've been busy. Glad you provided the references. They are helpful. I'll have to go to them sometimes.
Recruiting goals can change for a number of reasons, chief among them is the number of recruits signing up. But accessions are planned a long time in advance. Training facilities that might be needed five months from now may no longer be available for a new draft of recruits. So the smart thing to do is lower the number to be recruited fot the next two months or so.
A good economy will hamper the supply of recruits.
Now a big reason that recruiting quotas change, is that the number of reenlistments go up, and the recruits are no longer needed.
As for lowering standards: When theres only a few slots available, the services like any other employer becomes a bit more selective. As the need for more manpower grows they expand the pool of applicants by taking those they might not have taken earlier. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Too many young people do stupid things and pay for them for the rest of their lives. And the ones that take well to the discipline and apply themselves they usually do a lot better than if they had not have enlisted. They become, for the most part contributors to rather than takers from society.
Does recruiting fluctuate? All time. In war, too? And why wouldn't it? As the Militarys start replacing equipment, more jobs are created competing for the manpower the Military wants.
From what I'm reading morale of soldiers is high. Reenlistments are up. They have more confidence in their leaders than they do the US Congress. So do I.
+0
permalink
JD, you just got slammed down.- ahammett
What do you mean JD just got slammed down. Seems to me he made his points and supported them with his views.
AS for your sources, you've been busy. Glad you provided the references. They are helpful. I'll have to go to them sometimes.
Recruiting goals can change for a number of reasons, chief among them is the number of recruits signing up. But accessions are planned a long time in advance. Training facilities that might be needed five months from now may no longer be available for a new draft of recruits. So the smart thing to do is lower the number to be recruited fot the next two months or so.
A good economy will hamper the supply of recruits.
Now a big reason that recruiting quotas change, is that the number of reenlistments go up, and the recruits are no longer needed.
As for lowering standards: When theres only a few slots available, the services like any other employer becomes a bit more selective. As the need for more manpower grows they expand the pool of applicants by taking those they might not have taken earlier. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Too many young people do stupid things and pay for them for the rest of their lives. And the ones that take well to the discipline and apply themselves they usually do a lot better than if they had not have enlisted. They become, for the most part contributors to rather than takers from society.
Does recruiting fluctuate? All time. In war, too? And why wouldn't it? As the Militarys start replacing equipment, more jobs are created competing for the manpower the Military wants.
From what I'm reading morale of soldiers is high. Reenlistments are up. They have more confidence in their leaders than they do the US Congress. So do I.
- ed evans
Ed, I'll agree with you on most of those points.
The point was that JD just wanted to nonchalantly say everything was fine and dandy with recruiting.
The fact is, the military can't afford to turn most folks away right now. It's a real crisis and it is discouraging to me that my young Republican college-mates aren't supporting the war except with their big mouths.
Btw, you're right about morale. Morale is just fine... so what were you saying about a knife in their back, again?
And you're right about confidence in military leaders.
The polls I've seen show that they trust in this order:
Highest to Lowest:
Uniformed military leaders
Civilian military leaders
President Bush
Congress
It's kind of like a reverse chain of command! (Hint: This is due to lack of leadership)
+0
permalink
Hmm It appears that Andrew, PAPPY, and Wayward have this discussion under control. I will just make one (or two ) small points.
Point 1. The POTUS being a leader. No. George Bush couldn't lead his way from a paper sack. He has been an incompetent bumbler his entire life. The vast majority of the reason for entering the war in the first place was actually the neoconservative "Wolfowitz Doctrine", which held that Iraq was the key to establishing democracy in the Middle east. Every justification used to drag well meaning Americans to support the war has been a smokescreen.
The president was recently asked by a member of the armed services (I believe a corporal in the ARMY) on NPR what he would do if the 'surge' failed. Bush's answer (in paraphrase): that having a plan b was just planning to fail.
WHAT KIND OF LEADER IS THAT? A person who sends people to die for an ideological goal with only a half-baked plan is NOT a leader.
Nobody plans to fail, they just fail to plan.
Point 2.
This war (can we even call it that? Did congress ever actually declare war?) has done ZERO to improve our safety. Every day it continues is another day that we recruit members of Al-Quaeda (or however it's spelled) because people in the middle east see our presence as American Imperialism. All the people we are 'fighting over there' never would have come over here. If our qualification were spreading democracy or attacking the homeland of terrorists, then we should be in Saudi Arabia.
That said. WE BROKE IT. WE BOUGHT IT. But if there isn't a fix, then we need to get the hell out.
- Jack Ruby
For your comments about POTUS I'll just say that I disagree. He comes across as a bumbler but in his words, folks "misunderestimate" him. I think you're doing that too, Jack. Hey
+0
permalink
Ed, the trick is you've got your pronouns flip-flopped.
"They" in reference to Islamic terrorists is not the same "they" as in reference to Baathists and Saddam Hussein.
Have we found an shred of evidence suggesting that Saddam wanted to fight us either here or there?
"They" in reference to Islamic terrorists is not the same "they" as in reference to Baathists and Saddam Hussein.
Have we found an shred of evidence suggesting that Saddam wanted to fight us either here or there?
+0
permalink
I am amazed at the people that think, if we'll just leave them alone.....That does not always work with the school yard tyrant. It won't always work in the real world.
- ed evans
Ed,
This is not our war and by our I mean the citizens of this country. Nobody is giving up anything other than the troops and their families.
I recall in WWII the civilians had rationing stamps, grew victory gardens and Rosie worked in the factories.
Where is the sacrifice today ?
I wish I could remember who wrote it , but he said the quickest way to end this war is to send the children of the wealthiest in this country over to Iraq and ask the wealthiest to raise the billions it is costing us. Then see how long the troops would be over there.
“…and so it goes.” KV
+0
permalink
It looks like we are using a slightly different definition of the term "Army". Al Qaeda has plenty of people willing to fight, but they have no tanks, helicopters, command and control structure or any other equipment that a modern military would be expected to have. That is what I meant by "no Army".
Understand
+0
permalink
I am amazed at the people that think, if we'll just leave them alone.....That does not always work with the school yard tyrant. It won't always work in the real world.
- ed evans
Ed,
This is not our war and by our I mean the citizens of this country. Nobody is giving up anything other than the troops and their families.
I recall in WWII the civilians had rationing stamps, grew victory gardens and Rosie worked in the factories.
Where is the sacrifice today ?
I wish I could remember who wrote it , but he said the quickest way to end this war is to send the children of the wealthiest in this country over to Iraq and ask the wealthiest to raise the billions it is costing us. Then see how long the troops would be over there.
“…and so it goes.” KV
- PAPPY
Pappy
This Topic Is Locked To Guest Posts
It's been a while since this topic was active, if you'd like to get it going again, please post as a registered member
