Republicans to Troops: DROP DEAD

[Kulindahr]

Stop babbling like an old woman and either get on topic or play in someone else's thread. Thanks, Mary.

What; it isn't fair for others to follow your example?
I think you should go tour Iraq and verify for us that the troops are suffering.
Just don't be a McCain, proclaiming how safe it is (when in body armor and guarded by hundreds of soldiers) or a Bush proclaiming he'd like to be there with them (without ever setting foot off an intensely defended base) -- go out where you can get shot at!

 

[Kulindahr]

A better way of phrasing this question might be, "why do the Republicans hate America? That works for me.

The same reason Democrats do: they only care about their own power and privileges.

Oh -- and their "legacy".

At the very least, they could try the bill again, as a requirement for future action (apart from a formal, specific declaration of war). It would then also serve as a symbol of what was tried, but got blown down.

Meanwhile, I just sent this to several Senators:

One major complaint I hear from people about the military adventure in Iraq is that the National Guard is being used for foreign escapades, when their name says "guard", not "invade". Totally apart from any merits of the action in Iraq, this issue strikes home with people on both sides of the issue of whether we should even ever have gone there.
My idea is simple: instead of trying to set a withdrawal date, or even the recent attempt to require as much time home as overseas (an excellent idea, by the way), just write into law that the National Guard is just that: a guard, not a force for foreign deployment. Pass a bill defining the task of the National Guard to be remaining within the confines of the U.S. or its territories, to defend them, except in cases where the U.S. has been attacked and an explicit declaration of war -- using those words -- has been made by Congress.

I'd say it's an idea whose time has come.
Though maybe it hasn't come in the minds of those who treat the world like the back forty of a Texas ranch.

 

[Kulindahr]

The reason the troops have to serve extended tours is because we don't have enough of them, plain and simple. Bush claims we're in a difficult struggle that will last a very long time. If he really believed that, why doesn't he open discussions about reinstituting the draft? That would take real political courage .... something that he and his sorry band of Republican sychophants are unable to muster.

Again, I wonder if Bush took into consideration Jesus' statement that a commander makes sure he has enough troops before committing to battle.

No one who is against involuntary servitude wants a draft. But there are other ways to get more troops:

* allow non-violent felons not addicted to drugs to serve out their sentences in the Army
* allow judges to offer any criminal facing a two year or longer sentence a tour in the Army instead of jail or prison
* permit illegal aliens to join the Army rather than be deported
* permit illegal aliens to come forward and join the Army, and after four years get a legit green card
* offer small homesteads from selected, isolated federal lands to military personnel serving honorably for ten years
* increase pay and benefits for bottom-level military personnel

Those would also take political courage, but they would also take imagination -- another commodity lacking in D.C.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh, you and I both know that once a member of the armed services is discharged, the war hawks don't give two shits about them. Heaven forbid they get injured in a way that makes them unable to be gainfully employed on their return.

Well, some of the war hawks don't care, anyway.
And liberals are often too busy spending money on things the Constitution doesn't authorize, to pay much attention to them, either -- when supporting our veterans is at least arguably something the Consitution does authorize.

Maybe there's a solution, there: amend the Constitution to require that everyone do national service, with options for those who object to military service (backpacking along the interstates to pick up trash, anyone? building a wall along the border, by muscle power, maybe?). Then give every veteran of national service all the V.A. benefits....

and suddenly we not only have a substantial military, we have national health care without trampling on the Constitution!
And we might even produce citizens who realize that the benefits of a free society aren't an entitlement.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Oh, you and I both know that once a member of the armed services is discharged, the war hawks don't give two shits about them. Heaven forbid they get injured in a way that makes them unable to be gainfully employed on their return.

Hence my indignation about all of the ramblings going on in this thread about this "other" topic.

Seems like all but a few Democrats really give a shit at all.

Congressman Chet Edwards-Democrat from Texas, and Congressman John Murtha-Democrat from Pennsylvania come immediately to mind.

But HEY! My Republican Senator, John Cornyn of Texas managed to pass a resolution against MoveOn.org yesterday!








When I served, it was called, "Major on the Minor, and Minor on the Major."

 

[Sondrith]

the republicans stopped representing the american public a few years back

they seem disinclined to change that policy any time in the near future

Interesting point, just because you don't like them or their philosophy dosen't mean they don't represent some portion of the American population. That being said...having served in the US Armed forces, no where in ANY contract did I sign, guarentee me any length of deployment time. 30 days paid leave, but nothing as far as only being allowed to be deployed for a specific length. Though I think it would be nice.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Interesting point, just because you don't like them or their philosophy dosen't mean they don't represent some portion of the American population. That being said...having served in the US Armed forces, no where in ANY contract did I sign, guarentee me any length of deployment time. 30 days paid leave, but nothing as far as only being allowed to be deployed for a specific length. Though I think it would be nice.

You're right!

When joined it was for four years, whenever and wherever I was needed, with option for realenlistment, or reserves at the end of my contract.

However, Iraq is different, in that our "weekend warriors" are fighting it, along side our "volunteer forces."

There's the caveat in my opinion. National Guard Reservists, and Military Regulars.

Ironic how George W. Bush avoided Vietnam through the National Guard, and now a large portion of the National Guard are the very peoples fighting OVER THERE.

Not at home with their families, or in their home states helping clean up places like Katrina, or the Tornado ravaged midwest, or helping organize shelters and housing for victims of wild fires, but fighting a war in IRAQ!

They're part of who and what we're talking about here.

One weekend a month, and two-weeks during the summer has turned into 15+ month rotations in Iraq with a few months back home with their families before being return for second and third deployments.

Let's not lose sight of the facts Gentleman.
</IMG>

 

[lancelva]

The reason the troops have to serve extended tours is because we don't have enough of them, plain and simple.

That was the logic behind the amendment. By preventing extended tours of duty, you would force the Pentagon to limit the number of troops in Iraq. It was the only way to force some sort of "withdrawal" that had a chance of passing in the Senate.

 

[letme]

That was the logic behind the amendment. By preventing extended tours of duty, you would force the Pentagon to limit the number of troops in Iraq. It was the only way to force some sort of "withdrawal" that had a chance of passing in the Senate.

So Lance I see this as plain as plain can be !!!!

Congress(Dims) want to do away withe the separation of powers..The 3 Branches.

Now Dims want to be in charge of the DoD. Thanks for the insight.

 

[lancelva]

So Lance I see this as plain as plain can be !!!!

Congress(Dims) want to do away withe the separation of powers..The 3 Branches.

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

[Centexfarmer]

That was the logic behind the amendment. By preventing extended tours of duty, you would force the Pentagon to limit the number of troops in Iraq. It was the only way to force some sort of "withdrawal" that had a chance of passing in the Senate.

Lance, you know that I love you more than my luggage!

But that's not what this resolution was about.

If our "leaders" in Congress really wanted to take previous measures to task THEY WOULD HAVE!

Stop funding the War in Iraq!

OMG! I can't belive how spineless our Democratic leaders in Washington are being!

The Democrats have shown more fucking resolve about CHIPs than they have for our troops here.

Helloooooooo!

So Lance I see this as plain as plain can be !!!!

Congress(Dims) want to do away withe the separation of powers..The 3 Branches.

Now Dims want to be in charge of the DoD. Thanks for the insight.

Um, honey?

Perhaps less visits to Sonic's "Free Peach Tea" Thursdays might work for you.

M'kay?

 

[lancelva]

But that's not what this resolution was about. If our "leaders" in Congress really wanted to take previous measures to task THEY WOULD HAVE! Stop funding the War in Iraq!

Notice I said that the amendment (not resolution) was a path to withdrawal that even had a chance of passing in the Senate. If we couldn't even pass this, how do you think we could stop funding the war? It's simply not feasible. The best way to begin withdrawal considering the political environment was to do what we tried--prohibit extended tours of duty and require the Pentagon to limit the number of troops in Iraq. That or attach an amendment to the defense appropiations bill that sets a timeline for withdrawal. But again, we don't have the votes. When Republicans like Warner keep capitulating, our hands are tied.

OMG! I can't belive how spineless our Democratic leaders in Washington are being! The Democrats have shown more fucking resolve about CHIPs than they have for our troops here.

Well, it may seem that way because we had 68 votes in favor of SCHIP, as opposed to 56 in favor of the latest attempt to bring about a troop withdrawal from Iraq. Votes make all the difference, especially in the Senate. Just because we don't have the votes doesn't mean Democrats don't have any resolve. And the leadership has done good to attract 6 Republicans to support the measure.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Notice I said that the amendment (not resolution) was a path to withdrawal that even had a chance of passing in the Senate. If we couldn't even pass this, how do you think we could stop funding the war? It's simply not feasable. The best way to begin withdrawal considering the political environment was to do what we tried--prohibit extended tours of duty and require the Pentagon to limit the number of troops in Iraq. That or attach an amendment to the defense appropiations bill that sets a timeline for withdrawal. But again, we don't have the votes. When Republicans like Warner keep capitulating, our hands are tied.


Well, it may seem that way because we had 68 votes in favor of SCHIP, as opposed to 56 in favor of the latest attempt to bring about a troop withdrawal from Iraq. Votes make all the difference, especially in the Senate. Just because we don't have the votes doesn't mean Democrats don't have any resolve. And the leadership has done good to attract 6 Republicans to support the measure.

Lance, you know me.

I know about votes, and what's feasible, and what's not.

There's a thing called "diplomacy."

In the back-alleys of Austin, Texas it's called "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."

Are you saying that Washington is so dead-locked that they can't even decide on where to go for lunch?

 

[lancelva]

Lance, you know me.

I know about votes, and what's feasible, and what's not.

There's a thing called "diplomacy."

In the back-alleys of Austin, Texas it's called "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."

Are you saying that Washington is so dead-locked that they can't even decide on where to go for lunch?

Diplomacy in the Senate is a two way street. The Republican obstructionists stormed out of negotiations earlier this week. It's not that we didn't try to work out a solution. And Jim Webb worked his ass off this week to get those 6 votes and he would have gotten 4 more if John Warner hadn't chickened out. But this isnt' the end of the fight. This vote more than any other showed tremendous effort on the part of the Democratic leadership and Senator Webb--at least Virginia has one Senator we can be proud of.

 

[Kulindahr]

Letme, lance has it exactly right.
That's in the Constitution for a reason -- to balance the authority a president has as CiC, so he can't use it to become a dictator.

The next move should be to define the duty of the National Guard as, well, guarding the nation -- by staying home, on American soil, except in case of a formal, explicit, declaration of war against a foe who has in fact attacked the United States of America... and make it go into effect 4 July, 2008.

 

[lancelva]

...lance has it exactly right...

I never thought I'd see you utter those words.

 

[Zeremonie]

One more service veteran here! *hand raised high* - 4 years of being in the air force in the mid 80s.

Webb wants to provide what he calls a "safety net" for strained combat troops while Congress debates the future of the war in Iraq. He said his amendment would require that before going back to war, the troops get at least as much time at home as their most recent deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan.

^
Returning to the topic at hand, what does this translate into? A year at home, then a year in Iraq, then a year at home? Does anyone know what this really means.

On a personal level, I completely support the idea that we need to give some more relief to our troops than what we're doing now, but our troops are already spread thin. What we really need is a draft.

And at least in my courtrooms, there are NO offers of, you can avoid jail by going in the military or any such notion.

 

[ryankeith]

Excuse me?

Surely your not suggesting that there aren't ANY members of the United States Coast Guard in Iraq are you?

The first maritime prisoners captured in the Iraq war were captured by the United States Coast Cutter Adak.

It was the United States Coast Guard that helped seize and intercept Iraqi mine laying vessels in their ports, and currently provides port security in Iraq, Kuwait, and the port of Umm Qasr, in addition to Iraqi oil terminals in the Arabian Sea.

At the height of the conflict, the Coast Guard deployed 1,200 men and women, 11 ships and a port-security unit to the theater to conduct maritime-interception operations and coastal-security patrols. The port- security unit and five — soon to be six — patrol boats remain on duty in the northern Arabian Gulf, where they work closely with the Navy and Marine Corps under the command of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command.

That's IN ADDITION to work being done to secure our ports here in the United States of America, while performing aids to navigation, search and rescue, fisheries operations, and drug interdiction.

So please don't suggest, that while the Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marines were playing war games preparing for a war that they hoped would never come while I served my tours of duty, that the United States Coast Guard isn't a part of this operation, and that they have no presence in Iraq, and that I have no idea what's going on amongst the troops over there.

Sources: Coast Guard is Active Player in War on Terrorism

Caught Between Iraq & A Hard Place!

Arlington National Cemetery

COAST GUARD SUFFERS FIRST COMBAT DEATH SINCE VIETNAM

First off, I did not down play the danger and importance of the USCG by any means...I believe I stated several times that the USCG has a dangerous and important mission and that they were mostly a Law Enforcement/Rescue Operations type service here in the states and I am very sure many are surprised that they are there in Iraq. I don't understand why there would be any Coast Guard personnel in Iraq and I don't feel they should be...they have a job here. Once again, I never questioned the service of the USCG or it's importance...

Out of 3,795 US Military Deaths in the war, the Coast Guard suffered it's first line of duty death since Vietnam, which still shows the situation they are in is very different from the situation the ground troops are in. Once again it doesn't downplay their role...or this death...but the situations are different...like I originally said. The potential for danger is always there...in our jobs period. Having been to three firefighter funerals in just over a week and a half, all killed in action...I completely understand. Please don't suggest I have no clue or idea the danger involved in these jobs...I am well aware. Once again...I am put in danger in my job...over 100 are killed in the US every year...but I sure in hell can't say its like being a soldier in Baghdad, living every single day under fire and your fellow soldiers dying next to you every week, civilians getting blown up around you, people you don't know trying to kill you and shoot at you every day. In these ever changing situations and differing situations, the rules may have to change...which is what I was talking about and clearly stated in my original post...which you failed to address.

Once again, I am not suggesting and never suggested that the USCG was not a dangerous job...or their service to this country...what I did suggest quite clearly was the situations are completely different...just cause one is in Iraq, doesn't mean their situations are the same as every other soldier in Iraq...and some soldiers need people, superiors or others, on the outside to see the big picture as I clearly pointed out in my examples (which were real by the way). Your "a soldier never leaves his post till his mission is accomplished" theory doesn't work for all situations...

I would expect you to agree with that anyway...