SOLDIERS DON'T GO!
|
Posted By: prometheus Posted on: Dec. 19, 2006 at 5:22 PM  9 Comments
|
2.9 / 5
Based on 3 ratings.
|
Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Personal survival and the protecting of your families here at home are more important issues for American soldiers than George W. Bushes lost IRAQ. I can't see or understand how President AWOL's, throwing more of our soldiers to the lions (to die or be blown limb from limb), is anything more than his stupid and misguided sport! As long as he is in power . . . DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY! And if you are already enlisted, you have some big decisions to make. If you don't support HIS WAR . . . don't go . . . don't go . . . don't go! Please don't go die needlessly!
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Dec. 19, 2006 at 07:19:37 PM
|
|
| For those of you who haven't been paying attention, it is widely reported that Bush is planning to implement the McCain plan: that is add 20,000 to 50,000 more troops to Iraq. Because the Army is stretched so thin, the will require those that are in theater to remain past their "go home" date and accelerate the deployment of homeside troops. Some troops are about to be deployed for their 3rd tour of engagement. The Bush/McCain plan is opposed by many including EVERY member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, highly respected General Colin Powell and other notables. Also, Gen Peter Schoomaker has reported that the Army is at the breaking point. Any one who thinks that this plan is being implemented to return other soldiers back home to their families simply is not informed as to the new Bush plan. "articlette" Definition: Getting to the point succinctly. Short, brief description of one's point of view. Use: AA could use some instruction on writing his articles as articlettes. |
||
|
Dec. 19, 2006 at 09:57:01 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| The Washington Post story saying that the Did I make it sound as though articlette meant something other than the official definition? |
||
|
|
Dec. 19, 2006 at 10:56:20 PM
|
||
White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding TroopsWashington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, December 19, 2006; Page A01
The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate. Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said General Abizaid Smacks Down McCain’s Plan To Send More U.S. Troops To Iraq Today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected McCain’s calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that he “met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey” and asked them if bringing “in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said ‘no.’”
WASHINGTON – A White House laboring to find a new approach in Iraq said Tuesday it is considering sending more U.S. troops, an option that worries top generals because of its questionable payoff and potential backlash. The military's caution is based on two chief fears – that even temporarily shipping thousands of more troops would be largely ineffective in the absence of bold new political and economic steps, and that it would leave the already stretched Army and Marines Corps even thinner once the surge ended. |
|||
|
Dec. 20, 2006 at 12:08:06 AM
|
|
| I am 100% a patriotic American, and believe in this country's potential for greatness. But being great yesterday doesn't mean you are still great today, or that you don't have to work at being great tomorrow. You can do nothing except pat yourself on the back for only so long before everyone else thinks you are a fat lazy a******. So when I see my country doing things that I do not believe in - things that hurt this country - I do not "get out of the way." I get involved. I "get in the way." More and more people in this country are feeling the same way every day, people who for the last few years mistakenly believed that patriotism was never questioning your leaders. The tide is turning, and maybe, hopefully, it is not too late. If I had a choice, I wouldn't pay one more cent of taxes while we were still pissing it away in Iraq. Pulling out will likely be disasterous, but staying will be far worse in any realistic and honest scenario. Such is the legacy of George W. Bush. Of course, I don't have a choice, and I don't want to go to jail, so I pay my taxes. But when it comes to advising young men and woman about joining the military, I have an unequivocal meassage: You would have to be a f**king moron to join today. That includes you too AA. Don't make excuses about your vision or your stateside contribution to the war effort. You would simply be an idiot to sign up and risk throwing away your life for the cynical greedy ambitions or petty conceits of Bush and Cheney et al. You are wise to stay with your beatiful wife and burgeoning business. No apologies are necessary. As for this inane "surge" strategy proposed by McCain and embraced by the desperate Bush Administration, I have some questions. Where do these 30,000 additional troops come from? My guess is some combination of redeployment from Afghanistan (insane), our paper thin stateside National Guard (reckless), and additional back-to-back rotations and stop-loss measures imposed upon our already over-deployed soldiers in theater (inhumane). How will 30,000 additional troops added to 130,000 subdue a nation of 25 million (even al Maliki doesn't want more US troops)? And if we "surge" for a short period of time to pacify the insurgents, wouldn't they simply have to wait us out (until we draw down again)? Wouldn't that be like a timetable - the thing that Bush says he will not have? |
||
|
Dec. 20, 2006 at 07:42:42 AM
|
|
| Any surge is just rotating in the troops that were scheduled, and not rotating out the ones whose deployments were scheduled to end. Any surge with a timetable will likely backfire, because the insurgents will go into hiding, and any attacks will be better planned than the now haphazard nature of attacks. They will hone their skills, and recruit more people (see all the new Americans, see the atrocities, etc Come fight with us brothers! Allah Akbar!) and after the surge we will be worse off than before. The problem is how do we get the Iraqis on the side of Iraq, and not on the side of Shiite nutjobs, Sunni nutjobs, Baathists or Kurds? What mission will these surge troops perform that can't or isn't being done by the troops present? When this mission is accomplished will the insurgency be over? Or will it shift from Baghdad, to Tikrit, or somewhere else? When we shift to fight the new region, will Baghdad re-erupt with new attacks? The short answer to all of this is, this policy is a failure, and adding more people doing the same mission won't make a failing policy better; we need a new policy, with new measurable objectives so we know when we have achieved success. Then we can leave Iraq to the Iraqis. Until then, it's Vietnam all over again. |
||
|
Dec. 20, 2006 at 09:47:05 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
Add 30,000 troops and won't they counter with 30,001 additional terrorists? My point in this short article to the soldiers who are going to be sent to the slaughter (is Dubya still on vacation again?). Is that they each need to decide . . . because at this point they know that they are not getting what they bargained for! And If 100,000 troops say no to this megalomaniac, what can he do imprison them all? Civil disobedience help create this great nation . . . and now it can help keep it alive. A.A. there is a word . . . circumlocution! Look it up. It will help with your articles going on forever . . . round and round . . . Make your point! Short and sweet. If you can say it in a sentence, don't say it in ten paragraphs . . . people get bored
|
||
|
|
Jan. 2, 2007 at 08:37:19 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
Once again I say "SOLDIERS DON'T GO" If YOU don't support this baboon president in his insane war. He will be forced to STAND DOWN! Go somewhere safe . . . Bush doesn't give a flying F@#$ about you! Don't go to Iraq. SOLDIERS DON'T GO! |
||
|
|
Jan. 2, 2007 at 09:00:37 PM
|
|
| Did you see Olbermann's Special Comment tonight? Wow, Wow, Wow. Hopefully Crooksandliars.com will post it tomorrow. |
||
This is rediculous. That was my initial thought on this articlette.
Bush mentioned sending additional troops over to support those already there. This is not an entirely objectionable consideration when one thinks that some of those people will undoubted be used to return other soldiers back home to their families.
Seems like something that will need to be done at some point especially if we going to start moving to a pull down in troops.
Then I considered something Prometheus said in here, "If you don't support HIS WAR don't go."
I agree completely. If you don't support this, don't go and get in the way.
If you do not support this war but you want to support America, this might not be such good mix for either. You have to have a passion to be there because if you enlist in the military today you should know that there is a good chance that is where you will go.
But if you believe that there is a greater good at work here, that Bush has not placed you in harms way for no reason, and/or you want a career in the military or would like to benefit from the GI bill, then you should do what you want to do. You have the freedom to choose to go or stay. If you think the patriotic thing to do is to serve, then do it. If you think the patriotic thing to do is stay home a support state side, do it. And if you think the patriotic thing to do is to stand up and voice opposition to this war, do it.
But do not let someone who is bitter affect your freedom of choice to proceed in the way you believe is best for you, your family and your country. Either way.
This is the problem I do have with this articlette. I disagree with the idea that Prome is the arbitor of al knowledge. There are other opinions.
Report Abuse