What Bush Got Right

[BigBallinColin]

Originally Posted by xian

Its not free to her either if she served in the military. It is payment for her commitment to help defend our country.


To characterize his position, as you have, as anti-soldier is an overly simplified characterization.

exactly, I understand his position and why, but at the same time they served now let them reap the benefits. the nation will be better served treating our military right. I might not agree with the reasoning with some parts of the war but I WHOLLY sympathize with our service men and women and the poor civilians that just want to live their lives.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by BigBallinColin

exactly, I understand his position and why, but at the same time they served now let them reap the benefits. the nation will be better served treating our military right.

We can do both. Not claiming to know the best way to do it but we need to find a way for better retention of our experienced NCOs. Passing bills that encourage the diminution of that group isn't wise imo, especially when we're at war. Frankly, I think we need to return our standing strength to pre-Clinton levels. That's permit fewer and shorter rotations under circumstances we've experienced in Iraq and Afganistan.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xian

Its not free to her either if she served in the military. It is payment for her commitment to help defend our country.



Tricky, the issue McCain had with the Bill wasn't with extending benefits to our soldiers. To think that he would not wish to benefit our servicemen and women is just outside the realm of reason. His issue was that drafting the Bill in a way that encouraged senior NCOs to leave the military was harmful to the enlisted ranks because it robbed them of core leadership. Core leadership that helped keep more combat troops alive when faced with dangerous situations because of that experience and leadership. His thought was saving soldiers lives and invigorating the health and strength of our national defense which in turn saves not just American lives but the lives of millions on people across the planet that our military keeps safe by discouraging otherwise greedy, aggressive despots (eg - KJI) at bay. To characterize his position, as you have, as anti-soldier is an overly simplified characterization.

Thank you for that lovely defense of McSame

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

NCO retention was already a HUGE problem with various MOSs. Heck, I was offered $10k and a promotion if I reenlisted before I got out. I heard from an old buddy that it's up to $15k now. The problem now is, no one wants to stick around after being deployed 3-4 times in the space of 4 years.

Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld. Did I mention we invaded the wrong fucking county while being deceived and outright lied to by this administration that then proceeded to wipe its ass with the constitution?

Originally Posted by xian

We can do both. Not claiming to know the best way to do it but we need to find a way for better retention of our experienced NCOs. Passing bills that encourage the diminution of that group isn't wise imo, especially when we're at war. Frankly, I think we need to return our standing strength to pre-Clinton levels. That's permit fewer and shorter rotations under circumstances we've experienced in Iraq and Afganistan.

Fight the correct wars and we wouldn't be having this probelm. Iraq was not the probelm yet Bush & Co were itching for a fight.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by tricky

Thank you for that lovely defense of McSame


Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld. Did I mention we invaded the wrong fucking county while being deceived and outright lied to by this administration that then proceeded to wipe its ass with the constitution?



Fight the correct wars and we wouldn't be having this probelm. Iraq was not the probelm yet Bush & Co were itching for a fight.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

truth on the interweb

[Nyteshade]

Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld. Did I mention we invaded the wrong fucking county while being deceived and outright lied to by this administration that then proceeded to wipe its ass with the constitution?

Which has nothing to do with NCO burnout. Multiple deployments would be causing the retention problem even if we had stayed focused entirely on Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Extended conflicts ALWAYS affect reenlistment rates. The same thing happened with Vietnam and WW2. Once their obligation was up, the experienced mid-rank people got the hell out.

Good job taking something you know nothing about and spinning it to spew the same rants you always do.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

Which has nothing to do with NCO burnout. Multiple deployments would be causing the retention problem even if we had stayed focused entirely on Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Extended conflicts ALWAYS affect reenlistment rates. The same thing happened with Vietnam and WW2. Once their obligation was up, the experienced mid-rank people got the hell out.

Good job taking something you know nothing about and spinning it to spew the same rants you always do.

So Iraq is not an extended conflict and has nothing to do with this?

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by tricky

So Iraq is not an extended conflict and has nothing to do with this?

So operations in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa would have stopped if we hadn't gone into Iraq and none of our soldiers would have gone through multiple deployments?

[jtoosweet]

You know the Army is the only branch that has year long deployments? It was 15-18 months but now it's back to 12-14. I know a lot of NCOs and the education isn't what they'll get out for, it's how shitty being is for them. I believe that it's due to idiots getting rank, hence the reasoning for wanting smarter people to join. PLUS this Bill allows service members to move the benefits to their spouse and/or children. A lot of people who make it to that rank of an NCO love being in the military so ya know, nothing is set in stone with how people will decide to get out or not. Plus, there is this little thing called Stop Loss... and re enlistment bonuses that will make NCOs want to stay in.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

Thank you for that lovely defense of McSame

Well, when you falsely represent his position it requires clarification.

Originally Posted by tricky

Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld. Did I mention we invaded the wrong fucking county while being deceived and outright lied to by this administration that then proceeded to wipe its ass with the constitution?

You keep preaching that same tired over the top rhetoric that really does a number to your credibility.

Clinton Clinton Clinton cut the Army in half. That's why Rummsfeld had half the troops he needed.

Originally Posted by tricky

Fight the correct wars and we wouldn't be having this probelm. Iraq was not the probelm yet Bush & Co were itching for a fight.

Armies exist to fight. President's get to pick where and when. You can piss and moan all you want (which is quite a bit) but challenging his decision as the cause for retention problems really represents a failure to recognize the source of the problem. Too few troops.... caused by... Bill Clinton.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xian

Well, when you falsely represent his position it requires clarification.



You keep preaching that same tired over the top rhetoric that really does a number to your credibility.

Clinton Clinton Clinton cut the Army in half. That's why Rummsfeld had half the troops he needed.



Armies exist to fight. President's get to pick where and when. You can piss and moan all you want (which is quite a bit) but challenging his decision as the cause for retention problems really represents a failure to recognize the source of the problem. Too few troops.... caused by... Bill Clinton.

my credibility? i've been saying the SAME shit for years and I'll keep fucking saying it cause i'm right.


He didn't need the troops because we didn't and still don't need to be in iraq.

When I believe that this is an unnecessary war and we have more than enough troops for afghanistan, (the real problem) i think that is the source of the problem. hope that clarifies it for ya

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

my credibility? i've been saying the SAME shit for years and I'll keep fucking saying it cause i'm right.

I know you've been saying it a long time. Its how you say it that immediately discredits you. You don't say that act X is a constitutional violation because of 123. You issue vulgar charges with no facts. That makes your charges vague, vulgar and vapid. (nice alliteration there eh?)

Originally Posted by tricky

He didn't need the troops because we didn't and still don't need to be in iraq.

Again, you're welcome to your opinion about whether we should have gone to war. But, that really misses the point we are discussing because we did, in fact, go to war.

That being true we can move on to the discussion at hand. Issues of troops retention resulted. One of the main reasons it resulted was extended and multiple tours. That could have been eased had Clinton not cut the military in half.

Originally Posted by tricky

When I believe that this is an unnecessary war and we have more than enough troops for afghanistan, (the real problem) i think that is the source of the problem. hope that clarifies it for ya

When you get to decide where and when we go to war, I'll take greater stock in that opinion. Until then you're not the guy who decides. As such, ducking the issue by claiming the issue shouldn't exist in the first place ignores the elephant in the living room. Something that many war opponents, such as yourself, are good at doing.

[C-fer]

Originally Posted by xian

Its not free to her either if she served in the military. It is payment for her commitment to help defend our country.

It's an optional benefit if you want to put it that way.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xian

I know you've been saying it a long time. Its how you say it that immediately discredits you. You don't say that act X is a constitutional violation because of 123. You issue vulgar charges with no facts. That makes your charges vague, vulgar and vapid. (nice alliteration there eh?)



Again, you're welcome to your opinion about whether we should have gone to war. But, that really misses the point we are discussing because we did, in fact, go to war.

That being true we can move on to the discussion at hand. Issues of troops retention resulted. One of the main reasons it resulted was extended and multiple tours. That could have been eased had Clinton not cut the military in half.



When you get to decide where and when we go to war, I'll take greater stock in that opinion. Until then you're not the guy who decides. As such, ducking the issue by claiming the issue shouldn't exist in the first place ignores the elephant in the living room. Something that many war opponents, such as yourself, are good at doing.

As to violations of actually code, do you really want me to post that every time? You know where i stand and what i believe he has done wrong, so if you want a fucking circle jerk....just let me know and we can get this shit started.

Well this is the current situation right now. Instead of blaming Clinton, maybe Rumsfeld should of thought about how we would be overstretched...? Occupying a sovereign nation for 5 years, he's just plain daft for not forseeing that. Part of that whole "planning" which did not happen.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by DjKrispy

It's an optional benefit if you want to put it that way.

It is a benefit veterans can choose if they wish - yes - but they earned it.