Monday, May 05, 2008

Stop-loss won't stop anytime soon

From the Army Times:

Last year’s surge of five combat brigades into Iraq helped drive a 43-percent increase in soldiers being barred from leaving the service under stop-loss orders, and Army leaders predict the policy will remain in place at least through next year. However, they expressed optimism that the numbers will ebb as surge forces redeploy.

More than 12,230 soldiers are under stop-loss orders, compared to 8,540 in May 2007, during the surge. But the 30,000 combat troops that were part of the surge are in the process of coming home, and the Army is returning to 12-month deployments Aug. 1. Because soldiers are placed under stop-loss as members of deploying units, reducing the numbers sent to war reduces the numbers involuntarily held.

OYE Comment: With so many College and Young Republicans eligible to serve, it is pathetic that these soldiers have to continue to go beyond their original commitment to Our Country. These soldiers have done their part, it's well past the time for the cheerleaders to get in the game.


At 07 May, 2008 09:18, Blogger Gunfighter said...

Amen to that!

At 13 May, 2008 09:57, Blogger Groenhagen said...

"OYE Comment: With so many College and Young Republicans eligible to serve, it is pathetic that these soldiers have to continue to go beyond their original commitment to Our Country."

Wek, if you had served in the military instead of being a Democrat Party hack, you would know that the IRR is part of the original commitment we make when we enlist.

At 14 May, 2008 02:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Without e-mailed instructions from the RNC.
Groenhagen couldn't find the toilet when he needed to pee

At 14 May, 2008 09:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Groanad, who is the "WE" you refer to Douchbag. Like you actually know anything about the military, if, and I do mean IF, you were a jarhead it was during the reagan timeframe and you were a typist.

At 14 May, 2008 16:28, Blogger Groenhagen said...


"We" is everyone who enlists in the military. But, of course, you wouldn't know about that.

And I see you have denigrated my military service. Nice job, considering the attack came from someone who never served and hides like a coward behind "anonymous."

At 14 May, 2008 18:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He claims he served but shows no pride
to OIF vets he's mighty snide

At 14 May, 2008 18:42, Blogger Groenhagen said...


If you're referring to me, you're a liar. I have nothing but respect for OIF vets. My beef is with Wek (who admits he never served in uniform) and the other Green Baboons who offer the dishonest and unAmerican argument that those who have not served must forfeit their First Amendment right to voice their support for OIF and the war on terror in general.

At 21 May, 2008 09:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NO your just a DOUCH !!!!

At 21 May, 2008 18:45, Blogger OYE said...

groenhagen (14 May, 2008 18:42)-

This blog welcomes and supports everyone's "First Amendment right to voice their support for OIF and the war on terror in general."

We just ask those eligible to serve, who voice their support for this cause, also to state whether they have considered volunteering for military service, and what resulted from their deliberations.

In fact, we strongly encourage those who support our national objectives, provided that 'other people' do the actual fighting, to proudly and publicly express their opinions, including that very important qualification, which is quite relevant to all Americans in evaluating their sincerity.

We also ask those not personally eligible to serve at least to encourage their eligible relatives and friends, their circles of influence, to do the same. If they don't/won't, we also ask them to explain why they support this cause only if 'other people' do the actual fighting.

This is a very relevant question. They should be proud to answer it.

At 23 May, 2008 16:40, Blogger Groenhagen said...


That's very dishonest. We all know that your tactic is an attempt to silence those who have voiced there support for our efforts in Iraq.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us if FDR was a "chickenhawk" since he failed to serve in World War I, a war that he supported and was eligible to serve in. Your failure to address that question exposes your status as a partisan hack.

And why didn't YOU enlist after 9/11, oye? Do you oppose the war against terrorism?

At 24 May, 2008 01:51, Blogger robash141 said...

Results count for something Groeney..

Roosevelt got the job done..

Bush has been a disaster.

At 24 May, 2008 13:34, Blogger OYE said...

groenhagen (23 May, 2008 16:40)-

Thank you for sharing your opinion. We weren't around during WWII which is off-topic.

In answer to your question, I did contact military recruiters both before and after 9/11/2001 but was too old at the time. [The Army has since raised its maximum age but in the meantime, I have also gotten older and still haven't qualified.]

At 24 May, 2008 16:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He gives the full Lewinsky lip service to Yellow Elephant cringers.

Just as long as they always sound like hard right lunatic


Post a Comment

<< Home