More troops

More troops and the draft

  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
saved from the likes of me? a hard workin American thats joinin the Marines to fight for the country that YOU dont agree with? well damn. just wait till the democraps are in office. im glad ill be in Iraq when that happens. yall just want to wait till the fight is brought to America's doorstep? well i hope some of yall crats grow a pair if that happens, and help fight instead of layin back like Gore and Kerry wouldve done.
 
Me again.

First of all, our "entitlements." Yes, we are entitled to our Social Security retirement because we (and our employees) pay a specific tax for that purpose. No retirement? Fine. Drop the social security tax. I'm not planning to retire anyway. Anything to stay out of the house.

To the last poster, be glad you are joining the Marines. They only do a six month tour in Iraq. The army does a year. By the way, which state do you think Iraq will invade first? Also, forget politics. The worse possible background for a politician these days is to actually have served in the armed forces in a war zone like McCain and Kerry, unless perhaps you were a general.

If you don't like the draft, what do you do when you get a summons for jury duty?
 
The goal was that if Iraq became a democracy, it would start democratic ferment in the Middle East.

It is clear that the Iraqi culture will not support democracy.

Since there were no WMD and no link to 9/11 (except in the mind of the delusonal), are the wounded and dead and the amount of money worth it?

Can the goal of peace and democracy be achieved in Iraq by any conceivable length stay with this number of troops?

Perhaps, if we leave, the Iraqi will restart their model airplane program to spray germs on the East Coast (as that poor schmuck Colin Powell was convinced to babble about). Perhaps, the death of Marines will stop that. Perhaps, yeah - right!

By the way - Kerry and Gore were in VietNam - the fearless leader GWB joined the Guard to avoid VietNam. Have the twins enlist, George and be on the list of dead and injured women we see. NO, they go to Argentina to party.
 
I am very proud of the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan; who have largely fought this war silently and without the carping and complaining the Dems and Liberals have exemplified here at home... their spirits are good and recruitment closely matches demand so there must be a support for what we are doing among the boots on the ground...

That said, what cannot be denied is that such a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is preventing terrorism here in the homeland; I doubt Al Qaeda went on a five year sabattical since 09/11/01 so the current administration knows what it is doing in preventing terrorism here at home: I give them high marks for that...

More soldiers in Iraq? By all means... We are still in South Korea so perhaps five years isn't long enough in Iraq... after ten years we can review the mission and see if changes are necessary...
 
Hey Blue Train I used the term "Entitlements" as I see it as an American term. Up here we call is SOcial Services. In most democracies the federal budgets contain three rather large components Education, Health and Welfare. Without drastic cuts in government spending or massive tax increases our Fedreal deficit could never have been moved to surplus. Unless somebody has a magic wand I doubt the solution to the US defict can be found by any other method though reducing military spending is probably the most politicaly astute move for politicians.

No point in rushing across the 49th to avoid military duty, we are sending the boys back this time around given our involvment in Afghanistan. Our friends to the South were attacked by elements based there and it is there we are doing our bit to help a friend out.

Two remarkable views that I see are how Bush comes across as some patriotic savior when he avoided his responsibilities in Vietnam and Dick, his V.P., stated "he was to busy at the time". Now there are a pair of winners.

Oh well Homeland Security is now flying drones along the 49th to keep th hoards from Canada out mean while along the Rio Grand...

Take Care & God Bless

Bob
 
Camp David,

You are very much mistaken about a good many things. Moral in the military sucks..you don't see it because it's not reported on in the news. And few soldiers are willing to publicly voice their displeasure with the commander in chief and the conflict in Iraq for fear of reprisal.

And reenlistment rates? It's amazing what money will do. A tax free lump some payment of $15,000 is an effective inducement to stay in the military despite a person's misgivings about the Iraq conflict or the competence of the commander in chief.

People will do many things they don't wish to if the alternative means not being able to support their families.

You say a lot which shows your ignorance. I LIVE it every day. I hear it in the words of my soldiers. I'll assume you honestly didn't know better..but you do now.
 
You say a lot which shows your ignorance. I LIVE it every day. I hear it in the words of my soldiers. I'll assume you honestly didn't know better..but you do now.
Click to expand...

10.4 sir I have some knowledge of our military and have served in prior
conflicts. I find that cheerleaders of war very seldom serve, just my
opinion.
 
Wingman, thank you for your service. "Sir" is not an appropriate title for me. I am an NCO..perhaps that gives me a better grasp on the true feelings of the soldiers around me...the hide their feelings less around us than they do around the officers.

It's easy to be a cheerleader when you aren't risking your life for the cause and when you don't have to worry about your friend or family being sacrificed on that particular alter..
 
Whether or not we are entitled to the entitlements that we paid a tax in order to have later on really has nothing to do with Iraq, I guess. As far as the federal deficit is concerned, higher taxes have to be the solution since lower taxes didn't work. I am perfectly willing at this point for the federal government reduces spending--but you can't touch social security as long as there is a social security tax. We could talk about Medicare, which is something relatively new.

I have a son in the service but I cannot report first hand or even second hand about morale (or morals) in the armed forces, referring here mainly to the army.

Whatever we do, it ought to be in OUR best interest. Even so, sometimes we are forced to do things for which there cannot be a good outcome, things for which we are doomed to failure yet honor-bound to attempt. Is this one of those things? Does honor matter any more?
 
Danzig said:
You say a lot which shows your ignorance
Click to expand...

Sorry... but respectfully you've got some nerve ... my prior post began, "I am very proud of the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan..." If that is in any way "ignorant" then I guess you need remedial reading skills... Sorry if I didn't bash Bush hard enough to please your liberal inclinations....

I am pleased and proud of our soldiers and the progress of the war... if that somehow is upsetting to you then perhaps your uniform is the wrong color.
 
So proud of us soldiers...and so supportive of sending more of them to Iraq. We don't need your kind of support. Don't be so eager to send us into harm's way..instead...raise you hand and volunteer to do the job you are so supportive of.

Liberal? Me? Hell no. Recognition of Bush as a tyrant and warmonger doesn't make one a "liberal", it simply means that they aren't so blinded that they refuse to see Bush for what he is. I am not, unlike some, a supporter of the government..simply because it's the government. The government is an institution of men and as such..imperfect. When it becomes an enemy of freedom then it is no longer worthy of our support..and it is our OBLIGATION to alter..or abolish it. "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety...deserve neither." - Thomas Jefferson. Bush and his supporters are only too willing to sacrifice not only our lives..but our freedom...for some illusion of safety...therefore they are worthy of only my contempt.

OH...and Army Green suits me just fine.
 
Kerry was forced to go to war. he signed up to watch the coast and was sent to Vietnam. he didnt want to get involved in the war. thats worse than not servin at all.
 
Dixie,

I respectfully submit..that taking and oath to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic", is not the same as agreeing to support the whims of the President of the United States, Congress, or any other entity. The only legitimate use of the military is the protection of the life and liberty of citizens of the United States from those who are a direct threat to those. Saddam was not such a threat. We are engaged in a conflict of questionable legality (only Congress can declare war..and they never did) which has nothing to do with the oath that any of us took as servicemembers.
 
That said, what cannot be denied is that such a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is preventing terrorism here in the homeland; I doubt Al Qaeda went on a five year sabattical since 09/11/01 so the current administration knows what it is doing in preventing terrorism here at home: I give them high marks for that...
Click to expand...

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I would agree that dismantling the Taliban in Afghanistan helped to reduce the immediate danger from terrorist attacks originating in that nation. Iraq though of course had nothing to do with 9/11 and the terrorist attacks we railed about.

How does putting thousands of US troops in a hostile land with big "shoot me" signs on them prevent terrorism at home. THere is no international travel law that says all terrorists must pass through Iraq prior to going to America. The ones in Iraq are there because WE are there and can be EASILY REACHED there. Make no mistake, they would far prefer to blow up a building in NY or DC rather than set off IEDs in Iraq but it is simply easier for them to go to Iraq. If we weren't in Iraq it in no way means there woudl be more attacks in the USA. Your run of the mill terrorist just doesn't have the resources to go to the USA and fight his war here, but he can certainly get to Iraq.

I am certain the troops are doing the best they can. Of course stories like those today where the unit of Nationl Guardsmen from NJ over there who were to return home on March 1st just learned of their 125 day extension from THEIR WIVES and not the army certainly doesn't help. Recruitments are down, that is a fact, and there is a HUGE PUSH for National Gurad recruitment. They are great ads, talking about humanitarian missions and enviormental misssions with no mention of being sent to Iraq... real truth in advertising.

It is very interesting to see that this poll has 33% saying "Leave Now" and I think it is safe to say the vast majority of people on this site are very conservative. When 1/3 of the real conservatives don't support the Repubilican Administration's view of the war I think it safe to say the majority of this nation is dissatisfied.
 
i dont disagree with that. he wasnt a "direct" threat to anything except maybe our oil supply from the mid-east. but i do think its a good thing, for the people over there, that we went in and got him. what we're doin over there now, i support it. i support our military and its men in whatever they do. i will soon be a part of it and i know i would like all the support from the people that i can get. regardless, i will be over there in a few months and i refuse to think that it will be for no good cause.
 
Let me get this straight: if someone was sent to Vietnam who didn't want to go, that was worse than not going at all?

Pardon me, and this no disrespect to the "greatest generation," but my generation may or may have not wanted to go but they went anyway--at least the ones that got sent.
 
Danzig said:
I respectfully submit..that taking and oath to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic", is not the same as agreeing to support the whims of the President of the United States, Congress, or any other entity.
Click to expand...

That is why there are officiers in the military; to keep NCOs and enlisted in their place and to assure the civilian leader of the military that "Yes sir" is the proper course of action in any situation.

Danzig said:
The only legitimate use of the military is the protection of the life and liberty of citizens of the United States from those who are a direct threat to those.
Click to expand...

This type of thinking is called isolationism and it has real applications and utility from a civilian's perspective; none at all from a military perspective since as a volunteer in today' Armed Forces you don't have the option to question orders, at least that's how it was when I served.

Danzig said:
Saddam was not such a threat.
Click to expand...

Well neither was Al Qaeda immediately before 3,000 American civilians died! Point here is... do you wait with an identified thread until that threat materializes or eliminate a threat before it acts? Clinton didn't act on Al Qaeda and it acted; hence 09.11.01... Bush acted upon Saddam before his threats with WMD could be carried out... Monday Morning Quarterbacking in any event...

Danzig said:
We are engaged in a conflict of questionable legality (only Congress can declare war..and they never did)
Click to expand...

That's a quote paraphrased from Cindy Sheehan...almost word for word...
 
Blue Train

"Whatever we do, it ought to be in OUR best interest. Even so, sometimes we are forced to do things for which there cannot be a good outcome, things for which we are doomed to failure yet honor-bound to attempt. Is this one of those things? Does honor matter any more?"

This is true with every country as it should be. As far as sometimes doing the right thing with a bad outcome etc. I agree no matter the result in Afghanistan the right thing was done and it was indeed an question of honour and it shuold mean more. As to Iraq, well from my view aside from an ill fated attack in 1812 I know of no other instance where the US unilateraly attacked a country without having been attacked by that country. To me that is where Bush & Co stepped over the line.

As to those who say better there than here. I would suggest there is little reason to attack over here when the terrorists can kill you "over there". Seems to me the end result is pretty much the same. My sincere hope is the diplomats get involved at some point, someone declares victory and the young men come home. As to Afghanistan reconstruction is taking place and there maybe hope that some stability can be brought to a people who truly deserve a chance at a better life. None of this is going to end anytime soon I am afraid and Iraq in the end may end up being a much more major problem for the west then it was.

Take Care

Bob
 
I'm not a fan of Cindy Sheehan...I'm not a fan of many people..but that doesn't mean that they are wrong all the time. In this case..if she said something similar..she was right.

And...do you deny the legitimacy of the statement simply because of it's source? If so..then you are too closed minded.

Simply because I am enlisted in the military..doesn't mean that I have to blindly support the government as if it were omnipotent. The government is not god and I am not a blind subject. Those who subscribe to the "my government right or wrong" are loathsome..as they have elevated government to the level of deity.

I am not a member of the cult of the omnipotent state!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top