Thank goodness my 3rd child is too young to have to serve under Obama. No way, no how.

YouTube - Barack Obama visits marines on Christmas; met with silence

And of course we'll have to put up with his putting the troops down on a regular basis. No wonder they have no faith in this guy.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/

As a Black NCO serving in the Army, I am very optimistic, but then I did three tours in Iraq, and one Afganistan tour. It's funny how Marines complain, they are only there for seven moths at a time, i have served no less that 13 months everytime I deployed. Never listen to LT's especially airforce lt's who are stationed in England, the only thing she needs protection from are stale crumpets. I dont think Obama can do any worse than killing 4,774 service men and women. (not including the 16 killed in the phillipines, and 20 killed in africa)

Funny, I could have swore the support for Barack was high.


Could just be the leftist owned media up to no good again I guess.:rolleyes:

As a Black NCO serving in the Army....I dont think Obama can do any worse than killing 4,774 service men and women.

Based on these comments, I'm sure you'll re-up to serve the Messiah then.

I dont think Obama can do any worse than killing 4,774 service men and women. (not including the 16 killed in the phillipines, and 20 killed in africa)
You are kidding, right?
Your implication that the military deaths are the purely the result of incompetence and without merit.

On a single day in September, 2,976 were killed in a series of terrorist attacks on American soil. We live in a world where an aggressive Iran is on the brink of having nuclear weapons. And you seriously ask how much worse could it be?

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but Obama has made some statements regarding the military during the campaign. Perhaps it was wise to not pay attention, because Obama seems like a guy who is likely to change his position. But he has said he intends to expedite the withdrawal from Iraq and then intensify the efforts in Afghanistan by simply increasing the number of soldiers on the ground there.

And despite serious concerns of the Pentagon, and their need for increased funding and manpower, Obama has expressed his desire the decimate the military budget.

You ask how much "worse" can it get...
I hope we don't find out. But if you'd really like to know, ask some of the guys who served during the Clinton years- ask them about the shortages of parts and ammo. About the limited access to training. Or about the lack of support in the field. This was at a time of perceived peace too, if you don't mind the military operations in Iraq, Bosnia, Haiti, or Somalia though.

Ya ! Bush and Rummy did such a good job!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51481-2004Dec9.html

Hey LincolnX2---Do you think 'HE' got tired during the time 'HE' was killing all those service people? Maybe he even had to sit down for a few minutes every once in a while.

I've been impressed by the things you've had to say, up until now, but you certainly came out with a dumb one this time!
KS

Ya ! Bush and Rummy did such a good job!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51481-2004Dec9.html

Is it necessary to have that four year old discussion over again? It doesn't even contribute anything to this discussion.

Do those single line, throw away responses help you delude yourself into thinking you're clever for making them?

Basically it shows the same said disregard. Actually even greater disregard.

You are kidding, right?
Your implication that the military deaths are the purely the result of incompetence and without merit.

On a single day in September, 2,976 were killed in a series of terrorist attacks on American soil. We live in a world where an aggressive Iran is on the brink of having nuclear weapons. And you seriously ask how much worse could it be?

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but Obama has made some statements regarding the military during the campaign. Perhaps it was wise to not pay attention, because Obama seems like a guy who is likely to change his position. But he has said he intends to expedite the withdrawal from Iraq and then intensify the efforts in Afghanistan by simply increasing the number of soldiers on the ground there.

And despite serious concerns of the Pentagon, and their need for increased funding and manpower, Obama has expressed his desire the decimate the military budget.

You ask how much "worse" can it get...
I hope we don't find out. But if you'd really like to know, ask some of the guys who served during the Clinton years- ask them about the shortages of parts and ammo. About the limited access to training. Or about the lack of support in the field. This was at a time of perceived peace too, if you don't mind the military operations in Iraq, Bosnia, Haiti, or Somalia though.

We invaded Iraq because they were capable of WMD not manufacturing like Bush said.

We invaded Iraq so Jr can prove to pops he was capable of not only filling in his shoes but finishing his job.

Hey LincolnX2---Do you think 'HE' got tired during the time 'HE' was killing all those service people? Maybe he even had to sit down for a few minutes every once in a while.

I've been impressed by the things you've had to say, up until now, but you certainly came out with a dumb one this time!
KS

I do not mean Bush was the trigger man for every EFP (roadside bomb) but he did begin the deception that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I do not mean Bush was the trigger man for every EFP (roadside bomb) but he did begin the deception that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Do we really need to list adnaseum the number of Democrats pontificating about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion.

Bush was not alone in this decision. Quit rewriting history.

Do you support our involvement in Iraq?

You are correct he was not alone but the others were ignored. It took 2 years to draw up post war Germany plans in WWII. Bush thought he could do this join in 60 days. He had one thing on his mind.

You ask how much "worse" can it get...
I hope we don't find out. But if you'd really like to know, ask some of the guys who served during the Clinton years- ask them about the shortages of parts and ammo. About the limited access to training. Or about the lack of support in the field. This was at a time of perceived peace too, if you don't mind the military operations in Iraq, Bosnia, Haiti, or Somalia though.[/QUOTE]

And its funny how say there was a lack of training during Clintons administration, I had a total a 8 week basic training, 17week AIT training and reported to my unit, 1 month later i met them in Iraq, thats a total of 25 weeks of training. The following deployments i had less than 1 year to train my guys, and i only had 6 months before I left for Afganistan, so let me train you for 25 weeks and send you overseas to see how combat ready we are.

Do we really need to list adnaseum the number of Democrats pontificating about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion.

Bush was not alone in this decision. Quit rewriting history.

Do you support our involvement in Iraq?

NO! I was ok with deploying the first two times, but then people started resigning, saying that the war in Iraq was a mistake, well a mistake is why i got little kids asking me why didn't i keep their dad safe?

people started resigning

People weren't resigning unless you mean military officials themselves. Its more like peoples opinions were voiced and unappreciated and they were forced out.

Military officials started resigning as soon as Bush took office, Gen. Shesenki who opposed the war and refused to lie about WMD's, Gen Franks retired after he realized what a mistake the US has made, and look at all the other countries pulling out, Italy pulled their troops, Britian is leaving in May, hell their PM (Tony Blair) resigned when the Bush started burning.

I am curious and was wondering if there a chart similar to that regarding how the troops feel with Bush as their commander-in-chief? I googled and came up empty.;)

Its funny you asked that, I know the Military is suppose to be this non-biased, a everybody loves everybody brotherhood, but most Blacks welcome Obama, and Most White's liked Bush. Thats why I told my guys not to talk about religion or politics while deployed, because talking politics always resorted to "democrats support blacks" or "republicans hate black people"LOL

I am curious and was wondering if there a chart similar to that regarding how the troops feel with Bush as their commander-in-chief? I googled and came up empty.;)

Im sure my 15 year old nephew can make one that looks just the same:)

I just dont get why some people are so opposed to Obama taking office, thsi guy has a clean slate, give him a chance to mess up. Before bush took office he had run 2 of his fathers companies into the ground, and as president the only good thing he has done was given service members a raise every year and enabled me to pay of my cars in less than 3 years. Thanks!

I am curious and was wondering if there a chart similar to that regarding how the troops feel with Bush as their commander-in-chief? I googled and came up empty.;)


You probably won't find one, we are not suppose to voice our opinions about situations to media, or the general public, we support our "we will follow the orders of those appointed over us"

Is it necessary to have that four year old discussion over again? It doesn't even contribute anything to this discussion.

Do those single line, throw away responses help you delude yourself into thinking you're clever for making them?


It contributes as much as this statement.

You ask how much "worse" can it get...
I hope we don't find out. But if you'd really like to know, ask some of the guys who served during the Clinton years


Just making a point......just like you.

I just dont get why some people are so opposed to Obama taking office, thsi guy has a clean slate, give him a chance to mess up.

One: He's a usurper. He doesn't qualify to be CIC.
Two: He is dishonest.
Three: He is unqualified in every aspect in regards to his job history.
Four: He's led a life filled with bad associations.
Five: He's a pothead and a coke-head who may still be using.
Six: He a socialist.
Seven: He believes in unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Eight: He's a racist.
Nine: He's anti-semitic.
Ten: He's so arrogant he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Under the veil lies an empty suit.

It contributes as much as this statement.
Just making a point......just like you.
No, not like me. I think my point was pretty clear. The military suffered profoundly under both Clinton, and Carter too. So, in direct response to the challenged posed, it clearly CAN BE WORSE.

You still haven't made a point.
Are you saying that the issue of up armored humvees five years ago is relevant to the discussion? If so, how?

No, not like me. I think my point was pretty clear. The military suffered profoundly under both Clinton, and Carter too. So, in direct response to the challenged posed, it clearly CAN BE WORSE.

Which as NOTHING to do with Obama and the military

You still haven't made a point.
Are you saying that the issue of up armored humvees five years ago is relevant to the discussion? If so, how?

It is just as relevant .... the military has suffered alot under Bush.
Its the same point. I guess Bush proved it can be worse didn't he ?

One: He's a usurper. He doesn't qualify to be CIC.
Two: He is dishonest.
Three: He is unqualified in every aspect in regards to his job history.
Four: He's led a life filled with bad associations.
Five: He's a pothead and a coke-head who may still be using.
Six: He a socialist.
Seven: He believes in unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Eight: He's a racist.
Nine: He's anti-semitic.
Ten: He's so arrogant he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Under the veil lies an empty suit.

All of those can apply to you and I both,

You have lied before, everyone has lied before.
I would love to see the prereqs to be CIC, What gave GW experience?
Do you know people in prison, or Ex-cons? If noti am sure I can link you a few!
I am sure you have smoked weed before, even I tried it once. I was too wussy to try crack.
Everybody is a Racist, simply because we label people as "white" or "Black"
And confidence is easily mistaken to be arrogance, just talking to you on this forum, I can tell you are very confident, hell thats how u make it in life, I am confident as hell, I think I can sale salt to a snail.

Military officials started resigning as soon as Bush took office, Gen. Shesenki who opposed the war and refused to lie about WMD's, Gen Franks retired after he realized what a mistake the US has made, and look at all the other countries pulling out, Italy pulled their troops, Britian is leaving in May, hell their PM (Tony Blair) resigned when the Bush started burning.Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

2008 Military Times poll: Wary about Obama

Troops cite inexperience, Iraq timetable

By Brendan McGarry - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Dec 30, 2008 18:02:38 EST

When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.

In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.

“Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,” said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified.

For eight years, members of the U.S. military have served under a Republican commander in chief who reflected their generally conservative views and led them to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, the troops face change not only at the very top of the chain of command, as Obama nears his Jan. 20 inauguration, but perhaps in mission, policy and values.

Underlying much of the uncertainty is Obama’s stated 16-month timetable for pulling combat troops out of Iraq, as well as his calls to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to survey responses and interviews.

“How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?” said Air Force 1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations Support Squadron at RAF Mildenhall, England. “And if you’re pulling out combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what’s left? What happens if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing the same thing over again?”

When asked who has their best interests at heart — Obama or President George W. Bush — a higher percentage of respondents picked Bush, though Bush has lost ground over time. About half of the respondents said Bush has their best interests at heart this year, the same percentage as last year but a decline from 69 percent in 2004.

Nearly one-third of respondents — including eight out of 10 black service members — said they are optimistic about their incoming boss.

Even some service members who voted against Obama — only 1 in 4 supported him over Sen. John McCain in a pre-election survey of Military Times subscribers —now express goodwill toward him as their new commander in chief.

“Overall, the prospect of having someone who isn’t necessarily tied to old strategies is a good thing,” said Air Force Master Sgt. David Ortegon, who said he voted for McCain. “Sometimes you need a fresh perspective to be able to handle our military readiness and the needs of the nation.”

The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers. This year’s survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents.

The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.

But as a snapshot of the professional corps, the responses highlight the challenges Obama faces as he prepares to take command of military careerists with different political and cultural attitudes.

In keeping with previous surveys, nearly half of the respondents described their political views as conservative or very conservative. Slightly more than half said they consider themselves Republicans, 22 percent independents and 13 percent Democrats.

One: He's a usurper. He doesn't qualify to be CIC.
Two: He is dishonest.
Three: He is unqualified in every aspect in regards to his job history.
Four: He's led a life filled with bad associations.
Five: He's a pothead and a coke-head who may still be using.
Six: He a socialist.
Seven: He believes in unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Eight: He's a racist.
Nine: He's anti-semitic.
Ten: He's so arrogant he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Under the veil lies an empty suit.

RIGHT ON !! CLICK ON, REV. JAMES MANNING, ON YOUTUBE NUFF SAID

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

2008 Military Times poll: Wary about Obama

Troops cite inexperience, Iraq timetable

By Brendan McGarry - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Dec 30, 2008 18:02:38 EST

When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.

In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.

“Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,” said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified.

For eight years, members of the U.S. military have served under a Republican commander in chief who reflected their generally conservative views and led them to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, the troops face change not only at the very top of the chain of command, as Obama nears his Jan. 20 inauguration, but perhaps in mission, policy and values.

Underlying much of the uncertainty is Obama’s stated 16-month timetable for pulling combat troops out of Iraq, as well as his calls to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to survey responses and interviews.

“How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?” said Air Force 1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations Support Squadron at RAF Mildenhall, England. “And if you’re pulling out combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what’s left? What happens if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing the same thing over again?”

Airforce LT stationed in England, would you really trust her words, besides she is a female, and I know how you feel about feamles in the military. England isn't a combat zone, sure, I can agree with the war when i am 6000 miles away.

When asked who has their best interests at heart — Obama or President George W. Bush — a higher percentage of respondents picked Bush, though Bush has lost ground over time. About half of the respondents said Bush has their best interests at heart this year, the same percentage as last year but a decline from 69 percent in 2004.

Nearly one-third of respondents — including eight out of 10 black service members — said they are optimistic about their incoming boss.

Even some service members who voted against Obama — only 1 in 4 supported him over Sen. John McCain in a pre-election survey of Military Times subscribers —now express goodwill toward him as their new commander in chief.

“Overall, the prospect of having someone who isn’t necessarily tied to old strategies is a good thing,” said Air Force Master Sgt. David Ortegon, who said he voted for McCain. “Sometimes you need a fresh perspective to be able to handle our military readiness and the needs of the nation.”

Senior Enlisted opinions are what matter most, we are the ones fighting the war, he is in the Airforce but I am sure he has been in a while, unlike that lt.

The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers. This year’s survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents.

The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.

But as a snapshot of the professional corps, the responses highlight the challenges Obama faces as he prepares to take command of military careerists with different political and cultural attitudes.

In keeping with previous surveys, nearly half of the respondents described their political views as conservative or very conservative. Slightly more than half said they consider themselves Republicans, 22 percent independents and 13 percent Democrats.

And of the people they surveyed over half were Republicans, and only 13 were Democrat, I think that makes this survey bias. IMO.

And of the people they surveyed over half were Republicans, and only 13 were Democrat, I think that makes this survey bias. IMO.

Irrelevant. This isn't some presidential poll, it's a heartbeat analysis.

I was drawing the comparison to how many military quit under Bush vs. how many will quit under Obama. Congratulations for missing the point.

Irrelevant. This isn't some presidential poll, it's a heartbeat analysis.

I was drawing the comparison to how many military quit under Bush vs. how many will quit under Obama. Congratulations for missing the point.

Why dont you post a link... cherry picker.


The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.

But as a snapshot of the professional corps, the responses highlight the challenges Obama faces as he prepares to take command of military careerists with different political and cultural attitudes.

In keeping with previous surveys, nearly half of the respondents described their political views as conservative or very conservative. Slightly more than half said they consider themselves Republicans, 22 percent independents and 13 percent Democrats.



http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h40/64falconfan/Cherry-Picker640.jpg

Irrelevant. This isn't some presidential poll, it's a heartbeat analysis.

I was drawing the comparison to how many military quit under Bush vs. how many will quit under Obama. Congratulations for missing the point.

If you haven't heard, people are getting out of the military like never before, People aren't joining,and just about anybody can join, we are giving waivers to people who have had felonies, even some as serious as rape charges. I want you to look back on this post next Dec, I will tell you how recruiting numbers have picked up, how retention has risen and how the military population as a whole is happier, spending more time with their familes, and the decrease in KIA's

And of the people they surveyed over half were Republicans, and only 13 were Democrat, I think that makes this survey bias. IMO.

Why? I thought there was no bias in the military. You guys just do what you are told and are told what to think. I would think all these "Republicans" would be afraid to speak out against the Messiah.

I want you to look back on this post next Dec, I will tell you how recruiting numbers have picked up, how retention has risen and how the military population as a whole is happier, spending more time with their familes, and the decrease in KIA's

And I'll keep tabs on the number of dead Americans that were killed over here. Deal?

Are we counting the americans that were KIA?

Are we counting the americans that were KIA?

I count the Americans killed on 9/11 as KIA, don't you?

We've been at war for several decades. During the 8 years of Clinton, we just didn't know it. And if you think Obama is going to keep your family safe, you are going to have a rude awakening.

And as a military member, you really shouldn't mislead or mischaracterize our military's recruiting efforts....


Word of Warning... you will be called out onto the carpet in this forum for posting b.s.


"DOD is calling this the strongest recruiting year (2008) they've had since fiscal year 2004. Notably, the Army and Marine Corps had raised their recruiting goals for fiscal 2008, as both services continue to grow their ranks to meet the demands of the wars on two fronts. In fact, the Army was the sole active-duty service to exceed its goal by a full 1 percent, recruiting 517 more soldiers than its 80,000 target."




2007 http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/08recruit.htm

2008 http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2008recruitingstatistics/a/september.htm

ALL BRANCHES MET OR EXCEEDED GOALS IN FISCAL YEAR 2008

And of the people they surveyed over half were Republicans, and only 13 were Democrat, I think that makes this survey bias. IMO.Polls are supposed to be random sample of a given group, not adjusted to get an equal number of responses from each political party. Military people generally vote Republican, so you're gonna have a higher number of Republicans in a random sample.

The right-wingers here and elsewhere make the same mistake when complaining about national polls having a Democratic bias, when in fact slightly more Americans identify as Democrats than Republicans, and a lower percentage identify as independent.

Polls are supposed to be random sample of a given group, not adjusted to get an equal number of responses from each political party. Military people generally vote Republican, so you're gonna have a higher number of Republicans in a random sample.

The right-wingers here and elsewhere make the same mistake when complaining about national polls having a Democratic bias, when in fact slightly more Americans identify as Democrats than Republicans, and a lower percentage identify as independent.

I appriciate the focus on honesty here. It is rather refreshing.

However, I will point out that national polls are said to be bias by us "right-wingers" in part because they are adjusted to give a certian weight to the breakdown of political parties in this country that is cherry picking, dishonest and misleading. It taints the poll.

Every poll also shows that this country is center-right, politically (overall). Also, many people who register democrat voted republican, or were registered to democrat to influence the primary but were poltically conservative. So looking purely at party affiliation is cherry-picking and convieniently sways the poll in a certain direction.

Weighing it toward one political party, inherently introduces a guaranteed systematic error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_error)into the poll. This is reflected in the fact that most every poll that used these methods overstated Obama's lead by a rather large amount.

You want to minimize systematic error and weighing a poll to reflect the registration of democrats to republicans unneccessarily introduces greater systematic error, to the point of making the polls unreliable.

Why dont you post a link... cherry picker.




http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h40/64falconfan/Cherry-Picker640.jpg
You cherrypicked that quote yourself.

Why don't you post the part where it is ONE MAN'S OPINION?

As a Black NCO serving in the Army, I am very optimistic, but then I did three tours in Iraq, and one Afganistan tour. It's funny how Marines complain, they are only there for seven moths at a time,

So what exactly are you trying to say about Marines? If were not bitching about something were not happy. Its not our fault your leadership isn't smart enough to see that 13 months is too long to be there.

If your so anti-Bush and and dont think we should be there, then why didnt you get out? Did you join before the war started or after? I dont know how long youve been in, or when you came in, but we were a lot better off with Bush then we were with Clinton. You like those raises you get every year? Kiss those good bye. Kiss your reenlistment bonusses bye-bye also.

You think too many people have died in this war? Do you know how many Marines died in the battle for Iwo Jima in the 5 weeks we fought there? 6,821!!! That was just 5 weeks!

Obama said in an interview that no matter what his military advisors told him, he would pull everyone out of Iraq. I guess he knows more about fighting a war than the generals and admirals who have been doing this thier entire adult life.

Bottom line is, the military lifef is changing, and its gonna get worse.

So what exactly are you trying to say about Marines? If were not bitching about something were not happy. Its not our fault your leadership isn't smart enough to see that 13 months is too long to be there.

If your so anti-Bush and and dont think we should be there, then why didnt you get out? Did you join before the war started or after? I dont know how long youve been in, or when you came in, but we were a lot better off with Bush then we were with Clinton. You like those raises you get every year? Kiss those good bye. Kiss your reenlistment bonusses bye-bye also.

You think too many people have died in this war? Do you know how many Marines died in the battle for Iwo Jima in the 5 weeks we fought there? 6,821!!! That was just 5 weeks!

Obama said in an interview that no matter what his military advisors told him, he would pull everyone out of Iraq. I guess he knows more about fighting a war than the generals and admirals who have been doing this thier entire adult life.

Bottom line is, the military lifef is changing, and its gonna get worse.


How many Admirals, or Generals have you heard about being taken out by an IED? The leadership gets their advice from people who are trying to kiss ass and get promoted, or get their Combat infantry Badge ie Gen Petreaus b.k.a Gen Betrayus, was a two star 6 years ago, extended my division another 6 months, then flew home to see his daughter graduate highschool on the day we took fallujah. Then he fast tracks to 4 stars.

You talk about Bonuses being taken away, look at the current MILPER message, bonuses have already decreased by half, and Obama hasnt taken office yet.

what am i saying about Marines (Navy), and Airforce? They have no room to talk, This is an Army war, and yes the Army leadership does suck at time, But Obama will correct it. ( I Hope)

And as a military member, you really shouldn't mislead or mischaracterize our military's recruiting efforts....


Word of Warning... you will be called out onto the carpet in this forum for posting b.s.


"DOD is calling this the strongest recruiting year (2008) they've had since fiscal year 2004. Notably, the Army and Marine Corps had raised their recruiting goals for fiscal 2008, as both services continue to grow their ranks to meet the demands of the wars on two fronts. In fact, the Army was the sole active-duty service to exceed its goal by a full 1 percent, recruiting 517 more soldiers than its 80,000 target."




2007 http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/08recruit.htm

2008 http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2008recruitingstatistics/a/september.htm

ALL BRANCHES MET OR EXCEEDED GOALS IN FISCAL YEAR 2008

But how many people ETS (ended their military career) dont let the news article fool you, we are understaffed. I see you post FY 07 and 08, what happened to 2005 http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/may05goals.htm The army has even resorted to Paying servicemen and DOD Civilians 2000 for every person they get to enlist.

ie Gen Petreaus b.k.a Gen Betrayus,

Say that to his face. You should be ashamed.

what am i saying about Marines (Navy), and Airforce? They have no room to talk, This is an Army war, and yes the Army leadership does suck at time, But Obama will correct it. ( I Hope)

You dont know what the F your talking about. You talk about when you went in and took Fallujah? Why did WE have to go back in in Nov 04 and do it right? I guess your trying to say that Marines have no business being there, at least thats what I am hearing. You guys would be screwed if we werent there, and vice versa.

Some people have a different view of the Marines, for example:

General Jon J Pershing, commander of US troops in WWI - "The deadliest thing in the world is a Marine and his rifle"

Douglas McArthur - "I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!”

Ronald Regan - "“Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem"

Eleanor Roosevelt - "The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!"

So if you think we dont belong there, your dead wrong.

which has nothing to do with Obama
I'm going to ask you again, please READ.
You continually post short-sighted, knee-jerk statements without any idea what the subject of the thread or tract of the conversation.

You're red text demonstrates you're haste yet again.
My comment wasn't about Obama, is what is response to the hypothetical question posed before it.

It is just as relevant .... the military has suffered alot under Bush.
Its the same point. I guess Bush proved it can be worse didn't he ?
No, it's not the same point, regardless how much wiggle and wish it to be.
You're simply being contrartrian and belligerent for the sake of being contrarian and belligerent. Perhaps after someone calls you on this and then invests a little effort into responding to you and engaging you in conversation, you'll then say that their tone is driving people away.

You've made your point, repeatedly- and apparently to the best of your ability. You don't like the world, you blame Bush, but you can't actually articulate anything past that point. You're work here is done.

"DOD is calling this the strongest recruiting year (2008) they've had since fiscal year 2004

Isn't this more a reflection of the employment picture? Historically when unemployment rises, especially in the 18 to 30 age range, enlistment numbers are stronger. And the 'quality' of recruits rises, as more people, with better credentials, are looking for work.

It could be a reflection of the employment situation. One thing you do have in the military is job security.

And yeah, change is coming.

http://bloggernista.com/2007/10/07/obama-calls-for-repeal-militarys-ban-on-gay-soldiers/

You've made your point, repeatedly- and apparently to the best of your ability. You don't like the world, you blame Bush, but you can't actually articulate anything past that point. You're work here is done.

Calabrio you don't deserve the best of my ability.
The only thing you will ever get from me is a drive by post.
I wouldn't waste my time with you.


You belittle and insult anyone who disagrees with you.
You pretend to know me and my view of the world.

You have no clue who I am or what I stand for, and never will.

You belittle and insult anyone who disagrees with you.

Isn't that what the Extremist Right Wings do when confronted with a point?

It was my understanding that is was just nature:) .

Calabrio you don't deserve the best of my ability.
The only thing you will ever get from me is a drive by post.
I wouldn't waste my time with you.
Then go away.
You contribute nothing.

Isn't it interesting how you have a problem with everyone that challenges the thoughtless crap you're so inclined to post?

Don't bother answer that.... it's best if you just don't post anything.

You belittle and insult anyone who disagrees with you.
You pretend to know me and my view of the world.
I don't pretend to know you, nor do I have any desire to.
I belittle no one and I engage all who disagree with me in thoughtful dialog.

I expect nothing more than an honest, intelligent conversation.
Too much to expect from you.

You have no clue who I am or what I stand for, and never will.
That's not my fault, merely the result of your obvious inability to develop and express a thought clearly.

Isn't that what the Extremist Right Wings do when confronted with a point?

It was my understanding that is was just nature:) .

I haven't seen that pattern demonstrated here, so I'm not sure what you're basing that on. I haven't seen any of the conservatives here fail to respond to a direct or thoughtful challenge.

...try to make a good point, let's see what happens.

Isn't this more a reflection of the employment picture? Historically when unemployment rises, especially in the 18 to 30 age range, enlistment numbers are stronger. And the 'quality' of recruits rises, as more people, with better credentials, are looking for work.

It ends up being a silly argument, because it's a "damn lies and statistics" argument.

My understanding is that they can exceed expectations, but they might start the year understating expectation and need at the start of the year. Or lower it over the course of the year.

It could also be indicative of a tighter job market, but that would be best reflected if the quality of the recruits was still high, and not merely an inflated number. Especially after they've changed some of the enlistment standards.

So every time recruitment figures are thrown around, I usually dismiss them because they never include enough information to actually make sense of them.

The confusion and uncertainty about Obama is pretty understandable. His campaign was thought to be very anti-war, anti-Iraq, anti-military. I know that Obama's statements while running in the general election often contradicted this, but that was the general impression amongst his base... his supporters also had a tendency to simply project all of their hopes and wishes on him, as though he were some kind of blank slate in an empty suit. Some of his appointments are in stark contrast to this perceived "bold, fresh" foreign policy that was anticipated and FEARED amongst the better informed military guys. NO ONE has any idea what to make or expect of the Obama administration. The concern is natural and understandable.

He'll soon be tested and we'll have our answers.

Yep, Cal-you are right there - numbers can often be whatever the stating party wants them to be.

I think Foss said something pretty telling about them (oh my goodness - I haven't even had any drinks yet, and I am quoting foss in a good way). That about the only thing you can get out of surveys or numbers like this are basic movements in trends.

Well it looks like the Israelis and Hamas are all set to go with trial by fire for Obama...

'Well it looks like the Israelis and Hamas are all set to go with trial by fire for Obama...'
______________

God help us all....
KS

Then there is this motivational poster:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r318/chouster/ArmyStrong.jpg

Then go away.
You contribute nothing.

Isn't it interesting how you have a problem with everyone that challenges the thoughtless crap you're so inclined to post?

Don't bother answer that.... it's best if you just don't post anything.


Would I be the first one to go away?
Is that your answer?

How about if you treat people the way you would like to be treated ?
I love the hypocrisy of the far right.

Would I be the first one to go away?
Is that your answer?

How about if you treat people the way you would like to be treated ?
I love the hypocrisy of the far right.

You're still here? If you're going to invest the energy to post, at least make a point. Do you have anything to contribute or would you like me to bring you a cone hat for your pity party?

You're still here? If you're going to invest the energy to post, at least make a point. Do you have anything to contribute or would you like me to bring you a cone hat for your pity party?

Yep still here, I have made my point.
Not going anywhere even though you would like me to.


Sure bring a cone hat, we can put it in a corner and you can sit on it.

Yep still here, I have made my point.
Not going anywhere even though you would like me to.
No, I don't want you to leave.
I just would prefer it if you'd contribute and not simply cry in every post about persecution.

Sure bring a cone hat, we can put it in a corner and you can sit on it.
Interesting, a normal person would have either thought of party hats or a dunce cap... you however made an anal association with it....

How about if you treat people the way you would like to be treated ?
I love the hypocrisy of the far right.

How is he being hypocritical? I don't see any double standard. Only you do, and you have an ability to see stuff that isn't there...

The problem here is the doubles standard of the left, which you buy into.

If a liberal is rude, insulting and intolerant in there attempts to decive, obfuscate and marginalize through smearing, if not outright ban from talking when they have the power (that is the typical arguing tactic of the left, BTW), us conservatives are expected to tolerate it.

If we try to walk away from that debate, we are belittled and you guys declare "victory" when there is no. Is we decided not to tolerate those shameful arguing tactics and be honest in pointing them out, we are more directly smeared (usually do to obvious vindictiveness) and attacked for being "rude", "insulting" and/or "intolerant".

There is rudeness coming from both sides, but the difference always has been that the rudeness from the conservative side is in reaction to that coming from the left and is justifiable (due to being based in honesty), while the rudeness coming from the left is not justifiable (due to being based in an attempt to decieve and and smear).

According to the standard you have laid out (due to your whining and inability to refrain from engaging in, or even acknowledging the dishonest and decietful behavior of the left), us conservatives are not allowed to be in any way "rude" or "insulting" but are expected to tolerate that behavior from the left. We have to simply tolerate their dishonestly, decietfulness and lies about us, but cannot, under any circumstances, call them on it. Apparently, this general standard does not apply to the left though, in your view.

If you are so upset about us "belittling" and "insulting" you, then why don't you fix the cause; start making honest arguments and not attempting to smear and marginalize.

Would I be the first one to go away?
Is that your answer?

How about if you treat people the way you would like to be treated ?
I love the hypocrisy of the far right.This is yet another example of the moral vacuum of the left. Instead of adhering to your own set of standards, because you have none, you wait until you see a perceived example of hypocrisy in others who try to live by a moral code, such as Sarah Palin's daughter whom you virtually called a whore, and Sarah Palin, whom you mocked for hypocrisy.

It's the only thing you can cling to.

Go find yourself a set of morals before you poke at others.

This is yet another example of the moral vacuum of the left. Instead of adhering to your own set of standards, because you have none, you wait until you see a perceived example of hypocrisy in others who try to live by a moral code, such as Sarah Palin's daughter whom you virtually called a whore, and Sarah Palin, whom you mocked for hypocrisy.

It's the only thing you can cling to.

Go find yourself a set of morals before you poke at others.

Please post a link were I called Bristol Palin a whore.
If I remember right I said I felt sorry for her because her parents failed miserably for her, and I told you I was sorry if you took it that way.
Palin should have known they were going to fu@k and got her daughter ready for her big day.

I am sure Sara and Todd knew Bristol and Levi were playing slap and tickle.
If they didn't they didn't want to.
Instead she said Don't do like that ! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html)
Bingo you have a teenage daughter with a big belly.

I do have a set of morals, I just choose not to force them on others.

I do have a set of morals, I just choose not to force them on others.
No, you don't. I've never seen you post ONE THING in here about your viewpoint on right and wrong. 99% of your posts are mocking others for "hypocrisy."

And I made it clear that you IMPLIED that Bristol was a whore.

And you did.

Please post a link were I called Bristol Palin a whore.

You mean like you back up your smears of people on this forum when asked to? Again, hypocracy.


I am sure Sara and Todd knew Bristol and Levi were playing slap and tickle.
If they didn't they didn't want to.
Instead she said Don't do like that ! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html)
Bingo you have a teenage daughter with a big belly.

Another smear, which have been covered here, and that you choose to ignore.

As has been pointed out in this thread (and you are thus aware of), Palin has supported abstinence-only programs in schools, and with good reason. regular school sex ed programs have been shown to not in any way reduce teenage pregnancy and/or STD's. In fact, both of those factors have gone up since sex education has become the norm.

However, as has also been pointed out in this thread (and you are thus aware of), Palin has said that she has no problem with teaching her kids about using provalactics.

So you are assuming that she didn't teach her kids about "safe sex" but only abstinence, when the facts show different and that has been pointed out on this forum.

I do have a set of morals, I just choose not to force them on others.

...unless they are conservative, right?:rolleyes:

Your "morals" seem to allow for dishonesty and lying; resulting in needlessly rude and insulting attacks. Forgive me if I don't think much of your morals...

Yet you have no problem preaching to me about being "rude" and "insulting".
"The truth is what one perceives it to be."
"There is no excuse for being rude."
"insults will drive this form into the ground."
"Part of it [insulting behavior] from you sticking your nose into threads that are no concern of yours."


How are those not expressions of moral values; and in the (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=461383&postcount=50) posts (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=461124&postcount=44) I got those from, you were clearly trying impose those on me.

However, you are consistently (and needlessly; thus unjustifiably) rude when you mischaracterize arguments and smear. You constantly inject yourself into debates that "are no concern of yours" (to at least the same degree as the debates you are claim that I inject myself into). You have also claimed certian things as "fact" when you have disagreed with others. So your "morals" are selectively applied (hypocritical double standard) and only seem to be self-serving. It is highly unlikely, given your actions, that you actually hold any of those values, but are instead opportunisticly using them in an attempt to smear. Again, forgive me if I don't think much of your "morals"...

And, BTW...you did imply Bristol Palin was a whore. I read the same posts fossten did, don't try backstep now...