Paladin77

No senior General agrees with your BS. In WWII D Day was June 6, 1944 and the fighting in Europe was over a year later. Our Army has been in combat longer in Iraq then in WWII. It is the time in combat that is the issue not the time in the service. You are a COMPLETE IDIOT! You can support the troops and NOT support the policy of Bush! Bush is destroying our Ground Forces and if you support him you are not supporting our troops!!!!!

I think I have been blocked or something because my response to his lies are gone.

A TIME magazine article. Now there is an unbiased source.

At which time the president declared that major offencive combat actions were over. That means the war was over. Phase two as you call it was the war on terror. Two different wars.



I understand you went to WAR COLLEGE and I did not but maybe if you stayed awake in class you might have learned that D-Day started June 6th 1944 three years after we entered the war. Our first battle with Germany wsa in Africa 1942 where we got our butts kicked because they lacked training because the liberals had cut funding to the military right after WWI. Aug 17, 1942 - First all-American air attack in Europe. Jan 27, 1943 - First bombing raid by Americans on Germany (at Wilhelmshaven). Sept 9, 1943 - Allied landings at Salerno and Taranto. Oh wait that is in Europe, oops.



Please forgive me but you left out their names. Could you please provide them? I mean since you got the first two things wrong and like the NYT who has told some lies of late, ok the last 20 years, I am not going to take your word on the rest.




Last time I checked the policy is not a law, the people that make policy are the Sec-Def and the President who can change them any time they want. So policy is not beign violated it is being changed. Last time I checked was decades ago but the contract we signed said that in a time of war they can do what is best for the government including stopping people from exiting the military until the war is over. You do remember your contract don't you?



Nice try, my youngest son is planning on joining the military because he thinks it is a good thing. I support my son! Which is another way of saying blow it out your butt you hack.

Paladin77


Now Bush is extending tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. That was not even done in Vietnam. The actions of GWB will have a long term negative impact on both active and Reserve/Guard ground forces. He is abusing these forces by forcing missions above the capability given the overall strength of our ground forces. Every senior general has said the ground force components are in danger and what does Bush Do? Extend the length of combat tours in Iraq so he is able to implement the surge. It is time for Congress to end this war or remove Bush from power via Impeachment.

The issue of the policy to allow two years between combat tours has nothing to do with the law but is best for the long term health of the military. That is the issue. Overuse of the active component and lack of down time impacts effectiveness, moral and retention. The over use of the Guard and Reserve will impact the very same factors. If members of the Guard and Reserve look at the way they were over used in Iraq and choose to get out after 20 good years not only does that impact the numbers but it impacts EXPERIENCE! Every thing Bush is doing to the ground forces will have a very negative long term impact. EVERY Commander has said that is the case. You and your defense of what Bush is doing will not impact the negative impact on our troops. What it shows is your loyalty is to Bush not the troops and your continued support for Bush indicated you will ignore the MOST basic negative impact of what he is doing!

This proves you never served in Nam. The basic tour of duty in Vietnam was 13 months and some were held an additional 4 months at the convenience of the government a clause in the contract we all signed. After Vietnam the military shortened it to 12 months of overseas duty. To show you what a liar you are or that you never bothered to check your facts I was in the military from 1975 to 1988 according to you I should have only spent two tours overseas. My DD-214 shows that I spent 2 years over seas before I got to go home for state side duty was in the states for 4 months and sent to Cuba, then back to the states three months in the states then sent to Europe for 6 months and back to the states for three, then sent back to the West Pacific for 2 years, then back to the states for 2 years and back to the West Pacific for 6 months. My daughter was three years old before I got to live with her and the last time I had seen her was the week she was born. Where was your bleeding heart then?



How come we don't hear this from the troops? I am more than sure that if the media could find a bunch of mistreated servicemen they would be in the news. The troops I have spoken to did not seem to have a problem with it because they all know that it is part of the job they chose to work in.



This is stupid, here is why. When the military asked for more troops the Congress said no. Every time Mr. Bush tried to increase the military for the last four years the democrats in Congress fought it and it never made it into the appropriations bill. Now that the democrats have the majority they still have not raised the level of troops in the military. Remember that the last time SecDef requested more troops before the attacks of 9/11 was at 07:30 on 9/11 and the democrats screamed that we need the money for social security! Because we have the limited number of troops we have to fight as best we can with what we have. You fail to understand that we are in a war, this means we have only two choices, win or lose. There is no middle ground we have to win or we will lose. The democrats in power have chosen to lose. The policy changes because the democrats and the spinless republicans that side with them have kept us from doing anything other stagnation and losing the war.



NAME THEM!



You can’t be serious! It took three years just to get to Europe and the war started in 1939, we entered the war in January 1942 one month after the attack on Pearl Harbor. But look at the troops we had in WWII, we had millions of troops in the war compared to now where we have hundreds of thousands in the war on terror. Less troops means longer fighting I know this comes as a surprise to one as smart as you but think about it. I have some crayons if you need to do the math.



Right yet we were fighting all over the world for three years to set up the final push called D-Day and according to the time table they were supposed to be done in 6 months. According to your way of thinking Ike failed to fight the war correctly, should have been fired because he did not anticipate the battle of the bulge. We bombed their cities and killed a lot of civilians, something we are trying very hard not to do, this slows us down as well. Are you suggesting that we fight the war on terror like we fought WWII? The butcher bill for WWII was 25 million people dead, is that what you want? The democrats in power don't want us to have the troops needed, or the equipment needed to fight the war so based on your thinking the democrats should be removed from office because they are hindering the leadership of GWB!

EVERY Commander has said that is the case.


NAME THEM!

COS of the ARMY, Chief of the Army Reserve, Head of the National Guard and Commandant of the Marine Corps. All have said their forces are near the breaking point and that they do not have the needed equipment, down time and training time given the current level of deployments!

On September 11, 2001 at 0700 in a breakfast meeting in the pentagon Sec Def argued for almost an hour the need for more people. That does not mean Bush sent a request to Congress to increase the authorized troop strength. As I said, Bush NEVER took action to request the increase in strength he himself said was needed in the 2000 campaign. A meeting with the sec def is not a request to Congress by the President!

I had both the clearance and the detailed knowledge about the nuclear weapons and the disposition of those weapons. That was TOP secret and was the reason I was restricted from assignment to Vietnam.

Gen Schoonover Army CoS; LTG Stultz Chief Army Reserve; LTG Blum Chief National Guard; Gen Conway Marine Corps Commandant.

You can't be serious. One of his cabinet officers calls up the the Congressional leadership, invites them over for breakfast and askes for a serious increase in troop strength, without the permission of his boss? This is how it start, because the president does not make a significant request of the Congress without finding out how big a fight he might have. The request was made and turned down. You can get as technical as you wish but requests have been made.



Glad to know the military did not put you in charge of combat troops that would have been scary. All jokes aside. I asked if you were PRP certified? Do you know what that is and means?

I can't find the statements of the people you listed. Care to help me out?



Right, this is important if you forget that it is normal, if you have served in combat most people get out or get promoted to the point that they don't have to fight again. You did not notice your buddies that went to Vietnam were leaving after tasting combat? A few people stay in after killing people, most can understand combat killing but very few want to do it for a living. You on the other hand do not understand this, and think it is normal to stay in the military after killing people or watching people being killed.

I agree with you. That is why the meeting was held with Congress not the cabinet. A pitty you did not bother to use reading comprehension.

Not some members of Congress, the Congressmen responsible for military oversight, the ones that control the troop strenth and the money the military spends. If you dnn't get the ok from them then your request is dead before it starts.

YES we are winning in Iraq:

4 Bombs Kill 160 People in Baghdad
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
April 18, 2007 10:24 AM EDT
BAGHDAD - Four large bombs exploded in mostly Shiite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 160 people and wounding scores as violence climbed toward levels seen before the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital began two months ago.

In the deadliest of the attacks, a parked car bomb detonated in a crowd of workers at the Sadriyah market in central Baghdad, killing at least 112 people and wounding 115, said Raad Muhsin, an official at Al-Kindi Hospital where the victims were taken.