Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (107743)	8/26/2005 12:55:58 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

It is about training to operate as a group but it's not brain washing. Do you suppose the UN or any of the other gazzillion groups that hate us around the world would allow us to be brain washing our troops without creating a firestorm? At any rate, it must be working. RE-UPPING [Jim Robbins] Buried in a Washington Post article on page A6 today: "the Army has exceeded its personnel retention goal by 9 percent, with soldiers in the Third Infantry Division -- now on its second tour in Iraq -- reenlisting at 112 percent of the goal. The First Cavalry Division has the highest reenlistment rate, at 138 percent of the goal, according to the Army. All 10 of the Army's divisions are surpassing retention estimates." In other words, those soldiers who are at the tip of the spear, the men and women who have seen the most action in Iraq, are staying in the Army at rates far above what was expected. An Army source tells me that retention rates have climbed every year since 2001. So all the negative press about minor recruitment shortfalls really ought to be weighed against the fact that the troops who are actually defending America are voting with their boots in increasing numbers to keep doing the job they do so well. news.yahoo.com

To: epicure who wrote (107743)	8/27/2005 12:44:32 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I was objecting to referring to Cindy Sheehan's agenda because I think it was being used in a derogatory way, the way the far right makes almost everything normal derogatory. I was objecting to that usage. For example, doesn't George Bush have an agenda? Yes he does, of course! His daddy didn't quite finish beating the crap out of Iraq, and Saddam, their old friend and CIA operative until things changed, tried to kill him, so son George W. jumped in to avenge his father's honor and win his love, attention and approval bigtime. Now isn't that an agenda? Of course it is. But we wrap it all in an American flag and try to make it noble somehow, while gullible young Americans are being slaughtered over there and are slaughtering innocent Iraqi civilians at the same time, while the whole sorry place breaks up into the tribes that were there before Saddam inflicted order by force. Now that bit about George and his daddy is a lot more twisted and dark than anything anyone in the anti-war movement can probably even contemplate. But because Cindy Sheehan is very vulnerable to attack, I still think it would be better if she moved a bit more into the background as others join up. Just my opinion.