Our Brave Soldiers are re-inlisting. They believe in the cau

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 08-27-2005 05:39 PM

Contrary to what the Hollywood elite tells their shills who tell you, re-inlistment is up in Iraq.

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/vi ... leid=99682

Puts it all in perspective. I guess cindy shillhan didn't get the memo.

She is definately working against the troops, and is severly sullying her sons name, who BTW also re-inlisted.

palosheights · Post by **palosheights** » 08-27-2005 06:00 PM

i know way too many young people who have no choice but to join the military because there are NO jobs or opportunity available to them after spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to get an education. even with all the benefits the army is still falling behind on their recruitments.

all i want is that the people who are so willing to give up the young peoples lives that they themselves enlist to fill the void but you won't see that, just their lips moving

andy

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 08-27-2005 06:07 PM

Maybe the young people that you know should look in the Classified section. Or maybe they should have done research in what industries, or corporation, would be hiring before they spent "thousands of dollars on an education" that no one was hiring for.

They should check out Monster.com or other job portals.

I find it very hard to believe that all these young people you know are just joining the military because they can't find a job.

Could you also list what degrees they spent "thousands and thousands" of dollars on? Since you seem to know way too many of them and their lives.

calamity jane · Post by **calamity jane** » 08-27-2005 08:27 PM

'We wonder what we have done to deserve soldiers of such devotion. They deserve all the best we can give them, in equipment, sound policy and honor.'

equipment
sound policy
honor

If there is devotion without the above?
What are we looking at?

Riddick · Post by **Riddick** » 08-28-2005 11:11 AM

On the topic of devotedness... While there are soldiers of our own re-enlisting, I'm concerned as to an apparent uncommendable lack of devotion to Iraq's own armed forces training.

Now, I would say maybe all that's needed is a little motivation to build up their troops... I would say that except, as it stands right now, I'd say that little motivation is precisely what there's been. While America has 130,000+ troops there, from what I understand, currently the number of Iraqi troops capable of fighting without assistance is only in the low 4-figures, some two & a third years after Saddam's ouster.

I would think one of the issues in building up a full-blown, home-grown Iraqi security force could be continuing conflict among the peoples that make up Iraq.... Nascent as it all is, the idea of making a whole greater than the sum of its parts doesn't appear to have made a tremendous impact yet... As hot as some there are, getting over differences & working together as a unit would appear to be no snap-of-the-finger !

That's just a guess. Keep in mind, I'm no expert on building up a full-blown, home-grown security force in a nascent Mideast democracy. Actually I wonder if there ARE any real experts on buidling up a full-blown, home-grown security force in a nascent Mideast democracy. If there are any, I'd have to venture a guess that they're NOT working in Iraq... that is, unless a low 4-figure army is the best you can do the first two & a third years.

Now I understand it's good not to rush things before their time... & I can tell you, as I don't feel it's in the world's best interests to see Iraq go to pieces, I'd certainly like to see some semblance of stability established there.

But! Having said that, I would tend to think it's certainly not unreasonable at all to also expect some semblance of a timely transition of military responsibility.

And, when I say a timely transition, I'm NOT thinking 'cutting & running'... nor am I thinking of simply 'staying the course' 'til after the turn of the next century as that's the time, at the going rate, American troops will be fully replaced by self-sufficient Iraqi soldiers--!! I can't say as if either sounds at all like a sound exit strategy.

IMHO & in any case, in the apparent absense of realistic target times & troop totals for a practical, systematic transfer of security to Iraqi forces? I can't help but be of a mind that Uncle Sam's stay in Iraq will almost certainly be protracted well beyond practicality, in any normally accepted sense of the word.

All around folks, I feel it's commendable that there are American soldiers devoted to the cause in Iraq & re-enlisting.

I would have to say this in addition: right now would be great, in any case, before all too long... I'd certainly like to see some solid empirical evidence of a serious commitment to having the Iraqis take full responsibility for their own security in a reasonable timeframe, much more so than's been seen up 'til now --Just call me a doubting Ronnie..."Trust, but VERIFY!"

joequinn · Post by **joequinn** » 08-28-2005 11:17 AM

Of course, many soldiers in Iraq are re-enlisting! So many of them come from such wrenching poverty and have so little waiting for them back home that a military life is a superb opportunity for them. And life, even for a grunt, can be quite sweet at times if you don't get killed or maimed by an insurgent's bomb --- and until the long-term medical effects of the depleted uranium begin to set in. So, of course, many soldiers in Iraq are re-enlisting! Of course!

And now, if I may respond to Riddick's post...

Riddick, Iraq has never exist. any more than Yugoslavia ever existed. Both states were invented at the end of World War I --- out of nothing! I have heard that Iraq came into being one day when Winston Churchill had more than a usual amount to drink and cut loose with a pen on a map of the Middle East. Iraq does not really exist; it has not really existed for the past 85 years; and only a homocidal madman like Saddam Hussein (cf. Marshall Tito in Yugoslavia) could pretend successfully to the world that it DID exist. So there is no country to defend, in the first place...

In the second place, the only reason why the Iraqi army could exist at the present time is to protect the Amerikan occupation of Iraq. Now there ARE a small number of Amerikan collaborators in Iraq, but the majority of the Iraqi recruits are in the army merely to keep body and soul together with a job. Actually, to the extent that they even think about the matter at all, they do not like Amerika, do not want Amerika to succeed in Iraq (or anywhere else), and have no intention whatsoever of sacrificing their lives so that Halliburton et al. can continue to reap enormous profits from the systematic rape of Iraq's natural resources. And, far more importantly, a small minority of recruits IS actually present in the Army to acquire the weapons and the expertise that they will use, later on, in the service of the insurgency...

That's about all that I can say in response to your post, Riddick. It's not that I disagree with you: it's that I do not do even share the fundamental assumptions that are the basis of your presentation...

palosheights · Post by **palosheights** » 08-28-2005 06:15 PM

wars are fought for the rich so they can hold on to their wealth, nothing more nothing less.

let me see, during world war 1 who was the hallburton then,

during war world 2 who was the halliburton then

during the korean war who was the halliburton then

during the viet nam war who was the halliburton then,

and during the iraq war who was the halliburton then, oh that's right it was halliburton.

the rich are rich but that's never enough so they start wars to get even richer.

damn, they are so rich now that the american way of life has been usurped by their greed, now it's a wal mart world.

andy

Riddick · Post by **Riddick** » 08-28-2005 06:28 PM

Originally posted by joequinn

That's about all that I can say in response to your post, Riddick. It's not that I disagree with you: it's that I do not even share the fundamental assumptions that are the basis of your presentation...

S'ok Joe, 'Cause as it turns out? Farily often, I don't always share all the fundamental assumptions that are the basis of my presentations !!

As it is, I like to keep a open freely thinking mind so as to consider & take on suspect outside assumptions solely for the sake of argument... (& throw 'em back out for consideration!)

Personally, & IMHO I have a feeling there's an awful lot of false fundamental assumptions (...as well as hoo-ha fundamentalist a$$es & assets) running loose & unchecked these days--

As you so aptly state, even basic fundamental assumptions regarding the Iraq War are just so much hooey & hoo-ha... but then I strongly suspect the basis for much if not everything going on today is just so much hooey & hoo-ha--

Welcome to YOU BET YOUR LIFE
Say the magic word and win $50!
(It's something satirists often speak with in their cheek)

From The Freedonia Hymn
HAIL, HAIL FREEDONIA, LAND OF THE BRAVE AND FREE!

"These are the laws of my administration:
No one's allowed to smoke
Or tell a dirty joke --
And whistling is forbidden...
If chewing gum is chewed,
The chewer is pursued
And in the hoosegow hidden...
If any form of pleasure is exhibited...?
Report to me and it will be prohibited!
I'll put my foot down; So shall it be -
This is the land of the free!

The last man nearly ruined this place
He didn't know what to do with it.
If you think this country's bad off now
Just wait 'till I get through with it.
The treasury is low on dough;
The last man went and flew with it.
If you think we're short of money now
Just wait 'till I get through with it.
The country's taxes must be fixed -
And I know what to do with it,
If you think you're paying too much now,
Just wait 'till I get through with it.

If anyone gets fresh with me,
I'll show him who's the boss;
I'll stand upon my dignity,
And toss him for a loss.
And this will be the penalty
For those who doublecross -
We'll stand 'em up against the wall,
and Pop goes the Weasel!

I will not stand for anything
That's crooked or unfair;
I'm strictly on the up and up,
So everyone beware.
If anyone's caught taking graft
And I don't get my share,
We'll stand 'em up against the wall -
And Pop goes the Weasel!"

- President Rufus T. Firefly, from the Marx Brothers' 'Duck Soup"

joequinn · Post by **joequinn** » 08-28-2005 08:52 PM

Thank you ever so much for the lyrics to that song, Riddick! Thank you ever so much...

Voyager · Post by **Voyager** » 08-29-2005 12:54 AM

Thanks, Pink Tangerine, for showing us another point of view. In my opinion, Ms. Sheehan is mis-guided in her grief. This was her son's choice; he was aware of the possible consequences.
Cindy doesn't have to agree with her son's decisions, but, I feel, she should respect them.

palosheights · Post by **palosheights** » 08-29-2005 08:55 AM

since when is the united states the agressor and we attack other countries? i think it was when teddy roosevelt wanted push the panama canal built and he had a revolution started because there was no such country as panama i.e., iraq, at that time.

andy

ps history keeps repeating itself

joequinn · Post by **joequinn** » 08-29-2005 10:49 AM

PalosHeights, there are Presidents that I love and then there are Presidents that I hate. Teddy Roosevelt is the ONLY President that I love and hate. He was like the girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead. When she was good, she was very, very good (as Teddy Roosevelt most assuredly was on trust busting and conservation inter alia), but when she was bad, she was horrid (as he was in foreign policy, although he did win the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the end of the Russo-Japanese War of 1905). What an incredibly complex man! Both for great good and great evil....

Riddick · Post by **Riddick** » 08-29-2005 11:42 AM

joequinn wrote: Thank you ever so much for the lyrics to that song, Riddick! Thank you ever so much...

You're welcome Joe!

Always like to fit in a good Groucho bit when it seems apropos

Speaking of apropos, as thank you's are being passed along, I'd like to pass along a very special 'thank you' to Linnea for 4 plus years of Fantastic Forum operation!

Oh, there are those that will say that there's absolutely NO room at the FF for views outside of those prevailing but, IMHO That's just so much hooey & hoo-ha.

Quite often I should think, folks who feel it's their counter-prevailing views, & their views alone, that get them in trouble in one venue or another, could easily be confusing their views with their presentation.

I should think if there are those that consistently express themselves in a certain manner, & then feel they 'don't get no respect, no respect at all' they might do well to consider changing their approach?

(Of course, that is provided that they are capable of changing their approach. I do know some people can have been attached to their particular approach for so long, it could feel as if they were losing a part of themselves. Especially should they firmly believe their approach is the one true approach.)

Personally, all around I feel use of blatant bluster, bile, and bomast is an approach more suited soley for sheer dogmatic venting & invective than for actual free examination & discussion of assertions, assumptions & ideas...

dogmatic: "marked by an authoritarian, often arrogant assertion of principles"

Exerpted from 'Man Bites Dogma' by John Katz

The Web considers itself the epicenter of free speech in America, and increasingly, this is true. But dogmas are encroaching here, too, and the threat is just as menacing in cyberspace as in the "real" world.

Many on the Web hold, for example, that freedom of information should be absolute and without boundaries. Thus, any curbs on any speech for any reason are unthinkable. But this ethic has turned many of the Web's most valuable spaces - its open civic forums - into hostile, unsafe, and inaccessible places for women, the elderly, the young, and newcomers.

Flamers, the obsessively quarrelsome, and the downright disturbed often dominate discussions and bully people who disagree or who are uncomfortable being personally attacked, often driving them away entirely.

The fact that many people are afraid to speak publicly online is considered an unfortunate byproduct of freedom, not an unacceptable curb on free speech.

"It's too bad that people are afraid to post messages," a Netizen writer emailed me last week. "But that's the price we pay for freedom, isn't it? That isn't going to change."

The writer's statement was understandable - a defense and celebration of the Web's most sacred principles. But it was dogma, too, the reflection of an absolutist belief that can't be thought through and challenged because its alternative is literally unthinkable.

In public life, dogmatism continues to extend its reach. To the gun advocate, the right to possess firearms is not negotiable, even if that means thousands of people may die. To the absolutist patriot, America is a land where everyone enjoys freedom equally, even though that notion's always been a crock.

The idea that there might not be a God, or that He or She might not exist in conventional Judeo-Christian terms, is unthinkable in American public life. These few traditional ethics almost totally shape our notions of morality, family, and decency.

Dogma holds that popular culture - TV, movies, computers - cause violence, even though virtually all evidence suggests otherwise.

On the Net, where information really does want to be free, censorship is nearly unthinkable. But so, too, should dogmatism be unthinkable. The absolutist positions that have crippled political discussion outside the digital world are as great a danger to free speech and the free movement of ideas on the Net as any dumb or censorious legislation that could possibly come out of Congress.

Post by **Linnea** » 08-29-2005 08:43 PM

Thanks, Riddick. And you make some excellent and cogent points. Then, of course, there are more levels here - as the developing of a tin ear to the dogma of those whose discussion one agrees with.

A learning adventure - the 'net. And your input here is enjoyed and appreciated. Especially the good will and the humor. Often, many of us take all this, and ourselves too seriously.

You bring a welcome breath of fresh air.

Iris · Post by **Iris** » 08-30-2005 10:09 AM

As always, Riddick, thank you for an utterly delightful post.