Solid Steel Balls

Paratrooper who lost leg in Iraq re-enlists

Liberal or Conservative, anti-war or not, you have to give this guy his due for wanting to get back into it. I have zero respect for a commander-in-chief who won't admit mistakes and wastes the lives of brave guys like this. I have a tremendous respect for guys like this who know that they can still help their buddies stay alive.

richlevy wrote:

I have zero respect for a commander-in-chief who won't admit mistakes and wastes the lives of brave guys like this.

And what's your respect level for a 'would be' commander-in-chief who's words and actions helped to extend the Vietnam War and continue the suffering of our men held prisoner there?

I'm terribly curious how the anti-war movement helped to extend vietnam...I beg you reply

Perhaps they're an employee of Sinclair Broadcasting...

404Error wrote:

And what's your respect level for a 'would be' commander-in-chief who's words and actions helped to extend the Vietnam War and continue the suffering of our men held prisoner there?

EXCUSE ME? Kindly give us supporting facts for this conclusion of yours. If there had not been so much out-cry against the war, it would have dragged on for years longer than it did. This is the sort of blind adherance to dogma that drives me nuts! :crazy:

404Error wrote:

And what's your respect level for a 'would be' commander-in-chief who's words and actions helped to extend the Vietnam War and continue the suffering of our men held prisoner there?

You misspelled "shorten" twice.

it wasn't my post so i'm not sure but i think he adheres to the philosophy that says that if it weren't for the anti-war movement and protests in the US the military and powers that be would have been able to bring full force to bear and employ an effective strategy and tactics.

i don't necessarily agree as the military and civilian leadership of the time were rife with incompetance. anytime there are civilian leaders half a world away designating tactical targets you have major command and control issues that may be impossible to overcome.

For anyone who cares to revisit the subject, an interesting discussion of both sides of the Vietnam issue can be found here:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0365/is_n4_v39/ai_17473108

The paper reproduced on this site gives an analysis of the both the "hawk" and "dove" viewpoints. Here's a snip which agrees with Lookout's post above:

"The Vietnam War was likely winnable within a reasonable definition of victory, but the military strategy adopted by the United States in late 1964, and doggedly pursued until 1968, was counterproductive to America's own war aims. Hawks are wrong to blame the antiwar movement or the press for losing the war. Civilian and especially military leaders at high levels of the U.S. government lost the war. Their failure in battle is what gradually stoked antiwar sentiments at home, not the other way around."

Their failure in battle is what gradually stoked antiwar sentiments at home, not the other way around."

i personally believe that this became a vicious circle that made the war unwinnable.

Is it too late to go back and try again? We might do better with another try.

This time lets wage the war with fat food and cigarettes. They seem to be doing wonders for us and we like them.

Might work, yes?

slang wrote:

Is it too late to go back and try again? We might do better with another try.

I've heard a few guys who would like us to do just that. Of course, they wouldn't be the ones fighting it, but the guys who start wars seldom do.

This next time though......we go back with donuts and Marlboros.That'll fix em.

Maybe we should throw in cable TV too for good measure.

The change under consideration, the Army official said, would essentially make a reservist eligible for an unlimited number of call-ups but stipulate that no single mobilization would last more than 24 consecutive months. The official said the Army would attempt to use such expanded authority sparingly to avoid alienating soldiers.

"We are concerned about the health of this all-volunteer force," the official said.

So this means that a reservist could be in country for 24 months, back home for 2 or 3 months, and then sent back for another 24 months. With stop-loss, even if his or her enlistment is up during one of those deployments, I wonder if they would have to serve the full 24 months?

And they wonder why enlistment is down. At least the active duty soldiers have plans for housing of dependents. Carrying a mortgage while overseas must be brutal, even with the soldiers and sailors act providing temporary protection from foreclosure.

The Pentagon will be asking to extend the temporary increase of the active military by 30k soldiers. It's time to admit we screwed up and roll back the tax cuts to pay for the extra $3 billion this will cost.

These guys are really getting screwed.

With stop-loss, even if his or her enlistment is up during one of those deployments, I wonder if they would have to serve the full 24 months?

Yes, there was a reservist that was due to get out in a couple months and sued to keep from being shipped to Iraq, just recently. The Judge refused to isue a stay to prevent it and by the time his case comes up he'll probably be home...if he makes it. :(

roll back the tax cuts to pay for the extra $3 billion this will cost.

That's a pretty optimistic estimate isn't it?

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Yes, there was a reservist that was due to get out in a couple months and sued to keep from being shipped to Iraq, just recently. The Judge refused to isue a stay to prevent it and by the time his case comes up he'll probably be home...if he makes it. :(
That's a pretty optimistic estimate isn't it?

Thats $3 billion extra per year for 30,000 additional active duty soldiers to be added.

Of course, that's in addition to the 2 or 3 billion a month we are spending in Afghanistan and Iraq.