Just got a call from a military Recruiter!!!!

[Was_Immer]

Im out of college in Med School right now, and I got a call from this military recruiter a few moments ago.

IM in shock!

Why. Well he calls asking me to join the miliatry. I received several calls before and got into discussions with others. BUT regardless I stated: What motivation should I have to join if my commander in chief did not join the military and instead flew paper airplanes during Vietnam.

Anyhow, I was pretty confrontational and expected either a harsh reply or thank you goodbye.

GUESS what, the guy said "You know what I agree with you."

DAMN my jaw nearly hit the floor.

He went on to talking and said word for word "guess what, youre not alone. Many of our troops our feeling the exact same way you are."

DAMN again

He then said but what are you going to do. Pick a president with the lesser of 2 evils. Do you want a president that will be agressive to the terrorists or one that will do nothing.

OK heres where I said "Sir. Iraq did not attack us. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We only invaded because of OIL. If we were to attack anyone it should have been IRAN. They have the connection, and are on the verge of developing an atomic bomb."

He said, the reason we attacked Iraq was to finish the job his (refered to Shrub) daddy never did. But I hope you support our military.

I said, No I 100% support our military and our troops. It is the commander in chief I do not support.

Anyhow, theres more. But I kept it cool. I was SHOCKED to hear this guy say he agrees with me on Iraq and on the Shrub!!! And more so that he said alot of the troops feel the same way I do.

OHHHH and he said. Direct quote here "Guess what, I did not vote for him in 2000. But guess what, I was station in Germany then, and our votes did not even get counted."

I was not aware of that. Does anyone know more about that.

Im pissed now, and yet happy too in way.

[rocktivity]

1. You should have have invited him to call back in January

provided that the U.S. had a REAL commander in chief.

Did you specifically tell him that you were in med school, and if so, how did he respond? They must really be getting desparate if they're going after college post-graduates!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Was_Immer]

8. YES I specifically stated Im in Med School

It was at the end of the conversation almost.

He said something to the effect oh thats great, hows that working out. I said great. The started to say goodbye, and he said:
"If you want to change the way things are then you should join the military."

So you they are desperate. I graduated college 2 years ago, in medschool a year so far.

I asked him why they are calling me. THis is the 6th time they have called me since september. I am not joking. The 6th. So far the marines 2x, army 3x (including today), navy 1x

I dont live in a hick town. I mean i live in a suburb of a SOLIDLY blue state I might add!

All other times too I have mentioned I am currently a medical student and have no current interest in joining the armed forces. And yet they keep calling.

I was certain they'd stop calling after I said I dont want to give my blood for Bush's oil!

[Qanisqineq]

58. my cousin joined the army while in med school

they paid for all of her school. Her husband had the same deal. She had to give a few years after that to the army working as a doctor, but she spent the whole time in Hawaii and Germany. If you got the same deal as her, it really isn't so bad.

[grytpype]

2. "You know what I agree with you."

A recruiter will say any goddamned thing to establish a rapport with you.

They are salesmen.

[Jacobin]

69. Exactly

It's a sales pitch. He doesn't agree or disagree. He just needs bodies for his quota and he'll say anything to get them

[el_gato]

3. these people are salesmen, he was probably blowing smoke up your ass

[Was_Immer]

4. you know the thought has crossed my mind

But he did sound passionate

BUT... He did conclude the conversation by saying... "You want to changes things, join the military."

By then I was in the process of saying goodbye, so didnt notice it.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

18. i agree. eom

[Gruenemann]

21. Perhaps, but there's LOTS of anti-* feeling in the military

I know a couple of officers who detest * and the Iraq war...if I told you how highly-placed there were it would blow you away, but it would also 'out' them and right now their jobs are hard enough without being harassed for 'disloyalty' and 'insubordination.' I'm a pacifist myself, but just because one has chosen the path of the warrior doesn't necessarily mean they become mindless automatons.

[lukasahero]

5. Perfect salesmanship

Always acknowledge your customers concerns before getting back to your own agenda. Who knows if he really agreed with you - he just wanted to get you to sign up and "close the sale".

Sorry, don't know anything about ex-pats and military abroad votes not being counted. Heck, they didn't count them here, would we be surprised to find out they didn't count the ones coming in from over "there"?

[RivetJoint]

7. Some jurisdictions did not count

military ballots that were received after the deadline (even if they were postmarked before the deadline) or that were not properly notarized/signed, etc. That was a big deal in Florida as you may recall.

[TexasChick]

6. I would have said "As soon as the Bush twins and Paris Hilton sign up,

let me know and I will sign up, until then go Cheney yourself!"

But that dumbass recruiter just admitted to you that Chimp wanted to finish the job his dad didn't! Did you notice that?


Jennifer

[Was_Immer]

9. Ya I noticed that

One of the several points that hit me.

HE also said, direct quote "If you ever told anyone I said this I would completly deny it."

[BOSSHOG]

10. Its close to the end of the month. He's sweating quotas.

The military is not kind to recruiters who don't make quotas. And, yes bush is targeting "medical" types for recruitment. Why, pray tell, would the military now need an influx of medical types? This is a double whammy because those with expertise in medicine are learned and smart, therefore, freepers won't be getting such phone calls. However they may end up on the receiving end of medical care thanks to bush's placing so much value on lives.

[lebkuchen]

11. I was stationed in Germany in 2000, too

and my vote was counted. Did he even vote?

That was his attempt to back-hand Gore. The guy is full of shit. Hang up on him next time.

[MacDo]

12. Would you have

listened to him, if Iraq was not an issue. Or is this another screw the Military thread.
I'm voting for Kerry to see the war go in a different direction, but the anti-military sentiment among the people is getting out of control.
Yes, I'm Military.

[Was_Immer]

15. Good question: This is NOT a bash the military thread

NO Im not anti-Military. Im not a peace Dove. What we did in Afghanistan was just, and needed and I fully 100% agree with.

I support the military 100%. They do a job that is needed. I have several friends in IRAQ right now. two that were stationed in afghanistan and transfered to Iraq.

Would I have listened to him? I once considered signing up to pay for med school. Prior to graduating as an undergrad.

Now I can honestly say No I would not consider. BUT the reason is this. Not cause of IRAQ, but because Im 3 years away from becoming a doctor, it doesnt fit my plans.

I dont know if that means Im selfish, or that Im not patriotic, but its the truth. But thats my honest to god answer

[MacDo]

17. Good answer

I respect your right to go to school, it fact, you could say I defend it.
Just getting really discouraged lately of all the Military bashing going on. I've done my part by voting, but other than that, I serve the CINC.
If/When Kerry wins, he will need the support of the Military.The terrorist threat is real. The Iraqi threat was created.

[JohnyCanuck]

35. Afghanistan/Taliban threat was also likely created.

In order to justify the US going in and taking away from Bridas (an Argentinian Energy company) the rights to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to run Caspian Sea resources out to the coast where it could be sent to market under US control.

The Taliban had formulated an agreement with Bridas in competition with the US coporation Unocal (who had also been courting the Taliban for rights to build a trans Afghanistan pipeline) to allow Bridas to build and run the pipeline.


In 1997, Taliban officials traveled twice to Washington, D.C. and Buenos Aires to be wined and dined by Unocal and Bridas. No agreements were signed.

It appeared to Unocal that the Taliban was balking. In addition to royalties, the Taliban demanded funding for infrastructure projects, including roads and power plants. The Taliban also announced plans to revive the Afghan National Oil Company, which had been abolished by the Soviet regime in the late 1970s.

Osama bin Laden (who issued his fatwa against the West in 1998) advised the Taliban to sign with Bridas. In addition to offering the Taliban a higher bid, Bridas proposed an open pipeline accessible to warlords and local users. Unocal's pipeline was closed—for export purposes only. Bridas' plan also did not require outside financing, while Unocal's required a loan from the western financial institutions (the World Bank), which in turn would leave Afghanistan vulnerable to demands from western governments.

Bridas' approach to business was more to the Taliban's liking. Where Bulgheroni and Bridas' engineers would take the time to "sip tea with Afghan tribesmen," Unocal's American executives issued top-down edicts from corporate headquarters and the US Embassy (including a demand to open talks with the CIA-backed Northern Alliance).

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html

Bush administration and Taliban officials met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad. Each time, the Taliban refused Bush's conditions.

The last meeting took place in August 2001. Central Asian affairs representative Christina Rocca and a coterie of State Department officials voiced disgust and issued a threat to the Taliban ambassador: "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." Bush promptly informed Pakistan and India that the US would launch a military mission against Afghanistan before the end of October.

Weeks later, under questionable circumstances, jetliners would crash into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, killing some 2,000 Americans. The ensuing war on Afghanistan, and the "war on terrorism," would claim the lives of more than 5,000 Afghans, scatter (but not destroy) the Taliban and send Osama bin Laden and his Al-Queda network into hiding.

Bush's brutal "carpet of bombs" had done what years of Clinton administration jockeying had failed to do: topple a recalcitrant, uncooperative regime with nationalistic tendencies, and clear the key square of the Chessboard.]

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203Bp.html


In 2001 common sense, expert opinion and extensive research convinced me and other Central Asia watchers that the United States didn't have much interest in saving Buddha statues or Afghan women when it went to war against the Taliban. After we turned down their offer to extradite Osama, it became obvious that we weren't interested in capturing the alleged mastermind of 9/11 either. Logic and evidence indicated that the Bush Administration's focused on Afghanistan to make it secure for a pipeline to carry oil and natural gas from the landlocked Caspian Sea.

Here's the story in a nutshell. The former Soviet republics surrounding the Caspian Sea--particularly Kazakhstan--have the potential to become the biggest oil-producing nations on earth. "By 2050," reports the Asia Times, "the Persian Gulf/Caspian Sea will account for more than 80 percent of world oil and natural gas production. Together, the Persian Gulf and the Caspian may have something like 800 billion barrels of oil and an energy equivalent amount in natural gas. Compare this figure with oil reserves in the Americas and in Europe: less than 160 billion barrels. And they will be exhausted before 2030." Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan want to build a pipeline to carry their oil and gas out to deep-sea ports. The shortest possible route would go through Iran, which the U.S. has declared part of an Axis of Evil. Second shortest is via Afghanistan, a dangerous proposition that the Clinton and Bush Administrations have nonetheless encouraged during and after Taliban rule. Top Bushies last met with Taliban officials in July 2001, two months before 9/11. Negotiations broke down over transit fees, but top-level discussions between the U.S., Turkmenistan and Pakistan resumed in October, while American bombs were still raining on Kabul. That led people like me to speculate that the invasion--which made little effort to catch Osama--was a transparent excuse to gain control over newly emerging energy resources.

Yet here we are two years later, some war supporters point out, and still no pipeline.

Well, not exactly.

www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20040106

I, and a growing number of others, (e.g. 911 Truth Statement) believe that at the very least the Bush administration new that the 9/11 attacks were coming and allowed them to go ahead or were perhaps more deeply involved in the planning for the new "Pearl Harbor" which the neo-con PNAC group (the membership list of which reads like a who's who of the Bush administration.See www.newamericancentury.org ) said would be required to stir up the US population to support the PNAC agenda - an agenda which requires sending troops into the hotbeds of the Middle East and Central Asia to establish miltary bases and assert control over regional resources while ostensibly fighting the war on terror. Luckily for the PNACers the regions whith the greatest numbers of terrorists are coincidentally the regions which have the best known and most easily available remaining resources of oil and gas on the planet at a time when there is growing public awareness the there could very well be problems with the world oil supply peaking within the next 5 to 15 years and then going into a permanent decline (google Peak Oil for details).

Mike Ruppert in his recently released book Crossing the Rubicon, The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil."apparently does a good job of laying out and documenting some of the connections just touched on in this post.

This is a detective story that gets to the innermost core of the 9/11 attacks. It places 9/11 at the center of a desperate new America, created by specific, named individuals in preparation for Peak Oil: an economic crisis like nothing the world has ever seen.

The attacks of September 11th, 2001 were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. Crossing the Rubicon discovers and identifies the key suspects and persons of interest - finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government - by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks occurred and produced the desired result.

ISBN #0-86571-540-8

www.fromthewilderness.com

From Ruppert's speech at the Commonwealth Club of California, Aug 31 2004

FOR ME, THE PIVOTAL EVIDENCE ABSOLUTELY DEMONSTRATING
DIRECT GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN, AND MANAGEMENT OF, THE
ATTACKS WAS FOUND IN A NUMBER OF UNDISPUTED, YET VIRTUALLY
UNADDRESSED WARGAMES THAT I WILL SHOW WERE BEING
CONDUCTED, COORDINATED AND/OR CONTROLLED BY VICE PRESIDENT
DICK CHENEY OR HIS IMMEDIATE STAFF ON THE MORNING OF
SEPTEMBER 11TH. THE NAMES OF THOSE WARGAMES ARE KNOWN TO
INCLUDE: VIGILANT GUARDIAN, VIGILANT WARRIOR, NORTHERN
GUARDIAN, NORTHERN VIGILANCE, AND TRIPOD II. ALL HAVE BEEN
REPORTED ON BY MAJOR PRESS ORGANIZATIONS RELYING ON
UNDISPUTED QUOTES FROM PARTICIPATING MILITARY PERSONNEL.
THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY NORAD PRESS RELEASES. ALL,
EXCEPT FOR NORTHERN VIGILANCE AND TRIPOD II HAD TO DO WITH
HIJACKED AIRLINERS INSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES,
SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE NORTHEAST AIR DEFENSE SECTOR WHERE
ALL FOUR 9/11 HIJACKINGS OCCURRED.

ACCORDING TO A CLEAR RECORD SOME OF THESE EXERCISES
INVOLVED COMMERCIAL AIRLINE HIJACKINGS. IN SOME CASES FALSE
BLIPS WERE DELIBERATELY INSERTED ONTO FAA AND MILITARY RADAR
SCREENS AND THEY WERE PRESENT DURING (AT LEAST) THE FIRST
ATTACKS. THIS EFFECTIVELY PARALYZED FIGHTER RESPONSE
BECAUSE, WITH ONLY EIGHT FIGHTERS AVAILABLE IN THE REGION,

THERE WERE AS MANY AS 22 POSSIBLE HIJACKINGS TAKING PLACE.
OTHER EXERCISES, SPECIFICALLY NORTHERN VIGILANCE HAD PULLED
SIGNIFICANT FIGHTER RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE NORTHEAST U.S.
– JUST BEFORE 9/11 – INTO NORTHERN CANADA AND ALASKA. IN
ADDITION, A CLOSE READING OF KEY NEWS STORIES PUBLISHED IN THE
SPRING OF 2004 REVEALED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT SOME OF THESE
DRILLS WERE “LIVE-FLY” EXERCISES WHERE ACTUAL AIRCRAFT, LIKELY
FLOWN BY REMOTE CONTROL – WERE SIMULATING THE BEHAVIOR OF
HIJACKED AIRLINERS IN REAL LIFE. ALL OF THIS AS THE REAL ATTACKS
BEGAN. THE FACT THAT THESE EXERCISES HAD NEVER BEEN
SYSTEMATICALLY AND THOROUGHLY EXPLORED IN THE MAINSTREAM
PRESS, OR PUBLICLY BY CONGRESS, OR AT LEAST PUBLICLY IN ANY
DETAIL BY THE SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION MADE ME
THINK THAT THEY MIGHT BE THE HOLY GRAIL OF 9/11.
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY TURNED OUT TO BE.

ONLY ONE WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN, WAS MENTIONED
IN A FOOTNOTE TO THE KEAN COMMISSION REPORT AND THEN IT WAS
DELIBERATELY MISLABELED AS AN EXERCISE INTENDED TO INTERCEPT
RUSSIAN BOMBERS INSTEAD OF A HIJACK EXERCISE IN THE
NORTHEAST SECTOR. EVEN THEN, A DELIBERATE LIE WAS TOLD TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS NORAD COMMANDER RALPH EBERHART
TESTIFIED TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE EXERCISE ACTUALLY
EXPEDITED US AIR FORCE RESPONSE DURING THE ATTACKS.
WHEN MICHAEL KANE, A BRILLIANT YOUNG NEW YORK ACTIVIST AND
BUDDING INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER APPROACHED GENERAL
EBERHART ON AN FTW ASSIGNMENT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COMMISSION’S LAST PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED FOR INFORMATION THE OTHER EXERCISES, EBERHART’S ONLY RESPONSE WAS, “NO
COMMENT.”

www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf

[Was_Immer]

38. you CANNOT believe ANYTHING this administrations says

It has gotten to the point that anything they say must be closely looked at.

Even if they say Good day!

I sh*t thee not. LIES LIES LIES

Remember last week cheney says: everything in iraq is going fine.

FINE?????? If this is fine, Id hate to see his definition of F**K UP

[SemperEadem]

62. is it military troop bashing or military leadership bashing you're seeing?

I believe bashing the leadership is justified.. the troops are doing the duty they are charged with doing--a duty laid out by the leadership. They don't chart the course of action, they follow their orders. However, their leaders do set the course... they are those who seem to skirt around laws and being held accountable for making bad decisions or decision based upon bad and incomplete information. They deserve all the odium heaped upon them. The troops don't.

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. Thank you

for your service to our country. :)

I suppose I'm not an appeaser, I believe we do need a strong military and people like you who are dedicating to protecting us and preserving the Constitution. Yes, some of the comments can be perceived as anti-military, but maybe keep this in mind...it's partly an overflow, if you will, due the Bush administration's policies with Iraq being the hotbutton. That doesn't excuse those comments/sentiments, but it might help to explain them.

Yes, words like that can hurt without people even realizing it. I agree wholeheartedly that this country needs to change direction. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart...both for the sake of my family and our country.

[MacDo]

20. Your welcome

And please believe me, not everyone in the Military supports what we are doing. Unfortunately, it's our job, we can't change that. We can however, change the person running the show through voting.
To the people out there that thinks the Military goes out of it's way to harm innocent people. You couldn't be more wrong. We are actually losing more soldiers trying to be politically correct.

[IrateCitizen]

25. Are you talking the institution, or individual soldiers?

To the people out there that thinks the Military goes out of it's way to harm innocent people. You couldn't be more wrong. We are actually losing more soldiers trying to be politically correct.

That's probably largely true with the soldiers on the ground. However, when you start talking about aviators, I'd tend to disagree. Aviators don't have to see the spoils of combat up close, so they tend to not be as concerned with what happens on the ground.

That being said, the problem we encounter is that no matter how much you try to use military force like a scalpel, it remains in reality a blunt club. It is for this reason above all that it should be used most sparingly, only when utterly necessary.

The current administration has obviously not paid attention to this dictate.

[MacDo]

63. Aviators are individuals

I don't want you to have a misconception about how things are done.

Airplanes no longer drop bombs without guidance because of fear of civilian casualties.

Bear with me. An individual on the ground either lasers the target or provides GPS coordinates of it to the airplane. The Pilot merely lines up the the laser or programs his bomb to guide itself to the target.

He usually never sees his target, but delivers his payload on target.

With that said, if the targeting or data used to program the weapon is faulty, well ya know....

In most cases of civilian deaths, it's not the pilots fault, but the intel they received to program the weapons. Sometimes it is simple the person on the ground lasing the wrong target.

Vote Kerry, and get us out of there.

[sandnsea]

19. Anti-military?

It would probably be helpful to differentiate anti-liar from anti-military. Recruiters don't lie? Try to answer no with a straight face. Officers don't have their noses up the butts of Republicans? So they can get shiny new toys at the expense of everything and everybody else? They aren't covering for Bush, even though it's reported that they privately think he's an idiot? The military isn't engaged in a mass brainwashing of new recruits to hate Democrats?

That doesn't make you anti-military. That makes you angry that our troops are being turned into something that they were never meant to be, tools of fascism and it's damned scary.

[MacDo]

22. My honest answer

I have not in 20 years seen the Military brainwashing anyone toward one political party or another.
With that said, I can honestly say the most everyone in the Military realizes that if they want pay raises and better benefits, vote Republican.
If they want a free pay check with zero to little chance of dying, vote Democrat.
Myself, I don't mind dying for my country, but not for the wrong war.

[IrateCitizen]

24. Your answer is proof of the "brainwashing" that goes on...

FYI, I was an officer for 8 yrs in the Army Reserve. The officer corps is EXTREMELY conservative, and I can say that I was made to feel uncomfortable for my leftist views on MANY occasions. Senior non-coms can be just about as ideological, and the place where you finally start to see some true diversity of opinion is within the lower enlisted ranks. Perhaps that's why I liked hanging out with my troops much more than spending time with the BN staff weenies.

I can honestly say the most everyone in the Military realizes that if they want pay raises and better benefits, vote Republican.

Current events seem to give the lie to this statement. Vets with medical problems coming home are finding VA benefits cut and centers closed. The administration sought to cut combat pay to people deployed in Iraq.

If they want a free pay check with zero to little chance of dying, vote Democrat.

Where on earth do you get such a statement from? Last I checked, it was actually DEMOCRATS who got us involved in the major military operations of the 20th century. WWI -- Wilson. WWII -- FDR. Korea -- Truman (thank God Ike had the sense to get us out of that). Vietnam -- LBJ (sadly, the defining event of what would otherwise have been seen as a monumental presidency).

In short, your statements are beyond ridiculous. They are broad generalizations, with little or no basis in fact. Please provide something to support these assertions, or I will be forced to conclude that you are blowing smoke out of your ass.

[MacDo]

27. I did

My 20 vs. your 8 years. Not to mention the fact you were a "Zero". Nothing personal, but who talks to their officer?

[IrateCitizen]

33. Your 20 vs. my 8 is not "proof"...

And don't worry, I don't take your downplay of officers personally. I was an officer myself, and I couldn't stand them.

But if anything, the fact that you're citing your 20 years of time in the military as "proof" only serves to bolster my claim that your time in the military has led to your adoption of some rather suspect ideas, which you listed in the previous post.

[MacDo]

44. You missed my point

Troops don't usually confide in their Officers, they trust the Noncoms that have been there and done that.
My statements come from experience and not a College course, although I do have a degree.
Your preceptions of the Military while you were in might have been based on your rank. My troops feel very comfortable confiding in me, but remain terrified of the College kid that outranks us all. Yes, I'm a Noncom.

[IrateCitizen]

45. Yes, I gathered quite readily you were a noncom...

I'm well aware of troops' attitudes toward their officers. I also know that I had one of the best damned teachers I ever could have as a brand-new butter-bar, a platoon sergeant who was a Vietnam Vet and received two purple hearts and a silver star. I learned to be a good officer and take care of my troops by listening to and watching him. I learned that my job wasn't to run the platoon, but to just manage it. The platoon sergeant and squad leaders would run it just fine for me if given the chance.

But getting back to your statements on Democratic/Republican attitudes toward the military, the problem with them is that they're not grounded in any kind of factual basis. They're gross generalizations. They might be popular perceptions within the ranks, but they're not grounded in reality.

[MacDo]

49. I never said they were

I merely stated how the troops felt these days, and everyone misconstrued them as my thoughts.
Pesonally I'm sick of the whole situation. If Bush wins I'm dropping retirement paperwork. I've earned it!

[IrateCitizen]

76. I'm sorry, they sounded like they were your thoughts...

But, you're right -- those attitudes do seem to prevail among much of the military -- especially as you move up the chain of command.

Perhaps my military experience is somewhat negatively shaded after having to spend so much time dealing with asshat officers. Especially considering that my last 1.5 yrs was as a staff weenie, working in the S-3 section. Given the choice between staff or the troops, I enjoyed my troop time so much more.

I hope you don't take my challenging of you as being aggressive or overly confrontational. Many of us here just love debate, and sometimes things just get a little heated on their own. But in my case, it's never personal.

In any case, I noticed you saying that you're going back over there AGAIN. Godspeed and safe return. You might also want to check out Operation Truth to spread the word about what's really going on over there (http://www.optruth.org).

[sandnsea]

29. Well there you go

Clinton gave you pay raises, I guess you just forgot. Or ignored it. Or are brainwashed to believe only Republicans do anything for the troops.


The president's budget request -- submitted to Congress in
February 1999 -- contained a 4.4 percent pay raise.

On July 1, 2000, 75 percent of all service members will
receive pay raises ranging up to an additional 5.5 percent.
With the 4.8 percent pay raise from January figured in,
some service members will receive raises totaling 10.3
percent in fiscal 2000.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep1999/n09281999_9909282.html

[RivetJoint]

30. Congress did indeed give the military good pasy raises

during the Clinton years, just as they continue to do so today.

CONGRESS, NOT the President, gives the military pay raises. Congress, often bucks the PB and gives the military more than the PB asks for.

[sandnsea]

31. Oh yes, of course

Congress gives pay raises when there's a Democratic President; the President gives pay raises when there's a Republican President. :eyes:

Did you read the link? It was Clinton's budget request.

[RivetJoint]

39. Notice the term REQUEST.

Congress gives the military pay raises. No the Presidents of EITHER party.

[sandnsea]

56. The President signs budgets

And sets the standards he's willing to support. Certainly Congress has their part, but so does the President.

[RivetJoint]

59. Tell me the last time

a President approved and funded a military pay raise. You can't, because they don't. They make a request, and then Congress decides how much the military will really get. Often in the past, the President has requested a number, and COngress has increased it.

[sandnsea]

64. Oh dear god

What is your problem? The military praises Bush over pay raises and the people blindly bobble their heads and that's the way it is. The facts don't support their blind loyalty and when you stick the facts right in their face, they side-step and give credit to Republicans in Congress. What the fuck ever.

[RivetJoint]

66. I'm not praising Bush for ANYTHING

CONGRESS gives the military pay raises NOT the President. In fact, Congress, not infrequently, gives the military a higher pay raise then the President ASKED for.

Are you arguing that point?

[sandnsea]

70. yes

Because not jack shit happens without the signature of the President and everybody knows it.

[RivetJoint]

72. Obviously you flunked

Civics 101.

Here are two topics you might want to read up on: "Power of the Purse" and "How a bill becomes law." In the second topic, you might want to pay particular attention to how a bill becomes law WITHOUT even if the President vetoes it. It's really very interesting.

[sandnsea]

81. lol

Like I said, I don't know why you're nitpicking such a stupid thing as the fact that the President sets the sepnding priorities, signs budgets and legislation and it is rare that Congress has to override the President on the budget. In fact, I don't think they ever have. Bye.

[RivetJoint]

82. Obviously you are oblivious to the fact

that Congress routinely gies the military a larger pay raise than the President asks for. They do the same for civilian federal employees.
I'm amazed that you can't understand simple facts....and in some cases lie to hide them.

[sandnsea]

85. Based on Presidential requests

Which gives them a general idea of what the expectations are. The President doesn't have to sign them. By your argument, the pay raises in 2001 and 2002 are Democratic because we had a Democratic majority in the Senate. I still do not understand what you're arguing. Republicans are no more supportive of troops than Democrats, that was the original argument to begin with.

[MacDo]

34. I rest my case

http://www.moaa.org/Legislative/ActiveDuty/PayGap.asp

[IrateCitizen]

40. Good God, I hope you're not in the JAG!

You rest your case with this?

Upon looking at the chart, it appears that the growth in disparity occurred mostly during the Reagan and Bush I years, when compared with private sector wage rates.

Furthermore, this seems to fail to take into account the massive benefits that go along with being in the military -- i.e. free medical and dental care, housing allowances and on-post housing, food allowances, child allowances, etc.

If we're going on strict percentages, then it appears that the fall in disparity has as much to do with current military pay raises as it does with falling wages in the private sector.

Your statistics raise more questions than they answer. You can rest your case if you want, but it remains highly unconvincing.

[MacDo]

47. Kinda Funny

How two different people can look at the same thing, but see different thing. Especially when it contains numbers.

[sandnsea]

54. How?

Pay raises kept up with the private sector from 1992 on. The best pay raise came in 2000, a Clinton backed pay raise. Because we were finally getting the budget under control. If we hadn't had 9/11, your pay raises would be right back where they were in the 80's when we were running deficits in order to support a bloated military budget that went to defense contractors. Remember $500 hammers? That's where your pay raises went. That's what Kerry railed about in the 80's, something everybody was pissed about but just can't seem to remember now.

[RivetJoint]

57. Are you looking at the same chart?

The best pay raises came in 81, 82, and 02. The 2000 one was great as well.

[sandnsea]

61. Oh cool

There were only 2 years in the 80's. :eyes:

[RivetJoint]

67. Your post said

"The best pay raise came in 2000..."

I was just pointing out that the chart showed three years that had better pay raises than the 2000 pay raise.

So you lied.

[Was_Immer]

32. Thats not a smart answer

"zero to little chance of dying, vote Democrat"

I think you either grossly misunderstand the party, or see things differently.

From what I get from your answer is the same thing I got from the recruitment officer that called me. He said "do you want a president that will be agressive against the terrorists, or one that will do nothing." Implying Kerry would do nothing.

Thats WRONG.

May I ask you this though:
Do you believe we can win in Iraq?

Before I wait for your answer, I will answer with my opinion (only an opinion as we all have one here)

We will not win in IRAQ. If by some incredible theft Shrub steals the election and is reelected he will pull out and abandon IRAQ. Why? Public and world sentiment. The need for troops (either start a draft or pull out) (possibly get international support but doesnt look likely). The growing casualties. GGrowing cost. Growing damage to Iraq, its not worth it. Finally god forbid another attack on us, we'd have to go fight elsewhere, perhaps North Korea.

REGARDLESS. We will hand over Iraq to the US created government (dont give me crap about voting cause its about as honest as the afghanistan election was). And we will leave.

So to cut the rambling. Either of the 2 will cut and run. Perhaps Kerry can bring fresh air to this and maybe internationalize it. Maybe not, BUT he will do things differently.

Its the choice of this: do what were doing now, which is were not winning. Or change the course and see where that takes us.

[MacDo]

37. If Bush wins

Yes we will win Iraq. But at what cost?

Iran and North Korea will be next!

I'm sorry you feel that way about Afghanistan. Personally, I think that is the one thing we have done right.

I voted Kerry, for that change of course.

[Was_Immer]

41. I respectfully disagree

You honesly believe we will win IRAQ.

How can we win. Please tell me?

Should we carpet bomb the country and start all over again? How do you fight insurgents that are fighting for their country and the hate of us? How do you counter that?

[IrateCitizen]

43. We will win it like the British did after the fall of the Ottomans.

Oh, wait a minute... the British had to pull out of Iraq due to increasing hostility and insurgency against their occupation.

Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

[MacDo]

46. How?

....We will win in Iraq if Bush is elected, BUT AT WHAT COST?

Meaning, we could easy wipe out everyone in the country if He wants too. Understand?

Second, "insurgents" are not Iraqi's, they would be rebels at the least. "Insurgents" are the other shitheads who come from other countries to kill us.

Don't like it. Vote Kerry. I did. I'm not the enemy, just the poor slob caught in the middle of all your political bullshit.

[sandnsea]

60. No, those are terrorists

Insurgents are the Sadr militants, and others, from inside the country.

Keep up.

[MacDo]

65. I never thought

Americans could ever be so out of touch with what's going on with their troops.

Hopefully Kerry will understand.

[sandnsea]

68. Obviously

You haven't been in Iraq.

You're unaware of the Sadr and Shi'ite militants? You're unaware of the Sunni fighting in Fallujah? What's up in Mosul?

[MacDo]

73. You're invited

I leave AGAIN in two weeks. Want to come?

[sandnsea]

78. Sure you do

Why do you avoid the questions?

[IrateCitizen]

79. Godspeed, MacDo

Despite the fact that I may disagree with you on some points on this thread, those disagreements are quite trivial in the broader scheme of things.

I hope you come back safe and sound, and ensure the safe return of all those under your watch. We'll keep working back here to ensure that your selfless service is not so wantonly abused in the future.

[MacDo]

83. Thanks

I mean it

[SemperEadem]

71. perhaps if the military leadership didn't try to hard to clamp down

on the truth being told as to what is really going on in Iraq, we'd have a better understanding, as you say... but when you have a leadership not even wanting footage of coffins returning to the states to be videotaped or photographed, let alone aired, because they don't think the American people can process what they're seeing the way the leadership wants it spun, I think it totally lays your protestations out to be baseless.

[IrateCitizen]

77. That's not the military leadership -- that's the civilian leadership

[NickB79]

89. Killing millions of innocent civilians is winning?

Ooo....kkkk...... then. I'm sure you considered that this would polarize the rest of the Muslim world so much against us we would be suffering terrorist attacks for the next 50 yrs, right? That any American overseas would become a fair target, and that the ranks of Al Queda would be overflowing as new recruits line up to get revenge for what the Americans did? That we would lose thousands, if not tens of thousands, of soldiers in combat? We killed over 3 MILLION Vietnamese in the 60's and 70's, yet were run out of that country as our positions were overrun. Do you honestly think we could do any better in Iraq, if all-out guerrilla war broke out there (assuming it isn't right now)?

That's winning?

[OneTwentyoNine]

28. Should the recruiter be lying about the reason for invading??

Simply going into Iraq because Chimps daddy didn't get his chance wouldn't have flown with Congress and that recruiter damn well knows it.

I know they have a tough job now,who the hell would want to die for a lie? But...I think he has the obligation to level as to why Bush invaded Iraq,not just make something up.

David

[MacDo]

51. Actually

A recruiter should be selling the party line. I'm surprised he offered an opinion at all

[Was_Immer]

55. do you actually believe him then?

He was full of crap

[MacDo]

74. I thought I've made myself clear

But if not, my answer is "Hell No"

I supported Afghanistan, not Iraq. Copy?

[Cat Atomic]

52. Come out of the lions' den, Daniel.

There's no "anti-military" sentiment here at all.

[MacDo]

75. I don't have a clue

what you're talking about. Then again, that applies to over half of the posts I've read here so far.

[Cat Atomic]

84. I'm saying you're finding "anti-military" sentiment where it

doesn't exist. I'm saying you're playing the martyr. I'm suggesting you stop. There are plenty of veterans here.

[NV Whino]

13. The word is that they are going after top scholars these days

Not to mention doctors, computer geeks etc. That's why they are calling you.

[MADem]

14. Oh, SHIT, you do know you are on the "short list" now

Your name has probably been verified against a roster from the school, and you are on Charlie Abell's short list now. Medical personnel (MD, nursing, PAs, operating room techs, even skilled orderlies), police, firefighters, construction workers, personnel with language skills....that's the future of the draft--it will be a targeted draft based on what you do for a living, and what your knowledge base is.

As for the 00 vote, a lot of shit went on. Amazing how postal clerks, who get audited on a regular basis and are well known for their attention to detail (they get hammered if they are even one cent off, and they are "personally and pecuniarily responsible" for any shortages), suddenly, en masse, neglected to postmark so many BUSH ballots that were accepted in Florida anyway. Gee, it's a mystery...NOT. Military postal clerks DO NOT FORGET to postmark ballots. They get postmarked BEFORE they are put in the grey trays, and then put in the orange mailbags, and the bags are SEALED. It is more plausible to suggest that they routinely forget to unzip their flies before they take a piss--it just did not happen like the GOP suggested. The ballot boxes were stuffed, just like 58,000 absentee ballots to Democrats mysteriously went missing this past month.

'They' will do anything to win. We have to work and make sure it does not happen.

[andino]

23. My wife got tons of calls in Med school

Seems that there is a huge shortage of Docs in the military these days. They will say or do ANYTHING to get them in too. They offered my wife all kinds of stuff like paying off loans, working in great places, blah blah blah but never were able to put it in a contract. hehehe

The guy was full of it and playing to your beliefs to get you in.

[Was_Immer]

26. The more I think about it the more I conclude indeed he was full of manure

It sounded compelling. But the thing that is a give away: Do you want a president that will be agressive to the terrorists or one that will do nothing"

Hmmmm. Whats he implying. 2 choices give to me. 2 candidates running.

F**k him. Im sick and tired of them calling me. 6 times Ive been called. Strangely always on the days Im off from class. What can I conclude from that. Coinsidence or more likely they call when Im away but dont leave messages.

Look its clearly a sign of how desperate the military situation is. I NEVER signed up for them to call me. They never ONCE called me prior to Iraq, or 9/11 for that matter. I dont recall High School if they called though.

I dont know how else to be clearer to these bozos. Yes theyre doing their jobs, but I AM NOT INTERESTED!

Think if I tell them literally "GO F**K YOURSELVES" they will stop calling?

[andino]

86. Tell him.................

"Do not call me again. If you do I will take legal actions against you."

That is what we had to do to get them to stop calling my wife.

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. Wow!

[Dob Bole]

42. He was telling you what you wanted to hear. That's what recruiters

do. They're government- trained asskisssers.

But it's a pretty good job. Don't know if I'd be able to sleep at night, though, knowing that I bullshit for a living.

[Cat Atomic]

48. He blew it with his "my vote wasn't counted" crap.

That's the Republican line to counter Jeb's voter disenfranchisement of blacks in Florida. Gave himself away.

Another lying salesman, I'm afraid.

[LaReservaPr]

50. A recruiter from the Marines

called me last week but the guy sounded really down, like he didn't even want to recruit. I felt kind of sorry for the guy.

[RivetJoint]

53. Some military ballots WERE

thrown out in Florida, remember?

[Hobarticus]

80. Tell him you'll sign up, if...

You can have HIS job, and HE goes to Iraq.

[JSJ]

87. the military lies and cheats from top to bottom-it's their true mission...

...ie., to game you. Why? Because a near 500 billion dollar budget is at stake. You only had a 5 minute session with the lying fuck and you're already partially brainwashed.

[Cabbage]

88. Just say no

The guy is just doing his job. No one is forcing you to join. Just say no thankyou.