Sponsored Newsletter
 
Menu
 News
 Search
 Topics
 Stories Archive
 Submit News
 Discussions
 Code of Conduct
 Forums
 Forum Search
 Last 24 Hours
 PO 24hrs
 Peak Blog
 Ask Jane
 Resources
 About Us
 Downloads
 Web Links
 PeakWiki
 PeakPortal
 Focus Search
 Peak TV
 Peak Oil Boston
 Houston Peak Oil
 PeakGear
 Members
 User Panel
 Members List
 Your Account
 JOIN!
 Private Messages
 
Support PeakOil.com
Visit Our Advertisers

Beason Law Firm
Net App Training
Aaron




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1158 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 78  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Fri May 13, 2005 11:26 am 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 459
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Army, faced with a severe and growing shortage of recruits, began offering 15-month active-duty enlistments nationwide Thursday, the shortest tours ever.

The typical enlistment lasts three or four years; the previous shortest enlistment was two years.

Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, the head of the Army Recruiting Command, said 2006 could be even worse than this year, a continuation of "the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer Army."


Isn't the Army still under a stop loss? If so, these people signing up for 15 month stints will actually be signing up for infinite service. In other words, the 15 month promise is meaningless.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Fri May 13, 2005 4:50 pm 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 213
Location: Atlanta - GA - USA
arretium wrote:
Isn't the Army still under a stop loss? If so, these people signing up for 15 month stints will actually be signing up for infinite service. In other words, the 15 month promise is meaningless.


Ill go out on a limb and guess that's what the fine print is for....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 9:11 am 
Offline
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 1066
Location: Bristol, UK
It's been a few months, here's an updated chart. I haven't heard much news from the area recently apart from the rate of attacks on US forces is holding pretty steady at around 50-60 a day. Is there any improvement yet in terms of water, power, oil production, health services etc?

Image

_________________
"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 9:20 am 
Offline
Expert
Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 2717
Location: perpetual state of exhaustion
Would you conclude from these charts that the resistance is getting better since the number of casualties they are creating is getting so much higher?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 9:20 am 
Offline
Expert
Expert
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 6034
Kingcoal wrote:
As predicted by just about everyone, the war is easier than the peace. A lot of the troops in Iraq come from poor backgrounds. The Military offers them great opportunities to improve themselves and develop carriers. There is a price if war breaks out however. During a war like this, they pay dearly. Most Americans don't seem to care about the dead or wounded as long as it isn't someone in their own family. Republicans are very willing to give up someone else's life in the name of whatever.


You mean like when Clinton went to Bosnia?
Riiight, its all Republicans isnt it.....

:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 9:25 am 
Offline
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 1066
Location: Bristol, UK
One point I've just thought of, there are more Iraqi people involved in security and police duties these days - I bet there are more 'official, uniformed' personnel being killed now than ever before.

Are the causality figures a serious issue in America? Do people talk about them? Or is there a general level of acceptance?

_________________
"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Sun May 15, 2005 10:50 pm 
Offline
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 73
Hi,

In addition to the decreased first-time enlistment rate, there are other problems. The first is the retention rate of those coming up for re-enlistment:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... uard_x.htm

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Just as the Pentagon is increasingly relying on the National Guard and other part-time troops for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, an internal Guard survey suggests that the demanding deployments could prompt a significant number of its soldiers to quit the military.
A recent survey of 5,000 soldiers from 15 states showed that the rate at which Army Guard members choose to leave the military could jump — to 20-22% a year among those who have served long overseas tours, typically 12 months.


I personally know several National Guard soldiers who just returned to my hometown from tours of duty in Iraq. Every last one of them told me that the conditions over there are horrible. None of them is planning on re-enlisting.

The National Guard are NOT affected by the stop loss. Only the regular active duty army is affected. However, the majority of soldiers in Iraq right now are National Guard not Regular Army.


The other problem has been AWOLs/deserters:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... ory=638635

Quote:
As the death toll of troops mounts in Iraq and Afghanistan, America's military recruiting figures have plummeted to an all-time low. Thousands of US servicemen and women are now refusing to serve their country.


I do not personally know of anyone that has gone AWOL but have heard a few people talking about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Sun May 15, 2005 11:33 pm 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 124
dauterman wrote:
Hi,

In addition to the decreased first-time enlistment rate, there are other problems. The first is the retention rate of those coming up for re-enlistment:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... uard_x.htm

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Just as the Pentagon is increasingly relying on the National Guard and other part-time troops for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, an internal Guard survey suggests that the demanding deployments could prompt a significant number of its soldiers to quit the military.
A recent survey of 5,000 soldiers from 15 states showed that the rate at which Army Guard members choose to leave the military could jump — to 20-22% a year among those who have served long overseas tours, typically 12 months.


I personally know several National Guard soldiers who just returned to my hometown from tours of duty in Iraq. Every last one of them told me that the conditions over there are horrible. None of them is planning on re-enlisting.

The National Guard are NOT affected by the stop loss. Only the regular active duty army is affected. However, the majority of soldiers in Iraq right now are National Guard not Regular Army.



That USA Today article was a complete fabrication of lies...I personally know and hang out with many full time soldiers up here as well as guard soldiers. The enlisted guys I know say that a conservative estimate of soldiers that they know and soldiers that they know etc that will re-enlist is 20%.....So they are telling me the opposite of that article which says around 20% will not re-enlist.

Also, from thye guard guys I know they are saying NONE of the soldiers that are E6 and below that any of them know are re-enlisting. Only higher ranking NCO's that are closer to retirement and less likely to have to spend lots of time in direct combat are staying for the most part.

This is what I'm hearing and I know these sources are reliable. The Govt. is hiding it and Rumsfeld knows it as well...It's their plan so they can either radically expand the Military under the guise of recruiting emergency, through huge pay hikes and incentives or bring in a draft at some point. From what my friends are saying, the military is offering LARGE sums of cash to recruite and even just to extend your tour and no one is really taking it...We've got problems and they are being completely covered up. Rest assured I'm correct on this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 7:19 am 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 101
Location: Cornwall, NY
What's with the spikes in April and November of both years?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Military Industrial Complex Quiz Question
New postPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 10:54 am 
Offline
Fission
Fission
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 2227
(This is my last anti-Anglosaxon post on these message boards, I promise).

Question: since 1945, the US has been involved in countless wars, occupations, terror campaigns, invasions and interventions. In which year did the US military industrial complex NOT intervene, occupy, slaughter, bomb, kill, assassinate, commit coups, cause civil wars, or invade countries, nations, people, personae, babies?

Options:
a) 1948
b) 1967
c) 1980
d) 2001
e) never

For each of the options, you have to give an explanation as to why you think it's not the correct one.

Good luck!

_________________
The Beginning is Near!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Industrial Complex Quiz Question
New postPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 11:10 am 
Offline
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 1276
lorenzo wrote:
(This is my last anti-Anglosaxon post on these message boards, I promise).
PROMISE?!?!??!???!??!?

EVERYBODY READ THAT QUOTE PLEASE!!!!!!

Here's a good book on the subject that I recommend.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 11:18 am 
Offline
Fission
Fission
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 2227
I know that book. Sadly, it covers only half of all the American slaughter campaigns in the world. It's very incomplete.

_________________
The Beginning is Near!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Industrial Complex Quiz Question
New postPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 11:18 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 929
Location: Canada
PhilBiker wrote:
lorenzo wrote:
(This is my last anti-Anglosaxon post on these message boards, I promise).
PROMISE?!?!??!???!??!?

EVERYBODY READ THAT QUOTE PLEASE!!!!!!

Here's a good book on the subject that I recommend.

Thanks for the link! I didn't know this book, there is quite a scary review on the amazon website 8O:

Quote:
Reviewer: True Christian American (God's Country) -
Many would argue against the validity of Mr. Blum's facts. I do not. If you closely examine his sources, they hold up well under rigorous examination. What I dislike about this book, and the likes of Mr. Blum, is the agenda of anti-Americanism. Mr. Blum is quite correct in implicating the US government and American corporations in a spectrum of mass murders, assassinations, tortures, rapes and terror in general. This is all correct but he fails to acknowledge that this is the manner in which all empires have comported themselves. There is no reason to expect us to behave differently. These are the necessary means of maintaining an empire as well as the costs required to sustain the American lifestyle. Insisting on anything different is not only unrealistic, but asks us to betray of our way of life. George Bush Sr. put it clearly, "the American way of life is not up for negotiation." The price of our cherished lifestyle is high. Whether its 5,000,000 dead Southeast Asians or 500,000 dead Iraqi children, the price is worth it. Even Secretary of State Madeline Albright, a lefty Democrat, said so on CBS' 60 minutes. Blum and his anti-American agenda refuses to accept this fact.
What Mr. Blum refers to our "killing hope" in the world is nothing less than what pumps money and oil into our economy. It is the tribute due to the nation that dominates the world. Mr. Blum fails to mention a single word about our civilizing effect on what he calls the "victims" of our actions. It is as absurd as claiming that the "victims" of slavery gained nothing from their association with the civilizing force of a morally advanced Christian society. (I'm sure Chris Matthews of MSNBC and his comments on Muhammad Ali would back me on this point.) Mr. Blum's unwillingness to refer to these trickle-down benefits exposes his bias. Likewise, Blum lacks a balanced perspective. He could learn a lot about fair and balanced reporting by simply watching some television. He ignores the positive effects of our interventions while monotonously pleading a case for either the millions of dead that the process of keeping the world in line requires, or anyone that might foolishly resist our efforts in incorporating their natural resources into our corporate and national interests. One thing doesn't do is spend time on the obstinance of these people. How dare they resist our advances? What right do they think they have to their labor or natural resources?
What Mr. Blum says is true only to a degree. His greatest inaccuracy is that he has divorced his account of American foreign policy from the context of our unique virtue and God-given mandate. At times I felt myself trembling with rage at how he freely soils our good name, (another reason the 1st amendment needs to be restricted). His ignorance of our purity is enraging. America is almost a second Israel. How could anyone argue with that? Books like this threaten our national security by exposing dangerous facts that might sway public opinion against our behavior abroad. For such reasons it might be a good idea to ban or censor this book.

_________________
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 11:58 am 
Offline
Fission
Fission
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 2399
Location: ^NNE^
Slaughter, empire, slavery, genocide are not Anglo-Saxon problems. They are Homo sapiens problems.

_________________
"By the time individuals discover that remaining resources will not be adequate for the next generation, the next generation has already been born. " David Price


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Industrial Complex Quiz Question
New postPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 1:18 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 7564
lorenzo wrote:
(This is my last anti-Anglosaxon post on these message boards, I promise).

Question: since 1945, the US has been involved in countless wars, occupations, terror campaigns, invasions and interventions. In which year did the US military industrial complex NOT intervene, occupy, slaughter, bomb, kill, assassinate, commit coups, cause civil wars, or invade countries, nations, people, personae, babies?

Options:
a) 1948
b) 1967
c) 1980
d) 2001
e) never

For each of the options, you have to give an explanation as to why you think it's not the correct one.

Good luck!


OK...lets see...1948...Korean war didn't start till 1950, but McAurthur was still occupying Japan. We were still occupying Germany also (and in fact still are). So not that one

1967....Vietnam. Duh!

1980...Well..we didn't invade El Salvador until 1984. We'd already instigated the Russo-Afgan war in 1979. We didn't invade Lebanon until 1982. We of course had troops stationed in dozens of countries around the world: England, Germany, Italy, Phillipeans, etc. We were occupying Guantanomo and bombing Vieqes. We had been providing military support to the Indonesian genocide in Timor since 1975. We were almost the sole financiers of Isreal's ongoing genocide in Palestine. We were just begining to support Sadam Hussein in the Iran Iraq war. I would have to do some research to see if there was anything even more nasty we did that year.

2000....Ditto most of the above occupation issues. By then we were occupying Indonesia to protect the Timorese, and were bombing Iraq on a regular basis because we had now decided we didn't like Hussein. Also we were bombing the heck out of Yugoslavia.

So I think I'd have to answer....E never


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1158 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 78  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bravo91 and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Atom News Feed   Forums RSS Feed