How many Congressmen have children in Iraq

[alvin]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...6?OpenDocument

535 Congressmen

10 have children in Iraq.

At least 10 members have children in the armed forces who have been to Iraq or could be headed there, adding another layer of anxiety and unease to an already wrenching decision.

Doesn't the Bush clan have MULTITUDES of children/grandchildren of enlistment age?

How about Cheney?

How many CEO's of major corporations who are profitting from this war have loved ones serving in Iraq?

Will the Clinton's sacrifice their daughter?

[G Joob]

The answers to those questions will be similar to Dick Cheney's when asked about his numerous Vietnam deferments: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

People on this messageboard who ardently support the Iraq War from the safety of their PC's will give a similar answer. No way in hell are they going to give up their safe life and sign up for "duty" in Iraq and be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice like thousands of people have already done. But they will play the cheerleader, call other people anti-military who oppose the war, and argue til the cows come home why other people should risk their life in Iraq.

[zcwilly]

If that was true, then why are there so many people who's children have died in Iraq supporting this war? And why are the soldiers who are there themselves supporting this war?

One doesn't have to serve in the military or have children in the military in order to have a stake in the consequences of failure in Iraq. Thanks for the Michael Moore arguement, it's been heard before, and it is wrong.

[zcwilly]

I forgot to mention, the reenlistment rate for the U.S. military in Iraq is the highest it has been in years. Why do you suppose that is if the only people who support the war are just a bunch of pussies behind a computer?

[Nyteshade]

One of the things we enjoy in this country is VOLUNTARY service. The children of enlistment age make the choice to go, not the parents. The number of congressman who have children has no bearing on this war at all.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by alvin

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...6?OpenDocument

535 Congressmen

10 have children in Iraq.

So Congressmen have a rate of 1 in 53.5

Did you calculate what the rate is when compared to the population as a whole?

Because those would be the numbers that would have meaning when compared.

Find the number of parents in the US (subtract 535) and divide that number by the number of soldiers in Iraq. (did I state that correctly?) We'll wait for you to get that number.

[alvin]

Originally Posted by zcwilly

If that was true, then why are there so many people who's children have died in Iraq supporting this war? And why are the soldiers who are there themselves supporting this war?

One doesn't have to serve in the military or have children in the military in order to have a stake in the consequences of failure in Iraq. Thanks for the Michael Moore arguement, it's been heard before, and it is wrong.

consequences of failure in Iraq?

Seems like some one has made out like a FAT RAT regardless of "consequence of failure".

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12499.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129489,00.html

WASHINGTON — A soon-to-be-released audit will show that at least $8.8 billion in Iraqi money that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for, FOX News has confirmed.

One of the main benefactors of the Iraq funds was Texas-based firm Halliburton, which was paid more than $1 billion of that money to bring in fuel for Iraqi civilians. The monitoring board said it had not been given access to U.S. audits of contracts held by Halliburton (search).

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...0yHzU&refer=us

A report from Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said the money represented more than half of Bremer's budget from May 2003 to June 2004. The report described contractors being told to bring big bags to collect shrink- wrapped bundles of money and one episode where a Bremer staff member was allegedly told to spend $6.75 million in a week.

Representatives of eight companies -- among them Halliburton Co.'s KBR Inc. subsidiary, Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. -- have been called to testify. The committee will also hear from family members of four Blackwater USA contractors who were killed in Fallujah in March 2004, their bodies burned and dragged through the streets. The families have accused Blackwater of failing to protect the men. Blackwater officials didn't return a phone call seeking comment.

So far, audits of spending in Iraq have covered only 10 percent of the contracts, Waxman said in a Jan. 31 interview. ``What we know from the audits is that perhaps billions of dollars may not be accounted for,'' he said.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html

Money also disappeared in truckloads and by helicopter. The CPA reportedly distributed funds to contractors in bags off the back of a truck. In one notorious incident in April 2004, $1.5 billion in cash that had just been delivered by three Blackhawk helicopters was handed over to a courier in Erbil, in the Kurdish region, never to be seen again. Afterwards, no one was able to recall the courier’s name or provide a good description of him

Paul Bremer, meanwhile, had a slush fund in cash of more than $600 million in his office for which there was no paperwork. One U.S. contractor received $2 million in a duffel bag. Three-quarters of a million dollars was stolen from an office safe, and a U.S. official was given $7 million in cash in the waning days of the CPA and told to spend it “before the Iraqis take over.” Nearly $5 billion was shipped from New York in the last month of the CPA. Sources suggest that a deliberate attempt was being made to run down the balance and spend the money while the CPA still had authority and before an Iraqi government could be formed.

Is THIS why we have American troops in Iraq? While the instigators of war tell you it's a fight for "democracy" against "terror", the insiders are using the scenario to line the pockets of those who were awarded the shady contracts..all with the help of American soldiers.

It would be safe to assume that the troops are being USED by certain elements within our government under the auspices of "national security" as nothing more than mercenaries in the service of the military contractors to make themselves rich....our nation's proud soldiers have been turned into nothing more than pirates!!!

[alvin]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

One of the things we enjoy in this country is VOLUNTARY service. The children of enlistment age make the choice to go, not the parents. The number of congressman who have children has no bearing on this war at all.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ols_carefully/

POMFRET, Md. -- Military recruiting saturates life at McDonough High, a working-class public school where recruiters chaperon dances, students in a junior ROTC class learn drills from a retired sergeant major in uniform, and every prospect gets called at least six times by the Army alone.

Recruiters distribute key chains, mugs, and military brochures at McDonough's cafeteria. They are trained to target students at schools like McDonough across the country, using techniques such as identifying a popular student -- whom they call a "center of influence" -- and conspicuously talking to that student in front of others.

Meanwhile, at McLean High, a more affluent public school 37 miles away in Virginia, there is no military chaperoning and no ROTC class. Recruiters adhere to a strict quota of visits, lining up behind dozens of colleges. In the guidance office, military brochures are dwarfed by college pennants. Posters promote life amid ivy-covered walls, not in the cockpits of fighter jets.

Students from McDonough are as much as six times more likely than those from McLean to join the military, a disparity that is replicated elsewhere. A survey of the military's recruitment system found that the Defense Department zeroes in on schools where students are perceived to be more likely to join up, while making far less effort at schools where students are steered toward college.

But targeting some schools more than others raises questions about fairness. While some students at targeted schools are eager to join, others may be unduly manipulated into signing up.

David Walsh, a psychologist who has written a book about the impact of media on the adolescent brain, says teenage brains are not yet fully developed. Studies have shown that teens' brain structures make them less independent of group opinion and less likely to consider long-term consequences than adults a few years older.

For the masses of teenagers who are not peer group leaders, Walsh said, an aggressive sales pitch can sway their decisions -- especially if the recruiter knows how to get coaches, counselors, and popular students to endorse enlisting.

"What we end up doing is maintaining the gap between the haves and the have-nots, because they are the ones who are targeted to put their lives on the line and make sacrifices for the rest of us," Walsh said. "The kids with more options, we don't bother with them."

"maintaining the gap between the haves and the have-nots"??

Divide and conquer...the oldest trick in the book.

"Those with LESS OPTIONS are TARGETED to put their lives on the line and make SACRIFICES for the rest of us, we don't bother with the ones with MORE OPTIONS".

So the poor have to sacrifice themselves so the affluent can live.

Those familiar with military recruiting say lower family incomes make McDonough students more likely to enlist, but that marketing also plays a major role.

[Nyteshade]

No, they don't have to at all. The reason poorer schools get targetted by recruiters is because the military is a huge oppurtunity compared to those that are from rich families.

[zcwilly]

Originally Posted by alvin

It would be safe to assume that the troops are being USED by certain elements within our government under the auspices of "national security" as nothing more than mercenaries in the service of the military contractors to make themselves rich....our nation's proud soldiers have been turned into nothing more than pirates!!![/I]

No, it's not safe to assume our troops are mercenaries or pirates and I take offense to that kind of degradation to their service. How else are you supposed to get millions of dollars to those who need it (Iraqi defense ministry, our special ops, and contractors who need things on the fly)? This is a war zone, there is no bank, they can't go withdraw this money from an ATM. Yes, in hindsight there should have been more oversight, and if the criminals get caught they will be punished, believe that. But don't assign a label on our soldiers for the actions of a few criminals among the hundreds of thousands of honest heroes out there, it's disrespectful to those (and their families) who are out there fighting so you can live in lala land and share your twisted opinions freely.

[G Joob]

Originally Posted by zcwilly

One doesn't have to serve in the military or have children in the military in order to have a stake in the consequences of failure in Iraq. Thanks for the Michael Moore arguement, it's been heard before, and it is wrong.

And what I'm saying is that I have far more respect for those people who support the war by enlisting in the military to fight in Iraq instead of playing messageboard cheerleaders and believing that other people should put their lives at risk. Good for Michael Moore if he agrees with me.

Originally Posted by zcwilly

I forgot to mention, the reenlistment rate for the U.S. military in Iraq is the highest it has been in years. Why do you suppose that is if the only people who support the war are just a bunch of pussies behind a computer?

Why do you suppose our military had to meet its 2006 recruitment goals (after failintg to meet those for 2005) by allowing convicted felons to enlist into the military? How on earth could that be when there are so many people like you on this messageboard who ardently support the war effort? Here's an interesting article "U.S. is recruiting misfits for army
Felons, racists, gang members fill in the ranks"
for your leisure reading: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG42LCIGK1.DTL

Considering that there are an estimated tens of millions of people who fall within the enlistable age bracket in the US, it shows there are far more people who support the war, but choose not to join the ~150,000 soldiers in Iraq to fight the war.

[zcwilly]

Originally Posted by G Joob

And what I'm saying is that I have far more respect for those people who support the war by enlisting in the military to fight in Iraq instead of playing messageboard cheerleaders and believing that other people should put their lives at risk. Good for Michael Moore if he agrees with me.

I live in this country, I pay taxes, I vote, those are the only qualifications I need to voice my opinions about the future of our country on a message board. Respect me or not, I really could care less. You're not any more American than I am, whether you served in the military or not.

Why do you suppose our military had to meet its 2006 recruitment goals (after failintg to meet those for 2005) by allowing convicted felons to enlist into the military? How on earth could that be when there are so many people like you on this messageboard who ardently support the war effort? Here's an interesting article "U.S. is recruiting misfits for army
Felons, racists, gang members fill in the ranks"

Re-enlistment - People who have already been there, and choose to go back.
Recruitment - People who have never been in the military, and choose to serve.

They are two different things. I didn't say anything about recruitment.

[Ash]

Wow. People with money and privelage do things to prevent their sons and daughters from going to war and getting killed. Funny how that works. I don't have a lot of either, but I'll do everything I can to prevent my squid from getting caught up in it to. What's your point Alvin?

[alvin]

Originally Posted by Ash

Wow. People with money and privelage do things to prevent their sons and daughters from going to war and getting killed. Funny how that works. I don't have a lot of either, but I'll do everything I can to prevent my squid from getting caught up in it to. What's your point Alvin?

The point is, the majority of the ones doing the fighting are pawns in a game which benefits those with power & money. The children from poor households are fighting a war to make sure the rich continue to have advantages and maintain the status quo, while the soldiers come back home to deal with the trauma of trying to adjust back into civilian life.

While Iraq(and possibly in the near future Iran) is carved up for the expansion of the "empire", the rank & file soldier is being left out to dry. If those in positions of power are so tough they should suit up themselves and go fight against "terror". Will those missing BILLIONS of dollars which have been mishandled and down right stolen help out those who are fighting or to help line the pockets of KBR, Haliburton, Blackwater etc?

[Coconutfetus]

lol. holy shit alvin wtf?