Article

2005-07-13 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-07-13 16:57|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The Dems are looking to increase the size of the army without adding any funding. This means that funding will have to be removed from the equipment or maintenance budget to pay for increased manpower. If a Democrat is for it, you can bet it will be bad for the nation's defenses. Note that Lieberman is no moderate, despite the media's BS about that topic - he scores consistently in the high 70's in the ratings compiled by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action, whereas even a RINO like McCain scores in the 30's.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-07-13 17:18|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-07-13 17:18|| Front Page Top

#2 Truth in labeling would call this the Military Procurement Reduction Act. Who needs air cover when you have more ~~cannon fodder~~ infantry?

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-07-13 17:22|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-07-13 17:22|| Front Page Top

#3 they'll require that all 80,000 be out-of-the-closet gays, transgendered, illegals, or cross-dressers

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-07-13 17:25|| 2005-07-13 17:25|| Front Page Top

#4 Frank G beats me to it.

Posted by tu3031 2005-07-13 17:27|| 2005-07-13 17:27|| Front Page Top

#5 What, are they going to propose reinstating the draft *again* (and then try to blame it on the Republicans like they did last year)? The army is barely able to recruit enough soldiers as it is--where, praytell, are these additional GIs supposed to come from?

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-07-13 17:45|| 2005-07-13 17:45|| Front Page Top

#6 Dar,
You know if it wasn't for the eeeevil republicans and their war for ooooill, the army would be having soldiers out the ying-yang, 'cause we are in the worst economy since the great depression! (/sarcasm)

Posted by mmurray821 2005-07-13 18:01|| 2005-07-13 18:01|| Front Page Top

#7 Something very fishy about this. I'm guessing that Hitlery is trying to shore up her national defense credentials. Having a bigger Army would not be a bad thing, but it would get expensive.

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2005-07-13 18:36|| 2005-07-13 18:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Logistically, I don't think that they could be trained and housed.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-07-13 19:11|| 2005-07-13 19:11|| Front Page Top

#9 Logical question is where do the Dems intend to wage war with those additional soldiers?

Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? North Korea? Venezuela? ZimBobwe? Red China? France? Massachussets? with or without UN approval?

What for?

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-13 20:39|| 2005-07-13 20:39|| Front Page Top

#10 Destined for Haiti and Liberia. To be trained at the new Army training center in Groton Conn.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-07-13 22:57|| 2005-07-13 22:57|| Front Page Top

#11 Not a bad idea wrt op tempo. Though I'd have to see the science behind the initiative. Hopefully someday we'll have another R'burg summit and I can meet some of you guys and tell you the tales of manpower issues I've seen in my time. Though I greatly dis-like the hidabeast and I know this is just for show, in the end the Corps does need three full size MEF's. I can't speak intelligently on the other branches but my assumption is that they are roughly in the same boat.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-07-13 23:03|| 2005-07-13 23:03|| Front Page Top

23:54 badanov
23:50 Tkat
23:40 GK
23:35 Barbara Skolaut
23:32 Super Hose
23:28 Matt
23:28 GhostOfBonzo
23:27 rjschwarz
23:14 Super Hose
23:10 phil_b
23:10 Asedwich
23:05 Bomb-a-rama
23:03 Jarhead
23:01 Aussie
23:00 anymouse
22:57 Super Hose
22:57 Frank G
22:54 Frank G
22:52 Jarhead
22:52 tipper
22:49 Super Hose
22:47 rjschwarz
22:46 Jarhead
22:44 Frank G