House Passes Rest for our Troops

[dilloduck]

Do you intend to back the MOAA unequivocally on Iraq and the WOT or are you just picking cherries ?

I figured-----cherry picking.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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?

 

[Truthmatters]

They are not the only ones who say the mulitiple and extended tours are bad for the men and the military.

This policy means we are keeping wounded soldiers in the battlefield which is increasing the likelyhood of other soldiers being injured.

Now If you support the troops you have to support them being protected as well as possible.

The fact that we may not have enough troops because of it can be solved by the people who insist we fight this war actually stepping up to the plate Or the draft.

You want to see how America will react to a draft for this war?

So do I.

 

[dilloduck]

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?

I'm not taking anyone's opinion and I'm familiar with what MOAA is. They have a LOT to say about our troops----so are you gonna pick this position they are taking and ignore what ELSE they have to say?

 

[DeadCanDance]

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.

"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.

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.moaa.org/about/about_newsctr/about_newsctr_moaa/about_newsctr_moaa_070615.htm

How about this for instance.

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

 

[DeadCanDance]

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

So you agree that the media is hurting our troops ?

 

[hjmick]

"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.

While I do not support continuing the war by the definition I derived from this sentence, were I a much younger man I do believe that I would enlist.

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.

I am all for a draft, in fact I'll go so far as to say that I believe that military service should be compulsory. Judging from what I've seen from much of today's youth, much could be learned, to their benefit, by serving a couple of years in the military.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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.

You can't even read kid. I didn't ask you to support me, or gunny.

I asked you if you put more weight behind MOAA on the troop protection bill, or more weight behind an anonymous message board poster's view on the bill.

Come back and debate me when you learn how to read.

There is nothing you posted about MOAA that I disagreed with. They advocate for soldiers. For their moral. For their welfare. There is no doubt that some or many soldiers are concerned about media coverage in iraq, and want to get positive stories out. I'm cool with that. This is the third time I've indicated that, but you evidently can't even read plain english. So I'm wasting my time on you

 

[DeadCanDance]

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

 

[dilloduck]

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 ?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

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."

 

[DeadCanDance]

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 ?

Learn 2 Read.

It was bascically asserted that no one who actually served in the military could support this bill.

That was false. Many people who served in the military supported this bill.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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."

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.

Article I: Congress shall have the power to...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

[Dirt McGirt]

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?

 

[DeadCanDance]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

I suspect even a nuclear strike on this country wouldn't convince people like you that we are in a war. You would hem and haw and claim we could never "prove" who did it and demand we do nothing,