You probably missed THIS

[randym431]

The old policy: was national guard service person stationed in Iraq served a total of 24 months before their term of Iraq service was over and done.

The new policy: no limit on total of months one can serve or stationed in Iraq. 24 month limit only on consecutive months served. No longer a ?total? limit.

This means one can be called up over and over endlessly to serve in Iraq.

And (no surprise) this policy change comes AFTER the Bush troop increase announcement.

You wont get this news from Fox or CNN. God save the free press.

 

[Arkaign]

Nachos.

Don't forget the Queso.

 

[conjur]

It's on Yahoo news.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_military

It's up at FOX News.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243259,00.html

It's up at Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/01/12/ap3323561.html

Here it is at ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2788666

 

[randym431]

Yea, after you googled it... :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

To randtym431,

Who wrote----You wont get this news from Fox or CNN. God save the free press.

Unless you want to allege your post shamed CNN and Fox into running the story---you did not do your homework before posting and conjur did after you posted.
Why dig your hole any deeper with rancor?-------you proved yourself less than perfect this time---and who is perfect all the time?

 

[ProfJohn]

From what I have heard:
The old policy would allow reserves to be sent to Iraq for a year, and then they would get 5 years off before they could be sent again.
The new policy gets rid of the 5 year rule. Most likely this will mean reservist will go to Iraq more often, but I doubt they will serve in Iraq for a longer time than they did before.

This gives the military more flexibility to get the job done correctly.
The biggest thing the military needs (army and marines) is more soldiers so that the deployments can be shortened and the time in between can be lengthened.

 

[UberNeuman]

Let's... Dance around.... the Draft.......

 

[jackschmittusa]

randym431

I didn't miss it. It was on my start page for my browser the day it was announced, along with many other headlines and the weather forcast. I don't see how you thought it was concealed.

 

[lobbyone]

just great...now what

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
From what I have heard:
The old policy would allow reserves to be sent to Iraq for a year, and then they would get 5 years off before they could be sent again.
The new policy gets rid of the 5 year rule. Most likely this will mean reservist will go to Iraq more often, but I doubt they will serve in Iraq for a longer time than they did before.

This gives the military more flexibility to get the job done correctly.
The biggest thing the military needs (army and marines) is more soldiers so that the deployments can be shortened and the time in between can be lengthened.

No, the biggest thing the military needs is for batsh*t insane ideologues to be impeached/tried and for the US to stop engaging in illegal invasions and occupations.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
From what I have heard:
The old policy would allow reserves to be sent to Iraq for a year, and then they would get 5 years off before they could be sent again.
The new policy gets rid of the 5 year rule. Most likely this will mean reservist will go to Iraq more often, but I doubt they will serve in Iraq for a longer time than they did before.

This gives the military more flexibility to get the job done correctly.
The biggest thing the military needs (army and marines) is more soldiers so that the deployments can be shortened and the time in between can be lengthened.

No, the biggest thing the military needs is for batsh*t insane ideologues to be impeached/tried and for the US to stop engaging in illegal invasions and occupations.

Well if there's a lesson to be learned from Viet Nam is that you don't fight these kind of wars with non professional soldiers. The only time we should use conscripted Soldiers is when the war is just.

 

[her209]

Stop complaining.

 

[BoberFett]

Repost: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1989637&enterthread=y

So no, it wasn't missed.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
From what I have heard:
The old policy would allow reserves to be sent to Iraq for a year, and then they would get 5 years off before they could be sent again.
The new policy gets rid of the 5 year rule. Most likely this will mean reservist will go to Iraq more often, but I doubt they will serve in Iraq for a longer time than they did before.

This gives the military more flexibility to get the job done correctly.
The biggest thing the military needs (army and marines) is more soldiers so that the deployments can be shortened and the time in between can be lengthened.

If there was an actual policy like this, the five year grace period was abrogated a long time ago.

I'm totally befuddled by your conclusion that "I doubt they will serve in Iraq for a longer time than they did before." Please explain the basis for this conclusion, for the logic totally escapes me.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
From what I have heard:
The old policy would allow reserves to be sent to Iraq for a year, and then they would get 5 years off before they could be sent again.
The new policy gets rid of the 5 year rule. Most likely this will mean reservist will go to Iraq more often, but I doubt they will serve in Iraq for a longer time than they did before.

This gives the military more flexibility to get the job done correctly.
The biggest thing the military needs (army and marines) is more soldiers so that the deployments can be shortened and the time in between can be lengthened.

If there was an actual policy like this, the five year grace period was abrogated a long time ago.

I'm totally befuddled by your conclusion that "I doubt they will serve in Iraq for a longer time than they did before." Please explain the basis for this conclusion, for the logic totally escapes me.

What I mean is if they were spending a year in Iraq before then they will most likely spend a year there now. However, with the new policy it may not be 5 years before they go back, it might only be 2 or 3 years. So overall they could spend more time in Iraq, but I doubt they are going to be sent to Iraq for 2 years a time. Get it?

Red Dawn I totally agree with you on the draft thing. All a draft will do is make things worse for morale and public support for the war. Last thing we want to do is force people to go over there and fight. It would end up a mess like much of Vietnam was.

 

[Thump553]

ProfJohn I think your conclusion that under this "new" policy the government would not keep the reservists in Iraq for longer than a year at a time flies in the face of both logic (the government is already scrambling for any body they can send over there-why would they cut tours of duty short under those circumstances) and current actual practice. Plenty of servicemen-both reservists and active duty are already getting involuntary extensions of their tours of duty in Iraq. Remember the reservists from Alaska that had their tour extended (days before Christmas) while only a few days from being rotated out?

And presently reservists are not waiting as long as two or three years before being rotated back to Iraq. Given the manpower shortage it is highly unrealistic to expect such long intervals in the future.

Anyone who thinks reservists will spend less time in Iraq under this policy, and who supports this fiasco, should not hesitate to put their life where their mouth is and enlist in the reserves today.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: randym431
Yea, after you googled it... :roll:

lmao! Why would we need to use google to find something on the CNN page, when it's on the front page?!