dilloduck
Diamond Member
Do you intend to back the MOAA unequivocally on Iraq and the WOT or are you just picking cherries ?
I figured-----cherry picking.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you intend to back the MOAA unequivocally on Iraq and the WOT or are you just picking cherries ?
Do you intend to back the MOAA unequivocally on Iraq and the WOT or are you just picking cherries ?
MOAA is a non-partisan military advocacy association for soliers. They don't take positions on military strategy. They advocate for the interests of soldiers.
My turn. Let me ask a question.
Are you going to take the word of an anonymous message board poster - Gunny?
OR.....
The word of a former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, and the MOAA?
It's not necessarily Bush fans. I don't have a high opinion of Bush but I'm wondering if this bill passes how are our troops going to be able to sustain the current troop levels? Everyone on the left has made the argument that our troops are stretched thin and recruiting is down, so if this bill passes, who's going to relieve the current rotation if the ones replacing them have to stay at home to fulfill manditory downtime? We don't have a finite number of troops we can send over there. The concept is similar to the strategy of reducing taxes to bleed the government- only here it's make the troops stay at home in order to reduce the troop levels and operations. It's unrealisitic given the current situation and mission over there.
Hill recognized the importance of counteracting some of the negative portrayals of the Iraq Conflict by the news media. He said the troops in the outlying areas are aware of what is being said and pictured and wish they could rebut things. He said military organizations could help by getting the news media interested in the soldiers' stories.
Hill said that just as the troops are in a race to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, they are in the same race with the American people.
Hill closed by saying the soldiers are doing great and that the Baghdad Security Plan is taking shape. He said the forces are there and taking the fight to the enemy. The casualties will go up, but the troops outside of Baghdad are expecting a fight.
On July 4, Hill's organization will reenlist about 120 soldiers in a large ceremony
http://www.moaa.org/about/about_newsctr/about_newsctr_moaa/about_newsctr_moaa_070615.htm
How about this for instance.
Jesus Christ, your desperate to divert the topic.
Why the hell would I be against that??? Did you even read your entire link? Why would I be against the MOAA lobbying for better support for the troops - phone cards, and cots - asking about their moral, and lobbying for them to have better access to the media to give their side of the story? Why would I be against any of that? Our country has freedom of the press. What in the heck is wrong with any of that?
Please stop bothering me with such nonsense.
"how are our troops going to be able to sustain the current troop levels?"
I suggest that americans who are fans of the Iraq war step up to the plate and volunteer. I know many, many 20-something posters on message boards and on college campuses who are big fans of the Iraq war, and support continuing it.
Either that, or start a draft. If they can raise the age limit up to my level, I'll report to the draft board if my name gets picked. That's more fair, than having a volunteer soldier do three and four tours of duty in Iraq, or having a national guardsman be away from home for years.
So you agree that the media is hurting our troops ?
This is the last response kid. I can't handle your foolishness.
I agree that MOAA has every right to lobby for troops, who want to get out positive stories on "the surge". Members of MOAA have ever right to express their opinion through the media, one way or the other.
I notice that you refuse to answer whether you take an anonymous message board posters word, over MOAA and a former Reagan Secretary of Defense.
So, if you're not going to answer my question, then piss off kid.
What a lame bastard---you cherrypick a piece out of MOAA and expect me to choose who I support between you and Gunny. Meanwhile you won't even commit yourself to the views of the same group who YOU WANT TO USE to back up your position. Don't worry--the military would prefer you just stay home and keep out of their way.
Finally, after that futile effort to divert from what the original contention was, lets review what happened:
An anonymous message board poster dismissed this bill by proclaiming that nobody who'd actually been in the military could possibly understand the ramifications of this bill.
I showed this to be false:
The (senate version of this) bill was supported by the nation's largest association of military officers.
It was written by a decorated Vietnam vet, and former Assistant SecDef in the Reagan adminstration.
And it was co-sponsored by the republican party's most prominent Vietnam vet - Chuck Hagel
No--you merely posted someone elses opinion--and hardly an unbiased one I might add. BTW--do you think are soldiers are getting screwed by the media as they claim ?
Aside from the unrealisticness of this bill, I couldn't see any President signing it into law. Secondly if this bill ever did become law, I highly doubt that it would stand up to any legal challenges based upon the Separation of Powers doctrine. A very good argument can be made by the Executive branch that this bill is unconstitutional and violates Section 2, Clause 1:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Article I: Congress shall have the power to...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
I'd say that there's some gray area there. When Congress imposes regulations that interfere with the President being Commander-in-Chief, it leads to a showdown in the SCOTUS and something like this would probably sway in the President's favor.highly doubt that it would stand up to any legal challenges based upon the Separation of Powers doctrine
Congress is given express Authority in Article I, to make rules and regulations for the armed forces.
I'd say that there's some gray area there. When Congress imposes regulations that interfere with the President being Commander-in-Chief, it leads to a showdown in the SCOTUS and something like this would probably sway in the President's favor.
But in your article it states the following:
"The bill would allow the President to waive these requirements to meet the national security needs of the country, and allow Service Chiefs of Staff to allow for the voluntary mobilization of members."
So the whole debate is pretty moot. Even if by some chance the bill passed, it's a pretty clear bet that the President would see Iraq as a national security need and would waive the down time requirements. Would you agree on that?
I agree 100%. Of course there has to be a waiver to allow a president flexibility in case of true national emergency.
The point is, these regulations would make the president accountable. He couldn't just treat troops like toy soldiers. He would have to publically and formally justify to congress why he would have to waive the rules that allow soldiers time at home after a deployment.
It makes it less likely that a president will treat our troops as toy soldiers simply on a whim, or without strong justification.