Rumsfeld Faces Tough Questions from Troops.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-12-08 09:51pm

Those guys were around during Gulf War I, I vividly remember a soldier on the news saying he didn't join to fight and he refused to go.

He didn't join the military to fight? What the fuck did he join for? What did he think the military did, hand out fowers and loilliops?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-08 09:52pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: Now on the other hand, the Clinton era certainly seems to me to have instilled an expectation in some of those joining the military that they would never have to fufill a really military role. Certainly the number of deserters and the like that have said they joined under the impression they wouldn't and couldn't be required to fight seems to be a direct result of the recruiting policies of the Clinton and Bush Administrations.
Those guys were around during Gulf War I, I vividly remember a soldier on the news saying he didn't join to fight and he refused to go. So I don't Clinton and Bush had all that much to do with it. It seems more like a reflection of the American public than the Presidents actions.

That might well be a problem with recruiting a caliber of people that would otherwise be flipping burgers at McDonalds; I was not aware of it but it does seem a problem with the desperation measures in recruiting since Reagan at least. There probably were those in Bush I's day as well; but it seems like there have been far too many of them in this conflict.

That's not a shot at the people that are serving professionally in the armed forces but rather aimed at the assclowns that are not for the aforementioned reason.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-08 09:53pm

SirNitram wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:I would've figured that you guys would've figured out that by the context of my comments before and the quotes that I do not agree with passing the buck to Bill.
Sense of humour. Invest in one.

Yes, Clinton cut back the military. But yes, as other's have said, Bush has had time to reverse the effects. Unless, of course, Clinton has eyebeams. He could be holding back the entire military with them, yanno.

Did you even read what I said? I agree completely. The Right is totally hypocritical in previously wishing to assume all responsibility for the crushing defeat of Iraq on the basis of their minor military changes since Clinton's term and now wants to blame it on the military they had (an obvious implication toward the previous administration) because they could not be bothered to do even remotely realistic planning.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-08 09:53pm

frigidmagi wrote:
Those guys were around during Gulf War I, I vividly remember a soldier on the news saying he didn't join to fight and he refused to go.
He didn't join the military to fight? What the fuck did he join for? What did he think the military did, hand out fowers and loilliops?

Free college and job training no doubt, same as the other douche bags did.

I know some people that joined for similar reasons but at least had the sense to realize that they were joining a military in war time and that it was a real possibility they would be sent to fight.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-08 09:54pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Did you even read what I said? I agree completely. The Right is totally hypocritical in previously wishing to assume all responsibility for the crushing defeat of Iraq on the basis of their minor military changes since Clinton's term and now wants to blame it on the military they had (an obvious implication toward the previous administration) because they could not be bothered to do even remotely realistic planning.

Just clarifying the humourous nature of Durandal's bit. ANd bringing up the all-important eyebeams angle. It really explains alot!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-08 09:55pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:I would've figured that you guys would've figured out that by the context of my comments before and the quotes that I do not agree with passing the buck to Bill.
Sense of humour. Invest in one.

Yes, Clinton cut back the military. But yes, as other's have said, Bush has had time to reverse the effects. Unless, of course, Clinton has eyebeams. He could be holding back the entire military with them, yanno.
Did you even read what I said? I agree completely. The Right is totally hypocritical in previously wishing to assume all responsibility for the crushing defeat of Iraq on the basis of their minor military changes since Clinton's term and now wants to blame it on the military they had (an obvious implication toward the previous administration) because they could not be bothered to do even remotely realistic planning.

Except part of it is the military the Bush Administration recieved. It had a number of documented shortfalls which were only partially made up in the time they had. And one they couldn't really was in the simple number of troops they had; a key factor in Iraq right now.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 09:57pm

frigidmagi wrote:
He didn't join the military to fight? What the fuck did he join for? What did he think the military did, hand out fowers and loilliops?

I don't remember his exact motivations, but I'm betting that he joined for the education benefits. That's something that has become very common in the last few years.

Stormbringer wrote: That might well be a problem with recruiting a caliber of people that would otherwise be flipping burgers at McDonalds; I was not aware of it but it does seem a problem with the desperation measures in recruiting since Reagan at least. There probably were those in Bush I's day as well; but it seems like there have been far too many of them in this conflict.

The problem seems to have become very common the last few years. With the education incentives being offered to get people to serve, it was only a matter of time before this kind of scum showed up.

That's not a shot at the people that are serving professionally in the armed forces but rather aimed at the assclowns that are not for the aforementioned reason.

I apprieciate you not lumping us all together. These asshats need to be either in the stockade or in the thick of the fighting so the governnment can get their moneys worth out of them.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-08 09:58pm

Stormbringer wrote:Except part of it is the military the Bush Administration recieved.

I know its true. Otherwise I wouldn't be on Al Franken's side while reading about his boasting to Paul Wolfowitz.

Stormbringer wrote:It had a number of documented shortfalls which were only partially made up in the time they had. And one they couldn't really was in the simple number of troops they had; a key factor in Iraq right now.

We have troops deployed to other, rather useless theaters still. And Shineski and others told much in advance that they needed at least twice as many troops.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 10:03pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
We have troops deployed to other, rather useless theaters still. And Shineski and others told much in advance that they needed at least twice as many troops.

The US could beef up their forced in Iraq by simply withdrawing from Bosnia, leeting South Korea defend itself, and leave Japan. I hear that Okinawa would be more than happy to see the troops go.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-12-08 10:05pm

A thrid of Okinawa wants us gone, a thrid wants us to hang around the last thrid doesn't give a rats ass.

Of course one can apply this to California when I was stationed there to...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-08 10:08pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:The problem seems to have become very common the last few years. With the education incentives being offered to get people to serve, it was only a matter of time before this kind of scum showed up.

Yes, it has and it's only going to get worse I fear. The problem is that they've simply touted the education benefits while not doing enough to present the reality. Treating it like corporate recruiting just doesn't work and I personaly thinking is incredibly irresponsible.

Cpl Kendall wrote:I apprieciate you not lumping us all together. These asshats need to be either in the stockade or in the thick of the fighting so the governnment can get their moneys worth out of them.

Thanks, though I don't really think you need to. I can understand how every organization has some bad apples. And quite frankly I have too many friends in the armed forces to think anything of the sort.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 10:10pm

frigidmagi wrote:A thrid of Okinawa wants us gone, a thrid wants us to hang around the last thrid doesn't give a rats ass.

Of course one can apply this to California when I was stationed there to...

Sounds like the populace of every town I was stationed near.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-08 10:10pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:We have troops deployed to other, rather useless theaters still. And Shineski and others told much in advance that they needed at least twice as many troops.

I can't really disagree that Bush and Co fucked up big time there. And I said from the start the US needs to tell some of those countries that we're out of there and that's that. Kosovo, Korea, Japan, and a lot of European bases.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-12-08 10:13pm

The Pacific bases are useful if maybe overstaffed, I have no damn clue why the fuck we have bases in Western Europe though, just what or who are we protecting them from in Germany?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 10:13pm

Stormbringer wrote: Yes, it has and it's only going to get worse I fear. The problem is that they've simply touted the education benefits while not doing enough to present the reality. Treating it like corporate recruiting just doesn't work and I personaly thinking is incredibly irresponsible.

Well I understand that the military has recruiting problems, Canada has too. But offereing free education doesn't seem to be the way to go. It's attracting all the wrong kinds of people. They need to have it explained to them when they enlist "you joined an army, armies fight" if they have a problem with it they should be given the oppurtunity to leave then. If they stay they forfiet any right to refuse to go.

Frankly if you need an incentive to serve your country you probably don't belong there.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 10:14pm

frigidmagi wrote:The Pacific bases are useful if maybe overstaffed, I have no damn clue why the fuck we have bases in Western Europe though, just what or who are we protecting them from in Germany?

Well an argument could be made that the troops are closer to potential hotspots.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-08 10:17pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Well I understand that the military has recruiting problems, Canada has too. But offereing free education doesn't seem to be the way to go. It's attracting all the wrong kinds of people. They need to have it explained to them when they enlist "you joined an army, armies fight" if they have a problem with it they should be given the oppurtunity to leave then. If they stay they forfiet any right to refuse to go.

Frankly if you need an incentive to serve your country you probably don't belong there.

I think those that are signing up for that alone are definitely the wrong sort. But I had two teachers in High School that benefitted from those same incentives, both were more than happy and one is actually now serving in Iraq with the Reserves.

The problem is they don't make it clear enough that it is the military. They've taken on a corporate recruiting mentality that just plain doesn't work. They're luring in morons that should be flipping burgers not in the military.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-12-08 10:20pm

The college fund was part of the reason I joined, but I understood that the purpose of a military is to fight and win wars. You can bet I don't have a problem with the GI Bill and other benifits, but thinking you can get something for nothing like these pukes seem to think is fucking idiotic.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 10:21pm

Stormbringer wrote: I think those that are signing up for that alone are definitely the wrong sort. But I had two teachers in High School that benefitted from those same incentives, both were more than happy and one is actually now serving in Iraq with the Reserves.

Yes but did they join specifically for that?

The problem is they don't make it clear enough that it is the military. They've taken on a corporate recruiting mentality that just plain doesn't work. They're luring in morons that should be flipping burgers not in the military.

You'd think that carrying a weapon would clue them into what they are doing. However it is evidently not obvious enough, it needs to be drilled into them in Basic as to what the job entails. If they don't like it than they can have the chance to get out then, after that fuck them.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-08 10:24pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Yes but did they join specifically for that?

One of them, yes I do believe that convinced him. Never the less, it wasn't the only reason unlike some. I think we can both agree the shift in recruiting policies over the last decade is a bad thing for the military.

Cpl Kendall wrote:You'd think that carrying a weapon would clue them into what they are doing. However it is evidently not obvious enough, it needs to be drilled into them in Basic as to what the job entails. If they don't like it than they can have the chance to get out then, after that fuck them.

They're a McDonalds grade of people, what do you expect out of them?

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-12-08 10:25pm

I don't have a problem with people joining for the education benefits, but they are joining the army. Part of the deal is that they fight when called upon.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 10:28pm

Stormbringer wrote:
One of them, yes I do believe that convinced him. Never the less, it wasn't the only reason unlike some. I think we can both agree the shift in recruiting policies over the last decade is a bad thing for the military.

Agreed.

They're a McDonalds grade of people, what do you expect out of them?

I shouldn't expect much evidently.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 10:32pm

frigidmagi wrote:The college fund was part of the reason I joined, but I understood that the purpose of a military is to fight and win wars. You can bet I don't have a problem with the GI Bill and other benifits, but thinking you can get something for nothing like these pukes seem to think is fucking idiotic.

Welcome to the current generation, they all want something for nothing.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-12-09 12:18am

frigidmagi wrote:The Pacific bases are useful if maybe overstaffed, I have no damn clue why the fuck we have bases in Western Europe though, just what or who are we protecting them from in Germany?

My theory is that the brass doesn't want to give up their vacation spots and cushy jobs, so they maintain every base they can on the theory that it adds to their power to say "I'm in charge of 5 bases" rather than 2 bases, even if the 5 are doing a job that could be handled by 2. It's a prestige thing.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-09 02:21am

I hear that Okinawa would be more than happy to see the troops go.

Not particularly. There are some vocal and usually bigoted idiots, and a lot of people have some legitimite grievances, but nothing I've seen indicates a widespread desire for the Americans to leave the island.

Besides, I think retaining Okinawa would be wise in the long run. Why don't we pull out of Germany? It's not like we've got terribly pressing interests there.