THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ok spit it out

What is the purpose of the American presence in Iraq?

icann711nm wrote:

The primary argument is over whether or not it is in the USA's security interest to abandon Iraq now and not continue to find a way to secure Iraq from the horrors perpetrated by its terrorist jihad nut cases.

Wrong again! the primary argument now is to get our troops home in an orderly manner. This is what the majority of Americans want, and not getting from Bush.

What the American people want now is secondary to what is in their best interest to want now.

There's a small hint that Petraeus may tell the truth

c.i. wrote :

Quote:

There's a small hint that Petraeus may tell the truth

...and join general pace and others in retirement ?
i imagine he'd qualify for a decent pension and wouldn't need to worry about being killed or maimed like many of his soldiers .
hbg

Steve 41oo wrote:

ok spit it out

What is the purpose of the American presence in Iraq?

Let me see if I can guess McG's answer:

"Boilerplate answer about fighting terrorism"

"Derisive comment about your patriotism"

"Sneering attitude towards your wussiness, even though I'm too much of a pussy to go fight myself."

Cycloptichorn

Religion, Hitchens writes, is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."

ican, Do you have any understanding of how a soldier feels being kept on active duty against their will - and beyond their "contract?" Probalby not; there's no cure for stupid.

Is that why enlistment is down, and they're trying to bribe new recuirts with $20,000 signup bonus?

Many in the national reserves didn't expect to be put into active duty assignments into Iraq for 2-3-4 tours of duty.

Quote:

What the American people want now is secondary to what is in their best interest to want now.

Funny how on one hand, Republicans decry the 'Nanny government' for telling people what's in their best interests; on the other, they feel the people need to be told what's in their best interests.

The American people don't need you, or any other proponent of the failed war, to tell them what is in their best interests to want.

Cycloptichorn

cicerone imposter wrote:

Is that why enlistment is down, and they're trying to bribe new recuirts with $20,000 signup bonus?

Many in the national reserves didn't expect to be put into active duty assignments into Iraq for 2-3-4 tours of duty.

I dont know why enlistment is down,I'm no longer in the military.

As for the NG,they are also subject to federal activation at any time,thus eligible to be sent overseas "as the needs of the service dictate".


You can try and whine about it all you want,but EVERY person in the military today,active duty,reserve, or NG all know that when they enlist.

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Is that why enlistment is down, and they're trying to bribe new recuirts with $20,000 signup bonus?

Many in the national reserves didn't expect to be put into active duty assignments into Iraq for 2-3-4 tours of duty.

I dont know why enlistment is down,I'm no longer in the military.

As for the NG,they are also subject to federal activation at any time,thus eligible to be sent overseas "as the needs of the service dictate".


You can try and whine about it all you want,but EVERY person in the military today,active duty,reserve, or NG all know that when they enlist.

Did they also know that the military does not have to keep its end of the deal; that it can break their contract and make them stay beyond their release date?

xingu wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Is that why enlistment is down, and they're trying to bribe new recuirts with $20,000 signup bonus?

Many in the national reserves didn't expect to be put into active duty assignments into Iraq for 2-3-4 tours of duty.

I dont know why enlistment is down,I'm no longer in the military.

As for the NG,they are also subject to federal activation at any time,thus eligible to be sent overseas "as the needs of the service dictate".


You can try and whine about it all you want,but EVERY person in the military today,active duty,reserve, or NG all know that when they enlist.

Did they also know that the military does not have to keep its end of the deal; that it can break their contract and make them stay beyond their release date?

Yes they did.
EVERY person that joins the military is told that they can be kept in longer then they enlisted for.
THey are told that BEFORE they sign the contract,so they can back out if they wish.

xingu wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Is that why enlistment is down, and they're trying to bribe new recuirts with $20,000 signup bonus?

Many in the national reserves didn't expect to be put into active duty assignments into Iraq for 2-3-4 tours of duty.

I dont know why enlistment is down,I'm no longer in the military.

As for the NG,they are also subject to federal activation at any time,thus eligible to be sent overseas "as the needs of the service dictate".


You can try and whine about it all you want,but EVERY person in the military today,active duty,reserve, or NG all know that when they enlist.

Did they also know that the military does not have to keep its end of the deal; that it can break their contract and make them stay beyond their release date?

Yes they did.
EVERY person that joins the military is told that they can be kept in longer then they enlisted for.
THey are told that BEFORE they sign the contract,so they can back out if they wish.

Guest columnist
High-school students and soldiers deserve more

By Jim McDermott
Special to The Times

The Seattle Times' editorial "Don't ban recruiters from high school" (April 15) does a disservice to every high-school junior and senior, as well as every soldier who would like some say over his or her destiny. That should have been painfully obvious following The Times' own coverage of Emiliano Santiago, a soldier who has served his country with distinction, but now faces a sentence to serve because the military cannot recruit enough soldiers.



A provision buried in the No Child Left Behind law forces high schools to turn over student contact information to military recruiters. Any school that balks can lose all of its federal money. The Seattle Times casually tells its readers that a student can sign a form to opt out. The reality is that young people have lost their right to privacy and The Times is stone-cold silent on restoring this fundamental right in a free society.

I served my country as an officer in the United States Navy, and I believe that every American has a responsibility to give back to our country. For some, a career in the military is the right choice. But a decision to even consider a military career belongs solely with the individual, and that's not what we have today. That's why I joined with the punk band Anti-Flag to launch a nationwide drive to alert students on how to opt out and demand that Congress restore student privacy. (More information can be found at www.militaryfreezone.org)

Meanwhile, don't blame the recruiters. These people were selected because they are role models, the best of the best to represent the military. Now, they suffer under a quota system, and recruiters are under increasing pressure to find soldiers. Army National Guard recruitment plunged 31 percent in February and fell another 12 percent in March.

Young people are the hope and future of this great nation. We owe them more than to casually compromise their basic right to privacy. According to The Seattle Times, students have the right to die in Iraq, but they don't have the right to privacy. With misguided opinion like this, is it any wonder that young people don't trust adults?

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, represents the 7th Congressional District in Washington.