Democrats killing soldiers

flavio said:
They're quoting Stars & Stripes, MSNBC, and AP articles.
Click to expand...
Why didn't you quote some from them?
It seems it would give more validity than just putting up a site with a known agenda. :confused:
 
flavio said:
Soldiers & Marines are saying upon exit that they are specifically against the war in Iraq. Hell, they even have their own website....

Clinton didn't have this kind of soldier protest or the recruitig problems...
Click to expand...


okay
 
catocom said:
Why didn't you quote some from them?
It seems it would give more validity than just putting up a site with a known agenda. :confused:
Click to expand...
I think most of my quotes were actually from those sources. This site has collected a lot of the information and clearly states their source of info.

It's not like I'm quoting World Net Daily or something here.
 
flavio said:
It's not like I'm quoting World Net Daily or something here.
Click to expand...

The stories all have merit (I do ignore teh Farrah stuff) & have proven true.
 
flavio said:
I think most of my quotes were actually from those sources. This site has collected a lot of the information and clearly states their source of info.

It's not like I'm quoting World Net Daily or something here.
Click to expand...


One of the articles claims success for something...namely the exposure of US forces using WP...

But Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said it probably would fall into the category of chemical weapons if it was used directly against people.
Click to expand...

Source quoted by your site...

Too bad they never denied that...just the use of Chemical Weapons...
Nice to know that the facts are there, with no axes to grind, right? :rolleyes:

As for SPC Jashinski...

1. Shooting a weapon at a target does not go against being a conscientious objector. Shooting another person does.

2. If she was so set against the main job of the Army, why did she join in the first place? She was all for accepting the pay and benefits before the war, so why the change now?

3. Her superiors do not believe her story. While I sympathize, I don't either. She waited til the orders were in the works to decide she had a higher calling.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Right here.
Click to expand...
That doesn't disprove even one single fact I posted.

....and your statement "The only service not meeting their recruiting goal, so far, is the Army" is contradicted by the department of defense who seem to think the Army, the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Navy Reserve and Air National Guard all missed their recruiting goals.
 
flavio said:
That doesn't disprove even one single fact I posted.

....and your statement "The only service not meeting their recruiting goal, so far, is the Army" is contradicted by the department of defense who seem to think the Army, the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Navy Reserve and Air National Guard all missed their recruiting goals.
Click to expand...


I didn't count the reserve and guard programs since most of their people come from the active duty, and not the street. That, to me, means more people are opting to leave totally at the end of their commitment.
 
flavio said:
I think most of my quotes were actually from those sources. This site has collected a lot of the information and clearly states their source of info.

It's not like I'm quoting World Net Daily or something here.
Click to expand...
I have to admit, I don't really know, and haven't reseached it, and really don't
care if the numbers 'might' be slightly low.
But, I'm wondering, were the other news orgs quoted from the News section, or the commentary section?

Also...(repeat) DO you know how many members that site has?
 
flavio said:
I don't see too many quotes in there supporting the current invasion. Turns out the inspection route was working pretty well. Bush just gave everybody a big scare with his bogus intelligence the further the agenda he had before he even got in office.
Click to expand...


Yes, the inspection route was working---but working in whose favor?
 
catocom said:
I have to admit, I don't really know, and haven't reseached it, and really don't
care if the numbers 'might' be slightly low.
But, I'm wondering, were the other news orgs quoted from the News section, or the commentary section?

Also...(repeat) DO you know how many members that site has?
Click to expand...
:stfu:


Had to find something to use this on. :evilcool:
 
Good one Cat!

Yeah just like the Demorat commie bastardos were on the
side of Victor Charlie, they are on the side of the AIF's

nuthin's changed

'cept mebbe this time 'we' will win?
 
catocom said:
But, I'm wondering, were the other news orgs quoted from the News section, or the commentary section?
Click to expand...
Was this a question for me? Are you talking about the other news orgs quoted in counterrecruiter?

Also...(repeat) DO you know how many members that site has?
Click to expand...
I tried to check for you but it seems they keep their member info pretty confidential. :shrug:

Feel free to go ahead and look around the sites yourself too.
 
flavio said:
Was this a question for me? Are you talking about the other news orgs quoted in counterrecruiter?


I tried to check for you but it seems they keep their member info pretty confidential. :shrug:

Feel free to go ahead and look around the sites yourself too.
Click to expand...
yeah it was for you. I didn't know if you missed it or what.
and
yeah the ones quoted on that site.
and
I figured they might. I figure it's only 1 or 2, and that's why.
I certainly don't think they represent a very large number at all.
That one little thing throws a big question mark up to me as far as their ethics, and validity.

I lurked around there quite a bit, and have no desire to go back.
 
catocom said:
yeah it was for you. I didn't know if you missed it or what.
and
yeah the ones quoted on that site.
Click to expand...
They quote several news orgs right on the page I linked originally.

An article in Stars and Stripes notes:
But the active-duty Army shortfall — they recruited about 4,000 fewer soldiers than in fiscal 2004 — is especially troubling because the service has already widened its recruit pool to accept older candidates and those with lower test scores, according to Mike Reilly, vice president of operations at the Center for Security Policy.

​
“You can’t compare these numbers to the ones from last year, because you have to understand what they did to get these new numbers,” he said. “They’ve really gone down more than just what the difference is.”

​
Click to expand...
Retired General Barry McCaffrey told Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown "Well, you know, we're having some very significant recruiting difficulties. There's no question." McCaffrey went on:
We're short 7,000 troops this year. Those are 7,000 privates that won't show up in our brigades next year, not 7,000 colonels. So, this is a tremendous shortfall. And it is even more significant and severe in the National Guard, which I think is starting to melt down.

​
Keith, the problem is the U.S. armed forces are at war. And so is the CIA, but the country is not at war. The recruiting challenge is principals, congressman, mayors and parents, not Marine and Army recruiting sergeants.

​
Click to expand...
AP article:
The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.
...
The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000. A gap of 7,000 enlistees would be the largest -- in absolute number as well as in percentage terms -- since 1979, according to Army records.
Click to expand...


Catocom said:
and
I figured they might. I figure it's only 1 or 2, and that's why.
I certainly don't think they represent a very large number at all.
That one little thing throws a big question mark up to me as far as their ethics, and validity.

I lurked around there quite a bit, and have no desire to go back.
Click to expand...
If you lurked around their quite a bit you'd have seen that there's more than 1 or 2 founding members. What reason would you have to question their ethics or validity or figure it was 1 or 2.

There's actually a couple other groups similar to this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top