Waivers for Recruits Increase
The Washington Post had the basic story. The New York Times added more. Money quote:
“With the Iraq war being as controversial as it is and absent any higher level call to service, it’s a very difficult challenge to all the services, particularly the Army,” said Michele Flournoy, the president and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security, a centrist research organization that focuses on national security and military policies. “The fact that the use of waivers has increased dramatically is something that should be of concern and should be watched over time.”Meanwhile, Stop-Loss continues, according to USA Today, United Press International and the Associated Press.
OYE Comment:
We repeat our call to those eligible-to-serve civilians, who support what our troops are trying to accomplish, to support them even more by becoming one of them.
posted by OYE @ 4/22/2008 07:25:00 PM
49 comments
49 Comments:
I support a universal draft with very few exceptions. I don't think we should limit the pool to just war supporting GOP.
icarus [23 April, 2008 15:34]
Thank you for your comment. There are many good arguments for some form of universal draft with very few exceptions.
We got our name back in Spring/Summer 2005, when one party controlled both political branches of our government; it was clear where the responsibility lay.
But we are non-partisan in calling upon those eligible to serve [ . . . etc.], regardless of party (if any), to consider volunteering.
You may want to Search This Blog on Lieberman; I think we've posted on him.
We appreciate your participation in discussions on this blog.
But I do think that except for those convicted of sex and violent crimes people should be given a second chance at life. They should be given an incentive towards honorable and exceptional service by being promised a pardon after completion of a enlistment term.
Personally, I support the disbandment of all standing forces save for a training cadre of the very, very best, and an integrated state and local logistics, transport and emergency response command. Disband the DOD, replace it with emergency response.
Then make local milita training and service for all persons between 14 and 45 a condition for voting and property ownership. That training and service, beyond basic, could well include any vital skill, such as medicine, teaching, etc, and would serve as a means for those people to be found and ***invested in***.
Make sure that there are lots of advantages for showing up besides that healthy glow.
There is a point I don't see made often, right or left. That is, society is not just a two way street, it's a pedestrian mall.
And in order for there to be any reason to show up, there has to be some reason to go there, some reason to participate, and a positive counter-incentive to not picking the pockets of the tourists.
However, here's another point for those suffering from elephantitus;
Worthy leaders lead from the front. They don't need a security cadre with bayonets to push the cannon fodder forward.
"But we are non-partisan in calling upon those eligible to serve [ . . . etc.], regardless of party (if any), to consider volunteering."
When you use the GOP elephant in your logo, it is simply a lie to say you are non-partisan.
My "Green Baboon" for the OYE types is truly non-partisan, as well as much more accurate.
Seeing as how the Republicans "own" the National Security issue, I think it is perfectly appropriate to use the GOP logo. If it were the Democrats who used the NS issue to the advantage then I would support the Democratic party logo being used.
Keep Trolling Trolling Trolling!
icarus:
I think it's perfectly appropriate to label you and the OYE types Green Baboons, given your objectively pro-terrorist views and one definition of "baboon": "a coarse, ridiculous, or brutish person, esp. one of low intelligence"
But thanks for acknowledging that OYE uses the GOP symbol for partisan reasons. At least there is one honest baboon.
"Keep Trolling Trolling Trolling!"
Translation: I can't defend OYE's dishonest and cowardly argument. Therefore, if someone exposes the dishonesty and cowardice behind that argument, I'll label him a troll.
Groenhagen, seeing as how you're distorting my views and purpose without having read any of my comments left here from more dated threads I can't help but wonder if you're struck by some paranoia.
I'm pro-terrorist? I've never been accused of that nor do I cheer on terrorists. I am a New Yorker who was at MCRD Parris Island during 9/11.
You joined the Corps in 1982 if I recall correctly; which is the era when the radical right of the Republican Party won its stranglehold over what was once a great institution.
icarus don't respond to the Liar.
His standard attack is to lie (especially about his fake service) and insult. He's ignored 95% of my directed questions and is here to defend those who have NEVER served and champion war (Chicken Hawk Warmonger) OVER those who were in the military on 9/11 and served in afghanistan and iraq.
Where were you stationed?
Groenhagen is classic Republican. Have nothing good to say and feel a little ashamed deep down for your part bogging this country down in unending war and nation building?
Just make stuff up: "...um... you're a terrorist supporter!"
I was stationed in Okinawa for a year on Camp Kinser with 3rd Material Readiness Battalion, 3rd Force Service Support Group, and also for the remainder of my term at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA with the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion. Deployed once to Iraq for the invasion
Groenhagen is pathetic.
I had him nailed almost right away when I called him a throughly unprincipled partisan hack who will say almost anything in order to push his agenda.
Perhaps Groenhagen really did serve in the Marine Corps,(which I'm really starting to doubt) Giving him the benefit of the doubt it's still really disgraceful the way he talks shit to the other Marines on this blog,and demeans their service while propping up the cowardly bum college Republicans He's more like semper-stab-ya-in the-back than semper fidelis.
Groenhagen is certainly lucky he was never deployed to a combat zone
he's the kind of person who would have been in more danger from the guys on his own side than he would have been from the enemy,
I'm going to reserve judgment on whether or not Groenhagen truly served. I wouldn't know one way or the other. I guess I'll take him at his word. I have to.
As for whether or not he saw combat. He says he served from 1982-1986. US Marines were in Beirut until 1983 when the embassy and Marine barracks were bombed killing 241 Marines and sailors of 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment (In the Corps we refer to an infantry battalion as 1/8 on paper or 'one eight' when we say it outloud) To this day, 1/8 is referred to proudly as the Marine battalion. I don't know if Groenhagen was one of those Marine survivors with 1/8 or support personnel attached to 1/8.
Right after we left Beirut the Army and Marines invaded Grenada...which I believe included another battalion in the 8th Marine Regiment (or just "8th Marines")
That would have been some combat experiences a few Marines would have seen during the 1980s.
He already said he wasn't deployed into a combat zone.
My dad thinks I'm depressed that I didn't get to serve as an Infantry Marine and in a way I kind of am. I'd reenlist right now but I don't want to because my brother is currently in the Corps and he is a grunt and about to deploy to Iraq and I don't want to put my mom through that...though I'm well aware that some mothers have two children in harm's way...
I served in an infantry unit at my own request after my tour in Japan was winding down. I was still a Supply Marine of course but serving in that capacity in a light armored reconnaissance battalion and we took part in the invasion of Iraq and I'm proud of my service but admit that I never fired a single shot, not even one in anger. No Jarhead Redux for me...it wasn't like that at all.
robash:
"He already said he wasn't deployed into a combat zone."
Where did I say that?
Hey, Robash, I heard that al Qaeda's number 2 was complaining that not enough men are volunteering for jihad. Looks like they may lower their recruitment standards. You and the other Green Baboons ought to see if they'll take you now.
icarus:
"I'm pro-terrorist? I've never been accused of that nor do I cheer on terrorists. I am a New Yorker who was at MCRD Parris Island during 9/11."
You left off the modifier "objectively."
grung the Green Baboon:
"His standard attack is to lie (especially about his fake service) and insult. He's ignored 95% of my directed questions and is here to defend those who have NEVER served and champion war (Chicken Hawk Warmonger) OVER those who were in the military on 9/11 and served in afghanistan and iraq."
I served, so that makes you the liar. I did not answer your questions because you failed to answer mine. You cannot answer a question with a question.
And you have also lied about whom I have sided with. I support those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I do not support the Green Baboons here, most of whom did not serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, or, as in the case of Wek, have not served in the military at all.
Keep Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
"You can always hear the people who are willing to sacrifice somebody else's life. They're plenty loud and they talk all the time."
I'm going to do to Groenhagen what MSNBC's Dan Abrams does when a guest doesn't want to be respectful, cut off his mike.
I'm just going to ignore Groenhagen. Sorry, buddy.
icarus:
Dan Abrams. You just exposed yourself as an MSNBC moonbat. I had my suspicions, but now you have confirmed it. I suppose you're also an Olbermann fan.
robash:
"He already said he wasn't deployed into a combat zone."
Where did I say that?
Kevin, you said it when you referred to your time allegedly soaking up the sun in beautiful Okinawa. Last I heard that hasn't been a combat zone since '45.
Yes, on an earlier thread, Groenhagen does prominently mention his involvement in a couple of large scale training exercises
You'd think that if he had ever have been in the real shit, He would have mentioned that combat deployment , over Operation Team Spirit 83.
Perhaps Groenhagen has difficulty distinguishing between training exercises and combat deployments
Also in a previous thread, Groenhagen also refers to himself as a "Former Marine."
I've known lot of people, who were in the Corps.
My Brother was in for six years and spent quite a bit of that stationed in Okinawa
If I, for some nefarious reason, wanted to deceive people into believing I was in the Marines and stationed in Okinawa
I could just talk to my brother.
He loves to talk about the being in the Corps.
No USMC vet that I've met, ever referred to themselves as a "former Marine"
Nor would I make the mistake of ever calling them "a former Marine"
I've been pointedly told "there's no such thing as "a Former Marine"
Interesting.
actually, Former Marines do use that title and have no problem in using it. Or they could just say that they were or are Marines.
But one thing we do not say is that we are Ex-Marines. That's like denying Christ thrice.
"Ex-Marine" not "former" , of course, I stand corrected.
my apologies.
Anyway, my larger point really is that the notion of esprit-de-corps, a very powerful ideal in the Marine Corps seems lost on Groenhagen.
That to me makes his claims of service in the Marines highly suspect
That's why he can summon the cognative dissonance required to champion the cause of Yellow Elephants and shemlessly denounce men who have actually risked their lives to defend this country.
"Former marine" or not, this Groenhagen is a shady character at best.
And, lest anyone accuse me of swift boating him, I'd like to point out Groenhagen himself is certainly not shy about casting aspersions on other people's military service if they happen to disagree with him .
What's the phrase: Once a Marine, Always A Marine?
Anyway, these waivers are disgusting. We have lowered the standards (and they weren't that high to begin with) to meet an already lowered recruiting goals.
Meanwhile, my friends, who are currently serving the marines have had to go back to Iraq about every six months. They do it out of loyalty for this country. When they are there, they see a ton of contractors making 4 times what they make doing the jobs they used to do.
When there is fighting, they see 1000 of the Iraqi Army soldiers switch sides in a battle. Iraqi solders that they trained. When they stand up, we'll stand down. What BS is that? They aren't going to stand up.
Meanwhile, the Taliban in Afghanistan rebuilds. Al Queda, the actual perps in the attack on Sept 11, reconstitutes. And we don't have enough soldiers to handle this because everyone is in Iraq.
We still don't know who was behind the Anthrax terror attacks in 2003. It's funny how we forgot that a muslim extremist shot up the El Al counter in Los Angeles killing one person. We forgot about these terrorist attacks.
robash:
"And, lest anyone accuse me of swift boating him, I'd like to point out Groenhagen himself is certainly not shy about casting aspersions on other people's military service if they happen to disagree with him."
You must be a heavy drinker. I cannot think of any other reason other than the killing of millions of brain cells to explain why you get less intelligent with each new post.
You have been challenged before to show were I have cast aspersions on the military service of others, and you failed to do so. Why repeat the same lie? (BTW, it was your fellow Green Baboons here who actually did that to me when they claimed that I was in the "typing pool" in the Marines.)
Welcome back Kev...your thoughtful commentaries were missed...I don't think that anyone claimed that you were in the typing pool...I think that they were dubious of you serving at all.
They must have let him out of 72 hour psych ward lock-up.
Saying that someone worked in an office during their military service is not the same as serially referring to former US service people as cowards and traitors, which is what Groenhagen has done.
robash:
Remember, I have seen your profile photo. You're a bit of a squirt, aren't you?
"Saying that someone worked in an office during their military service is not the same as serially referring to former US service people as cowards and traitors, which is what Groenhagen has done."
But they would both constitute the denigration of someone's military service, wouldn't they? And I know that this distinction is lost of an airhead such as you, but my saying that OYE's argument is cowardly in no way denigrates someone's military service. As I noted before, my saying that Duke Cunningham committed crimes as a congressman in no way disparages his record as a hero during Vietnam. Your further efforts to conflate military service and civilian behavior only exposes the weakness of OYE's argument.
The military, like every other large bureaucracy needs, clerks
It's not the most glamorous job but it is certainly an important one. They're part of the team too.
Not everyone gets to be Rambo or Chesty
If you're self conscious about being in the typing pool Groenhagen , that's your problem.
A person who serves honorably as a clerk is entitled to just as much respect as any other vet.
Provided they show some respect as well .
You've failed miserably on that count.
robash:
"If you're self conscious about being in the typing pool Groenhagen , that's your problem."
0231s are not clerks, squirt.
Are they lookouts for Colts?
Actually I think his MOS was 0000
So it's probably true when he claims he wasn't a clerk in the Marine Corps. Just some pathetic Keyboard Kommando who could have never made it threough the first week of boot camp
robash:
Actually I made it through 12 weeks, squirt, which is 12 more than you.
Just keep on denigrating my military service, squirt. Doing so only further exposes the weakness of OYE's argument here. If you had any substance to offer, you would share those instead of attacking my service.
And it's great to see you siding with Wek, who never served and has a ame reason for not serving (as do you post 9/11).
Kev...For someone who claims to be interested in debating, your comments here are even less substantive than in your "book." It's a good thing that you published it electronically as that spared at least a couple trees. As someone who read it (probably the only person to do so), I have to say that some of my high school students have better scholarship. That's saying something. Perhaps it would help you to take a logic class or two because there are a number of times where your "logic" is absolutely horrible.
anonymous:
Nice try. You never read the book. If you had, you would be able to cite an example of my supposed lack of logic. This is a game you liberals love to play. I see it all the time on the reviews at Amazon.com.
And if you're a teacher, I truly feel sorry for your students. They're obviously getting a substandard education.
Kev...Take a look at p.154. There is a obvious logical error there.
anonymous:
Wow, I hope you don't ask your students to merely name a page number when asked to cite a logical error.
Page 154 deals with FactCheck.org's report on Bush's 16 words in the 2003 SOTU and the myth that Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat" in that same speech. Where's my "horrible" logic?
Nah, Kevy...I was just trying to get you to refresh your recollection of the page...
Squirt that's my favorite brand of soda pop so I guess thats a compliment.
I don't believe this guy was in the Marine Corps. He might drop a few base names and throw around a couple of nomenclatures. That's all stuff he could get from wikipedia.
Groenhagen seems to have very little understanding about military life beyond that.
And why on earth would any former marine want disrespect his brothers in order to defend Yellow Elephants.
The answer seems clear to me.
Groeny is a phoney.
anonymous:
I knew you were not being honest when you said you read it.
robash:
Keep it up. You're only discrediting yourself further. BTW, I lived in tatemono bango yo san ichi on Futenma, both before and after MAG-36 was moved to the other side of the airfield, which was in Feb.-Mar. 1985. Most of MAG-36's personnel were in Pohang at the time for Team Spirit '85, which left a skeleton crew to do most of the moving.
gownhoser rants:
"I think it's perfectly appropriate to label you and the OYE types Green Baboons, given your objectively pro-terrorist views and one definition of "baboon": "a coarse, ridiculous, or brutish person, esp. one of low intelligence""
Ah, yes - to be against Bush's made up excuses to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 is to be 'pro terrorist.'
Classic stupidity from the right.
grownhoser rants:
"I suppose you're also an Olbermann fan."
And you're what -a Limbaugh fan?
Draft-dodging, thrice divorced, took viagraq to the Dominican Republic (a place known for its underage male prostitutes) Limbaugh?
Or is it Hannity? Tough guy sissy never served Hannity?
Doppelganger:
Take a valium.
Groeney himself needs something a bit stronger like thorazine.
Post a Comment
<< Home