600 American Soldiers reenlisted to stay in Iraq and continue their mission in Iraq on Independence Day. (Afghanistan, Baghdad)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by James T

In a nation of almost 300 million, it shouldn't be too difficult to find 600 morons. Just look at how many O'Reilly and Limbaugh fans there are...

Morons? I think that's a bit harsh and unfair. I'm not a great believer that this invasion/occupation will have any long term benefit to the US but it shouldn't be too difficult to find 600 troops who have rescued an Iraqi child from a dangerous situation or something similar that makes them believe in their mission, there's no doubt some good things have been done. At the very least the troops are doing what they said they would, it's the management that's questionable, not the workers.

[davidt1]

A question:

You have to be a legal resident to join the armed forces, right? They are not taking in illegals yet, right? I had heard something about being a soldier is the only way to become a citizen for some people. Is that true? I also hear France's Foreign Legion takes in just about anybody -- even criminals. That's why I am wondering.

[American_Libertarian]

Originally Posted by burdell

Morons? I think that's a bit harsh and unfair. I'm not a great believer that this invasion/occupation will have any long term benefit to the US but it shouldn't be too difficult to find 600 troops who have rescued an Iraqi child from a dangerous situation or something similar that makes them believe in their mission, there's no doubt some good things have been done. At the very least the troops are doing what they said they would, it's the management that's questionable, not the workers.

Thank You burdell!

Very classy post.


Some people just can't seperate their hate for Bush and see American Soldiers as good people.

[furyu]

Originally Posted by burdell

.... At the very least the troops are doing what they said they would, it's the management that's questionable, not the workers.

Well said and absolutely true, burdell! I am so tired of hearing the "support the troops" mantra when what the Bushies really mean is "support the war and to hell with the troops."

Bush has not supported the troops that he deployed on a spurious whim to fight his deceitful, self-serving war. He had no idea what he was setting them up against, after taking out Saddam, because he had no knowledge of the history of the Iraqi people and what was certain to follow (the civil war between the Shiites and the Sunni), nor did he listen to those that did (his father, for instance).

The troops were and remain poorly equipped with outdated and at times, defective equipment and armor. Redeployment occurs with unprecedented turn-around time; these troops never get needed time off for R&R. Many return to duty plagued with injuries, both physical and mental. Bush has cut benefits. And recently, this was reported in Military Times:

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

If you're interested in reading what the TROOPS think about this particular betrayal and others, check out THEIR website and read their posts. Here's the link:

Hot Topics - MilitaryTimes.com Forums

White House opposes 3.5% pay increase for military personnel - MilitaryTimes.com Forums

A very interesting read.

Of course, bloodless-hearted conservatives () (as opposed to bleeding-heart liberals?) will say, "Well why should they keep pace with the private sector wage average?" After all, they're only risking life and limb every single moment their doing their job, which happens to be 24/7 when you're fighting a war.

[American_Libertarian]

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





The article and the media chose to ignore the RECORD RE-ENLISTMENT levels of the U.S. Army 2 ongoing wars in 2005 and 2006. The U.S. Army is also well ahead of the reenlistment goals for fiscal year 2007, also.

USATODAY.com - Soldiers re-enlist beyond U.S. goal

USATODAY.com - Soldiers re-enlist beyond U.S. goal




The Army had a record RE-ENLISTMENT level at 108%. And the poll and 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 into 2006!
Army Recruiting and Retention



The article also chose to ignore Army Divisions that had fought for 12 months in Iraq had met every RE-ENLISTMENT goal in 2005,2006, and 2007.

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. But we all know you don't "care" about American Soldiers and their families. YOU have no respect for what the U.S. Military stands for and for anyone who joins it you creep.




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

Third Army/ARCENT/CFLCC - News Story (broken link)





Last year almost 40,000 men and women serving in the U.S Army re-Enlisted at record levels and exceeded re-enilistment goals by 15%!

USATODAY.com - Army surpassing year's retention goal 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 is 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.
END QUOTE
====================================
Army.com - Re-enlistment Goal Achieved One Month Early
Army.com - Re-enlistment Goal Achieved One Month Early



The men and women serving in the U.S. Army are RE-Enlisting in the Army at record levels during 2 ongoing wars.




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 fiscal year 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.

Active-duty recruiters hit February goal - Military News, Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times




Yes the men and women, serving in the U.S. Army, are choosing to RE-ENLIST at record levels during these difficult times of war.



At least we know the American Soldiers who are reenlisting at record levels are truely commited to the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq or would you prefer a Draft?





The Army is not being broken and the soldiers and their families choosing to stay in the U.S. Army are STRONGER than EVER!

[American_Libertarian]

.



The QUALITY of the overall U.S. Military is at at an amazing level and I would rather have MEN volunteering to serve their country after 9/11 and during 2 ongoing Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These VOLUNTEERS know what they are signing up for and I salute them all.



I find it amazing that the American media does not give much coverage to a higher percentage of Democrat and Republican politician's sons that are serving or have served in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars!

This is a higher percenatage of U.S. Politicians with sons in the military than the general U.S. population!


Talk about a personal decision. Amazing young men, who could have done anything with their lives, but have chosen to join the U.S. Military.




*Senator Tim Johnson (D- South Dakota)
(son, Brooks, Served in Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and now works as an Army recruiter. )
Conflict with Iraq: Some members of Congress have great personal interest in the war






*Former Senator & Attorney General John Ashcroft (R- MO)
His son, Andy, is in the Navy and has served in the GulF in support of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. This is a little known fact, because Ashcroft did not want to bring unwanted attention to his son and of course the left-leaning media never did a story on it, because that would hurt their agenda of hurting him.

fahrenheit fact: Fahrenheit Fact no. 14: Legislative sons in active service

Atlas Shrugs: Dinner with John Ashcroft






*Senator Christopher Bond (R - Missouri)
(son, Sam, is in the U.S. Marines and is currently serving in IRAQ.)
Kit Bond’s son leaves for Iraq Marine duty






*Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California)
(son, Duane, is a U.S. Marine and Served in IRAQ)
Serving on two fronts | The San Diego Union-Tribune






Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina)
(Three sons in military:

*Alan is a captain in the Army National Guard served in IRAQ,

*Addison is serving in the Navy,

*Julian is in the Army National Guard)

USATODAY.com - For a few in Congress, war is family concern







Senator elect James Webb (D- WV)
Son is a U.S. Marine and serving in Iraq.
Troop Push Is Personal For McCain - washingtonpost.com






Senator John McCain (R- AZ)
Son is a U.S. Marine serving in Iraq War.
Troop Push Is Personal For McCain - washingtonpost.com






Rep. John Kline, (R-Minn)
(son, Dan, is a Black Hawk Helicopter pilot in the 101st Airborne and serving in IRAQ)
Power Line: A message from the Kline campaign







*Senator Joseph Biden (D- Delaware)
( has a son who is a Lawyer and a First Lieutenant in the Delaware Army National Guard.)
Delaware Grapevine






Rep. Jim Saxton (D- NJ)
nephew, a Marine rifleman, served in Iraq.
USATODAY.com - For a few in Congress, war is family concern





*Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado)
(son, John, serving in the Navy and sent to Iraq)
FOXNews.com - Handful of Lawmakers Send Their Kids to War - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum






*Rep. Ike Skelton (R-Missouri)
(has a son serving in Army serving in Iraq)

Serving on two fronts | The San Diego Union-Tribune





*Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri)
(has a son, Perry, in the Marine Corps who is a combat engineer serving in Iraq.)
Serving on two fronts | The San Diego Union-Tribune



John McCain's support of the troops "Surge" has actually sent his own son, Jimmy, to Baghdad. The fact that his own son was put into Baghdad in support of the new security "Surge" that he personally supported knowing his son would be sent to war is amazing to me:

Troop Push Is Personal For McCain - washingtonpost.com




The U.S. Army is stronger and as high quality as ever and the men choosing to reenilst are commited and not broken.

In 2007 every American Soldier serving in Iraq and Afghanistan is truely COMMITTED to the missions and chosen to be there.

[mhouse2001]

Originally Posted by burdell

Morons? I think that's a bit harsh and unfair. I'm not a great believer that this invasion/occupation will have any long term benefit to the US but it shouldn't be too difficult to find 600 troops who have rescued an Iraqi child from a dangerous situation or something similar that makes them believe in their mission, there's no doubt some good things have been done. At the very least the troops are doing what they said they would, it's the management that's questionable, not the workers.

But if the workers know the management is questionable and the job is an utter failure, then how smart are they if they contribute to the effort? I would agree that morons is a harsh term, but if these people don't see how messed up it is, why should we salute them? Are we now cheering the lemmings when they run off the cliff?

Of course none of us wishes them harm. I'd much rather they be home being parental units to their own children. Their motivations must be completely delusional or our mind-controlling military is way too successful. I say, bring 'em home. We need them HERE.

[American_Libertarian]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

But if the workers know the management is questionable and the job is an utter failure, then how smart are they if they contribute to the effort? I would agree that morons is a harsh term, but if these people don't see how messed up it is, why should we salute them? Are we now cheering the lemmings when they run off the cliff?

Of course none of us wishes them harm. I'd much rather they be home being parental units to their own children. The only motivation must be delusional or our mind-controlling military is way too successful. I say, bring 'em home. We need them HERE.

It's not about dummy Boooooosh to an American Soldier and YOU don't "need them here". They want to be in Iraq and Afghanistan finishing their missions.


American Soldiers are reenlisting to stay in Iraq for a reason and it has nothing to do with dummy Boooooosh!



YouTube - shocking video from Iraq



YouTube - Shoes



YouTube - Iraqi Kids


It's NOT about Bush to the American Soldiers, but it is about Bush to anti-War Liberals.

Get it?

[mhouse2001]

Originally Posted by American_Libertarian

It's not about dummy Boooooosh to an American Soldier and YOU don't "need them here". They want to be in Iraq and Afghanistan finishing their missions.


American Soldiers are reenlisting to stay in Iraq for a reason and it has nothing to do with dummy Boooooosh!



YouTube - shocking video from Iraq



YouTube - Shoes



YouTube - Iraqi Kids


It's NOT about Bush to the American Soldiers, but it is about Bush to anti-War Liberals.

Get it?

I never even mentioned Bush. And, you didn't "get it" at all.

[American_Libertarian]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

I never even mentioned Bush. And, you didn't "get it" at all.

Oh I got it.


When you stated:
"But if the workers know the management is questionable and the job is an utter failure, then how smart are they if they contribute to the effort?" who is the "management"?


Come on...have some intellectual honesty and tell the truth.



And the American Soldiers reenlisting in Iraq have seen the positive accomplishments and know they are winning. You don't and that's fine.