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 !!! Footb