COL Gene COL Gene

Bush policies harming the Military

▼

Bush policies harming the Military

from JoeUser Forums
The Bush policies have been harming the military and again today the Department of the Army announced for the third month in a row they have failed to achieve their recruiting needs. At the present time, the Army is experiencing a 15% shortfall in its recruiting goal for this year. In addition to the problems that Bush has created for the active component, the National Guard and Reserves have likewise founded it impossible to meet their retention and recruiting goals. If the Department of Defense does not find a way to achieve their manpower needs, there may need to be some gut wrenching discussions about a limited draft to make up the shortfall.
politics
10,134 views 30 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey Reiki-House being from Canada yourself, I was wondering... Never mind.. not worth commenting on.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
slandDog and drmiler

Have you read the comments made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about our military ? His statements prove what I have said is correct. The fact that we have overstretched our military would mean more casualties and longer duration of any future conflict


I love the way you change the subject and then tell us, "we're wrong". Excuse me if I'm wrong but was not this thread about the army not meeting it's recruitment quota? I thought so! So my statement stands. And your wrong once again.


Bush policies harming the Military



By: COL Gene on Bush Truth
Posted: 5/3/2005 9:33:58 AM
The Bush policies have been harming the military and again today the Department of the Army announced for the third month in a row they have failed to achieve their recruiting needs. At the present time, the Army is experiencing a 15% shortfall in its recruiting goal for this year. In addition to the problems that Bush has created for the active component, the National Guard and Reserves have likewise founded it impossible to meet their retention and recruiting goals. If the Department of Defense does not find a way to achieve their manpower needs, there may need to be some gut wrenching discussions about a limited draft to make up the shortfall.

Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Have you read the comments made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about our military ? His statements prove what I have said is correct. The fact that we have overstretched our military would mean more casualties and longer duration of any future conflict. Almost every senior officer in military has stated that missions of the military outstrips its resources. The difference between not meeting the recruiting goals in the mid and late 90s and today is that we have added significantly to the commitments today and therefore the manpower shortages are more of a problem. Everything I have said in this blog is correct and the statements of the most senior member of the military, General Myers, yesterday proved the truth of my remarks. Again you Bushies have been proven WRONG. You all talk out of you A*s about things you do not understand. Your only purpose is to defend the ineffective and in some cases the distructive policies George W. Bush has been following to the detriment of this country.


Our military has been stretched out for a long time, way before Bush. Part of that is our presence in Europe.

Col, your "facts" have been debunked, when will you admit that?
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe this is the problem.

It's been a tough couple years for America's antiwar movement. Unable to effect change at the ballot box and frustrated by the lack of popular support for its agenda, the antiwar crowd has turned its sights on the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) and other military recruitment on college campuses across the country.

It's becoming increasingly common for antiwar activists to stage protests and disruptions at college job fairs involving military recruiters. The greater Bay Area, in particular, has become a locus for such activity, with recent protests at San Francisco State University, UC Santa Cruz and UC Berkeley.

Of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong or illegal with exercising one's First Amendment rights and staging a peaceful protest on campus. But activists are not content to simply protest the presence of military recruiters; they have taken to adopting stronger measures. In San Francisco and Santa Cruz, mobs of protesters disrupted job fairs, forced military recruiters to leave and succeeded in either significantly delaying or shutting down the entire event. As a result, students looking for career advice and opportunities, whether military or otherwise, were largely prevented from doing so.

If one chooses not to join the U.S. military, that's a personal decision. But to stop other students from exploring all their options is bullying at its worst. Besides being unfair, such tactics are unlikely to lead to increased support among fellow students. If anything, the opposite is true. As UC Santa Cruz student Chris Swanson put it, "If they want free speech, they should let people speak to the recruiters."


Link
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog


No island all you are dead wrong we have not been stretched as tightly as we are today since the start of WWII. The size of the military relative to the risks are only a shadow of what they need to be. The president himself admitted the military was too small and then did nothing to fix the problem that he identified. Every major military commander acknowledges we have outstretched our military capabilities. You better reread what General Myers said and you might also read my latest blog which states the FACTS not the Bull S*it which your Bushies spew over this blog site. Is Joe User a creation of Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh?