On Fri, 30 May 2008 17:23:45 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:

But that's the chance our volunteers took when they signed up for the
opportunity to wreak havoc.

They did not sign up to be lied to by the commander in chief.
Since many have re-upped since the "lied to" stuff started coming
out years ago, it would seem that they either they did, or don't feel
they have been.

It's a bit more complicated than that. One of my friends is career
military and is well aware that he's been lied to.

Interestingly, 85% of those who served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan
re-enlisted when their enlistment anniversary arrived.. Just last
week, the 1st Infantry Division, now on its THIRD tour of duty in
Iraq, reported it met its annual re-enlistment goal in the first six
months of the fiscal year!

It's called stop-loss.

Actually stop-loss ONLY applies to those who don't re-up if they have
needed skills. Stop loss is involuntary extension of enlistment,
re-enlistment, again by definition, is when they decide voluntarily to
stick around.

See above.

Our troops WANT to be there, they NEED to be there, they ENJOY being
there! We need to support our troops by continuing to provide them
with the opportunity to kill people and blow **** up. Hoo-Rah!

None of my friends that are there believe any of the crap that's being
shoveled at them by the Bush administration.

Oh well, that settles that argument. If I had known that such a
compelling data point was out there, I would have never even started
this whole discussion.

Sorry if first hand knowledge seems irrelevant to you. I'll let my buddy
that manned a machine gun on the back of a Hummer the first trip through
the center of Baghdad know that his experience and opinion are meaningless.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"