Watergate's Deep Throat Revealed

[lookout123]

no woman has been forced or drafted into the military. each and everyone has signed up for the military and then volunteered for a combat position (if they are in one). if we didn't let them go, would you support a lawsuit against the government for sexual discrimination?

people who sign up for the military know there is a chance(or extreme likeliness) they will leave their families.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by lookout123

people who sign up for the military know there is a chance(or extreme likeliness) they will leave their families.

You mean the recruiters never used a line like "Well, in theory the National Guard could be called up, but that hasn't happened since World War II"?

I'm just saying that every effort has been made to disguise the true cost of this war from the public, and that groups who approve of the adminstration's social agenda are not making any effort to address this.

Personally, the desperation to ship mommy off just shows how much manpower is being stretched. I guess she's lucky to have been able to wean the kid.

[lookout123]

Personally, the desperation to ship mommy off just shows how much manpower is being stretched. I guess she's lucky to have been able to wean the kid.

what are you talking about? did i miss the newsbrief about the military scouring the roles for moms to deploy? deployments are based on numbers called billets or UTCs. when they are deciding who to deploy, they pool the numbers. the people associated with those numbers then deploy.

if i remember correctly, GWB hasn't led a campaign to require women be pressed into combat duty. in fact, i remember a number of years of advocacy groups demanding that women have the RIGHT to be assigned to any billet they are intellectually and physically qualified for - including combat arms billets. they won the battle against the nasty, evil conservatives and old school pentagon types who said sending women into battle would not be a net positive (some for valid reasons, some not). this is the result. women got the right to slide into nearly every military career field, resulting in women filling a number of forward area billets.

anyone who supported the advocacy groups and now thinks we shouldn't send women into combat positions, is a hypocrite. if women weren't sent then some advocacy group would, no doubt, sue the evil repressive pentagon powers that be.

You mean the recruiters never used a line like "Well, in theory the National Guard could be called up, but that hasn't happened since World War II"?

not in a very long time, if ever. no one joins the military without the very basic understanding they are joining an organization that is meant for war.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

anyone who supported the advocacy groups and now thinks we shouldn't send women into combat positions, is a hypocrite.

Twisting a logical post about a 'military so stretched' into a Rush Limbaugh response. The military is literally sending everyone available - even moms with one year old kids - into combat. Even recruiters who can't find sufficient recruits are being deployed to Iraq rather than recruiting more troops. Will they recruit Iraqis into the US military? Of course not. The military is that desperate for troops in the "Mission Accomplished" war. People who normally would not be deployed due to extenuating circumstances are now being sent to a country that is no longer a threat.

Meanwhile, bin Laden still roams free as George Jr still does nothing sufficient to find America's real enemy. Even moms of one year are deployed. The military would have never done that had the administration gone after bin Laden instead of a 'threat to no one' Saddam.

Even when the military cannot recruit enough troops, instead, we are reducing the number of active recruiters to fill the ranks in Iraq - where things have been getting better for years. Everyone - even less than one year moms - must be sent into combat because we have such a moral president.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by lookout123

anyone who supported the advocacy groups and now thinks we shouldn't send women into combat positions, is a hypocrite. if women weren't sent then some advocacy group would, no doubt, sue the evil repressive pentagon powers that be.

not in a very long time, if ever. no one joins the military without the very basic understanding they are joining an organization that is meant for war.

I don't have a problem with sending women into combat. I do have a problem with sending new mothers into combat. Unless you think that morale is so bad that women will be deliberately getting pregnant to avoid call up (which they can do anyway), I don't think delaying the deployment of the mother of a 1-year-old would be wrong.

As for 'basic understanding', well, some recruiters can deal with that.

[lookout123]

I don't think delaying the deployment of the mother of a 1-year-old would be wrong.

rich, i'm fine with that as long as the exact same rules apply to men as they do women. if a woman in a specific billet doesn't deploy because of a child under a certain age, why should a man, who also has a child have to deploy? i'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but equality means equality - all the time, not just when it sounds good.

and as far as the recruiter goes? ya got me. you found a story on antiwar blog that talks about a recruiter who did not do a good job explaining the possibility for deployments. if i start a blog and give my testimony of the literally thousands of well done recruiting pitches i've heard over the last 14 years, would that sway anybody? or is it just easy to believe anything that points to an evil conspiracy to ensnare our children?
Rich - i know stupid stuff happens, there is no denying it, but what you are focusing on is not the normal day to day operation of the average military unit.

tw - as usual - thanks for your insight.

[dar512]

I love this about the cellar. I'm away for a couple of days and the Deep Throat thread has segued into women in the military.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by lookout123

rich, i'm fine with that as long as the exact same rules apply to men as they do women. if a woman in a specific billet doesn't deploy because of a child under a certain age, why should a man, who also has a child have to deploy? i'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but equality means equality - all the time, not just when it sounds good.

Personally, I don't have an issue with that, as long as one parent is home. I didn't see a husband and father mentioned in that story. It looks like the grandparents had to take in the kid.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

rich, i'm fine with that as long as the exact same rules apply to men as they do women.

Equal treatment: pregnancy means the soldier goes home - man or woman. Does not matter whether this is or is not possible. The laws must be written equally - or is the concept of equality a little more complex.

[lookout123]

women have the right to a discharge when they have a child. part of your standard and very frequent review is a written plan of what will happen to your family in case of deployment. this includes detailed written instructions of who shall care for the child in your absence, who will pay your bills, etc.

to be clear, i don't like it either. i see this frequently first hand. 2 of my very close acquaintances just got back from Iraq, 1 of my best friends just got orders and will be in country on sept 4th. he will be leaving 2 young daughters and a stay at home mom.

not liking it doesn't stop it though. i just want you (and everyone here) to have a more clear understanding of how it really works. contrary to tw's delusions they aren't scouring the books looking for anyone they can send, they aren't punishing underperforming recruiters with combat tours, the Sith hasn't taken control quite yet.

be critical, but be accurate.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

contrary to tw's delusions they aren't scouring the books looking for anyone they can send, they aren't punishing underperforming recruiters with combat tours ...

Nobody said anything about punishing. The military is so desperate for troops in Iraq that even recruiters are being sent in country - when the military desperately needs more recruiters. lookout123 has assumed facts that were not posted.

[lookout123]

and tw has made statements that he expects us to accept as fact without any credible proof.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

and tw has made statements that he expects us to accept as fact without any credible proof.

A man who supports a president that does not go after bin Laden? Maybe lookout123 will next report that bin Laden conspired with Saddam to attack the WTC? Why should I expect anything different from lookout123. Its called a political agenda.

Meanwhile the military is so strapped for troops that even recruiters are being reassigned to duty in the "Mission Accomplished" war. Lookout123 will deny this. After all, we are clearly winning the "Mission Accomplished" war. One need only reference proof provided by lookout123. Morality is us? Clearly the US also did not condone torture. Lookout123's favorite president said so. Credibility is ... who? Of course lookout123 will not agree. The proof is his political agenda - facts be damned.

[xoxoxoBruce]

TW, a less emotional but more relentless, Dave.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

TW, a less emotional but more relentless, Dave.

To quote two retired Dubers ... "Dave... Dave.... Dave...........
Dave's not here."