General: Iraq at its quietest since '04

Dems/liberals will say 'nothing to see here, just move along...'

from JoeUser Forums

From USA Today: General: Iraq at its quietest since '04

I'm not going to bother clipping any of the article, instead I'll just encourage people to read the original materials and form their own opinions of things.  I'd just like to point out how the Democrat/Liberal side of the aisle will do the best imitation of crickets here as they hope that no one notices this relatively good news.

I suppose some might try to spin this along the lines of 'it's about time!' (should I bold face that and capitalize it just so it would seem more like one of their cries?) or 'after spending so much money and losing so many lives there I would certainly hope for results like these.'

Need I remind anyone that the Democrat/Liberal side of the aisle was expecting far more lives lost, much, much earlier in the confrontation with Iraq though?  Need I say that even a single life lost is too much, but that that the people that are serving are doing so voluntarily and are doing their best to accomplish the goals that are laid out for them?

politics
3,333 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are lots of problems in Iraq that will take a long time to sort out. Any progress is good.

One thing I want to note. You said:

but that that the people that are serving are doing so voluntarily
End of quote


Because of stop-loss, that statement is not entirely true. There are plenty of Soldiers who WANT to be there, but there are also plenty who were due to return to civilian life but were instead sent to Iraq (or Afghanistan).
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Because of stop-loss, that statement is not entirely true. There are plenty of Soldiers who WANT to be there, but there are also plenty who were due to return to civilian life but were instead sent to Iraq (or Afghanistan).

That is true TW, and thanks for the correction/point of clarification.  I do feel for those folks that have been extended beyond what they had agreed to and/or expected when they last commited to service.

Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because of stop-loss, that statement is not entirely true. There are plenty of Soldiers who WANT to be there, but there are also plenty who were due to return to civilian life but were instead sent to Iraq (or Afghanistan).

That is true TW, and thanks for the correction/point of clarification. I do feel for those folks that have been extended beyond what they had agreed to and/or expected when they last commited to service.
End of quote



but they knew that this might happen when they joined.


technically they could recall me or gene
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
daniel, for Soldiers enlisting now stop-loss is a reasonable expectation. For those who joined prior to, or early on in, the Iraq war it was not so much something to expect.

Stop-loss is like a targeted draft, forcing men and women to serve involuntarily. It may be necessary at times, but it SUCKS for those who get caught up in it. (My own husband re-enlisted due to stop-loss...he was going to have to stay in and go to Iraq either way, so he re-upped for the $$)

Enlistment carries an 8 year Inactive Reserve term. It's not common to be called back up for that, but it can happen.

You and Gene aren't going to be recalled. The chances of that are so low they're not even worth considering.

What branch/MOS/rank were you? Where did you serve? I didn't even realize you were former military.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
army radio operater e2. i was only in one year.


couldn't take orders from people like gene.


i don't talk about because i was only in one year.


if they ever tried to recall me. it wouldn't work sense i am now 4-f. i can barely walk can't run at all.


as for gene he was a col supposedly so i think he can be recalled for ever if they need him.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Stop-loss is like a targeted draft, forcing men and women to serve involuntarily. It may be necessary at times, but it SUCKS for those who get caught up in it. (My own husband re-enlisted due to stop-loss...he was going to have to stay in and go to Iraq either way, so he re-upped for the $$)
End of quote


i didn't mean for it to sound like it didn't suck.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I say we should enjoy the good news, be glad for the Iraqis who will get the freedoms we enjoy; but never ever forget those who worked and fought so hard to make it all possible. That way we can celebrate the victories without negated the sacrifice made by the servicemembers and their familes.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is a 2 edged sword.  It shows that there was a huge problem after the defeat of Saddam, and only now ar they finally getting it under control.  The wise ones on the left would use this as a "See I told you so" in one breath, and then in the other, be thankful that at least the lessons were learned and the corner seems to be turned.

But then that species does appear to be endangered.