Obviously this guy is a gay communist who sold secrets to the Viet Cong and has a black baby out of a lesbian abortion doctor.
There's nothing more honorable than dying for Allah.
RCFA

I support the opinion of this troop.

Bush's plan is well described here: Fucktard.

Isnt it very sad what is happening to the youth of our countey who idealistically follow leaders who are liars, criminals and intellectual frauds. very very sad

Now we get to read a bunch of posts about how if he didn't want to fight, he should not of signed up and blah blah blah. More nonsense coming from fucktard apologists who blame everyone except the people in charge.

As if our government doesn't have a responsiblity to 1) Only send troops into harm's way when necessary and 2) Give those troops a chance of succeeding through competent planning instead of just arrogantly declaring victory before the real fighting has even started.

Jim

Incredible. With the troops overwhelmingly showing their support for their mission Rcade manages to post a blog from a disgruntled veteran, or at the very least a veteran that disagrees with his mission.
Re-enlistment rates are higher than expected, which goes to show you many of the soldiers believe in what they do. Leave it to the doom and gloomers to latch onto this guys blog instead of the re-enlistment news.
Another piece of bad news brought to you buy the yellow (cowardly) dog brigade. It gets funnier and funnier watching you pant pissers wallow in the negative.

Can't imagine the immensity of what this man faced:

knowledge of the incompetency and disregard shown by his CIC, finding himself knee-deep in the ensuing clusterfuck, buddies getting offed within the context of a deteriorating "on-ground" situation.

This soldier had to live with a nightmarish reality until the end, while sign-carrying supporters of "Operation Fuck Iraq" gloss over the obvious fallacies presented by the administration and spew their hate at anyone having an opposing point of view.

It's become a pathetic situation when boy dunder's supporters start looking even more foolish than their CIC...didn't think that was possible.

Keep on keepin' on and spewing your hate for the principles that made your country great. Seems like a small sacrifice if it allows you to blindly support this admin.'s delusions.

Show us "overwhelming" please. Make it "overwhelming" in presentation, execution, and content so that there be no mistaking the "overwhelming-ness" of it. The more I look for "overwhelming" the more I find the soldier's comments.

Ah. Forgot.

Regards,
etc.

That's RCADE, the fucktard! Couldn't have said it better 101C.

PS RCADE, who really wrote it? Dan Rather???

Re-enlistment rates are higher than expected ...

According to whom? The military lowered its monthly recruitment goals earlier this year because it kept missing them.

PS RCADE, who really wrote it? Dan Rather?

Having moved on from Cindy Sheehan, the Bush-right-or-wrongers now turn their venom on a soldier who died fighting for his country, because he didn't support their war president.

A buddy who had planned to stay in the army came back after his second tour in Nam and told me that there came a point where the patrols would go out far enough not to be seen and just hunker down. He said it was like an unspoken truce. Same thing happened in WWI from what I've read.

When the sergeants loose faith, the troops will follow. Eventually common sense prevails--except in neo-con fantasies.

"Endeavor to Persevere"

Oh my. Isn't that a surprise eh?

How very much this feels like a cult of personality is developing around Bushco.

Regards,
etc.

"The military lowered its monthly recruitment goals earlier this year because it kept missing them."

RCADE...not true.

Also from the previous article:

Little of this seems to resonate with the public. So far this year, the U.S. army is reported to be 40% short of its recruitment target. The army has failed to meet its monthly recruiting goals in each of the preceding four months. In mid-July, the U.S. military reported that the Army National Guard, which makes up more than one-third of the U.S. soldiers in Iraq, had missed its recruiting goal for the ninth straight month. This was an understatement of the larger trend. The Army National Guard has apparently missed its recruiting targets for at least 17 of the last 18 months.

U.S. army chief of staff General Peter Schoomaker told the Senate, "We've got enormous challenges" when it comes to recruitment of new soldiers. The army's goal of 80,000 new recruits for this year "is at serious risk," and next year "may be the toughest recruiting environment ever." These recruiting problems, he believes, are likely to stretch "well into the future."

RCADE...not true.


Well now, you most certainly refuted that statement.

101,

I think everyone who contributes articles to this site is going to be selective. "Aha, here is something that reflects my point of view, up it goes on drudge.com." Since anyone can submit articles why not get a few pro-war-soldier-blogs posted here? I know there are /plenty/

Wow the most liberal paper in America has something aweomse for once.

"the insurgents exploit our weakness: the lack of usable intelligence"

Isn't this laughable? How do you win a war without intelligence?

Everyone understand this shit for the future. The world is a BAD place, no matter what the Left wants you to believe. Let's all start asking Presidential candidates who they're going to appoint as Secretary of Defense. Because it seems to me like you can't win wars if you're looking at the polls and what is politically expedient at the same time that you're trying to implement the best strategy. And also, these policy wonks have to go. Being a PhD expert on "the symbiotic relationship between oil, the Middle East, and embargo tactics post-Gulf War, blah blah blah" doesn't make you a fucking General. Generals should decide strategy. Not pencil-necks who've never picked up a gun in their lives.

Oops, should have said recruitment rather that re-enlistment.

Pleasantville, I don't think that this is an "anti-war" blog, do you? It's not anti-war to say that our strategy sucks. Obviously Donald Rumsfeld is not a military leader. He's a politician. That's bad for our country, bottom line. Espousing that view isn't anti-war. It's pro-America-winning-this-
fucking-war-and-shutting-up-
every-anti-American-piece-of-
shit-on-this-planet.

This war is a lose-lose situation at this point. Lives will be taken whether the U.S. military and reserves stays or comes home. The primary question now is, why are we still there. Conflicting ideals will prevail here until someone gives up. Why not us.

"Support Our Troops."

"Bring Them Home."

Since anyone can submit articles why not get a few pro-war-soldier-blogs posted here?

People can post what they want in their user blogs, but speaking personally, I'm not going to count heads. I once made a front-page post out of a soldier's comment on The Retort that was supportive of the war. I figured if he was serving over there and spending some of his free time on here, of all places, it was a worth a link.

I chose this guy's story because he blogged about the war right before he died.

Because of his sacrifice, his opinion on the war deserves a wider hearing. The fact that he thought the war plan was "fucktarded" wasn't the deciding factor.

I think air force recruitment is up. That's good right?

PITMAN

Those responsible....
Call them by their names,
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dov Zackheim, Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Martin Indyk, Henry Kissinger, and those in the US media who perpetuated this "intentional misinformation."
It was a concerted effort to decieve the US public.

""The world is a BAD place, no matter what the Left wants you to believe.""

Ah yes, the old blame the libs, blame the lefties, trick. When those on the right can't justify or defend the actions of their president they just start this same old, whining....it's the liberals fault.
Even though we hold virtually no power, it doesn't stop them...why, because it is just a mantra not a comment based on any fact or truth. In short...It is crap.

The war plan wasn't fucktarded.
The world's only superpower, in Coalition with dozens of other Willing military powers invaded a second world country weakened by 15 years of bombing and economic sanctions and in a mere 2 1/2 years hasn't quite got a handle on closing the borders, holding territory, or taking care of a few dead enders. It won't, according to our brilliant Sect'y of Defense take more than 10-12 more years, or 3 to 4 times what it took to defeat both Japan and Germany. Instead of making the west safer from terrorism, it has made us less safe (see London 7-7), and will only cost us $600 billion, a figure only $600 billion higher than budgetted by our Administration. We have no definition of victory, no markers as to what defines when we can draw down our troops and little success in training our replacements. We were supposed to be down to 50,000 troops by December 2003, a target we missed by only one generation.
Other than that, and the Iranization of southern Iraq, it's pretty much

Mission Unidentified

RCFA

Col. Joseph Curtin, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said the rise in June is part of an expected summer surge, when the Army historically has seen higher numbers as students have recently graduated from high school and are mulling over their futures.


So Eligere went looking for the May recruitment goal. According to CNN it was 6700, and that it had been lowered:


Officials said Wednesday that although the Army will not release its numbers until Friday, it fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits in May. The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the military lowered the target by 1,350. [Emphasis added.]

If 6700 is lowered, what is 5650 in a season when recruitment is expected to increase? And is that really meeting a goal? Odd, that the Post should fail to mention that.

Pleasantville, I don't think that this is an "anti-war" blog, do you?

(And this response could also apply to RCade's comment)

I shouldn't have said anti-war. Saying "here is how you could run the war better" is not anti-war. I will state that the prevalent attitude on this blog seems to be oppositional however.

When I see posts to the effect of "these articles suck for reasons x/y/z" my response is typically "so post something you want people to comment on."

Simple solution; draft. Having an army that has a whole lot of non-citizens, at least up until the point that they inlisted, I think is really scary.

PITMAN

"Fucktarded" may join "Turdblossom" as words with which the Presidency of George W. Bush will always be associated.

This guy wanted to teach English?
Sad. Very sad.

One annual goal is not equal to twelve monthly goals. Consider the law of averages.

"One annual goal is not equal to twelve monthly goals. Consider the law of averages."

Posted by Pleasantville

I understand that, however that was put in there for perspective. Either way, the numbers aren't there...unless ofcourse they came in so big in the early part of the year and can make up the remaining in the last quarter.

Big Rex

"The Army Guard was seeking 5,032 new soldiers in June but signed up only 4,337, a 14 percent shortfall, according to statistics released Monday by the Pentagon. It is more than 10,000 soldiers behind its year-to-date goal of almost 45,000 recruits, and has missed its recruiting target during at least 17 of the last 18 months."

Why does math hate America?

Big Rex,

Did the two brain cells whirling about inside your empty head smash into each other and create a thought????

The FY 2005 goal is 80,000 new Army recruits. The Army's failure or success in recruiting for FY 2005 will be judged solely on the basis of whether they signed up 80,000 new recruits from 10/01/2004 to 09/30/2005.

These continuing assertions that the Army has lowered its FY 2005 recruiting goal numbers are simply not true. Par for the course for the neo-libs on the Drudge Retort, but still not true.

Support the troops!

Unless of course they speak out against stupid policy!

Then, label them (troops) as gay communist "liberals" whose only interest in serving our country was to pad the resume.

Who would Jesus want to watch your kids?

A sadist AWOL poser with two drunk whoring girls or a mother of a alter boy, honor student and eagle scout that died for a lie?

The FY 2005 new recruit goal did not/has not changed.


www.army.com

Making neo-libs look stupid is too easy.


What's the date on it sweetie?

Anyone watch NOW last night?

"With the troops overwhelmingly showing their support for their mission Rcade manages to post a blog from a disgruntled veteran, or at the very least a veteran that disagrees with his mission."

Actually, he didn't disagree with the mission. He didn't comment on whether or not the the war is "right" at all. He just said that the war is being carried out incompetently. I would think that you'd of found this an interesting analysis of what's going on.

I've read comments from soldiers who say "I believe in what we're doing" who also go on to talk about problems that they're having. I have yet to see one comment from anyone in Iraq who has nothing but Polly-Anna, sunshiney stories to tell.

Jim

Is this the same Bush who planned to attack Iraq prior to 9-11?
Is this the same Bush who told us about Yellowcake in his State of the Union?

Is this the same Bush who hired Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld who have repeatedly lied to us?

Will the American people wake up before we attack Iran or North Korea?

Will one of you Republicans tell me what good another government with a constitution based on ISLAM do us?

Have any of you heard what Colin Powell has to say about his "mobile lab" story and the shame he felt?

So how many Republican Senate seats do you plan on gaining in 2006?

Will one of you Republicans tell me where we missed the "open arms" and "the flower petals"

Is it true that the Saddam Statue toppling was a "planned PR event"

It is true that the banner on that Aircraft Carrier was "made in the White House"..
Do you agree George W. Bush is the first President never to have made a mistake. He sure as hell won't admit to any error, mistake, or misjudgment...

His errors and misjudgment have cost lives, created terribly disfigured GIs, ruined countless families... And he won't take one iota of responsibility...

When the Sunnis defeat this Constitution in the fall voting, and this government is disolved, what the hell then...

I would like to here some "honest" answers, no Carl Rove PR bullshit...

As a lib I just want to say that I support the military's recruitment goals. I may not agree with Bush on Iraq but a fall off in recruits doesn't change the mission in Iraq, just makes it harder for those already enlisted and makes us weaker as a nation elsewhere.
I want to see an intelligent, planned pull-out from Iraq, not a sudden bail out, and definitely not because of a lack of soldiers. I hope the military makes its recruitment goals and exceeds them.
At the same time I hope the Bush administration comes back to reality.

"Those responsible....
Call them by their names "

The Republican Party and 51% of America

Condition RED. Charlie has his shit together. We a definately expecting rain.

Big Rex...

80,000 on 10/01/2004 = 80,000 on 09/30/2005

Big Rex, do you have that Barbie doll that says..."Math is hard!"????

Big Rex...Time for you to step forward, bow before me and kiss my ring...

Re-enlistment rates are higher than expected ...

According to whom? The military lowered its monthly recruitment goals earlier this year because it kept missing them.

Posted by rcade at 2005-08-29 12:03 PM | Reply

According to the men in the divisions that are currently fighting in Iraq, or isn't that good enough for you Rogers? If the guys currently over there and doing the fighting are re-enlisting at a higher than expected rate (there by exceding gaols) you'd think one of you jarkoffs may have heard about it. If you all weren't so interested in hearing the bad news you might catch some of the good news.
BTW, RE-Enlistment is not the same thing as enlistment, but all of you military analysts already knew that already and must have just overlooked it.

P-ville,
1. I have no idea how to post an article on here (it's not that important anyway). 2. It doesn't matter what anyone posts here, as long as it's not a Bush Bash the puppies here won't bother.

Itch,
That article was from was from Last Spring.

Army Announces Latest
Retention and
Recruiting Numbers





May 3, 2005

"His errors and misjudgment have cost lives, created terribly disfigured GIs, ruined countless families... And he won't take one iota of responsibility"

If he would take responsibility we might find a way out however he won't and whats more if the reports about Bush's odd behavior of late are true, the problems may indeed get even worse since Bush may find the country turning against his war to be like the country turning aginst him. Leaders who begin to think along these lines often look for ways to punish those who they feel betrayed them.

I don't expect any of you hard core Bush supporters to accept this about your leader, but for those like myself who believe Bush has always been in way way over his head, this is something I think people should be very wary of. A leader who decides to take out his failures on all of us. To stop that sort of thing from happening, more responsible Republicans are needed to come out in the open and question Bush and his policy.

Yes, it was Sarge. So, what's your point???

An 80,000 goal on 10/01/2004 = an 80,000 goal on 09/30/2005.

Am I missing something here????? This number, the Army new recruit Fy 2005 goal has not changed.

80,000 = 80,000 = 80,000.......

"I hope the military makes its recruitment goals and exceeds them."

Danni - And just like everyone else, you hope they do it without signing up you or your sons, right?

I know you're just trying to say that you hope the guys who are over there get all the help they need and deserve.

I'm not saying I want recruiting to fail. But if one of my brothers or friends were thinking about signing up, I'd advise against it so I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say that I hope a bunch of strangers make a decision that I consider unwise.

Jim

PVille,

"I think everyone who contributes articles to this site is going to be selective. "Aha, here is something that reflects my point of view, up it goes on drudge.com."

Yes and what do you think Matt Drudge is all about "fair and balanced" ?

I have a "Fucktard" t shirt.
Where can I get a "Turdblossom" t shirt?

First you guys....here is the truth from an active duty soldier....

The Army is having a hard time getting NEW recruits mainly because of the anti war feelings coming from the left. The army is NOT having a problem reenlisting soldiers. How can I say this? I have reenlisted several soldiers from my own unit. As a commander, I reenlist soldiers whenever they ask me. The moral of the soldiers isnt low, no matter what the left wants you to think. We are firmly behind our president, no matter what we personally think. We are PROFESSIONAL soldiers, and our loyalty doesnt waiver with the wind. Sure, this soldier was disgruntled, but on any given day you may get that from lower enlisted soldiers. By and large the soldiers are motivated, and alot of my comrades are looking forward to going to SWA (south west asia) to help with this fight...so those of you who are not in the military, dont assume to speak for us, especially those of you on the left. We are the most highly motivated fighting force in the world. All we ask, is that the civilian population back us and stop looking for these examples to give you a reason to try to show that the military isnt backing this. Until you join the military, you will not understand how that soldier felt. Just because he felt that way at that moment, I bet if you asked him how he felt about the military as a whole, he would give you a glowing report. Just this soldiers comment....

The soldiers post says it all. "We were winning somewhat when I left. And now we're being pinned down in our own fucking homes? Insurgents are pushing locals out of their homes and taking over my area at will?"

So, we were winning and now we aren't? The Insurgents are taking locals homes?

WE are slowly letting the Iraqis take over security, and this is what we are getting. We needed to go in very strong and subue the population, but then the libs would have cried even more about behaving like Hitler.

My question is...what has changed since this man went home? We get bad press every time we fire off a round, and we get more insurgents when we don't.

My opinion 5 years ago was the U.S. doesn't know how to fight a war, and if we did, we wouldn't have the stomach for it. The libs certainly don't have the stomach for it, and for listening to them, we are getting our asses handed to us.

"Soul"
Sorry "Sir"; Though I Wish I Could Close To His Soles.


-Sarge

"The libs certainly don't have the stomach for it, and for listening to them, we are getting our asses handed to us."

Must have been a "lib" general who was canned for pointing out we'd need a lot more troops, huh, moron? You stupid dittohead fucktard turdblossoms are all the same. Stupid.

Too bad COL Hackworth isn't around to address this in his one-time strategic thinker's way. In some ways the Army has taken a few steps backward since Grant and Pershing. The ability to build "homes" in combat is a silly idea during wars of insurgency.

The only way to build a home is to make sure it's really safe all around you. Like go out and buy an island and patrol the seas around you. Hackworth said the only way to fight the insurgents in VietNam would have been on the ground firefight for forefight. The advantage there was is you came across a convoy on the HCM Trail, it was usually bad-guys. Good bet. The secret to winning was ambushing the bad guys before they ambushed you. That could not be done from a home camp. It was done with bugs biting you and crawling in your scivvies, because you were in the jungle hiding and waiting. Since the plan has been to fight an urban counter-insurgency, the rest period has been pushed back a while.

Boaz - Are you or have you been stationed in Iraq? Sorry if you mentioned it before but I missed it.

Jim

Here's what Strickland observed:

Insurgents are pushing locals out of their homes and taking over my area at will? What kind of fucktarded plan have we been half-assedly executing? Obviously the kind that neglects sound contact with locals. Obviously the kind that gives further distance to unbridged gaps between soldiers and locals.

Here's what retired Lt. Col Krepinevich suggests as the means of fighting an insurgency:

Instead of trying to kill insurgents, Krepinevich argues, it's more important to protect civilians. You set up safe havens where you can establish good security. Because you don't have enough manpower to do this everywhere at once, you select a few key cities and take control. Then you slowly expand the size of your safe havens, like an oil spot spreading across the pavement.

Once you've secured a town or city, you throw in all the economic and political resources you have to make that place grow. The locals see the benefits of working with you. Your own troops and the folks back home watching on TV can see concrete signs of progress in these newly regenerated neighborhoods. You mix your troops in with indigenous security forces, and through intimate contact with the locals you begin to even out the intelligence advantage that otherwise goes to the insurgents.

See the connection?

GZ,

"I think everyone who contributes articles to this site is going to be selective. "Aha, here is something that reflects my point of view, up it goes on drudge.com."

Yes and what do you think Matt Drudge is all about "fair and balanced" ?

What the hell does my comment have to do with Matt Drudge?

BOAZ,
You are correct, though SOCOM is not having the same level as Conventional Forces. We are losing many to Private security and The Department Of Homeland Security.

-Sarge

"We needed to go in very strong and subue the population, but then the libs would have cried even more about behaving like Hitler."

Yeah, wars can only be won when you actually treat it like a war instead of "nation building". You have to be willing to kill enemy civilians especially if they are hiding the enemy. If we were in Iraq because our own security was at risk, do you think the public would have a problem with carpet bombing Fallujah WWII style? I don't. Most people are smart enough to choose "them" when its either them or us.

The truth is that its BUSH who painted this war as an exercise in bringing Iraqis freedom. Because HE marketed the war this way, we now can't use overwhelming force in areas where civilians may get harmed. It would contradict HIS stated reason for being there.

But its the libs' fault, right? Keep bleating on sheep.

Jim

"The Army is having a hard time getting NEW recruits mainly because of the anti war feelings coming from the left. The army is NOT having a problem reenlisting soldiers." - BOAZ

First, I would like to say that even though I disagree with our decision to go into Iraq (when we did) I support our troops 100%.

That being said, I don't think it is the "left" that is hurting the Army's recruitment goals. I think it is the general disatisfaction with the way the Admin is spinning the war and yet can't articulate it's plans except "stay the course."

By the way, if it is all the "Lefts" fault explain why the other branches have been able to make their goals.

Big Rex

Gal -- Good point. I think an Army colonel is on record in an academic way suggesting just what you wrote. It's called the oil stain plan as in how a stain of motor oil fades out from the source. Any military person knows that civilians in an occupied place WON'T support you unless they feel safe supporting you, and they believe in your mission. We'll Rumsfeld has done everything wrong by these military standards.

a. No one there was convinced we were there for their benefit. We flew troops in to the oil fields and we let the cities devolve into looting and riots.

b. We fired every Baathist from their bureaucratic thrones, and made them unemployed. Then we asked everyone to denounce their now frustrated and out of work Baathists neighbors

c. We sent in too few troops and spread them too thinly to protect any supporters

d. We relied on group-think and wishful thinking (as a plan?)

e. We never took time to teach our troopps the basics of understanding the Iraqi cultures. (As a result, we went into a situation where we were inadequately informed.)

Gal -- Good point. I think an Army colonel is on record in an academic way suggesting just what you wrote. It's called the oil stain plan as in how a stain of motor oil fades out from the source. Any military person knows that civilians in an occupied place WON'T support you unless they feel safe supporting you, and they believe in your mission. Rumsfeld has done everything wrong by these military standards.

a. No one there was convinced we were there for their benefit. We flew troops in to the oil fields and we let the cities devolve into looting and riots.

b. We fired every Baathist from their bureaucratic thrones, and made them unemployed. Then we asked everyone to denounce their now frustrated and out of work Baathists neighbors

c. We sent in too few troops and spread them too thinly to protect any supporters

d. We relied on group-think and wishful thinking (as a plan?)

e. We never took time to teach our troopps the basics of understanding the Iraqi cultures. (As a result, we went into a situation where we were inadequately informed.)

Here's what Clark says:

Where are the thousands of trained linguists? Where are the flexible, well-resourced, military-led infrastructure development programs to win "hearts and minds?" Where are the smart operations and adequate numbers of forces -- U.S., coalition or Iraqi -- to strengthen control over the borders?

In military terms, striking at insurgents and terrorists is necessary but insufficient. Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions.

hahah! it's all the left's fault! I love you people that only see in black and white. Perfect sheep mentality!

Go along sheep. Go jump off the cliff cuz georgy boy told ya to ;)

Re-enlistment rates are higher than expected, which goes to show you many of the soldiers believe in what they do. Leave it to the doom and gloomers to latch onto this guys blog instead of the re-enlistment news.

Charwort you stoopid fuck back away from the Kool aide.

Army officials attribute the strong re-enlistment rates to unprecedented cash bonuses that renew a sense of purpose in fighting terrorism. Some of the record bonuses are tax-free if soldiers re-enlist while in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Re-enlistment bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $150,000, depending on the type of job and length of re-enlistment. The $150,000 bonuses are offered only to senior special operations commandos who agree to stay in the military for up to six more years. The average bonus is $10,000, said Col. Debbra Head, who monitors Army retention at the Pentagon.

"My opinion 5 years ago was the U.S. doesn't know how to fight a war, and if we did, we wouldn't have the stomach for it. The libs certainly don't have the stomach for it, and for listening to them, we are getting our asses handed to us"
Asses handed to us? Bush says we're having a great victory! Your opinion five years ago was that America needed a brain damaged failure in command so you could feel better about yourself, regardless of the consequences to America. Well partner, take a look, are we fucked enough for you yet?
But you were partially right, this administration is clueless about fighting a war.
Funny, Bush claims never to watch the news or look at polls, so I guess Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Condi are liberals.
Continue to deny the incompetence of our Failure-in-Chief and Sect'y of Nodefense and you will guarantee a steady stream of body bags returning from Allah's new playground. Why is it that the Bush supporters, after denying Bush was fucking up in Iraq, now admit there is a fuckup but somehow blame the libs? God, Clinton went after Serbia, achieved his goals and never lost a man, but Bush's failure in Iraq is all his fault?

JIM
"""I'm not saying I want recruiting to fail. But if one of my brothers or friends were thinking about signing up, I'd advise against it so I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say that I hope a bunch of strangers make a decision that I consider unwise."""

Actually, you are right. But, I still want the same thing that the majority of the wealthy class want, someone else's son to fight the battles. Hey, I can't claim it isn't hypocritical because it is, both for me but even more so for those who support the war and still keep thier kids home. At least I want the troops brought home. FYI, before the Iraq war I was hoping my son would enlist but I just couldn't ignore my own common sense about what the outcome of this stupid war was going to be. There really wasn't much doubt about it. The whole concept of Iraqi democracy was and is a joke. It will end up as a theocracy (Islamic of course) and our enemy like Iran. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see that, including Bush's dad.

231pm Jizbag,
Get a clue shit dick. If the money is what was talking then these soldiers would have taken $120k tax free for a year and not the average $10k bonus over 4 years. You dumb sck of shit.
BTW, how many times do I need to explain to you jerkoffs that a lemming or a kool aide drinker is somebody that comes to this site to get their news. It's the people like you that gather here to get their doom and gloom spoon fed to them and hear like minded fools spout off about how bad Georgie and the Conservatives are. How is it that some douchebag like you has the nerve to tell a conservative poster on a liberal website that I'M the kool aide drinker. You're probably too stupid to see the point anyway.
Now show us all how smart you are and come back with another softball argument that I will completely dismantle.

First of all, it wasn't Bush that voted to authorize war in Iraq, over 90% of congress voted in favor of the action. Yeah, you ignorant liberals, YOUR congressman and senator voted in favor of this action too! As for the idiots spouting that we have no plan, what a bunch of bunk. The plan all along was to remove Saddam (completed successfully), then to direct the Iraqi's towards a democratic form of government (Ok, not perfect, but they now have a constitution to vote for or against, gee that sounds an awful lot like democracy)....Did the President ever say this would be easy and that it would be over in a very short time? No! He has said all along that this would be a very difficult mission and would take alot of resolve from the american (and world's) people. What a bunch of quitters on the left. The going gets tough, so the left gets going. And just so you know, I HAVE a son in harms way. And I support him, his troops, and his mission. Which means, I support his leader too. This total hate of anything republican or democratic from both sides of these issues is both non-productive and moronic. I do have a single question for those that are screaming that we don't have a plan....well you jerks, instead of bitching about what is happening, why don't you offer some REAL, concrete plans. Since you don't, your arguments don't hold up. You are nothing more than a bunch of spoiled cry babies. Oh, and for you dolts that keep hounding on the President's intelligence, please see his grades compared to your lackey Kerry. Gee, if Bush is as stupid as you say he is, how much worse would we be with Kerry, whose gpa was LESS than Bush's?

"""The world is a BAD place, no matter what the Left wants you to believe.""

Ah yes, the old blame the libs, blame the lefties, trick. When those on the right can't justify or defend the actions of their president they just start this same old, whining....it's the liberals fault.
Even though we hold virtually no power, it doesn't stop them...why, because it is just a mantra not a comment based on any fact or truth. In short...It is crap.

Posted by danni at 2005-08-29 12:30 PM | Reply"


Danni that was a really dishonest misuse of a quote from my post. I'd appreciate more sincere responses, thank you.

"plan all along was to remove Saddam (completed successfully), then to direct the Iraqi's towards a democratic form of government (Ok, not perfect, but they now have a constitution to vote for or against, gee that sounds an awful lot like democracy)...."

Then what about the whole WMD dog and pony show? Didn't the president use that to convince the country that we were in danger if we didn't invade Iraq. Did that not happen or something or did you just lie when you said the war was always about getting Saddam and Iraqi democracy?

"Did the President ever say this would be easy and that it would be over in a very short time? No!"

No, he had Rumsfeld do it. What's the difference, Slappy?

"you jerks, instead of bitching about what is happening, why don't you offer some REAL, concrete plans."

Yeah, the people who thought invading Iraq was a no-win situation should now figure this mess out or shut up, right? What complete nonsense. You fucking assholes were wrong and we'll all be paying for it for the rest of our lives. So guess what? You're gonna hear about it. It sucks to be completely wrong but you should grow up and live with the results of the moronic policies you've been supporting.

Jim

Plan?
Plan?
We don' need no stinkin' plan!

How about start with 500,000 troops and occupying something beyond the Oil Ministry for starters, Edison?

Fact is the administration totally failed to understand anything of the complexity and history underlying this mess, went in on the cheap, and had zero plans beyond the invasion.

"So how many Republican Senate seats do you plan on gaining in 2006?"

It is laughable of you lefties to even think that Republicans will lose any power in the 2006 elections because of this.

Before you start getting angry and hurling the super-intelligent insults like "dummy", "idiot", "your comment makes absolutely no logical sense, and therefore I'm priveleged to say shut up moron", just understand this - the Republicans are COMPLETELY UNACCOUNTABLE for anything that they do because Democrats push policies which force Atheism on our schools and impose this religion as a the de facto state church.

The Republicans are laughing themselves all the way back to their offices while they remain the only electable politicians.

"How is it that some douchebag like you has the nerve to tell a conservative poster on a liberal website that I'M the kool aide drinker. You're probably too stupid to see the point anyway.
Now show us all how smart you are and come back with another softball argument that I will completely dismantle."

No idea what all the fuss is about since I haven't kept up with this lame ass thread. However, this liberal pussy will tell you straight up that if you think this war is going well then you are a fucking witless drone.
Numbers aside, if you think that recruitment (not re-enlistment) is at a comfortable level considering that we may have to deploy elsewhere in the world you are clueless.
If you think that our current policy is making us safer from terrorists you live in a fucking dream world.
Considering that the approach to the WAR ON TERROR!!(TM) has been a Bushy pet project, and that we are losing that war (yes I said that) maybe we should look away from braniacs like you and towards the liberal douchebags out there.

Dubya's greatest contribution to society has been turning stupidity into a virtue thereby validating the lackluster education and critical thinking skills of the average conservative blogger.

As I said, I haven't read the whole thread but if you are dismantling someone with douchebag posts I'll go out on a limb and say that they are not representative of your average liberal (who is typically better educated and wealthier but sadly less numerous than his/her conservative brethren).

Either way - GO KICK THAT LIBERAL DOUCHEBAGS ASS!!! IT"S DISMANTLIN' TIME!!!!!

"BTW, how many times do I need to explain to you jerkoffs that a lemming or a kool aide drinker is somebody that comes to this site to get their news."

No, its someone who is spoon-fed their opinion by either side and who is also unable to see when they've been fed bullshit. So if you're a dittohead who comes here to spew the latest nonsense coming from Rush, you're a lemming.

Not that I'm saying you are 101. But there are clearly some righties here who are incapable of independent thought.

Jim

"What a bunch of quitters on the left. The going gets tough, so the left gets going. And just so you know, I HAVE a son in harms way. And I support him, his troops, and his mission. Which means, I support his leader too. This total hate of anything republican or democratic from both sides of these issues is both non-productive and moronic. I do have a single question for those that are screaming that we don't have a plan....well you jerks, instead of bitching about what is happening, why don't you offer some REAL, concrete plans. Since you don't, your arguments don't hold up. You are nothing more than a bunch of spoiled cry babies"

BRAVO!!!!!!! Keep it coming; they always have a shit-fit when someone who's not a card-carrying member of the Communist party puts up the best post on the board.

"As I said, I haven't read the whole thread but"

LOL!!! CLASSIC!!!

"As I said, I haven't read the whole thread but"

LOL, hilarious. Some other "liberal" classics...

"Well no I don't have a science background but"

"It's not a human, it's a parasite, you moron!"

"Anyone who doesn't think we evolved from monkeys is a completely closed-minded lemming who believes everything they hear"

"I don't need to know what the Kyoto Protocol actually says"

"LOL, hilarious. Some other "liberal" classics..."

As opposoed to pretending to know what you're talking about, being proven wrong, then refusing to admit it - which is the typical neocon M.O.

Flowers and chocolates for you my friend.

Jim

lizardface...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I am convinced that you really believe that crap you wrote.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The neo-libs on this site get funnier and funnier...

Jim,
There are lemmings and Kool Aide drinkers on both sides, it justs so happens I am addressing the ones that flock to this site which is a liberal circle jerk. Sue there are even a few righties here that come armed with their talking points, but they pale in comparison and number to the lefties. I have never been to another political website but I am sure it is that way at those as well. I just find it interesting that some sniveling lefty is going to call me a kool aide drinker while he/she is lapping up the doom and gloom.
Lizardface,
I don't think it's funny that you didn't read the whole thread for the record. My post was in response to some knee jerk liberal that thought he/she was going to come in all guns blazing, but the retard left the ammo at home. If more of you were like Pleasantville and Jim (sometimes he gets a little excited) and took the time to look at both sides then it wouldn't be so damn nasty around here. I believe you cut me some slack last week when you could have easily been a dick, so I'll give you the same today.

RCADE, Big Rex and a whole host of others made the charge that the Army lowered it's FY 2005 recruitment goals.

What I wrote was that they lowered their monthly recruiting goals earlier this year, which has been widely reported. You're the one making this a "fiscal year" issue.

Reenlistment isn't up due to belief ion the war, its up due to belief in your buddies. If you have fought alongside with people, watched some of them die, you become close if not closer than family. Saving a life, having your life saved, when it comes to your personal seperation date, do you go, "Well its been fun, but I gotta go."? Or are you going to stay with your buddies until you all come home. That's where we have failed them. We bicker among ourselves, the apologist for the ever changing justification for war, and the polly anna let's hug a tree crowd. They both make me sick. Truth is if 36 million people wanted to be free, they can fight for it. Civil war is on the verge of breaking out and we're not going to be able to do anything aboout it.

Vagisal

I am completely impressed that you can type with one hand raised in permanent seig heil salute and the other crammed down your panties furiously scratching.

What is this 80,000 figure you keep referring to, the number of strokes necessary to provide relief?

Once again I offer a topical cream suggestion that might help the pain and possible cause for your irrational rants. I know you righties think repeating talking points to catapult the propaganda works, but only on the sheeple.

LibertarianLeft

Jim,

I have not been in the box yet, came to TRADOC after 2ID to command, scheduled to go to SWA after the Signal Captains Career Course.

Itch,
They did this Summer for each month goal. They will not make there year end goal which remained the same.

KEITH OLBERMANN, MSNBC HOST: According to The New York Times, the Armys original aim was to get 8,050 new recruits in May. It then scaled that number back, without making that news public, to 6,700. But it only got 5,000. Thats 63 percent of the original goal, 75 percent of the revised goal. Even that doesnt guarantee that there will be 5,000 new soldiers ready for combat. In 2004, 14 percent, nearly, of all the new recruits dropped out after initial training. And that number jumped to more than 17 percent this year


-Sarge

Sling,
I partially agree with your reasoning on the re-enlistments. You can be sure that some of them sign back up for that very reason, others for a combination of believing in the cause and for their fellow soldiers. There aren't any Joes (grunts 11b, etc) signing up for a sorry ass bonus like the visitor above mentioned.

RCADE,

The Army did not lower their recruiting goals. This is a fact.

This government runs on a fiscal year basis. It sets goals on a fiscal year basis. It assesses failure or success on a fiscal year basis.

Sarge,
I have no idea if the goals were changed. I have heard that claim before (only here though), but I have also seen how the NYT's presents their news (the body armor story) so I'll wait to make a decision.
That being said, the day I get my news from an espn flunkie is the day briwo drinks more beer than me at the drudge christmas party!

Sarge...

80,000 = 80,000

BTW...And are you making a prediction??? "They will not make there year end goal which remained the same."

We will find out for sure the first week of October. If you are wrong, be prepared to take it like a man.

Time to step forward, bow before me and kiss my ring...

"I have not been in the box yet, came to TRADOC after 2ID to command, scheduled to go to SWA after the Signal Captains Career Course."

I'm not military so I don't understand everything you just said but I think I get the jist. SWA = Afghanistan or one of the neighboring countries, right?

I'm sure some of my posts have rubbed you the wrong way, but I really do wish you success both in training and when you're "in the box".

Jim

101,
No the fiscal year goals have not changed;The US Army reduced the Monthly Recruitment Quotas for each recruiter. The 80,000 Goal could not be changed due to it was already submitted to Congress in the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005.
Well I know I had my fill Beer This weekend, Because of FOOTBALL !!! Football And Beer "Now Ain't America"

-Sarge

NeoCon math-

Dead soldiers make the president look bad.
Anyone making the president look bad is a traitor.
Thus, dead soldiers are traitors.

435p vis,
The 6th century didn't have ICBM's, Aircraft Carriers, c130's, 141's, 17's, etc.
I am not saying the thinking is flawed or couldn't be adapted to today, but when the Empire back in the day went to battle the lines of communication were as fast as the fastest guy. Having a 500,000 man army on horseback 1,000's of miles away from home is one thing, today's environment is another.
Besides, I believe George tried to get some other armies to do the fighting to no avail. I think that was the largest failure, but as you can see with Iran, Germany, France, Russia, and China want to play wait and see again....Even after France and Germany said the opposite a while back. It's hard to get others to do your fighting when they won't even fight for themselves.
Fuck the french.

Are we supposed to be surprised when we find an account of a soldier that happens not to support this war? It seems like the left is grasping for anything that can allow them to say "see, I told you so." Anyone not in a PVS has to know that there are soldiers that don't support this cause. Whether there are more soldiers that feel that way about this war than in other wars, that's the real question.

Oh Fuck you 1001 Chairworts. Get a clue shit dick. If the money is what was talking then these soldiers would have taken $120k tax free for a year and not the average $10k bonus over 4 years. You dumb sck of shit. Its true and you can't stand it. Candyass. That $350 tax rebate wasn't enough you stupid asshole. Then there's all that prozac to keep them drones of the battle field.

Get real Joe Bush is already using up 40% reservists and ABSOLUTELY NO MILITARY PARTICIPATION FROM SURROUNDING ARAB NATIONS in securing the SECURITY of THEIR REGION!

This is a ridiculous thread that has gotten all the more off-topic as it has gone on...I feel dumber for having read it all, and feel even more stupid for adding to the noisefest--But here goes nothing.

Whether you support the idea of the war or not, the point of the fallen soldier's posting was that the war plan is "fucktarded." I have talked to a few soldiers who have gone out there and come back, and basically it's a clusterfuck out there. They voiced to me essentially the same things that the soldier wrote--the chain of command is let our troops down by not performing an adequate war plan from the beginning. We took down the iraqi government in a matter of days, but anarchy reigned in a just as quickly afterward--along with the rampant looting that gutted our ability to manage the country's infrastructure, the infrastructure itself has crumbled; drinkable water is less available to iraqis today than it was two years ago, and understandably, the people are pissed.

The politicians who say that we need to 'stay the course,' and keep our resolve need to hunker down and speak through their actions--and show us that they're selling more than the simple idea that if we wish hard enough for victory, we will win.
And what of the government we're trying to help install--what if the iraqis democratically decide that women don't have rights, or that a council of unaccountable clerics should run the government? Will the war be worth it then? Will we be happier if we just come up a friendly dictator who wages the fierce brutality and ability to maintain control that Saddam had?
Whether the war was right or wrong from its inception, the fact is that we are there now. Simple withdrawal at this point seems like it could be just as bad as festering in the ditches of the sunni triangle. Shame on the scumbags who simply said 'don't worry about it, it will be over in a couple of weeks. the iraqis will greet us with flowers and roses.'
And if you support the war, by all means, sign up and help the army meet the recruitment goals you say will be met...the more of you that are out there, the better chance that one of my friends has someone else between themself and a bullet.

Visitor 5:36, usually when you address someone, you follow that with something relevant to what they said. Not in your case, apparently.

First you guys....here is the truth from an active duty soldier....

The Army is having a hard time getting NEW recruits mainly because of the anti war feelings coming from the left. The army is NOT having a problem reenlisting soldiers. How can I say this? I have reenlisted several soldiers from my own unit. As a commander, I reenlist soldiers whenever they ask me. The moral of the soldiers isnt low, no matter what the left wants you to think. We are firmly behind our president, no matter what we personally think. We are PROFESSIONAL soldiers, and our loyalty doesnt waiver with the wind. Sure, this soldier was disgruntled, but on any given day you may get that from lower enlisted soldiers. By and large the soldiers are motivated, and alot of my comrades are looking forward to going to SWA (south west asia) to help with this fight...so those of you who are not in the military, dont assume to speak for us, especially those of you on the left. We are the most highly motivated fighting force in the world. All we ask, is that the civilian population back us and stop looking for these examples to give you a reason to try to show that the military isnt backing this. Until you join the military, you will not understand how that soldier felt. Just because he felt that way at that moment, I bet if you asked him how he felt about the military as a whole, he would give you a glowing report. Just this soldiers comment....

Posted by boaz at 2005-08-29 02:04 PM | Reply

Boaz, thank you for my freedom. Great name by the way.

Bush is absolutely the worst president this country has ever had, and I'm surprised at the amount of support he gets from some veterans and the Republican party back home. You people have shit for brains! There is nothing to be gained from this war, and we got sucked into it on either a pack of lies or a lot of distorted data. Some day you assholes are going to pay for this shit. Mark my words! You're going to regret the day you voted for or supported Bush. You even have the gall to defend his not talking to Cindy Sheehan. You people defending Bush are worse than cruds!

Boaz:

Although I'm not a Bush fan, I have been learning from friends, one inparticular, who are in the military, that the large majority DO believe in what they are doing is right.

I agree with you in regards to the fact that unless you are in the military, you don't know how a soldier feels.

That was a great post. Thanks!

The buck for all this stops with Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith. They completely mismanaged the handling of the strategy for this war. No real northern front outside Kurdistan meant the Sunni triangle had months to develop into the hotzone it now is, complete with "ratlines" into Syria.

This poor guy paid the price.

Unfortunately, for the Bush Administration higher ups the price of failure has been Medals of Freedom and cushy promotions to the private sector.

Speaking of "pant-pissers" Chair-coward, when do you re-up?

Bitch.

No FlufferJoe. The real question is if you're gonna put your "law career" on hold and back up your tough talk.

Hey Itchy?

Speaking of taking it like a man, I may have to leave your wife alone.

She's starting to fall in love with me.

To Visitor 5:44

You sir, are a remf (rear echelon mother f**ker in case you've forgotten) Why don't you get your ass from behind the wire and greenzone sometime and come out here where the real war is, and then tell us all about moral.

Boaz
....here is the truth from an active duty soldier...

The Army is having a hard time getting NEW recruits mainly because of the anti war feelings coming from the left. The army is NOT having a problem reenlisting soldiers.

First, it's not "the truth" it is an opinion. A good opinion, but not "the truth". That is immediately apparent when the 'truthster' says they are having trouble because of the anti-war feelings coming from the left. It's all the left's fault? It's not the rest of America for listening to those lousy leftists? Why can't the right offer a compelling reason that will result in increased NEW recruits?

Don't you see the bias and fallacy in this argument, however sincerely offered it was? Just curious.

YAV

Stalker Visitor 6:09, the actual question at hand here is whether you will put your stalking career on hold and turn yourself in to the authorities. Stalking can get you in a lot of trouble, ask LarryMohr.

Yav, he stated factually that the Army isn't having problems with re-inlistment, and then stated that they're having problem getting new recruits, and in his opinion that's because the media (THE LEFT) is so blatantly against this war.

Why are you attacking him so passionately for this?

He said that he would tell us the facts, and he did. Then he threw in a well-founded opinion with it.

Why would you attack someone who is defending our country in such a deceitful manner?

say fucking what???!!!!!!!


"The libs certainly don't have the stomach for it, and for listening to them, we are getting our asses handed to us."


"Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dov Zackheim, Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Martin Indyk, Henry Kissinger, and those in the (fox) media" = Pencil neck, chicken hawks who initiated the idea of war in Iraq.

These fine "citizens" then found moron generals who through arrogance and/or total disregrade for the finiest fighting force ever assembled took on the task of proving the Rumsfeld doctrine
was the future of warfare.

Along the way they ignored the lessons learned in the first Gulf war and have given the world civil war in the second holiest country in the islamic world. Also, they have given the terrorists(both sunni and al qiada) the perfect live fire training ground in urban warfare; training against the most advance fighting force in history.

My biggest fear is the 51% of the electorate in this country believes they didnt make a mistake and will continue to elect men like george w. bush or worst.

Just what I thought Lil' Joe.

Nothing but a Lil' college boy.
Go suck your mommy's tit.

After I'm done of course.

101chairborn: when the troops get in line behind the commander-in-chief, that's not news. When a member of the armed services steps out of line and begins to think independently, that's news.

There may very well be thousands of soldiers who are still buying into the mission peddled by Mr. Bush. But the ones who are seeing through the lies and deceptions are the ones I applaud.

LiberTee

oh fuck 101..he IS a koolaid drinker and apparently cant stay away from the site to post his neo-con bullshit drivel.

His real name is 101Gayporne...

what's up fucker???

The Army is having a hard time getting NEW recruits mainly because of the anti war feelings coming from the left. The army is NOT having a problem reenlisting soldiers. How can I say this? I have reenlisted several soldiers from my own unit. As a commander, I reenlist soldiers whenever they ask me.

oh well then I guess you don't need any recruits because you are just hunkey dorey as it stands.

Maybe its anti war feeling in general. I mean really if the election results are representational of the country then where are the 52% of the American public sending their kids in to fill up the gap? Obvioulsy the voters spoke last November supporting the Bush mandate. So where are they all of a sudden? The country needs them! Surely feeling coming from the 48% can't possibly outwiegh the "solid" 4% majority the right clings to as a justification for the folly. Could it be that some of the righty tightys are reassessing the situation too? What makes you think it's all from the left?

We should just take a blog on face value that a soldier supposedly wrote? Come on. I don't blindly believe every news article that's written, but then again, I'm not an ignorant lib.

RCADE, recruitment of new recruits didn't meet it's goal, but REENLISTMENT is way up.

That's what you call a fact, dickhead.

Bla Bla fucking Bla... this war is a HUGE mistake and you have to be a fucking dumbass to not know this by now... Bush won the election, not because people support the "Bush mandate".... but because his buddies installed new voting machines that leave no paper trails... how convenient... now we see what the elections results would really have been... Bush 36% (worse than Nixon - what a fucking loser)... I am appalled when I hear that fucking man speak or TRY to speak... It's a shame that some still follow him and his crusade...

SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND SEND THEM HOME!!!

Maybe the majority right that are obviously under represented in all this are in fact barren. They don't have any children to toss into the frey, but if they did... Or they are truly anti abortion and don't believe in post term slaughter of their precious little zygotes, or they are Christian and really do go for the Thou shalt not kill scenario, or they have other priorities, or they aren't willing to be the Army Rumpkins settle for, or...

So Commander Boaz (the enlistment /reenlistment mavin) how many tours have you done so far?

doing your job doesn't mean you support the policy

What happened to Honor the Fallen??? to Support the Troops??? This guy, according to some of you, was protecting you and your precious melting pot... how dare some of you be mad at the fact that RCADE chose to mention him... He deserves a voice... they all do!!! In fact, if it were up to them, I am sure most would get the fuck out of Iraq ASAP!!!

PS: This is a fucktard plan... DUH!!! They are almost in civil war and have lost almost 2000 troops... sounds pretty fucking stupid to me...

if this type of disagreement over foreign policy persists, alongside a military that is increasingly less interested in pursuing this war and a public that keeps voting for an idiotic puppet figurehead, the country will plummet into civil war. just fyi.

See, 101 thinks he is the only veteran here that posts. Only Pro-Bush veterans matter. While I commend HIS service, that does not detract from other's service.

This is where he diverges from consistency. The military has changed drastically since the 80s. Training is pitiful in this new millenium. Maybe he'll agree with that. Our miltary combat leaders are inept.
Quality leaders are few and far between.

This "war" is taking much too long. Leadership failure, not Liberal negativity, is the cause.

Counter that argument however you wish, the number don't lie.

ArmyVet,
Hoorah !!

It is True They Are Having Vietnam Flash Backs. They are letting Washington Run This War and It Shows!!! They Would not have one complaint if they went on this Campaign to Win.

-Sarge

Win

Win what?

Win Dixie?

fools

WInne Dixie got in trouble about 5 Years ago for selling outdated Meats and Eggs.

Larry

On 9/11/01 our country was attacked.
9/12/01 Our country was ready to do battle with whomever or what ever had attacked us.
9/13/01 Colin Powell identified the mastermind behind the high jackings to bin Laden
9/15/01 Bush told us to get on with our lives, go shopping he would take care of things.
9/17/01 Bush announced that bin Laden would be caught dead or alive.

Six months later...
3/12/02 with bin Laden still uncaptured Bush told the country that he stopped thinking about bin Laden.

Bush surrendered the actual "War on Terror" in under six months.

10/30/04 bin Laden tells the country for whom to vote.

The Iraq thing is just bullshit he sold to the paranoid in our midsts.

101Chair:

You are aware that if you "re-up" in Iraq, you get a whole bunch of bonuses, right? And if you don't "re-up" there, but instead choose to do it in the U.S, then you don't get those bonuses, right?

Is it perhaps possible that the army is using the comradre of the soldier's outfits against them? Along with a promise of an extra 20 - 30k, as long as they make the snap decision in Iraq, away from friends and family?

The army's tactics in getting these troopse to re-enlist is nothing short of a high pressure sales tactic.

You don't seem to know of which you speak.

This soldier said some concrete and VERY interesting things concerning the enemy's tactics and all we get from the self-described veterans is that he must be "disgruntled".

You can say all you want about conservatism being about facts, not emotions, but that's BS.

Thanks, Zed.

I hear the same from my brother who spent a year in Afghanistan (believe it or not they send troops there too.) And now he has to go back again for another year.

I think we all know that Bush and his posse won't end this war. Their arrogence will not let them step back. If they did, they would be admitting they failed, they screwed up, they sent American troops into a "fucktarted" situation. No they will not, that would ruin the Bush legacy. They will keep this going until there is no where to go...or at least till his term is up, then its not his problem, failure or issue to deal with anymore. And the blame can be cast on the next President.

Sorry, but at this point, I feel that anyone who supports the idiot we call our President, who can not even speak, is an idiot themselves. I just don't get how an intellifent person can listen to a word muttered by W and actually take him seriously!

F*ck y'all. You aint never been there.
You don't know sh*t.

Been there. Done your Mother.
F*ckers!

Oh and BTW...you are right about the re-enlistment sales tactics. Our soldiers are underpaid and basically dependent on what the army provides them. When they have a family to support and they have debt up the caboodle, and are being offered an additional 20k up front for re-enlisting....they will. Many who believe that it is a patriotic decision are mistaken. Army recruiting is aggressive, high pressure sales. That, my friends, is a FACT.

^^^^ also DOD numbers

It's time to end Bush-it's War OF Terrorism. It's time to impeach the traitors in the White House.

July is the month after everyone gets out of high school--that's the peak month of recruitment in any year, for obvious reasons.

For those right-wingers pretending to believe that recruiting is going fine, if the president makes a call for new recruits are you going to sign up?

The college republicans are hilarious. i was talking to one of them a couple weeks ago and they were blaring about all the left-wingers that were hurting the war effort and bringing down recruitment. So I asked them if they were considering going--and he replied "I would totally go, but I've got a job lined up at an advertising firm--I can't pass that up."

It is important for everyone to have the courage to back up their convictions. If you're for the war, the path is clear. If you're against the war, the path is clear. I understand some people feel they are too old to fight, but I've also heard that 40-year-old reserves are in the mix too. It takes great courage to go off to war--maybe when the chickenhawks go our soldiers will actually get the support they need.

I hear they are going to expand the age for new recruits to 41. So almost every NeoCon will soon have NO excuse not to help out GWB's war.

JUSTSOMEGHUY Try 42 but what is one Year difference eh LOL wonder how many Pro Bush supporters will actualy Jump at that chance hmmmmmmmm me thinks not that damned Many.

Larry

Oh, the enemy is fighting back.
The horror, the horror.
What can we do now? This is no longer a clay pigeon shoot. Well, mostly it still is, but the enemy is actualy able to do counteroperations now. From time to time. With medicore results. Still suffering an average of 5 killed for one wounded or so.
The horror. No way to win..

Hurricane Katrina killed at least 50 people in one night. That's the total coalition losses in Iraq in a bad month. It inflicted between 10 and 25 billion $ in damage. That's the cost of 3 months of the war in Iraq.
Some perspective please.

Of course, I fully expect the 'liberals' to blame it on Bush the Hurricane even formed, or that New Orleans is under sea level, and of course, it is by his design that french-infested Luisiana suffered.

I actualy support that pattern of "though". It keeps you in the irrelevancy, subject to spontaneus ridicule and laughter. Keep up the good work, comentators above!

Fucktard visitor @ 3:46-
Hurricane Katrina killed at least 50 people in one night. That's the total coalition losses in Iraq in a bad month. It inflicted between 10 and 25 billion $ in damage. That's the cost of 3 months of the war in Iraq.
Some perspective please.

Here's some "perspective", jackass:

You voted for hurricane Bush.

Jackass-
Again:

Of course, I fully expect the 'liberals' to blame it on Bush the Hurricane even formed, or that New Orleans is under sea level, and of course, it is by his design that french-infested Luisiana suffered.

I actualy support that pattern of "though". It keeps you in the irrelevancy, subject to spontaneus ridicule and laughter. Keep up the good work, comentators above!

This seems to be your "pattern of 'though'", and yours alone.

I understand that you may wish to accuse your fellow citizens of idiocy, as you are well versed on the subject, but perhaps you should read your ridiculous comments again, and understand that your blind obedience has turned you into a callous nitwit.

Hurricane Katrina killed at least 50 people in one night. That's the total coalition losses in Iraq in a bad month. It inflicted between 10 and 25 billion $ in damage. That's the cost of 3 months of the war in Iraq.
Some perspective please.

Yeah. It's a bummer for the dead, but people die all the time...and we just have to place that in perspective, and as Limbaugh says, "I'm weary of even having to express sympathy... we all lose things"...

...whether it be to drugs or a hurricane, or the misguided actions of an elected official.

This very interesting blog entry has attracted a remarkable flood of retardery from libs, cons, and (presumably) some folks who are neither. Also quite a bit of relevant commentary -- none of which, it appears, comes from war supporters.

I've seen a number of suggestions for alternate plans posted by those who concur with the late Sgt. Strickland's assessment. Cogent reminders of the lessons of history, attempts (variously successful) to pinpoint the flaws leading to our current situation, and descriptions of the situation itself.

From the other side, I've seen a bit of chest-thumping and a deluge of spittle, and nothing else.

Those who think this war is a good idea and going well, would you be so kind as to post a plan? Any plan. The one we're currently following would be great, if you can detect one; if that's too tall an order, how about some ideas on achieving victory, or at least a withdrawal that leaves us still in possession of a tailfeather or two?

Oh, and just in case anyone's woolbrained enough to need this pointed out: 'resolve' is not a plan. It's an emotion. Emotion doesn't win wars. This isn't Sailor Moon.

All my best,
A Libertarian who thinks Cons and Libs are all very silly people (and admits to being a very silly person himself)

"Just what I thought Lil' Joe.
Nothing but a Lil' college boy.
Go suck your mommy's tit.
After I'm done of course."

I'm wondering what you would choose between

a) law school
b) the army.

Please shut up.

Hurricane Katrina ... inflicted between 10 and 25 billion $ in damage. That's the cost of 3 months of the war in Iraq. Some perspective please.

Hurricane Katrina is likely to be the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. The fact that we're blowing four times that much money a year in Iraq is not an argument in favor of the war.

As usual a bunch of visitors seem to think they have the answers.
I am fully aware of how Army bonuses work seeing as though I have spent time on both active duty and in the Reserves, both as an enlisted man and as an officer, how about you visitor? Are you aware of how the bonus works? I am.
So now a soldier would stay in a horrible place, sign up for 3, 4, or 6 more years all for $10k, $20k, etc that gets taxed to hell and is spread out over the number of years he enlisted for? Give me a fucking break tool. The Private contractors can go there for 6 months to a year and make 10x's that and tax free to boot.
Here is an idea, if you don't know what the fuck you are talking about don't try to pretend as though you do. It is obvious to the people that have a clue that you are talking out of your ass.
Troof you little queef did you just get out of prison? Did your electricity just get turned back on? Pay your bills leach.

and as Limbaugh says, "I'm weary of even having to express sympathy... we all lose things"...

When did Rush admit he lost his humanity?

YAV

101chairborne calls anyone against the war pant pissers. The biggest pant-pisser is the VP who dodged the war 5 separate times while flunking out of Yale and attending a small JUCO in WYO.

That guy is the biggest yellow coward and I would not want that guy fighting next to me covering my back.

This soldier describes the surprising sophistication and success of insurgent tactics, but the right sees "mediocre results".

The excahnge ratio between US forces and insurgents is likely afr higher than "five to one".

What matters is the enemy is willing, and seemingly able, to expend the five to get the one.

Deal with something real. Stop pretending to.

I would bet 101 is a pants pisser himself who would cry like a little baby if he were asked to go.

Those tushhog types usually turn out to be cowards.

Everyone!!! PLEASE. PLEASE LISTEN TO ME. it is not Bush, I AM HERE IN THE GREEN ZONE. it is the 1000's of pin-head bureaucrats in uniform, it is the State Department!! For GOD SAKE listen to me, These poeple sit around all day crying and complaining, there are 4000 fat officers in the IZ who sit around all day waiting for the next chow time. LISTEN TO ME FOR GOD SAKE, We had one general who wasted days of manpower, money and time wanting to know why he had trouble getting to his yahoo mail, I AM NOT KIDDING, Listen to me. The STATE DEPARTMENT PEOPLE ARE THE WORST, they worry about whether they will have intenet in their trailer, and they complain that not all the contractors and military are doubled up so they can have a room to themselves, they have a whole parking lot full of brand new SUV;s that no on but them can drive, they are wasting your money. the Generals are such prima donna's. They are wasting your money. FOR GOD SAKE LISTEN TO ME, IAM HERE I KNOW. They actually have military guys writing tickets and booting vehicles for "illegal parking" guys who could have been out helping this guys unit, There is more construction going on in the Green Zone than in the entire nation of Iraq. For GOD SAKE LISTEN TO ME. These 'civil servants" have no concept of being "civil servants" they all think they are royalty. The Iraqi's are getting pissed, the State Department has fixed nothing for them, but we all have fresh water, plent of electricity. and Baghdad still has nothing, This people here don't care. For GOD SAKE LISTEN TO ME, I AM HERE IN THE IZ. you're tax money and you're young mens lives are being spent by career bureaucrats who are afraid to take a chance, who care only about their next 'posting" Who are worried about the "political ramifications' GOD HELP US.

Steve
Thanks
Yup, looks like Nam all over again.

"If that was true then why did I find stories on NewsMax and the BBC about Saddam having 500 tons of yellow cake before the invasion."

You were being lied to, genius.

Box-itch you ignorant slut.
When the FY ends 9/30/05 and the recruiting is far short of it's goals (which it will be) I demand that you post a retraction to your above assinine, posts and admit that you are and always will be wrong.
I have saved your above posts to remind you when the time comes.
Asswipe.

Steve,
While most of us do not have the exposure as you with the 'immediates' you deal with, we do recognize their 'bosses' are just as incompetent at their jobs.


Stay safe!

Wait A Damn Min. This Was Accounted for During The UN Inspection. That Is Why The UN Was UP In Arms At The US Because They Never Secured It During The Race To Baghdad.

This Was Accounted For, What Spin Doctors.
Oh Please Stir The Pot With Useless Ingredients. Damn Fuckers!!

-Sarge

Briwo aka THE DUMBASS, (learn how to read!!!)

Where did I say that the Army would met it's FY 2005 recruiting goal????? Where????? Where!!!! Show me the post!!!! HINT - I DID NOT SAY IT!!!

The argument, DUMBASS (if you could read with any comprehension you would know this), was that several idiots, like you, said the Army lowered its recruiting goal. The new recruits goal for the Army in Fy 2005 was 80,000 on 10/01/2004. The goal today (08/30/2005) is 80,000. The goal on 09/30/2005 will be 80,000. It was never lowered.

No one was arguing about whether the Army will met its goal, other than the ignorant assclowns, such as you, that troll on this site.

Briwo- you are a circus clown. And I apologize for all the circus clowns that I offended by comparing them to Briwo.

So Briwo post your asinine tripe. WHO CARES????

For God Sake. you people are killing me. Come over here and see. These people who are running it are the problem, Bush is responsible, But he has a whole country, these people only have IRAQ, they are spoiled babies. And we let them get away with it. I am no communist, But our government, (the poeple in it)are useless, selfish and pathetic.

"About 1.8 metric tons of "yellow cake" and 500 tons of unrefined uranium went missing as the Iraqis left Tuwaitha unattended during the war.

Although an estimated 20% of the containers which stored the uranium were taken from the site, it appeared that looters had dumped the uranium before taking the barrels."

The stuff was known, the quanties known, they were under lock and key by the IAEA. Uranium is not WMD. Not even "yellow-cake" is a WMD on its own.

Iraq's nuclear program had been halted and dismantled. The WMD programs halted. This much is as factual as we can get. The only question you really have left is "Would Saddam have reconstituted those programs if we had stopped isolating him". That question has two parts - and since we chose not to go to war as a "last resort" we will never know.

YAV

Steve,

First, I'm willing to bet just about everyone here cares about you and what is going on. I am at a loss as to know what to do. Coming over there and seeing first hand wouldn't help - because I already believe what you're saying. What is it I, or others, can do to help?

We can write letters.
We can post.
We can donate goods to Soldiers
We can give money to try and make your life better and safer over there.
We can support an effort to 'fix' things - but it's a nebulous 'thing' to fix - and one that is very adapt at protecting itself.

Keep safe, come back whole, and get your ass back over here ASAP.

YAV

B-itch: you implied it ass jockey and you know it.
You have been saying for months that the Military is meeting it's goals and we keep proving you are wrong.
Above you decided to play the semantics game and say "We won't know if the goals are met until end of FY"
Since they' can't recruit 6,000 in any of the previous 5 months, I doubt they can recruit 18,000 in 1 month.
You can split hairs all you want colon breath but you implied they would meet the goals, you denied they were being lowered, even when supplied the proof that they have lowered the goals each month, you insist the real numbers won't be met until end of FY.
Get a grip.

Quick poll: How many here think B-itch has implied that the goals will met and is in denial that the goals have been lowered?

sorry should be "real numbers won't be known until the end of FY."

Steve:
I spent 4 yrs 11B10, I believe you.
Since you're there in the shit, what can we do to help?
We've been trying to hold those in charge responsible, but Bush is in denial just like those who support them. They won't even admit there is a problem.

BRIWO,
The Issue From The Start Was The "LOWERING Of The Recruiting Quotas" For US Army Recruiter for Each Months Requirement. Which was done this Summer, maybe since some of those who Never Severed Their Country and Walk Passed A Recruiting Office Would Not Understand This Concept.

-Sarge

Steve James - All I can say is good luck and stay safe.

Jim

Steve,
Please Keep It Together, I Know What You Are Feeling. It will work out in the end.
All The Way
Hoorah !


-Sarge

I implied it?! Oh Briwo, making up shit as you go along again??? Sad and pathetic. You are getting dumber as a function of time you spend on thsi site. I implied it...HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I am happy that you finally are admitting that you are a DUMBASS. The truth does hurt...ask his stupid ass.

Sarge, I truly doubt Briwo and you have ever served in the US Military. The anonymity of the internet serves you and pimple faced morons in the mommy's' basement well. I will play you charade.

Sarge, you admitted yesterday that I was right. You posted to articles showing that I was right.

I guess someone who pretends to be someone who they are not, would not understand this concept.

B-itch, you implied it, maybe you should go back and re-read your posts.
Since you are so focused on people living in their Mommie's basements, I again contend you are projecting.

As far as military service goes, a fucked up Bush supporter such as yourself could never grasp the concept of serving your Country and putting yourself in harms way. You are too busy staying safe, covering your ass, and letting other people's children die in a war you support.
This is proven out by the fact that you are here posting drivel, instead of there serving.
Since you stated you believe Chairborne, ask him he will verify my service.

Sarge:
People like B-itch have no idea, they cannot ever grasp a concept like serving their Country, like Cheney they have "better things to do", so they attack those who served in order to make themselves feel better about being cowards.
Right out of Rove's playbook.

You, sir, are not in the military. And if you are, you are a desk pilot.
You are a pundit, soldiers sailors and marines don't talk like that.
Only mealy mouthed little state loving kiss ass worms talk like that.

2:16 visitor: Who are you talking to?

Itch,
I said the Fiscal Year requirement was not Changed, that can only be Changed By Congressional Approval in between Fiscal Years.
RCADE and I said that was not what Was In Question, "The Lowering Was For The Recruiters Monthly Quotas" !!!!

Why Can't You Understand This?

Look I have 25 years and Counting in the USAF, Over Half My Life.

.45 Cal can prove it she has known me since I was 9.

-Sarge

Sarge ... wrong again.

Read it and weep ...

Re-enlistment rates are higher than expected ...

According to whom? The military lowered its monthly recruitment goals earlier this year because it kept missing them.
Posted by rcade at 2005-08-29 12:03 PM | Reply

RCADE and you said nothing about recruiter quotas. If you had, I would have agreed with you. But you did not. The facts speak for themselves.

Why Can't You Understand This?

You may step forward now, bow before me and kiss my ring.

BTW...Asking another anonymous poster to verify who you are makes sense to you????!!!!

Briwo, visitor at 2:16 summed it up ...

You, sir, are not in the military. And if you are, you are a desk pilot.
You are a pundit, soldiers sailors and marines don't talk like that.
Only mealy mouthed little state loving kiss ass worms talk like that.
Posted by visitor at 2005-08-30 02:16 PM | Reply| IP

Briwo, if you were in the Army, which I still doubt, something traumatic must have happened to you.

RCADE, Big Rex and a whole host of others made the charge that the Army lowered it's FY 2005 recruitment goals.

What I wrote was that they lowered their monthly recruiting goals earlier this year, which has been widely reported. You're the one making this a "fiscal year" issue.

Posted by rcade at 2005-08-29 03:23 PM | Reply


Killed Soldier Questioned 'Fucktarded' War Plan


Itch,
as I said You Are Fighting Yourself On this.

THE MONTHLY RECRUITMENT REQUIREMENT QUOTA WAS LOWERED FOR EACH US ARMY RECRUITER !!!!

NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE FISCAL YEAR END OF 80,000 WAS LOWERED !!!!


YOU SPEAKA' DA' ENGLISH !?


-Sarge

re: "Re-enlistment rates are higher than expected..."

1) Who expected ANY re-enlistment rates for this massive CF? One guy who re-enlists is more than expected.

2) The military is paying huge enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses--upwards of $10,000 for some (that would buy a lot of armor, I'll bet). For guys whose families are struggling to make ends meet at home because they're basically getting screwed, that's quite an incentive.

Box: You're killing me.

I wrote that the military lowered its MONTHLY recruitment goals.

Numerous times, you keep trying to correct me with statements about YEARLY recruitment goals.

Are you using some kind of calendar in which a MONTH and a YEAR are the same thing?

RCADE,
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You !!!!!

-Sarge

BRIWO,
Itch does not understand at all, maybe if he would "Grow A Pair" and Join Then Maybe He Would !!!!

HooRah!!!!


-Sarge

A $10,000 bonus is shit visitor. I suppose you didn't know that because the only uniform you have worn was a Brownie's.
They had $10,000 bonus's in the mid 90's for 11b's...the easiest MOS to get into besides artillery. That being said, why would you opt for a 10k bonus that is spread out over the number of years you re-enlist for (and taxed to hell) when you could ETS and go to Iraq for 12 months and make 10x's that tax free?...Save your time shitlick, you can't answer it because you don't have any idea what I am talking about.
Briwo,
Box knows you were both in the military, he is once again taunting you.
Originally if I recall correctly Box was saying that recruiting goals were not lowered. Rcade, Sarge, and a few others disagreed. Eventually Sarge and Box found common ground and to me it appeared that Box was right.
Besides, I started the whole thing by saying that re-enlistments were higher than expected and exceeded goals...Rcade then chimed in and showed he didn't know the difference between enlistment and re-enlistment.

Re-enlistment rates are higher than expected ...
Posted by 101chairborne

According to whom? The military lowered its monthly recruitment goals earlier this year because it kept missing them.

Posted by rcade at 2005-08-29 12:03 PM | Reply
This is the starting point...

101,
You know as well as I do the Fiscal Year Budget is set and Starts in October. Congress is the only one that can approve any changes. Itch seems not to understand this. The 80,000 is Set In Stone. I'm sure you remember when you had to stretch that end of year money. Though When Ronnie Was At The Helm we had to find all sorts of shit to spend it on. Now Those Were the Days My Friend !!!

-Sarge

Is this the advent of the Meeting Recruiting Goals deflection(c)?

Do recruiting goals really show one way or the other how well the war is being run or whether it was worth it in the first place?

Aren't most recruits 18 or 19 years old an unable to tell their ass from their elbow anyway?

Re-enlistment is another story because those people know what they're in for but as someone pointed out yesterday, guys often re-enlist because they want to finish what they started with their friends whether or not they think it is going well.

Jim

Steve,
I cried when I read your post. It must be hard to be there and do what you need to survive while watching the bureaucrats there snivel and preen, and while hearing pundits here snipe about recruitment goals and such.
My heart goes out to you and your fellow troops. I hope you stay safe until we devise and implement a plan to bring you all home as soon as possible.

Itch..Trus me,I can definetly vouch for Ole Sarge he has been with Uncle Sam for 25 years... and won't quit.

This Is The Latest:

MILITARY ENLISTMENT PROPOSALS: The Defense Department asked Congress on 18 JUL to raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service. Under current law, the maximum age to enlist in the active components is 35, while people up to age 39 may enlist in the reserves. By practice, the accepted age for recruits is 27 for the Air Force, 28 for the Marine Corps and 34 for the Navy and Army, although the Army Reserve and Navy Reserve sometimes take people up to age 39 in some specialties. The proposed limit would parallel a recent change that authorizes commissioning of officers up to that age. The older recruits would not be alone in ranks; DoD statistics for 2004 reveal that some 25% of the 343,000 Army National Guard members are 40 or older and almost 16% of the 25,000 guard members who are mobilized have passed the 50 mark.



The Pentagon's request to raise the maximum recruit age to 42 is part of what defense officials are calling a package of urgent wartime support initiatives sent to Congress prior to a 19 JUL hearing of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee. At that hearing, David S.C. Chu, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said he felt the military's recent problems with recruiting were improving, but that additional incentives would help. Chu mentioned the age change in passing during the hearing but gave no other details, such as whether any of the services were seriously considering recruiting 42-year-olds. Most of the initiatives in the package were previously requested by the Bush administration as part of the 2006 defense budget, which is pending before Congress. They include raising the maximum re-enlistment bonus to $90,000; maximum hardship duty pay to $750 a month; special pay and incentive bonuses for nuclear qualified officers to $30,000; assignment incentive pay to $3,000; and increasing accession and affiliation bonuses for reservists.


-Sarge

YAV,
"Precision fill" is for the highly valued MOS's (Military Occupational Specialty). The translators, Military Intelligence, some Engineers, etc...The 11B's (groundpounders, etc) are the ones re-enlisting at 113% of goals. Actually it is the "Combat Units" which I believe were the 13 main divisions fighting in Iraq that were over achieving their re-enlistment.
As usual with many arguements they start out one way and then as different posters pick and choose what to argue with you about it seems the original point disappears. I have never doubted that the more important MOS's get the higher bonus, but the key is the important MOS's are usually the technical ones, and they are in less danger, therefor the bonus is definately an incentive as opposed to an Infantrymen or a Marine Grunt that could easily ETS and become a contractor at a fraction of the time committment and a "googleplex" of the pay (a horrible Carl Sagan reference).

Yes, Write letters, demand they spend yopur money frugily, demand that youre civil servants not live like Kings, you should see and here them. I have been here since Nov 2003, in Jan of 2004, they promised the Iraqi's thee Al-Dohra Powerplant would have all 3 of 4 generators going. it is Aug 2005 and not one is going, We are losing because the State Department won't take the risk of going out there and making sure it is getting done, they are spoiled, rotten bureaucrats. They spends money on sidewalks in front of the Palace, a new sidewalk in one spot it is ridiculous, they spend money on a sea of trailers so every Cheif of Mission person can have their own, when everyone else shares a room because we are here to help the iraqi's when i first got here , everyone shared a trailer. They spend money on setting up smoking areas when everone just used to go outside, they spend money on boxes and boexes of printer paper, everone has to have their own printer. For GOD SAKE, A PRINTER!!!! Write your congressman, your senator , your newspapers, anyone who will listen. Tell them to start behaving like civil servants. Ambasssador, there are 4 or 5 here , there are 22 generals, just in the IZ, why so many and they all spend millions on personal comfort. They remodeled Saddam's old general Villa's for themselves. they are doing nothing for the soldiers or the Iraqi's The soldier who died might be alive if they were focused on why they are here. Tell Everyone you know. There is a sayiong over here and I am white, that government work is "welfare for white people" it is true. they do nothing, they cannot be fired and they look down there noses art everyone. they have to be stopped. Stop voting for democrats and republicans, Demand a real American be elected, one who has worked for a living, one who has had to provide for a family, one who understands the value of a dollar. Our deficit is not from Clinto or Bush , it is from the 1000's and 1000's of bureacrats who think you hard earned momney is theirs to spend on mattresses and internet and trailers and SUV's

Sarge,
It's easily topped...

(Rueters)1613hrs August 30, 2005

Ruport Murdoch and Fox News Channel announce all current military personell are entitled to either a blow job or anal from Laurie Dhue. Facials are appreciated.

I can't believe you people sit here and argue about 'recruitment goasl" who cares if it is 10 guys a year, those ten guys would do the work of 1000 because they believe in this country and are willing to fight for it. I cannot believe your ire is not focused where it should be. I was in for 22 years and thought I had seen every wasteful thing possibel, every prima donna, whiny officer, every fat 0-5 who they just couldn'tt throw out because he was 'too close to retirement' evry "we have 25,000 dollars left to waste, who needs new chairs" (God, that was the worst, i actually suggested we give it to the local schools for computers and they looked at me like I was from mars) The IZ is a mess, The soldiers get crapped on and the whiney, little GWU (George washington university) graduate complain about the heat, the food, the water, the "help", howlong they have to stay and nothing is happening. If you want to read what people here in the Green zone thinkl and what is really going on, go to www.iraqiinsider.com we all post there, they even tried to get us to block it so it couldn't be seen on the network in the green zone, LISTEN TO ME , IT IS THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THEY ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING

Steve,
Say hello to Walt for me will you, he's probably your neighbor!
Sarge,
Those pictures Dhue not Dhue her justice! BTW, I am surprised I was able to find that Rueters story so quickly...

Apples and oranges are being compared here. There is a difference between recruiting mission...and reenlistment mission. Recruiting is getting someone off of the street to join...reenlistment is getting someone who is already in to stay in. Most of the ones reenlisting have been to Iraq. The reenlistment rate is at 109% right now...they have seen something...and they are saying they want more of it. If they were so fed up...they would get out. Period.

As far as the reenlistment numbers...we have not lowered our mission...actuall, it has been raised from 80K to 87K...I would post the OPORD for you...but you must trust that I am a subject matter expert on it.

The Army has actually recruited more people this year than last year...now here comes the math. Last year we went into FY 04 with 42,000 folks in what is called the EDEP, or Entry DEP...that is 42K who have signed their contract, but have not accessed, or shipped to basic training...so last year, the mission of 72K was easily achievable...all we had to do was recruit 30K to ship in the FY. This year, our mission was higher...80K to start...we only had 13K in the EDEP...so we actually wrote about 28,000 more contracts this year than we did last year.
That is 28,000 more people over last year...but because of our low entry DEP...we are behind, right now, by approx. 6,000 contracts. And that is with the mission increase to 87K...so we would have made the 80K with about 1,000 to spare.

armyguy

DEP= Delayed Entry Program.

Who the hell is "WALT"

101,
Yes Those are the First Ones That Came Up. Well And You Know I don't want to get Capped In the As by a .45

-Sarge

Which is now the Future Soldier Training Program

armyguy

The FSTP? God damned army and their acronyms.

Steve,
Walt is a Security Contractor inside the Greenzone. He is usually posting aroun 3 or 4pm and then signs off for some rack time. What are you doing up so late?

The FSTP? God damned army and their acronyms.

I didn't come up with it...the guy with 2 stars on his collar did.

armyguy

I'd Dhue her......

Well the good news is, this poor man can rest assured the Right Wing will crucify his mother if she gets uppity.

Oh chirst.

All of the "armchair warriors" are reliving their alleged "glory days".

5:13: when do you ship out?

Too bad he's dead. This guy had a real bright future in politics. As a Dem, of course. He can hate like a real lefty. Why, he could be the next John "F-ing" Kerry, for all that's worth. Oh, the world is better of without him.

visitor at 6:39 Oh, the world is better of without him.

Go ahead 101, BT, DKIA, Tad, Zed - he's your boy. Let's see if you got balls to handle your own side's hate.

YAV

Poor bastard. How can shit get any worse in Iraq if we leave? Why give a shit if Balkan's style shit breaks out in Iraq? Our presence barely delaying it. Whatever you think of Terry Sheehan (other than that she's a grieving mother), you can't possible agree that because so many have died, the rest should stay the course and die too? We're never going to win a war there, and killing everyone in the country isn't really winning shit. Why are people so fucking stupid, even when gas prices skyrocket because of ME instability created by BIG OIL BUSHMAN. Anyone who ever supported Bush and/or this war deserves to be slow-fed into a wood chipper.

lol, wood chipper, cool imagery! Bravo!

YAV-

You must be referring to my evil twin, Dark Zed.

Zed, you know you are correct. I apologize. I owe you, and I promise to be more cautious next time. I don't know why I included you now that I have reread your history.

Then again, that wasn't a nice challenge anyway. I put '101' in there and sorta tainted him with the others. 101 at least makes points, some I even agree with.

Mea culpa, Zed.

YAV

You know, the people who support this are supporting not for rationale reasons but simply to 'support the team'. Dood (our president) was wrong and whether it was deceit or incompetence our premise for being there was wrong. What the fuck is wrong with admitting that?

But anybody who at this point supports the war deserves what happens to them. Period. It ain't worth dying for a lie. Serve your time in jail if you have to but don't support this bullshit. But I find that damn near everybody who serves believe this crap. You know, 'support the troops' is bullshit. You go over there now, it is your decision too and not just the mongoloid president who sends you.

We aren't building a democracy; we're building a theocracy in which there will be LESS civil rights than with the secular Saddam. Bush was indeed naive enough to believe he could install a Jeffersonian democracy on the Arabian peninsula.

And you dipshits elected him. I don't care if we elected Vladmir Lenin it would have been the American people acknowledging a egregious mistake by the man they put in place to represent them. And you dipshits elected him. People on this crackpot website. Asswipes.

Hey, You Shabbas Goys! Shut up and do what you are Told!You can't criticize us, cuz we own the Govt. and the whole f***ing Media.
So, There! Back to Consumption

more blood on the republicans hands. congratulations.


JACKASS

Hail to the Fucktard-In-Chief!

You are more of a fuck wad than Georgie Porgie Pudding & Pie Bush.

"Re-enlistment rates are higher than expected, which goes to show you many of the soldiers believe in what they do. Leave it to the doom and gloomers to latch onto this guys blog instead of the re-enlistment news."

Yeah they're higher than expected because our soldiers are being blackmailed by the fucktards in charge. They're told if they don't re-up, they'll be stop lossed, but if they re-up they'll get a sign-on bonus.

Another example of bullshit spin from Dubya's flock of sheep. Ya'all outta go live on his ranch and graze on the grass!