Bush destroys military readiness

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

If it was all about the number of civilian deaths we'd be in Darfur right now.

They were wrong because they said that all of Vietnam's neighbors would turn to communism if we left. The same reason they gave for getting involved in the war in the first place. It didn't happen.

We aren't in Darfur because the Democrats wants to make Sudan an issue in the 2008 elections. They're not gonna let Mr. Bush do anything because Hillary Clinton wants the credit as the person who did something about Darfur.

 

[Idiot]

So if you don't think we can fight it with major military operations, how would you propose we handle things in Iraq if we neo-nuts, or as you put it to PsyOps, your type, are so wrong?

Please note that the very first "your type" dagger was thrown at me, not by me.

To answer your question, I'd get out of Baghdad, Ramadi, Najaf... all the cities immediately. Redeploy to those "nonexistent" permanent bases. From there I'd fairly quickly cut it down to maybe 10-20 thousand troops to be used for quick strikes in the region, not to be limited to Iraq. Use more air power there. Leave the 2 Navy fleets where they are for now.

I'd redeploy the other 100,000 by sending some (10-20%) back to their Guard units, many of which are understaffed, but to remain on full-time active duty with responsibilities for Homeland Security. Develop a plan for implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

Retrain the remaining 80-90 thousand troops, some for border protection, some for world-wide strike forces of a much more covert nature.

I'd also put more pressure on Pakistan and Afghanstan.

Just for starters.



PS: I'd also continue to monitor ANY communications I felt like and only slightly modify the practice of rendition.

 

[forestal]

Well, you don't have to actually fight in a war to support it, but if you want to remove all doubt that you have faith that we can win, and it's worth spilling American blood, you need to sign up. Otherwise we just doubt your veracity.

So that's the qualifier? In order to support the war you have to actual go fight it too? And if you don't support it, you don't have to go fight. This is how liberals would have it. Can you imagine this mentality during WWII?

I'm not a "neo-nut" but I support this war. I don't like everything I see but I think the best people to make those decisions are where they need to be. I am too old now to be fighting a war (but I did serve 20 years); but if I could I would. Just so folks like you can keep your freedom to call us "neo-nut".

God Bless the "neo-nuts" over their fighting.

 

[forestal]

Some people are trying to get out, but can't. It's called Stop Loss..

How do you explain that?

No no, I go along with that poll if that is what the results are. This doesn’t explain why folks keep joining even though they know they will get sent into battle. Our military can have such opinions, but it is not their decision. Or maybe it is… through their vote. I’d like to see a poll that shows how they voted in order to affect change in our congress. A democratic congress that isn’t willing to pull the plug on funding this war.



So your default for everything is Viet Nam? And, BTW, VN is a communist country. Although we failed to thwart communism in Viet Nam, it was a noble cause and now the country suffers under that dictatorial rule. It was a mistake to not win that conflict. But, we have been overwhelmingly successful in beating communism when we had strong leaders at the helm. And guess what, it took decades to beat the communist threat. And it will take decades to be this threat. Only, YOUR TYPE doesn’t see terrorism as a threat. WHICH EXPLAINS 911.

In Iraq we are answering to a mandate that the UN set up (read UNR 1441); a mandate that the UN never intended to enforce, just as they never enforce anything anywhere else in the world. It’s a different kind of war with an enemy that uses tactics different from any war in the past and we have to learn how to fight them. This makes it especially hard for you liberals since your only line of action to fighting a war is: when it gets too tough…. QUIT!

 

[Severa]

Some people are trying to get out, but can't. It's called Stop Loss..

How do you explain that?

Forestal, if you were to look up stop loss, you'd find that Congress created it after Vietnam and that those who join the military agree to it because it's in their enlistment contract:

"In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."

You would also see that the Pentagon under the direction of General Gates is working on minimizing this practice:

Washington Post - Miliary Aims to Cut Back on Stop Loss

From the article:

In an action branded a backdoor draft by some critics, the military over the past several years has held tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on the job and in war zones beyond their retirement dates or enlistment length.

It is a widely disliked practice that the Pentagon, under new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is trying to figure out how to cut back on.

Gates has ordered that the practice _ known as "stop loss" _ must "be minimized." At the same time, he is looking for ways to decrease the hardship for troops and their families, recruit more people for a larger military and reassess how the active duty and reserves are used.

 

[itsbob]

That's why it's called a poll. That's actually a large sample considering they use similar numbers when predicting attitudes of 120 million likely voters on issues, and they're usually fairly close when the final votes are taken.

Depends, who did the survey, how did they randomize the survey? Did they call a random sampling at home after a day of fighting?

I think the more likely answer would be they went into a "safe area" in Iraq and anyone that would answer the questions was surveyed.. so they got a lot of bogus data from a bunch of REMF's

 

[PsyOps]

Well, you don't have to actually fight in a war to support it, but if you want to remove all doubt that you have faith that we can win, and it's worth spilling American blood, you need to sign up. Otherwise we just doubt your veracity.

That's reduculous. Folks that support the war but aren't signing on the dotted line are hypocrites? That's like saying I support our firefighters so I better get down there and volunteer.

Serving is a calling not a demand. It's not for everyone. I give my moral (and financial where appropriate) support to this cause because I believe in it, AND I believe in those that are willing to sacrifice so much. I don't need to sign up just remove doubt from your mind.

 

[SamSpade]

I heard your type warn about the long-term consequences of leaving Vietnam. "The Domino Theory" Then it was communism, now it's terrorism. Guess what? Other than a 6-month tryout by Cambodia, not one country turned communist after we left.

Not one? All of them did, and two still are - Laos and Vietnam. (There are only three).

Six months? Are you delirious? The Khmer Rouge were in power in Cambodia for four years, and the Communists weren't expelled until the 90's. 13 years of civil war. (I suppose you think having the word 'democratic' in the name means a democracy, as in Democratic People's Republic of Korea?). You might want to tell 2-3 million Cambodians that Communism wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that they were slaughtered after we left.

 

[PsyOps]

Some people are trying to get out, but can't. It's called Stop Loss..

How do you explain that?

I'm not really sure where this question is coming from. What does this have to do with new recruits joining? I understand there are folks that are trying to get out. This has been the case since the military was stood up. During my 20 years I saw folks trying to get out for a bunch of different reason either under roll-backs or just claiming they were gay. There were stop losses that actually kept people in beyond their enlistments and this was during peace time. I knew a chief (E-9) that accepted his stripe (he was required to serve at least 2 years) and tried to retire before the 2 years. they refused, he fought it and won and kept his chief stripe. I can give you all sorts of examples of people trying to buck the system to get out; all during peace time. I can imagine folks during war wanting to get out. Are you trying to get me to say war is hard and many didn't expect it to be this hard? Okay, yes, it's not surprising folks are trying to get out to avoid dying. But the bottom line is 1) This is a very small percentage and 2) they sign on that line and knew that they could get deployed in a war. You can't use this as a wedge in your argument to say "see they aren't happy, this is the wrong war". This still doesn't explain how so many are still signing up and the Army and Marines claim they are meeting their recruiting goals.

 

[SamSpade]

Depends, who did the survey, how did they randomize the survey? Did they call a random sampling at home after a day of fighting?

I think the more likely answer would be they went into a "safe area" in Iraq and anyone that would answer the questions was surveyed.. so they got a lot of bogus data from a bunch of REMF's

Any poll is only as good as the reasoning behind the sample creation. You don't need a huge sample, but you DO need a well-designed one. Opinion polls are the most difficult, because minor grammatical nuances can alter the whole result - and there are people who are outstanding in creating questionnaires.

They had some study done in Iraq recently that purported some half a million extra deaths due to our presence - but their methodology was so flawed not a single bit of it could stand up to scrutiny, and every claim of it to the last detail is at odds with every other institution including the UN and the Iraqi government. Even a cursory examination revealed that the group behind the study was an anti-war group who freely admitted they'd released both sets of findings before elections for a reason.

Never trust a poll from someone with an axe to grind.

 

[SamSpade]

We aren't in Darfur because the Democrats wants to make Sudan an issue in the 2008 elections. They're not gonna let Mr. Bush do anything because Hillary Clinton wants the credit as the person who did something about Darfur.

We aren't in Darfur, and I'm damned glad. No good deed goes unpunished, and I'm tired of hearing how the United States isn't the world's policeman, shouldn't go flexing its muscle all over and imposing its ideas of democracy - but they're bums if they do nothing.

There's one colossal reason Darfur is happening - the REST of the world doesn't give a crap, including the UN. This is a textbook case of something where the UN should intervene, and they're not doing it, which is completely typical. They won't show up unless we're there first, if at all.

 

[PsyOps]

Please note that the very first "your type" dagger was thrown at me, not by me.

Oh give me a break. If you're referring to me I used in the context of calling you "your type" and calling me "my type". I was being "fair and balanced" about it. Take off the blinders friend.

 

[Idiot]

Depends, who did the survey, how did they randomize the survey? Did they call a random sampling at home after a day of fighting?

I think the more likely answer would be they went into a "safe area" in Iraq and anyone that would answer the questions was surveyed.. so they got a lot of bogus data from a bunch of REMF's

Wouldn't it make more sense that troops in "safe areas" would be less likely to say we should leave, and that ones unwilling to answer that simple question do so because they disagree with their Commander in Chief?

Would you like to hear what some troops in "unsafe areas" think?

"To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do," said Hardy, 25, of Atlanta. "I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."

...

"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away," said Gill, who serves with the 1st Infantry Division in east Baghdad. "And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."

...

"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, Pa. "This isn't our war - we're just in the middle."

...

"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, Okla.

...

"It's kind of relentless and pointless," said Beere, 22, of State College, Pa. "It'll be the same thing going on here, no matter what we do."

Bunch of REMFs?

Whatever makes you feel better.

 

[PsyOps]

Wouldn't it make more sense that troops in "safe areas" would be less likely to say we should leave, and that ones unwilling to answer that simple question do so because they disagree with their Commander in Chief?

Would you like to hear what some troops in "unsafe areas" think?

Did you get to watch the spot when Hannity went to Iraq and interviewed troops and commanders? I have it all on video and not one soldier or marine stated what you are providing. I view it from time to time to remind that not all I see in the media is completely accurate. It was the same when O'Reilly went. So perhaps it's more about who you ask and what you chose to print to support your agenda. how can we really extract the truth in all this?

I can tell you from the many people I have talked to that have returned have had mostly positive things to say. But the info you get in polls, newspapers and political talkheads is only as good as the agenda they serve.

 

[Idiot]

I was being "fair and balanced" about it.

"My type understands that there will likely be long-term consequences in this country by allowing that country to fall in the wrong hands. Your type is more concerned about the politics of it and would prefer to revert back to the Clinton days where folks didn't care much about national security, the kind of complacency that led to the 911 attacks."


I'm complacent and concerned about politics, which of course you aren't. You just visit the Political Forum to post your non-political opinions.

Who's wearing blinders?

PS: Hannity and PsyOps.......... Fair and Balanced.

 

[PsyOps]

"My type understands that there will likely be long-term consequences in this country by allowing that country to fall in the wrong hands. Your type is more concerned about the politics of it and would prefer to revert back to the Clinton days where folks didn't care much about national security, the kind of complacency that led to the 911 attacks."


I'm complacent and concerned about politics, which of course you aren't. You just visit the Political Forum to post your non-political opinions.

Who's wearing blinders?

PS: Hannity and PsyOps.......... Fair and Balanced.

You have a way of distorting my point. But not very well...

The war should not be a political battle as the left is making it. You represent that thinking. You also apologize for those that signed that document giving Bush authority to wage this war, then, when they realized they were losing political capital over it they turn 180 degrees. The disagreement over this war is a political one. THAT'S WHY I AM HERE. If I had my way I'd get every one of those CINC-wanna-bes in Congress out of the mix and tell them to either fund it or defund it then shut their mouths. But they are too busy trying to tell our commanders in the field how to fight this war. The strategy of cut and run is nothing more than retreat and surrender. I fail to see how this will solve the problem in Iraq. It only serves as a political talking-point and not a real solution to the problem.

BTW... I rarely watch Hannity. It figures you'd use that as a cheap shot.

 

[Idiot]

You have a way of distorting my point. But not very well...

The war should not be a political battle as the left is making it. You represent that thinking. You also apologize for those that signed that document giving Bush authority to wage this war, then, when they realized they were losing political capital over it they turn 180 degrees. The disagreement over this war is a political one. THAT'S WHY I AM HERE. If I had my way I'd get every one of those CINC-wanna-bes in Congress out of the mix and tell them to either fund it or defund it then shut their mouths. But they are too busy trying to tell our commanders in the field how to fight this war. The strategy of cut and run is nothing more than retreat and surrender. I fail to see how this will solve the problem in Iraq. It only serves as a political talking-point and not a real solution to the problem.

BTW... I rarely watch Hannity. It figures you'd use that as a cheap shot.

I don't apologize for the dems, nor do I forgive them. I do however apoligize for the Hannity remark.

Your type and my type may not be as different as we think.

 

[PsyOps]

I don't apologize for the dems, nor do I forgive them. I do however apoligize for the Hannity remark.

Your type and my type may not be as different as we think.

I appreciate that. And you are probably right on your last point.

 

[forestal]

I equate it to the fine print on the credit card agreements that so few people take the time to read, or understand.

Forestal, if you were to look up stop loss, you'd find that Congress created it after Vietnam and that those who join the military agree to it because it's in their enlistment contract:

"In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."

You would also see that the Pentagon under the direction of General Gates is working on minimizing this practice:

Washington Post - Miliary Aims to Cut Back on Stop Loss

From the article:

In an action branded a backdoor draft by some critics, the military over the past several years has held tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on the job and in war zones beyond their retirement dates or enlistment length.

It is a widely disliked practice that the Pentagon, under new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is trying to figure out how to cut back on.

Gates has ordered that the practice _ known as "stop loss" _ must "be minimized." At the same time, he is looking for ways to decrease the hardship for troops and their families, recruit more people for a larger military and reassess how the active duty and reserves are used.

 

[forestal]

Well we don't have enough troops to do what needs to be done. Somebody who was really serious about their support for this boondoggle would be walking down to the enlistment center right about now.

That's reduculous. Folks that support the war but aren't signing on the dotted line are hypocrites? That's like saying I support our firefighters so I better get down there and volunteer.

Serving is a calling not a demand. It's not for everyone. I give my moral (and financial where appropriate) support to this cause because I believe in it, AND I believe in those that are willing to sacrifice so much. I don't need to sign up just remove doubt from your mind.