Washington Post feature on returning wounded Soldiers

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alm4rr

Diamond Member
Dec 21, 2000
4,390
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm sure every soldier in the Revolutionary War or Civil War or World War II or the Gulf War would do the same. Well, maybe just on election year.



Too bad Americans don't give a damn about vets (except for 2 mins of fame sensationalized from the media)

Does anyone know the name of the real soldier that defended (He was a Sgt.) the convoy that Jessica Lynch got credited for? Takin down Iraqi's by himself until he was shot and then stabbed to death - without lookin on the net for it?
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it not possible to support our troops and at the same time think that the reasons that were given for them being there are questionable?

Absolutly it is. But heralding news of their deaths as some sort of proof that what the administration did was wrong is detrimental to the troops and doesn't prove a thing anyway. All it does is try to elicit an opinion based on emotion to advance their agenda.

At the same time, death and injury is inevitable in war and doesn't suffice as reason to simply quit.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
I hope the draft dodging cowboy-in-chief gets to read these articles and look at the pictures.

I hope the realization sets in (as well as it can in a brain preserved in alcohol and drugs for its first 40 years).

But I doubt it will. The results of his lies don't matter to him. Only his political survival, personal wealth along with the wealth of his contributors, and the neocon agenda matter.

When are all the patriots here who support George and his policies of aggression and war going to join up to give our troops a break? I've heard the excuses about age and family already so let me ask them this. When will you send your sons and daughters down to enlist so the troops in Iraq can get a definitive date to end their tour of duty?

One thing we can be all sure of, the Bush family wont be sending their children to war. Ditto the rest of the neocons. They'll just tell the lies that lead to the war that kills and maims others.

This has been discussed before - the attack on "patriots" is weak at best. These people who enlisted, CHOSE to do so - no one forced them to serve. They knew going in that their job could include going to war. I'd be more than happy to go serve if my country needed me. They do not need me as there are plenty who wish to take that on as their full time or part time job. I didn't choose to go into the military for a job and I don't need a full or part time job - but I'd go in a heartbeat if I was needed.
So STFU with your attitude, keyboard commando.

CkG

Hey CkG

You're the fearless deskjockey making small talk about going if needed. Who's the keyboard commando?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,426
6,088
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it not possible to support our troops and at the same time think that the reasons that were given for them being there are questionable?

Absolutly it is. But heralding news (Heralding news, wow, that sounds like language designed to spin, containing a negative emotional twinge. Oh man I just hate Heralds.) of their deaths (Heralds of death, oh man that's even worse, right. It is right, right, I mean I know I don't offer any proof) as some sort of proof that what the administration did was wrong is detrimental to the troops (Hehe, hope they don't notice it doesn't disprove it either) and doesn't prove a thing anyway. All it does is try to elicit an opinion based on emotion (Right, I'm right about this, no? I mean I don't really want to have to explain what I mean, so lets pretend I'm right, OK.) to advance their agenda. (Oh man they have an agenda and we all know how bad that is. Thank God I don't have one of those. I mean people with agendas see them everywhere they turn.)

At the same time, death and injury is inevitable in war and doesn't suffice as reason to simply quit. (You got to be a realist. Chumps die in war. It ain't the end of the world. The war's just right. It's not just? Oh no then these people suffered in vain. Oh my God, oh but the war's got to be just, right. So what if we went over a lie. It feels good to win. I was creaming in my pants over 9/11 and I feel saver now that George has killed a bunch of unrelated folks. I'm a Hero. Hey death is no reason to quit, but I wonder if injustice is. Nah, couldn't be.)



 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
I hope the draft dodging cowboy-in-chief gets to read these articles and look at the pictures.

I hope the realization sets in (as well as it can in a brain preserved in alcohol and drugs for its first 40 years).

But I doubt it will. The results of his lies don't matter to him. Only his political survival, personal wealth along with the wealth of his contributors, and the neocon agenda matter.

When are all the patriots here who support George and his policies of aggression and war going to join up to give our troops a break? I've heard the excuses about age and family already so let me ask them this. When will you send your sons and daughters down to enlist so the troops in Iraq can get a definitive date to end their tour of duty?

One thing we can be all sure of, the Bush family wont be sending their children to war. Ditto the rest of the neocons. They'll just tell the lies that lead to the war that kills and maims others.

This has been discussed before - the attack on "patriots" is weak at best. These people who enlisted, CHOSE to do so - no one forced them to serve. They knew going in that their job could include going to war. I'd be more than happy to go serve if my country needed me. They do not need me as there are plenty who wish to take that on as their full time or part time job. I didn't choose to go into the military for a job and I don't need a full or part time job - but I'd go in a heartbeat if I was needed.
So STFU with your attitude, keyboard commando.

CkG

Hey CkG

You're the fearless deskjockey making small talk about going if needed. Who's the keyboard commando?


That's what i was thinking. THEY NEED YOU. They are spending an average of $15,000 an all-time high for each new recuit. They are paying sign-up bonuses of 15K and re-up bonuses up to 60K which were unheard of 20 years ago. THEY NEED YOU. Thier recuitment efforts are unlike anything I've seen in the corporate world who does'nt really need you right now. I've seen 200 apps come in for 1 entry level lab rat position paying a measly 38K.. Join up and buck up. Put your life where you mouth is.

The pay is similar when you include all the BAQ for dependents and if you have a degree..But then that should'nt matter to you since they need you anyway. They really need marines and army infranty as evidenced by the inordinary expenditure on these recruitment both in capital and recruiter pigionholing into those feilds.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Put your life where you mouth is
-------------------------------------------------------
Is that why you work at Mc Donald's?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Winston,

Loved your book, is Oceana annexing us soon ?

Why, yes we are, but don't worry. Everyone loves us, eventually.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Put your life where you mouth is
-------------------------------------------------------
Is that why you work at Mc Donald's?

I thought about buying a franchise but then I would have to put up with snot nose little brats who talk too much.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Put your life where you mouth is
-------------------------------------------------------
Is that why you work at Mc Donald's?

I thought about buying a franchise but then I would have to put up with snot nose little brats who talk too much.

Franchise? Is that what they're calling Happy Meals these days?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
So have you called the army recuiter yet to ask if they NEED you?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
As I suspected you don't need them. I'm sure CAD guy feels the same. Let some other poor SOB put his ass on the line for my support of my idiology, I'm going home to SAT TV to watch the ass kickin', after I pick up my dounuts and happy meal for the kids.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it not possible to support our troops and at the same time think that the reasons that were given for them being there are questionable?

Absolutly it is. But heralding news (Heralding news, wow, that sounds like language designed to spin, containing a negative emotional twinge. Oh man I just hate Heralds.) of their deaths (Heralds of death, oh man that's even worse, right. It is right, right, I mean I know I don't offer any proof) as some sort of proof that what the administration did was wrong is detrimental to the troops (Hehe, hope they don't notice it doesn't disprove it either) and doesn't prove a thing anyway. All it does is try to elicit an opinion based on emotion (Right, I'm right about this, no? I mean I don't really want to have to explain what I mean, so lets pretend I'm right, OK.) to advance their agenda. (Oh man they have an agenda and we all know how bad that is. Thank God I don't have one of those. I mean people with agendas see them everywhere they turn.)

At the same time, death and injury is inevitable in war and doesn't suffice as reason to simply quit. (You got to be a realist. Chumps die in war. It ain't the end of the world. The war's just right. It's not just? Oh no then these people suffered in vain. Oh my God, oh but the war's got to be just, right. So what if we went over a lie. It feels good to win. I was creaming in my pants over 9/11 and I feel saver now that George has killed a bunch of unrelated folks. I'm a Hero. Hey death is no reason to quit, but I wonder if injustice is. Nah, couldn't be.)

LOL :p Your inner voice has a point Hero ... maybe you should listen to it ;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Zebo
As I suspected you don't need them. I'm sure CAD guy feels the same. Let some other poor SOB put his ass on the line for my support of my idiology, I'm going home to SAT TV to watch the ass kickin', after I pick up my dounuts and happy meal for the kids.

Even with my disdain for the way I was treated by a certain representative of the Army(recruiter), I'd still serve if the call was put out. There is no urgent need.
Would you go? BOBDN? (disclaimer - I don't have "the list" handy to know if either of you have served so disregard the question if you have or are)

CADkindaGUY
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
They seem to be doing fine without me.

Besides, it's pretty assinine to assume that people join the military based on current operations. Most people seemed to agree with going into Afghanistan, but they didn't all enlist, did they? Men and women don't join the military because they believe in the current administration's actions. They join to serve their country whether the President is Republican or Democrat. They fight to protect the freedom and peace that this country provides all its citizens so that they can elect whoever they want as their President. If I was going to serve, I'd have done it by now...not because I believed in what was going on at the time I enlisted, but because I wanted to volunteer to fight for the ideals of this country rather than do something else with my time.

By the way. You believe going into Iraq is wrong, right? Then why didn't you join the Iraqi army and fight the U.S.?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,426
6,088
126
By the way. You believe going into Iraq is wrong, right? Then why didn't you join the Iraqi army and fight the U.S.?
----------------------
Idiots can be very trying.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
They seem to be doing fine without me.

Besides, it's pretty assinine to assume that people join the military based on current operations. Most people seemed to agree with going into Afghanistan, but they didn't all enlist, did they? Men and women don't join the military because they believe in the current administration's actions. They join to serve their country whether the President is Republican or Democrat. They fight to protect the freedom and peace that this country provides all its citizens so that they can elect whoever they want as their President. If I was going to serve, I'd have done it by now...not because I believed in what was going on at the time I enlisted, but because I wanted to volunteer to fight for the ideals of this country rather than do something else with my time.

By the way. You believe going into Iraq is wrong, right? Then why didn't you join the Iraqi army and fight the U.S.?

I think a lot of people join the military to get money for college.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Cads saying he would join if they needed him. Well he says they don't need him now but I say go down and ask those who are doing the needing. They tell you yup. Have you in and out of meps withing the week and probably in bagdag in 6 mo. Fastest professional job hire ever.

Supporting a military action is quite different from what cad has said. Not only that he bitches about troops who are unsatisfied with this particular war. IMO they are entileled to bitch all they want when it's thier ass on the line thier famliies they are entranged from and not his.


LOL at your naive post.

Are we defending America? I think the threat was not near as bad as advertised and many professional defense analyts say the same. Even guys from the so called hawk party like Eagleburger. NK now is another story china too but we pick pussies I guess.

Are we bringing democracy to Iraq? they sure don't think so and niether do most people.

Postmortum, Now we have the whole oil issue which I don't have THAT big of a problem in securing. Just do it right and $$ should really go back to Iraqis not living in squaler which they even have remarked is worse than under Saddam.

Unfortunatly I supported this war cuz I believed bushs motives were pure. Now too much coraborative evidence is out he lied, he loves americans to be scared (see the second sig), and want his buddies to get rich from telecommunications to Oil, US corps will be the owners of all big capital businesses in Iraq.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Cads saying he would join if they needed him. Well he says they don't need him now but I say go down and ask those who are doing the needing. They tell you yup. Have you in and out of meps withing the week and probably in bagdag in 6 mo. Fastest professional job hire ever.
Since you obviously missed my post earlier in this thread...

FY 2003 Turning Into a Banner Recruiting Year
From here
Jun 15 2003

One thing about the enlistment process that many people don't understand are military recruiting goals. Most people assume, because of the "War on Terrorism," and the War in Iraq, that the military services would be stepping up recruiting efforts to increase the size of America's military force. They are then surprised to learn that they may have to wait six months to a year to go on active duty.

That's because the military (Department of Defense) has absolutely no say in the size of the military. Each year, when Congress passes the annual Military Appropriations Act, they tell the Department of Defense exactly how many people can be in uniform in each military service. This number has not increased (significantly) in the past several years, and probably won't increase under the current administration (Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has gone on record many times, stating that he believes the size of our current military is sufficient).

So, how does the military set their recruiting goals? Each year, a certain number of people get out of the military. Maybe they simply finish their terms and get out, or they retire, or they are medically discharged, or they are first-termers who wash out of training. The military services are able to (pretty well) forecast the number of people who are getting out of the military each year, and establish "recruiting goals" to replace those who are forecasted to leave the service.

The military services recruit on a "Fiscal Year." That means they set a certain goal (number to recruit) beginning on 1 October of each year, and lasting through 30 September of the following year. This year's "recruiting year" (Fiscal Year 2003) began on 1 October 2002, and terminates on 30 September 2003. The services cannot (significantly) exceed these goals. If they meet their recruiting goals for the Fiscal Year, they must either stop accepting applicants or (more likely) get a "head start" on the next Fiscal Year by enlisting applicants into the Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP), to go onto active duty sometime after 1 October 2003 (which would be FY 2004).

FY 2003 Enlisted Recruiting Goals:

Army: 73,800
Air Force: 37,000
Navy: 41,077
Marine Corps: 38,914

The Navy originally started the year with a recruiting goal of 48,000, but quickly reduced the goal because of an unexpected upswing in re-enlistments (if fewer people get out, then fewer replacements must be recruited).

All of the services have met their recruiting goals for the past two fiscal years, and all expect to (easily) meet them again this year. In fact, as of May 18th (2003), the Air Force had already signed up 98 percent of the recruits that they need for the entire fiscal year, and are now focusing on signing up recruits for next fiscal year (plus a few this year to replace those who drop out of the DEP before going onto active duty).

The Army wanted to have 33,960 of their goal signed up before the end of March, but ended that second "quarter" of the fiscal year with 34,222.

The Marine Corps doesn't count recruits until they actually ship out to boot camp. As of March, the Marines have already sent more than half of their fiscal year goal to Marine boot camp.


In fact, the only services which are currently (slightly) behind are the Army Reserves and the Army National Guard. For the first quarter of the fiscal year, The Army Reserve signed up 98 percent of its goal (short 182 soldiers) and the Army National Guard 86 percent of their goal (short 2,107 soldiers).
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Zebo
Cads saying he would join if they needed him. Well he says they don't need him now but I say go down and ask those who are doing the needing. They tell you yup. Have you in and out of meps withing the week and probably in bagdag in 6 mo. Fastest professional job hire ever.
Since you obviously missed my post earlier in this thread...

FY 2003 Turning Into a Banner Recruiting Year
From here
Jun 15 2003

One thing about the enlistment process that many people don't understand are military recruiting goals. Most people assume, because of the "War on Terrorism," and the War in Iraq, that the military services would be stepping up recruiting efforts to increase the size of America's military force. They are then surprised to learn that they may have to wait six months to a year to go on active duty.

That's because the military (Department of Defense) has absolutely no say in the size of the military. Each year, when Congress passes the annual Military Appropriations Act, they tell the Department of Defense exactly how many people can be in uniform in each military service. This number has not increased (significantly) in the past several years, and probably won't increase under the current administration (Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has gone on record many times, stating that he believes the size of our current military is sufficient).

So, how does the military set their recruiting goals? Each year, a certain number of people get out of the military. Maybe they simply finish their terms and get out, or they retire, or they are medically discharged, or they are first-termers who wash out of training. The military services are able to (pretty well) forecast the number of people who are getting out of the military each year, and establish "recruiting goals" to replace those who are forecasted to leave the service.

The military services recruit on a "Fiscal Year." That means they set a certain goal (number to recruit) beginning on 1 October of each year, and lasting through 30 September of the following year. This year's "recruiting year" (Fiscal Year 2003) began on 1 October 2002, and terminates on 30 September 2003. The services cannot (significantly) exceed these goals. If they meet their recruiting goals for the Fiscal Year, they must either stop accepting applicants or (more likely) get a "head start" on the next Fiscal Year by enlisting applicants into the Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP), to go onto active duty sometime after 1 October 2003 (which would be FY 2004).

FY 2003 Enlisted Recruiting Goals:

Army: 73,800
Air Force: 37,000
Navy: 41,077
Marine Corps: 38,914

The Navy originally started the year with a recruiting goal of 48,000, but quickly reduced the goal because of an unexpected upswing in re-enlistments (if fewer people get out, then fewer replacements must be recruited).

All of the services have met their recruiting goals for the past two fiscal years, and all expect to (easily) meet them again this year. In fact, as of May 18th (2003), the Air Force had already signed up 98 percent of the recruits that they need for the entire fiscal year, and are now focusing on signing up recruits for next fiscal year (plus a few this year to replace those who drop out of the DEP before going onto active duty).

The Army wanted to have 33,960 of their goal signed up before the end of March, but ended that second "quarter" of the fiscal year with 34,222.

The Marine Corps doesn't count recruits until they actually ship out to boot camp. As of March, the Marines have already sent more than half of their fiscal year goal to Marine boot camp.


In fact, the only services which are currently (slightly) behind are the Army Reserves and the Army National Guard. For the first quarter of the fiscal year, The Army Reserve signed up 98 percent of its goal (short 182 soldiers) and the Army National Guard 86 percent of their goal (short 2,107 soldiers).

I could be wrong, but do not enlistment rates generally increase at the beginning of a war, then decrease over time?

 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
By the way. You believe going into Iraq is wrong, right? Then why didn't you join the Iraqi army and fight the U.S.?
----------------------
Idiots can be very trying.

For once we agree.