Would you Encourage or Discourage your Child to Enlist?

[H2Andy]

No other country (public) moans as loud as the US about gas prices...and they are lower than other country's

because we don't tax the crap out of gas like you guys do ....

that's called "being smart"

now, cut back your taxes and stop paying out the nose for gas

you're saying "hahaha you dumb Americans.... you pay a lot less for gas than we do... hahahaha... how dumb is that???"

pretty funny stuff

 

[AXL72]

andy...you should change back to your tough guy image.

that new avatar seems too whimpy. your previous image looked like you were gonna open a major can of whoop@$$

 

[fairybasslet]

How about the job corps, the peace corps, etc. Maybe that is not an option. Otherwise the Coast Guard, Navy, or Air Force might help.
son.

He thought about the air force. He would never do the job or corps. He likes guns. In fact, he wants to be a military police. :11: If you knew him, you would see how ironic that is.

 

[H2Andy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524...ical_gear_5;_ylt=Aug6DBKqESIBMqJ.mbwKMY0E1vAI

remember when General Zinni said we needed 300,000 troops to secure Iraq? he was ignored, and we went in with a little over half that ... way to go .. because Donald Rumsfeld, a civilian, thought he knew better than the career generals under his command...


One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high-tech weapons.

How many troops did Zinni’s plan call for? “We were much in line with Gen. Shinseki's view,” says Zinni. “We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.”

What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead of 180,000?

“I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country,” says Zinni.

“The first requirement is to freeze the situation, is to gain control of the security. To patrol the streets. To prevent the looting. To prevent the 'revenge' killings that might occur. To prevent bands or gangs or militias that might not have your best interests at heart from growing or developing.”

Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn't anticipated the level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

because of the inadequate force, the conditions for this power vaccum and horrific violence were created -- they were not there before the US hit the ground in Iraq

and remember when the troops went in without adequate body armor?

and later, when the vehicles did not have the appropriate armor to survive IED's?

and now the supply systems are strained ... and our troops are not getting what they need ...

i suppose that's what is meant by supporting our troops... send them in a ill-conceived mission, in insufficient numbers, without adequate protection, refuse to admit that the situation can not be handled with the forces at hand, and that it's all a waste of life, and call anyone who objects anti-American

and that's about all i have to say about that

 

[Cacia]

somewhere?

does the name Haliburton ring any bells?

i don't want my children dead so Cheney's old pals can get the oil contracts in Iraq

don't get me wrong ... Afghanistan was necessary. the Taliban were harboring someone who had attacked America.

not so Iraq. Iraq was a total miscarriage of American foreign policy, and it has weakened and hurt us around the world, inflamed sentiments against us, and is in the process of training a cadre of terrorists in training camps far better than anything in Afghanistan

we also removed Iran's greatest check in the region, and thus strengthened Iran at a time when we ourselves are over-stretched militarily. and with Iran set to get a nuclear weapon, the will of the American people to get involved in the region again is at an all-time low.

Iraq was a huge mistake, and no amount of flag waving can change that. the Bush administration made a huge mistake, and our young men and women are paying with it with blood and their lives.

I really hope you are getting behind voting in somebody with a good plan. Because I am anxiously anticipating how you guys do.

Because you have such honorable candidates that have no interest in money.

This malcontentness so many people have about government and corruption is not exactly painting a golden path to better options.

It is easy to not participate, be well read, and pick apart every body else's actions in an attempt to do the right thing to protect this country and democracy.

This is naive perhaps, but do you really think a guy like Cheney whose heart crapped out twenty years ago and is likely to drop dead any day is just motivated by money?

Cause, that just has never added up to me. And Bush seems less motivated by money than that other cast of characters up there in Washington.

I don't see how you can be "against everybody"

So...who..is doing anything acceptable?

 

[H2Andy]

all of that is irrelevant

given the circumstances of the Iraq war, if my child came to me and said, "should i join up?" i would say no

-- not enough troops to do the job
--not the right kind of supplies to protect you
--no hope of ever making your death mean anything in a war that was a mistake
--a pull-out sooner or later (why should you die in the meantime?)


hell no, kid ... stay at home. it's a lost cause.

 

[scubafool]

OK, now that this thread bears no resemblance to it's original topic, I will attempt to answer the original question.

I have an 11 year old son. He amazes me almost daily with his intelligence, his creativity, & his consideration for and love of other people. Just the thought of seeing him put on a uniform and climb on a bus to go to war, and then never come back home to me, makes me sick with fear.

I have no idea if the current conflict will still be ongoing in 6 or 7 years. I do believe that what is termed the "war on terror" will be, though. If my son were to choose to risk his life for a cause, that would be a worthy cause.

If I felt that he was truly enlisting to fight for that cause, and had a good idea of what he was getting into, I would support him and be proud and sick and scared all at the same time.

 

[cdiver2]

because we don't tax the crap out of gas like you guys do ....

that's called "being smart"

now, cut back your taxes and stop paying out the nose for gas

you're saying "hahaha you dumb Americans.... you pay a lot less for gas than we do... hahahaha... how dumb is that???"

pretty funny stuff

All the P&M by you guys when gas go's up?. And it will go up big time when you pull out without finishing it. Yes sir a two tank dive will cost you $200 :11:

Don't do anything and then P&M when it go's up now thats dumb

 

[scubafool]

all of that is irrelevant

If it is irrelevant, why did you bring it up in post #269?

I keep hearing this line about this war being only about the money and fattening CEO's wallets, war for oil, etc, ad infinitum. Where is some credible evidence to support that?

Call the war a mistake if you like, there is a solid factual basis for such a claim. But at least be consistent with the reason for your opposition.

 

[Cacia]

all of that is irrelevant

No, it is not. Because my values are that if you benefit from the United States of America, a country that people are dying to get in to for the priviledge, then if you do not support those in power, then you have a responsibility to put another party in. I haven't hear any plan B, from any one, only why water under the bridge was a collossal failure. So that is what I would tell my son or daughter, be part of a solution, any solution that you believe in.

See, I actually have some respect for Al Queda because at least they stand behind what they say and are not living off the fat of some land, enjoying the status quo, and not taking any action. I can even see why they might hate us, from their perspective. But at some point people have to pick a side. (or not, I guess it's an option to not be relevant) You think everybody is corrupt? Then pick the least corrupt and move forward...