You political hack! You fail to notice that in WWII once drafted you were in the war for the duration! Our troops were in combat for four years with the longest break in action was 30 days. I pointed this out to you months ago and you changed the subject then lost that argument and then started another article. So this is not something you did not know about before you wrote this misleading article.
So if you support the troops you should tell the liberals in congress to stop messing with the budget and give the troops what they need to win the war instead of playing politics in order to gain political power.




What this means is that to get the same type of job in the civilian world they need to pay bonuses to make the low pay equal to civilian pay. This means that the pay in the civilian world Has gone up. meaning that your contention that people are making less money because of the tax cuts is also a lie. Not all bonuses are for combat related duties. Bonuses are for electronics and cryptology I remember bonuses paid to cooks cause they could not get enough people to join the military and be a cook not a real dangerous job in the military unless you had to eat there. It was so bad that they now contract out the service to a catering company for garrison work and only have a few cooks for duty in combat areas. The purpose of bonuses is to help compensate for the low pay and long hours because no one wants to pay the military what they are worth.



Congress has the power to increase troop strength at any time all they have to do is put it in the budget. The Bush Administration has been trying to increase troop strength for 6 years the first time of note was September 11 2001 when they it was stated that the money could not be wasted on the military when there were social programs that needed the money. Yes, it was a republican controlled Congress but the democrats have as they are now fighting to obstruct in every way they can to gain political points.



In every aspect you have misrepresented the truth, told lies to further your cause of hurting the president because you don’t like him. Your credibility is shot, you lie too much.



If you support our troops you have to support the leaders to present a united front to our enemies or we weaken our troops and give encouragement to our enemies that what they are doing could work for them. Thanks for supporting our enemies.

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!!!!!

In WWII D Day was June 6, 1944 and the fighting in Europe was over a year later.

Once again your talking out of your butt "without" a single shred of honesty. We joined WWII "before" 1944. D-day was in 44, but we were in it before that. Check this quote out from wikipedia:

Meanwhile, the Western Allies successfully defended North Africa (1940–43), invaded Italy (1943), and then liberated France (1944), following amphibious landings in Normandy. After repulsing a German counterattack at the Battle of the Bulge that December, the Western Allies crossed the Rhine River to link up with their Soviet counterparts at the Elbe River in central Germany.

Or this little tidbit:

Operation Torch was launched by the U.S., British and Free French forces on November 8, 1942, to gain control of North Africa through simultaneous landings at Casablanca, Oran and Algiers, followed a few

So, "now" who's the COMPLETE IDIOT? Need some paper towels to wipe the egg off your face?

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

I will try again to point out his lies.



Name some.



Not true. The war with Iraq was over in six weeks. The war on terror has been going on for 30 years but we are just starting to use the military to fight it. Patt of the war on terror is fought in Iraq. Don't confuse the issues.


You say you were in the military, you say you attended Army war college, though you never said if you graduated, yet you have no understanding of fighting a war. Allow me point out that the last war we fought was WWII and if you fought in WWII you were in for the duration, the most time you had off was 30 days the average time out of combat was 48 hours in a war that lasted 4 years. Our troops are in for a year or so and out for a year or so, even 9 months as you claim is a hell of a lot better than 48 hours of rest then back into intense battle for a week or two before you get another 48 hours off.



One can that is true but you are not one of those people.

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

Paladin77

Phase I of the Iraq War was 6 weeks. Phase two, the current phase, has lasted almost 4 years. We did not start fighting in Europe until D DAY which was June 9, 1944. We were at war but our forces were NOT fighting in Europe. We were fighting a delaying action in the Pacific. All that is not the issue. The issue is that all the things I pointed out and were included in the Time Article have been stated by the COS of the ARMY, Chief of the Army Reserve, Head of the National Guard and Commandant of the Marine Corps about the condition of our ground forces. Policy requires 2 years between combat tours. Bush is sending Active Army units back after 9 months. Regulations say no more then one tour for Guard units in 5 years which is being violated. No one that supports the TROOPS can support Bush and the way he is abusing our military! You attempt to ignore what Bush has done to our ground troops PROVES YOU DO NOT in any way support our troops!!!!

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.

Phase I of the Iraq War was 6 weeks. Phase two, the current phase, has lasted almost 4 years. We did not start fighting in Europe until D DAY which was June 9, 1944. We were at war but our forces were NOT fighting in Europe. We were fighting a delaying action in the Pacific

You're full of sh*t! We were in AFRICA in 1942, NOT fighting a delaying action anywhere in the Pacific. Hostilities didn't break out over there until after Pearl. So we fought WW2 for over 3 years in the european theater. Because no matter how you want to try and spin this....Africa "was" considered part of the euopean theater.

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!

Paladin77

“You're full of sh*t! We were in AFRICA in 1942, NOT fighting a delaying action anywhere in the Pacific. Hostilities didn't break out over there until after Pearl. So we fought WW2 for over 3 years in the european theater. Because no matter how you want to try and spin this....Africa "was" considered part of the euopean theater.”

That may be true. But the main combat was in Europe that lasted a year. YOU ARE COMPLETE ASS! Also in WWII, Ike did not invade Europe until he had the required troop levels and needed equipment. He was a leader Bush is NOT!

Service in the military is honorable. It is the leadership of Bush that is lacking!

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 time Mr. Bush tried to increase the military for the last four years”

BUSH NEVER requested an increase in the Troop Authorization levels and the GOP controlled Congress for his first 6 years. DO NOT tell me it was the Democrats that prevented the increase in the troop strength. That was 100% BUSH and the GOP controlled Congress.

I know a lot of people that served in Vietnam and none of the people I know served longer then 13 months with a two week R&R about mid tour. I never said I served in Vietnam but I was on Active duty four years between 1964-1968. I also said that I was not sent to Vietnam, which I did not learn until 1985, because I was a nuclear weapons Officer and my assignment was restricted.

None of this changes the fact that Bush is destroying our ground forces in the Active Guard and Reserve components by over use. Even when we were attacked in WWII, we did not invalid Europe UNTIL we had the NEEDED troops and equipment. Bush invaded Iraq with less then 1/3 the required troops and with a military far too small to do the job. Given the fact this was a war of Choice not because we were attacked, the actions of Bush are DEAD WRONG and you are too dumb to admit the harm that is being caused because of the policies of our AWOL President and the Draft Dogger VP!

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!

Pity your abilities don't include research or reading comprehension. On September 11, 2001 at 0700 in a breakfast meeting in the pentagon SecDef argued for almost an hour the need for more people. I have told you this on other articles you have written to refute your lies. Since you maintain the lies I would have to assume you did not look up the facts, (research) or comprehend what was written, or you are a political hack that no matter how much truth is given you, you will ignore it in favor of the lies you wish to believe meaning it is your religion and not my business.



Good, did you bother to research your position? oops!



cool so you were PRP certified same as me. You dealt with NOFORN righ? Yes, the Marines had them as well and we had a better delevery system.



Right because if you accepted what I have told you your argument would fade away so you need to ignore the facts. Stay happy in your ignorance.



Ok, I understand that you are only an officer in the army but when I said name them I wanted thier names not titles. There is a difference between the two.