just where does he say this? the post was to honor an example of bravery and committment and thats what we're trying to stick to.

My neighbor works Security at THE local DOE installation near LV ....and as such a good number of his colleagues are fresh out from Afgan and Iraq....and back again.

They are telling him that they are only given 10 rounds for their M-60s. That Officers to get their ticket punched for promotion are putting their troops in harms way unnecessarily, That the oil fields are secure secure secure and the whole thing is for Haliburton and the oil. That the equipment is so broken down that the mechanics are working 24/7 to keep it going.. that the prefered weapon is th Ak 47 as it is easier to bring to bear in a Hummvee, That many of the troops have bought their own bullet proof vests, that even thier side arms are personal weapons, That the new mission is to search and arrest as in Police State, That we ain't never leavin Iraq

Tabs and victor, hate to bring this up to you but this thread is not about Iraq nor the war there.

Its about our Vets and their bravery on the battlefield. Nothing more, nothing less...

JoeA

PS Victor, you can go and hump a furry animal. With patriots like you we would still be drinking tea and paying a tax to England for "discovering our country" as we did until 1776 in something called the American Revolution. Oh yea, US Marines were on duty then and protecting American citizens, even before we were a country. Whether you know it or not everyone in this country, even you, owe them a lot.

Tabloid wins over real journalism every time Len, you are proof combined with Fox, Rush, etc. Cooper's 360, and himself, is just a lipstick on a tabloid pig. And Len, I can see why you are disturbed (tone inference) over brown's departure, there's no more "real" news, just bush apologists looking for dead white girls in Aruba.

That said, I did see the fox's military analyst, the old cranky one, rip into Trace and bush last night for bush's remarks on Veteran's Day. three times Trace tried to get him to backslap Dems for their response to the President, but he wouldn't do it. Just hit bush again and again.

If I was in that guy's position I would be doing the same..or dropping trow for a moon. I support the troops just not the reason we are there.

If Dub's Daddy had done his job the first time it would prolly be over by now....but that's another argument for another day.

Hope he gets all the bits of shrapnel outta his ass...that stuff will fester and kill ya daid....

Sgt Burghart is a hero. His heroism and sacrifice are going to be wasted unless the US can turn this war around.

By most measures there is no net progress taking place in Iraq. One insurgent is killed, another is recruited. One IED is defused, another is placed. Elections are being held, but with no clear effect on the rest of the country. Our 160K troops in Iraq are being run ragged, and being killed at a rate that is not decreasing. Ordinary Iraqis are being blown apart at a rate that, again, is not decreasing.

I'd like to see Bush make a huge push to decisively win this war. Double the troop strength in the country, seal the borders with Iran and Syria, occupy the insurgency's towns, give the Iraqi government and army a better chance to establish their authority, give the reconstruction projects a better chance to work.

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But what do he and we have to lose? His polling and influence are already tanking, the direction can't go anywhere but up. Americans won't tolerate a long, indecisive war with questionable justification and no clear progress. As Iraq enters its 4th year this coming March, the clock is ticking.

This sucks.

That explains why the re-enlistment rates are so high.

Who said it turned for the worse?...The media?...The DNC?...Is it possible that it could not have gone better than it has? (answer: yes, yes, yes, but that doesn't get Democrats elected)

And if we kept the "it's not our problem" attitude that Stuart seems to refer to, we also might all be sporting swastikas also as we drive VW bugs instead of 911's. Unless he finds a way to discard this philosopy.

You mean that in early 2003 when Cheney assured American that Iraq was brimming with WMD, Rumsfield bragged about "shock and awe", and Bush declared "mission accomplished", they were expecting that the war would grind into its fourth year with an ever-larger insurgency killing Americans and Iraqis at an undiminished rate and the Iraqi government and army still years away from being able to take over from the US?

Better yet, that they would have delightedly exclaimed. "yay, hurrah, the war could not have gone better than it has!"?

I guess that's a glass half-full way of looking at it. Excuse me while I go laugh aloud.

"That explains why the re-enlistment rates are so high."

Maybe for the Marines, but the Army had to raise enlistment bonuses while lowering qualification standards and reduce combat training to maintain adequate troop levels in Iraq. They're even transferring Air Force and Naval personnel to provided support roles because of the shortage.... and for good reason.

From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100174.html

Not many sign up expecting to be sitting ducks.

Sherwood

They say consider the source, after two pages I read this:

That is a heck of a good source, and I think his intentions are honest and clear in providing this information.

When Hitler became expansionist, he was resisted. When Saddam became expansionist, he was resisted. You can certainly argue about the outcomes of Gulf War 1, but, please, who did Saddam invade this time?

Or are you running the discredited argument that he represented an imminent danger?

Kuwait, of course.

Daddy told him he needed to finish what he couldn't or wouldn't?

Ever consider that perhaps almost a decade later...he could just be a little less current on what is happening today in the military than the officers serving now? Why do the liberals keep dusting off old retired soldiers to complain about current military matters?
Currently the Army is meeting it's recruiting goals.

"Currently the Army is meeting it's recruiting goals."
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20051110-5089.html

Apparently, that's as reported by the DOD. Recruitment has met goals for October. Hmmmmm.

However, there are different opinions:
....."To help meet its recruiting goals at a time when its forces are strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has lowered some requirements for recruits......"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232092/posts

...and from Fox News:
"We're going to fall short of our recruiting goal this year. We know that," (General) Lovelace told FOX News. "We're putting in place mitigation plans to begin to address it in '06."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166490,00.html

....or maybe the Washington Post's analysis tells us more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001954.html

Sherwood

They had to lower their goals to something more realistic as recruiting market has changed.

Their goals are dynamic... based on their congressionally allowed end strength and reenlistment rates. It has nothing to do with being "realistic."