« NYCLU Demands Military Hand Over Info On Student Recruitment Tactics | Main | Military Recruiters Feel Pressure »

July 06, 2005

Air Force Plans Large Expansion of JROTC Programs


The magazine PeaceWork is reporting that the Air Force plans to expand its high school Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program by 200 schools by 2007. There are currently 746 high school programs. The Air Force plans to add 46 schools this fall and 75 in both 2006 and 2007. PeaceWork has published a list of the 46 new schools. The magazine has also obtained a list of 207 schools on the Navy's target list for new JROTC programs.

Posted by MikeBurke on July 6, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834536cb969e200d83450ac8653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Air Force Plans Large Expansion of JROTC Programs:

Comments

Interesting...

It's funny that the Navy and USAF - the two services that are kicking out junior officers due to overage - are expanding JROTC. oh, wait a minute ... JROTC has NOTHING to do with the real ROTC or officer programs. It is an unmistakable "trojan horse" to drum up enlistments for junior enlisted soldiers - nothing more.

The schools on the list are evidence of the socioeconomic targeting of enlisted recruiting.

Believe me, this expansion of JROTC in the Navy and USAF while CUTTING officers belies any false argument made that JROTC is a conduit to ROTC, OCS or any other commissioning program!

Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 6, 2005 11:25:26 PM

http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/news-28/1120740872236980.xml&storylist=penn

Posted by: The Kenosha Kid | Jul 7, 2005 5:15:04 PM

Here is the article mentioned by The Kenosha Kid:

Pa. National Guard says recruit is AWOL

The Associated Press

NORTHAMPTON, Pa. (AP) — A recent high school graduate who alleged that she was recruited into the National Guard through deceptive practices did not appear for her entry training Wednesday and now is considered absent without leave, officials said.

Guard officials said they will seek a warrant from a district judge to force Jessica Faustner, 18, of Bath, to go to training at Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon County.

"We will pursue this pretty strongly,"' said Lt. Col. Chris Cleaver, spokesman for the Pennsylvania National Guard. "We just want soldiers fulfilling their requirements."

Faustner's mother, Joan Koberly, said her daughter had been attending the monthly drill weekends at the Allentown National Guard Armory but stopped in April on the advice of her lawyer, John Roberts.

Roberts said Thursday that a recruiter had told Faustner that the Army National Guard would send her to nursing school after basic training, but instead her unit had been told it had a 90-percent chance of going to Iraq.

"A 17-year-old girl should be thinking about her prom and her graduation, not about going to Iraq. She was just misled all the way around. She's not real sophisticated," said Roberts, who said his client was recruited at Northampton Area High School about six months ago.

He said the recruiter did not give her and her parents complete information, and therefore wants the Guard to release her from the commitment.

"She's not around," Roberts said. "She's prepared to go to jail, if that's what they want."

Cleaver said Faustner's charges were taken "very seriously" and a staff judge advocate investigated, but none of the allegations could be substantiated.

Posted by: CR | Jul 8, 2005 1:41:23 AM

In reference to Air Force JROTC expanding its JROTC program, I commend them. Its good to see an organization that holds values such as dignity, pride, loyalty, and honor dear enough to instill it in America's youth.
Now, in regards to the Kenosha Kid's article. Faustner should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. She broke the law in the military, period. She drilled before with no complaints. What is different now? Iraq, thats what. She got scared and took off. Oh, she is only 17? Good. She is old enough to know what a contract is, and what commitment means.
"If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a Veteran." -Anonymous

Posted by: Army Soldier 05 | Jul 8, 2005 7:23:32 PM

Army disciplines recruiter with promotion

10:10 AM CDT on Friday, July 8, 2005

By Mark Greenblatt / 11 News

Less than two months ago, what the 11 News Defenders discovered caused a nationwide scandal and a temporary shutdown of all Army recruiting.

A Houston soldier, Sgt. Thomas Kelt, told at least one young man to show up for recruitment or face being locked up. Following that incident, the Army promised to take a tough stance, but you might not believe what happened next.

The Army shut down all recruiting in the country for one day to re-educate recruiters on ethics. And as for Sgt. Kelt, officials promised "swift ... corrective action."

The 11 News Defenders discovered Kelt was transferred to a neighboring recruiting office where the army turned recruiter Kelt into a supervisor, as the station's new commander.

Posted by: The Kenosha Kid | Jul 9, 2005 6:27:26 PM

Perhaps at 17, YOU may feel that kids - yes kids - can decide that they want to commit and some do. However, consider that at 17 years old these kids are not allowed to get a MAC card, drive past certain hours, open a credit card, etc in the eyes of the law. They can't even vote on the same war that they are being sent to fight in. You will be held responsible for a contract for the ROTC but not anything else because you don't have the right?

ROTC, in my opinion, should educate kids on what it would be like and what will be expected, then the Gov't should stick to their commitments as well. IF, at the legal age of 18 these kids want to proceed, then fine. If not, let them opt out.

I appreciate all the people that fight and have fought for our freedom. However, lets be fair. Let the girl make this decision as an adult in the eyes of the law, not before.
MEC

Posted by: M E C | Jul 12, 2005 4:03:43 PM

So, now 17 year olds don't have to be responsible for their actions? Besides that, a 17 year old must get parental consent to join. Opt out? You mean quit. So they should test drive it first? This is the United States military, not your local car dealership. What does driving past certain hours, ATM cards, or voting have to do with the fact she made an obligation and doesn't want to uphold it?
So, because someone is 17, they can go murder anyone they want, because they are just a kid, right? Or are they old enough to know right from wrong? They ARE old enough to know, therefore, they know when they make a commitment, to break it is wrong. Or we can just keep enabling kids to be unresponsible and quit whenever they feel like it, or because it gets a little too "tough."

Posted by: Army Soldier 05 | Jul 12, 2005 4:31:28 PM

People under 18 can't be legally bound by any contract because they're considered minors. Laws governing conduct in civil society still apply to them, except respecting contracts. This is why salesmen and credit companies turn them away, because they know the law and it would be more trouble than it's worth.

Posted by: | Jul 13, 2005 10:00:00 AM

I agree that it is more trouble than it's worth. As to whether or not they can be bound by a contract legally or not, they can. A 17 year-old can even get a loan with a co-signer. Just like an enlistment contract, not one, but BOTH parents have to sign it to allow them to process for the military, unless the other parent is incarcerated or abandoned the family. Don't take my word for it, look up Department of Defense Form 1966/5. It is parental consent to allow for military processing.
So, as we go in circles over semantics, they are obligated to uphold it, period. In the infinite wisdom of her lawyer, she is 18 now anyhow, so it doesn't matter on way or the other. You don't join for 6 months, drill in the National Guard, then say you were "lied" to or "mislead" when the rumor mill says Iraq is in the pipeline. Look at it for the real facts, not the spin.

Posted by: Army Soldier 05 | Jul 13, 2005 7:25:12 PM

"Spin" is all these people can see or even care about. It's pointless to debate here as any point you make will be counted as another lie that the military tells, you will be discredited simply for being in the service. These people dont have a clue what theyre doing. Good luck anyways, and thank you for your service.

Posted by: USAF 94 | Jul 14, 2005 2:24:22 PM

JR ROTC = GOOD!

Those programs are designed to give young people a good taste of the military and give them some skills they can take into the military should they decide to enlist. If you complete a JR ROTC program you can enlist as an E-3 rather than an E-1. As somebody already said, JR ROTC teaches the youth of America any important Values that aren't instilled in the youth today. Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. This country would be so much better if every American lived by these values. Maybe that's why I fear so much for the future of this country. The liberalism of America has taken these values away from the average American.

Army Soldier 05: You have obviously done your research! You must have passed Recruiting 101 with FLYING colors! GOOD JOB 'OLE CHAP!

-Recruiter
http://recruiterconfession.blogspot.com

Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 19, 2005 3:37:03 AM

"Recruiter"...

You are out there, man.

First off, thanks for exposing what we already know and that the DoD tries to cover up: JROTC IS a "trojan horse" recruiting tool to funnel kids as young as 13 into considering enlisting.

Did you know that ALL DoD and Army Accessions Command materials deny this? The gov't explicitly tells us that JROTC is a "citizenship" program for high schoolers. Not being fools, we all know better. I'm glad you posted the truth.

Does JROTC teach values? It very well may. But, if that is the purpose of the program, why are the JROTC programs primarily located in struggling communities (i.e. inner cities, hard scrabble rural areas etc). If values was the thrust of JROTC, why doesn't the Army seek to put this supposedly "great" program in places like Rye, NY; Montgomery County, MD; Grosse Pointe, MI or Alpharetta, GA - surely the children of the affluent need values too. Answer: the military doesn't give a rat's ass about teaching values to 15 year olds. It wants unfettered access to high schoolers in targeted socioeconomic groups, in areas that have a high propensity of ENLISTING. It's really that simple.

The "ROTC" in JROTC is the most insulting part of this fraud. The JROTC sends almost no one to college ROTC or the officer corps. The name should be changed because it gives a false impression (I'm sure this is exactly why they use it). The E-3 rank is a carrot used to "close" the sale on targeted JROTC students.

You "fear for the future" of this country and condemn liberals. Funny, you seem to have no problem with JROTC being disproportionately located in DEMOCRATIC areas, many of which have registered Dem-Repub. ratios of 8-1. case in point: virtually all inner city JROTCs.

Do you really believe those of us in uniform that disagree with you apocalyptic woldview are the problem?

Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 19, 2005 11:22:23 AM

IIR Soldier,
Let me quote you for a second:
"You "fear for the future" of this country and condemn liberals. Funny, you seem to have no problem with JROTC being disproportionately located in DEMOCRATIC areas, many of which have registered Dem-Repub. ratios of 8-1. case in point: virtually all inner city JROTCs."

Democrat = liberal

So yes, I have no problem with ROTC going into liberal areas and teaching VALUES which the liberals seem to lack.

One reason poorer schools have ROTC programs is because the program is offered at little or no cost to the school. Obviously poor schools will take ANYTHING for free.

With low income areas there is usually a gang problem as well. Many people like the fact that ROTC puts a sense of direction into many mis-guided youth and keeps them out of trouble.

As for your comment on sending "no-one" to a college ROTC program - well a person has to WANT to go to college in order to be sent there. I have seen many JROTC kids go to a ROTC program after graduating from high school.

"Do you really believe those of us in uniform that disagree with you apocalyptic woldview are the problem?"

What are you talking about?

Judging by your name "IRR Soldier" you're not in uniform any longer. You probably got out with a CO status....

-Recruiter
http://recruiterconfession.blogspot.com

Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 19, 2005 3:07:21 PM

Recruiter,

I can't believe that you are currently an active duty recruiter ... you are SO ignorant and misinformed. You really should "give up" on debating on this site until you learn what you're talking about.

1)Democrat=liberal... Hmm... that's pretty funny. I wonder what Sen. Ben Nelson in Nebraska would say about your comments. Ditto for Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat running against Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. Hell, you skipped painting with a "broad brush" and moved right to using a paint roller. Turn off Rush Limbaugh and get informed ... the world, politics and the miltary are more complex than black-and-white.

2) If you are so in favor of JROTC teaching values to "liberals", why don't you support establishing JROTC at elite private schools in Manhattan like Collegiate and Brearly. Ditto for NYC area suburban schools like Montclair and the like.

Funny thing is that JROTC targets inner city "blue staters" and rural "red staters" to recruit them ... values ain't part of the equation. Go and tell the parents of JROTC students at Panther Valley high school in Nesquahoning, PA that they are "liberals in need of educating." I doubt you'd make it out of the parking lot ... without being run over by trucks sporting BUSH/CHENEY stickers! You are a dumbass!

JROTC isn't free! The school's foot 1/2 the cost. This is actually a big source of debate. You don't get something for nothing!

3) I am in the IRR and subject to recall. My chances of going to Iraq in the next three years are 100% more than yours ... you chairborne punk!

I'll respond in more detail later to the rest of your idiotic points.

I Hope you roll a donut this month!!!

Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 19, 2005 3:30:34 PM

IRR Soldier,
Let me quote you AGAIN:
"You "fear for the future" of this country and condemn liberals. Funny, you seem to have no problem with JROTC being disproportionately located in DEMOCRATIC areas, many of which have registered Dem-Repub. ratios of 8-1. case in point: virtually all inner city JROTCs."

YOU were the one who said that they're in primarily democratic areas. You are starting to "flip-flop" like the liberal poster-child "I don't deserve any medals" Kerry. Republican areas are much more likely to welcome JROTC programs with open arms because they're way more patriotic than you liberal pukes.

I never said I didn't support JROTC programs in private schools. The fact of the matter is that they usually won't take them. Why, I'm not sure. I'm not going to speculate on that.

JROTC can be free. There are organizations who will put forth the rest of the costs so the school doesn't have to pay for it. Such a thing happened in my area.

What was your MOS? Probably food service or something. What was your rank? E-3? The IRR is taking people of specific rank and specific MOSs. They're mostly taking medical, MI, and MPs. You're not going and we don't want you. The Recruiting Command is currently looking for recruiters to go to Iraq in a retention role. I'm currently on that list. Don't go spouting off about me staying in the green zone and never leaving the wire. We're required to be part of a platoon and go on patrols and everything else the other soldiers are required to do. We just have the additional duties of retention.

You never did comment on why you got out. Sure looks like it was on a CO status.

I almost forgot! If I roll a donut this month it doesn't matter. I'm above mission!

-Recruiter
http://recruiterconfession.blogspot.com

Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 19, 2005 9:23:46 PM

Recruiter vs. IRR Soldier

We should put them in a ring so they can beat their chests.

I didn't ask you guys to fight for me in Iraq, so if I'm not thankful for that, sorry. I'll let you know if I need you to defend me in the future. Right now I'll just keep my AK47 close by if I need to defend myself against commies, druggers, terrorists, reality TV, or my government.

Get yourselves educated so you understand what a real war is, and when you find one, then fight it. Until then, don't join up. I'd rather go to jail for a year than serve as a concientious objector in such stupid, nonsensical wars as the war on drugs, Iraq or the war on terrorism in general.

The revolutionary war and perhaps WW2 are the only wars I believe in.

Get a life, get a clue, get a job, get out of the US military when you still can. In jail you can educate yourself.

Posted by: | Jul 20, 2005 4:59:00 PM

To the last poster,

You are the one who needs to educate yourself. You are advocating a course of action that you have no idea about.

First off, I left the Active Army in August 2002 to attend graduate school. I am currently in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) because, by law, I have to be ... one doesn't voluntarily join the IRR after leaving active duty.

IRR soldiers are being recalled involuntarily YEARS after leaving the Active Army. Where do you get the sense that I am happy about this?

Posted by: IRR Soldier.... | Jul 20, 2005 5:32:01 PM


Sorry if I overreacted. This Iraq mess makes me so mad and I'm not even over there. I wish more Americans would spend some time THINKING about what is going on.

If I were drafted in this bloody conflict, I'd be off to jail for absolutely refusing to participate. Hopefully they would have good reading material in jail.

Are they currently giving people a year for refusing? That's about as long as a deployment anyway?

Are you thinking of skipping or would you go fight ?

M

Posted by: | Jul 20, 2005 7:28:21 PM

To the last poster,

I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. The tragedy of this war is that if it does not personnaly touch you or your family, then little going on is of much consequence.

No, I would not outright refuse to go. Why, so someone else would be involuntarily mobilized or stop-lossed to take my place. No thanks.

You see, that is the unintended consequence of what you advise I do. This debacle is being then both of us. Someone will always be yanked to take our place. I have seen men deployed to Iraq for a YEAR on as little as 12 days notice. This certainly is an ugly mess, but I'm not in the business of ruining the lives of others called to take my place.

Noone wins from running ... just others get hurt. Besides, why would I want a federal felony conviction on my record. Try getting a job, or in my case, admitted to the bar with one of those!

Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 20, 2005 7:47:57 PM

To Unknown poster:
Well, you don't have to ask soldiers to fight for you. We'll do it anyway. You've got to get yourself educated. Just because something doesn't appear on CNN doesn't mean it didn't happen. The U.S. had every reason to go into Iraq whether you believe me or not. I could go into great, great detail about why, but that post would be pages and pages long. Double that with the fact that there was never a declaration ending the 1st Gulf War (Only a declaration of a cease-fire) President Bush didn't actually have to go to Congress, we've been at war with Iraq for all these years. You don't support the War on Drugs. I guess Meth and Coke are good things for society. And you don't support the War on Terror in general?! You're OK with the fact that there is an organization who already murdered 3,000 innocent American civilians and want to come back for more?! Apparently all you care about is yourself. If that is the case..... WOW. You truely are the most selfish person I've ever come across. There is more to this world than just you.

You said you don't support any other war besides the 2 that you mentioned...... man, I guess freeing the slaves wasn't a good thing?

-Recruiter
http://recruiterconfession.blogspot.com

Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 21, 2005 2:27:20 AM

Recruiter,

You speak of some mysterious thing that our patronizing leaders did not have the courage to tell the American public about that justified the Iraq War? Pray tell me what that is.

We occupied their land to get their oil, trained them how to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, we supported the Israeli occupation, and they fought back. Our solution is then to occupy even MORE of their land so they'll fight back some more. History has shown that terrorism ends when occupation ends. To end the war on terrorism is to simply end occupation, Check out this link for more information:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul262.html

Many, many more Arab civilians have died due to our despiciable occupations than Americans have died due to despicable terrorist attacks. Is either truly better than one another? Is state terrorism better than individual terrorism?

Looks like you bought the freeing of the slaves rhetoric as much as the WMD rhetoric. As far as the civil war goes, read this book: The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo. This book proves that Lincoln's federalist expansion was in direct odds with the founders of our country. Also, read the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods, Jr. The civil war was a federalist power grab. They freed the slaves in the western states because they wanted to keep it for white people. Don't think for a minute that they weren't all a bunch of bloody racists. It's been 100 years since the civil war and racism, though much better, is still going on in this country. In the civil war, over 600,000 americans died for NOTHING but increased federal power. They couldn't find one letter from a union soldier written home that said "I'm fighting to free the slaves" Slavery was going away anyway. Technology (read cotton gin) and attitudes would have killed it long ago. Before the civil war, States had the right to secede no matter what the reason. The South wanted to secede for many reasons, including the fear of the destruction of their economy. The lincoln memorial should be torn down.

I highly object to the liberal imperialist policies of the US government especially those fronted by the illegal use of our military. Our administration's invasion of sovereign Iraq with cooked evidence is treasonous and despicable behaviour. As bad has Hussein was, now the place is a hell-hole because of us stupid cowboys. Just because "the war was still going on from the initial declaration" doesn't make it any more right.

Meth and coke aren't good things for society but individual responsibility is. Having our government constantly protect us from ourselves drastically limits our freedoms in this country. These are the freedoms worth fighting for. Since freedom is rapidly becoming a thing of the past in this country, it will no longer be worth fighting for before long. Liberals and "so called conservatives" are equally guilty on this. The War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism are miserable failures. The War on Alcohol was particulary stupid, but that's a good drug now, isn't it? Now they are beginning a War on Dietary Supplements (HR3156) because the government knows more about self-medication than we do, haha what a laugh.

As far as the first gulf war is concerned Saddam asked our embassy for the go ahead to invade Kuwait and we said yes! We armed Saddam with many of the chemical weapons he used and then we invaded his country again after he destroyed them! Our sanctions (blame Clinton) are responsible for the UN-confirmed deaths of 100,000 Iraqi children. Madeleine Albright even said in an interview that "it was worth it." We punished a town of civilians in Iraq (Fallujah) and are still punishing it. We continually humiliate Muslims in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Do you want to be continually associated with these callous horrible actions? I don't.

I will only fight in and fund legal, justifiable wars that I am not lied to about. I love what America was, and am willing to be part of changing it back to its former glory.


Posted by: | Jul 21, 2005 3:47:24 PM

Ignorance is truly a disease. Lets get back to the point of the thread before we all lose sight of it.
You say JROTC targets low income schools or "poor" people? Hmmm, I know of a lot of schools in San Diego Unified School District that are very well off with JROTC programs.
So you think we should offer the military opportunities to wealthy kids too? Surprise! Most servicemembers will never claim they were poor or rich, but middle class. Just like me. Quit trying to polarize the spectrum of communities as poor and rich. The "poor" have become successful, and the "rich" have lost everything. It isn't a permanent fixture in society to be wealthy or poor.
It can disappear in the blink of an eye. Montel Williams wasn't rich, but look at him now...attribute success to his military service, because he does. Arthur Anderson sure lost his shirt with all his wrong-doing.
But its okay for Enron and Anderson Consulting to swindle thousands of people out money and make them lose everything(including suicide{read=loss of life}).
Just because they aren't recruiters. (Psst. even though they cold call investors just like we call high school grads!)

Posted by: Army Soldier 05 | Jul 21, 2005 6:04:23 PM

Unknown Poster:
We know Saddam had WMDs. He used them twice! But there has never been any evidence that he destoryed them. Coalition soldiers have found a lot of evidence of current WMD facilities, just the media won't report it. Saddam had all of his artilerary shells painted the same color in the mid 90s. Why? Because he had a bunch of shells with Syrin Nerv gas in them and he didn't want the weapons inspectors to find them. Oh yeah, in 2004 insurgeants accidentally set one off as an IED and 2 US Soldiers were exposed. Don't forget about Salmon Pak training camp where they tested out WMDs, trained Saddam's special forces (can't spell their name) as well as TERRORISTS. They had the body of a 747 air plane in the camp! It's estimated that he trained about 800 terrorists there. Have we found all of the WMDs? Nope. But we can't prove that Saddam destroyed them. Lets just pray that he wasn't able to put them in the hands of a terrorist before we got there.

After we went into Iraq some soldiers found something metal sticking out of the ground. They started digging, and digging, and digging finially figuring out that it was a fighter jet. While undiging that one they found another, and another, and another. 22 fighter jets in total. Both Mig and Mirage (russian and french aircraft)These aircraft were in direct violation of the cease fire agreement. These are 22 aircraft that we didn't know he had. Now if he has the ability to bury 22 HUGE jets in the desert. What could he do with a syrin cylinder the size of a coke can (which would kill thousands)? How about a 55 gallon drum? Face it, we needed to go in there and stop him. Lets hope we're not too late.

Ah yes.... the UN Scantions! You're blaming the scantions on the 200,000 Iraqi children starving to death (Your number was half of what reports have said). Have you not heard about the Oil For Food Program? How about the Oil For Food SCANDAL?! Saddam was supposed to sell oil and get money to buy food. Saddam bought off the UN officials who were in charge of this and used that money to line his own pockets while his people starved to death. Don't blame the US, blame Saddam and the UN for being corrupt. It goes way deeper than this though. He was able to bribe the inspectors that were supposed to inspect all incomeing and outgoing cargo in his ports. They didn't inspect them all - now we'll never know why Saddam needed 40,000,000 pencil sharpeners. Wait! Saddam CLOSED MOST OF HIS SCHOOLS! Why would a country with almost no schools need 40,000,000 pencil sharpeners? Hmm.... Saddam was able to make BILLIONS off this scandal by bribing other people and Selling his oil at WAY below market cost, saving the buyer millions. In return for saddams "discount" the buyer would have to deposit money into a swiss bank account under a Saddam front-company. They found about $10 BILLION in funds that Saddam in different bank accounts. If you wanna blame anybody for Saddam BLAME THE UN!

I don't like civilian deaths as much as the next guy. But less civilians have died at the hands of US weapons then they did under Saddam. Amnisty International and the International Red Cross is currently investigating 240 mass graves across the country of Iraq. They've finished with 40 of them for a total of 400,000 bodies found! They've still got 200 left to go. The International Red Cross estimates that about 2.7 MILLION Iraqi civilains are "Missing" at the hands of Saddam. Civilain deaths is unfortunate but they're FAR better off with us then they were with Saddam. What's even more crazy is that the Insurgeants kill WAY more civilians than the US does. You anti-war people act like soldiers just go over there and kill everything in sight. Remember that we're people too. We have to live with what we do. I have a friend who was being shot at by an insurgeant using a 8-year-old littl girl as a human sheild. It was either her or him. But he's got to live with that for the rest of his life. We don't WANT to hurt civilians, but sometimes it's inevitable.

I've got friends who were at abu garib during the scandal. They'll tell you from experience that the media drummed up alot of it. Was what they did wrong? Some of it was. Were they punished? Yep. You act like we're so bad because we're "mis-treating" prisoners. Lets look at how things could be. 30,000 prisoners died at abu garib - under Saddam. They were feed only bread and water if anything at all. For fun Saddam and his two sons would have the guards flood a courtyard with hundreds of prisoners and then make the guards beat them all till they all stopped moving (there's video of that). One man didn't want to help Saddam with his nuclear program so Saddam tied his hands togeather, put them on a cieling fan, then tied his feet to poles in the ground, then turned on the cieling fan till it broke his back. That man fled to America where he and his family live today. The thing that gets me is that you criticize the United States for a few bad apples abusing prisoners (can you call it abuse when nobody actually got hurt) yet you say NOTHING when the terrorists BEHEAD people and then put it on TV for all to see. You say NOTHING when a terror cell bombs a bus and a few trains and hundreds are killed (spain included) you say NOTHING when terrorists fly planes into buildings and kill 3,000 innocent civilians and injure thousands more. How come you don't speak out agains THOSE crimes against humanity. You didn't speakout when the Taliban shot women in the head because they talked back to their husband. You didn't say anything when Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds for no reason at all. You're part of the "Blame America First" crowd. Everything is America's fault. And to make matters worse you don't say anything when insurgeants kill innocent Iraqis every day. You sure didn't seem to mind last week when a sucide bomber killed about 25 children. We should just "pack up and leave" that would SURELY make the situation better!

You insinuated that because we helped them fight the soviets in Afganistan that's why they hate us? We helped them! Why would that make them hate us? Fact of the matter is that terrorism has been a problem for well over 20 years. They don't hate us because of "occupations". They hate us because of RELIGION. This is a RELIGOUS war. They hate us because we're not muslum. Plain and simple. No amount of "talking" to these people will get them to stop. They want us to die because we're "infidels" and only deserve death. Don't believe me? Go on some islamic websites and read what they say. It's written there for all to see.

We didn't punish the town of Falluja. We actually gave all the civilians an opportunity to leave; which many did. Falluja is where the terrorists seem to converge. Their command and control is there. That's their "last stand" if you will. The civilians don't want them there. So in the town of falluja the US get 100 leads a day from Falluja citizens telling us where the terrorists could be.

You say we're losing this war. What makes you say that? How do you define winning and losing? I'm just curious to see what your answer would be.

-Recruiter
http://recruiterconfession.blogspot.com

Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 21, 2005 8:57:02 PM

Saddam was never a threat to us even if he had or used the WMD _we gave him_. The measly amount of weapons you mentioned is not enough to justify an invasion. The US has the most WMD in the world--including chemical, biological and nuclear. What are we, hypocrites? Oh, we just keep 'em here, we'll never use them...yeah right. Face it, the UN inspections were working (until the US kicked them out by continually threatening Iraq). Face it, the evidence that Colin Powell brought in front of the UN was laughed at by anyone with any technical knowledge.

Bush dropped us a few rungs on the civilization ladder when he decided to invade a country with cooked evidence.

To say that the US had no complicity or knowledge about what the UN did with the sanctions or what was happening in Iraq is completely incorrect. It proved to be a useful tool in the Iraq war...and was worth it according to Madeleine Albright.

BS-they don't hate us because of religion. If you bothered to read the link I first sent you, the one thing in common with all the suicide attacks in this century is political: OCCUPATION, OCCUPATION, OCCUPATION.

To say they hate us because of religion-have you ever read the Quran? It is more civilized than the Old Testament is. They are using religion as rhetoric just like Bush used WMDs as rhetoric, it's the same thing. Just like many of the Christian churches here embrace war even though Jesus didn't. Total hypocrisy on BOTH sides. To think we are that much better is simply hypocrisy.

We're losing the war on terrorism because you cannot defeat terrorism using the same method that caused it in the first place (OCCUPATION) ! The war on terrorism is a war of philosophy that cannot be defeated by a military force. But the imperialists use it as rhetoric to their advantage to fight wars for oil, for israel, or for big business--and that's what's going on!

We trained Bin Laden's associates and gave them weapons in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and then they used this training against us--that's what I meant to imply--not that it increased hatred of us. Every single act of meddling we do in this world has blowback that our leaders can't seem to understand. So, the solution is to STOP MEDDLING.

Who created the idiotic borders in the middle east and allowed people like Saddam and the Saudi "Royalty" to prosper in the first place? The West did. What kind of idiot would break up the Kurds, shiites and sunnis and put them under control of one group? The same kind of idiot who is more interested in oil or israel than humanity in general.

Why do we have military bases in many countries of the world? It isn't for altruistic reasons--it's to support the bloody empire.

We gave everyone a chance to leave Fallujah? Kicking out everyone and creating a refugee situation? We treated the Arabs like lesser human beings--kicking them out of their houses, cutting of external aid, razing 33% of the buildings in their town, bombing their hospitals and sniping them in the streets like animals. How many people would stay in their homes in America if they were told to leave for any reason? Fallujah certainly wasn't a last stand by any definition, I hear they're coming back despite all the crazy security checkpoints we have set up!

I put the blame on who deserves it, if it happens to be America so be it. "Blame America First" is another label used by people like you to dismiss the anti-war crowd out of hand--pure rhetoric. Perhaps I should call you an "armchair general," will that work?

And all we have to do is stop supporting Israel and expedite a pull-out of Iraq. The Sunnis and Shiites are heading toward civil war anyway, with our without us, just wait. Case in point, when we left Lebanon, the suicide attacks stopped IMMEDIATELY. At least Reagan had a bit of sense.

Saddam is a worthless piece of dung, no arguing that.

Most of the mass graves that were encountered were because of a Shiite uprising that Saddam put down. The Shiites trusted Bush Sr (aka Bush-lite) when he said that we would support their uprising. But we left them behind!

Oh yeah, Iraq was the only secular country in the middle east until our invasion. In about 10 years after a civil war it will be Iran II. Already the new president is making trade deals with Iran. Is that what you want? Even with your view of the world this must be a bad thing.

Posted by: | Jul 22, 2005 2:09:04 PM

Tell me once again, why did Osama bin Laden attack the United States? 1) We weren't in Afghanistan when the U.S. was attacked. 2) We were in Saudi Arabia, as a check against Saddam Hussein. 3) France wasn't in Iraq, and yet Al Qaeda threated France after they tried to limit religion in their public schools. You may think this is about oil, but it's not. It is about some nutcase trying to impose Islam on the free world. The sooner that bin Laden is dead, the sooner that Al Qaeda will realize that bin Laden isn't the Messiah.

Dave

Posted by: David M Davis | Jul 24, 2005 9:32:41 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.