Unhappy Democrats Need to Wait to Get Into Canada

[aesop]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6704292

Don't the the Statue of Liberty hit you in the ass...

[aesop]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6704292

Sorry...link is here

[Nickdfresh]

I've been to Canada, nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

Some of the parents of teenagers out there as well as Roth Army members 16-27 may want to make sure you and your family's passports is up to date. You never know, in a couple of years selective service may rear its ugly head. There may come a day when some Busheep take a one way trip to the Great White North.

[Angel]

Who says we want you? The longer Bush is in, the more anti-American we become, and now it will no longer be directed at Bush, but at the people that put him in again.

[Angel]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I've been to Canada, nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

Where in Canada have you been? It's a big country. ;)

[frenchie]

come in FRANCE!!!!!! the best place on earth

[Catfish]

Originally posted by Angel
Who says we want you? The longer Bush is in, the more anti-American we become, and now it will no longer be directed at Bush, but at the people that put him in again.

You mean YOU don't like us anymore? LMAO!

[Catfish]

Angel, what are you angry Canadians who don't like us anymore because we voted Bush in going to do to us?

Call us bad names?

[Angel]

Actually Cat, Bush is probably better for Canada than Kerry would have been. I'm talking more on a global level, not a Canuck.

What would I do personally, if I had the power? I'd build a wall and turn off all the taps! (Water, natural gas, oil, electricity, etc.) :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Angel
Where in Canada have you been? It's a big country. ;)

Parts north of Buffalo, i.e. Ontario including the great city of Toronto. I really like Canada and Don Cherry has adopted Buffalo, NY as a "Canadian" city. So I already live there. -LOL

[Angel]

If you've only been in that area, you haven't been to Canada! TO is extremely americanized. :D

[Big Train]

Angel is starting to sound like an extremist variety of Canuck....

turn of the taps...please...

[Angel]

Originally posted by Big Train
Angel is starting to sound like an extremist variety of Canuck....

turn of the taps...please...

You can tell you haven't been around very long... I'm long past starting to sound, I've always been this way... Just ask Big Bad Brian or John Ashcroft! :)

[Switch84]

:rolleyes: :D Let me quote Robin Williams again, dear.

"Canada is a loft apartment over a really big party!"

Keep your taps. We'll keep Diamond Dave and give you Van Fagar. That's more like Canada's speed, anyway.

[Big Train]

I've been around awhile, just never paid attention to you...wondering why I do now..

[aesop]

Originally posted by Angel
Who says we want you? The longer Bush is in, the more anti-American we become, and now it will no longer be directed at Bush, but at the people that put him in again.

OOOOHHHHHH. Scary. Behave now. We'll take all your remaining hockey teams and your perscription drugs that WE developed and go home if your not carefull. You'll be left with outdated socialist ideas, trees, and Celine Dion as your only national resources. :splooge:

[Ally_Kat]

Americans flock to Canada's immigration Web site
Fri November 05, 2004 01:30 PM ET

By David Ljunggren
OTTAWA (Reuters) - The number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning their homeland after President George W. Bush's election win this week.

"When we looked at the first day after the election, November 3, our Web site hit a new high, almost double the previous record high," immigration ministry spokeswoman Maria Iadinardi said on Friday.

On an average day some 20,000 people in the United States log onto the Web site, www.cic.gc.ca -- a figure which rocketed to 115,016 on Wednesday. The number of U.S. visits settled down to 65,803 on Thursday, still well above the norm.

Bush's victory sparked speculation that disconsolate Democrats and others might decide to start a new life in Canada, a land that tilts more to the left than the United States.

Would-be immigrants to Canada can apply to become permanent resident, a process that often takes a year. The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which requires a work permit.

But please spare the sob stories.

Asked whether an applicant would be looked upon more sympathetically if they claimed to be a sad Democrat seeking to escape four more years of Bush, Iadinardi replied: "There would be no weight given to statements of feelings."

Canada is one of the few major nations with an large-scale immigration policy. Ottawa is seeking to attract between 220,000 and 240,000 newcomers next year.

"Let's face it, we have a population of a little over 32 million and we definitely need permanent residents to come to Canada," said Iadinardi. "If we could meet (the 2005) target and go above it, the more the merrier."

But right now it is too early to say whether the increased interest will result in more applications.

"There is no unusual activity occurring at our visa missions (in the United States). Having someone who intends to come to Canada is not the same as someone actually putting in an application," said Iadinardi.

"We'll only find out whether there has been an increase in applications in six months."

The waiting time to become a citizen is shorter for people married to Canadians, which prompted the birth of a satirical Web site called www.marryanamerican.ca.

The idea of increased immigration by unhappy Americans is triggering some amusement in Canada. Commentator Thane Burnett of the Ottawa Sun newspaper wrote a tongue-in-cheek guide to would-be new citizens on Friday.

"As Canadians, you'll have to learn to embrace and use all the products and culture of Americans, while bad-mouthing their way of life," he said.

[Ally_Kat]

Didn't see Republicans flocking to Canada, did you?

I say if these dumbasses do move because they lost, then we shouldn't let them back in for the next election..or hell, why not -- EVER.

What the fuck ever happened to wiping the dirt off and collecting the pieces to rebuild? Are there really that many selfish babies in America? YOU SHARE A VOICE. The voice didn't go the way you wanted. Boo-Hoo.

I hope the Canadians realize they're being used here.

[Switch84]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Didn't see Republicans flocking to Canada, did you?

I say if these dumbasses do move because they lost, then we shouldn't let them back in for the next election..or hell, why not -- EVER.

What the fuck ever happened to wiping the dirt off and collecting the pieces to rebuild? Are there really that many selfish babies in America? YOU SHARE A VOICE. The voice didn't go the way you wanted. Boo-Hoo.

I hope the Canadians realize they're being used here.


:D Right on, Ally! Angel, DON'T LET 'EM IN!!!!!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Didn't see Republicans flocking to Canada, did you?

I say if these dumbasses do move because they lost, then we shouldn't let them back in for the next election..or hell, why not -- EVER.

What the fuck ever happened to wiping the dirt off and collecting the pieces to rebuild? Are there really that many selfish babies in America? YOU SHARE A VOICE. The voice didn't go the way you wanted. Boo-Hoo.

I hope the Canadians realize they're being used here.


You really don't understand the stakes at all. It's as simple as that. Have fun gloating though :)

[Ally_Kat]

dude, I joke around with you and for some reason you turn around and state I never took you seriously. So I don't know wtf is up with you and randomly starting with people, but whatever.

I'm gloating? Really? How? By telling people that running away because the shared voice within thise country didn't bend to their wants? I'm not one of the ones running around saying bow down to your master that is Bush. I realize not everyone is going to love whoever gets elected into any office and when someone I'm not thrilled about gets into office I at least stand tall and go, "okay. How are thigns going to go from here and what needs to be done for my party. Why did my party lose? How can we work with this canidate to hopefully make ground." See, I'm all mature like that. What's not mature is running away like a bunch of spoiled babies. Why aren't they coming together and working towards fixing what they obviously think is completely broken?

Thank God our forefathers and all those who sacraficed their lives to establish and maintain this country didn't run away when shit hit the fan for them.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
dude, I joke around with you and for some reason you turn around and state I never took you seriously.

you don't have to take me seriously. I don't care. :)

So I don't know wtf is up with you and randomly starting with people, but whatever.

I've had a bad week. HUGE, expensive exam tomorrow not withstanding, would care to guess why?

I'm gloating? Really? How?

"Are there really that many selfish babies in America? YOU SHARE A VOICE. The voice didn't go the way you wanted. Boo-Hoo."

By telling people that running away because the shared voice within thise country didn't bend to their wants? I'm not one of the ones running around saying bow down to your master that is Bush.

I'll agree, you aren't one of the many people doing that.

I realize not everyone is going to love whoever gets elected into any office and when someone I'm not thrilled about gets into office I at least stand tall and go, "okay. How are thigns going to go from here and what needs to be done for my party. Why did my party lose? How can we work with this canidate to hopefully make ground." See, I'm all mature like that. What's not mature is running away like a bunch of spoiled babies. Why aren't they coming together and working towards fixing what they obviously think is completely broken?

Thank God our forefathers and all those who sacraficed their lives to establish and maintain this country didn't run away when shit hit the fan for them.

Actually, that's exactly what our forefathers did. They got the shits of being told what to do by all kinds or tyrants all over the world and they moved the land of the free. Check the history books.

Now what you and everyone else having a good laugh needs to do is understand why intelligent, rational people are ready to jump ship like rats on the Titanic. This isn't because "awe boo hoo gw isn't going to do social security the way we want", or "boo hoo gw will take away my welfare check."

You don't understand the stakes of the election or what we face in the years ahead. You don't understand the danger in being so cocky and so stupid in a dangerous world. You mentioned today things go in cycles and I bet you'll get a good lesson about that shortly.

All I can do is shake my head at you people.

[jhale667]

I can't imagine leaving...especially not on W.'s behalf. Besides, since the initial anger waned, I realized ....I mean honestly, how long will it be before W.'s arrogant ass pulls a full Barney Fife and shoots himself in the foot? It WILL happen. Then all the gloaters here will have to admit they fucked up. We're talking YEARS of comedy fodder here!! :)

As for the country, I'm more for the 'Staying around trying to fix shit that's obviously broken' idea. There's still the issues of the economy, environment, civil liberties, etc.---ideas worth fighting for. It heartens me that I see more moderate Repubs than I thought there were on the news saying Billybob's gone too far to the right and they want him to be more centrist in policy over the next 4 years. If he continues to be a divisionist, this country will go to shit, and I think even those of you on this board who voted for him don't want to see that.

[jhale667]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Actually, that's exactly what our forefathers did. They got the shits of being told what to do by all kinds or tyrants all over the world and they moved the land of the free. Check the history books.

Now what you and everyone else having a good laugh needs to do is understand why intelligent, rational people are ready to jump ship like rats on the Titanic. This isn't because "awe boo hoo gw isn't going to do social security the way we want", or "boo hoo gw will take away my welfare check."

You don't understand the stakes of the election or what we face in the years ahead. You don't understand the danger in being so cocky and so stupid in a dangerous world. You mentioned today things go in cycles and I bet you'll get a good lesson about that shortly.

All I can do is shake my head at you people.


Great post. Five-star vote to you.

[Big Train]

The drama of it all. The world will be fine and everyone in it will be fine.

To my fellow repubs, let's stop antagonizing them for a bit. To my liberal friends, let's settle down the hysterics. Let's all take a long weekend and come back on monday ready to discuss stuff.

[wraytw]

Stop gloating, Ally! lol ;)

OD thinks that hyperbole helps his case. Or maybe it's just bitterness. He'll get over it. :)

[Angel]

I've found a new suggestion: :D

O Canada, we plead to cede to thee

By HOWARD GENSLER

4 November 2004
The Philadelphia Daily News

(c) Copyright 2004, The Philadelphia Daily News. All Rights Reserved.

ADOPT US, O Canada!


As a blue-red split continues in the Divided States of America, we note that every blue state is contiguous to Canada or to a another blue state that is contiguous to Canada, except Hawaii - that's not contiguous to anything but lot of blue water that's contiguous to Canada.

Therefore, we've got an idea. How about a sort of second American Revolution, Canada, in which you annex all the blue states, liberate us from King George, and thus become the world's sole superpower.

What Canada Gets: Higher education: All eight Ivy League universities, Stanford, U. Chicago and Northwestern all just lowered their admissions standards for the kids from Saskatchewan.

Serious sports: Forget the Super Bowl. With the Eagles, Patriots, Steelers, Jets, Vikings and Packers, the Grey Cup is where it's at.

You get the Expos back as they're now in D.C. But who needs the Expos when you've got the Red Sox, Yankees, Twins, Mariners, Giants, Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Phillies and Pirates. The World Series is coming! The World Series is coming!

The Raptors are Canada's favorite basketball team? We don't think so. What about Flyers-Maple Leafs? Flyers-Canadiens? Settle the strike and drop the puck.

Warm-weather vacations: Sun yourselves whenever you want in Southern California or Hawaii at Canada's beautiful beaches.

The cultural arts: Tourists will love Canada's museums including the Smithsonian, the Museum of Natural History and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Plus, in addition to Broadway, the Kennedy Center and top regional theater, we're throwing in our best orchestras - Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago and L.A.

The entertainment industry: You already love our movies and TV shows more than those red-staters and now when that rare production shoots in California or New York instead of Vancouver or Toronto, you still get credit for the jobs and the tax revenue.

The automobile industry: Ohio can keep its Honda plant. GMs, Fords and Chryslers are made in Canada.

The biotech industry: With many of the world's top biotech firms located in Massachusetts, New York, Washington and California (thanks to $6 billion in new stem cell research funding), it's likely that Canadian scientists will cure cancer and heart disease within the next 50 years.

The computer industry: That's right, we keep Microsoft, Apple, Hewlett-Packard and Silicon Valley. "America" gets Dell.

A burgeoning tourist industry: You've now got a lot more to sell than Toronto, the Cabot Trail and the glaciers in Banff. Even red-staters love to visit Atlantic City, the Liberty Bell, Maui, the Space needle and Disneyland (now Disney Canada).

Fresher produce: Canada, the artichoke, garlic and strawberry capital of the world. And Canadian wines just got a whole lot tastier.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: He can't be president but he'd make a swell Canadian premier.

What the Red-Staters get: Exactly what they want.

What Blue-Staters get: Canadian citizenship: And we don't even have to move.

"O, Canada": A national anthem that's much easier to sing than "The Star Spangled Banner."

Free flu shots. (Not to mention free health care.)

You don't like our "values," red-staters, you've got your wish - we're outta here.

But remember, the next time you want to see a Broadway show, visit wine country, Hawaii or the birthplace of liberty, don't just bring your Visa card, bring your visa.

You're in Canada now. And we're tightening our borders.

Don't delay, Canada. This offer expires in four years.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by jhale667
I realized ....I mean honestly, how long will it be before W.'s arrogant ass pulls a full Barney Fife and shoots himself in the foot? It WILL happen. Then all the gloaters here will have to admit they fucked up. We're talking YEARS of comedy fodder here!! :)

What up JHale:)

While I'm all for self-deprecating humor, I'll probably find it hard to laugh at myself when our economy is completely in the tank, I can't go on vacation to any countries except Poland and Turkmenistan, and the Gov't is trying to pluck me from my CPA pratice to go and count ammunition for our war against whoever the fuck has something we want.

oh selfish me!

[jhale667]

THAT's funny. :)

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by wraytw
Stop gloating, Ally! lol ;)

OD thinks that hyperbole helps his case. Or maybe it's just bitterness. He'll get over it. :)

I want to bitch-slap whoever taught you how to spell "hyperbole"

[ODShowtime]

The thing that does make me bitter is that Angels post up there has some merit.

[wraytw]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I want to bitch-slap whoever taught you how to spell "hyperbole"

LOL! Look it up, dipshit.

[Big Train]

The drama of it all....

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by wraytw
LOL! Look it up, dipshit.

I didn't say you spelled it wrong. My insult was a meditation on your ability to use big words and still sound so stupid.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by ODShowtime I'm gloating? Really? How?

"Are there really that many selfish babies in America? YOU SHARE A VOICE. The voice didn't go the way you wanted. Boo-Hoo."


Main Entry: 1gloat
Pronunciation: 'glOt
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse glotta to grin scornfully
1 obsolete : to look or glance admiringly or amorously
2 : to observe or think about something with triumphant and often malicious satisfaction, gratification, or delight <gloat over an enemy's misfortune>


I do not feel, nor am I thinking, anything of malicious gratification in this situation of them running to Canada. In fact, I'm embarrassed. The election was a choice America as a whole made. What I am saying is that it's ridiculous to run to Canada because their side didn't win, and that they are acting like spoiled babies doing such. I am being objective.

Main Entry: 1ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff> -- compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum


My opinion in this comes as an American, not a Republican or even as the so-called Busheep.




Originally posted by ODShowtime
Actually, that's exactly what our forefathers did. They got the shits of being told what to do by all kinds or tyrants all over the world and they moved the land of the free. Check the history books.


The first word in that sentenced was establish -- Ya know, give me liberty or give me death, farmers with muskets, the British, the creation of a country and not continuing as colonies. They didn't run off to some other place. They stood their ground. Land of the free had to start somewhere.

[wraytw]

You didn't say I spelled it wrong? Yeah, you did. Backtracking now? :)

I'm not the stupid one if you think "hyperbole" is a big word...

[ODShowtime]

boy this is like one big fucking vocabulary lesson!

[Nickdfresh]

Actually I think if memory serves correct up to about 40,000 young Americans moved to Canada to flee the Draft between 1965-1973. I wonder how many of today's Busheep will move to Canada after the Draft is inevitably reinstituted in about two to three years or so. And for those of you who believe the vote on Chuck Rangel's bill by house Republicans was anything more than trumped up pre-election political theater, I have six words for you; "Read my lips, no new taxes." SUCKERS!-HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
boy this is like one big fucking vocabulary lesson!

well, your definition of gloating was different that the one in the book. Figured I'd lay out the words with the emphasis on them to just make sure we were on the same page. ;)

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I wonder how many of today's Busheep will move to Canada after the Draft is inevitably reinstituted in about two to three years or so.

President George W. Bush vowed Friday that there would be no return to compulsory military service in the United States -- despite its forces being stretched in Iraq and other parts of the world.
"Forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the president," Bush said during the second presidential election debate here with Democratic contender Senator John Kerry.

US military difficulties in Iraq and measures taken to extend the mobilisation of reservists and national guard members have fuelled rumours that the draft -- ended toward the end of the 1961-75 Vietnam War -- could return.

The Republican dominated House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected a law that would have established a two year national service.

"I hear there are rumours on the internet that we're going to have a draft. We're not going to have a draft, period," said Bush.

"The all-volunteer army works. It works particularly when we pay our troops well. It works when we make sure they've got housing, like we've done in the last military budgets.

"An all-volunteer army is best suited to fight the wars of the 21st century, which is to be specialized and to find these people (terrorists) as they hide around the world."



Isn't the only time he's said there will not be a draft. But hey, he doesn't count, right? The bloggers starting rumors do.

[Big Train]

Basing this all on what Nick? If memory serves, Rangel withdrew his own fucking bill cause NOBODY wanted it.


The drama of it all...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
President George W. Bush vowed Friday that there would be no return to compulsory military service in the United States -- despite its forces being stretched in Iraq and other parts of the world.
"Forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the president," Bush said during the second presidential election debate here with Democratic contender Senator John Kerry.

First off, he's proven that he lies and can't be trusted.

Second, he's also proven that he'd leave his troops dangerously stretched out so as not to face difficult political situations.

So either way, we're fucked!

[Ally_Kat]

No politician would lie about this. It would kill them. And don't give me the lame duck shit. I'm 100% sure that he doesn't want to go down in history as the guy who started forcing people to serve again. The military will stay voluntary.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
"The all-volunteer army works. It works particularly when we pay our troops well. It works when we make sure they've got housing, like we've done in the last military budgets.

"An all-volunteer army is best suited to fight the wars of the 21st century, which is to be specialized and to find these people (terrorists) as they hide around the world."



Isn't the only time he's said there will not be a draft. But hey, he doesn't count, right? The bloggers starting rumors do.

We might find it difficult to have an All-volunteer army when people stop re-enlisting and begin getting out of the National Guard and Reserves. By the way this just in; "Read my lips, no new taxes." -LOL


With the U.S. Army deployed in a dozen hot spots around the world -- on constant alert in Afghanistan and taking almost daily casualties in Iraq -- some current and former officers are saying the Army is on the verge of being broken. Offering here their views on the status of the Army and the military in general are Gen. Thomas White (U.S.Army-Ret.), Secretary of the Army 2001-2003; Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper (U.S. Marine Corps-Ret.); Thomas Ricks, Pentagon correspondent for The Washington Post; John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Dana Priest, staff writer for The Washington Post; Col. Douglas MacGregor (U.S. Army-Ret.); Walter Slocombe, former director for national security and defense in the Coalition Provisional Authority; and Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (U.S. Marine Corps-Ret.), commander of CENTCOM 1991 to 1994.


Related Link: See a collection of articles by The Washington Post's reporters who contributed to "Rumsfeld's War." >



(Gen., U.S. Army-Ret.), Secretary of the Army, 2001-2003.

…Is the Army broken?


Yeah, I think so. We're on the brink. We are in a situation where we are grossly overdeployed, and it is unlike any other period in the 229-year history of the Army. We have never conducted a sustained combat operation with a volunteer force, with a force that we have to compete in the job market to hire every year. Every other force that we've ever done this with, going back to the Vietnam period to something comparable, has been a draftee conscript force.

So what we are all worried about is that the manpower situation will come unglued. ... The Army is people; it's not weapons or platforms. Somebody once said, "A soldier's not in the Army; they are the Army." And the quality of the soldiers [has] been the enormous advantage we've had since the volunteer force was put in place, and the quality of the noncommissioned officers corps.

Well, that is a married Army, among other things. You may recruit soldiers, but you retain families. And I think we're all concerned that we are teetering on the brink here and that if we can't get to a lower operational tempo, or at least have some point in the future that we can set our sails against where it might occur, that the Army on the manpower side's going to come unglued.


So that Army that we talked about at the beginning that was happy to see the grown-ups finally come, that military is how different than the one the next administration will inherit?

Enormously different. The one that they inherited had very low Reserve component mobilization, for example. That Army maybe had seven or eight brigade-sized units deployed overseas. So maybe one brigade in five was deployed; now we have two brigades out of three, or three brigades out of four. ... So while the good news is you have a veteran, higher level of combat experience between the active component of the Reserve of any Army since the Second World War, the price is that particularly Reserve component people will say, "I'm as big a patriot as anybody else, but I've been gone three years out of the last four, and that's not what I signed up for." And I think we're all concerned that that's where we're headed. …



(Lt. Gen., U.S. Marine Corps-Ret.).

…Post-Iraq, do you think the Army is broken?


No, the United States Army is not broken. We've got a great Army. The Army for some reason lost its doctrinal roots after the first war in the Gulf. I don't understand why. They literally led this renaissance of thinking that took place in the '70s and '80s, and that produced a wonderful document, Field Manual 100-5, titled Operations. ... The Army, for some reason, post-Desert Storm, walked away from that manual and wrote a new one that was almost unintelligible, and it was so successful that this very rich intellectual activity that we saw was squashed. And it began to be conformist. My take on it is it's been short-lived, and we're seeing that same energetic thinking reoccurring in the Army, which to me is good news.

…


What does the next president or the next administration inherit?

Let me take the question in two parts. Let's look at Iraq. I don't think that the Defense Department is capable of solving the problem in Iraq now. If the problem is going to be solved, it'll be through two means: the Iraqi people, number one, and number two, those soldiers and Marines on the ground. Between the two, they'll get it right, and we'll have at least some adequate outcome -- not the outcome we anticipated when the war started, but at least one that's more hopeful.

I'm not saying, though, that that's going to happen. What I fear is that the rivalries between the various groups -- the Kurds, the Sunnis and Shiites -- will eventually boil over, and we'll see some sort of a balkanization of Iraq.

What the next administration needs to do, though, when it looks at the Defense Department, is two things. First, step back and say: "We know that terrorists are a problem. Is the strategy that the previous administration laid out for fighting terrorists what we need? Can we improve that?" And then when they do, decide, "All right, where are we going to concentrate?" ... You articulate this to the military and the State Department, Commerce Department, all of those agencies of government, what they call the agency process, and bring all these elements to bear. There needs to be a clean slate, start over and see where we are.

In terms of the military itself, we've got to have this new focus on the basics. Go back to studying the profession, trying to understand unconventional war, develop a theory, and then write the doctrine and move forward. ...

What this country needs to do is look where its casualties are. Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bob Scales lays out, I think, a very good argument. Over the last 100 years, in particular the last 60 or 70, the vast majority of casualties, by an order of magnitude, are with the infantry. I don't mean just ground forces -- with the infantry. Yet very little of the resources goes to that infantry. Just imagine, if this country put $1 million into each Army squad and each Marine Corps squad, what you might be able to do in not only terms of the equipment you gave it, but in terms of the training, the way you intended to employ them as you develop ideas.


And lives would be saved?

Lives would be saved. …



Pentagon correspondent, The Washington Post.

…What does the phrase "breaking the Army" mean to you?


"Breaking the Army" means, essentially, losing the people who make it such a good Army. The United States has not always had a great military. It's had a lot of brave men always, a lot of èlan and vigor, but a well-trained, professional military is a very different thing. We have that. We haven't had it for very long. We've had it for 20 years. And it's not a given that you keep it. You make a military by going out and getting good people, not screwballs, by training them and by keeping them together in units that have cohesion among their peers and trust of the people that lead them.

You break that by breaking all those pieces, by not giving them adequate training, by giving them tasks they can't do, by moving them around so frequently that they don't know the guy on their right or their left, by deploying them so often that their wife wants them to leave the military, and ultimately they do. ... You put in a bunch of strangers who are maybe not as well trained, who are not as trusted. The sergeants start getting disgusted with this and say: "I don't want to lead this unit. I have better things to do with my life. I gave at the office. I've done Iraq two or three times." They start leaving. That's the backbone of your Army, when the well-trained sergeant who is a good leader says: "I'm sick of this. I've done seven or 12 years. I don't want to stick around for 20 to get my full retirement. I'm leaving now." ... And then a good sergeant looks and says: "Well, my buddy John left, and my buddy Bill left. I'm leaving. I'm not going to stick around." And so the worry I hear among some generals now is that, while they think in the short term that they are okay, the longer this keeps up, the more training degrades, the lower-quality personnel you might get, the more people might decide to leave. It all kind of intensifies, and the decline can be precipitous.


Any sense from people about how far away that is?

One general said to me spring 2005. ... [In] spring 2005, the 3rd Infantry Division will be back for its second tour in Iraq. The 101st Airborne may be looking at redeploying to Iraq at the end of that year. And people are making decisions: "Do I want to stick around for my second tour?" What lies beyond that? A third tour.

There have also been a few signs [lately] that those key guys, the seasoned sergeants at certain parts of the military are leaving. And this is just small numbers. We are not really sure what they mean, but those might be warning signs.


And what does it mean if you break the Army? What happens?

Well, the nightmare is the Army of the late 1970s. I remember looking at some statistics. I just fell off my chair. I was astonished. I think it was the Marine Corps in one year, in the late 1970s, had over 1,000 violent racial incidents, any one of which likely would make a front-page story in The Washington Post. Back then it was routine.

What does it mean when you break an Army? It means you have officers having to wear pistols on their hips to go into barracks at night for fear of being attacked. It means widespread drug use. It means people not joining the Army because they don't want to go into that environment, and [it means] a race to the bottom. It is very hard to turn around. The great achievement of today's colonels and generals is that they are the guys who turned it around in the wake of the Vietnam War. When there was every incentive to leave the Army, they rebuilt the Army. And now the tragedy for some of these guys is, this magnificent Army they spent 25 years rebuilding is now really going through the agony of Iraq, where it's fighting a fight it is not designed for. It's a sprinter, and it's in a marathon. It's a high-intensity war organization fighting a guerrilla war. These guys are sweating and bleeding every day. They are pouring their hearts and souls into it, but it is not really what they are trained to do, and it might not be the best way to do it.

…

The first time [Rumsfeld's] secretary of defense, he inherits a post-Vietnam military that is broken. And then Iraq and Afghanistan take place, and decisions are made by this same secretary which to some extent re-break the military.


It is certainly ironic that the military that Donald Rumsfeld knew in the mid-1970s, when he was first secretary of defense, was probably at its lowest point in modern American history. The military that Rumsfeld comes back to several decades later is at the top of its game. If anything, I think one of my concerns about the U.S. military in Iraq is they come off a string of victories. The term that came out of World War II was victory disease, which was the greatest vulnerability of the Japanese. They overextended themselves.

In the same way, I think the U.S. military in Iraq was slow to respond to Rumsfeld's legitimate criticisms. I think the Army especially really got itself in a stance of opposition to Rumsfeld, almost "We don't care what he's saying. He's wrong. Whether he's right or wrong, our secretary of defense, we just disagree with him." They felt that a lot of the painful lessons of the Vietnam War might have been ignored by him: Always have more troops and supplies than you believe is necessary because you never know when things could go wrong.

I also wonder whether Rumsfeld simply bit off too much. I think Iraq and the rest of the stuff that's going on out there, the war on terrorism, is really taking up enormous amounts of time and energy at the Pentagon. It does make me wonder about the transformation initiatives that they came in talking about.

…


Is the Army broken? And if so, what are the implications?

I don't think the Army is broken now. I think the Army is bruised and worried. My impression of troops in Iraq is that the active-duty troops, the young infantry guys, are actually pretty happy with what they're doing. My real worries are the Guard and Reserve, who have been relied on very heavily in Iraq. Forty percent of the troops now in Iraq -- 135,000 U.S. troops -- 40 percent of them are from the National Guard and the Army Reserve. A lot of these guys are happy to do that first deployment, but many of them now are on their second or even their third. While I don't think the Army's broken now, if we have to keep 135,000 troops in Iraq for another couple of years, I think you're going to have some real problems. We do not currently have a military, especially an Army, configured for a long ground war on the other side of the planet.

…


So where do we go from here in Iraq? And what about Iran?

I think in one way or another, we, the United States, are stuck in the Middle East in a way that few of us anticipated. I don't think Iran ultimately is going to be a military threat; I don't see the U.S. invading or attacking Iran. But I do see the U.S. military being on the ground in Iraq for a long time. Now, we may get kicked out by a government there even next year, 2005, but even if that happens, I think we'll be back for a third war at some point -- especially if that happens. We are the dog that caught the car. People always talk about the dog catching the car, but the dog never does. But we did. So I think we're in Iraq in some way or another for a long time. We may get kicked out and go back in. We may just be there for decades. …



President of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.


…The Bush administration inherited a certain kind of military, a certain kind of aspiration and expectation by the military of the Defense Department. Now here we are. A new president, or a continuation of this administration in a different form, will inherit whatever is there. What is there? What is a snapshot of the military now?

I think, first, it's a military of unprecedented competence in the tactical art of warfare. There's no military that has been as seasoned, as experienced, as skilled as this one is for the tactical art of war. This is probably the most experienced military we've ever had. Senior officers have now been through three wars together. It's unbelievable, remarkable.

There's a depth of capacity to integrate technology and tactics, doctrine and people, that's never been matched. It was very good when I was there, and it's gotten better since I left.

I think it is a military that's traumatized by the larger problems of security. They're in a very difficult environment now that really goes beyond the training base and the doctrinal base of operations. We've now had eight years of being in Bosnia. We are approaching our 18th month of being in Iraq in a very difficult insurgency for which we're not dramatically better today than we were 10 months ago, 12 months ago, and I think that's had a disquieting effect on them. Many of them now realize that this full dimension -- not just the tactics of fighting wars, but the imperative of securing the ultimate strategic victory -- is a lot more complicated and a lot more difficult. ...

The administration really had planned on doing away with and dismantling the schoolhouses that train the military [in] how to deal with civilians after wars. When they first came to office, they just did away with it. They said, "We're not going to do any of that stuff." We're now in the very midst of having to build all of that, and much more robust.


They did? When?

We had a schoolhouse down in Louisiana -- Fort Polk, I think it was -- that was training on civil interaction, and they basically said: "We don't do nation-building. We're not going to do that." And they were doing away with it. Now we realize that's exactly what this phase four is all about. We weren't particularly good at it when I was there, although we had developed some capability. But this is much bigger, much more complicated, and I think the military, frankly, is a bit adrift in dealing with this. …



Staff writer for The Washington Post.


…Here we find ourselves just before the presidential election. What will the new president, or the new administration, inherit?

Given that you don't know what's going to be going on in Iraq, the military is incredibly overstretched. They're calling up Individual Ready Reserves now -- people who served in the military, got out, and now they need them back. We have so many troops in Iraq, but also we have Afghanistan, and you have the war on terrorism that probably is not going to be won any time soon. ... If John Kerry is elected, he may well find that he wants to keep the military at the forefront of the war on terrorism, in the operational sense.

In Iraq, it's just too hard to tell. Barring a miracle and some unforeseen trend, you have great instability in Iraq and the Iraqi government trying to get on its feet. And the last thing the United States would want is some pocket of that to become a safe haven for a version of fundamentalist Islam that allows the Al Qaeda-like organization to live and organize in.

Even if they find bin Laden, Afghanistan has the potential to become something of what it was before, because you have the resurgence of the warlords. So there's no doubt that we're going to have, as we have now, lots of human rights violations, resurgence in the growth of the poppy crop and what that brings with it -- criminal elements, unstable government, and that sort of thing. And you've also seen the return of the Taliban. The U.S. military, deployed in Iraq as it is, is not going to redeploy in Afghanistan and spread out. NATO is not going to do that either. They're trying to train an Afghan force, and they're willing to help out there, but they're not going to, again, fan out and bring stability to Afghanistan. You could very well see the resurgence of the Taliban in a way that it then becomes a safe haven for Al Qaeda again. That's the way that it's moving, and what is going to stop that is not clear. …



(Col., U.S. Army-Ret.).


… People have told us the Army is very close to being broken, if it hasn't been broken already. What do you think?

I think it is. I think it is, absolutely. The stop losses are symptomatic of it. People inside the force are very frustrated and very unhappy. The 12-month tours are a catastrophe. No one wants to enlist to do that sort of work. The people who will enlist are people that are good people, but they have no choice. But your enlistments and your retention are way down. People are frustrated with the chain of command that didn't listen to them, frustrated with their inability to effect any change, frustrated that no one would take seriously their experience, because now you've got soldiers, sergeants, lieutenants and captains with infinitely more combat experience than the people commanding them. We need to listen to them.


And what would they say?

They would build a different force from the one that is currently being fielded. They would tell you that your battalions are too small and the brigade formations are too small. They certainly subscribe to my view that you don't need any divisions, but you need much more combat power at the lowest level, and you need a great deal less overhead. …



Former director for national security and defense in the Coalition Provisional Authority.


…As a sort of summary, how do you feel about the state of the Pentagon now?

First of all, I think it's important to understand what an amazing job the American military has done at essentially a job very different than what they thought they were going to have to do. They did an obviously terrific job with the large unit fighting. But most of the administration out in the field, not just on the security front, but in the dealing with the Iraqis, trying to build up local authority, has been largely in the hands of military people, civil affairs people operating under local commanders. And in general they've done an excellent job. Now, again it takes time, and there are problems, and you make bets on the wrong people and so on. And there are always problems of getting the resources allocated. But the American military has done a remarkable job with that, requiring very different skills from most of what their training was in, and at the same time having to fight an extremely difficult counterterrorist, counter-guerrilla type of operation.

So the idea that somehow the American military was totally hopeless at this, I think, is just wrong. And I think also there's been a real recognition that massive firepower, while it might really feel good and accomplish things in the short run, can't be the answer. And it was a very smart decision not to level Fallujah or not to level Najaf. There's got to be an element of restraint. In our own self-interest and in pursuant of objectives, it's important.

I think that one of the lessons the military will take away from this -- which is a traditional military lesson, but that doesn't make it wrong -- is you can't do things on the cheap. ... People who want things good, quick and cheap are not going to get them. …



(Gen., U.S. Marine Corps-Ret.), Commander, CENTCOM (1991-1994).

…Do you think the United States Army's broken?


I'm not in a position to say that, but I think if we continue to do what we're doing, over a period of time there's every reason to believe that it will be broken. My guess is that within the Reserve and National Guard portion of the United States Army, if it's not broken, it's well on the way to being broken.

And that's not for a minute to say that there are not people serving in the National Guard and in the Army Reserve that are proud of their service, that are willing to serve, and they're making a huge contribution. This is a very different issue. What the issue is for a lot of young people that never thought that they would serve overseas in a combat zone for an extended period of time, who have young families, who have had to walk away from reasonably well-paying jobs to serve in the Army at much less money, this is a huge hardship.


I asked you near the beginning of this interview for a snapshot of the military at the beginning of the Bush administration. Here we are at the end of this particular administration. What's the snapshot of the military now?

Well, the burden of the war, of course, has fallen unevenly on the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps, because what's required are people with rifles on the ground. And it's not only in Iraq, but it's in Afghanistan as well. And the people that have been in Afghanistan will tell you that they are very much second cousins to the things that are going on in Iraq; that there just aren't enough assets to do two of these things simultaneously. ... The Army is clearly overcommitted. There's no way that you can build a reasonable rotation structure that allows one-third of the operational Army to be deployed and two-thirds back, one just returning and recovering and one training to get ready to go. There just aren't enough units in the Army to do that. ... I think there's an upper limit to how much you can stand. I think Abu Ghraib did not help the institutional Army at all, and I don't think we've finished paying the price on that. If that particular problem isn't rooted out completely, it's going to continue to live in the Army and fester and manifest itself in other ways. …

[wraytw]

A draft is just silly talk. Anyone that thinks it will come back anytime soon doesn't have a grasp on the situation.

[Nickdfresh]

MMMMMmmmmm....I don't really think you can accuse the former Secretary of the Army Thomas White or the assorted number of senior ranking military officers that have come out to harshly criticize Rummy and the gang for running the Pentagon-->Right into the ground, as being totally silly. Do they have an ax to grind? Maybe. But their concerns are pretty valid, especially if something unexpected happens like North Korea decides to invade the South, or the Iranians get pissed when we bomb their "noo-cue-are" facilities and decide to send undercover Iranian Revolutionary Guards troops into Iraq to retaliate. Really the possibilities are endless. The only thing silly is the blind faith in what your leaders will say to get elected/re-elected.

[Ally_Kat]

People that were in the administration that dratstically the military in half are saying this administration is running it into the ground? Irony?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The only thing silly is the blind faith in what your leaders will say to get elected/re-elected.

dude you throw out 5 star quotes like they're going out of style!

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The only thing silly is the blind faith in what your leaders will say to get elected/re-elected.

It's not blind faith; It's logic. Forcing them to serve isn't going to help military morale or the perspective with which the situation is viewed. We all learned that in Vietnam.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
It's not blind faith; It's logic. Forcing them to serve isn't going to help military morale or the perspective with which the situation is viewed. We all learned that in Vietnam.
I agree. The last thing the military wants is a draft, or rather to have to draft to meet manpower requirements. True some Democrats hyped draft talk a bit, but I am saying the all-volunteer army was created in the early 70's and it took over 10 years to perfect it. A lot of current Administration officials, as ret. General Colin Powell soon will be, argued strongly to stay out of Iraq based on the historically low numbers in the U.S. Military. One thing most neglect to say about the AVA is that it was meant as a stop gap to halt a Soviet advance in Europe during the Cold War before a draft could be instituted and a large army trained which would take about three-months. But when the Nat'l Guard is involutarily extending people, don't tell me the draft will never come back.

[wraytw]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
dude you throw out 5 star quotes like they're going out of style!

You might want to pull that dick out of your mouth.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by wraytw
You might want to pull that dick out of your mouth.


I just don't know what it is with you repukes and fellatio. You guys are obsessed. It probably started when Clinton got caught and you all finally found out about the existence of blow jobs. They are quite nice I assure you.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But when the Nat'l Guard is involutarily extending people, don't tell me the draft will never come back.

More people are against the draft than support Bush. It's not something that's going to get thru and passed, majority in Congress or not.

[wraytw]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I just don't know what it is with you repukes and fellatio. You guys are obsessed. It probably started when Clinton got caught and you all finally found out about the existence of blow jobs. They are quite nice I assure you.

Yeah, I trust you. You suck enough liberal dick around here to know.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by wraytw
Yeah, I trust you. You suck enough liberal dick around here to know.


come on dude. That's like repeating yourself. I can't come up with two cocksucking comebacks right in a row.

[wraytw]

Try harder.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
More people are against the draft than support Bush. It's not something that's going to get thru and passed, majority in Congress or not.

Perhaps. But things change with new crisis. We are overextended and over-deployed. There is very little in the way of reserve, if something major happens, in which we may have needed a draft irregardless of Iraq, there will come a push to establish a "compulsory patriotic service act" (I can see the euphemistic spin now) In the right circumstances, it would not be hard to push through.

[ODShowtime]

I can't dude. I'm looking at your reply:

"Yeah, I trust you. You suck enough liberal dick around here to know."

and there's just no wiggle room. I already broke out a reverse-clinton and an abstinence bust. Where else is there to go?


I gotta hit the hay. big exam tomorrow. Then mucho drugs/alcohol and some serious jamming. take it eas!

[wraytw]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I gotta hit the hay. big exam tomorrow.

Seriously, good luck on that.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by wraytw
Seriously, good luck on that.

Seriously, thank you. You're alright dude :)

[Big Train]

Nick,

Nobody wants to go to war? Your not gonna get support on it, no matter what...you think the metrosexual population is gonna go off quietly to war?

All of this is so highly unlikely. To say something like "unexpected world event" IGNORES all other things in play (c,mon your a lib, you know the playbook-diplomacy, foreign pressure, power projections, nuclear deterrents). North Korea isn't gonna make a move on South Korea not because of us, because of China. China is up North Korea's ass about it and have more influence than they US does.

Am I ruling it out? No. But these same disgruntled geniuses, as Ally pointed out before, had no problem gutting the military under Clinton. They are really feeling the realities of their own moves. However, they were correct originally. We are a more agile, smaller, more intense force. We rolled two countries in the same year. We will manage...

[scorpioboy33]

im detecting a theme here

[Big Train]

Which is...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Nick,

Nobody wants to go to war? Your not gonna get support on it, no matter what...you think the metrosexual population is gonna go off quietly to war?

All of this is so highly unlikely. To say something like "unexpected world event" IGNORES all other things in play (c,mon your a lib, you know the playbook-diplomacy, foreign pressure, power projections, nuclear deterrents). North Korea isn't gonna make a move on South Korea not because of us, because of China. China is up North Korea's ass about it and have more influence than they US does.

Am I ruling it out? No. But these same disgruntled geniuses, as Ally pointed out before, had no problem gutting the military under Clinton. They are really feeling the realities of their own moves. However, they were correct originally. We are a more agile, smaller, more intense force. We rolled two countries in the same year. We will manage...

I disagree. After 9/11 there was an influx of people of all ages that enlisted or got commissioned to slit al-Qaida/Taliban throats. Most of them didn't realize we'd be chasing phantom WMD's in Iraq and than calling it a glorious mission of liberation for the Iraqi people.

[Big Train]

"They signed up to punch a nazi in the face" as Owen Wilson put it in Behind Enemy Lines.

First off we did that quite well, thank you. Lots of heads were blown off, throats slit etc...we got rid of 75% of know Al-Qaeda in two weeks. Iraq was next. If you want to continue to oversimplify the WMD argument, go ahead.

Lastly, why would they care? I'm just trying to keep up with your conflicting assumptions. Most in the military are simple minded republicans blindly following our chosen one, so WHY would they care that they are in Iraq?