Reply
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 01:05 pm
Does this mean that Bush intends to put more troops in harms way in pursuit of his insane goals in Iraq? Does it mean that the Saudi Royal Family are controlling our Iraq policy? What will the new Secretary of Defence think of all of this? Will he remain strong and independent?
---BBB
Posted on Wed, Dec. 13, 2006
Army chief of staff wants to ease restrictions on using reserves
By Drew Brown
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker plans to tell the independent Commission on the National Guard and Reserves on Thursday that the Army needs to be able to mobilize the 345,000-member Army National Guard and 196,000-member Army Reserves more frequently and for longer periods than current restrictions allow, two senior Army officials said Wednesday.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly. They said Schoomaker hoped to gain the commission's support before he made a case for easing restrictions to incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who takes over next week.
Under current law, National Guard and Reserve forces can be called to active duty for up to two consecutive years under a partial mobilization, which is what President Bush declared after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The practice under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has been to mobilize part-time troops for no more than 24 cumulative months. National Guard and Reserve troops called for service in Iraq usually spend about six months training, then a year in Iraq, leaving them only six months of eligibility to serve in other active-duty roles.
Officials also have promised to call up part-time units no more than once every five years, which they said cuts the Army short of much-needed manpower. It also would make it much more difficult for the Bush administration to send as many as 40,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq, as officials are contemplating.
More than 1 million American servicemen and women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them National Guard and Reserve troops.
"We're at war," one of the Army officials said. "This once-in-every-five-years rule ain't helping us."
The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, which Congress created last year, is supposed to deliver a report to federal lawmakers by March 1 on recommended changes for part-time military forces.
The commission is meeting in Washington this week to receive testimony over legislative proposals to elevate the chief of the National Guard Bureau to four-star rank, give that position a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and create separate budgets for training and equipment for the Reserves and National Guard.
The Pentagon opposes the proposals, both of which died in committee and failed to make it into the defense budget for fiscal 2007.
There are more than 450,000 part-time soldiers and airmen in the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, which are funded and equipped by the departments of the Army and the Air Force but usually remain under the control of state governors unless they're mobilized for wartime missions.
It doesn't matter what Bush wants, it'll be wrong to some. he could pull the troops out today (send them to the defunct Ft Polk) & he'd be called a coward. he sends moretroops, he's trying to kill more, he doesn't send more troops he doesn't care. Which is it?
Ft Polk is home of the 10th Mountain Division and the Joint Readiness Training Center - a hotbed of fast deploying Units, it has grown exponentially over the time of the Iraq war. To call it "defunct" only illustrates your boundless ignorance.
You want to talk about boundless ignorance?
I'll give you an example. You talked in length a few days ago, maybe a week, about what you do on Ft Polk, that you're in the middle of a PCS & that you were getting your cable etc hooked up because, you said "I'm spoiled like that" that you went to Ft Polk from Ft Sam Houston. then just tonight on the romney thread you say that it's dangerous to talk about where you work & the location, what a crock! Also if it's so dangerous talking about your location & what you do, then how is it that you post a photo of yourself, (if that;s you) & how is it that it wasn't dangerous a week ago but is now? Another clue for you here, mr nco man, we have reporters embedded with our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan & they report where they are. You certainly aren't trying to say that Ft Polk is more dangerous than Iraq or Afghanistan, are you? You are so full of pi$$ that there's a rainbow around your head!
I will tell you something that you obviously don't know, back in the brown shoe days & a little later, one could not discuss where they were stationed or posted, now they can unless it's top secret & believe me, pharmacists assts do not have top secret clearance & certainly not at Ft Polk.
Another bit of info
http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/local/
My grandson trained with the 10th Mountain Div at Fort Drum, he is now in Afghanistan. So you have been busted snood.
This is also Ft Polk
http://www.jrtc-polk.army.mil/
LoneStarMadam wrote:You want to talk about boundless ignorance?
I'll give you an example. You talked in length a few days ago, maybe a week, about what you do on Ft Polk, that you're in the middle of a PCS & that you were getting your cable etc hooked up because, you said "I'm spoiled like that" that you went to Ft Polk from Ft Sam Houston. then just tonight on the romney thread you say that it's dangerous to talk about where you work & the location, what a crock! Also if it's so dangerous talking about your location & what you do, then how is it that you post a photo of yourself, (if that;s you) & how is it that it wasn't dangerous a week ago but is now? Another clue for you here, mr nco man, we have reporters embedded with our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan & they report where they are. You certainly aren't trying to say that Ft Polk is more dangerous than Iraq or Afghanistan, are you? You are so full of pi$$ that there's a rainbow around your head!
I will tell you something that you obviously don't know, back in the brown shoe days & a little later, one could not discuss where they were stationed or posted, now they can unless it's top secret & believe me, pharmacists assts do not have top secret clearance & certainly not at Ft Polk.
You ignorant cow, all I meant was that its dangerous for
anyone to tell who they really are and where they really work, mostly because of numbnut crazies like you.
I had 30 days of leave and 10 of PTDY (permissive tdy - for house hunting). I left on 29 November and signed in on 10 December.
But if my biggest worry on A2K is some wretched beeyotch who is trying to make a case that I'm not who I say I am - then I have it pretty good.
You, on the other hand, have to be you.
So what is your real name LSM? and where do you work? Please tell us all since it is completely safe for you to do so.
parados wrote:So what is your real name LSM? and where do you work? Please tell us all since it is completely safe for you to do so.
It wasn't me that told where I work without anyone asking, then the next week claim that it was dangerous to do so.
Back to the topic.
Donald Rumsfeld in an interview with Brit Hume said that more troops were not needed in Iraq. Not his call anymore, is it.
LoneStarMadam wrote: So you have been busted snood.
What kind of nonsense is this, madam?
BBB
How many times does Madam have to be reminded that my thread topics are not about her? She appears to be compulsively driven to divert every thread into a dispute about her. To satisfy Madam's ego needs, I urge her to start her own thread about herself. Then all that are interesting in discussing Madam's charms can gather there.
Back to the topic of my thread, please.
BBB
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:How many times does Madam have to be reminded that my thread topics are not about her? She appears to be compulsively driven to divert every thread into a dispute about her. To satisfy Madam's ego needs, I urge her to start her own thread about herself. Then all that are interesting in discussing Madam's charms can gather there.
Back to the topic of my thread, please.
BBB
Maybe you should tell that to the poster that took it off topic, mmm. Also, check who took it back to topic. Do you read your own thread?
snood wrote:Ft Polk is home of the 10th Mountain Division and the Joint Readiness Training Center - a hotbed of fast deploying Units, it has grown exponentially over the time of the Iraq war. To call it "defunct" only illustrates your boundless ignorance.
Bumbleebeeboogie This was the first off topic post, do you see my name there?
wandeljw wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote: So you have been busted snood.
What kind of nonsense is this, madam?
If you think it's nosense, then no amount of explaing would ever get you to understand.
BTW-Bumblebeeboogie doesn't like the thread to go off topic. i suggest you stay on it or reap BBBs wrath.
How many times do i need to ask BBB to read his/her thread & admit that he/she was wrong?
Quote:It doesn't matter what Bush wants, it'll be wrong to some. he could pull the troops out today (send them to the defunct Ft Polk) & he'd be called a coward. he sends moretroops, he's trying to kill more, he doesn't send more troops he doesn't care. Which is it?
She probably won't admit it, but this reference to Ft Polk was a secondhand reference to me, since she just recently found that I went there. (Let's see her try to act like this was a total coincidence) Thus, my supposedly "first offtopic remark" was in reply to a reference
involving me, made by our resident festering sore.
But in any case - I'd be more than happy to talk about Bush's latest foray into deadly denial, and not the diseased lump.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace