6.1% unemployment don't complain.

[marine]

out of high school and 18 months in the military...


so out of high school
2 months in basic training (3 months for the corps)
10 days leave
1-4 months of training for a specific job to do in the military
1 month leave en route to your first duty station
5 months - arrive at duty station and spend the time learning your way around, learning your job and your unit, and how to do your job properly, etc etc.

thats 12 months right there

Now back plan... 1 month for check out procedures and separation physicals and anything else.

so you have 5 months in an actual job you are being "productive" at before you leave.


Sounds like a great way to run a business.

 

[djv]

Marine I understand all of that. Back when I went in 18 months to 2 years was a very normal tour. I would rather get something out of them other then the street corner. Heck you and I pay for them standing there with some dam program. At least put em to work. I know most cant make it to front line people. In fact I always get a charge out of some that talk so tough. There the ones I remember piss in there paints in just the first day. DI have away of finding most of them out fast.

 

[marine]

SO you are saying to put the ones who volunteer for the military on the front lines and put the ones who really dont want to be there in the safer, less violent and harsh world in the rear?

Sounds pretty fair to me.
:shrug:

 

[djv]

No I think you know im not saying that. There are many that join on there own that are not heck lot better then some that wont. The first 8 to 10 weeks should wash up the best ones for the rite duties. Service seems to know who to put where. Theres always a good Sargent or a Captain waiting to be found. They just may not know it them selfs till after there in. Forsure the Marines/Army shoud do as they have for years. For those who never know one end of a weapon from the other. Better find a desk or hospital for them to work at or in.

 

[ferdville]

I am not a George Bush fan, but here is some food for thought about the overall integrity and truthfullness of politicians in general.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." S - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,
1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.
Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi
(D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19,
2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd
(D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,
2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap
ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary
Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob
Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Yes -- and Bush lied too.

 

[djv]

You have it best I have seen.
If I had time I would add all those from the right that said same thing. It shows no one new forsure. We invaded when we did not have to. Maybe some day we might have had to. But so far we proved none of the things mentioned above are true. And now were throwing money away like it grows on trees.

 

[ferdville]

And the money is not going to stop coming soon. This will be long term, outrageously costly project, and frankly, no one really knows whether it was necessary or not. I am all in favor or ridding the world of mass murders like Hussein, but when considering the price we are paying in lives as well as dollars, maybe it should have been thought out better. But it is easy to Monday morning quarterback.

 

[Chanman]

Ferdville: Long time- no see, your posts.

Always good to read your opinions. Do you think Mcclintock should step aside? Oh Yeah and all of the above...Chan

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

On the cost of the war---Since Iraq holds the 2nd largest oil reserves why don't we simply "lend" them the money to provide moderninzing and construction of Iraq with future oil proceeds as collateral. We got the technology thet got the oil, a win/win situation.
Yeh I know--too simple and logical:shrug:
---and don't think that it wouldn't get OPEC's attention!!!!

 

[Blitz]

Great Post Ferdville, It seems to me that most of the Democratic party has developed Alzheimer's Disease when it comes to remembering what they said before about Iraq!!

Where did you get those quotes?
If you know of a website that has all of them please post...

 

[StevieD]

There seems to be a lot of that Alzheimer's Disease going around. Of course if things were going good in Iraq we would posting statements made by the Dems who were against invading. You guys break me up!

 

[Chanman]

WTF StevieD? Oh Yeah! Well what about, ---errr I mean *sigh*

Yeah well if Clinton or her husband was still in that is a- hmmmm * looks perplexed*

Alright I'll give you that, BUT .............DAMN.

And don't forget it!

 

[Chanman]

Blitz- you might like to look@

http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15796

 

[Turfgrass]

Last night I watched a tape of yesterday's Meet the Press telecast. Tim Russert had Condoleezza Rice on the air, Bush's National Security Advisor. Russert gets about 45 minutes of actual air time during one of these programs ... the other minutes go to pay the bills. For the first one-quarter of the broadcast Russert hammered Rice on Bush's now infamous 16 words in his State of the Union Address. You remember the words ... Bush said that British intelligence had learned that Saddam had tried to buy some uranium from Africa. That statement is factually correct. British intelligence had, in fact, made just such an assessment.

In 1991 our security analysts felt that Saddam would have a workable nuclear weapon by the end of the decade, if, that is, something wasn't done to stop him. It was also know for a certainty that Saddam had previously purchased uranium from Niger. In 1998 Saddam Hussein kicked the inspectors out of Iraq. From 1998 until 2002, a period of four years, there were no inspections in Iraq. Saddam had a free reign to act. During this period America was attacked. Other attacks had been planned but were averted, one by an alert female Philippine policewoman who because suspicious when told of some firecrackers that had gone off in a Manila apartment.

So ... here's your scenario. You're the president, and here is the information you have:

America is under attack. Islamic terrorists were actively trying to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.

There was and is evidence that Saddam Hussein was supporting Islamic terrorists. Saddam himself was making a big show of writing checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

You know that Saddam Hussein had both chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

You know that Saddam had already killed thousands of Iranians and Kurds with his chemical weapons.

You know that Saddam had begun one nuclear program, using uranium from Africa. That program was slowed when Israeli fighter jets destroyed his nuclear facility in 1986.

Saddam had ignored 12 years of United Nations resolutions calling for him to destroy all of the equipment and materials connected with his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, and to present evidence to the UN that he had done so.

In 1998 Saddam ended all inspections in Iraq. During the very time that terrorist attacks against the United States were reaching a new peak, and during this time you have no way of figuring out what Saddam is up to within his own borders.

You know that Saddam hates the United States and has a particular hatred for your father, the first President Bush.

You firmly believe that if Saddam managed to develop a nuclear device, he could, in all probability, make that device available to a terrorist organization.

You also know that our security efforts at our borders and ports would be complete ineffective in detecting and stopping a nuclear device from entering this country.

So, what do you do? With that information can you really afford to sit back and just watch Saddam? Can Saddam be watched that closely? Could Saddam be watched closely enough to insure that he would not place either chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the hands of any terrorist group? This man, Saddam Hussein, was absolutely refusing to abide by any of the 17 UN resolutions. The burden of proof had been on Saddam. Prove that you have destroyed your weapons. Show us how you did it. Show us where you did it. Give us the documentation. Show us that those weapons and those weapons systems are gone and we'll leave you alone. Bus Saddam refused.

You're the president here, and you have two possible screw-ups you can commit. You can attack Saddam and then fail to find those weapons of mass destruction. Or, you can give Saddam more time and then try to explain to the American people why a nuclear device was detonated in the center of Chicago, or why thousands were killed when a poison gas was spread throughout the New York Subway system.

Which mistake do you want? Which screw-up do you want to explain to the American people? Do you really want to try to explain to the American people that after Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998 that you thought he went on and did just exactly what the UN had demanded of him, and then didn't tell anybody?

Sometimes there are no really good choices. Sometimes you have to chose between two options on the basis of which one would lead to the worst consequences, not necessarily the best result. True leaders can make those decisions. Demagogues cannot.

 

[acehistr8]

Sometimes there are no really good choices. Sometimes you have to chose between two options on the basis of which one would lead to the worst consequences, not necessarily the best result. True leaders can make those decisions. Demagogues cannot.

Great post, and great quote.

 

[djv]

I have noticed that Rice Gal is everywhere I see Bush. You don't think we have another Pres with alittle hanky panky going on. There been enough of them over last 50 yeasr. One more would not surprise me.
I also see many republican congressmen even opening there mouths on all the money asked for. DTB you have great idea. Get the oil up and runing ful time and start taking a billion a mounth to pay off the loan to us. I can only hope our law makkers agree on this type of program.
When you see as I said in another post. 226 new schools are going to be built with around 9 billion of this money. Well I dont remember us bombing any schools or hospitals.

 

[ssd]

DJV:
We didn't destroy any hospitals or schools. We are trying to rebuild a country and a society. The entire infrastructure over there is in shambles. Hussein spent all the money on himself and his palaces. This will work if we rebuild the schools, the hospitals, the power grid, the oil fields. They need to have a stable economy and a stable society to make democracy work.
I'm tired of hearing Annan and other world leaders condemn us for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. It was not pre-emptive. This was a continuation of the Persian Gulf War. Hussein broke 17 UN resolutions that had resulted in a CEASE_FIRE in the Persian Gulf War. If the UN or any other nation besides the US would've had the inititative to act rather that debate this fact, Iraq would've been invaded 10 years ago. I don't know why people fail to see this and why it took us 10 years to act on this?

I didn't vote for Bush the first time around. I'm glad he won. I don't always agree with his policies. But he has integrity and he stands by his principles. I do not think he lied. I think he made his decisions based on the info in front of him. Perhaps that info was faulty. Don't blame the man for trying to change our international image from conscending push-over to "not to be messed with". We will all be better for it. You have to look past this month and next year and try to see what effects this will have in the future.

 

[djv]

SSD where do wish we go next. There are many countries that need new schools and hospitals. Most dont have any oil or other resources. But they have the same need. Would you suggest we just start going country to country. And maybe we can include the USA. Im still trying to remember who invited us to fix Iraq in the first place. You mention the UN. I know the UN did not ask us to do anything in Iraq.