Oh no not again....

Page 2 of 5 First 1234 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by jmh80
    Or...it could be that Iran really is moving towards dropping nukes on Israel.

    Naw, the Bush conspiracies must be right.
    No way, they would never do that if they had the chance.

    And lets not forget the fact that our good friends China will practically sell them everything they need. China has been known to sell just about anything....in case most of you didn't know

    Remember the IAEA predictions about what they could do is based on what they could naturally develop on their own, not what they could be sold to them to increase that timeframe by 10.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.


  2. Well, some interesting comments here....I agree that some of the mess we are in will take years to fix.

    For those of you that want to move out of the country, then go. You might find a country that has been in civil war for years. There are many countries out there that use the gun as option #1. Do I think America should be one of those, absolutely not, however; I don't think running down OUR country helps anyone.

    I agree that it would be unbearable to lose a child in war. With that in mind, remember that the military is optional. It is not just a GI bill. Alot of bad things happen to alot of good people who feel that way.

    I don't have to agree with all of the decisions the suits in Washington make, but I still love my country very much!
    Yeah, me too. That's its so upsetting to see things going the way they are. Foreign affairs are bad enough, and by spending billions and billions trying to be the world's (often uninvited) police squad there a many things domestically that are dramitcially underfunded and falling into disarray.

    BV
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    Bush's intentions are so obvious.

    All he's doing is to try to push and push and push Iran. So when they respond, Bush will run around saying "Yeah, I was right. They are the enemy!" He's trying to bully Iran to attack and then try to claim the US as the wronged victim.

    Its a good way to bring up poll numbers. Even at Fox News, he's at 36%. The GOP who wants to get re-elected are distancing themselves and a slowly growing move to censure Bush...its easy to see why Bush is turning to military action for Iran.
    You have got to kidding me. The last thing that will help his numbers is another war. It will make it worse.

    Yeah he's really trying to push and push.....You do know that he majority of the effort in the last 2 years to get Iran to comply has been from the UN. Guess what they have done...they ignored them and stated they will not comply.


    If you want to look deeper into this Iran is playing it smart. They KNOW nobody else in this world will do what we did in Iraq and they think there is no way the US will risk another PR disaster of another war (consdiering the current administration is out in 2008) so they are beating their chest stating they will not comply because they know the next administration will be more worried about how they look to the public, not about solving the problem. What will happen? The UN will fold like usual, no military action will happen and Israel will be forced to respond with probably more brutality and force than we would which will promt an all out jihad against Israel.

    Iran senses weakness due to public pressure on the current administration and they are taking full advantage of it because they know nobody else has the balls to do anything to stop them. Europe will once again create a monster due to inaction. We will get hit hard again and the same people *****ing about the action we are taking now will ***** about the inaction that will happen.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    Yeah, me too. That's its so upsetting to see things going the way they are. Foreign affairs are bad enough, and by spending billions and billions trying to be the world's (often uninvited) police squad there a many things domestically that are dramitcially underfunded and falling into disarray.

    BV
    I agree that we cannot be the world's police squad. I do think it's sad that we spend as much (more) on war than we spend taking care of our own. However, for the men and women who are fighting over seas we should give them the best training and equipment we can, but it cost money. I wish I had the answer, if I did then maybe I would run for office

    I don't agree with alot that has happened, but I want the best for our young folk who are on the front lines.

  5. I agree that we cannot be the world's police squad. I do think it's sad that we spend as much (more) on war than we spend taking care of our own. However, for the men and women who are fighting over seas we should give them the best training and equipment we can, but it cost money. I wish I had the answer, if I did then maybe I would run for office

    I don't agree with alot that has happened, but I want the best for our young folk who are on the front lines.
    Yeah, same here. I dont support this war that's going on, but I wholeheartedly support the troops over there fighting. I would rather see the government spare no expense ensuring minimal casualties and maximum success. Sadly, when a lot of these wounded GI's come home they are forgotten about. At least, from what Ive read that seems to be the case. I have a couple friends that have spent time in Iraq, and they have said that the morale is pretty dismal. You'll hear different from other sources go...its hard to judge with 3rd hand info and just reading the news.

    BV
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    Yeah, same here. I dont support this war that's going on, but I wholeheartedly support the troops over there fighting. I would rather see the government spare no expense ensuring minimal casualties and maximum success. Sadly, when a lot of these wounded GI's come home they are forgotten about. At least, from what Ive read that seems to be the case. I have a couple friends that have spent time in Iraq, and they have said that the morale is pretty dismal. You'll hear different from other sources go...its hard to judge with 3rd hand info and just reading the news.

    BV
    I am sure the morale is not very good. When you don't definitivly know what your fighting for, morale goes way down.

    You are right about the wounded coming back. I don't think the government is doing enough to make sure these fine troops are being cared for. I know of one in my community who came back with a broken back (paralized from an IED). He said he has to fight for every penny he gets. Thats a shame. I don't think we need anymore war, especially sense we can't figure out how to take care of ones coming back from war.

    With all being said, "God Bless America"

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    You have got to kidding me. The last thing that will help his numbers is another war. It will make it worse.

    Yeah he's really trying to push and push.....You do know that he majority of the effort in the last 2 years to get Iran to comply has been from the UN. Guess what they have done...they ignored them and stated they will not comply.


    If you want to look deeper into this Iran is playing it smart. They KNOW nobody else in this world will do what we did in Iraq and they think there is no way the US will risk another PR disaster of another war (consdiering the current administration is out in 2008) so they are beating their chest stating they will not comply because they know the next administration will be more worried about how they look to the public, not about solving the problem. What will happen? The UN will fold like usual, no military action will happen and Israel will be forced to respond with probably more brutality and force than we would which will promt an all out jihad against Israel.

    Iran senses weakness due to public pressure on the current administration and they are taking full advantage of it because they know nobody else has the balls to do anything to stop them. Europe will once again create a monster due to inaction. We will get hit hard again and the same people *****ing about the action we are taking now will ***** about the inaction that will happen.
    I agree I dont think another war would help GB's rating's a bit. I also have to agree that Israel will respond with much more brutal force than we ever would.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    I have a couple friends that have spent time in Iraq, and they have said that the morale is pretty dismal. You'll hear different from other sources go...its hard to judge with 3rd hand info and just reading the news.

    BV
    A family member and 3 friends of mine will tell you otherwise with 3 of them returning in the last 3 months. The news takes comments such as "i wish i was home" and makes it sond like they are all depressed and hating life. What they don't report is the comments made after such as "but I believe in what we are doing and I dont want to leave until the job is done".

    But you won't here that on the majority of news channels and papers because that wouldn't sell. Conflict sells.


    Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  9. U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/wo.../09report.html
    April 9, 2006
    U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
    By ERIC SCHMITT
    and EDWARD WONG

    WASHINGTON, April 8 An internal staff report by the United States Embassy and the military command in Baghdad provides a sobering province-by-province snapshot of Iraq's political, economic and security situation, rating the overall stability of 6 of the 18 provinces "serious" and one "critical." The report is a counterpoint to some recent upbeat public statements by top American politicians and military officials.

    The report, 10 pages of briefing points titled "Provincial Stability Assessment," underscores the shift in the nature of the Iraq war three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Warnings of sectarian and ethnic frictions are raised in many regions, even in those provinces generally described as nonviolent by American officials.

    There are alerts about the growing power of Iranian-backed religious Shiite parties, several of which the United States helped put into power, and rival militias in the south. The authors also point to the Arab-Kurdish fault line in the north as a major concern, with the two ethnicities vying for power in Mosul, where violence is rampant, and Kirkuk, whose oil fields are critical for jump-starting economic growth in Iraq.

    The patterns of discord mapped by the report confirm that ethnic and religious schisms have become entrenched across much of the country, even as monthly American fatalities have fallen. Those indications, taken with recent reports of mass migrations from mixed Sunni-Shiite areas, show that Iraq is undergoing a de facto partitioning along ethnic and sectarian lines, with clashes sometimes political, sometimes violent taking place in those mixed areas where different groups meet.

    The report, the first of its kind, was written over a six-week period by a joint civilian and military group in Baghdad that wanted to provide a baseline assessment for conditions that new reconstruction teams would face as they were deployed to the provinces, said Daniel Speckhard, an American ambassador in Baghdad who oversees reconstruction efforts.

    The writers included officials from the American Embassy's political branch, reconstruction agencies and the American military command in Baghdad, Mr. Speckhard said. The authors also received information from State Department officers in the provinces, he said.

    The report was part of a periodic briefing on Iraq that the State Department provides to Congress, and has been shown to officials on Capitol Hill, including those involved in budgeting for the reconstruction teams. It is not clear how many top American officials have seen it; the report has not circulated widely at the Defense Department or the National Security Council, spokesmen there said.

    A copy of the report, which is not classified, was provided to The New York Times by a government official in Washington who said the confidential assessment provided a more realistic gauge of stability in Iraq than the recent portrayals by senior military officers. It is dated Jan. 31, 2006, three weeks before the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra, which set off reprisals that killed hundreds of Iraqis. Recent updates to the report are minor and leave its conclusions virtually unchanged, Mr. Speckhard said.

    The general tenor of the Bush administration's comments on Iraq has been optimistic. On Thursday, President Bush argued in a speech that his strategy was working despite rising violence in Iraq.

    Vice President **** Cheney, on the CBS News program "Face the Nation," suggested last month that the administration's positive views were a better reflection of the conditions in Iraq than news media reports.

    "I think it has less to do with the statements we've made, which I think were basically accurate and reflect reality," Mr. Cheney said, "than it does with the fact that there's a constant sort of perception, if you will, that's created because what's newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad."

    In their public comments, the White House and the Pentagon have used daily attack statistics as a measure of stability in the provinces. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a senior military spokesman in Baghdad, told reporters recently that 12 of 18 provinces experienced "less than two attacks a day."

    Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" on March 5 that the war in Iraq was "going very, very well," although a few days later, he acknowledged serious difficulties.

    In recent interviews and speeches, some administration officials have begun to lay out the deep-rooted problems plaguing the American enterprise here. At the forefront has been Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador, who has said the invasion opened a "Pandora's box" and, on Friday, warned that a civil war here could engulf the entire Middle East.

    On Saturday, Mr. Khalilzad and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior military commander in Iraq, issued a statement praising some of the political and security goals achieved in the last three years, but also cautioning that "despite much progress, much work remains."

    Mr. Speckhard, the ambassador overseeing reconstruction, said the report was not as dire as its assessments might suggest. "Really, this shows there's one province that continues to be a major challenge," he said. "There are a number of others that have significant work to do in them. And there are other parts of the country that are doing much better."

    But the report's capsule summaries of each province offer some surprisingly gloomy news. The report's formula for rating stability takes into account governing, security and economic issues. The oil-rich Basra Province, where British troops have patrolled in relative calm for most of the last three years, is now rated as "serious."

    The report defines "serious" as having "a government that is not fully formed or cannot serve the needs of its residents; economic development that is stagnant with high unemployment, and a security situation marked by routine violence, assassinations and extremism."

    British fatalities have been on the rise in Basra in recent months, with attacks attributed to Shiite insurgents. There is a "high level of militia activity including infiltration of local security forces," the report says. "Smuggling and criminal activity continues unabated. Intimidation attacks and assassination are common."

    The report states that economic development in the region, long one of the poorest in Iraq, is "hindered by weak government."

    The city of Basra has widely been reported as devolving into a mini-theocracy, with government and security officials beholden to Shiite religious leaders, enforcing bans on alcohol and mandating head scarves for women. Police cars and checkpoints are often decorated with posters or stickers of Moktada al-Sadr, the rebellious cleric, or Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a cleric whose party is very close to Iran. Both men have formidable militias.

    Mr. Hakim's party controls the provincial councils of eight of the nine southern provinces, as well as the council in Baghdad.

    In a color-coded map included in the report, the province of Anbar, the wide swath of western desert that is the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, is depicted in red, for "critical." The six provinces categorized as "serious" Basra, Baghdad, Diyala and three others to the north are orange. Eight provinces deemed "moderate" are in yellow, and the three Kurdish provinces are depicted in green, for "stable."

    The "critical" security designation, the report says, means a province has "a government that is not functioning" or that is only "represented by a single strong leader"; "an economy that does have the infrastructure or government leadership to develop and is a significant contributor to instability"; and "a security situation marked by high levels of AIF [anti-Iraq forces] activity, assassinations and extremism."

    The most surprising assessments are perhaps those of the nine southern provinces, none of which are rated "stable." The Bush administration often highlights the relative lack of violence in those regions.

    For example, the report rates as "moderate" the two provinces at the heart of Shiite religious power, Najaf and Karbala, and points to the growing Iranian political presence there. In Najaf, "Iranian influence on provincial government of concern," the report says. Both the governor and former governor of Najaf are officials in Mr. Hakim's religious party, founded in Iran in the early 1980's. The report also notes that "there is growing tension between Mahdi Militia and Badr Corps that could escalate" referring to the private armies of Mr. Sadr and Mr. Hakim, which have clashed before.

    The report does highlight two bright spots for Najaf. The provincial government is able to maintain stability for the province and provide for the people's needs, it says, and religious tourism offers potential for economic growth.

    But insurgents still manage to occasionally penetrate the tight ring of security. A car bomb exploded Thursday near the golden-domed Imam Ali Shrine, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens.

    Immediately to the north, Babil Province, an important strategic area abutting Baghdad, also has "strong Iranian influence apparent within council," the report says. There is "ethnic conflict in north Babil," and "crime is a major factor within the province." In addition, "unemployment remains high."

    Throughout the war, American commanders have repeatedly tried to pacify northern Babil, a farming area with a virulent Sunni Arab insurgency, but they have had little success. In southern Babil, the new threat is Shiite militiamen who are pushing up from Shiite strongholds like Najaf and Karbala and beginning to develop rivalries among themselves.

    Gen. Qais Hamza al-Maamony, the commander of Babil's 8,000-member police force, said his officers were not ready yet to intervene between warring militias, should it come to that, as many fear. "They would be too frightened to get into the middle," he said in an interview.

    If the American troops left Babil, he said, "the next day would be civil war."

    Eric Schmitt reported from Washington for this article, and Edward Wong from Baghdad. Jeffrey Gettleman contributed reporting from Hilla, Iraq, and Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi from Baghdad.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    A family member and 3 friends of mine will tell you otherwise with 3 of them returning in the last 3 months. The news takes comments such as "i wish i was home" and makes it sond like they are all depressed and hating life. What they don't report is the comments made after such as "but I believe in what we are doing and I dont want to leave until the job is done".

    But you won't here that on the majority of news channels and papers because that wouldn't sell. Conflict sells.


    Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up
    Okay maybe that's true for the people you know. Do they know when the job will be DONE. What is the mission......are we trying to establish a new government or just be the police. I am not saying we shouldn't be there because right now, we have to be.

    Morale, I believe, is somewhat in the hands of the commanders. If they don't have a positive outlook and can't tell the troops what end goal is, the moral will be sh****.

    The media has always played a big part in what we all believe and think. Unfortunately (first hand experience) the media portrays things in a way different light that what is truth.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    A family member and 3 friends of mine will tell you otherwise with 3 of them returning in the last 3 months. The news takes comments such as "i wish i was home" and makes it sond like they are all depressed and hating life. What they don't report is the comments made after such as "but I believe in what we are doing and I dont want to leave until the job is done".

    But you won't here that on the majority of news channels and papers because that wouldn't sell. Conflict sells.


    Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up
    That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  12. Quote Originally Posted by heater
    Okay maybe that's true for the people you know. Do they know when the job will be DONE. What is the mission......are we trying to establish a new government or just be the police. I am not saying we shouldn't be there because right now, we have to be.

    Morale, I believe, is somewhat in the hands of the commanders. If they don't have a positive outlook and can't tell the troops what end goal is, the moral will be sh****.

    The media has always played a big part in what we all believe and think. Unfortunately (first hand experience) the media portrays things in a way different light that what is truth.
    Morale is NOT in the hands of the commanders AT ALL. It isnt your commander working along side you... making the best out of situations.. it is your Battle Buddy, or whatever you want to call it. It is the person having that laugh with you when **** really hits the fan.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  13. It's a war, says Iraq minister


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up
    It's a war, says Iraq minister

    10apr06

    A SENIOR official in the Iraqi Government has for the first time admitted the country is in a state of civil war.

    Deputy interior minister Hussein Ali Kamal told the BBC's Arabic service: "Actually, Iraq has been in an undeclared civil war for the past 12 months.

    "On a daily basis, Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians are being killed and the only undeclared thing is that a civil war has not been officially announced by the parties involved.

    "Civil war is happening, but not on a wide scale."




    Wave of sectarian violence in Iraq; 85 bodies found
    http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/15/stor...1507671600.htm

    Police on Tuesday found the bodies of 15 strangled men, their hands and feet bound and showing signs of torture, abandoned in a vehicle in Western Baghdad. Officials discovered the bodies at night in the Khudra area, near where the bodies of 18 men reportedly killed in a similar way were found in a minivan a week ago.
    http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_En...275302211&par=

    BAGHDAD, Iraq — The bodies of four men who had been shot in the head were found hanging Monday in a Shiite area of eastern Baghdad, near a note scrawled on a piece of cloth that read: "Those are the traitors."
    http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...q/14091694.htm


    'Women bombers' kill at least 79 at mosque

    http://www.itv.com/news/305665.html

    Police found 30 more victims of the sectarian slaughter -- most of them beheaded -- dumped on a village road north of Baghdad.
    http://www.local6.com/news/8274852/detail.html
  14. Morale


    Third Retired General calls for resignation of Rumsfeld
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...181629,00.html


    Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/wa...rtner=homepage
    April 10, 2006
    By THOM SHANKER
    WASHINGTON, April 9 Young Army officers, including growing numbers of captains who leave as soon as their initial commitment is fulfilled, are bailing out of active-duty service at rates that have alarmed senior officers. Last year, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their five-year obligation.

    It was the second year in a row of worsening retention numbers, apparently marking the end of a burst of patriotic fervor during which junior officers chose continued military service at unusually high rates.

    Mirroring the problem among West Pointers, graduates of reserve officer training programs at universities are also increasingly leaving the service at the end of the four-year stint in uniform that follows their commissioning.

    To entice more to stay, the Army is offering new incentives this year, including a promise of graduate school on Army time and at government expense to newly commissioned officers who agree to stay in uniform for three extra years. Other enticements include the choice of an Army job or a pick of a desirable location for a home post.

    The incentives resulted in additional three-year commitments from about one-third of all new officers entering active duty in 2006, a number so large that it surprised even the senior officers in charge of the program. But the service's difficulty in retaining current captains has generals worriedly discussing among themselves whether the Army will have the widest choice possible for its next generation of leaders.

    The program was begun this year to counter pressures on junior officers to leave active duty, including the draw of high-paying jobs in the private sector; the desires of a spouse for a calmer civilian quality of life at a time when the officers can be expected to be starting their families; and, for the past two years, the concerns over repeated tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Army has had a far more difficult time in its recruiting than the other services because the ground forces are carrying the heaviest burden of deployments and injuries and deaths in the war.

    One member of the West Point class of 2000 who left active duty last year is Stephen Kuo, who took a job with a medical equipment company in Florida. Mr. Kuo said his decision was based on "quality of life." He is now recruiting classmates for his company.

    "With the rotation of one year overseas, then another year or so back at home, then another overseas rotation it does take a toll on you," said Mr. Kuo, who served a year in combat in northern Iraq. "Plus, I was not enjoying the staff jobs desk jobs I was looking at for the next 8 to 10 years. Furthermore, the private sector had many lucrative offers."

    But the chance at a free master's degree persuaded Brandon J. Archuleta, a West Point senior, to sign up for an extra three years in uniform.

    "Education is extremely important to me, and I know I want a master's degree at the very least," Cadet Archuleta said. "The Army has a wonderful relationship with some of the top-tier graduate schools, especially in the Ivy League. I want to attend a school of that caliber."

    In 2001, but before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 9.3 percent of the Army's young officers left active duty at their first opportunity. By 2002, the number of those junior officers leaving at their first opportunity dropped to 7.1 percent, and in 2003, only 6.3 percent opted out. But the number grew to 8.3 percent in 2004 and 8.6 percent in 2005.

    The statistics are even more striking among West Point graduates, who receive an Ivy League-quality education at taxpayer expense and, in the view of many senior officers and West Point alumni, owe the nation and the Army a debt of loyalty beyond the initial five years of active duty.

    The retention rate at the five-year mark for the West Point class of 1999 was 71.9 percent in 2004, down from 78.1 percent for the previous year's class. And for the class of 2000, the retention rate fell to 65.8 percent, meaning that last year the Army lost more than a third 34. 2 percent of that group of officers as they reached the end of their initial five-year commitment.

    That is the highest rate of loss over the past 16 years among West Point officers reaching the five-year mark. For young officers receiving their commissions in 2006, the Army will guarantee slots in the most sought-after branches of the service aviation, armor or intelligence, for example in exchange for an extra three years in uniform.

    Similarly, if a young officer wants an initial posting to a desired location or an opportunity to earn a master's degree, the Army will guarantee either choice in exchange for three more years of active duty.

    The West Point graduating class of 2006 responded at levels even higher than anticipated by senior officers at the military academy, with 352 of the 875 seniors 40.2 percent signing on to the program as they approached the date in late May when they would be commissioned as second lieutenants.

    "It is an amazing response," said Lt. Gen. William J. Lennox Jr., the West Point superintendent. "It has exceeded how I thought the class would respond."

    Across the entire Army this spring, 3,420 newly commissioned junior officers are expected to enter active duty, according to the Army's personnel office. Of those, 1,124 about one-third have agreed to serve an extra three years in uniform under the new program.

    According to Army statistics, 718 signed up to choose their career track, 289 contracted for the graduate school opportunity 257 of them from West Point and 117 wanted to pick the location where they, and their families, would be based.

    The graduate school program was carefully structured to keep officers in uniform even beyond the extra three-year commitment.

    After completing a master's degree program, an officer also has to repay the Army with three months of service for every month back in the classroom. This could push some officers beyond an automatic 8 years of service, toward 12 years at which point, goes the thinking of the senior officers who devised the program, they may decide to stay in for a full 20.

    "Today's officers make a career decision to come or go at the three- or four-year mark, while a decade ago they made it closer to the seven- or eight-year mark," said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's senior personnel officer.

    "One of the salient issues in this information age is that if they are going to be competitive when they leave the Army whether at the 4-year mark, the 10-year mark or after 20 they have to maintain critical skills," General Hagenbeck said. "They want to have graduate schooling."

    The cost of the program will depend on how many young officers enter graduate school in a given year, but Army personnel managers say that whatever the individual annual tuition fees, they are far less than the cost of training and preparing a new officer. The Army will cap individual tuition at $13,000 per year, although the service has already negotiated with a number of schools to waive the difference in fees.

    At the five-year mark in their career, Army captains usually are in command of a company, a junior leadership position putting them at the center of the day-to-day fight. The Army needs even more company-level officers today, as it expands the number of its deployable brigade combat teams.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

    Adams
    Hey, what a champion. You must have a good unit your with......

    I wish you the best of luck if you do go back.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by heater
    Hey, what a champion. You must have a good unit your with......

    I wish you the best of luck if you do go back.
    So far its been two different individual taskers.. so not with my unit... assigned to different forces each time. Thanks.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  17. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    Morale is NOT in the hands of the commanders AT ALL. It isnt your commander working along side you... making the best out of situations.. it is your Battle Buddy, or whatever you want to call it. It is the person having that laugh with you when **** really hits the fan.

    Adams
    I spent 12 years in a combat arms unit and guess what, the leadership dictates alot of how the unit functions. If the leadership is positive and gives you a clear mission you respond accordingly. Yeah the commander might not be right there with you, but he sets the tone for the entire unit (more so the first shirt).

    I agree your battle buddy is who you rest your life with. Thats who you spend all of your time with. You and your battle buddy feed off of the information given and make the best or worst of it. It's pretty clear, through history, from commander thru top enlisted, they can change the total attitude of a unit.

    You obviously have never had a lousy commander or you would know what I am talking about.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by heater
    I spent 12 years in a combat arms unit and guess what, the leadership dictates alot of how the unit functions. If the leadership is positive and gives you a clear mission you respond accordingly. Yeah the commander might not be right there with you, but he sets the tone for the entire unit (more so the first shirt).

    I agree your battle buddy is who you rest your life with. Thats who you spend all of your time with. You and your battle buddy feed off of the information given and make the best or worst of it. It's pretty clear, through history, from commander thru top enlisted, they can change the total attitude of a unit.

    You obviously have never had a lousy commander or you would know what I am talking about.
    I've had plenty of lousy commanders.. and yes, they can cause problems. But I have never seen one commander drag down the morale as a whole... Its always you and your comrades making the best out of it.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  19. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    I've had plenty of lousy commanders.. and yes, they can cause problems. But I have never seen one commander drag down the morale as a whole... Its always you and your comrades making the best out of it.

    Adams
    Thats good. I had a commander that almost destroyed my unit. I hope you keep the positive attitude.

    If the top hat has a good attitude, the rest of the boys and girls will also.

  20. Are you sure that his ratings wouldn't go up Bobo? I mean most Americans still think Saddam had a hand in September 11. All Bush has to do is say something and the uneducated masses will take it as fact. By claiming to be an Iranian freedom fighter, his ratings will climb up, ensuring a Republican will be elected in 2008.

    I have two friends doing a second tour and three more doing their first. They like what they're doing but they never really believed it was going to be as bad as it was. I can't wait until I enlist, which is probably around when I graduate from college, about a couple years from now.

    I hate Bush and the war but at the same time, standing and whining about it here in the US isn't going to do a bit of good. People are still dying over there. So I guess you could say that me going to the war to help out as best I can is my way of protesting.

  21. Frigggin Armegedon
  22. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/wo.../09report.html
    April 9, 2006
    U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
    By ERIC SCHMITT
    and EDWARD WONG

    .

    Please, I have a hard enough time holding my sides in laughing at CNN. I don't tihnk I could take it form the New York Times who seem to me getting more outragoues by the day since their stock has plummeted in the last year.



    And could someone please tell the minister what the definition of civil war because obvisouly he does not.


    "A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, both have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations."


    Sorry, no civil war but it will sure sell those papers.


    As I said before, conflict sells....for every one of those reports you state of sectarian violence I can find 10 about a murder here in the US. The news is predominantly negative for a reason.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    Are you sure that his ratings wouldn't go up Bobo? I mean most Americans still think Saddam had a hand in September 11. All Bush has to do is say something and the uneducated masses will take it as fact. By claiming to be an Iranian freedom fighter, his ratings will climb up, ensuring a Republican will be elected in 2008.

    I have two friends doing a second tour and three more doing their first. They like what they're doing but they never really believed it was going to be as bad as it was. I can't wait until I enlist, which is probably around when I graduate from college, about a couple years from now.

    I hate Bush and the war but at the same time, standing and whining about it here in the US isn't going to do a bit of good. People are still dying over there. So I guess you could say that me going to the war to help out as best I can is my way of protesting.

    No, they won't go up. Its a fact of presidents as war goes on. Some of the most popular presidents in the world had awful approval ratings as war's dragged on. Check the history books

    "Presidents who seek to change the nation's direction know that they are bound to alienate those who profit from the status quo. Great presidents go ahead anyway. "Judge me," FDR said, "by the enemies I have made." Truman's approval rating at the end of his presidency was down to 31 percent. Look where he ranks now."

    Approval ratings means jack ****. History repeats itself.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  24. Here is a pretty good analysis of second term presidents:

    "At this point, we can see a first pattern:
    Presidential failure in the second term consistently has been the result of
    unsatisfactory wars or perceptions that the president was a criminal. Wilson
    fought the First World War successfully but tried to bring it to an
    unacceptable conclusion at Versailles. Truman could not terminate the Korean
    War; Johnson could not terminate the Vietnam War. All were perceived, by the
    end of their terms, as having entangled themselves in a war with unrealistic
    goals. It was not always the war itself that damaged the presidents' service,
    but the growing sense that these presidents did not have a strategy in the
    war that served the national interest.

    The issue, however, is more
    complex than this. All four failed presidents were reviled by the end of
    their second terms. But so were FDR, Reagan and Clinton. Even Eisenhower,
    though it is hard to recall now, was treated with extreme contempt by the
    press and others for his perceived personal, intellectual failings --
    however, the level of animosity was neither as deep or as broad as with the
    others. The intensity of feeling against all eight men during their second
    terms was enormous: All faced a substantial group of vitriolic,
    irreconcilable opponents. At various points, this group expanded to
    constitute a majority. But the core issue -- the key differentiator between
    the two groups of "failed' or "troubled" presidents -- was this: Among the
    troubled presidents, at no point did their own base of support crack.
    Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton were reviled and at times on the
    defensive, but at no point did their own core supporters waver
    significantly.

    The failed presidents, on the other hand, all failed
    not because their opponents reviled them or even because those opponents
    became a majority, but because their own base of political support lost
    basic confidence in them. Wilson had suffered a revolt among the Democrats.
    Truman no longer could get the Democratic nomination. It is doubtful that
    Johnson could have won his party's nomination had he sought it. Nixon
    collapsed when Republican senators turned on him. On the other hand, no
    matter what attacks were launched against FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan or
    Clinton, their base held like a rock. Even when FDR was outgunned by the
    isolationists, he held his base, and he was never broken.

    Bush's
    problem, therefore, is the war in Iraq. But the issue is not his Democratic
    opposition, nor even whether his opponents swell to become a majority. The
    threat to Bush's presidency will come if, and only if, his own political
    base breaks. By all polls, that base -- which historically has been at about
    40-42 percent -- is holding. If that continues to be the case, he will be
    able to execute foreign policy effectively. If that base is shattered, he
    fails."
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

    Adams
    You can't. The New York Times says you are disgruntled and your morale is at an all time low.

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    You can't. The New York Times says you are disgruntled and your morale is at an all time low.

    hehe... roger that... NOW I have seen the light.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  27. I'm afraid we're going to be biting off more than we can chew. With our troops (including reserves) already being deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq we don't have all the resources available that we would like to have. We can still run air strikes, but it is debatable how effective these would be and what the consequences would be. Iran after all is a significant power on the oil market which gives them a lot of leverage.
    At the same time we would be messing around with yet another Islamic country (the self-declared most Islamic of all Islamic countries), though I'm not sure if we can make things any worse with respect to our image in the mid-east.

    The only real option would seem to me as another democratization of a lucky country, but that would require troops from somewhere... hmmm - seeing it like that, bush could actually pull the troops out of Iraq - hey, isn't that what everybody wants anyway - and move them into Iran...

    Finally - at some point with the costs for all our endeavors piling up, the s*** will hit the fan.

    I think this is a bluff - given the list above I can't realistically see how this should work out for us. But I've been wrong many times...

  28. Recent news reports are showing the white house backing down from talks of military strikes:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS...eut/index.html

  29. Of course they will because it will only hurt them in terms of public opinion.

    Those battle plans have been around forever but this is another exmaple of the news media digging up something that has been around for years and trying to put a spin on it because lets face it, the news mdeia and the current administrsation do not get along especially when you have the vice president publically blasting them. From that point on the media has another objective besides making money and that is to embarrass the White House.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  30. Again, none of this is really new news. The US is always planning preemptive military plans when/if it sees a threat. And last I recall, the US has been going through the UN to use their diplomacy with the situation in Iran...

    Someone just decided to write an article to the masses as "breaking news," suggesting as if these military plans were "imminent."
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. OH NO! Not ANOTHER Superdrol/PP Log!!
    By ex-tightend83 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 07:12 AM
  2. Not again...
    By jjohn in forum Nutraplanet
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-30-2007, 08:51 PM
  3. Sore Nip question. ( No, Not gyno )
    By Stinger124 in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-07-2007, 03:07 PM
  4. Oh no...I'm on a roll....
    By Dwight Schrute in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-28-2003, 01:00 AM
  5. No! Not the "natural guy!"
    By bigpetefox in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-18-2003, 05:41 PM
Log in
Log in