Bush Tells Troops 'Much More Will Be Asked of You'

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...l_nm/bush_inaugural_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) told U.S. troops on Tuesday that "much more will be asked of you" in Iraq (news - web sites) and elsewhere as three days of ceremonies marking his inauguration got off to a somber beginning.

Bush is to be sworn in for a second four-year term at midday on Thursday on Capitol Hill and thousands of Republicans were flocking to Washington for the celebrations under extremely heavy security.

Police scrambled to handle an emergency a block away from the White House and near the planned route for the inaugural parade. Police surrounded a man in a van who claimed to have 15 gallons of gasoline and threatened to blow it up if he did not get his child back, the FBI (news - web sites) said.

"It's domestic, not terrorism," said an FBI spokeswoman.

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went to the MCI Center in Washington for an event called "Saluting Those Who Serve" that honored war veterans and the valor of the fallen in conflicts from the Revolutionary War to Iraq.

Among the 7,000 people in the audience were troops wounded in combat, 75 family members of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites) and as many as 80 winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military award. The event was beamed to troop gatherings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush told the troops that "much more will be asked of you in the months and years ahead."

"In Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberty that has been won at great cost now must be secured. We still face terrorist enemies who wish to harm our people, and are seeking weapons that would allow them to kill on an unprecedented scale. These enemies must be stopped, and you are the ones who will stop them."


"PROMISE OF LIBERTY"

The event included a number of tearful moments such as when Bush's father, former President Bush, read a letter he had written to his family after surviving the shooting down of his warplane by Japanese guns in 1944.

The decision to have the first official inaugural event honoring war veterans and those killed in war reflected the nature of Bush's first term, which was dominated by conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, prompting him to declare himself a "war president" a year ago.

Reflecting a theme for his inaugural address on Thursday, Bush said "the promise of liberty is spreading across the world" and cited Iraq's scheduled Jan. 30 elections, which insurgents are trying to derail with bloodshed.

"In coming days, the Iraqi people will have their chance to go to the polls, to begin the process of creating a democratic government that will answer to the people, instead of to a thug and a tyrant," he said.

Later, Bush hailed the spirit of volunteerism by attending a youth concert with the theme, "America's Future Rocks Today -- A Call to Service."

The $40 million inaugural events take place with polls showing Bush begins his second term without a clear mandate to lead the country.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll said 45 percent of those surveyed would prefer the country go in the direction Bush wanted to lead it, while 39 percent said Democrats should lead the way.

Democrats have vowed to fight many of his proposals. But Bush said his second term offered the chance for unity because "I'm no longer a threat politically."

"In other words, since I'm not going to run for office again people don't have to view me as a threat and hopefully that will enable people from both parties to come together to get some big things done for the country," he told Fox News.
In other words, follow in lock-step behind me or I'll sick Karl on you.

And the promise of liberty is marching across the world at the end of a rifle.

Too bad Bush can't do more *for* our troops, such as, oh, sending a 100,000+ more troops over there to secure the peace, train the Iraqis and get the fvck out. Nooo...can't have that.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
how much more can these troops sacrifice? They've already been stretched to the limits
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Haven't like 10% of our Military Commitment been Killed there in just under 2 years ?

130,000 deployed / 1,300 killed = 10% fatal attrition.

At this pace we loose another 600 - 700 this year - if things don't escalate,
and we'll be looking at a 15% KIA statistic by years end.

Vietnam didn't unravel as quickly as this mess is playing out.
We've already lost more in 2 years in Iraq than the first 6 years of 'Nam.
 

imported_tss4

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Haven't like 10% of our Military Commitment been Killed there in just under 2 years ?

130,000 deployed / 1,300 killed = 10% fatal attrition.

At this pace we loose another 600 - 700 this year - if things don't escalate,
and we'll be looking at a 15% KIA statistic by years end.

Vietnam didn't unravel as quickly as this mess is playing out.
We've already lost more in 2 years in Iraq than the first 6 years of 'Nam.

That's 1% of deployed killed, not 10%. I believe the 10% number you may have been hearing was reffering to casualties (injuries, not just deaths). I heard for every 1 death there there were about 9 injuries. Also the nature of the injuries was more severe due to modern medecine's ability to save people that would have died from severe injuries (amputees, etc.).
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,354
5,301
146
Kirk, 1300/130,000 is around 1%. I thought you might want to fix your math.
Anyway, 1300 is far too many any way you count them. They aren't numbers:(
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,596
39,893
136
"Through your service and sacrifice in the war on terror, you're making America safer."


BULLSHIT! :| They're being used in a way to make America LESS SAFE!
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: skyking
Kirk, 1300/130,000 is around 1%. I thought you might want to fix your math.
Anyway, 1300 is far too many any way you count them. They aren't numbers:(

1,370

 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
OK, I'll restate - 10% casualty rate with 1% fatalities.
The 9% in between would have been a much higher number if our
medical work hadn't improved since the technology during 'Nam.

Don't loose sight of the extent of the injury to the survivors though,
they are much more catostrophic than past encounters have been.
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: kage69
"Through your service and sacrifice in the war on terror, you're making America safer."


BULLSHIT! :| They're being used in a way to make America LESS SAFE!

RW: (thumbs in ears) "LALALALALALALALALALALA...we don't hear you!"

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
OK, I'll restate - 10% casualty rate with 1% fatalities.
The 9% in between would have been a much higher number if our
medical work hadn't improved since the technology during 'Nam.

Don't loose sight of the extent of the injury to the survivors though,
they are much more catostrophic than past encounters have been.
When you consider *all* injuries which comply with the Pentagon definition, we're talking well over 30,000 injured (includes mental illness, physical ailments from being in theater, etc.)
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Certainly not a new trend...leaders wasting money on themselves while those who serve them suffer...how many CEOs are now in hot water for living the good life while their corporations struggled to stay affloat...how many companies have layed off or outsourced jobs while raising the salaries of CEOs and top executives.

A shame that Bush is so wrapped up in his re-election that he is incapable of making a gesture towards our deployed soldiers by having a low key and humble inauguration in honor of their sacrifices.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
OK, I'll restate - 10% casualty rate with 1% fatalities.
The 9% in between would have been a much higher number if our
medical work hadn't improved since the technology during 'Nam.

Don't loose sight of the extent of the injury to the survivors though,
they are much more catostrophic than past encounters have been.
When you consider *all* injuries which comply with the Pentagon definition, we're talking well over 30,000 injured (includes mental illness, physical ailments from being in theater, etc.)

Yes, many of those injured are amputees, sometimes mulitple amputees. Appr. one in five to as many as one in three will suffer from mental disorders when they return from Iraq.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
how much more can these troops sacrifice? They've already been stretched to the limits

1/20 of the standing military and 1/40 of the reserves/guard are there. Stretched to the limit? Give me a break.


Between Germany, S. Korea, and Japan we have 400,000 troops that have done nothing for the last 40 years. I am sure that we can handle a bit more. 120,000 troops is not a lot in the whole scheme of things. It would also be nice though if we could finally pull out of some of the Clinton committments that have been eating resources for a decade. Where is the press bitching about us watching the Balkan's for the last decade - according to Clinton we were to be there less than a year.


I am sick and tired of people acting like soldiers cannot do their jobs for an extended amount of time. I don't ask for six months break from work. IT IS THEIR JOB, and when they signed up they should have been aware of it. I get sick of the media hyping every soldier that does not want to go - so far there have been about 20 scared little snatches in the ranks that the media uses to portray every soldier.

Don't know about you people but every soldier I know that is over there is not begging to come home every week. They understand that they have a job, and most would like to see it through completion.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
how many CEOs are now in hot water for living the good life while their corporations struggled to stay affloat...how many companies have layed off or outsourced jobs while raising the salaries of CEOs and top executives.

Why don't you tell us exactly how many? I am not sure there are a lot, not enough for this kind of reckless (and stupid) indictment of the free market system. If you don't know, don't broach the subject.

Move to France, and then tell me socialism is free of corporate and government corruption. A nation where business is conducted soley trough bribes and kickbacks.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
1/20 of the standing military and 1/40 of the reserves/guard are there. Stretched to the limit? Give me a break.

You raise some interesting points, but it is a bit more complicated then that. While the number of soldiers deployed to Iraq at any given time may be a fraction of the total standing Army, there are other factors involved.

Before soldiers deploy, they often enter into a fairly long and involved training cycle that takes them away from family beyond the time involved in the deployment. The same is required for when they return from a deployment.

Soldiers transfer between units, and many of the soldiers in Iraq now have seen other deployments. Two of my friends have deployed to Kosovo, Afghanistan and now Iraq in the past five years...they have spent maybe 6 months with their families in 5 years...that takes a heavy toll on anyone, regardless of their commitment, dedication or understanding of their service obligation...and you cannot compare time off in the military to time off in a civilian occupation, because military service is far more intense and demanding then a 9 to 5 job.

As far as the Reserves are concerned, while the potential has always been there, many Reserve soldiers serve with the unwritten understanding that they will never actually deploy...some soldiers go into the Reserves to receive credit for years towards retirement from government service...other soldiers join the Reserves to bring in some extra cash and enjoy military benefits...most soldiers go into the Reserves because they have decided to enter civilian life from active duty, but still want to serve...regardless, Reserve units were never designed for long term support to extended combat operations.

With the stop loss in effect, it is difficult to determine what effect these missions will have on retention.

I agree that we need to drop the Balkans mission...Clinton promised we would be out of Bosnia in a year, and nearly ten years later, we are still there with Kosovo added to the mix...and we entered Kosovo based on lies, faulty intelligence and no exit strategy...the mass graves that justified our entrance into Kosovo never surfaced...the only distinction, and the reason never got heat for the Balkans adventure, was that we have not sustained combat casualties (with the exception of accidents) in the Balkans.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: irwincur
how many CEOs are now in hot water for living the good life while their corporations struggled to stay affloat...how many companies have layed off or outsourced jobs while raising the salaries of CEOs and top executives.

Why don't you tell us exactly how many? I am not sure there are a lot, not enough for this kind of reckless (and stupid) indictment of the free market system. If you don't know, don't broach the subject.

Move to France, and then tell me socialism is free of corporate and government corruption. A nation where business is conducted soley trough bribes and kickbacks.


Good to see that you are not only an expert on our milatary, but that you are an expert on foriegn
countrys, their politics, & their governmenntal policies as well.
I don't recall seeing your name on any ballots this last election cycle though.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Why don't you tell us exactly how many? I am not sure there are a lot, not enough for this kind of reckless (and stupid) indictment of the free market system. If you don't know, don't broach the subject.

Enron and WorldCom are the most noteable examples...I need to find the article, but there was a research study completed around the time these scandals hit that specifically targeted the excesses and abuses made by CEOs in companies that were struggling to survive in their respective industries. Regardless, my post was meant to demonstrate that abuse of power and a disconnect between leaders and the led is certainly nothing new.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Originally posted by: irwincur
how much more can these troops sacrifice? They've already been stretched to the limits

1/20 of the standing military and 1/40 of the reserves/guard are there. Stretched to the limit? Give me a break.


Between Germany, S. Korea, and Japan we have 400,000 troops that have done nothing for the last 40 years. I am sure that we can handle a bit more. 120,000 troops is not a lot in the whole scheme of things. It would also be nice though if we could finally pull out of some of the Clinton committments that have been eating resources for a decade. Where is the press bitching about us watching the Balkan's for the last decade - according to Clinton we were to be there less than a year.


I am sick and tired of people acting like soldiers cannot do their jobs for an extended amount of time. I don't ask for six months break from work. IT IS THEIR JOB, and when they signed up they should have been aware of it. I get sick of the media hyping every soldier that does not want to go - so far there have been about 20 scared little snatches in the ranks that the media uses to portray every soldier.

Don't know about you people but every soldier I know that is over there is not begging to come home every week. They understand that they have a job, and most would like to see it through completion.


Soldiers "job" is to defend their country, not to die or fight at the whim of their President. Oh they will, but that doesn't make it right.
Most soldiers will just shut up and do what they are told.

I do find your comparing your job to theirs disingenuous. Is it your current job to kill and die? When you signed up, would you be in prison for leaving?

Soldiers do have obligations and commitments. The obligation of their President is not to stick them someplace to die for some personal crusade, as Bush has done.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,596
39,893
136
RW: (thumbs in ears) "LALALALALALALALALALALA...we don't hear you!"


Being on patrol in Ramadi or Samarra would do wonders for their hearing I think. And no, those types usually have their thumbs inserted in a different location.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,336
2,518
136
Originally posted by: irwincur
how many CEOs are now in hot water for living the good life while their corporations struggled to stay affloat...how many companies have layed off or outsourced jobs while raising the salaries of CEOs and top executives.

Why don't you tell us exactly how many? I am not sure there are a lot, not enough for this kind of reckless (and stupid) indictment of the free market system. If you don't know, don't broach the subject.

Move to France, and then tell me socialism is free of corporate and government corruption. A nation where business is conducted soley trough bribes and kickbacks.


In time of war and the economy not doing so well bush should have done with less.

Do you even realize that bush spent almost double on his 2nd than clintons 2nd?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: kage69
"Through your service and sacrifice in the war on terror, you're making America safer."


BULLSHIT! :| They're being used in a way to make America LESS SAFE!
Ooh. Capital letters. Now I'm really scared. :roll:

Your statement is nothing more than fearmongering FUD and has no basis to back it up.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: kage69
"Through your service and sacrifice in the war on terror, you're making America safer."


BULLSHIT! :| They're being used in a way to make America LESS SAFE!
Ooh. Capital letters. Now I'm really scared. :roll:

Your statement is nothing more than fearmongering FUD and has no basis to back it up.

Hmm... sounds like a-hole's foreign policy for the last four years.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: kage69
"Through your service and sacrifice in the war on terror, you're making America safer."
BULLSHIT! :| They're being used in a way to make America LESS SAFE!
Ooh. Capital letters. Now I'm really scared. :roll:

Your statement is nothing more than fearmongering FUD and has no basis to back it up.
Being a prime Bush-God fanboi, you'd know all about fearmongering and FUD.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,596
5,297
136
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: kage69
"Through your service and sacrifice in the war on terror, you're making America safer."
BULLSHIT! :| They're being used in a way to make America LESS SAFE!
Ooh. Capital letters. Now I'm really scared. :roll:

Your statement is nothing more than fearmongering FUD and has no basis to back it up.
Being a prime Bush-God fanboi, you'd know all about fearmongering and FUD.

9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 so STFU!

;)
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,453
2
81
Originally posted by: kage69
"Through your service and sacrifice in the war on terror, you're making America safer."


BULLSHIT! :| They're being used in a way to make America LESS SAFE!

Really, inciting more enemies to take up arms against us is an intelligence strategy. Yeah, that's how we flush 'em out!