It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Where we are going to get more troops!!!!!!!

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 08:43 AM
Yes where are we going to get the troops.

Senator Chuck Hagel, a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2008, was surprisingly critical of the president while speaking on ABC's 'This Week.' Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam, seemed particularly angry about reports the Pentagon was planning to have American troops remaining in Iraq for another four years.

Another GOP member showing disappointment with the results of the war in Iraq. He said that US in Iraq is starting to look more and more like Vietnam.

I wonder how many others in the GOP are sharing the same feelings about the President’s mistakes.

Hagel directly challenged the Bush administration when he added, ''stay the course' is not a policy. By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning,' he said.

I guess is GOP members out there that have not problem challenging the president.

All this comments came as the result of telling that we may be 4 more years in Iraq.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by marg6043]

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 08:50 AM
I really do think the pres is living in a dream world, isolated from the reality that rational people are FINALLY having the guts to bring to light.

Where the troops will come from is the draft. That's THE ONLY way to get enough troops to do what the pres is suggesting. He's living in a fantasy land filled with cream cakes and moon pies...

This is going to be Vietnam again if we keep going down this road. Ridiculous!

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:10 AM
I believe That our delusional leader thinks that US sons and daughter are going to flock to the recruiting offices to sign for his crusade as soon as he said so.

This is a quote from the article that got to me, this man is right, where are the troops will come from.

'I don't know where he's going to get these troops,' Hagel said. 'There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years.'

He is right, our quotas are very low, and families are not pushing their sons and daughter to sign in, I am one of them and I know about a score of others.

This weekend I was having a conversation with my son he is 19 he said that the recruiting officers are all over the mall in groups looking for possible candidates.

I was in the mall at the café shop on Friday night and I had seen it with my own eyes 5 army recruiting personnel walking the mall hunting.

Even my husband a retired Marine said that he is amazed, and that the army most be hurting a lot to have so many recruiters in one area alone.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by marg6043]

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:21 AM
My nephew is in Iraq and the recruiters are all over my high-school and college-age nieces.

We also don't hear (in the MSM) about the soldiers in Iraq who are simply leaving, going AWOL, or committing suicide because they just can't handle what they're doing. Who wants to go into a situation where people are giving their lives to get out? It's terrible.

5000 AWOL
Thousands AWOL

As an aside, it's AMAZING how many of these articles just disappear over time... Hmmm...

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:16 AM
since the end of the Cold War where we have been downsizing and not to mention better pay in the civilian world. it looks like it dont matter animore if we fought this war or not. the military is pretty much getting smaller and smaller.

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:33 AM
Deltaboy I agree with you on that, the downside of the military is going to hurt us sooner or later when it comes to the ready troops that we have available in case of a real conflict like an invasion or worst a nuclear fall out somewhere in the world.

And yes BevevoletHeretic is been a lot of troops that has come for leave and refuse to go back.

But we don't get to hear this much is not good propaganda for the troops that are still in Iraq.

I wonder how our troops is getting this news of the 4 more years of tour.

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:49 AM
Perhaps this extended 4 year run will allow the passing of human cloning. Just think how many soldiers we could grow. Of course we would need to accelerate the growth rate as we need them ready to fight within months vs years. I know this sounds tongue in cheek but my point is that we do not have more soldiers and I doubt young men and women are running to recruitment offices at the moment.

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:02 PM
Well the new media doesn't make it any prettier with all the bad news coming from Iraq.

You will really have to be motivate as a young adult or teen to serve in the Arm forces this days.

All the money spend of propaganda, the incentives, bonuses and others are not working.

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:08 PM
Military recruitment quotas were met for July and are on schedule to meet the recruitment quotas for August.

Is there a problem?
Any factbook will cite that the US has more than enough troops, and those that are operating in Iraq and Afghanistan represent only a portion.
Hagel is over-reacting and continuing his weak-kneed manuevering, since apparently, he, as with some others, are having great difficulty in understanding that the military is simply planning for a worse case scenerio by staying in Iraq up to 4 more years. Simple contingency planning used by one in minor power for politicizing purposes.


[edit on 22-8-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:26 PM
Well somebody is not telling the truth my husband keeps telling me that the Marines are not meeting their quota and neither the Army, now as for the navy that is another story.

By Michael Kilian
Washington Bureau
Published August 11, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The active duty Army met its recruiting goal in July but its reserve component and the Army National Guard again failed to reach their targets, according to a Pentagon report released Wednesday.

With two months to go, the Army's goal of signing up 80,000 recruits by the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30 will likely not be met.

For this fiscal year, as of July 31, the active duty Army was able to enlist only 55,207 of the 62,385 new soldiers it had sought for the period.

Now taking in consideration that many of these recruiters will fail their training is very important that they have their quotas to insure that at least the majority of new recruiters will at least make it through booth camp.

No a pretty picture.

chicagotribune .com

No wonder they were in full force during the summer.

Though the summer has traditionally been a time of improved recruiting results for the service--with potential recruits finishing high school and looking forward to careers or ways to finance college--it seems doubtful that the gap between 55,207 and 80,000 can be closed in just two months.

Now lets see what the fall will bring.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by marg6043]

[edit on 22-8-2005 by marg6043]

[edit on 23-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Seekerof
Military recruitment quotas were met for July and are on schedule to meet the recruitment quotas for August.

I wonder if that's because they lowered their quotas?


Again in July, there were numerous actions against recruitment
centers, and it seems to be having an impact. Military officials have
lowered their quotas in the face of the falling numbers.


Even after reducing its target for May, the Army missed its recruiting goal by about 25 percent, according to the New York Times.

This is the same strategery Bush used to clean up the air. Just lower the standards! There! all clean!

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:51 PM
I understand that the overall numbers are short, Marg, but I also don't understand why the Hagel talk of concern continues.

How many troops are deployed in Iraq?
South Korea?

When all is taken into account, the numbers are fine; rotation is the key.

Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. That's a third less than when the U.S. fought its last big war in the Persian Gulf, in 1991;
130,000 Army troops are in Iraq. Pentagon officials had hoped to reduce that number, but the ongoing insurgency prevented it; 9,000 Army troops are in Afghanistan; 3,000 help keep the peace in Bosnia, as do 37,000 in South Korea.


I will insist that though the numbers are close for active service, this nation has a Reserve and National Guard for a reason, and one of their duties are to serve during wartime in combat when so required. As such, when combining those numbers for active duty and National Guard and reservists, there is no need for the talk of draft or near the concern so being continually pointed out. Hagel, as with others, are simply looking at active numbers mainly.

Stretched thin may be a valid concern, but the suggested increase in active troop levels has only been suggested at 520,000. As such, the current active duty level is 499,000+, so we are only talking an increase of 20-25,000 active duty troops. Definately not enough to warrent a draft, as so suggested by Hagel and others. The draft resolution/measure has been voted down twice already. How many more times will it have to be voted down before some get the message that there will be no such draft?

Furthermore, though some are advocating and obviously eatting up the bad news that the military will fall short of 2005 goals, there have been nearly 200,000 that have enlisted in the last 7 months. Hagel, as with others, are apart of the 'draft invoking disaster critics of the war', nothing more.


[edit on 22-8-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:56 PM
I guess my husband sources at the base are still in the old quota numbers to them they keep telling that quotas are not been met.

Also when he told them about the Army in full force in the mall the Marine recruiters said that they have it even worst than them.

When the quotas are not meet ranks are a stake and jobs are lost.

I know . . . my husband while station In Orlando Florida at a recruiters offices headquarters, I remember the anxiety when the time to meet the quotas came about, even my husband could feel the tension and he was not a recruiter.

In one year that my husband was in that office, one officer was demoted and another one was transfered, it was a big investigation and office hours were handle to the rest of the recruiters in there, and my husband found out that the position he was filling in was because the person before him had a hart attack.

Life in the recruiter field is not a very healthy one.

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 07:00 PM

as posted by marg
Life in the recruiter field is not a very healthy one.

Most recruiters are being hassled by anti-war activists on campus's and off.
Makes things difficult for them to do their respective jobs.

There is continued hard work that can be further done on the recruiters parts though, but all-in-all, things will work out for the best in the end.
At any rate, IMHO, I do not see the need for the draft to be reinstated, especially not for the numbers they are ultimately seeking. Hell, they can call me back to active, if things get that bad.


[edit on 22-8-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 07:05 PM
Sekeerof I have the feeling that the draft will be back, we can not stretch this thin around the world with repercussions.

Even my husband agree that the only way to keep the military ranks in good health is with a good flood of new recruiters.

I am against the draft occurs for obvious reason but even I see that we are heading for that path.

US can not keep his supremacy in the world without enough troops.

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 07:12 PM
I think the US can maintain supremacy, despite the numbers.
Technology plays a large part in that.

I respect you and your husbands thinking that their may be a return of the draft, but again, the draft measure/resolution has been voted down twice.

I guess time will tell.


posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 07:23 PM
I had not clue that some recruiters were been treated badly in some places, I believe my husband mention something like that once but I kind off disregarded.

Here in my area they are treated well, I see no reason for anybody to be against them they are soldiers and they actually are the ones with the worst position in the military as now.

Very sad.

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
....they are soldiers and they actually are the ones with the worst position in the military as now.

Very sad.

Yes, indeed, quite sad.
Mind you, if you think this current situation is bad, compare and contrast it prior to Bush coming into office:

The list of personnel, weaponry and program cuts during the Clinton years is nothing short of startling:

• In real terms, the defense budget declined by nearly 35% during the 1990s.

• The Department of Defense cut more than 1,000,000 personnel during the 1990s.

• During the 1990s, the number of Army divisions declined from 28 to 15.

• During the 1990s, the U.S. Air Force declined from 39 tactical air wings to just 20.

• At the end of the 1980s, the U.S. Navy has over 550 ships, including 15 aircraft carriers. By 2000, those numbers had declined to 346 and 12 respectively.

In 1992, the U.S. defense budget was $298 bullion. In 2000, it was $294 billion a huge decrease in real terms.

These cuts were made in the name of, as Ted Kennedy likes to say, “the peace dividend.” It was thought that because the Cold War was over, America no longer faced global threats. President Clinton, speaking before the Democratic National Convention in 2000, declared that America faced “no great external threat.”



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 08:34 PM
Oh, is not doubt that the decline of the military started with Clinton, remember I was not a follower of Mr. Clinton at all actually, the only time I have ever voted Democrat was in the last elections.

Reagan did well for the military and so Bush father.

My husband was still in the service under Clinton but we were doing fine back then, it didn't affected us at all.

I remember the early retirement packages to snare military personnel into giving away their retirement entitlement for a lump some so the government could save money, many went for it due to the need for money but they regretted immediately after they did.

Thankfully my husband so it for what it was..

That was back in the early 90's, but I din't remember if it was Bush senior or Clinton idea.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 07:20 AM
Marg, just ran across this article this a.m.
Good read.
Is the U.S Military Overstretched?


<<   2  3 >>

log in