Support for the war in Iraq is eroding away very rapidly indeed. Look at the US news headlines every single day and you can see that. Only a blind man could possibly miss the trends. It's a slow, steady erosion, and it will pick up speed as time goes on.
It took a while for the draft to get rolling during the Vietnam war, too. Several years, in fact. And it took even longer for the antiwar movement to get rolling, and to finally end the war and the draft. Everybody turned against the war in the end. After just a couple short years NOBODY wanted to fight in Vietnam anymore, certainly not willingly.
Recruiting for Vietnam was just fine for those first couple years too, but then it quickly began to drop like a rock, and in virtually no time at all recruiting dropped right through the floor. Soon everybody that was in the military was trying to get out of the military, and everybody else was trying to get out of being drafted, and damned few ever volunteered
after that first year or two of the war. The draft simply became an absolute necessity back then, just as it will very soon become a necessity with this equally pointless war in Iraq as well.
This war in Iraq is now going exactly the same way Vietnam did, only
much, much faster.
Give it some time, genius. You'll see that I'm right soon enough. If you're really keeping your eyes open you can see the signs all around you right now. The old familiar patterns are beginning to emerge everywhere you look. Read your Vietnam history while you're waiting for it all to come up to speed around you.
If Bush stays in office for another term the war will just go on and on. Bush has promised us all that much, many times. And if public support continues to fade away the draft will eventually
have to begin. Nobody will want to go there just to die for a "lost cause" anymore. We will be forced to either draft people to go fight there, or we will have to abandon Iraq entirely, and Bush says he will never allow that to happen. We'll see.
I hope you're ready to put your ass (and your life) where your mouth is, genius. If you live here in the US and you're under 25 years of age you will be prime draft-meat yourself before too very much longer. As you should be. If you support the war in Iraq you
should volunteer to go fight there yourself, and truly
prove your support for the President and his war. Why wait to be drafted anyway, unless you're a fuckin' coward? Look at Pat Tillman! Emulate him. If you aren't willing to put your
own ass where your mouth is then you're really nothing but a hypocrite, aren't you?
Support Bush = Join the Army
yourself, and go fight for him. Uncle Sam Needs You! Right Now! Quick, before we loose! Bring the joys of democracy, capitalism, Coke and Playboy to those poor, oppressed Iraqi's! Go give your
own life so that those poor Iraqi's can be free! It's the patriotic thing to do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AP News - March 4 - 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq probably will continue to be unstable and violent for more than a year, U.S. commanders said Tuesday in announcing plans to keep the current level of 135,000 American troops there through the end of next year [2005].
The decision acknowledges Iraq is much more dangerous than generals had hoped earlier this year, when they planned to cut the number of occupying troops to about 115,000.
Since then, violence by Sunni and Shiite Muslim extremists has surged, making April the deadliest month for American troops since the March 2003 invasion. Several U.S. allies also have decided to pull their forces out, most notably Spain, which had about 2,300 troops in one of the most volatile areas of south-central Iraq.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday ordered about 10,000 active-duty Army soldiers and Marines to prepare to ship out to Iraq in the next few months.
They will help replace 20,000 soldiers in the Army's 1st Armored Division and 2nd Armored Calvary Regiment who were being kept in Iraq for as long as three months past their one-year tours of duty.
Another 10,000 active-duty troops will be called up to fill out the replacement forces, Rumsfeld said.
Keeping such high troop levels in Iraq will further strain a military already stretched thin. All or part of nine of the Army's ten divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. Some analysts and retired generals say the Pentagon has to either expand the military or reduce its worldwide commitments.
"I think we can handle the tempo," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton Schwartz, the director of operations for the Pentagon's Joint Staff. "It is demanding, no question about it. But I haven't come to the conclusion that we need to grow the force yet."
The troops coming into Iraq will be more heavily armed than the forces they replace, with more tanks, armored personnel carriers and armored Humvees, said Schwartz and Army Lt. Gen. Richard Cody.
"The mission remains essentially the same. It's security and stability," Schwartz told reporters at the Pentagon.
Many of the troops being sent to Iraq have served there or in Afghanistan before. They will return to a country where ambushes and roadside bombs are more common and the political situation is unstable, with the United States set to hand limited power to a yet-unnamed Iraqi caretaker government on July 1.
The active-duty units ordered to Iraq Tuesday include the 2nd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y. The Marine units are the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit from Camp Pendleton, Calif., and the 24th MEU from Camp Lejeune, N.C.
The 10th Mountain Division has units in both Iraq and Afghanistan. About 25,000 Marines already are in Iraq, many of them in and around the volatile city of Fallujah.
Rumsfeld also approved sending 37,000 support troops to Iraq on Tuesday as part of the scheduled rotation of forces. Most of those troops are in National Guard and Army Reserve units.
A U.S.-based Army airborne brigade will be ready starting Friday to handle any emergency, Cody said.
Cody said commanders have decided which units they want to use for the main force in Iraq during the next year, but all of the active-duty units have not yet been notified.
Three enhanced separate brigades from the National Guard already are preparing to go to Iraq: The 256th from Louisiana, the 116th from Idaho and the 278th from Tennessee.
Keeping 20,000 more troops in Iraq will require more money, Schwartz said. Pentagon officials say they have not decided whether to ask Congress for additional money before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D82C2L8G0.html |
Now, when I say "Read between the lines" I assume you're smart enough to do so. Suppose you're one of these soldiers. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute:
Assume that you joined the Army or the Marines or the Guard or the Reserve for 4 years. Assume that you spend the first year stateside, in training. The second year you spend in Afghanistan. You are only supposed to be in Afghanistan for one year, but they extend you for three months (tough shit for your family back home, btw, so sorry) and then later for yet another 3 months. You're there for a year-and-a-half, total.
Finally you're going home again - they "promise" you that it'll be for at least 12 months. Minimum. By now you've done 2 1/2 years of your enlistment. If it was for 4 years you still have 1 1/2 years left to do. You're home for only 6 months and then you're told you're going
back to either Afghanistan or Iraq for another "one year" tour - six months ahead of the "promised" 12-months-off schedule. Off you go, now! Don't complain!
You do another year over there somewhere. Now you've been in the service for 4 years, and you've been getting shot at in the Middle East for 2 1/2 of those years. Your time in the service is up and you can get out and go home if you want. Oh-no! They "involuntarily" extend your 4-year enlistment for six additional months! Can they legally do that? Well, they just did! Too bad for you and your plans! You're there for another six months and that's that!
At last your time in the service is finally up. You signed up for 4 years and you did four-and-a-half, with three years of that in a combat zone. What do you do? Reenlist and stay in, or cut your losses and get the hell out?
I think that there is soon going to be a
mass flood of guys opting for getting out of the service, while they still can, the first chance they get. A lot of those guys over there are just now becoming eligible for discharge, or will very soon. And when they come home they'll be telling stories that would make any other sane person try their damndest to avoid having those same experiences themselves. Just like Bush did his best to avoid the experience of Vietman himself. So did Cheney. So did Rumsfeld. So did Wolfowitz. They weren't stupid! They knew better than to go into the military
themselves! Everybody knew better! Only idiots like Kerry and draftees went to Vietnam, in the end. And Iraq will become exactly the same.
If the guys that are in the service now
stay in they know they'll be spending 3 out of every 4 years in some dusty, godforsaken hellhole that's not even
remotely worth fighting over, let alone giving their lives for. And they know they'll be stuck doing the same thing again and again over the remainder of their military careers, or until they are killed; whichever comes first.
It's an absolute no-brainer. Nobody wants to die for nothing.
So we will need a LOT of fresh meat pretty soon here...within the next two years, tops.
Give it some time, genius. You'll see.
obviously you haven't changed much...
