Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2007, 11:27 AM
 
Location: USA
308 posts, read 711,716 times
Reputation: 77

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye48 View Post
I read just the other day the army is now using air force and navy guys in nontraditional roles to fill in the gaps. This seems to be working very well. The services simply put the air force or navy guy through a six or eight week training course and then stick him into an already functioning army unit in the field.

This along with stop gap and extending the tours to 15 months has helped overall. We still have to many service men and women returning for repeated tours of duty however.


I agree. You make some very good points, but I would prefer this to a Draft.

And I would still prefer an all-Volunteer Military where Americans make a conscious decision to sign up after 9/11 and during 2 ongoing wars.


Just like Casey Sheehan re-Enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2004 knowing his Unit was going to Iraq.

I would prefer men like Casey Sheehan anyday over a Draft.




It seems that some on the Left would prefer a Draft when they so enthusiastically report on findings that they feel reflects negatively on the U.S. Army.

Interesting?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2007, 11:35 AM
 
2,433 posts, read 6,677,994 times
Reputation: 1065
Quote:
Originally Posted by American_Libertarian View Post
It seems that some on the Left would prefer a Draft when they so enthusiastically report on findings that they feel reflects negatively on the U.S. Army.

Interesting?
I think many on the left that are advocating the draft don't really want one. They for the most part don't want us in Iraq, and they are trying to establish a divide for political gain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2007, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Arizona
5,407 posts, read 7,794,780 times
Reputation: 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye48 View Post
I think many on the left that are advocating the draft don't really want one. They for the most part don't want us in Iraq, and they are trying to establish a divide for political gain.

Ya think? You are right about the not wanting to be in Iraq part...newsflash - that is most of America that feels that way...but personally I want to see the Republicans in congress go ahead and vote on a draft to send their own, if this war is so darn vital to us. As stated before, I think most just hate to see our military be broken down as it has been. We are not even able to handle a conventional war any more, it has been so long since our troops have had the opportunity to train for one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2007, 11:49 AM
 
Location: USA
308 posts, read 711,716 times
Reputation: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
I would prefer that Bush stop ruining our army and putting our national security at risk. Of course the army is not doing fine. With no time for standdown, training, maintenance of equipment, with tour extensions going now to 15 months and perhaps longer, mental health issues growing for the veterans coming back - how do you suggest the army is doing fine. Pass me your doobie, sir.

http://merln.ndu.edu/merln/mipal/rep...nd_at_Risk.pdf


The U.S. Army has had record re-Enlistment levels, for the past 3 years, and during 2 ongoing wars.



This article also chose to ignore the RECORD RE-ENLISTMENT levels of the U.S. Army 2 ongoing wars.
USATODAY.com - Soldiers re-enlist beyond U.S. goal


The Army had a record RE-ENLISTMENT level at 108%. And the article also ignored that more than 183,000 soldiers RE-ENLISTED in the Army, National Guard, and Army Reserves to continue serving their country, while we are fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2005 to 2006!
http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/ (broken link)


The article also chose to ignore the fact that the military has had record RE-ENLISTMENT levels.

The article also chose to ignore Army Divisions that had fought for 12 months in Iraq had met every RE-ENLISTMENT goal.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5508-9161r.htm


This is significant, because the men and women who are serving in the U.S. Army are SIGNING BACK UP! It's easy to find a minority of negative stories to focus on by the Left.

The men and women in the U.S. Army are re-enlisting during 2 ongoing wars, because they understand the sacrifice and are WILLING to do the job.


The article also chose to ignore the high number of recruits VOLUNTEERING to stay in Iraq by volunteering for year long extentions for the second and third time!
Third Army/ARCENT/CFLCC - News Story (broken link)




Last year the men and women serving in the U.S Army re-Enlisted at record levels and exceeded re-enilistment goals by 15%!

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal.

The Army was 15% ahead of its re-enlistment goal of 34,668 for the first six months of fiscal year 2006, which ended March 31. More than 39,900 soldiers had re-enlisted, according to figures scheduled to be released today by the Army.



The men and women serving in the U.S. Army are willing to make the sacrifice.


Re-enlistment Goal Achieved One Month Early


Quote:
Active Army Achieves Re-enlistment Goal One Month Early
Sep 10, 2006
The Active Army made its fiscal year 2006 retention goal with one month left in the year when the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army re-enlisted a Fort Campbell, Ky., Soldier today.

Staff Sgt. Michael Obleton, a truck driver assigned to the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), became the 64,200th active Army reenlistment this fiscal year as Gen. Richard Cody hosted the ceremony.

"What a commitment," Cody said at the Fort Campbell ceremony. In 2006, "our Army has been at war longer than we fought in World War II. Soldiers still re-enlist knowing full well the dangers, knowing full well the sacrifice, and families knowing the sacrifice. I'm here because guys like [Obleton] motivate me. He should motivate you, too."

Obleton a veteran of Kosovo, Bosnia and two tours in Iraq will be attending Career Counselor School later this year.

Overall, the 101st Airborne Division, which is in the midst of redeploying from Iraq, has exceeded its retention mission of approximately 3000 by more than 50 percent.
Army.com - Re-enlistment Goal Achieved One Month Early (http://www.army.com/news/item/2458 - broken link)



I thought Liberals were "Pro-Choice"? Well, the men and women serving in the U.S. Army are RE-Enlisting in the Army at record levels during 2 ongoing wars.


They are the ones making the sacrifice not YOU. They understand what's at stake and are the ones fighting these wars and are choosing to re-enlist in the U.S. Army.



The U.S. Army has already had 26,833 soldiers RE-ENLIST for 2007, 106 percent of their goal, while they are fighting these 2 ongoing wars! The National Guard has also well over their re-enlistment goals.



Quote:
Retention was strong as of the end of February in all three components. In the active Army, 26,833 soldiers have re-enlisted since Oct. 1, 2006, representing 106 percent of the projected year-to-date number of 25,428. The fiscal 2007 goal for active Army retention is 62,200.

The National Guard and Reserve are also well above their goals for this time in the fiscal year.

The National Guard has re-upped 15,306 soldiers of its mission of 13,446, and the Reserve component is ahead of its goal of 7,397 with 8,308 reenlisted. The fiscal 2007 retention mission for the Reserve component is 16,571.



Yes the men and women serving in the U.S. Army are doing just fine and are choosing to RE-ENLIST in the Army during these difficult times of war.



I would prefer that the U.S. Army is "pro-choice" to join or re-enlist, rather than have a Draft wouldn't you???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2007, 11:54 AM
 
2,433 posts, read 6,677,994 times
Reputation: 1065
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post

...but personally I want to see the Republicans in congress go ahead and vote on a draft to send their own, if this war is so darn vital to us...
A draft bill would never pass, even if it did I don't think Bush would sign it into law though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2007, 11:56 AM
 
Location: USA
308 posts, read 711,716 times
Reputation: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye48 View Post
I think many on the left that are advocating the draft don't really want one. They for the most part don't want us in Iraq, and they are trying to establish a divide for political gain.


I agree.

Just like Charlie Rangel sponsoring a Bill to reinstate the Draft TWICE.
CNN.com - Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft - Jan. 8, 2003

Charlie Rangel to Introduce Draft Bill - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

After sponsoring and creating these Draft Bills Charlie Rangel voted against his own legislation both times!!!



Two Democrats actually voted for a Draft, John Murtha and Pete Stark, but Charlie Rangel voted against his own bill:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll494.xml
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2007, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Poulsbo, WA
467 posts, read 325,039 times
Reputation: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
Stop posting this news - the Army is doing just fine!! Really!! They will only push 15 month extensions out farther again "as a last resort", senior generals assure us. I'm going to stick my head back in the sand now.

HA HA HA! Well said, Bily4.

The really scary thing is that they are now pulling people from all branches into Iraq or Afganistan to do Army jobs. For instance, they ask active duty Navy guys if they want to "volunteer" to go and if your boat doesn't have a volunteer they pick one for you. They are starting with the supply officers (i don't have info about the enlisted) because their jobs are more trasnferable, but we've seen nuclear engineers (like my hubby) be sent to Baghdad to work in the Green Zone for a year. This is happening more with guys who have less than two years left on their commitment. Instead of going to a shore tour they just send them to war. Imagine that - submarine guys sent to do Army jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2007, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Arizona
5,407 posts, read 7,794,780 times
Reputation: 1198
[quote=American_Libertarian;947979]

They are the ones making the sacrifice not YOU. They understand what's at stake and are the ones fighting these wars and are choosing to re-enlist in the U.S. Army./QUOTE]

Easy Libbie, easy - you're hyperventilating. I would just like to state for the record I received awards for personal actions during Desert Storm. I am not trying to blow my own horn but I am trying to make the point- it is precisely because I was in the military and know what they are going through that I am opposed to sending them in harm's way with no strategy - being sitting ducks in a shooting gallery every day. I know some people still in the active military and am in corresposndence with them, so don't try to snow me. I have nothing but respect for my brothers in arms - Bravery is not a virtue that is owned by the Right.

You can believe whatever you want to believe -common sense dictates that after 5 years of non stop combat there is going to be a strain on the military. If you don't believe that you obvioously do not have much military experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2007, 12:39 PM
 
Location: USA
308 posts, read 711,716 times
Reputation: 77
[quote=bily4;948211]
Quote:
Originally Posted by American_Libertarian View Post

They are the ones making the sacrifice not YOU. They understand what's at stake and are the ones fighting these wars and are choosing to re-enlist in the U.S. Army./QUOTE]

Easy Libbie, easy - you're hyperventilating. I would just like to state for the record I received awards for personal actions during Desert Storm. I am not trying to blow my own horn but I am trying to make the point- it is precisely because I was in the military and know what they are going through that I am opposed to sending them in harm's way with no strategy - being sitting ducks in a shooting gallery every day. I know some people still in the active military and am in corresposndence with them, so don't try to snow me. I have nothing but respect for my brothers in arms - Bravery is not a virtue that is owned by the Right.

You can believe whatever you want to believe -common sense dictates that after 5 years of non stop combat there is going to be a strain on the military. If you don't believe that you obvioously do not have much military experience.


11-Bravo 1990 - 1998 I signed up during the build up to Desert Storm.



I do also. I agree their are negatives, but there are also many many positives being ignored by the media and the Left.


I respect your opinion brother.

I do get emotional when it comes the U.S. Army. I will be the first to admit that. It seems that many on the Left use the negative stories to slander U.S. Troops to get the idiot Bush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2007, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Arizona
5,407 posts, read 7,794,780 times
Reputation: 1198
Wow - that is fantastic - seriously. Funny how we can be arguing when we share a lot of the same background and opinions. I am honestly glad we had this exchange.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:05 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top