Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Growing Problem for Military Recruiters: Parents
NYT ^ | June 3 05 | Damien Cave

Posted on 06/02/2005 11:39:05 PM PDT by churchillbuff

Two years into the war in Iraq, as the Army and Marines struggle to refill their ranks, parents have become boulders of opposition that recruiters cannot move.

Mothers and fathers around the country said they were terrified that their children would have to be killed - or kill - in a war that many see as unnecessary and without end.

At schools, they are insisting that recruiters be kept away, incensed at the access that they have to adolescents easily dazzled by incentive packages and flashy equipment.

A Department of Defense survey last November, the latest, shows that only 25 percent of parents would recommend military service to their children, down from 42 percent in August 2003.

"Parents," said one recruiter in Ohio who insisted on anonymity because the Army ordered all recruiters not to talk to reporters, "are the biggest hurdle we face."

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: recruiting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-111 next last
To: Howlin
Churchillbluff hates the military"""

Really? Does that include the two young women in my family who are in the Air Force and headed to the Middle East? No, just because I oppose a particular policy of politicians (ie the Iraq invasion) -- just as I opposed Clinton in Kosovo -- it does not mean I "hate the military." Only someone who cannot or refuses to think logically would insist on that conclusion. Rightly or wrongly, Lincoln opposed the Mexican War. That did not mean that he "hated the military" Gen. Omar Bradley opposed MacArthur's plan for a war with China over north Korea. That did not mean that Bradley "hated the military." Ah, but I fear that this level of logic is wasted on you.

51 posted on 06/03/2005 2:51:40 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

..."Parents," said one recruiter in Ohio who insisted on anonymity because the Army ordered all recruiters not to talk to reporters, "are the biggest hurdle we face."....the biggest hurdle the recuiters face is the nightly news interviewing each family of each soldier killed and gladly putting it on tv every day......Here in Seattle it starts with...Another soldier was killed today...Well, I wonder if those killed are being honored at all on the nightly news......


52 posted on 06/03/2005 4:26:38 AM PDT by Route101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
""The Air Force just in the last year forced out 20,000 airmen because they were over manned. Retention in the AF is at an all-time high.""

"They should have built more planes instead"

The USAF does not build aircraft.. they buy them with the blessing of congress in defense authorizations. So if you want more planes.. tell your congressman :_)

But I am in the Air Force.. and Force Shaping is a fact of life right now. But I only know about 20 or 30 airmen who have gotten out due to it.
53 posted on 06/03/2005 5:06:25 AM PDT by Kitanis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: All
Last Year I was in Qatar (A small Mid East country near Saudi Arabia) on a deployment. I use to read Free Republic on a daily basis but as I was there..

I found that I wanted to keep in touch with my home state.. and found Portland Indy Media for Oregon, kind of a mini freerepublic... So I would go there and see what they were saying.. it is basically a bastion of liberals and peace activists... But it was news to home.

I noticed one article from a mother who was angry that her son wished to join the US Army despite the fact that she opposed it. He was 17 and I gathered that her and him had many of arguments about his decision.

She was incensed that she answered the phone one day and found a Army recruiter who wished to talk to her son. When she found out that her Son was the one who asked for the recruiter to call.. she stated that she told the recruiter to never call that number again.

Then she went into a statement that she wanted the recruiters to be banned from calling anyone in the country because of her belief that the war was wrong. She also went into a statement that she believed that she could stop her son from joining the army because of her status as a mother.

I answered her post by giving a couple of suggestions of what she could do to halt the recruiter from bothering to talk to her son while he was 17. Stated that I was in the military and had volunteered to join and was on a deployment at the time. But after the boy turned 18.. then if he walked into a recruiters office on his own free will.. then that was the boys right under the law.

I could not believe the venom of posters who blasted me for even ID myself as a military member. But over the course of about three days I would reply calmly and try to get a discussion to see what the peacnik and passive folks believed about the war.

The mother was angry that her son wanted to join the Army at all.. and just had a opposite view from her son. The rest.. well it was simply a Anti-Bush/Anti-Violence rhetoric. But I found it interesting that the the next forum post was folks who were happy that a eco-terrorist beat up a logger. LOL
54 posted on 06/03/2005 5:28:31 AM PDT by Kitanis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Kozak; churchillbuff

I've got over 23 years service as an officer in the U.S. Navy on active duty and the reserves. And I agree with churchillbuff completely.


55 posted on 06/03/2005 5:32:34 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
It is only Churchillbutt being Churchillbutt.
56 posted on 06/03/2005 5:34:56 AM PDT by verity (A mindset is an antidote to logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

why don't we draft all the border jumpers. every army needs wall fodder, right? then these guys will have earned right to live in the us.


57 posted on 06/03/2005 5:57:53 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kitanis
But I am in the Air Force.. and Force Shaping is a fact of life right now. But I only know about 20 or 30 airmen who have gotten out due to it.

It isn't the shape I'm concerned about :-)


58 posted on 06/03/2005 6:30:48 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Shh...you're not allowed to mention socio-economic class on FR, silly. Just simmer down and have a sip of this Koolade. It's delicious!

/sarcasm


59 posted on 06/03/2005 7:22:33 AM PDT by RepublicMan4U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni

Well put. I would prefer also bringing the battle to them than having it on US soil. The consequence of not brining the battle to them would mean a police state in the US to keep everyone safe. I would choose option 1.


60 posted on 06/03/2005 7:36:29 AM PDT by Lord Nelson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Skeeve14

Yes, I wish Bush was MORE aggressive. I had enough of this "Islam is a religion of peace" crap. It's not and never has been.


61 posted on 06/03/2005 7:39:06 AM PDT by Lord Nelson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Take my kid......please!!!!!!!!!

Had my son readdy to go....His Girl Freind talked him out of it.


62 posted on 06/03/2005 7:42:21 AM PDT by FlatLandBeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kitanis

I really do believe many Americans of the left despise the men in uniform. The leftist politicians would never admit it - it would be political suicide.


63 posted on 06/03/2005 7:43:30 AM PDT by Lord Nelson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I think we need to consider the vulnerable nature the United States is as an open society. We cannot close the ports or inspect every crate for bombs. That would bring the economy to a screeching halt. The less that has to be dont to slow down economic activity in the homeland the better. Bringing the battle to them is the answer. Although I agree that immigration policy needs to be taken, set on fire, and a new policy, including real measures of enforcement to be created.
64 posted on 06/03/2005 7:46:20 AM PDT by Lord Nelson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

"Our occupation of Germany and Japan lasted a DECADE. "

Actually, it is still technically ongoing. We have lots of troops in both countries.... still.

The Japanese are still bound by their wartime surrender treaties to us, as well.


65 posted on 06/03/2005 8:07:10 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

"If you go back and read the articles and predictions that were put out, pre-invasion - - including here on freerepublic -- what's going on in Iraq today is nowhere, NOTHING, like what was predicted."

Yup you're right.

There was no mass starvation, as was predicted.

Millions haven't died from disease, as was predicted.

Saddam didn't get a chance to torch the oil wells...again.

We didn't lose 50,000 troops in the battle for Baghdad, as many predicted..

Iraq didn't turn into Sudan or Afghanistan or any other failed state, as many predicted.

Instead, Iraq is now the only Arab country with free elections, liquor licenses, civil liberties, and a vibrant economy.

Out of a country of 50 million or so, the number of people dissatisfied enough to blow stuff up is numbered in the thousands. Most of them are imported foreigners or former Ba'athists.


66 posted on 06/03/2005 8:12:53 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

"Query: Why can't either of the Bush girls put on a uniform?"

You clearly watch too much reality tv.

The military is VOLUNTEER. It doesn't matter that they are Bush's daughters, they are adults who can do what they like.


67 posted on 06/03/2005 8:17:28 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
Well, surely if the parents of a legal adult (18-year-olds) can stop them from joining the military, they're too much of a wimp/mama's baby to fight a war anyway.
68 posted on 06/03/2005 8:24:51 AM PDT by FrankR (Don't let the bastards wear you down...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

"Uh, remember Osama - - - "dead or alive" ???? He did 9-11 and we don't have him. It hardly makes me a "dove" to think he should have been our top target, not Saddam."

Churchillbuff, has your brain been replaced by Michael Moore/DNC talking points???

It took almost a year after WW2 to prove that Hitler was dead.

Finding a guy in one of the roughest mountain ranges in the world when he is being hidden by natives whose families have been smugglers in the region for over 1000 years isn't exactly easy. He is one guy, he is on the run for his life, and he's lost power in his own organization.

In any event, what's with this either/or one track mindism?

We fought the Japanese and Germans at the same time. Saddam was a major threat to the region, and taking him out led to the conditions that will end up transforming the middle east by creating an alternative option - democracy and prosperity - in a region where the only ideas that previously got play were totalitarianism and dictatorship and wahhabism and the Iranian islamic revolution.

I laugh when I hear dems say we should promote democracy in the middle east instead of having invaded Iraq - when that was part of the entire purpose. Dems point to the PNAC plans as something evil.... when in fact thats what they do! It's a sneaky debate tactic, and you, sucker, fell for it.

I suggest you change your name to Chamberlainbuff. It would be more authentic.


69 posted on 06/03/2005 8:25:05 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

"Well, how did the Israelis do it?"

If the Israeli technique were so hot, they wouldn't still be fighting these stupid ragheads 50 years later.

It's not something to emulate.


70 posted on 06/03/2005 8:27:28 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

"I thought so."

You know, you sound a whole lot like the liberals who tell us that Bush's numerous cabinet members and confidants (or Bush for that matter) who managed to bail out of the Vietnam War have no right to send people to war because they never served. If churchhill's opinion isn't worth a darn because he never served, than neither is Chaney's or that of numerous other folks.


71 posted on 06/03/2005 8:37:24 AM PDT by Gone GF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Mothers and fathers around the country said they were terrified that their children would have to be killed - or kill - in a war that many see as unnecessary and without end.

What's the military coming to? To think soldiers are now actually expected to shoot the enemy and even risk getting shot. /sarc

72 posted on 06/03/2005 9:58:25 AM PDT by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“I agree with churchillbuff completely.”

Then you agree with churchillbuff that Iraq was not a threat to national security?

73 posted on 06/03/2005 10:20:03 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
Then you agree with churchillbuff that Iraq was not a threat to national security?"""

Interesting how the arguments for invading Iraq shift. When we first went in, it was to get WMDs. (If it didn't have WMDs, it's not a threat to US security in any other way, because it has a fifth world army and no air force. On the pecking order, Cuba is more of a threat to our security than Iraq - it too has no military to speak of, but it's closer at hand so might be capable of some marginal mischief, at the edges of things). Now that there are no WMDs, so no threat to national security has been shown, invasion supporters say all the cost ($300 billion at a time that our taxes are still too high and our deficits exploding) and all the injuries and deaths are worth it- we're told - because it "takes the fight to terrorists." I don't get that argument. It assumes that all terrorists are stupid, and that they'll come from all over the world to risk death in a firefight in Iraq, instead of making plans to act against the American homeland. Obviously some terrorists - the stupid ones - may have traveled to IRaq. But if a nuclear suitcase is brought to America and set off, it will be by terrorists who are smarter than to go to Iraq for some fighting. It'll be by terrorists tempted by our OPEN BORDERS POLICY. IF you don't think that there are terrorists out there who are smart enough to focus on the US instead of a far-away fight, you and I are on different wavelengths. Bottom line: Our "war on terror" is a joke without a border policy that assumes we're really threatened by terrrorists with nukes and other weapons. We can send 10,000 marines and army troops to their deaths in Iraq and it's not going to protect us from the nuke-carrying terrorist who's too smart to get involved in that mess. We need border security and we need it before we have a mushroom cloud in America.

74 posted on 06/03/2005 10:36:09 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff; Non-Sequitur
Then you agree with churchillbuff that Iraq was not a threat to national security?"""

Interesting how the arguments for invading Iraq shift. When we first went in, it was to get WMDs. (If it didn't have WMDs, it's not a threat to US security in any other way, because it has a fifth world army and no air force. On the pecking order, Cuba is more of a threat to our security than Iraq - it too has no military to speak of, but it's closer at hand so might be capable of some marginal mischief, at the edges of things). Now that there are no WMDs, so no threat to national security has been shown, invasion supporters say all the cost ($300 billion at a time that our taxes are still too high and our deficits exploding) and all the injuries and deaths are worth it- we're told - because it "takes the fight to terrorists." I don't get that argument. It assumes that all terrorists are stupid, and that they'll come from all over the world to risk death in a firefight in Iraq, instead of making plans to act against the American homeland. Obviously some terrorists - the stupid ones - may have traveled to IRaq. But if a nuclear suitcase is brought to America and set off, it will be by terrorists who are smarter than to go to Iraq for some fighting. It'll be by terrorists tempted by our OPEN BORDERS POLICY. IF you don't think that there are terrorists out there who are smart enough to focus on the US instead of a far-away fight, you and I are on different wavelengths. Bottom line: Our "war on terror" is a joke without a border policy that assumes we're really threatened by terrrorists with nukes and other weapons. We can send 10,000 marines and army troops to their deaths in Iraq and it's not going to protect us from the nuke-carrying terrorist who's too smart to get involved in that mess. We need border security and we need it before we have a mushroom cloud in America.

75 posted on 06/03/2005 10:40:51 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
If the Israeli technique were so hot, they wouldn't still be fighting these stupid ragheads 50 years later. It's not something to emulate."""

So Israel's wall provides no protection against terrorists?

76 posted on 06/03/2005 10:44:18 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

"So Israel's wall provides no protection against terrorists?"

Not to the Israelis stuck on the other side.

Nor to the Israelis in the places where their courts are blocking it's construction.

Nor does/will it stop the Palestinians from shooting mortars and rockets and M-16's that Clintigula and Peres gave to them over it.

The fact that 55 some years after Israel won it's independence that they are in such a bad position that the only option is to retreat and build a Maginot line is nothing to emulate.


77 posted on 06/03/2005 10:48:00 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
"So Israel's wall provides no protection against terrorists?" Not to the Israelis stuck on the other side. Nor to the Israelis in the places where their courts are blocking it's construction. """"

SO YOU MAKE MY POINT. THE WALL IS EFFECTIVE WHERE IT HAS BEEN BUILT, AND FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE BEHIND ITS PROTECTION.

So if Israel is smart enough to fight terror by protecting its border as Job 1, WHY CAN'T AMERICA PROTECT ITS OWN BORDER IN THE NAME OF FIGHTING TERROR?

78 posted on 06/03/2005 10:49:59 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

"Interesting how the arguments for invading Iraq shift."

Convenient how you can twist the fact that there has always been more than one reason in PARALLEL, and instead you choose to look at them serially.


---
"On the pecking order, Cuba is more of a threat to our security than Iraq - it too has no military to speak of, but it's closer at hand so might be capable of some marginal mischief, at the edges of things)."

Cuba hasn't shot at any US planes, tried to assasinate presidents, or violated a ceasefire with us recently either, now have they?



---
"Now that there are no WMDs, so no threat to national security has been shown, invasion supporters say all the cost ($300 billion at a time that our taxes are still too high and our deficits exploding)..."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1415901/posts
Banned weapons equipment 'missing from 109 Iraq sites'
Ireland Online

United Nations experts say equipment and material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq.

So the weapons that never existed are now missing! What a disaster. For your argument, that is.

------

"and all the injuries and deaths are worth it- we're told - because it "takes the fight to terrorists.""

That's called evolving your strategy to take advantage of the situation. Funny how you turned that into a bad thing, Chamberlainbuff.

------
"I don't get that argument. It assumes that all terrorists are stupid, and that they'll come from all over the world to risk death in a firefight in Iraq, instead of making plans to act against the American homeland."

The evidence shows that you don't get the argument, because they are all going to Iraq and dying.

----
"Obviously some terrorists - the stupid ones - may have traveled to IRaq. But if a nuclear suitcase is brought to America and set off, it will be by terrorists who are smarter than to go to Iraq for some fighting."

Good thing that working nuclear suitcases don't really exist then, huh? And what do you have against killing the stupid ones? They are just as dangerous.

---
"It'll be by terrorists tempted by our OPEN BORDERS POLICY."

There's hope for you yet.

---


79 posted on 06/03/2005 10:57:14 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

"SO YOU MAKE MY POINT. THE WALL IS EFFECTIVE WHERE IT HAS BEEN BUILT, AND FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE BEHIND ITS PROTECTION."

No, it hasn't been that effective. There haven't been suicide bombings *lately* in the areas where there is no wall, either.

Why don't you reply to the rest of my post?

Oh right, because then your "point" would be lost.


80 posted on 06/03/2005 10:58:48 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
”Cuba is more of a threat to our security than Iraq”

I am sorry but I am not aware of Cuba attacking the US directly as Saddam did numerous times? Or do you think the attack on the USS Cole, the WTC attack of 93 and training terrorist to take over Airlines with Forks and small knives as just ‘marginal mischief’?

We are on different wavelengths. Because they know they must win Iraq, because if a free society is achieved in the Middle East then it is just a matter of time that other countries follow. Why does that matter? Because sharia law and freedom can not co-exist, that would mean the destruction of Islam as they know it. If we win this fight I believe this fight against the Middle east that has lasted for thousands of years will finally see an end.

Personally I believe the terrorist will attack the US when they have finally lost in Iraq. That will be the day when I know we won in Iraq.

81 posted on 06/03/2005 11:04:33 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
I am sorry but I am not aware of Cuba attacking the US directly as Saddam did numerous times? """

When did Saddam attack the US directly? I know that Osama did, but when did Saddam do so?

82 posted on 06/03/2005 11:18:17 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So your idea of a military "strategy" is to pull up the drawbridge and let the poison fester on in the Middle
East?

I'm beginning to think our enemies are right. We don't have the stomach to fight, all they have to do is outlast us.


83 posted on 06/03/2005 11:19:51 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"So if Israel is smart enough to fight terror by protecting its border as Job 1, WHY CAN'T AMERICA PROTECT ITS OWN BORDER IN THE NAME OF FIGHTING TERROR?"

To achieve the level of securty that Isrial does would make us a closed socity. Ship containors for example could not all be checked for weapons without a police state type of security.

The war on terror is a threat to national security, but the level of threat at this point in time isn't enough to warrant a police state (during WWII it was a locked down police state.)

I agree with you we should be doing more at our borders but don't kid yourself if we do anything to stop illegal we will not be for national security against terrorist (not at this point in time.)

Let me put it in a different way. Think of a traffic signal it was put there because someone most likely died in a traffic accident. Same with the boards once a nuclear weapon does go off only then will we close the boards. The WTC was bad but not bad enough to warrant a police state.

84 posted on 06/03/2005 11:22:30 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"When did Saddam attack the US directly? I know that Osama did, but when did Saddam do so?"

I stated a few in the post you quoted from.

85 posted on 06/03/2005 11:25:14 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
"So your idea of a military "strategy" is to pull up the drawbridge and let the poison fester on in the Middle East?"

Read post 81 that is our strategy. Our strategy is 'freedom.' Trust me it is a very powerful weapon.

86 posted on 06/03/2005 11:28:52 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
This article will show how freedom and traditional Islamic law can not co-exist
87 posted on 06/03/2005 11:36:06 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
So, how many years were you in the military. I have 14.

why aren't more children of the country's political leadership, in uniform in Iraq?

There actually are quite a few--they tend not to advertize it 'cuz it makes the children bigger targets. Besides, like yourself, you do not have to have military experience to oppose or favor a military action in a democracy.

Also, the fact there were no WMDs has to have made a lot of people question this never-ending war.

There were some types of WMDs found and a recent story out of the UN that some 'dual-use' systems are missing. It is not never-ending, you naysayers military-virgins said that about Afghanistan.

Full disclosure: I've been against the Iraq invasion from the beginning (I was for concentrating more manpower and firepower against al Quada in Afghanistan; when Bush said Osama "dead or alive," I cheered - - but everybody's forgotten about the guy who did 9-11.

No one has forgotten about OBL at all. What better way to fight an enemy than to fight him on several fronts. Notice we invaded Africa to get to Sicily to get to Italy to get to France to get to Germany. Was Operation Torch a sideshow to the war in Europe?

I suspect a lot of these hostile parents have come around to my way of thinking; they don't want to lose their kids for such a dubious military adventure.

Nonsense. They know the stakes here....

AND DON'T TELL ME I'M NOT A CONSERVATIVE

You are not a conservative, just a paleocon with a dislike for jews I'll wager....

88 posted on 06/03/2005 11:40:31 AM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Steel Bonnets Over the Border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Why can't either of the Bush girls put on a uniform?

'Cuz there are still plenty of guys like me who serve to prevent that kind of thing....

89 posted on 06/03/2005 11:43:45 AM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Steel Bonnets Over the Border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Dear churchillbuff,

"I'd feel better about it if some kids of our national political leaders, of either party, were over there in uniform."

False premise.

"Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not 'count' for Moore's purposes."

Link:


http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/warsignup.htm

I've heard numbers as highs as 5 or 6, actually, but can't verify them quickly. Even so, that's three children out of 535 folks. That's about .6%, or about the same representation as the population at large.

Remember, too, that US Representatives and Senators tend to skew a bit older than heads of households as a group, and are much more likely to have grandchildren than children who are at the age of typical enlisted personnel.


sitetest


90 posted on 06/03/2005 11:45:28 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cogadh na Sith
there are still plenty of guys like me who serve to prevent that kind of thing...."""

What do you mean, "prevent THAT KIND OF THING"? "That kind of thing" -- women in the military in Iraq -- is a FACT. It hasn't been PREVENTED, it's happening; one niece of mine - through wife - is going soon (air force). Another - niece through sister's family - may be going.

91 posted on 06/03/2005 11:54:39 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
It hasn't been PREVENTED, it's happening; one niece of mine - through wife - is going soon (air force). Another - niece through sister's family - may be going.

So the Bush daughters should serve 'cuz you heard about a couple of very distant female relations volunteering to go?

The Bush gals have no more duty to volunteer than anyone else. Enough guys like me serve to prevent them and those like them from being compelled to join.

Why do you favor compulsory military service?

92 posted on 06/03/2005 12:00:06 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Steel Bonnets Over the Border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"one niece of mine - through wife - is going soon (air force). Another - niece through sister's family - may be going."

thank them for us would you?

93 posted on 06/03/2005 12:01:08 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Recruiting for the ARMY is in a slump. The Navy and the Air Force are continuing to exceed their goals. The Air Force just in the last year forced out 20,000 airmen because they were overmanned. Retention in the AF is at an all-time high.

That's because the Chair Force is easy. Hardly any chance of fighting up-close and personal (aside fromt their excellent special ops folks) Us Army grunts (yes, and Marines) have to do all the real fighting.


94 posted on 06/03/2005 12:08:02 PM PDT by strider44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

It's interesting that those who spoke out against Clinton's "war" in the Balkans weren't branded as military-hating, anti-American Milosevic sympathizers. Now that a Republican is in office, however, things are different. The people who opposed our attack on the Serbs are the same ones who say that you can't support the troops without supporting the mission. I call that hypocrisy.


95 posted on 06/03/2005 12:12:56 PM PDT by sheltonmac ("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." -Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
"The people who opposed our attack on the Serbs are the same ones who say that you can't support the troops without supporting the mission."

I didn't agree with the war against the serbs, I am not saying he doesn't support our troops. I believe he just doesn't understand the threat.

It would be very diffcult to understand this war when one doesn't understand the threat.

96 posted on 06/03/2005 12:30:45 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

"When did Saddam attack the US directly? I know that Osama did, but when did Saddam do so?"

They tried to assasinate Bush 41 in Kuwait.

They fired on the "no fly zone" patrols that were protecting the Kurds that he hadn't already exterminated.

He trained terrorists at Salman Pak on hijacking, explosives, and assasination. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

He tried to establish a relationship with al Qaeda, and Abu Nidal lived in Baghdad, among other terrorists. You know, the guy that murdered Americans including Leon Klinghoffer and tried to kill Oliver North.

He financed and trained various Palestinian terrorists who later murdered Americans in Israel, and paid bounties to their families.

You sure have a short memory.


97 posted on 06/03/2005 12:52:55 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn; churchillbuff

"To achieve the level of securty that Isrial does would make us a closed socity. Ship containors for example could not all be checked for weapons without a police state type of security."

Israel also has 1/30th the population of the US, and is smaller than New Jersey. It's also a police state with far less civil liberty than the US.


98 posted on 06/03/2005 12:55:13 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac

"The people who opposed our attack on the Serbs are the same ones who say that you can't support the troops without supporting the mission."

Why don't you name names?

Your argument against "those people" falls flat.

Methinks the argument is that this is a war worth supporting, while Kosovo was not.

Iraq was a threat to us. Serbia wasn't.


99 posted on 06/03/2005 1:00:56 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Chamberlainbuff! Why do you ignore the detailed refutations of your arguments and rhetorical questions based on false premises?


(didnt mean to freepmail you though, that was an accident, sorry!)
100 posted on 06/03/2005 1:04:28 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-111 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson