bahaa, it's war critics fault military recruiting is in decline...

[memyselfI]

Nevermind that the war in Iraq and the reasons of it have been deemed a complete fraud...

it's the critics of the war that are the reason for our youngins not wanting to go be shot at. ROFL

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050630/pl_nm/iraq_congress_dc_1

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several Senate Republicans denounced other lawmakers and the news media on Thursday for unfavorable depictions of the Iraq war and the Pentagon urged members of Congress to talk up military service to help ease a recruiting shortfall.

ADVERTISEMENT

Families are discouraging young men and women from enlisting "because of all the negative media that's out there," Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), an Oklahoma Republican, said at a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Inhofe also said that other senators' criticism of the war contributed to the propaganda of U.S. enemies. He did not name the senators.

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker urged members of Congress to use "your considerable influence to explain to the American people and to those that are influencers out there how important it is for our young people to serve this nation at a time like this."

The Army on Wednesday said it was 14 percent, or about 7,800 recruits, behind its year-to-date recruitment target even though it exceeded its monthly target in June. With extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting also is down for the National Guard and the Reserves.

"With the deluge of negative news that we get daily, it's just amazing to me that anybody would want to sign up," said Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), a Kansas Republican.

Facing flagging support for the Iraq war that has killed about 1,750 U.S. forces, President Bush in a speech on Tuesday acknowledged the nation's doubts about the strategy but insisted the operation was worthwhile and portrayed Iraq as a key battlefield against terrorists.

Bush himself made a pitch for military service. "We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation's uniform," he said.

While Bush has rejected calls for a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), the committee chairman, pressed the Pentagon to declassify information on progress of training Iraq's forces, considered a key indicator of when U.S. forces can return home.

"The American taxpayer put a tremendous investment in that retraining and the equipping," Warner said. With that information, he said, "We can better translate where we are in terms of hopefully providing them (Iraqis) with trained individuals and equipment to eventually replace our forces."

Democrats questioned the Pentagon officials on how the Iraq war has strained the military's readiness for other potential conflicts and on delays in providing troops with adequate armor against car bombs and other explosives.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat, said while Bush urged Americans "to raise flags" in honor of U.S. troops in Iraq, the president did not assure troops "they will have the equipment they need to fight the war, and he should have."

Schoomaker acknowledged up to 25 percent of the Humvees in Iraq still had the low grade of protective armor, but he said all should be equipped with higher grade armor in September.

He also agreed that in some cases the level of readiness of units was below desired levels because of the strain of the Iraq conflict and the Army's efforts to streamline its operations.

In his testimony, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee said readiness for battalion and squadron-sized Marine units had dropped by 40 percent because of the priority put on sustaining units in Iraq at the expense of the units that had rotated out of the war.

[BIG_DADDY]

**** off and die.

[Michael Michigan]

ADVERTISEMENT

Actually...

Us Army recruitment exceeded its June goal by 9%.

The Army Reserve passed its goal by about 50 recruits in June as well.

Right now they are at 86% of their yearly goal.

Keep cheering against the US Army--Perhaps they won't get enough recruits and they can draft your two kids to serve.

[Nightfyre]

Keep cheering against the US Army--Perhaps they won't get enough recruits and they can draft your two kids to serve.
Yeah, I wouldnt put it past a certain administration.

[BIG_DADDY]

Keep cheering against the US Army--Perhaps they won't get enough recruits and they can draft your two kids to serve.

NEVER!!!

[stevieray]

Nevermind that the war in Iraq and the reasons of it have been deemed a complete fraud...



ROFL

[Chief Henry]

Actually...

Us Army recruitment exceeded its June goal by 9%.

The Army Reserve passed its goal by about 50 recruits in June as well.

Right now they are at 86% of their yearly goal.

Keep cheering against the US Army--Perhaps they won't get enough recruits and they can draft your two kids to serve.



:clap:

[Chief Henry]

NEVER!!!



Big Daddy,

When did you get this close to her to get this close up shot?
Nice picture of Denise by the way.... :thumb:

[stevieray]

...


Keep cheering against the US Army--


Saddam would be proud. AQ must love that certain Americans give comfort to their cause.

[memyselfI]

Actually...

Us Army recruitment exceeded its June goal by 9%.

The Army Reserve passed its goal by about 50 recruits in June as well.

Right now they are at 86% of their yearly goal.

Keep cheering against the US Army--Perhaps they won't get enough recruits and they can draft your two kids to serve.

Yeah, the rest of the article sounds real optimistic about the recruiting situation. :hmmm:

The Army on Wednesday said it was 14 percent, or about 7,800 recruits, behind its year-to-date recruitment target even though it exceeded its monthly target in June. With extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting also is down for the National Guard and the Reserves.

[Michael Michigan]

Yeah, the rest of the article sounds real optimistic about the recruiting situation.

They had a four-month slump. They turned it around in June.

Again--keep cheering against the US Army recruitment and your kids will be in boot camp.

[memyselfI]

They had a four-month slump. They turned it around in June.

Again--keep cheering against the US Army recruitment and your kids will be in boot camp.

It's not cheering against them to be pleased that our young people are reluctant to go to this 'war'.

And you need not worry, my kids won't see a boot camp. Perhaps you can volunteer yours since you seem to want others kids to go.

[Donger]

It's not cheering against them to be pleased that our young people are reluctant to go to this 'war'.

And you need not worry, my kids won't see a boot camp. Perhaps you can volunteer yours since you seem to want others kids to go.

Out of curiosity, do you have any sons nearing 18?

[memyselfI]

Out of curiosity, do you have any sons nearing 18?

Not for five years...and we have contingency plans.

[Donger]

Not for five years...and we have contingency plans.

Already fitting them for a homicide bombing vest, eh?

[memyselfI]

Already fitting them for a homicide bombing vest, eh?

Nope. We are fortunate to have family and friends located in a number of countries around the world. And fortunately, all of those countries have colleges. Worst case scenario...

[Donger]

Nope. We are fortunate to have family and friends located in a number of countries around the world. And fortunately, all of those countries have colleges.

Do your children already speak Arabic or Persian?

[Michael Michigan]

It's not cheering against them to be pleased that our young people are reluctant to go to this 'war'.

And you need not worry, my kids won't see a boot camp. Perhaps you can volunteer yours since you seem to want others kids to go.


I support any young man or woman that joins the US Military. It's an honorable profession and a service to the United States of America.

You may cheer against them, but I'm very proud of our volunteers. I know several and they are all brave and honorable.

But I wouldn't begin to speak for an 18-year old and "volunteer" him or her to go.

Even though they are someone's kid--they are adults, they make their own decisions.

Stop watching Michael Moore movies and you might figure that out.


And what makes you so sure your kids won't see a boot camp if there is a draft?

[stevieray]

Nope. We are fortunate to have family and friends located in a number of countries around the world. And fortunately, all of those countries have colleges.


I'll help you pack.

[memyselfI]

Do your children already speak Arabic or Persian?

Nope. They would not go to the ME.

[Nightfyre]

Do your children already speak Arabic or Persian?
Donger = Dumbass.

[memyselfI]

I support any young man or woman that joins the US Military. It's an honorable profession and a service to the United States of America.

You may cheer against them, but I'm very proud of our volunteers. I know several and they are all brave and honorable.

But I wouldn't begin to speak for an 18-year old and "volunteer" him or her to go.

Even though they are someone's kid--they are adults, they make their own decisions.

Stop watching Michael Moore movies and you might figure that out.


And what makes you so sure your kids won't see a boot camp if there is a draft?

Yes, I'm quite sure these kids are promised the world and thus even though they are not old enough to drink, they are old enough to be shipped off to war. :rolleyes:

[Donger]

Nope. They would not go to the ME.

Why not?

[Donger]

Donger = Dumbass.

Well, I'm convinced.

Wanna have a spelling contest or something?

[memyselfI]

Why not?

Well, because the wars are being fought there...are they not? If I won't have them be a pawn in a war 'for' the US, I certainly won't have them be one for a ME country. :harumph:

[chagrin]

memyselfI -

I stay out of these discussions because the whole thing is very frustrating. I just want you to know that your finding it funny that recruiting is down, is very sad. Laughing about people not wanting to go be shot at is a very mixed up way to see things about this war, or any war, but it's your right. Please do not spit on our troops when they come back home, some of them probably from your hometown.
One can't support the troops but not the war. It is silly to think such an idea is valid. I do not know you and haven't read your posts before; this one just caught my eye.

I guess I would ask only one question: Do you believe that people should join the military to syphon tax dollars for college and not expect to honor their sworn allegiance to defend people that cannot defend themselves?

[Michael Michigan]

Yes, I'm quite sure these kids are promised the world and thus even though they are not old enough to drink, they are old enough to be shipped off to war.

So--you cheer against them and call them stupid?

Explain to me why you live here again?

[Nightfyre]

Well, I'm convinced.

Wanna have a spelling contest or something?
Wanna have a stereotyping contest?

[the Talking Can]

Actually...

Us Army recruitment exceeded its June goal by 9%.

The Army Reserve passed its goal by about 50 recruits in June as well.

Right now they are at 86% of their yearly goal.

Keep cheering against the US Army--Perhaps they won't get enough recruits and they can draft your two kids to serve.

Why the dishonesty?

They are not at 86% of their yearly goal, as the article clearly states:

"The slight surplus in June, however, barely chipped away at what has become a major gap in recruiting numbers. The Army hopes to gain 80,000 recruits this fiscal year but is well behind its target thus far.

About 48,500 recruits have joined through the first nine months of the fiscal year -- 7,800 behind the year-to-date goal, or about 86 percent of the expected numbers. The Army must now add about 31,500 recruits in the next three months, an average of 10,500 each month, to meet the annual goal. January was the only month this year in which the Army brought in more than 8,000 recruits. At the current pace, the Army would miss its goal by more than 11,000."



Wait, you're a journalist...now it makes sense.

[stevieray]

Yes, I'm quite sure these kids are promised the world and thus even though they are not old enough to drink, they are old enough to be shipped off to war. :rolleyes:

Something they do voluntarily. I know you can't comprehend that, because you're too busy assuming how they feel and piimping them for your personal agenda.

[memyselfI]

memyselfI -

I stay out of these discussions because the whole thing is very frustrating. I just want you to know that your finding it funny that recruiting is down, is very sad. Laughing about people not wanting to go be shot at is a very mixed up way to see things but it's your right. Please do not spit on our troops when they come back home, some of them probably from your hometown.
One can't support the troops but not the war. It is silly to think such an idea is valid. I do not know you and haven't read your posts before; this one just caught my eye.

I guess I would ask only one question: Do you believe that people should join the military to syphon tax dollars for college and not expect to honor their sworn allegiance to defend people that cannot defend themselves?


Uh, to you and Michael M, it's not funny that the recruiting is down. The funny thing is the MILITARY (and the WH) BLAMING THE MEDIA and the WAR CRITICS for the recruiting being down.

If the Bush Adminstration had been more forthcoming and less dishonest, perhaps those numbers would not be down. Afterall, it's not the media or the war critics who initally made the war a whole WMD thing... :rolleyes:

[Michael Michigan]

Why the dishonesty?

They are not at 86% of their yearly goal, as the article clearly states:

or about 86 percent of the expected numbers.

Clear as mud.

[Michael Michigan]

Uh, to you and Michael M, it's not funny that the recruiting is down.

Don't quit now--hold your ground.

Be proud that you don't support our troops.

[stevieray]

.

Afterall, it's not the media or the war critics who initally made the war a whole WMD thing... :rolleyes:

no, it was the previous administration.

[Donger]

Wanna have a stereotyping contest?

Stereotyping?

IIRC, mememe is married to a man of Middle Eastern origin and/or ancestry. Therefore, when she informs us that she is planning on leaving the US, I logically conclude that one of the resort-like destinations might be the region of the father. Those countries speak primarily Arabic or Persian.

Clear it up for you?

[Donger]

Uh, to you and Michael M, it's not funny that the recruiting is down.

Can you honestly say that you aren't glad recruiting is down?

[Nightfyre]

Stereotyping?

IIRC, mememe is married to a man of Middle Eastern origin and/or ancerstry. Therefore, when she informs us that she is planning on leaving the US, I logically conclude that one of the resort-like destinations might be the region of the father. Those countries speak primarily Arabic or Persian.

Clear it up for you?
Already fitting them for a homicide bombing vest, eh?
Yeah, youre clear, crystal clear.

[BIG_DADDY]

Yes, I'm quite sure these kids are promised the world and thus even though they are not old enough to drink, they are old enough to be shipped off to war. :rolleyes:

What do you know about what their promised and what they receive? Absolutely ****ing nothing, that's what you know. I guess the draft in the US can't stand up to the strap a bomb on a 14 year old program your freedom fighters are running.

[Michael Michigan]

Yeah, youre[sp] clear, crystal clear.

Give me 20 bucks on Donger in the spelling contest.

[Donger]

Yeah, youre clear, crystal clear.

And you are apparently incapable of following the progress of a thread.

[Nightfyre]

And you are apparently incapable of following the progress of a thread.
The progress of the thread was quite clear. The predictable Start to argue, lose argument, change subject, lose argument, attack winner. Simple.

[memyselfI]

Don't quit now--hold your ground.

Be proud that you don't support our troops.

The military sure in the heck don't have my support for their recruiting...sorry.

Once they are in, they have my best wishes and respect for the job they've undertaken. I won't 'spit' on them...

perhaps on the bozos who got them there. :hmmm:

[Nightfyre]

The military sure in the heck don't have my support for their recruiting...sorry.

Once they are in, they have my best wishes and respect for the job they've undertaken. I won't 'spit' on them...

perhaps on the bozos who got them there. :hmmm:
Whats the old saying? "War is old men talking and young men dying"

[memyselfI]

Can you honestly say that you aren't glad recruiting is down?

Yeah, I'll admit I'm glad our young people are choosing to invest in THEIR futures vs. some utopian promise of an Iraqi future.

Sorry. Well, actually, I'm not sorry. I'm glad they are choosing their lives OVER the President's policies.

[Donger]

The progress of the thread was quite clear. The predictable Start to argue, lose argument, change subject, lose argument, attack winner. Simple.

Apparently you're incorrect again. You may note that I've not argued with her at all in this thread.

[chagrin]

Uh, to you and Michael M, it's not funny that the recruiting is down. The funny thing is the MILITARY (and the WH) BLAMING THE MEDIA and the WAR CRITICS for the recruiting being down.

If the Bush Adminstration had been more forthcoming and less dishonest, perhaps those numbers would not be down. Afterall, it's not the media or the war critics who initally made the war a whole WMD thing... :rolleyes:


Are you certain about that? The Clinton Administration publicly stated that there truckloads of WMD, everybody knows it. Please don't be so narrow focused on the reasons we are there. All I hope is that you do not stand out on the streets with a yellow ribbon on your clothing while you shout anti-american statements - saying that you support the troops just not the war. Again, there's more to this apprently than you simply laughing, as your opening statement clearly states, that recruitment is down for our military. If your children were drafted, and you sent them out of the country to hide, you should be ashamed of yourself, that statement itself probably does upset me. My family members have fought in previous wars so you and I could be here expressing our opinions. Don't forget that.

[Michael Michigan]

The military sure in the heck don't have my support

You had me at hello.

[Nightfyre]

Apparently you're incorrect again. You may note that I've not argued with her at all in this thread.
Yeah, youre adapting, skipping the argument phase all together. It certainly saves a lot of reading.

[chagrin]

Somebody forgot, the old men that talk were the young men dying, and fighting years before them

[Donger]

Yeah, I'll admit I'm glad our young people are choosing to invest in THEIR futures vs. some utopian promise of an Iraqi future.

Sorry. Well, actually, I'm not sorry. I'm glad they are choosing their lives OVER the President's policies.

What if when they reach 18, your boy(s) deccide that they want to register or perhaps even enlist? Would you prohibit them from doing so?

[memyselfI]

Are you certain about that? The Clinton Administration publicly stated that there truckloads of WMD, everybody knows it. Please don't be so narrow focused on the reasons we are there. All I hope is that you do not stand out on the streets with a yellow ribbon on your clothing while you shout anti-american statements - saying that you support the troops just not the war. Again, there's more to this apprently than you simply laughing, as your opening statement clearly states, that recruitment is down for our military. If your children were drafted, and you sent them out of the country to hide, you should be ashamed of yourself, that statement itself probably does upset me. My family members have fought in previous wars so you and I could be here expressing our opinions. Don't forget that.

Look, our young people are choosing between their futures and some vague promise of an Iraqi future based on consistently changing rationals and policies from our President and government...

this war in Iraq should have NEVER been started. As such, our young people should be heralded in their decision NOT TO GO.

[Donger]

Yeah, youre adapting, skipping the argument phase all together. It certainly saves a lot of reading.

Arguing with Denise is somewhat akin to urinating into the wind.

[Nightfyre]

Somebody forgot, the old men that talk were the young men dying, and fighting years before them
Right, just like GWB.

[chagrin]

Lose that argument Nightfyre? Is that all you got to defend your old addage?

[memyselfI]

What if when they reach 18, your boy(s) deccide that they want to register or perhaps even enlist? Would you prohibit them from doing so?


They won't. If I couldn't talk them out of it then my Dad, who did serve, probably would.

[Nightfyre]

Lose that argument Nightfyre? Is that all you got to defend your old addage?
Nah, I figured Id point out that GWB is the old man in this situation. Clearly he was in the dying situation.

[Donger]

They won't. If I couldn't talk them out of it then my Dad, who did serve, probably would.

Interesting. And if neither you nor your father could convince them?

[chagrin]

Look, our young people are choosing between their future's and some vague promise of an Iraqi future based on consistently changing rationals and policies from our President and government...

this war in Iraq should have NEVER been started. As such, our young people should be heralded in their decision NOT TO GO.

Choosing between their future is fine, but you need to remember that some people's future IS in the military, and honestly, if it took a draft to fight for freedom we should support it. Did you know that everyone who joins the military does not go to Iraq? A large part of recruitment is for people to serve HERE in the U.S. to protect us while others are off fighting for freedom and for people who cannot. I assume you are a liberal, right? fighting for people who cannot do it themselves is your political party's mantra, their entire reason for being.

[memyselfI]

Interesting. And if neither you nor your father could convince them?

Let's just say, they'd be more likely to go to Mars than to Iraq to fight.

[chagrin]

Nah, I figured Id point out that GWB is the old man in this situation. Clearly he was in the dying situation.


doesn't matter, aren't we talking about supporting the troops? Walk away from W for a minute and go back to your addage and the debate at hand. This is about our troops now.

[memyselfI]

Choosing between their future is fine, but you need to remember that some people's future IS in the military, and honestly, if it took a draft to fight for freedom we should support it. Did you know that everyone who joins the military does not go to Iraq? A large part of recruitment is for people to serve HERE in the U.S. to protect us while others are off fighting for freedom and for people who cannot. I assume you are a liberal, right? fighting for people who cannot do it themselves is your political party's mantra, their entire reason for being.

That is something different...

but while this 'war' is sucking up our resources in Iraq and Afghanistan then most newbies are NOT going to be stationed here in the US.

[Nightfyre]

Look, our young people are choosing between their future's and some vague promise of an Iraqi future based on consistently changing rationals and policies from our President and government...

this war in Iraq should have NEVER been started. As such, our young people should be heralded in their decision NOT TO GO.

Choosing between their future is fine, but you need to remember that some people's future IS in the military, and honestly, if it took a draft to fight for freedom we should support it. Did you know that everyone who joins the military does not go to Iraq? A large part of recruitment is for people to serve HERE in the U.S. to protect us while others are off fighting for freedom and for people who cannot. I assume you are a liberal, right? fighting for people who cannot do it themselves is your political party's mantra, their entire reason for being.
Did you understand the concept of "draft"? That is involuntary conscription. When used for an agenda that more than half of young people (the people being forced into involuntary military service) disagree with.

[Michael Michigan]

Let's just say, they'd be more likely to go to Mars than to Iraq to fight.

What like a Military Astronaut?

[Donger]

Let's just say, they'd be more likely to go to Mars than to Iraq to fight.

Wow, okay. You're something of a control freak, aren't you? Perhaps your son(s) are different, but most 18 year olds REALLY don't like that. Perhaps you've got a little family crisis in the making there.

[stevieray]

...

perhaps on the bozos who got them there. :hmmm:

They got there by swearing in. They are obviously brave and smart enough to accept the consequences, quit passing the buck.

[chagrin]

Well heck, I gotta run. Reading the child a book, a new expeiment for me, it's fun!

You all enjoy your evenings, even nightfyre :)

[Simplex3]

Nah, I figured Id point out that GWB is the old man in this situation. Clearly he was in the dying situation.
Yeah, nobody has ever died flying a combat jet during training.

[Donger]

That is something different...

but while this 'war' is sucking up our resources in Iraq and Afghanistan then most newbies are NOT going to be stationed here in the US.

WTF? Afghanistan? You don't think we should have gone into Afghanistan either?

[memyselfI]

Wow, okay. You're something of a control freak, aren't you? Perhaps your son(s) are different, but most 18 year olds REALLY don't like that. Perhaps you've got a little family crisis in the making there.

Oh, I highly doubt my kids are going to rebel themselves right into a war...

sorry. Not every kid thinks that way.

[memyselfI]

WTF? Afghanistan? You don't think we should have gone into Afghanistan either?


I didn't say that. I said our resources are being sucked up into there and Iraq.

[Donger]

Oh, I highly doubt my kids are going to rebel themselves right into a war...

sorry. Not every kid thinks that way.

I wasn't really being that specific; more of a generality.

[Simplex3]

Let's just say, they'd be more likely to go to Mars than to Iraq to fight.
So you going Susan Smith on them is cool, but them choosing to fight for the country that gives you the right to be the dumbass you are isn't cool. Got it.


.

[Donger]

Did you understand the concept of "draft"? That is involuntary conscription. When used for an agenda that more than half of young people (the people being forced into involuntary military service) disagree with.

Jeezus. Try to keep up.

[Nightfyre]

Yeah, nobody has ever died flying a combat jet during training.
I wonder where that ranks in terms of occupational risk...

[memyselfI]

So you going Susan Smith on them is cool, but them choosing to fight for the country that gives you the right to be the dumbass you are isn't cool. Got it.


.

No, the point was they aspire to be something more than 'collateral damage' for a political experiment.

[chagrin]

That is something different...

but while this 'war' is sucking up our resources in Iraq and Afghanistan then most newbies are NOT going to be stationed here in the US.


Something different? It tied directly to your subject, recruitment.

Wow, you and nightfyre dodge rebuttals and questions better than Edwin W Edwards. Seriously though I have to go now. Good night folks!

[stevieray]

So you going Susan Smith on them is cool, but them choosing to fight for the country that gives you the right to be the dumbass you are isn't cool. Got it.


.

ouch.

[Nightfyre]

Jeezus. Try to keep up.
With what? *yawn* You guys aren't talking about anything interesting.

[Nightfyre]

doesn't matter, aren't we talking about supporting the troops? Walk away from W for a minute and go back to your addage and the debate at hand. This is about our troops now.
How many times do I have to express my support for our troops for you people to get it through your head. you can support troops without supporting war. In fact, I would suggest bringing them home is probably better for their health than leaving them there.

[memyselfI]

Something different? It tied directly to your subject, recruitment.

Wow, you and nightfyre dodge rebuttals and questions better than Edwin W Edwards. Seriously though I have to go now. Good night folks!


Yes, it is tied directly in that if DUHbya had not gotten us into this mess in Iraq and Rumsfeld had not mismanged the war then the recruitment totals and decline probably would not even be an issue. :thumb:

[Donger]

With what? *yawn* You guys aren't talking about anything interesting.

The fact that chagrin was referring to mememe's admission that she is glad that military recruitment is 'down.' Nothing to do with a draft.

[memyselfI]

How many times do I have to express my support for our troops for you people to get it through your head. you can support troops without supporting war. In fact, I would suggest bringing them home is probably better for their health than leaving them there.

I dunno. I heard a RWNJ arguing that there are more homocides in a year in LA than in Iraq. Thus, they might be safer there. :rolleyes:

[Nightfyre]

The fact that chagrin was referring to mememe's admission that she is glad that military recruitment is 'down.' Nothing to do with a draft.
Im glad its down too. What does that have to do with anything? Maybe it strikes a little closer to home for someone who's friends' asses are on the line.

[stevieray]

No, the point was they aspire to be something more than 'collateral damage' for a political experiment.

I think it is disrespectful to refer to the troops in this way.

and you can't say you support the troops but not the war, when the troops are engaging in warfare....something they take an oath for.

[Donger]

homocides

Heh. I'm guessing San Francisco is the epicenter.

[alanm]

Not for five years...and we have contingency plans.
Now if your boys were of the normal sort. They'd enlist just to spite you. Unless their of the dress wearing variety. Or play soccer. ROFL

[Bootlegged]

No, the point was they aspire to be something more than 'collateral damage' for a political experiment.


how many Iranian beers does it take your husband to wanna touch you?

[Michael Michigan]

you can support troops without supporting war.

No you can't.

[Nightfyre]

No you can't.
:rolleyes:

[memyselfI]

No you can't.

Yes, you can.

You separate the military from the political. Simple. The military did not get us into this mess...the political did. Thus, there is NO REASON to hold the military in contempt or disregard because they are not the reason we are there.

If the military orchestrated a junta and then lead the US to Iraq then it would be a different story.

[Simplex3]

how many Iranian beers does it take your husband to wanna touch you?
ROFL ROFL ROFL

Maybe he's lost all of his senses? :shrug:

[Nightfyre]

Yes, you can.

You separate the military from the political. Simple. The military did not get us into this mess...the political did. Thus, there is NO REASON to hold the military in contempt or disregard because they are not the reason we are there.

If the military orchestrated a junta and then lead the US to Iraq then it would be a different story.
You merited that dumbass remark with a comment?

[memyselfI]

You merited that dumbass remark with a comment?

Not for his sake...

for fellow dumbasses who might be thinking his thoughts. ;) :p

[Simplex3]

Yes, you can.

You separate the military from the political. Simple. The military did not get us into this mess...the political did. Thus, there is NO REASON to hold the military in contempt or disregard because they are not the reason we are there.

If the military orchestrated a junta and then lead the US to Iraq then it would be a different story.
The vast majority of military personell support what they are doing in Iraq and Afg. If you constantly say people who believe in those missions are idiots then you are trying to say you support people you are calling idiots.

So is it blissful or a living hell being as stupid as you are?

[Nightfyre]

The vast majority of military personell support what they are doing in Iraq and Afg.
Yeah, prove it.

[stevieray]

Yes, you can.

You separate the military from the political. Simple. The military did not get us into this mess...the political did. Thus, there is NO REASON to hold the military in contempt or disregard because they are not the reason we are there.

If the military orchestrated a junta and then lead the US to Iraq then it would be a different story.


You can't separate it from Bush. . All the way back to George Washington. Hence the term Commander in Chief.

you want to make it politcal, you have to go after Congress

[memyselfI]

The vast majority of military personell support what they are doing in Iraq and Afg. If you constantly say people who believe in those missions are idiots then you are trying to say you support people you are calling idiots.

So is it blissful or a living hell being as stupid as you are?

So what if they support it. I would expect them too. No one wants to put their life on the line for something they don't believe in.

That still does not mean they got us into this situation or are responsible for orchestrating their inability to get out.

[Donger]

Yeah, prove it.

I think this is the most recent one: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2004_mainbar.php

[Nightfyre]

I think this is the most recent one: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2004_mainbar.php
But what about the other 40%? Thats awfully low for a military organizations support of a war and you know it.

[stevieray]

So what if they support it. I would expect them too. No one wants to put their life on the line for something they don't believe in.

That still does not mean they got us into this situation or are responsible for orchestrating their inability to get out.

They accept the situation. It's exactly what makes them honorable and you privledged.

[RaiderH8r]

How many times do I have to express my support for our troops for you people to get it through your head. you can support troops without supporting war. In fact, I would suggest bringing them home is probably better for their health than leaving them there.
That's a fascinating policy. Having armed forces sitting at home and making chocolates. I don't know that its ever been attempted...oh wait, Holland tried that. Ask them what occupation was like.

[Brock]

But what about the other 40%? Thats awfully low for a military organizations support of a war and you know it.

As you remarked earlier, prove it.

[jettio]

Actually...

Us Army recruitment exceeded its June goal by 9%.

The Army Reserve passed its goal by about 50 recruits in June as well.

Right now they are at 86% of their yearly goal.

Keep cheering against the US Army--Perhaps they won't get enough recruits and they can draft your two kids to serve.


How much did the Army have to lower its recruiting goal to set one that they could reach?

Real top notch reporting there, poet.

[HC_Chief]

They accept the situation. It's exactly what makes them honorable and you a moron.

fixed your post ;)

[Brock]

Fewer kids thinking the Army is an easy way to pay for college, I guess. Good thing, IMO.

[jettio]

But what about the other 40%? Thats awfully low for a military organizations support of a war and you know it.

Probably lower now considering that the poll was from the end of last year.

[Chief Faithful]

This is another example of the media trying to sensationalize a non-issue. The Army misses their recruiting goals some months and makes it in others. Because the Army is below target for 2005 does not mean recruitment is down.

Here are the facts:

The Army is going through rapid expansion in 2005 trying to increase the standing Army from 482,000 to 512,000. This means the recruiting target for 2005 was increased by 30,000 over 2004 targets. The goal this year is 80,000. Previous years the recruiting goal was 50,000 and years when the military was cut back the number was even less.

If the 2005 to-date results were computed out for the year that means they will reach around 76,000 instead of 80,000. If you add in June results then you find they are still on target. Thus, the truth is recruiting is way up in actual numbers not down.

There is a big difference in targets verse actuals.

[DanT]

Matt Taibbi's column on the Army Recruitment crisis was on Thursday's edition of www.lewrockwell.com. Here's the link:

http://www.nypress.com/18/25/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

Here are the opening paragraphs:

FINAL DRAFT?

High comedy on the army-recruitment front.


By Matt Taibbi


Remember that brilliant idea Nancy Reagan had for battling the nation's youth drug problem? Instead of treatment programs, a new wave of after-school funding, an increased education budget, or anything else substantive, Nancy's plan was three words whispered to reporters in the breaks between meetings with her tailors and her pedicurist.




Just Say No was the outstanding comic legacy of the Reagan presidency, one of the great out-of-touch policy ideas since Marie Antoinette. If you were old enough to go potty by yourself, you were old enough to laugh at Just Say No.




Twenty years and a few million teenage crack addicts later, that same crew that gave us Just Say No is watching the boomerang come back. Twenty years ago, the yacht-and-Lexus set went to its poor people and asked them nicely to stop taking those darned drugs. Faced with potentially calamitous army-recruitment shortages, it is now asking them nicely to get their balls blown off in Iraq. It's just as funny this time, only this time, the joke's on them.




The army-recruitment-shortage story is gaining more and more traction in the mainstream press, but still remains largely underground. As a media phenomenon it falls under the category of one of those things that everyone would like to ignore, but simply cannot—like AIDS or global warming. While the Jessica Simpsons, Michael Jacksons and Terri Schiavos of the world heroically maintain their tenuous grasp on the front pages, the inside sections are beginning to pile up with some troubling numbers.




Army recruitment figures for May marked the Pentagon's fourth consecutive monthly shortfall. Just 5039 new recruits shipped off to basic training, well below the "target" of 6700. The May shortfall left the Army with 40,965 total recruits for fiscal year 2005, meaning that the Pentagon now has just four months left to roughly double that figure to meet its goal for this year (it needs about 39,000). The recruitment figures have been between 30 and 40 percent short for each of the past five months.




But the numbers only tell part of the story. Far more compelling is the bureaucratic desperation that one can easily detect between the lines of the army's recruitment efforts in the last year. For instance, the recruitment figures for May were technically only short 25 percent, a significant improvement over recent months. Except for one thing: The original target number for May was 8000, not 6700. The army changed the number at the last minute, in a transparent attempt to report an improving recruitment climate. Minus the change, the recruitment shortfall was 37 percent.

More of column... (http://www.nypress.com/18/25/news&columns/taibbi.cfm)