Video of run-down barracks

Desh said:
AGIAN I never said we should not have done Kuwait.

Why do you keep playing that one?

I also said its UNDERSTANDING your enemy NOT agreeing with them or thinking they are right.

why do you pretend Im saying what I am not saying?

You see staying in Iraq gains us nothing. It gains the oil companies though.

We need to leave and have it monitored by the UN and an international force so that the blowback is not owned just by us.

You may think its smart to cause more terror but I and many dont think its wise to repete fucking mistakes.
Click to expand...
It seems you are misreading what I said. You said you supported our actions in Kuwait, but then criticized stationing our people in Saudi Arabia. I asked you how we were supposed to handle the Kuwait situation without having someplace to station our troops. I Also asked if it would have been wise to let the objections of Bin Laden, who was not in the government, interfere with our relationship and military agreement with Saudi Arabia. Where does that say I think you were against defending Kuwait, or say you agree with terrorists?

I do question your criticism of stationing troops in Saudi during that time. Yes, it gave Bin Laden an excuse to hate the U.S. - as if he needed one after we "abandoned" (his claim) the Afghan rebellion in 1988. But even if we'd had a crystal ball at the time to warn us Bin Laden would use Saudi Arabia as an excuse to formulate a long term terrorist war against the U.S., would that justify hindering our military in our response to Kuwait?

And try to remember that up to that point in 1991 our previous experience with Bin Laden was we were on the same side of the Afghan conflict. We knew he was mad we pulled out in 1988, but that is all. We did NOT have a crystal ball.

I already said invading in 03 was a mistake. But pulling out would leave a mess that would pretty much guarantee the need for additional military intervention later, probably under worse conditions.
 
Desh said:
how CAN YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT STOP LOSS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy
Click to expand...
Did you even READ your own link?

Every person who enlists in a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces signs an initial contract with an eight (8) year service obligation. The enlistment contract for a person going on active duty generally stipulates an initial period of active duty from 2 to 4 years, followed by service in a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States for the remainder of the eight year obligation. The usual implementation of a stop-loss is an involuntary extension of the initial active duty term of service, NOT an extension beyond the eight-year service obligation. Service members whose ETS, retirement, or end of service obligation date falls during a deployment are generally involuntarily extended until the end of their unit's deployment..
Click to expand...

To clarify, a soldier's ETS date is the date they leave ACTIVE DUTY service. If a soldier's ETS date comes within an active duty deployment, their active duty status is automatically extended to either the end of deployment, or the end of the contract, which ever comes first. This was happening when units were deployed even in time of peace. (ie: if a unit is involved with a training exercise that keeps them in the field for a month, a soldier of that unit stays with the training even if their ETS date falls within the dates of the training schedule.) They DO NOT and HAVE NOT extended a soldier's service beyond the reserve component of the contract. When the last day of the 8th year contract is up, the soldier leaves military service whatever the situation. (Unless they VOLUNTARILY extend.)

In short, I quite accurately described stop loss, and why it happens, and pointed out the fact that it is part of the contract they sign.
 
Desh said:
Oh you really sound like a guy who used to be a democrat, not.

You have pretty much your entire time here done nothing but defend these idiots.
Click to expand...

Desh, the guy clearly stated he believes the military does not like Bush and he did not support the invasion. How is that defending "them"?

What he is doing is giving us all kinds of good information about what was going on and all you and citizen can try and do is come back with partisan talking points.

You two have about as much chance as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest against Good Luck. He is telling it like it is.
 
Good Luck said:
That is a myth.

Bin Laden was part of the Afghan rebel movement, which we did support both directly with food and medical supplies, and under-the-table with military equipment. The withdrawl of the military support in late 1988 as part of an agreement we made with the Soviet Union was one reason Bin Laden was pissed at the U.S.

The only relationship, other than Bin Laden himself, between the Afghan rebels as an organization and Al Queda comes from Bin Laden setting up an organization for veterans of the Afghan war. That was in 1989 after Bin Laden had returned to Saudi Arabia. There was no support from the U.S involved.
Click to expand...

Yes I think I was partially wrong we helped to create and train the taliban which OBL later split from I think. I will have to check back on that though.
But not a myth that we once allied with and supported OBL.

Other than being a bit warped by military exposure I think you have a pretty good grasp of reality.
 
Good Luck said:
Did you even READ your own link?



To clarify, a soldier's ETS date is the date they leave ACTIVE DUTY service. If a soldier's ETS date comes within an active duty deployment, their active duty status is automatically extended to either the end of deployment, or the end of the contract, which ever comes first. This was happening when units were deployed even in time of peace. (ie: if a unit is involved with a training exercise that keeps them in the field for a month, a soldier of that unit stays with the training even if their ETS date falls within the dates of the training schedule.) They DO NOT and HAVE NOT extended a soldier's service beyond the reserve component of the contract. When the last day of the 8th year contract is up, the soldier leaves military service whatever the situation. (Unless they VOLUNTARILY extend.)

In short, I quite accurately described stop loss, and why it happens, and pointed out the fact that it is part of the contract they sign.
Click to expand...


With all due respect sir your 40 years in the military stands no chance against wikipedia. HaHa, yeah right!
 
Desh said:
Oh you really sound like a guy who used to be a democrat, not.

You have pretty much your entire time here done nothing but defend these idiots.
Click to expand...
really? Calling Bush an imbecile studying to be a moron is DEFENDING him?

Saying invading in 2003 was a mistake is DEFENDING what?

Umm, you tell me what calling the 2003 invasion a mistake is DEFENDING. I'm all confused, because usually calling someone's action a MISTAKE is CRITICIZING.

Get off your donkey and think for yourself just once. People can actually DISAGREE with some of the platforms of the democratic party without being a republican stooge. They can even be a registered democrat and disagree with SOME of the democratic platform. SOME people actually think for themselves rather than reading the day's DNC blog to find out what they are supposed to think.

I joined the democratic party in 1972, primarily because of their stance on labor and business. (In many ways I still believe in the democratic platform on regulating corporations more tightly) I also liked the democratic party's stance on civil rights, though I found out the hard way that, like your current "support of the troops", much of their civil rights platform was empty rhetoric. I also liked their stance on the need for public assistance.

I did NOT like the methods the democratic party uses to implement most public assistance programs. And I have always objected to legalized abortion.

In later years I objected to race-based assistance programs, and it was my objections to those programs that got me told by a democratic campaign official to "shut my nigger mouth".
 
uscitizen said:
Yes I think I was partially wrong we helped to create and train the taliban which OBL later split from I think. I will have to check back on that though.
But not a myth that we once allied with and supported OBL.

Other than being a bit warped by military exposure I think you have a pretty good grasp of reality.
Click to expand...
Well, if one were to insist on a slanted and inaccurate description of what happened, then I guess you could say the U.S. helped to train the Taliban and were once allies with Bin Laden.

A more accurate description would be that the U.S. supported the Afghan rebellion, and Bin Laden also supported the Afghan rebellion (It's not like he was actually part of the fighting). There was no formal nor informal relationship with Bin Laden other than supporting the same cause. He got pissed because in late 1988 we cut off access to U.S. military hardware to the rebellion. It is likely that his money was what purchased some of the hardware we did supply prior to 1988, but there are no actual records to verify or deny that. (We were really being careful (ie: sneaky and below radar) of the military aspect of our support.)

Likewise, a more accurate description of the origin of Taliban is some of the people we trained from the Afghan rebellion later joined radical Islamic fundamentalists to form the Taliban which took power in Afghanistan. But we had no hand in any way of actual formation of the Taliban, nor did we in any way assist with their assumption of power.
 
Likewise, a more accurate description of the origin of Taliban is some of the people we trained from the Afghan rebellion later joined radical Islamic fundamentalists to form the Taliban which took power in Afghanistan. But we had no hand in any way of actual formation of the Taliban, nor did we in any way assist with their assumption of power.

Wow, that's some impressive spin to try to divert Ronnie's responsibility for fostering islamic jihaddism. Dude, it was well known, to the well informed that the afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s had many fundamentalists and jihaddists among them. We helped, inadvertently, create the worldwide jihaddist movement.
 
uscitizen said:
Officially no, but realistically yes.
some day you might be able to see around those military blinders.
Click to expand...
I have a better chance of seeing around my "military blinders" than you have of seeing around your partisan predispositions.

Being on the same side in a war does not make one allies when the participation in the war by both parties is limited to material support. Again, Bin Laden was not actually PART of the afghan rebellion. He supported them financially with the Bin Laden fortune. The U.S. was not part of the fighting either. We did openly supply the rebellion with food, clothing, medical supplies, etc. as part of our "humanitarian" efforts. Under the table we sold military hardware which we knew was being purchased to be used by the Afghan rebels. That still does not make us allies with Bin Laden.

Additionally, our support of Afghan rebels in no way affected Bin Laden. He used his wealth to help the rebellion. We did not NEED to support him, train him, or have anything else to do with the dude directly. He was providing support by himself ad was not actually fighting. We were aware of him and, like I stated, it was probably some of his money that bought some of our hardware.

We cut off access to military hardware in late 1988 (not sure if it was October or November we sent the last batch) and he bitched about it. In 1989 the Societ Union withdrew from Afghanistan.

When the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia and went to work in his family's construction company. Then in 1991 he reacted negatively to our presence in Saudi Arabia. His actions against his own government in response to their allowing U.S. troops to be stationed there got him kicked out of the country.

And the rest I think you probably know.
 
Cypress said:
Likewise, a more accurate description of the origin of Taliban is some of the people we trained from the Afghan rebellion later joined radical Islamic fundamentalists to form the Taliban which took power in Afghanistan. But we had no hand in any way of actual formation of the Taliban, nor did we in any way assist with their assumption of power.

Wow, that's some impressive spin to try to divert Ronnie's responsibility for fostering islamic jihaddism. Dude, it was well known, to the well informed that the afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s had many fundamentalists and jihaddists among them. We helped, inadvertently, create the worldwide jihaddist movement.
Click to expand...
RIGGGHHT I am the one spinning.

The U.S. provided support to the Afghan rebellion. We did so as part of our exercise to pull the Soviet Union down. The rebels were far too busy kicking Ivan's butt to worry about Jihad until the Soviet Union withdrew. Radical Islamic fundamentalists took over in the resulting power vacuum left by the Soviet withdrawl. The fundamentalists were NOT in charge of the rebellion. There were undoubtedly radicals in the rebellion, but they did not organize until after the war was over and Ivan was gone.

AFTER the fundamentalists took over they formed the Taliban, and later declared the Islamic Jihad.

Want to point fingers? (I know how people LOVE to point fingers of blame) try pointing to the former Soviet Union who left the power vacuum the Taliban filled. If the Soviet Union had not invaded Afghanistan and taken out the Afghan government, there would have been no vacuum to fill.

Kinda like the vacuum we are trying to avoid in Iran.
 
uscitizen said:
Or how Sadam was our fair haired boy until he joined OPEC.
Click to expand...
Yea, the U.S. did pretty much bring Saddam to power so he would fight Iran for us. Talk about starting a back fire and letting it get out of control!

Not the first time we have supported a baddie to fill some purpose of the U.S. Sadly, it is probably not the last time either, though we damned well should start learning to be more careful who we manipulate into power.

Or maybe we should just STOP manipulating things. Someone gets out of line to the point of being an actual threat, deal with it as an actual threat. And otherwise just leave things be.
 
Good Luck said:
Did you even READ your own link?



To clarify, a soldier's ETS date is the date they leave ACTIVE DUTY service. If a soldier's ETS date comes within an active duty deployment, their active duty status is automatically extended to either the end of deployment, or the end of the contract, which ever comes first. This was happening when units were deployed even in time of peace. (ie: if a unit is involved with a training exercise that keeps them in the field for a month, a soldier of that unit stays with the training even if their ETS date falls within the dates of the training schedule.) They DO NOT and HAVE NOT extended a soldier's service beyond the reserve component of the contract. When the last day of the 8th year contract is up, the soldier leaves military service whatever the situation. (Unless they VOLUNTARILY extend.)

In short, I quite accurately described stop loss, and why it happens, and pointed out the fact that it is part of the contract they sign.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure this out, so if you can get off your LOOK AT ME ON MY HIGH FUCKING NASTY HORSE, I WAS IN THE MILITARY" for two mintues, and actually talk like a person?

You are either explaining yourself in a confusing manner, or you are wrong.

In military terms, "STOP LOSS" means not letting a military member separate or retire, once their required term of service is complete.

First, however, let's discuss one aspect that is often confused with STOP LOSS, but is, in reality, a totally separate issue:

When anyone joins any branch of the United States Military for the first time, they incur a minimum eight year total service obligation (some special jobs, such as pilot, can incur even longer service obligations). Whatever time is not spent on active duty, or in the active Guard/Reserves (you know, the ones who drill one weekend a month?), must be spent in the IRR, or "Individual Ready Reserves." Members of the IRR, don't drill, nor do they receive any pay, but they are subject to recall to active duty at any time during their time in the IRR.

For example, if someone joins the Army under a "two year enlistment," then gets out, he/she is subject to recall to active duty for another six years. If somone joins the Air Force for four years, and then separates, he/she can be recalled to active duty for four more years.

This is spelled out in paragraph 10a of the enlistment contract, which states:


If this is my initial enlistment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component, unless I am sooner discharged.

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is not part of STOP LOSS, although it is often assumed to be. This is part of the President's Reserve Call-Up Authority.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/a/stoploss.htm
 
What stop loss is:

STOP LOSS

STOP LOSS, on the other hand, means extending a military person in the Guard or Reserves, or on active duty, beyond what their normal separation date would be. Those who join the military agree to this provision under paragraph 9c of the enlistment contract states:


In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.
That, is the basis of STOP LOSS. The Department of Defense maintains that the term "war" means anytime America's Armed Forces are engaged in hostile conflict, and not just "war declared by Congress." Would that stand up in court? We don't know yet, as STOP LOSS has never been challenged in court. However, there are eight Guard and Reserve troops who have banded together to file a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Defense for calling them to active duty, and then keeping them on active duty past their separation date, under the authority of STOP LOSS, so perhaps we'll soon find out.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/a/stoploss.htm
 
cawacko said:
With all due respect sir your 40 years in the military stands no chance against wikipedia. HaHa, yeah right!
Click to expand...

Cawacko if you honestly believe that everyone in the military knows everything about the military, you're sadly mistaken.

And of course, you don't believe that because i"ve seen you laugh in the face of libs who served.

But of course, that's different. They're not real americans.

Why don't you investigate the subject yourself? Or don't you want to know?
 
Darla said:
Cawacko if you honestly believe that everyone in the military knows everything about the military, you're sadly mistaken.

And of course, you don't believe that because i"ve seen you laugh in the face of libs who served.

But of course, that's different. They're not real americans.

Why don't you investigate the subject yourself? Or don't you want to know?
Click to expand...

The only vet I laugh at is uscitizen and it was not becasue he served. Or maybe I should state I have not laughed at anyone for their service. If someone served they served and I respect that regardless of their politics.

And I will agree with your statement that because one was in the military40 years it doesn't mean they know everything. I would believe they know more than most but it doesn't mean they know everything.
 
My partisan predispositions ?

What I am does have things in common with both sides and even a few with the most famous of all times 3rd party candidate, RON PAUL (insert mandatory cheer here ).

But I am what I am and worship nor follow any party, god or hero.
One of my main problems with being in the military.
 
In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.
Click to expand...

Believe me, this was pointed out to them when they signed. Most believe the risk to be worth the reward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top