But this is a perfectly OK thing for lefties to do. We oppose the war, we have good reasons why we aren’t interested in volunterring. And it’s easy to see that with so many vocal supporters of the war, and so very, very few volunteers to fight it, that there are a lot of hot-air injected fools puffing out their chests in the safety of the States who would never dream of personally backing up their words. A war led by chickenhawks, largely supported by same. Kinda makes you proud to be a Murrican.
Yup, that’s the place. A former client from the teaming partner company I mentioned in my previous post turned me on to it. They’re also the ones who had planned on bidding on an enviro contract over there before the agency that submittted the RFP withdrew it. That was about the time that a lot of contractors were getting captured and such.
It wasn’t the Army that had the enviro contract, it was the Air Force. At any rate, I turned in my resume for the enviro jobs the website you posted had there, as well as some admin ones. Never got a single call. That was before I came home to AK from texas.
I’m pusing 46, and I’m a woman. I don’t know if they took that into consideration or not. But my resume had all the requirements and more, so unless they were bombarded with them, I don’t think that’s it.
Besides, the OP clearly specified the guard. Based on his feelings, I would guess that contractor work wouldn’t count as both serving one’s country and not being hypocritical, since you make killer money there.
Specially this darn type stuff 
Yeah, I don’t know either.
I don’t know, but if they’re my age, or my age and overweight, it’s possible that they’re just simply not qualifying (I’m assuming that hawk is some slur against people who support the war?).
I don’t know, my guess is, that a LOT of those who support the war are of the age that they don’t qualify for service, or don’t qualify in some other way as I proposed before (weight, health issues).
It seems, well based on people I talk to IRL, and those here, that age is somewhat of a factor in who is on which side. But again, it just seems that way to me, I could be totally off base.
Anyway, meaning that those against the war, and all are much younger, and those for, are in the “older” crowd. And, at least when I was in, the age thing had a lot to do with your qualifying for guard duty. You have to be able to get 20 years in before a certain birthday from the date you join. So your average 40something, with no prior service wouldn’t qualify, unless they’ve had prior service.
Good point.
Doesn’t matter what their vote for Bush had to do with.
Such votes still enable this wrong-headed strategy to continue, give it legitimacy, etc…
In an election that was this important, I think it’s moral evasion to attempt to ‘vote on other things.’
Our sons and daughters, and Iraqis, are being killed, and killing.
In my mind, there were few issues as immediate and vital to consider as the war. If you support Bush, you have, via your vote, supported his policies.
But doesn’t it bother you that Bush started a war, at best based on faulty intel, and at worst based on cherrypicked intel? Doesn’t it bother you that his regime deliberately conflated Iraq and Al Queda? Doesn’t it bother you that he has mis-managed this war at every single turn?
Doesn’t it bother you that your vote for him guarantees more of the same?
That is a good point, and I certainly can’t speak for the OP.
But I do believe that those who voted for Bush have given tacit approval for the quagmire to continue as is.
[/QUOTE]
Gaaaah, Gosh DARN it, I meant to click back in the main body and got all mouse clumsy and hit submit.
The OP was acting as if anyone voting for bush was “for” the war. Some of us did NOT believe that Kerry had any better of a plan, based on his inability to outline a decent plan for us, and some of us even thought he had a WORSE plan. I did NOT believe what he had to say. I didn’t trust him. I couldn’t stand bush, but I trusted Kerry less than I hated bush.
That doesn’t equal “wants to keep killing kids”.
Well, as I said, I did NOT believe kerry, didn’t trust that he knew what he was doing, he didn’t convince me with what he was saying. I voted for what I believed was the lesser of two evils. If they, the democratic party, had given us ANYONE better than him, I would have leaped to vote (as long as they left ANWR alone).
I didn’t believe that kerry would have managed it any better, and I also beleived, based on what he said and did during the campaign, that he would have actually done WORSE, with that as well as other issues.
I did NOT trust kerry, I did NOT believe what he said. Didn’t believe or trust the idiot that can’t put two words together either, but put together? I felt that bush was less evil. Kerry didn’t convince me. At all. And all the hatred, venom, and poison spewed toward those having a different viewpoint pushed me from MAYBE giving him a chance, to “no way in hell, they protest too much”.
And then, there was ANWR, that was the nail in the coffin of my vote for him as far as I was concerned.
To my knoweldge it’s not a slur. Hawks support war, doves oppose war. I guess depending on your perspective one or both of the terms might be pejorative, but I don’t think they’re intended as such.
Possible… but there are a lot of young Republicans/war supporters in reasonably good health. From what I understand, college campuses in particular have seen a rise in their conservative population.
Moreoever, it strikes me as somewhat slimey for people to say
“Hey, I’m too old to serve, and I’m in no real danger, but… I think a war should be fought, so a bunch of other people will have to go kill and die now.”
This slimyness factor would, of course, be reduced or eliminated if the war being discussed actually had to be fought.
See, this is what I don’t get… Bush has, objectively, been massivly wrong about the very reasons we went to war, and then has proven himself absolutely incompetent of running a campaign to win the peace. If someone proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they will mismanage this war, why give them a second shot? Did you really think that things could get any worse under Kerry, or for that matter, get any better under Bush? Kerry would at least have tried to get international support.
And, honestly… why was Kerry un-trustworthy? Bush is the one who cherrypicked intelligence and thus has caused the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans for bullshit reasons.
Surely that disqualifies him from having trust placed in him?
I just don’t understand this.
If either of the candidates had a serious credibility gap, it was Bush. For god’s sake, he started a war for bullshit reasons.
Now, this is don’t understand.
Kerry spewed hatred and venom?
Or people who supported him did?
If people who supported him did, who exactly are you punishing by not voting for the candidate?
Oh, and, I don’t grok your objection to the whole ANWR thing… are you honestly saying that it would be a good idea to devestate a wildlife refuge for a mere six months of oil?
Oh, okay, I just wasn’t familiar with the term used in that way.
I don’t know either. Those were merely possibilities that I’d thought of based on what I knew to be the restrictions and requirements of the guard when I was in.
You’re misunderstanding me, it’s not those who may or may NOT be applying for service, but the guard itSELF that has age restrictions. We don’t know how many have applied and been turned down based upon the restrictions that I’ve listed in my previous posts, we only know how many they’re down on recruitment. Have they lowered their weight, age, health etc restrictions? I don’t know, but from what I know of the guard, it’s possible that that is part of what is causing fewers numbers of SUCCESSFUL recruits. That is, those that actually get to jion.
I am not a military strategist. Are you? (and that is asked in a totally non snarky way). I am not going to state whether it has, or has not been “mismanaged” since I do not in fact have that expertise.
Do I think it sucks to high heaven that our troops were sent out there iwth old or ineffective equipment? Hell yes. But how is that bush’s call? Were all those pieces of eqpt manufactured during the last 4 and a half years, and did dorkface and his administration have the choice of what went or didn’t go? I don’t know, those that aren’t military experts don’t know. All wars suck. And awful things happen in all of them. I don’t like it, but I don’t think kerry would have done a better job.
Why was kerry untrustworthy to ME? Because I did not say he was “untrustworthy” I said I didn’t believe him, HIS words, what he said, or tried to convince us of during the campaign. He did not convince me. He wasn’t clear enough, concise enough, convincing enough. TO ME. Most of the time, he was busy bashing the bush administration. He never had any kind of clear and concise HOW he would “do it better” information to impart. Anyone else would have done a better job. The democratic party did themselves no favor by choosing him.
Asked and answered above.
I’m not “punishing” anyone. Several reasons, Once again. And first of all, this is why I don’t usually engage in these damn things, it starts coming down to “them” blaming the “others”. They start acting like "oh, I just can’t understand how they could THINK that, and that dissolves into 'can’t believe they’re so “STUPID” and so on.
First, I didn’t believe Kerry, his own words, did NOT work to convince me. I don’t think I’m the ONLY one who made my decision based on that, and NOT on pitchfork weilding gay bashing motives. Second, those who supported him particularly in this forum, reacted with SUCH hatred and anger to those who weren’t “on their side” that it completely turned me off. And that had nothing to do with “punishing” anyone.
You have NO idea what you’re talking about here. And I’ve posted many times on ANWR. Don’t buy into the propaganda of the raping of thousands of acres of the entire reserve.
If you like, I can hunt down the other threads in which I’ve posted links on Prudhoe. ANWR, the part of ANWR in which they are proposing EXPLORATORY (they haven’t even decided to drill, all they’re asking for at this point is some test drilling) takes place on a tiny gravel beach which is in the northwest corner of ANWR proper, the beach itself is less than 1% of ANWR if I remember my schooling. The drilling site and potential “new Prudhoe” is a tiny portion of that. It’s entirely likely that it won’t pan out to even drill.
The oil companies aren’t idiots, they’re not going to drill for “6 months of oil”. Back to how prudhoe serves as somewhat of a model for what they’re planning. Nothing would be decided without first the G’wichin" indian’s permission, and then the states. And THAT would come with more EPA, ADEC and local environmental regulations, requirement and law than you can even imagine. Not to mention the thousands of dollars the oil companies spend on consultants who keep them in compliance.
At any rate, I’ve posted tons of anti-propaganda, including some gorgeous pics of Prudhoe (not the oil soaked wasteland where all the trees have been “cut down” as the green peace morons would have you believe, [Oh, they never WERE any trees there, it’s TUNDRA bozos]), and all the wildlife in and around the area in quite a few other threads. One not too long ago, I can’t remember who the OP was, but it was about the aerial wolf hunting, and bear baiting (both of which I’m AGAINST), if that helps. Someone else asked me why I supported ANWR, and I post several long posts to her with links.
Yup, nasty to no useful end. Thanks for the bit on hiring for Iraq though. I thought that they’d be gobbling up anyone they could get, as fast as they could get them.
Yeah, NOT that Finnagain was doing that, I just didn’t want to get there.
Well, I posted the best information I had at the time. Hardly makes me wrong.
Tell you what, should the Army turn this situation around, I’ll bump this thread again, solely to inform you of that happy news.
That’s fine. I’m more concerned about how we went from “a 14 year high” in enlistments to well below the goal. I will applaud the Army if they turn it around, because we are going to need all the resources we can. However, I am fearful that the pattern seen among several of the branches will not be easy to turn around.
On another level, the persistence of this pattern of misinformation across topics and sources today is outrageous. Is there a limit to our credulity?
Right. I hated all those budget surpluses under that Democrat Clinton too.
Right on, man.
Not quite apples and oranges, so let’s call it apples and apple pie.
The reenlistment of an experienced soldier is not the same thing for planning purposes as the recruitment and enlistment of a new soldier. You actually need both, to provide fresh manpower as well as the corps of NCOs to lead them.
It can therefore be possible that soldiers reenlist at high rates while the rate of new enlistments drops.
Why, exactly, are you bringing up a 2&1/2 year old thread. It was frickin dead on the doorstep to begin with. It was never anything more than an excuse for brain-dead lefties to castigate us for disagreeing with them.
A. not everyone who disagrees qwith you is a lefty. A lot of genuine conservatives realize that buish has betrayed their values.
B. You are not being catigated for disagreeing, but for being in error. Your side trades in lies and bullshit, and you are being called on it.
C. MONTHS, dude, 2 1/2 months. It’s hardly a dead issue. The thread doesn’t even fall outside of the “don’t resurrect threads older than 3 months” guidline.
If by years, you mean months, and by 2&1/2, you mean two, then you might have a point. Nah, there’s more error than ‘point’ in your post.
The budget surplus would have been wiped out no matter who was President on 9/11. Even had we not invaded Iraq, the President would have had to significantly lower interest rates, and perhaps ask for a tax cut, to encourage spending so that our economy didn’t tank. NYC and Washington would have still needed to repair their infrastructure. New programs to beef up our “homeland security,” including securing airports and tightening borders would still have had to have been implemented.
And we would have still had to respond to al queda in some way or another. Clinton himself said that by not responding to the previous attacks on the WTC and the U.S.S. Cole, he “emboldened the enemy.” Even if the President had not invaded Iraq, no matter what the President would have done (bombing specific targets in Afghanistan, beefing up our military, increasing the size of the CIA/FBI), that surplus was a thing of the past.
I’m busy making medicine. I’m good at my job. I would not be a good soldier. Hell, I’d probably get tossed into some R&D facility any way…
Ah, no. No reasoned argument has shown up here that I ever saw. It was an excuse to call us “Chickenhawks”. And that was about it. I see no coherent argument being advanced anywhere.
:smack: That was a major typo.