I would reduce YOUR paycheck to that of the average soldier because I'd put you in the US Military.
So now you're going to try and draft me, eh? My 14 years of service weren't enough, in your opinion.
You still have that little problem with congressional force limitations on the size of our military forces.
As for Hillary, her actions speak louder than her words. During her husband's administration the US military was cut by 40% across the board. Almost ONE HALF of our total force structure, in order to obtain their "peace dividend" after Desert Storm and the redeployment of our forces from Europe.
Then she attempted to impose her social agenda related to openly admitting homosexuals to military service AGAINST the suggestions and advice of Military Leadership (who were rightly concerned about preserving discipline and good order in the ranks). This led to a compromise of "don't ask, don't tell", which has had mixed success.
Mind you, I'm not a "gay-basher", and believe in "live and let live". However, having spent some time in the military, and knowing the reality of that lifestyle, you don't force men to shower with men who are looking at their @ss. And you don't ask them to share a foxhole either. It creates distrust, disorder, and interpersonal tensions that disrupt the effectivess of a combat unit living in close quarters. In combat soldiers fight for one another, not necessarily for their country. It's the soldier's bond that create unit effectiveness. Hillary was willing to impose her social experiment, despite these obvious disciplinary issues that threatened to undermine our combat effectiveness.
Then I'd take the money spent on permanent or semipermanent US facilities and put it into a mixed Iraqi security force in the, probably vain, hope that it would create a better mix of risk/reward than it currently is.
Why not just build them for our own troops and turn them over as the Iraqi army grows and is finally able to replace our forces?
I will grant you that there is one serious mistake in how our army has built our camps. We've used portable trailers, surrounded by concrete "Alaska" barriers, or Hescos (dirt filled containers), rather than building concrete modular housing that provides all around protection as well as a certain level of permanence that could be readily transferred over to the Iraqi Army. Our current trailers provide absolutely NO OVERHEAD cover. The trailer next to a buddy of mine received a direct hit from a 60mm mortar last November, plunging through the roof and lodging into the floor, undetonated. Thank god the owner of the room was on leave at the time, but no one noticed the hole in the roof for two days... The concrete walls provided no protection from the attack, and had it actually exploded, probably would have actually concentrated the explosive force within those walls and upward, probably killing everyone in the trailer.
And aside from that fact, we're leasing those trailers, not buying them outright.. Another flaw in our contracting procedures.
Humvees, as I understand it, don't have armor plating because they're military TRANSPORT not COMBAT VEHICLES. The previous administration did not send them into Iraqi combat. If this administration felt it was grossly unprepared then it should have become prepared or, better yet, have resigned.
I can tell you've never been in the military, or you would never have made such a ridiculous statement. Almost all of our Hummers in Desert Storm were unarmored (or lightly armored with Kevlar doors).
Combat vehicles, made to run on their treads for a few miles a day are running around wearing themselves out.
Of course they are. Tanks are maintenance intensive. But try fighting a war without them.. And I can tell you that "busting track" on a tank is a REAL @sspain.
Hence, greater use of LAV-25s and Strykers, both of which are wheeled vehicles and have tremendous mobility, both on, and off, the road. However, neither have the armor protection of an M1 or a Bradley, nor the firepower. And it's much easier to flatten a tire than it is to break a track, thus immobilizing the vehicle and leaving the crew in the "killzone".
Nope. Mercenary: for the money. Soldier: because he's in the military.
Let's see... So that means that every civilian GS scale DOD worker is ALSO a mercenary, according to your definition.
Everyone commits acts of violence against civilians in Iraq. That's why so many civilians are dead.
The difference is who is deliberately targeting Iraqi civilians. There have been relatively few, to none, on the part of US forces. And those soldiers who have committed such crimes have generally been disciplined (or definitely should be, if proven).
But who's going to arrest/kill/capture the enemy who has been DELIBERATELY targeting civilians, including churches and mosques. Who's going to arrest and punish those people who recently kidnapped innocent Christian aid workers??
Bush should have thought of troop strength before he invaded Iraq. That would be the responsibility of the Commander in Chief.
No.. that's the decision of his military leadership, upon whom the CinC relies upon to carry out the national policy he sets forth.
Note that Bush has stated OVER AND OVER AGAIN that he's relying upon the advice of his military generals with regard to the level of forces needed to carry out the national policy. Bush directs, his General Staff executes.
Very different from the days of LBJ, Nixon, and their political staff, who each had to approve each and every strike against N. Vietnam.
Why do you love this war?
What a F**king Asinine question!!! NO ONE who "loves" war should ever be involved in carrying one out. I certainly would never trust someone who "loves" war.
War is a despicable reality of current human existence.
The only thing MORE DESPICABLE is an "appeaser" who is willing to let his freedoms and inalienable rights (as well as the protection of the same rights for others) to be subjugated to the coercion and violence of those who would seek to deny us our freedoms and rights.
People who would "cut and run" when the game gets tough and we have to re-adjust our strategies to new and developing realities inflicted by our enemy.
People who choose to think of the events of 9/11 as a "crime and punishment" issue, rather than the declaration and act of war against our nation on the part of an evil non-state terrorist organization.
The difference is that with a crime, you punished the actual perpetrator of the crime, not necessary everyone who holds the same beliefs, but have yet to act upon them.
In war, you SEEK OUT and destroy everyone who holds those beliefs so that they never have the chance to act upon them in the future.
Hawk |
