NorthSideSox72 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) Only 3 said they would completely leave Iraq IIRC. Well yeah, but they all (other than Hillary) have made it seem like they will pull back 95%, leaving only a small advisory and special ops force, or something like that. Hillary, on the other hand, has said basically nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 10, 2007 -> 09:43 AM) Well yeah, but they all (other than Hillary) have made it seem like they will pull back 95%, leaving only a small advisory and special ops force, or something like that. Hillary, on the other hand, has said basically nothing. That's why we need Gravel in 2008! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 10, 2007 -> 09:46 AM) That's why we need Gravel in 2008! No thanks, the driveway is already paved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Good news: the Army met its recruiting goal for the last year. Bad news: they did it by admitting much larger numbers of convicts and people without HS Diplomas. Link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 08:47 AM) Good news: the Army met its recruiting goal for the last year. Bad news: they did it by admitting much larger numbers of convicts and people without HS Diplomas. Link. Why not add what the 'convictions' were for? Maj. Gen. Thomas Bostick, commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, stressed that a vast majority, about 87 percent, of those allowed in with waivers had misdemeanors for such offenses as joy riding or violating curfew. Most faced little punishment beyond community service for their actions, Bostick said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 03:37 PM) Why not add what the 'convictions' were for? I'm not accusing NSS of this particularly, but it wouldn't fit the bad story, duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) I'm not accusing NSS of this particularly, but it wouldn't fit the bad story, duh. Well it WAS in the article he linked to. Maybe he was just being lazy like the MSM and threw it out there as 'convicts', because that's how the headline slants the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 09:37 AM) Why not add what the 'convictions' were for? That's why I linked the article, as I try to always do. I could also have added some of the other negative, or positive, aspects, but I only provided the bottom line. I could have asked, for example, if 87% were misdemeanors... then what were the 13% - felonies? Because that's an even scarier number. Of course its a bad story - its a bad set of circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 09:44 AM) Well it WAS in the article he linked to. Maybe he was just being lazy like the MSM and threw it out there as 'convicts', because that's how the headline slants the story. I am not a journalist. I read the news. I linked to the news. Convicts is 100% correct in any case. Would people prefer I just cut and paste the entire text of articles from now on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 03:44 PM) Well it WAS in the article he linked to. Maybe he was just being lazy like the MSM and threw it out there as 'convicts', because that's how the headline slants the story. No, that's why I specifically said what I did. But my bigger point was, what NSS did unintentionally the MSM will do with intent. It *IS* an issue, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Maj. Gen. Thomas Bostick, commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, stressed that a vast majority, about 87 percent, of those allowed in with waivers had misdemeanors for such offenses as joy riding or violating curfew. Most faced little punishment beyond community service for their actions, Bostick said Joy riding is against the law now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) Joy riding is against the law now? joy riding, when referenced as such, means stealing a car and taking it for a ride. Its usually used as a down-charge, so that they don't have to prosecute for GTA, a felony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I have no idea what it means, but it's probably important enough to note. The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials. The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command. The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. While still under review, its supporters, including some in the Army, argue that a realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces. As described by officials who had been briefed on the closed-door discussion, the idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come. At the moment, there are no major Marine units among the 26,000 or so American forces in Afghanistan. In Iraq there are about 25,000 marines among the 160,000 American troops there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I wonder which branch had first choice? Seems like a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 05:10 PM) I wonder which branch had first choice? Seems like a good idea. I wonder how long that would take? Interesting enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 So, John Murtha works with the military liaison on Iraq to Congress on a compromise bill for funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Dems agree to remove or significantly push back the required pullout date, and in exchange, the Republicans accept a ban on all torture and a set of readiness conditions for the troops to be required before sending any of them to war. Sounds pretty good to me - its at least progress in some way. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi is saying no to that compromise, and now even Murtha is backpedaling away from it. No word on if the White House would even have accepted such restrictions anyway. Again, our government has become so polarized that it is incapable of compromise. Link to story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 The Dems are REALLY furious these days and I would be if I was in their position as well. They have failed to do anything concrete to end the war since taking office, which is getting them killed among the leftist, anti-war wing of their party. Additionally, they are being forced to eat buckets of crow for judging the surge strategy before it even started and lo and behold.........it's working! Now they're in the awkward position of defending their blindly defeatist statements even in the face of growing military success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts