SwiftVets.com

BuffaloJack

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071305/brief3.html

davman · Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:32 pm Post subject:

2006 & 2008 elections! They are trying to portray themselves as strong on national defense. What is truly sad is that they will actually fool some people into thinking they care about our military. To see Hillary sitting with our soldiers makes me sick. This is the same woman that demanded that no military uniforms be worn in the Whitehouse during the Clinton administration. The rule was if you had to wear a uniform, you had to duck into the nearest office if you were in a hallway at the same time as her. If there was no office to duck into, you were to avoid eye contact with her. All of a sudden she is pro military. I don't think so! It is up to us to ensure that she loses big in "08"!

GM Strong · Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:15 pm Post subject:

They can legislate all they want, but the troop level won't increase unless the Pentagon needs them and the budget pays for them. It's like telling Ford or GM to hire 5,000 more workers, if they aren't needed, they won't be hired. Meanwhile the Ultra-left supporters of these same dunces are out in San Fran Nan's district trying to keep the recruiters out of the schools.

Even so, they better vote for it before they vote against it.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

BuffaloJack · Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:59 pm Post subject:

Nutso · PO3 Joined: 25 Aug 2004 Posts: 271 Location: Minnesota

I believe this is an attempt to force the military to add paople at a time when recruiting volunteers is down forcing either failure to add the number they want or start the draft back up to get enough people. Either way I think it is a setup so they have something to complain about later. After all, complaining is what they do best.
My solution to this is to put a rider on it that we will draft the people we need, but only from the senators districts that vote for this bill.

GM Strong · Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject:

Recall that during the election, the Liberals were spreading the word that Congress was secretly planning to renew the draft. It was true. Charlie Rangel, D-NYC, had a bill up with other co-sponsoring Democrats, which when the House leadership forced to a vote, went down in defeat, because even Rangel would not vote for his own bill.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

Uisguex Jack · Rear Admiral Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 613

Nutso Says:

davman · Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:30 pm Post subject:

The Iraqi govt. just said that Iraqi troops were now capeable of handling security in some cities, and that foreign troops could pull out of those cities. Our guys are getting the job done, and done well. The Dems need to stir up negative feelings before the success becomes apparent to everyone, and they get creamed in another election. Keep spreading the truth, and it will prevail over their lies!

Curtis H. · Lt.Jg. Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 143

GM Strong · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:16 am Post subject:

Read "Unlimited Access" by Gary Aldrich, former FBI Agent. It will scare the crap out of you. His observations of the Clintonoids have all been shown to be true. Pay Heed.

Mad

_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

PhantomSgt · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:53 am Post subject:

There appears to be bi-partisan support for something the Army has wanted for a long time. To wage the war on terror and still support a full mobilization for an additional threat area (say in Asia), the Army needs two more Divisions on hand.

The SOD has banked on a pullout from Europe to meet the need for two Divisions without an increase in end strength. Most analysts disagree with this philosophy as it exposes Europe to an invasion by our friends in former Soviet Union.

It is important to remember that it is the same team involved in running the Russian government and military that was in place during the Cold War. Contrary to popular belief, the Russian economy is on the ropes and an unprotected Europe would be ripe for the picking.

Cool

_________________
Retired AF E-8

Independent that leans right of center.

BuffaloJack · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:13 am Post subject:

How would they fund 80,000 more troops? The Liberals will NEVER give up any social programs. My suggestion would be to cut foreign aid to any country critical of the USA. Aid may be free, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come with a price.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71)

ocsparky101 · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:19 pm Post subject:

Nobody has noticed? The day the Clintons left the White House with all of its furnishings was the last day they their name was to be used to accept any responsibility for problems in this country. We need 80,000 more troops becaus the Bush Administration has the troop levels too low. The recession started the day Bush took office. The intelligence lapse was created by the Bush Administration. 911 was the result of the Bush Administration policies. N. Korea has the weapon because Bush gave nuclear secrets to China thus allowing them to transfer these same secrets to N. Korea. We must all remember. Ask any democrat. They believe they have the Constitutional Right to lie.

carpro · Admin Joined: 10 May 2004 Posts: 1176 Location: Texas

jwb7605 · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:05 pm Post subject:

Exactly how are we supposed to increase troop size by 80,000 (or whatever number) when the Army (as well as other services) are having problems meeting current enlistment goals?

The same question also occured to me when Kerry was running for president and advocated increasing "special forces" numbers --

The obvious answer, of course, is to lower standards