Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-29-2003, 07:19 AM   #1 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Army enacts the Stop-loss.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec28.html

Quote:
The three are among thousands of soldiers forbidden to leave military service under the Army's "stop-loss" orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions.

..

To the Pentagon, stop-loss orders are a finger in the dike -- a tool to halt the hemorrhage of personnel, and maximize cohesion and experience, for units in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Through a series of stop-loss orders, the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year. Hundreds more in the Air Force, Navy and Marines were briefly blocked from retiring or departing the military at some point this year.

By prohibiting soldiers and officers from leaving the service at retirement or the expiration of their contracts, military leaders have breached the Army's manpower limit of 480,000 troops, a ceiling set by Congress. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, disclosed that the number of active-duty soldiers has crept over the congressionally authorized maximum by 20,000 and now registered 500,000 as a result of stop-loss orders. Several lawmakers questioned the legality of exceeding the limit by so much.

..

"I'm furious. I'm aggravated. I feel violated. I feel used," said Eagle, 42, the targeting officer, who has just shipped to Iraq with his field artillery unit for what is likely to be a yearlong tour of duty. He had voluntarily postponed his retirement at his commander's request early this year and then suddenly found himself stuck in the service under a stop-loss order this fall. Eagle said he fears his fledgling business in West Virginia may not survive his lengthy absence. His unexpected extension in the Army will slash his annual income by about $45,000, he said. And some members of his family, including his recently widowed sister, whose three teenage sons are close to Eagle, are bitterly opposed to his leaving.
We didn't have to do this under Clinton.
This to me shows the discontent our soldiers have for our leadership now. They can't keep soldiers. Our national guardsmen are BEYOND pissed.

I know ten guys who are in the national guard. All but one has put in his discharge papers. All of them did it specificially because they are either pissed they have been in Iraq so long, or to keep from being deployed there in the future.

Bush is turning out to be a serious disaster for our national defense. We are way overtaxed, and now we need to deny discharges to retain any semblance of a competent military. If we keep going this way for another 5 years (god forbid Bush gets elected) I don't think we could adequately defend our own borders.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 07:29 AM   #2 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Re: Army enacts the Stop-loss.

Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec28.html



We didn't have to do this under Clinton.
This to me shows the discontent our soldiers have for our leadership now. They can't keep soldiers. Our national guardsmen are BEYOND pissed.

I know ten guys who are in the national guard. All but one has put in his discharge papers. All of them did it specificially because they are either pissed they have been in Iraq so long, or to keep from being deployed there in the future.

Bush is turning out to be a serious disaster for our national defense. We are way overtaxed, and now we need to deny discharges to retain any semblance of a competent military. If we keep going this way for another 5 years (god forbid Bush gets elected) I don't think we could adequately defend our own borders.
I agree, this is bad. We should increase our defense budget and pay the troops more so it is not such a financial burden on their families.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 08:56 AM   #3 (permalink)
‚±‚̈ó˜U‚ª–Ú‚É“ü‚ç‚Ê‚©
 
Location: College
A question for those who know about this kind of thing:

When you sign a contract with the military, does it say that they can stop-loss you at their discretion? Or is this some sort of government it's-not-in-your-contract-but-you-can't-stop-us thing?
lordjeebus is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 09:22 AM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
It odd that the reenlistment of soilders is higher than expected./ Why is that if its so bad?
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 09:30 AM   #5 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
You have a source?
One that provides concrete numbers?
And do these numbers double dip, accounting for the stop-loss as a "reinlistment"?

Don't just fart and run.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 10:37 AM   #6 (permalink)
Banned
 
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?...2&archive=true



Courtesy of U.S. Army
Staff Sgt. Toby Wolfe, the NBC NCO for Troop Support Battalion, 21st Theater Support Command, reenlists in the NBC chamber at Baumholder during a break in training last week. The Army overall met its reenlistment goal this year and a number of units in Europe exceeded their goals.

HEIDELBERG, Germany — If Army officials were worried that constant deployments would drive too many soldiers out of uniform, they can rest easy.

As the Army closed out fiscal 2003 at the end of September, so many soldiers had raised their right hands to re-enlist that the service met its retention goals and then some, retaining 106 percent of the soldiers it hoped to keep.

“We needed 51,000 soldiers to re-enlist, and we got 54,151,” said Sgt. Maj. James Vales, a senior retention manager at Army headquarters in Washington.

Of those, Vales said, 1,955 soldiers re-enlisted at the last minute, taking advantage of an 11th-hour $5,000 bonus offered in the last two weeks of the fiscal year. Nearly half of those takers were midcareer soldiers with fewer than 10 years in the Army, he said.

Re-enlistment quotas are designed to help manpower managers keep the Army at full strength with 480,000 active-duty soldiers, Vales said.

This year’s re-enlistment success comes after the Army dropped its goals twice over the past 12 months. Initially, Army officials had tasked retention noncommissioned officers to keep 57,000 soldiers from getting out of the Army.

“The goal for careerists was totally unattainable,” said Sgt. Maj. Luis Santos Jr., referring to the re-enlistment quota for soldiers who had already spent 10 years in uniform and are widely considered the easiest to persuade to re-enlist because they’re over the halfway hump to a 20-year retirement. Santos is the top retention manager in Europe.

In response to the outcry from retention NCOs in the field, the goal was quickly reduced by 3,000 troops at the beginning of the fiscal year. A few months later, another 3,000 troops were dropped from the first-termers’ goal.

“We had to reduce the mission at that point because otherwise we were going to be overstrength by the end of the year,” said Vales.

Units based overseas — in Europe and the Pacific — were among the biggest contributors to the re-enlistment success, said Vales. Eighth Army in South Korea topped that list, retaining 126 percent of its goals by re-enlisting more than 800 soldiers over its goal of 3,244.

U.S. Army Europe saw similar success, persuading 5,768 of its soldiers to stay in the Army, 123 percent of its “fair share” of the re-enlistment quota pie.

Of those, about one of every four took advantage of a re-enlistment option that allows the soldier to stay in Europe for another tour, according to Santos.

Santos credits USAREUR’s success largely on a positive command climate and the lure of European culture.

“Units have more cohesion and are focused on training while soldiers and their families have opportunities to see and do things they can’t do anywhere else,” Santos said.

The overseas commands also traditionally have higher retention rates, Vales said, because “it’s much harder to go job hunting when you’re in Korea or Germany. Typically, if a soldier is going to get out of the Army, he wants to do it in the States so he can find a job first.”

Spc. Daralyn Bryant, 23, decided to re-enlist two weeks ago.

“Believe it or not, I do like the Army,” she said with a smile.

She’s headed from the 501st Forward Support Company in Vicenza, Italy, for a job in the Pentagon in January.

One of the biggest factors for her to consider was some freedoms she could enjoy being outside the military versus “the structure and stability” of the military.

Her six-month deployment to Iraq helped remind her of some of the advantages of military life: “Being in the field, being deployed, brings soldiers together a lot,” she said.

For others, however, lengthy deployments was a reason to leave the military.

Sgt. Allen Stoll, with the Headquarters and Headquarters Company of the 1st Battalion, 508th Infantry Regiment in Vicenza, said he’s leaving the Army in January, in part because of possible future deployments.

“I’ve got a lot of different reasons,” he said. “I’m not really happy with the quality of life in the Army.”

He’s from a small town in Illinois and said the culture in the Army — and being packed tightly together with other people much of the time — just isn’t for him.

Stoll, who served 9½ years in the Army, re-enlisted in 2000 before coming to Vicenza.

“At that time, I was planning on doing the full 20 and retiring.”

But a few recent injuries, which kept him from deploying to Iraq, and the desire to start a family — his wife also served in the Army — have led him to take up civilian life, he said.

Stoll says he doesn’t want to be away on deployments while his children grow up. He plans to head back to the States and take some college classes with his wife.

— Stars and Stripes reporter Kent Harris contributed to this report.
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 10:43 AM   #7 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Now, can you explain why we had to resort to the extreme measure of a stop-loss, basically turning our soldiers into conscripts, if our reinlistment numbers are "107% above predictions"?

Perhaps, it's because stop-loss numbers are included in that 57K figure.

It's common sense actually, because if we were retaining at that rate, there would be no need for this extreme measure.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 10:45 AM   #8 (permalink)
Banned
 
I dont know much about stop gap, other than in war time you can be told to stay in the military longer than you signed up for. Do you have any numbers of how many are stop gapped? or are you farting and running?
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 10:50 AM   #9 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Are you wasting my time?

Did you even bother to read the article that this thread was started from?

40,000 soldiers forbidden to retire becuase of stop-loss, 16k of them in the Nat Guard and reserves.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 10:52 AM   #10 (permalink)
Banned
 
I notice you only cut and pasted parts of that article that back up your argument. I thought that was against TPforum rules?

Here is another portions of the article you seemed happy to leave out. I wonder if anyone trusts you as you clearly cut and paste articles to present a lopsided argument.


Quote:
The military's interest in halting the depletion of its ranks predates the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. American GIs in World War II were under orders to serve until the fighting was finished, plus six months.

Congress approved the authority for what became known as stop-loss orders after the Vietnam War, responding to concerns that the military had been hamstrung by the out-rotations of seasoned combat soldiers in Indochina. But the authority was not used until the buildup to the Persian Gulf War in 1990 when Richard B. Cheney, then the secretary of defense, allowed the military services to bar most retirements and prolong enlistments indefinitely.

A flurry of stop-loss orders was issued after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, intensifying as the nation prepared for war in Iraq early this year. Some of the orders have applied to soldiers, sailors and airmen in specific skill categories -- military police, for example, and ordnance control specialists, have been in particular demand in Iraq.
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 10:56 AM   #11 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
I read that article this morning, and I want to highlight one section:

Quote:
Some military officials have acknowledged that stop-loss is a necessary evil. When the Air Force announced it was imposing a stop-loss rule last spring, an official news bulletin from Air Force Print News noted: "Both the secretary [James G. Roche] and the chief of staff [Gen. John P. Jumper] are acutely aware that the Air Force is an all-volunteer force and that this action, while essential to meeting the service's worldwide obligations, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of voluntary service."
Let's also not forget the 4 divisions rated C4. The U.S. Army hasn't been treated very well by the current administration...
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:07 AM   #12 (permalink)
Banned
 
The last ones cut backs and base closings HELPED?
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:08 AM   #13 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Quote:
Originally posted by Endymon32
I notice you only cut and pasted parts of that article that back up your argument. I thought that was against TPforum rules?

Here is another portions of the article you seemed happy to leave out. I wonder if anyone trusts you as you clearly cut and paste articles to present a lopsided argument.
Endymon32, it is ILLEGAL to post entire articles without the copyright holders permission. I can post a couple paragraphs and give a link. I will post up what I think is important, and leave reading the rest to you. I wasn't hiding anything as you can get to ALL of it whenever you see fit.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:09 AM   #14 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Quote:
Originally posted by Endymon32
The last ones cut backs and base closings HELPED?
The last one created the armed forces that successfully defeated both Afghanistan and Iraq for President Bush.
I think he did quite a good job.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:20 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Why join the military if your not ready to fight? People who joined the national guard new there was a risk when they signed up. It isn't free money (though many people think it is). People who sign up for the military but then flee as soon as they are asked to defend the country disgust me. If the public are paying you to defend the country you best defend the country when asked.

People who are legitimatly retiring should not be stopped but people who are asking for a discharge just because they are being deployed should not be allowed to be discharged.
Rekna is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:23 AM   #16 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Endymon32, it is ILLEGAL to post entire articles without the copyright holders permission. I can post a couple paragraphs and give a link. I will post up what I think is important, and leave reading the rest to you. I wasn't hiding anything as you can get to ALL of it whenever you see fit.
UMm then you need to talk to the forum moderators. You have to post the ENTIRE article, un cut. I dont make the rules, you just break em.
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:24 AM   #17 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Are you a reservist? Do you know the kind of sacrifices these people have already made? Many who own a business, are seeing that business go under right now.

These people are reservists to be there when America needs them. Iraq was not something america needed. Our soldiers still remember that we went to war to protect the United States from being hit with germ warfare or a nuclear bomb. They have been there long enough now without a single shred of WMD to validate their sacrifices, and they're pissed.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:24 AM   #18 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
The last one created the armed forces that successfully defeated both Afghanistan and Iraq for President Bush.
I think he did quite a good job.
You mean the same military that voted AGAINST Gore?
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:26 AM   #19 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Doesn't matter that they voted against them. Clinton built the military that Bush just used.

I imagine the way they vote will turn out a bit differently next year as they remember their benefits being cut, and the unnecessary war they just fought.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:27 AM   #20 (permalink)
Banned
 
Superbelt,

Its no conspiracy. Since WW2 Miltiary personal have been held longer than their contracts if a major campaign is still underway. Its not a secret. You sign up, you are taking your chances. And I for one am sad, but duty calls. If you dont wish to take this risk, by all means, dont join.
I could see if this was the first time, but its not. And its never been a secret. In a war, you fight till its over. In peace, you go home at the end of your contract. Sucks, but thats the way it is.
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:28 AM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Doesn't matter that they voted against them. Clinton built the military that Bush just used.

I imagine the way they vote will turn out a bit differently next year as they remember their benefits being cut, and the unnecessary war they just fought.
Can I hold you to this?
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:34 AM   #22 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Doesn't matter that they voted against them. Clinton built the military that Bush just used.

I imagine the way they vote will turn out a bit differently next year as they remember their benefits being cut, and the unnecessary war they just fought.
He might be right, a bit might mean 1 or 2 % more vote democrat. On the other hand if the military votes 51% democrat I'll vote for Hillary in 2008
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 11:58 AM   #23 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Rekna
People who are legitimatly retiring should not be stopped but people who are asking for a discharge just because they are being deployed should not be allowed to be discharged.
These guys aren't asking for a discharge just because they are being deployed. Their contracts say their enlistment is up as of such-and-such date. Stop-Loss effectively negates that date and makes them work beyond it.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 07:44 PM   #24 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
I agree, this is bad. We should increase our defense budget and pay the troops more so it is not such a financial burden on their families.
Smartest thing said by a conservative this week!

I'm pretty lefty, and i think this makes sense. If we have a volenteer army, we need to take care of our troops. I worked in Sen. Wellstone's office, and we handled a lot of vetern affair work-it boiled my blood to see how many brave men and women got screwed by the country they served.
chavos is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 07:59 PM   #25 (permalink)
Loser
 
OK, First...let not make this personal.
Cool it.


Second...The mods say this:
You don't HAVE TO post the "whole" article.
However, we really don't like just links, and we promote posting the whole article,
because it puts things into context, and not just snippets.

We want to avoid members just posting a link to somewhere to prove points,
although I have done this myself,
because it just gets too cumbersome and deflects from me making my point.

The Key part is when you are STARTING the thread.
That's where we would definitely like most of the article.
The article AND your opinion, please.

Superbelt...for debate purposes, we ignore some of the finer legalities,
however, if the author is listed and the site where it came from
or there is a link along with the posted article,
then we are covered...as long as the author is acknowledged.
News is handled differently in reference.

Last edited by rogue49; 12-29-2003 at 08:06 PM..
rogue49 is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 08:09 PM   #26 (permalink)
‚±‚̈ó˜U‚ª–Ú‚É“ü‚ç‚Ê‚©
 
Location: College
I think that if stop-loss is explicitly in military conflicts, it is a bad idea to use it unless necessary for a true issue of national defense -- something that I think applied to WWII but not to Iraq. But if it is in the contracts it is not totally reprehensible.

If stop-loss is not in the contracts, then I don't think we can still use the term "volunteer army" to describe our armed forces.
lordjeebus is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 09:18 PM   #27 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Ok Rogue, I'll keep that in mind. If you would like the whole articles, I'll post it up, to a reasonable extent from now on when I start a thread.

lordjeebus, I'd like to know too if the stop-loss is explicit in the contracts. I'd like to know if that is brought directly to an enlistee's attention before they sign up also.
It's definetley a hugely important clause.

So, any current or former servicemen here, please, speak up.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 10:14 PM   #28 (permalink)
Banned
 
I agree with Superbelt on wanting to know if the stop gap is in the service men's contract or not.
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 12-30-2003, 05:59 AM   #29 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Just outside the D.C. belt
In time of war or national emergency you can have your commitment extended indefinately for the duration plus six months. (paraphrased)

That's what I signed.

2Wolves
__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.
2wolves is offline  
Old 12-30-2003, 08:10 AM   #30 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Ok, we aren't in an official war, plus we have declared major combat operations to be over as well.
This isn't a national emergency.

So the army shouldn't be able to hold them legally, right? We declared major combat operations over in, I think April/May on the USS Abraham Lincoln. It's been 7 months since then.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-30-2003, 08:41 AM   #31 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
You mean the war on terror is over!?

Hallelujah!
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-30-2003, 08:52 AM   #32 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
"War on terror" is rhetoric.

That is not in the spirit of a "time of war" clause.

That would literally make all of our soldiers conscripts. No different than a USSR conscript. You agree with that?
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-30-2003, 08:48 PM   #33 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Well, it seems as far as the military is concerned, it's been 'at war' since sept 11. It's even coming out with these ridiculous 'global war on terrorism' medals.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 12-30-2003, 09:00 PM   #34 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
We've been in a "War on drugs" for 20 years, and there is absolutely zero chance of winning that war as well. So looks like under these kinds of lax rules, unless the military lets you, you can't get out unless it's in a pine box or wheelchair.

Makes me wish I enlisted when I graduated! How about everyone else?
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-30-2003, 11:19 PM   #35 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
Clinton built the military that Bush just used.


Thank you... one of the best laughs I've had in a LONG time.

PLEASE... learn what went on before spewing crap like this. The military we have today was built in the 80s/early 90s. M1A1, Apache, night vision, computer-connected digital relay, advanced weapon guidance systems, super-mobile/quick response military, I could go on for hours. Guess what, these were NOT given contracts under Clinton. Clinton DRASTICALLY reduced the size and capabilities of the military. If you dont believe me look it up, talk to some of the military brass and see how much they enjoy the military he built. Under Clinton the yearly military pay increase was thrown out, causing 50% of the armed services to go under food stamps. If you don't believe me my father spent 23 years in the Navy, I saw it first hand growing up first under Reagan/Bush then Clinton.

Quote:
Ok, we aren't in an official war
We may not be in a declared war, but tell any uniformed man we are not in a war and he'll laugh in your face. The military declares offical "war zones" in peacetime or in times of war. Iraq has been a war-zone since the end of the first Gulf-War. According to US Military doctorine being within the boundaries of a war-zone you are subject to wartime legislation, which means yes, they CAN legally hold you. What kind of fighting force would you have if 1/4 of your force left every year.

Quote:
All but one has put in his discharge papers. All of them did it specificially because they are either pissed they have been in Iraq so long, or to keep from being deployed there in the future.
Sucks, but they knew what they signed up for. NEVER did any of their recruiters promise they will never see combat.

Quote:
Are you a reservist? Do you know the kind of sacrifices these people have already made?
Yes, I am. I am not in Iraq at the moment because I am currently in school to become an officer. But as stated above, I, as well as EVERYONE who signs up knows exactly what they are giving up. The life of a soldier is not an easy one.
Seaver is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 04:34 AM   #36 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Dick Cheney himself said that there is little a sitting president can do to affect the way a president can utilize his military. That the successes and failures are almost entirely a product of presidents past, and Clinton presided over the previous 8 full years of military spending.

After Gulf War I, Cheney put in a call to Ronald Reagan to thank him for the military he built for Bush. He never did it for Clinton though.... Even though, Clinton and Reagan were in the exact same position to help/hurt the military.

Not just those who are currently in the boundaries of a "war-zone" are being stop-lossed. The article that this thread was started off of tells the story of 3 men who were in america, trying to discharge themselves from the military, when they learned they were stop-lossed.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 07:53 AM   #37 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Wow, some historical (hysterical) blindness here. The drawdown in forces that folks blame on Clinton started under Bush. But to blame it on either of them is patently ridiculous. The drawdown happened because we won the Cold War, and Reagan-era spending simply wasn't necessary anymore. The only reason the Pentagon has for justifying current spending is the 2-war scenario, where we are fighting a war in both the middle east and in korea. Once Iraq is back in the ranks of peaceful society, I wonder how the military chiefs will be able to justify current levels of spending.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 08:47 AM   #38 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Wow, some historical (hysterical) blindness here. The drawdown in forces that folks blame on Clinton started under Bush. But to blame it on either of them is patently ridiculous. The drawdown happened because we won the Cold War, and Reagan-era spending simply wasn't necessary anymore. The only reason the Pentagon has for justifying current spending is the 2-war scenario, where we are fighting a war in both the middle east and in korea. Once Iraq is back in the ranks of peaceful society, I wonder how the military chiefs will be able to justify current levels of spending.
Given the lack of resources available in Iraq alone, how can anyone possibly believe we need a "new" justification for military spending? We are barely able to conduct a one front war in Iraq and you think that once they are "back in the fold" of peaceful societies we should cut spending again?

There are shortages of manpower, weapons, and body armor and we aren't even in a large scale conflict. If anything the current state of the world dictates that we increase spending and attract more people willing to put in time in the military.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 04:25 PM   #39 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
You're right about the weapons and body armor. But the article Superbelt linked to mentioned the Army is operating 20,000 soldiers over it's congressionally-mandated 480,000 limit.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 05:25 PM   #40 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
He never did it for Clinton though.... Even though, Clinton and Reagan were in the exact same position to help/hurt the military
Yes, they were in the exact same position, but they did not do the same things. Reagan greatly expanded numbers and training, while Clinton declined both. So no, Clinton is not to thank for out military considering most of our equipment was designed before he became president.
Seaver is offline  
 

Tags
army, enacts, stoploss


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:13 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360