Informed about the Iraq War?

[wildsage]

Very funny. You’re really hooked on this cool-aid thing. Unlike you, I don’t walk the party line. When I agree with something I agree. When I disagree I disagree. I have been quite open about my problems with Bush, the war, and the GOP. I have also been honest about where I agree. How that makes me a cool-aid drinker is really quite puzzling. I suppose unless you’re in complete opposition to Bush and bought into that Bush is just a compulsive liar then you’re a cool-aid drinker. Nothing could better define a cool-aid drinker than someone that believes that.

Waah! You left yourself wide open with "bad taste in my mouth." If you are unable to recognize humor when you are the butt of it, TFB. For the record, I accept your assertion that you have not drunk of the kool-aid; there must be some other reason why you think that Bush hasn't lied about anything in order to further his handlers' agenda.
How you know that I (unlike you) walk a party line when you don't know what party I follow is a mystery (or a broad ASSumption).

No, what we need is more people saying no for the sake of saying no; just because they have clung to an agenda. You seem to define this character.

What we don't need is more people like you to deny what a stupid idea it was from the start; to instead admit that even the "small victories" like KBR-built schools is outright lying PR BS, that our military presence in Iraq has contributed to increased insurgencies, that we stripped that country of its ability to defend itself (though we've rearmed a bunch of the locals, half of whom are fighting back at our troops on the sly) so now we're stuck there to keep Iran out, that the idiots who decided (I can't use the word "planned" for this cluster-f) to go in didn't have a clue what was likely to happen, that we've wasted huge amounts of money (when it was supposed to have "paid for itself") and the capital of our young people (when it should have been "a walk in the park"), that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11/01 tragedy but by dividing our efforts things are also going to $hit in Afghanistan.
What we need is for people like you to imagine yourselves in the sandals of the average Joe Muslim in Iraq: his life is not better than it was under Saddam; he wonders if he's going to get hauled in by the occupying forces because of how he looks, or a common name, or a bad tip by someone else; he wonders if his family members are going to disappear, either murdered by insurgents or caught in crossfire; he wonders if this happens will he be called to ID their shredded remains; he wonders why people half-way around the world hate him for his religious beliefs and condone turning the awesome might of their country onto his.

Funny how you picked the NYT. Why is that? Perhaps a covert admission that they are indeed left wing?

Yah, left-wing my a$$. Don't they give op-ed space to Bill Kristol? Not familiar with Judith Miller, one of the most reliable parrots & drum-beaters this administration had?

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by PsyOps
I’m fed up with not knowing the truth about what Bush knew and I’m fed up with all the folks simplifying everyone down to “Bush lied…”. It’s time to move on and get this done. This book just adds to the noise as far as I’m concerned.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Yup, there we go again. Bush lied. Another Bush mind-reader. So, I guess if you agree with Bush and the war you have no conscience. If you dissent then suddenly you grow a conscience and have become an honest man/woman, even if that dissent could be based in a lie. Want some more cool-aid with that?

You're already convinced of the unsullied veracity of the current President so there's no need for an insider's commentary now that he is no longer paid to repeat what he's been told to? When Scotty (like Ari before him & Tony after) was dancing around the truth and stonewalling the press, y'all LOVED him. Now that he is making claims that the stories he was paid to promote were not the truth, y'all accuse him of being a Liberal.
"Tell me only what I want to hear, otherwise STFU!" Is that it?

 

[PsyOps]

Waah! You left yourself wide open with "bad taste in my mouth." If you are unable to recognize humor when you are the butt of it, TFB. For the record, I accept your assertion that you have not drunk of the kool-aid; there must be some other reason why you think that Bush hasn't lied about anything in order to further his handlers' agenda.
How you know that I (unlike you) walk a party line when you don't know what party I follow is a mystery (or a broad ASSumption).


What we don't need is more people like you to deny what a stupid idea it was from the start; to instead admit that even the "small victories" like KBR-built schools is outright lying PR BS, that our military presence in Iraq has contributed to increased insurgencies, that we stripped that country of its ability to defend itself (though we've rearmed a bunch of the locals, half of whom are fighting back at our troops on the sly) so now we're stuck there to keep Iran out, that the idiots who decided (I can't use the word "planned" for this cluster-f) to go in didn't have a clue what was likely to happen, that we've wasted huge amounts of money (when it was supposed to have "paid for itself") and the capital of our young people (when it should have been "a walk in the park"), that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11/01 tragedy but by dividing our efforts things are also going to $hit in Afghanistan.
What we need is for people like you to imagine yourselves in the sandals of the average Joe Muslim in Iraq: his life is not better than it was under Saddam; he wonders if he's going to get hauled in by the occupying forces because of how he looks, or a common name, or a bad tip by someone else; he wonders if his family members are going to disappear, either murdered by insurgents or caught in crossfire; he wonders if this happens will he be called to ID their shredded remains; he wonders why people half-way around the world hate him for his religious beliefs and condone turning the awesome might of their country onto his.

Yah, left-wing my a$$. Don't they give op-ed space to Bill Kristol? Not familiar with Judith Miller, one of the most reliable parrots & drum-beaters this administration had?

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by PsyOps
I’m fed up with not knowing the truth about what Bush knew and I’m fed up with all the folks simplifying everyone down to “Bush lied…”. It’s time to move on and get this done. This book just adds to the noise as far as I’m concerned.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You're already convinced of the unsullied veracity of the current President so there's no need for an insider's commentary now that he is no longer paid to repeat what he's been told to? When Scotty (like Ari before him & Tony after) was dancing around the truth and stonewalling the press, y'all LOVED him. Now that he is making claims that the stories he was paid to promote were not the truth, y'all accuse him of being a Liberal.
"Tell me only what I want to hear, otherwise STFU!" Is that it?

Alright, I’m going to write this in the interest establishing peace. I’m also doing because I am fed up with folks attacking me because I show any sort of support for the war and Bush.

First all, the “Bush lied” thing is ridiculous. No one knows the inner-workings of Bush’s mind. If you haven’t already seen it, check this out, then tell me who lied about the WMD.

Secondly, I hate that we went to war in Iraq. I wish we hadn’t done it. I think it was the right thing to do only from the standpoint that Saddam would eventually had to be dealt with. Maybe now wasn’t the right time. But I am convinced that if Bush hadn’t done this most folks complaining about this war would be screaming at Bush for not dealing with the Saddam problem and WMDs, . Neither here nor there, this is apparently a problem Americans are not ready to deal with. Aside from initial combat that removed the Saddam regime from power, this was a poorly-fought war. This cost more American lives than Americans are, once again, prepared to deal with. I respect American sentiment here.

I believe, given time, it will produce good things in that region. That is what we are left with now. When you make a big mistake, you can either cower in the corner and cry about it or you can work through it and fix it. What do you suggest is the better solution?

Lastly, Sage… I am not convinced of anything regarding Bush, the GOP, the direction of this country, or sentiments of this war on either side. The whole issue is muddied by pundits on the left and right, people with an agenda on the left and right, and people like you and me that bat this crap around when NO ONE has a clue what the truth is anymore. All that I am left with is the capacity to discern what I believe to be the right and wrong of it. What we did in Iraq was a noble cause. Not by Bush, not by Rove, or Rumsfeld, or any other member of BushCo. But by our troops that volunteered to do this. I am aimed at honoring their sacrifice in doing what THEY believe is the right thing. And that’s finishing the job. Fix what we broke. I don’t’ care about Bush or anyone else. I care about our troops and I care about the Iraqis getting their country back and free to make it their own. Something this country has NEVER had the opportunity to do.

 

[Mateo]

It is about the troops now and they alone. Psyops is right that we can bush bash until the cows come home but it isn't going to change anything, so it is useless to argue ad nauseum.
I repeat, it is about the men and women out there now who want to finish the job once and for all, rather than keep coming back and back and back. Sure they want to come home...what normal human being doesn't ? I do not like this war anymore than anyone else, but we have cast the dice for better or worse.
There is a formula out there to work out things, but going at one another makes us as bad as the Shiites and Sunnis, and look where that's got them.
I don't think this country is ready for another Vietnam and all the attendant consequences.
So should we stay or should we go ? I don't think it is up to us, but it is the decision of the boots on the ground.

 

[wildsage]

Alright, I’m going to write this in the interest establishing peace.[...]
Lastly, Sage… I am not convinced of anything regarding Bush, the GOP, the direction of this country, or sentiments of this war on either side. The whole issue is muddied by pundits on the left and right, people with an agenda on the left and right, and people like you and me that bat this crap around when NO ONE has a clue what the truth is anymore. All that I am left with is the capacity to discern what I believe to be the right and wrong of it. What we did in Iraq was a noble cause. Not by Bush, not by Rove, or Rumsfeld, or any other member of BushCo. But by our troops that volunteered to do this. I am aimed at honoring their sacrifice in doing what THEY believe is the right thing. And that’s finishing the job. Fix what we broke. I don’t’ care about Bush or anyone else. I care about our troops and I care about the Iraqis getting their country back and free to make it their own. Something this country has NEVER had the opportunity to do.

Cool, I can be a peacenik. It is also, to me, about the poor bastards who went over there -- not to die for their country but to die for the BS machinations of the no-conscience greedhead MFs who think they can steer global events with no personal repercussions. That last part isn't so bad by itself but these MFs screwed it all up so there is no chance in heck of it coming out okay.
What should we do now? It's a crying shame to think that if we quit and pulled the survivors home, the last soldier/Marine/son/daughter/dad/mom/sister/brother who died would have died in vain. IMO, it is an unforgivably worse sin to ask another 500 or 10 or 2 or 1 of them to die for something as nebulous and unattainable as the goals that got the first one killed.
And it's not just the death & maiming; of the ones who come home physically whole, some of them -- many of them -- will carry mental torment from the things that they had to do, the things they saw. "TFB," some warmongers will say, "they volunteered for it." Eff that. If we are going to have such BS foreign policy that at the drop of a hat (or telling of an untruth) our young people are sent into harm's way, we need an across the board draft so that Bush's nephews or the Feith clan have just as much chance of being a statistic as the 19 year old trying to escape from the trailer park. Maybe, just maybe that would temper the half-assed decisions that end up turning out so wrong.

 

[PsyOps]

Cool, I can be a peacenik. It is also, to me, about the poor bastards who went over there -- not to die for their country but to die for the BS machinations of the no-conscience greedhead MFs who think they can steer global events with no personal repercussions. That last part isn't so bad by itself but these MFs screwed it all up so there is no chance in heck of it coming out okay.
What should we do now? It's a crying shame to think that if we quit and pulled the survivors home, the last soldier/Marine/son/daughter/dad/mom/sister/brother who died would have died in vain. IMO, it is an unforgivably worse sin to ask another 500 or 10 or 2 or 1 of them to die for something as nebulous and unattainable as the goals that got the first one killed.
And it's not just the death & maiming; of the ones who come home physically whole, some of them -- many of them -- will carry mental torment from the things that they had to do, the things they saw. "TFB," some warmongers will say, "they volunteered for it." Eff that. If we are going to have such BS foreign policy that at the drop of a hat (or telling of an untruth) our young people are sent into harm's way, we need an across the board draft so that Bush's nephews or the Feith clan have just as much chance of being a statistic as the 19 year old trying to escape from the trailer park. Maybe, just maybe that would temper the half-assed decisions that end up turning out so wrong.

We’re simply just not going to agree on the motives behind this war. If you read the 60 Minutes article I provided you might understand why. Another thing we’re not going to agree on is that any sort of goal in Iraq is unattainable. I could almost interpret your take on the Iraqi people (or Arabs in general) as a bit bigoted. I mean consider what you’re saying: there is no way these pre-historic, barbaric, animals could possibly fathom such a thing as democracy. If I’m wrong about this interpretation then perhaps you can explain why our goals (democracy in Iraq) are so unattainable?

Lastly I’m going to take great offense to your “trailer park” comment. You apparently don’t one clue what makes up our military. I served 20 years and didn’t come from a trailer park and no one I ever knew in the military did and the statistics don’t support this. This sort of paradigm reeks of what we’ve come to expect from the extreme left and can only serve the purpose of insulting those that serve regardless of whether they come from a trailer park or not. Until you get a little more educated about this there is no sense in having this conversation with you.

 

[wildsage]

We’re simply just not going to agree on the motives behind this war. If you read the 60 Minutes article I provided you might understand why. Another thing we’re not going to agree on is that any sort of goal in Iraq is unattainable. I could almost interpret your take on the Iraqi people (or Arabs in general) as a bit bigoted. I mean consider what you’re saying: there is no way these pre-historic, barbaric, animals could possibly fathom such a thing as democracy. If I’m wrong about this interpretation then perhaps you can explain why our goals (democracy in Iraq) are so unattainable?
Lastly I’m going to take great offense to your “trailer park” comment. You apparently don’t one clue what makes up our military. I served 20 years and didn’t come from a trailer park and no one I ever knew in the military did and the statistics don’t support this. This sort of paradigm reeks of what we’ve come to expect from the extreme left and can only serve the purpose of insulting those that serve regardless of whether they come from a trailer park or not. Until you get a little more educated about this there is no sense in having this conversation with you.

(well, that didn't last long: "I’m going to write this in the interest [of] establishing peace.")
Dude, calmate! You need to work on your reading-comprehension skills if from my post you got those assumptions about the "extreme left" and me "not knowing." Writing skills, too: Are you saying that you knew no one in the service who came from a trailer park and that statistics show that no one in the military ever did come from one? 'Cause that's what your post reads like and it makes no sense whatsoever.

First of all, my opposition to this fustercluck is primarily out of concern for those put in harm's way, not some huggy agenda of my own. I'm incensed about the way returning casualties have been cared for, the way returning non-casualties get provided for and the extensions and repeated tours of the unfortunates who were in the service when the extra burdens got shoved onto them because recruitment/retention levels plummeted.
My comment about trailers only referred to the young person who joins up as an opportunity to improve his or her life. Maybe you were Academy? I know of a lot of people who enlisted for the education & training benefits in lieu of college or joined the Guard/Reserve to supplement the poor jobs available to them. Shove your preconceptions about the "left's" elitist attitude about trailer parks -- sounds like you might have one of your own.
(BTW, not everyone joining up to fight the Brown Menace is the high school quarterback or home-town library assistant; lowered standards let felons in nowadays -- but, at least they're willing to take a chance over there while there are a lot of drum-beaters over here of qualifying age who are in favor of Bush's war as long as someone else is fighting it.)

Second, my attitude of the Iraqis (or Arabs in general) is that they are just people. They want to live their lives without worrying about their own leaders grinding them under for personal gain, or some superpower unleashing hell down upon them; those things avoided they would also probably like some amount of self-determination, personally and as a sovereign country. Ironic that you should accuse me of bigotry: the flavor I get from your Christian warmonger ilk is disbelief that these "pre-historic, barbaric, animals could possibly fathom such a thing as" peace, a belief that since they read the Quran their sole burning desire is to kill all the white-folk and all the infidel brown-folk.
Our goal? Instilling democracy over there? Yeah, right, sounds good in a speech. Circumstances & results look more like: Reagan-wannabe syndrome ("see, I'm tough too"), enriching Halliburton (no-bid contracts & no oversight of spending), trying to get a lock on someone else's oil reserves ("pay-for-itself", focus on oil infrastructure not military caches or cultural wealth), taking out the easy target because the real one was elusive (Osama "not a priority"), bigger better permanent foothold in the region (Saudis want us out but we gotta be nearby to fock with Iran). And maybe the biggest one: Screwed the pooch on preparedness for Al Qaeda, so took advantage of the tragedy by forcing the whole unlimited power agenda and stifled any dissent with scowls and accusations of unpatriotism and terrorist-sympathizing -- real Americans just STFU and let the President do whatever he wants because we're at war.
What? We hadda go in? No WMDs, no connection with the 9/11/01 tragedy, no credible threat to our country, just a half-assed despot who was our buddy even when he did the things we later had him hanged for.

PS I couldn't find your link to the 60 Minutes story though I recall seeing it before; is it in another thread?

 

[PsyOps]

(well, that didn't last long: "I’m going to write this in the interest [of] establishing peace.")
Dude, calmate! You need to work on your reading-comprehension skills if from my post you got those assumptions about the "extreme left" and me "not knowing." Writing skills, too: Are you saying that you knew no one in the service who came from a trailer park and that statistics show that no one in the military ever did come from one? 'Cause that's what your post reads like and it makes no sense whatsoever.

First of all, my opposition to this fustercluck is primarily out of concern for those put in harm's way, not some huggy agenda of my own. I'm incensed about the way returning casualties have been cared for, the way returning non-casualties get provided for and the extensions and repeated tours of the unfortunates who were in the service when the extra burdens got shoved onto them because recruitment/retention levels plummeted.
My comment about trailers only referred to the young person who joins up as an opportunity to improve his or her life. Maybe you were Academy? I know of a lot of people who enlisted for the education & training benefits in lieu of college or joined the Guard/Reserve to supplement the poor jobs available to them. Shove your preconceptions about the "left's" elitist attitude about trailer parks -- sounds like you might have one of your own.
(BTW, not everyone joining up to fight the Brown Menace is the high school quarterback or home-town library assistant; lowered standards let felons in nowadays -- but, at least they're willing to take a chance over there while there are a lot of drum-beaters over here of qualifying age who are in favor of Bush's war as long as someone else is fighting it.)

Second, my attitude of the Iraqis (or Arabs in general) is that they are just people. They want to live their lives without worrying about their own leaders grinding them under for personal gain, or some superpower unleashing hell down upon them; those things avoided they would also probably like some amount of self-determination, personally and as a sovereign country. Ironic that you should accuse me of bigotry: the flavor I get from your Christian warmonger ilk is disbelief that these "pre-historic, barbaric, animals could possibly fathom such a thing as" peace, a belief that since they read the Quran their sole burning desire is to kill all the white-folk and all the infidel brown-folk.
Our goal? Instilling democracy over there? Yeah, right, sounds good in a speech. Circumstances & results look more like: Reagan-wannabe syndrome ("see, I'm tough too"), enriching Halliburton (no-bid contracts & no oversight of spending), trying to get a lock on someone else's oil reserves ("pay-for-itself", focus on oil infrastructure not military caches or cultural wealth), taking out the easy target because the real one was elusive (Osama "not a priority"), bigger better permanent foothold in the region (Saudis want us out but we gotta be nearby to fock with Iran). And maybe the biggest one: Screwed the pooch on preparedness for Al Qaeda, so took advantage of the tragedy by forcing the whole unlimited power agenda and stifled any dissent with scowls and accusations of unpatriotism and terrorist-sympathizing -- real Americans just STFU and let the President do whatever he wants because we're at war.
What? We hadda go in? No WMDs, no connection with the 9/11/01 tragedy, no credible threat to our country, just a half-assed despot who was our buddy even when he did the things we later had him hanged for.

PS I couldn't find your link to the 60 Minutes story though I recall seeing it before; is it in another thread?

It was I that wanted to establish peace. It was you that immiediately chose to take cheap stabs at our military with all the language to boot. I'm defending myself and everyone that you erroneously took a bite at.

 

[wildsage]

It was I that wanted to establish peace. It was you that immiediately chose to take cheap stabs at our military with all the language to boot. I'm defending myself and everyone that you erroneously took a bite at.

WTF?? Again, read the posts. I was not taking cheap stabs nor bites at anyone in uniform, at least no one without the braid on their cap.

 

[PsyOps]

WTF?? Again, read the posts. I was not taking cheap stabs nor bites at anyone in uniform, at least no one without the braid on their cap.

Folks are not joining to "escape from the trailer park". Our military is not made up of a bunch of poor bumpkins that have no where else to go. Most have a conscience that compels them to join the fight. Just because you don't see this war as a worthy cause doesn't our military feels the same way. To reduce our men and women to poor trailer park escapees shows your lack of understanding of who they are. And, as a retiree I'm going to take exception to such talk.

 

[wildsage]

Folks are not joining to "escape from the trailer park". Our military is not made up of a bunch of poor bumpkins that have no where else to go.

Yah, all the Wall Streeters & trust-fund babies are lined up at the recruiting offices.

Most have a conscience that compels them to join the fight.

Then I wonder why all the optimal-age, able-bodied drum-beaters aren't lining up, too, flooding the ranks and removing any need of stop-loss or extended, repeated tours in the fire zone.

Just because you don't see this war as a worthy cause doesn't our military feels the same way.

Except for the ones who speak out against it -- then they are traitors, right?

To reduce our men and women to poor trailer park escapees shows your lack of understanding of who they are.

Shove your preconceptions about the "left's" elitist attitude about trailer parks -- sounds like you might have one of your own.

And, as a retiree I'm going to take exception to such talk.

Manufacture whatever outrage makes you feel worthwhile; my words are plain to read. I can play the Vet card, too, and you don't outrank me as a civilian (if you ever did).

 

[PsyOps]

Yah, all the Wall Streeters & trust-fund babies are lined up at the recruiting offices.

So that’s what it’s all about for you? You want some millionaire blood. The military represents a wide demographic of people, but typically recruits fall within the lower-middle class of income earners. But, as we learned from Vietnam, the draft changed nothing. The “Wall Streeters & trust-fund babies” found ways to avoid being drafted. So if you think a draft is going to change a stinking thing you’re wrong.

Then I wonder why all the optimal-age, able-bodied drum-beaters aren't lining up, too, flooding the ranks and removing any need of stop-loss or extended, repeated tours in the fire zone.

Here are the 07 military recruiting stats. With the exception of the Army and Air National Guard every branch either met or exceeded their recruiting goals. So keep wondering because they are.

Except for the ones who speak out against it -- then they are traitors, right?

Now you're just being silly. I respect your opinion (and those that speak out against the war). I don’t respect your tone and choice of words regarding the military. I have not, nor would I ever call you a traitor for having an opinion about this war.

Manufacture whatever outrage makes you feel worthwhile; my words are plain to read. I can play the Vet card, too, and you don't outrank me as a civilian (if you ever did).

Manufacture? Are you accusing me of lying about my military service? This has really gotten pathetic.

 

[wildsage]

Manufacture? Are you accusing me of lying about my military service? This has really gotten pathetic.

OFP!! This is just another example of you not reading my words. What I mean is that it seems as if you have to find something to get outraged over so you misconstrue plain English and accuse me of dissing the uniformed services -- and now your service. That's pathetic 'cause you got nothing to go on.
Here, let me edit to make it easier for you:

And, as a retiree...

I can play the Vet card, too, and you don't outrank me as a civilian (if you ever did)

[added:] (while you served on active duty and/or in the reserves, whichever was the case).

...I'm going to take exception to such talk.

Manufacture whatever outrage makes you feel worthwhile; my words are plain to read

[added:] and nowhere did I denigrate the sacrifice of those who serve, whether they went for patriotic reasons or were just caught up in the middle of their obligation, whether they joined up because they believed the flag-waving rhetoric or because they wanted the benefits that come with the job.
I hope that's sufficiently clear for ya. If not let me know and I'll do it again using little words.

 

[wildsage]

Here are the 07 military recruiting stats. With the exception of the Army and Air National Guard every branch either met or exceeded their recruiting goals. So keep wondering because they are.

From your own source:
The Army's recruiting sucess was not without price. During Fiscal Year 2007, only 79 percent of the new recruits entering the Army possessed a high school diploma. The DOD standard is that at least 90 percent of new recruits should have a high school diploma. The other services met or exceeded the 90 percent goal. The Army also approved more criminal history waivers than they have in years past. About 15 percent of new recruits required a criminal history waiver.
87 percent of those approved waivers were because of misdemeanor convictions, and the remainder for more serious offenses, including felonies.
When I went in, they wouldn't take you if you smoked pot; Arlo Guthrie tells the story of his "fitness" being questioned 'cause he was a litterbug. Now you have felons in the tents & trenches and that has caused problems for good people already in a ####ty situation. And recruitment is one thing; having been through boot camp, you know that there is a certain number who never make it to the front lines geared-up.
Besides the lowered standards and higher incentive bonuses, I suspect the worsening economy has something to do with them meeting goals for the first time in years.
And don't forget: to keep fully-manned up over there they have had to extend tours and enact repeated rotations. My point stands that if all the red-blooded drum-beaters still over here preaching about how right this is would enlist, that wouldn't be an issue and neither would lowering the standards.

 

[wildsage]

PsyOps: if you honestly misinterpreted what I wrote and weren't purposely being obtuse & combative, then I apologize for going off on you 2 posts up. I've cooled down and, although I think that I write clearly, I suppose there's a chance that my point just wasn't made plain to you. I hope that it is now.
I guess I get tired of being accused of hating the troops whenever I question the motives & machinations that put them in harm's way. I believe that dissent IS patriotic.

 

[PsyOps]

From your own source:
The Army's recruiting sucess was not without price. During Fiscal Year 2007, only 79 percent of the new recruits entering the Army possessed a high school diploma. The DOD standard is that at least 90 percent of new recruits should have a high school diploma. The other services met or exceeded the 90 percent goal. The Army also approved more criminal history waivers than they have in years past. About 15 percent of new recruits required a criminal history waiver.
87 percent of those approved waivers were because of misdemeanor convictions, and the remainder for more serious offenses, including felonies.
When I went in, they wouldn't take you if you smoked pot; Arlo Guthrie tells the story of his "fitness" being questioned 'cause he was a litterbug. Now you have felons in the tents & trenches and that has caused problems for good people already in a ####ty situation. And recruitment is one thing; having been through boot camp, you know that there is a certain number who never make it to the front lines geared-up.
Besides the lowered standards and higher incentive bonuses, I suspect the worsening economy has something to do with them meeting goals for the first time in years.
And don't forget: to keep fully-manned up over there they have had to extend tours and enact repeated rotations. My point stands that if all the red-blooded drum-beaters still over here preaching about how right this is would enlist, that wouldn't be an issue and neither would lowering the standards.

I’ll grant you the point that the standards have been lowered. I’ll also grant you that many of these folks joined because they felt they had nowhere else to go. This hardly defines our military as a “trailer park” bunch. Besides, are you telling me this is a bad thing considering these “criminals” made a bad choice in their lives? Join and serve your country or remain a criminal. If this gets criminals off the streets, gets them trained, gets them employed and instills some discipline in their lives, I consider this to be a good thing. It’s unfortunate that we are at war, but they are adults and know this going in. I would much rather have a volunteer force that has obviously proven to be successful than to have a draft that will result in nothing more than disgruntled troops being forced to do what they don’t want to do, all for the sole purpose of appeasing a small sect of the population that believes their has to be some sort of fiscal equity in our military. And a draft will result in even more criminals being forced to serve than what we have now. Can you imagine the compounding problems of having more criminals in our military AND being forced to serve?

I’m thankful we have a volunteer force and that we don’t have to force the “red-blooded drum-beaters” that are against this war to serve in a war they are against. If I was still in I personally would not want to be running through the streets of Baghdad next to someone that is a dissenter. I’d just assume they be allowed to stay home, under the umbrella of the freedom that I am serving to protect.

 

[PsyOps]

PsyOps: if you honestly misinterpreted what I wrote and weren't purposely being obtuse & combative, then I apologize for going off on you 2 posts up. I've cooled down and, although I think that I write clearly, I suppose there's a chance that my point just wasn't made plain to you. I hope that it is now.
I guess I get tired of being accused of hating the troops whenever I question the motives & machinations that put them in harm's way. I believe that dissent IS patriotic.

I've never questioned your patriotism nor your dissent. Only the language you chose to use. You're angry at this war and those that are running it. I'm angry about it too. I certainly am not going to tell you what sort of language to use, but you can't expect to throw provocative terms out there and not expect to get a response.

 

[PsyOps]

OFP!! This is just another example of you not reading my words.

Uggg...

 

[wildsage]

I've never questioned your patriotism nor your dissent. Only the language you chose to use. You're angry at this war and those that are running it. I'm angry about it too. I certainly am not going to tell you what sort of language to use, but you can't expect to throw provocative terms out there and not expect to get a response.

In my book, just because someone lived in a trailer park does not make them trailer trash -- you're gonna have to purge yourself of that assumption/misconception.
Is that the "provocative term" that got you so hot? If someone lived in a trailer, but not in a trailer park, does that make them better?
By tagging someone from that background in a negative manner, you are disrespecting them -- and what if they are one of the troops? Got yourself in a conundrum.

 

[wildsage]

Besides, are you telling me this is a bad thing considering these “criminals” made a bad choice in their lives? Join and serve your country or remain a criminal. If this gets criminals off the streets, gets them trained, gets them employed and instills some discipline in their lives, I consider this to be a good thing.

I do also. I think there have been plenty of waivers for people with some mild criminal activity in their background; give 'em a chance to go straight. I suspect that the ones who cause the problems for the normal citizen-soldiers serving nowadays are the ones who were convicted of violent crimes, not the pot smokers or litterbugs.

It’s unfortunate that we are at war, but they are adults and know this going in.

Yeah, too bad the lack of fresh bodies ready to gear up meant that the volunteers (who are over there out of patriotism & duty) got screwed: stop-loss was enacted and tours were extended. Heck, the troops might have thought their tours would get shorter if they put stock in all the yellow magnet ribbons; sadly no, just lip-service, I'm afraid.

I would much rather have a volunteer force that has obviously proven to be successful than to have a draft that will result in nothing more than disgruntled troops being forced to do what they don’t want to do, all for the sole purpose of appeasing a small sect of the population that believes their has to be some sort of fiscal equity in our military. And a draft will result in even more criminals being forced to serve than what we have now. Can you imagine the compounding problems of having more criminals in our military AND being forced to serve?

Leave the fiscal out of it, I'm for risk equity. Pretty easy to beat the drum over here and parrot the dissent-stifling propaganda, in other words be a full-fledged cheerleader for the war, if you [not "you"] know that there is no way you could end up as one of the statistics 'cause there's no way your [not "your"] tender ass will end up in harm's way. I suggest that if all Americans felt some of the sacrifice, not just those serving and their families, there might be fewer people yakking about "How great it is to be bringing democracy to Iraq -- now WTF is up with $4 a gallon gas?"
If there were a draft, there would be a larger pool to choose from: everyone draft-age not just the ones who volunteer to sign up. A larger pool means the recruiting & induction people could be more selective and not have to lower the standards just to make their numbers. I suggest that would mean fewer criminals in the military.

I’m thankful we have a volunteer force and that we don’t have to force the “red-blooded drum-beaters” that are against this war to serve in a war they are against. If I was still in I personally would not want to be running through the streets of Baghdad next to someone that is a dissenter. I’d just assume they be allowed to stay home, under the umbrella of the freedom that I am serving to protect.

“red-blooded drum-beaters” refers to the ones who cheer on further warfare, encouraging other people to go join the fun and ultimately causing some of them (but not the rbdb) to end up as casualties.
Interesting that you would accept allowing active duty service people who were against the war to just come home. I'm sure there are a lot of them over there who wish they could take you up on that.

 

[PsyOps]

In my book, just because someone lived in a trailer park does not make them trailer trash -- you're gonna have to purge yourself of that assumption/misconception.
Is that the "provocative term" that got you so hot? If someone lived in a trailer, but not in a trailer park, does that make them better?
By tagging someone from that background in a negative manner, you are disrespecting them -- and what if they are one of the troops? Got yourself in a conundrum.

First of all you never saw the word trash from me. You are full of provocative language. But you insinuated that our military are nothing but a bunch of poor, desperate, bumpkins that have nowhere else to go. You know as well I do that’s what the “trailer park” term was meant to convey. This characterization is just blatantly wrong.