Sustainable troop levels.

[medicinal]

Bush's base: hate the troops, or hate the commander?
by Kagro X
Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:27:05 AM PST
By now, you've all likely seen this Washington Post headline:

Shortages Threaten Guard's Capability
88 Percent of Units Rated 'Not Ready'

And it probably comes as no surprise to you. After all, it's practically become the secret Conventional Wisdom (if such a thing can possibly exist): George W. Bush is destroying America's Armed Forces.

And sure, we all knew this:

"We can't sustain the [National Guard and reserves] on the course we're on," said Arnold L. Punaro, chairman of the 13-member Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, established by Congress in 2005.

And this:

"The Department of Defense is not adequately equipping the National Guard for its domestic missions," the commission's report found. It faulted the Pentagon for a lack of budgeting for "civil support" in domestic emergencies, criticizing the "flawed assumption" that as long as the military is prepared to fight a major war, it is ready to respond to a disaster or emergency at home.

And this:

In the Washington area, Guard officials worry about a catastrophic attack. In the event of "a very large . . . chemical, biological or nuclear incident in the national capital region, I would need every truck I was authorized, and we don't have that," said Col. Robert Simpson, director of the joint staff for the Virginia National Guard. "We are definitely short trucks, all wheeled vehicles," as well as radios, bulldozers and other gear, Simpson said. The state Guard could handle ordinary contingencies such as "bad winter weather," he said.

But you only know that because you're a bunch of liberal moonbats, and you read "newspapers."

Well, traitor smarty-pants, did you know this?

Some employers, already pinched by mobilizations of workers who are in the National Guard or reserves, are saying privately theyâ??ll be reluctant to hire new employee-reservists.

Discriminating against someone because of their military obligations is illegal, but 51 percent of employers who responded to an informal, online poll by Workforce Management magazine said they would not hire an employee who is a citizen-soldier "if they knew that a military reservist or National Guard member could be called up and taken away from their job for an indeterminate amount of time," as the question was posed.

Yes, that's right. The hard workin', job providin', beer-with-the-preznit wantin' backbone of 'merika -- not you, dummies, your bosses -- are at the point where they'd rather break the law (and hate on the troops, too) than put their money where their mouths are, and support Th' Decider.

Oh, they'll still tell you they do (though in ever-dwindling numbers). But they've got their fingers crossed behind their backs with one hand, and have a death grip on their wallets with the other hand.

Carry on your war, Mr. President. Just do it with someone else's workers

medicinal Reviewed by medicinal on 03-02-2007. Sustainable troop levels. Bush's base: hate the troops, or hate the commander? by Kagro X Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:27:05 AM PST By now, you've all likely seen this Washington Post headline: Shortages Threaten Guard's Capability 88 Percent of Units Rated 'Not Ready' And it probably comes as no surprise to you. After all, it's practically become the secret Conventional Wisdom (if such a thing can possibly exist): George W. Bush is destroying America's Armed Forces. Rating: 5

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

But you only know that because you're a bunch of liberal moonbats, and you read "newspapers."

:S2: :S2: :S2:
Is it too late to change my username to Liberal Moonbat?

[The Figment]

What makes me see a draft in the not so distant future?

In WW2 we had 20,000 000 Troops and 178,000,000 people living in the US...
Today we have 2,000,000 Troops and 300,000,000 people living in the US.

And the Pentagon budget is almost 100 times larger!

[medicinal]

What makes me see a draft in the not so distant future?
Sort of makes you wonder. When all the players say there will be no draft, you wonder what they're cooking up to scare us into one. Everyone is saying we don't have enough troops and the warmongers are jousting with Iran, seems to me they need an incident, remember the gulf of Tonkin, Maybe a spy plane shot down over Iran, Or some border incursion. History has a way of repeating, and these players are every bit as malicious as Nixon and Johnson. I'm thinkin any day now we'll get a surprise. Don't hold me to this, but History has.......................

[Bong30]

Med....maybey....just think the new gulf of Tonkin is

the president of Iran NUKING israel......your wet dream....

go beat your meat to ISRAEL being NUKED........ get some.....



Once 6 million Jews die with 1 bomb you will be loving it.......GO IRAN GO.


dumbass.....

[higher4hockey]

In WW2 we had 20,000 000 Troops and 178,000,000 people living in the US...
Today we have 2,000,000 Troops and 300,000,000 people living in the US.

because back then it was "my country right or wrong"

now its "what's in it for me"

[Psycho4Bud]

What makes me see a draft in the not so distant future?

In WW2 we had 20,000 000 Troops and 178,000,000 people living in the US...
Today we have 2,000,000 Troops and 300,000,000 people living in the US.

And the Pentagon budget is almost 100 times larger!

Incredible! WW2 we would loose 10,000 in order to take a piece of land. We'd use B-52's to destroy a city BEFORE foot soldiers entered. Technology has put us into a different realm.:thumbsup:

Comparing apples to oranges.......just a left wing scare tactic.

Have a good one! :s4:

[medicinal]

Incredible! WW2 we would loose 10,000 in order to take a piece of land. We'd use B-52's to destroy a city BEFORE foot soldiers entered. Technology has put us into a different realm.:thumbsup:

Comparing apples to oranges.......just a left wing scare tactic.

Have a good one! :s4:

Pleeeeeeeeze, You know the right is in charge of scare tactics. Now think about this comment: "we would lose 10,000 in order to take a piece of land" Pure genious. You're talking 10,000 human beings, not turkeys, what genious made that battle plan. It's a wonder we won with that kind of battle planning. I think Iraq has shown that shock and awe doesn't get the job done. Lets be real about Iraq. We had Sadam, surrounded, contained. He was no threat to us or his neighbors. Sure he had offed a few thousand of his dissenters, a few had planned an assisination upon him and he offed their whole village, a brutal tyrant for sure. Now, how many have we killed. No-one is sure. Estimates range from 50-800 thousand. Are we better because we are the "Good Guys"? It's so rediculous it doesn't deserve Discussion, but I know you'll have to try. OOh, those bad guys started it, and right you are, only the bad guys are Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld etc. etc!

[Psycho4Bud]

Pleeeeeeeeze, You know the right is in charge of scare tactics. Now think about this comment: "we would lose 10,000 in order to take a piece of land" Pure genious. You're talking 10,000 human beings, not turkeys, what genious made that battle plan. It's a wonder we won with that kind of battle planning. I think Iraq has shown that shock and awe doesn't get the job done. Lets be real about Iraq. We had Sadam, surrounded, contained. He was no threat to us or his neighbors. Sure he had offed a few thousand of his dissenters, a few had planned an assisination upon him and he offed their whole village, a brutal tyrant for sure. Now, how many have we killed. No-one is sure. Estimates range from 50-800 thousand. Are we better because we are the "Good Guys"? It's so rediculous it doesn't deserve Discussion, but I know you'll have to try. OOh, those bad guys started it, and right you are, only the bad guys are Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld etc. etc!

The battle of D day was a perfect example not to mention the battles that took place to control islands from the Japanese. The point was that we didn't have the technology so the only option was to go in guns a blazin'.

As for the rest of your post regarding how great Sadam was.......do you really buy that or is this just a front? Sure he offed a few thousand ........DAMN!

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

As for the rest of your post regarding how great Sadam was.......do you really buy that or is this just a front? Sure he offed a few thousand ........DAMN![color=DarkRed]Did you miss the part where I said he was a brutal dictator, I guess you must think I liked him, hell no, but it was his country and even if he was the greatest asshole on the planet (I'm sure there are plenty more as bad) we had no business invading. Come on now, I believe you are an intelligent being (unlike a couple I could mention), do you not see the profit motives involved in this war, can you not see that Dick Cheney was just chompin at the Bit to invade Iraq so he could put his company to work (Haliburton), Do you not suppose all the War contractors were pushing the neocons to invade, get real here. It's about the money, period! Maybe WWII was about saving the world from Hitlers scourge, and sacrificing 10,000 GIs to take one little island so we could build the landing strip to launch the B-29s with A-bombs was the right thing to do (Unless you were one of those 10,000). It amazes me that the right wingers can't see this. Get real, your Idols are a bunch of money grubbing warmongers. It's not about saving us from bad guys, although thats what they want us to believe, It's about the money... Follow the Money!!![/COLOR] Don't forget the part where I mentioned the possible amount of Iraqis we've offed, could be as much as 800,000! So the question is: who are the real bad guys? Don't give me that crapola about me hating the USA or the Troops, that wont fly!