Bush's War

suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2563762
Why do we have a military? Why not just heavily arm our police forces and Border Patrol and bunker down...
Hey, what a stellar idea! Put the money we are now spending on a rash war on border security, checking ships at ports, looking for incoming nuke waste, maybe some intel that the next POTUS would listen to....
 
crashbandicoot

crashbandicoot

Active Member
Originally Posted by Crashbandicoot
http:///forum/post/2540092
Just an iteresting note . I was just reading in the paper and it said that the bonuses the army reserve paid out in 2007 came out to 314.7 million dollars . 2006 recrute and reenlistment bonuses were only 216 million dollars . The army meet its goal of enlistments in the 2007 year but missed by 5% the year before . The army reserves recruited 229 more soliders than its goal of 35,505. The navy air force and maines had goals ranging from 6,800 to 10,600.For the soliders wanting out so bad and the war being frowned upon it seams as though they are signing up in numbers to stay and to go in .

This was taken from the usa today a week or so ago . So explain to me how the its only the "private "sector thats in it for the money . Also how the number of military is dwindelling ?
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2563779
Clinton lowered their numbers, not the current Admin...
The Congress does set statutory end strength. Since you all were so quick to point out that the good years of the Clinton presidentcy and budget surplus were a result in the second term from the republican congress, what happened?
Though the volunteer ranks may go up as they have in the past during harder economic times...
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2563810
Hey, what a stellar idea! Put the money we are now spending on a rash war on border security, checking ships at ports, looking for incoming nuke waste, maybe some intel that the next POTUS would listen to....
This "stellar" idea as you call it got us into two World Wars.
Wars are never won being defensive. Never, in the history of civilization, has a Nation won a War by bunkering down and allowing their enemies to attack their borders.
It could be argued President Clinton did exactly what you propose. That didn't work. Also, because your Party is consistently worried about violating the civil rights of our potential enemies overseas, our Intel Agencies were hamstrung with obsurd "rules" and procedures.
 
darknes

darknes

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2563810
Hey, what a stellar idea! Put the money we are now spending on a rash war on border security, checking ships at ports, looking for incoming nuke waste, maybe some intel that the next POTUS would listen to....
Hey, this is a great idea! Look how isolationism worked for us in the late 30's!
So what happens if we ignore what's happening in the rest of the world, spend all our money on defenses at home, and terrorists manage to get a hold of a nuke. Our border security isn't going to do much good against a nuke flying towards one of our cities! I think the losses from that would be much greater than spending 50 years overseas battling the terrorists.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Hey, it was Journeys idea! I was just playing it up!
So, carry on being the world police and nation builders!
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2563837
Also, because your Party is consistently worried about violating the civil rights of our potential enemies overseas, our Intel Agencies were hamstrung with obsurd "rules" and procedures.
Silly democrats. Trying to cancel the Patriot Act! Making us have silly "rules"! How obsurd!
Not really, it's going down! I think we should change the name first, though. Make it the WeSpyonUs Act. Call it like it is. Just because the Cons called it a "Patriot" act, we all know how unpatriotic it really is.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2563835
The Congress does set statutory end strength. Since you all were so quick to point out that the good years of the Clinton presidentcy and budget surplus were a result in the second term from the republican congress, what happened?
Though the volunteer ranks may go up as they have in the past during harder economic times...
Lowering standards helps, too. Kids that can't finish high school can now go into the Army. Maybe get some money for college....if they make it home.
BTW, does anyone know what happens to a guys GI bill if he can't use it? The money that he puts into it while he is serving, plus the matching funds?
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2563870
Lowering standards helps, too. Kids that can't finish high school can now go into the Army. Maybe get some money for college....if they make it home.
BTW, does anyone know what happens to a guys GI bill if he can't use it? The money that he puts into it while he is serving, plus the matching funds?
It expires after 10 years, a child (dependant) may use part of it if a service member can't, I believe. Not sure about the money that a soldier puts in..
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2563865
Silly democrats. Trying to cancel the Patriot Act! Making us have silly "rules"! How obsurd!
Not really, it's going down! I think we should change the name first, though. Make it the WeSpyonUs Act. Call it like it is. Just because the Cons called it a "Patriot" act, we all know how unpatriotic it really is.
Ya, because the FISA bill targeted US citizens... hmm, except it didn't.
Let's get back to what Roosevelt did to over 100,000 Americans during WW2. Was it ok for a Democratic President to imprison all of those US citizens yet its not ok to listen in to foreign nationals with wiretapping today?
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2563746

[hr]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudedog
Face the facts. Whether we stay or go, nothing will change. I keep telling you that, you just refuse to listen. ....

[hr]
As soon as you start posting facts I'll listen. So far all I see is a lot of negative dribble and pessimistic arguments about how we can never win.
As soon as you start posting facts I'll listen. So far all I see is a lot of negative dribble and pessimistic arguments about how we can never win.
The drivel is "The winning the war on terrorism in Iraq" I would like know what exactly constitutes winning. I have said it before, if it is killing all terrorist, that will never happen. We can never kill all and there are plenty of crazies that will replace them. So I would like to quantify what winning constitutes.... Bankrupting the country isn't winning.
It' nice to see the media to catch on now and congress during the hearings this week. "Get a plan to pull out or take the oil"
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2563990
The drivel is "The winning the war on terrorism in Iraq" I would like know what exactly constitutes winning. I have said it before, if it is killing all terrorist, that will never happen. We can never kill all and there are plenty of crazies that will replace them. So I would like to quantify what winning constitutes.... Bankrupting the country isn't winning.
It' nice to see the media to catch on now and congress during the hearings this week. "Get a plan to pull out or take the oil"
The hearings this week revealed Iraq has met 12 of 18 benchmarks.
I love the Libs now calling for us to take oil. Wasn't the original argument that we were there only to take their oil?
Winning is a simple concept. Kill more of them then they are killing of us until one sides runs away.
You are trying to say there will always be more, yet Al Qaeda themselves have said they are having trouble recruiting.... Gonna have to believe they know better than you.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2564027
Al Qaeda themselves have said they are having trouble recruiting.... Gonna have to believe they know better than you.
They
That's vague and ambiguous?
Show me who interviewed Al Qaeda or are you taking some else's interpretation as facts?
What is Ironic - fiscal conservatives are now for bankrupting the country
"Winning is a simple concept. Kill more of them then they are killing of us until one sides runs away." That is simple, when will they run away and to where will they run? Before we spend how much per Al Qaeda person we kill.
"The hearings this week revealed Iraq has met 12 of 18 benchmarks." fragile and reversable? When won't the cival war be reversible or fragile
. If Bush said he was going to bankrupt the conutry doing this and it could be going on for 100 years, no one would have let him. People are blind though...
Figure don't lie, but liars can figure. Mark Twain
 
suzy

suzy

Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2564027
Winning is a simple concept. Kill more of them then they are killing of us until one sides runs away.
.
wow. That could be a great signature line for you. How many of us will be killed so we can win? Because winning is all that matters, right?
This must be the most immature comment I've ever seen on a political sounding board. You sound like a teenager talking about the high school football team. What a flippant remark from someone who tries to act like he cares about human life.
So, will your job let you kill people?
*************** Foul language will not be tolerated. 1Journeyman
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2564134
Asked for and answered: "Al-Qaeda leaders admit: 'We are in crisis. There is panic and fear'"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3346386.ece

"Assuming the two documents are authentic — and the US military insists that they are"
"US intelligence officials cautioned, however, that the documents were snapshots of two small areas and that al-Qaeda was far from a spent force."
Which is it wishy or washy
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2564123
wow. That could be a great signature line for you. How many of us will be killed so we can win? Because winning is all that matters, right?
Exactly. We are at war! That's what war is. We didn't start the war with Al Qaeda, but we must keep killing them until we win.
Originally Posted by Suzy
This must be the most immature comment I've ever seen on a political sounding board. You sound like a teenager talking about the high school football team. What a flippant remark from someone who tries to act like he cares about human life.
It's the reality of war.
It took Al Qaeda less than 2 hours to kill 3,000 people on 9-11. Have you forgotten that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top