Why aren't the Bush daughters in Iraq?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Why aren't the Bush daughters in Iraq?

Because they didn't enlist.

You can make all the claims you want about what they "Shoulda done". But for all your bitching about their lack of service....Did you? I did.

They are not in Iraq for the same reasons that most wealthy peoples children are not...They didn't need the opportunities the military can provide.

Bringing up the fact they are not serving is nothing more than dragging them around to try and attack their dad. And thats pathetic. I can understand trying to attack GWB's service, but to attack his kids is just lame.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

They are not in Iraq for the same reasons that most wealthy peoples children are not...They didn't need the opportunities the military can provide.

Hm. I'd forgotten how impoverished John McCain and Prince Harry's mom What's-Her-Name are.
I suppose Darryl Tillman's multi-mullion dollar contract was just a myth, too.
Leadership is best done by example.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

They are not in Iraq for the same reasons that most wealthy peoples children are not...They didn't need the opportunities the military can provide.

Hm. I'd forgotten how impoverished John McCain and Prince Harry's mom What's-Her-Name are.

Apparently you have selective vision. Did you not read the part where is says MOST wealthy peoples children.

[Zipp0 1]

But Barbara is the hotness!

[inline barbara.jpg]

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

This is one of the dumbest articles I have ever read. The concept of an all volunteer force seems to elude the author. The purported 'party of choice' apparently doesn't think the President's family should have a choice in joining the Armed Forces.

The mere fact that GWB's detractors can publish such a pathetic attack article in any major newspaper, even one as blatantly liberal as the LA TIMES, is a testament to the sad state of education in America.

Fucktards.

What I think is an even greater testament to the sad state of education today is that anyone would believe such an article is indicative of the state of education, and not the state of the media.

Having said that, I think the article was a fair criticism.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,063]

>They didn't need the opportunities the military can provide.

Yep. I hear their families get a quite generous funeral subsidy. And for those that do return, good medical care. (See one such lucky guy below.)

[akarunway 1]

Quote

>They didn't need the opportunities the military can provide.

Yep. I hear their families get a quite generous funeral subsidy. And for those that do return, good medical care. (See one such lucky guy below.)

I'm way against this war but that's just wrong

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[HillerMyLife 0]

That is a seriously fucked up thing to post. Whats wrong with you man??

On another note I don't really buy the whole, "If you didn't serve, you don't get to have an opinion" stance. Even though I did, and have to deployed to Iraq.

To the OP...Yeah most of us get the point that if GW's daughters were in Iraq, we'd be looking to end this in a hurry. Some are just choosing to hide behind the "playing dumb" sign. If their being honest with themselves then they get it.

Someday Never Comes

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>They didn't need the opportunities the military can provide.

Yep. I hear their families get a quite generous funeral subsidy. And for those that do return, good medical care. (See one such lucky guy below.)

That is a totally fuck-up thing to say.

.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

>They didn't need the opportunities the military can provide.

Yep. I hear their families get a quite generous funeral subsidy. And for those that do return, good medical care. (See one such lucky guy below.)

That is a totally fuck-up thing to say.

.

Was I the only one who saw a sarcasm tag around what he was saying? I'm pretty sure he meant approximately the opposite of what he said.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

This is idiotic and short sighted. The Bush daughters would do about as much good in Iraq as Paris Hilton.

I'd guess their parents are largely to blame for that.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Oh really! And just how do you raise your children to volunteer to join the military??

By example? By instilling a sense of duty? With what the country has given them, I'd say they kinda owe it something in return.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Yep. I hear their families get a quite generous funeral subsidy. And for those that do return, good medical care. (See one such lucky guy below.)

Lame, sad, and pathetic of you. How about we mention the 100's of thousands that used the GI Bill to get a better education?

Those that got job training?

No, instead you will take the low road.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh really! And just how do you raise your children to volunteer to join the military??

By example? By instilling a sense of duty? With what the country has given them, I'd say they kinda owe it something in return.

Blues,
Dave

Hmm. Does one have to serve in Iraq to give something in return? I'm sure that if GWB's daughters were somehow forced into the military and then sent to Iraq, he'd be doing what he could to stop the war.

If they CHOSE to serve because of their "sense of duty," then I hope he wouldn't try to end the war simply because their service put them in harm's way.

As far as I'm aware, nobody's been forced to serve in the military during this conflict. If people were being drafted into service and his children were excluded while others' children were not, then I'd be bothered by them not serving. As it is, it's just a silly thing to try to make an issue of.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Hm. I'd forgotten how impoverished John McCain and Prince Harry's mom What's-Her-Name are.
I suppose Darryl Tillman's multi-mullion dollar contract was just a myth, too.
Leadership is best done by example.

I said most. You seem to have some reading problems...Look at getting glasses.

Also, I guess you think the Clintons didn't do a good job either. I don't see their little girl over there either.

And I guess Al Gore didn't either since his kids are not in Iraq.

And before you start trying to say GWB did a bad job since his girls acted stupid...Remember Al Gore III was arested for Pot http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/12/20/gore.son/

[livendive 8]

Quote

As far as I'm aware, nobody's been forced to serve in the military during this conflict. If people were being drafted into service and his children were excluded while others' children were not, then I'd be bothered by them not serving. As it is, it's just a silly thing to try to make an issue of.

Actually, I agree. I was just playing devil's advocate because I think it is good parents who make good children. Our President is such a fucktard in so many other respects, the fact that his daughters haven't joined his war doesn't even come close to blipping on my radar.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[SkyProdigy 0]

lets see, because its a volunteer force. strongest volunteer force. and women do not see battle anyways

[livendive 8]

Quote

Also, I guess you think the Clintons didn't do a good job either. I don't see their little girl over there either.

And I guess Al Gore didn't either since his kids are not in Iraq.

Refresh my memory...when was it that Clinton and Gore got us into this war?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[HillerMyLife 0]

Even stupider reply dude!!! Yeah its the all volunteer force but women sure in the hell have seen combat...I think what you were trying to say is that women can't have combat related jobs in the military. However if you don't think women see battle then why isn't their only men on the KIA/WIA list??

Mortars, RPG's, small arms fire don't discriminate. Neither do the shitheads behind those weapons...

Someday Never Comes

[freethefly 6]

Quote

As far as I'm aware, nobody's been forced to serve in the military during this conflict.

Not picking on you, Lindsey. Just using your statement as it is similar to what others have stated.
Personally, I feel GWB's daughter have every right to do as they please. Yet, I am tired of hearing GWB saying that this war is the calling of this generation and trying to liken it to WW2 as if going to Iraq is the greatest thing a young person can do today and by doing so, they are saving the whole world.
The stop-loss program does force people to serve in war beyond their active duty status and some beyond their eight year commitment. Not exactly an entirely volunteer army

Army Stop-Loss Program Forces 50,000 into Extended Duty
By James Joyner
The AP has discovered the Army’s Stop-Loss policy, which is hardly news to those who have been paying attention. The sheer scope of the program might be somewhat surprising, however.

The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called “stop-loss,” but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat. The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits.

“As the war in Iraq drags on, the Army is accumulating a collection of problems that cumulatively could call into question the viability of an all-volunteer force,” said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank. “When a service has to repeatedly resort to compelling the retention of people who want to leave, you’re edging away from the whole notion of volunteerism.”

When soldiers enlist, they sign a contract to serve for a certain number of years, and know precisely when their service obligation ends so they can return to civilian life. But stop-loss allows the Army, mindful of having fully manned units, to keep soldiers on the verge of leaving the military. Under the policy, soldiers who normally would leave when their commitments expire must remain in the Army, starting 90 days before their unit is scheduled to depart, through the end of their deployment and up to another 90 days after returning to their home base.

Congressional critics have assailed stop-loss, and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry called it “a back-door draft.” The United States abolished the draft in 1973, but the all-volunteer military never before has been tested by a protracted war.

A report commissioned by the Pentagon called stop-loss a “short-term fix” enabling the Army to meet ongoing troop deployment requirements, but said such policies “risk breaking the force as recruitment and retention problems mount.” It was written by Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer. Thompson added, “The persistent use of stop-loss underscores the fact that the war-fighting burden is being carried by a handful of soldiers while the vast majority of citizens incur no sacrifice at all.”

Stop-loss certainly does undermine the voluntary nature of military service and it is no doubt unfair to force those who have already sacrificed to give even more. There is, however, no ready alternative. Sending units to war shorthanded or with last-minute replacements is too big a risk.

Further, there are two categories of people involved: those who have completed their entire service obligation and thos who have not. While soldiers enlist for periods of two, three, or four years of active duty, all thereby commit to eight years of total service. During ordinary circumstances, those remaining years can be served in the Reserve Component, including the non-drilling Individual Ready Reserve. While unfortunate, forcing those who still have several years’ obligation to stay on active duty is not “a back-door draft.”

The Army has, however, tried to stop-loss people in beyond their eight years. That is unconscionable in an all-volunteer force.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[HillerMyLife 0]

Aside from your final point, the rest is pure tripe. When you enlist in the active duty military you sign up for 4 years of active and 4 more of the Inactive Ready Reserve. Its in the contract...

In other words you should know what your getting yourself into because its right there in front of your face. If you don't then you just signed something you shouldn't have, and you have no one to blame but yourself. Bottom line.

Someday Never Comes

[DJL 235]

Quote

>They didn't need the opportunities the military can provide.

Yep. I hear their families get a quite generous funeral subsidy. And for those that do return, good medical care. (See one such lucky guy below.)

Sorry Bill, that's a pretty narrowminded way to reply for someone with your brain bucket. That completely ignores the big picture of why and the circumstances in which someone joins the military and all you did was point-pick with the the most severe example you could find.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Guest]

This is nothing but a trash piece, and unworthy of discussion.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Lindsey 0]

Our President is such a fucktard



Our President is such a fucktard



Our President is such a fucktard

Yes. Unfortunately, he is. It's sad reality.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

As far as I'm aware, nobody's been forced to serve in the military during this conflict.

Not picking on you, Lindsey. Just using your statement as it is similar to what others have stated.

Not picking you either (seriously), but you've posted a few things that I see differently, that's all.

Quote

Yet, I am tired of hearing GWB saying that this war is the calling of this generation and trying to liken it to WW2 as if going to Iraq is the greatest thing a young person can do today and by doing so, they are saving the whole world.

While I agree that this is not the struggle of the ages, the middle east is in dire need. From Morocco to Iran, a civilization is in a serious state of decline. However, it is clear to me that "we" are not a nation at war. No one is sacrificing anything in this conflict. It's a double-edged sword. You need everyone going to work, and school to keep the country running, but while everyone is "going on with their lives", a huge majority of the US is not "invovled" in any part, in support or protest of this war.

Quote

The stop-loss program does force people to serve in war beyond their active duty status and some beyond their eight year commitment. Not exactly an entirely volunteer army

Like the article cites: This isn't news and yes, we did volunteer for it. It's in nice big letters on the contract what our commitment to serving in the armed forces are and that our obligation is not iron clad to an eight-year stint, especially if on active duty status.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!