# U.S Troops to pull out of Iraq



## pheasantfanatic (Jan 20, 2007)

We all knew this was coming some day and here it is. They are just turning it in to another Vietnam.

:eyeroll:

Congress Votes To Retreat

Just imagine for a moment that it's May of 1944. America has been at war
with the fascist powers in Europe, and a major offensive is just about to
take place. Yet, on the eve of D-Day, Congress suddenly reverses course
and tells the president, "We've changed our mind; America can't win this
war. You've got to pull out the troops in a year. We're going to leave
Europe in Hitler's hands." Well, that's exactly what Congress has just
done.

Last Friday, the House of Representatives voted 218-to-212 for an emergency
supplemental bill providing needed funding for our soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the bill was loaded down with $20 billion
worth of pork, which I will get to later, and an unconscionable demand for
America to admit defeat in Iraq, to surrender and pull out our troops by
September of 2008.

Last night, the Senate affirmed this "surrender in September" strategy in a
48-to-50 vote that failed to remove the timetable for retreat from the war
funding bill. (CWF will soon post both votes on our Congressional
Scorecard at http://www.cwfpac.com so you can see how your
"representatives" in Congress voted on this crucial issue.)

Some politicians have insisted that this provision does not "tie the hands
of our commanders on the battlefield." They are grossly mistaken,
delusional, or deceitful. For the last man to be out of Iraq by September
of 2008, our commanders would have to start planning now for a radical
shift in strategy. Offensive operations underway would have to be
dramatically scaled back and cancelled.

The politicians on Capitol Hill, thousands of miles from the battlefield,
have concluded that America's defeat in this war is preferable to victory.
That's the only conclusion I can reach from these votes.

My friends, I don't mean to downplay the difficulties of this war - it is
unlike any we have ever fought. In a desire to save as many lives as
possible, we are not fighting this war in a conventional manner, so victory
will not come with the unconditional surrender of the jihadists.

Victory could take several forms, but I can tell you what defeat will look
like. We got a brief glimpse of it yesterday when oil shot up $7.00 a
barrel in five minutes after a false report hit the wires that Iranian
gunboats had fired on American vessels in the Persian Gulf.

If we leave Iraq to the tender mercies of the Islamofascist thugs who
decapitate their enemies and blow up women and children with impunity, our
alliances all over the world will be strained. What will America's
promises to defend South Korea be worth if we give up on Iraq? What will
America's promises to defend Taiwan be worth if we "cut and run" when the
going gets tough?

Defeat in Iraq will mean a more dangerous world, where our enemies are
emboldened, convinced America is no longer a strong nation. When the U.S.
withdrew from Somalia after the bloody 1993 ambush in Mogadishu, Osama bin
Laden was convinced that America was a "paper tiger" that "after a few
blows ran in defeat." Is bin Laden right? Or are we still, as John F.
Kennedy boldly declared, a nation willing to "pay any price, bear any
burden, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival
and success of liberty"?

That debate is far from over. President Bush has vowed to veto the war
funding bill with its dangerous surrender strategy, and he would be more
than justified in doing so. And here's a suggestion: Mr. President, ask
for national television time, and veto this bill before the American
people. Then take a few minutes to explain why it is so important that
America prevail in this war. Tell Congress to start over and do what is
right for our country by making sure our troops have the resources they
need to win - no strings attached -- and no pork.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Was you in Vietnam?


----------



## pheasantfanatic (Jan 20, 2007)

No, I am only 17, but I have read everything I can get my hands on about Vietnam.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

You haven't read enough yet to make the comparison.


----------



## pheasantfanatic (Jan 20, 2007)

Well, we still shouldn't be pulling out. If we don't fight them there, they will come here. I just hope after President Bust vetoes it, some of the people in the House and Senate change their minds.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

the original post is right on. Couldnt say it any better.  "When the going gets tough, we pull out"? That makes no sense. We are American, and can withstand anything and everything. Capitol hill is such BS these days, full of a bunch of cowards that are only worried about there own reelection


----------



## pheasantfanatic (Jan 20, 2007)

The sad part is, We lost 408,200 soldiers in 4 years in WW2. Sure, everybody was sad that we were losing our soldiers, but everyone was proud that they fell doing their duty protecting America. Now, Washington is ticked off because we have lost 3000 soldiers in 4-5 years. It's a pretty low number if you compare it to WW2.

If we start something, we should carry it through. America has never backed down in any war but Vietnam, and that wasn't the soldiers fault.

I have a friend that drives for Haliburton in Iraq. He says that most of the anti-American riots you see on the news have been staged by the terrorists and have promised the common people a meal if they will "protest" in front of American media cameras. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Pheasantfanatic, a young man of 17 thinking as you do gives me hope this nation will survive. Thank God for young men like you.
This is very serious so let me add a little levity to it. Of course even my humor is serious at times. Do any of you remember how critics of Bush called him a cowboy (many still do). Have any of you heard Nancy P's reaction to Bush saying he will veto the spending bill if they don't get the pork out of it? She said: Don't try bluff us Mr. President, there is a new congress in town. All that was missing was the town clock on 12:00 and strapped on colt single actions. 
:rollin: 
It looks like our gal pal Nancy is going to protect her pork with gunplay.


----------



## usmarine0352 (Nov 26, 2005)

*This is a Win-Win for Bush. Whether we stay or pullout.*

Here's why.

If we pull out and get attacked, he can blame it on the Demrocrats. And it was them, not him, so he's a winner.

If we stay and eventually "win" then he is a winner.

So either way, he is a winner.

The bad news, no matter what, there will be more attacks on American soil. I guarantee it. Once the door was opened, it will never close.

There is no such things as "Winning the War on Terror." Only fighting the ebb and flow.

It's like winning the war on drunk driving......when will that happen?

:sniper:


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Move this crap out of the open forum for christ's sake! :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right Jiffy. Moved to Political form.


----------



## pheasantfanatic (Jan 20, 2007)

Thanks Plainsman. I am homeschooled, so I probably get more of the "good" media than most kids do sitting in school all day. We get a daily news report from Gary L. Bauer, a christian media reporter in Washington D.C by email, and it doesn't have any of the negative that most of the media has. This post was an excerpt from his report.


----------



## pheasantfanatic (Jan 20, 2007)

Sorry guys, I didn't realize there was a political forum or I would have put it there.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

pheasantfanatic said:


> We get a daily news report from Gary L. Bauer, a christian media reporter in Washington D.C by email, and it doesn't have any of the negative that most of the media has.


Hmmm the fact that a news reporter has to be defined as a "christian" media reporter shows that their perspective is likely more biased, less objective and reporting with an agenda. Relying heavily on someone like Gary Bauer for pure unbiased news reporting is folly. Find international news sites, read everything with skepticism, and look for multiple sources from different countries before you believe any story's "perspective".

My .02

Ryan


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

First off everyone is entitled to their opinion - Here is mine

I'm all for supporting the Troops they are the most selfless individuals we have in this county. Unlike the majority of us they don't talk about ideals they stand behind them.
We owe it to them to make sure they have the best in equipment, protective gear, healthcare and benefits to do the job we ask of them. In Iraq the US military did their job and they did it very effectively - the problem is right now we are asking them to solve something with military force when it cannot be done by military action. The failure here was not the military's it was political. We misread the situation, did not implement an effective occupancy policy, and there is no winning exit strategy.

The Iraq situation will not be resolved by military presence or economics- we have been there going on 5 years and the situation is worse now than ever. The war is the result of religion and extremist ideologies, they simply do not think the way the western world does and they are jealous of our society, success and wealth. You can try to change their government but you will not be able to change their religion. No government will be able to take hold in Iraq until one group dominates the other (Shiites over Sunni or vice versa) the civil war there is real and needs to run its course without the US stuck in the middle.

I find that most people that talk big about staying there and kicking *** are either to young to understand what the real costs are or have no intentions of having their sons or daughters serve over there. We have been there over 4 years, the Bush administration had no post occupancy plan (this is where things really got botched) nor do they have a realistic exit plan. Ask any soldier who is over there what his opinion of Iraq's Army and Police capabilities are and you know what I am talking about (they lose every sector we have tried to turn over to them back to the insurgents, we then have to go back in and regain control of it) - If Bush believed what he told the public a few months ago he would have no problem allowing the troops to withdraw in a year. Fact is, he knows better, the original surge was 21,000 soldiers and 3 months - Now they want another 8,200 soldiers and don't want to commit to the troop reduction or withdrawal in a year. When the payments on the 600 billion dollar loans for this war start kicking in, you are kidding yourself if you don't think there will be tax increases and inflation.

No matter how this ends the United States will be hated by the Iraq people - it is just the way it is. Unless we can say for sure things will be different in five years (and we can't) we should cut our losses and get out of there. Nobody likes to leave without achieving the original objective but I would rather leave now and not see another 3,200 Soldiers killed and 24,000 Soldiers injured trying to protect people who do not want us there and are not willing to stand up for themselves.

Bring them home and have their efforts spent on protecting our boarders and making this country secure from internal threats.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Pheasantfanatic
I am really curious,was there any reason that you did not join the military?
I am sure you could of been in the National Guard. There are plenty of guys your age in Iraq. I served on Merchant Ships in WW 2 that had crew members over 60 years old.WW 2 was different, we were attacked. We were not attacked by Iraq and if you believe that. I will sell you my banana farm in ND.I am about fed up with all these super patriotic individuals that are perfectly happy to let some one else do their fighting for them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's easy to see you have good intentions, but I think your analysis is flawed, and you make assumptions none of us can prove or disprove, or know nothing about i.e.


> The failure here was not the military's it was political. We misread the situation, did not implement an effective occupancy policy, and there is no winning exit strategy.


I hear that same old tired rhetoric all the time. What was the situation, what would have been an effective occupancy policy, what is a winning exit strategy? Winning exit strategy is kind of a contradiction in terms.

Ask yourself this. If you do have a winning exit strategy are you going to tell the whole world? For example, lets say that Bush has an exit strategy that among other things includes not staying beyond June 1, 2007. If you are one of the "terrorists" are you going to think , oh crap I guess we might as well give up now, or are you going to think we only have to hold out a couple more months yaaaahooo, we win. Only a fool would tell anyone, including our media, what their war plans are. Only the most naïve among us would expect that.

What is victory. I would guess you could ask ten people and you would get ten different answers. When I ask returning vets I will get about an 80% response that we are doing good there, and about a 70% response that the average Iraqi wants us there. That conflicts with the news, and your views, so how do you reconcile those differences, one from the news, one from those who have been there. Victory to me is the removal of Sadam who was if nothing else looked up to as one who could defy anyone he wanted to, do anything he wanted to, mass kill his own people, and defy world authority with impunity. Add to that a chance for freedom in Iraq. It will be up to them if they take advantage of that opportunity.

Terrorists are cowards. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could isolate them all in the desert and just let them kill each other rather than hiding their cowardly carcasses behind the innocent.

I disagree with spending billions rebuilding this nation. Every time we defeat someone we spend more money rebuilding them than we do for our own people. These people however innocent did not stand up for their own freedom, they expect us to die for them. That really bothers me. When it is all over they will not appreciate it, and that bothers me more.

Solution: Back off to a corner of the desert and let them kill each other. If a decent leader does not emerge take him out any way possible, and pull back again. Keep it up until they get it straight. Then recoup our costs with oil. This may sound harsh, but they get what they deserve. The old T-Shirt that says "God, Guts, and Guns made America" is not far from reality. Our nation is what it is because of soldiers just like the ones in Iraq now. Each of their lives to me is worth a thousand Iraqi, no more than that. Every nation on earth has it within their grasp to have what we have. They just need to get rid of internal corruption and make the most of what they have. The Iraqi sit on a sea of oil and could have a quality of life that would put ours to shame. They can live like kings, or continue to bicker and kill each other for another 2000 years.

I just finished listening to Bush and Nancy Pelosi and far prefer that to having some commentator tell me what they said. I speak the English language, I don't need an interpreter. As long as I can remember the news has always been slanted. The news people are not as unbiased as they would like us to think, not nearly as unbiased as they see themselves. Bush just said he would veto the bill as is, and I am sure he will. Nancy Pelosi sort of chastises him for threatening (or in other words bluffing) and I don't think he is. Then in her hypocritical way she does the same thing by saying "there is a new congress in town". Move over Calamity Jane, it's six gun Nancy and she is here to clean up the town.


----------



## ryanps18 (Jun 23, 2006)

R y a n said:


> pheasantfanatic said:
> 
> 
> > We get a daily news report from Gary L. Bauer, a christian media reporter in Washington D.C by email, and it doesn't have any of the negative that most of the media has.
> ...


More biased then whom? News flash the crap on the mainstream media and "international media" is not only biased its flat out propaganda in most cases. Have you not heard form the "New Congress in Town" that every other country hates these United States? :lol:

Reading everything with skepticism is sound advise.


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

Plainsman

I agree with a lot of what you have said; however, if I (Bush Administration) had a winning strategy I would have implemented it 4 years ago. Also 70% approval from the Iraq population is not enough for me to want to see our soldiers die for them. Problem is not enough of them are on our side to rat out the inhsurgents.


----------



## ryanps18 (Jun 23, 2006)

Centerfire said:


> Plainsman
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you have said; however, if I (Bush Administration) had a winning strategy I would have implemented it 4 years ago. Also 70% approval from the Iraq population is not enough for me to want to see our soldiers die for them. Problem is not enough of them are on our side to rat out the inhsurgents.


The Bush Administration has always had a winning strategy its just that it did not work as planned. No one goes into a war with a loosing strategy, well at least not on the right side of the isle, we are fighting a war that is new to us, there is no plan we can pull out of the archives and implement. There have been mistakes and miscalculations and thier more than likely will be more. But the war is going much better I believe than we are being led on by the mainstream media. If there was an ongoing daily body count in almost every newspaper in this country during WW2 I wonder what the outcome might have been.

The point is there are a number of poeple including the media that want us too lose this war and they are doing a great job of doing so. It is great to see at least on this fourm that a 17 year old kid is not being brain washed by the left and their pals in the media. It is very easy for one to fall fot that BS doom and gloom.

There is hope after all!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Centerfire said:


> Plainsman
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you have said; however, if I (Bush Administration) had a winning strategy I would have implemented it 4 years ago. Also 70% approval from the Iraq population is not enough for me to want to see our soldiers die for them. Problem is not enough of them are on our side to rat out the inhsurgents.


Winning strategies have a way of going to pot when the action really starts. The problem is the other side has a winning strategy too. If this were not true WWII would have been over in a month.

I don't know Centerfire, I perhaps wouldn't be willing to let any more Americans die if 100% of them wanted us there. These people have to learn to stand on their own. They evidently don't have the guts to face each other in a head on battle, so they snipe at each other for a thousand years. A few fanatics kill a few women and children for the next 5,000 years. What a bunch of idiots. I don't know if they are worth saving, this war is more for our security than their freedom. Sadam was a time bomb waiting to go off. He just had to be eliminated for any reason before the whole middle east blew up. Now what's his face in Iran is becoming the next target.

Personally if they want to play terror we should just send in a elite group of our own to drop the hammer on this trouble maker from a 1000 yards. Get out of the building your in and blow it up behind you. Make them think we have suicide people as nuts as theirs and make good your escape while they look through the rubble for bodies to cut the heads off.



> Problem is not enough of them are on our side to rat out the inhsurgents.


I think the majority of the ones that are on our side don't have the guts to rat out the insurgents (terrorists). Lets call them terrorists because that's what they are. We have all heard the media call them insurgents, and if they say it enough we begin to believe it.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> the fact that a news reporter has to be defined as a "christian" media reporter shows that their perspective is likely more biased, less objective and reporting with an agenda. Relying heavily on someone like Gary Bauer for pure unbiased news reporting is folly. Find international news sites, read everything with skepticism, and look for multiple sources from different countries before you believe any story's "perspective"


That's absurd and sounds like something I would hear from CNN or Rosie Odonald, two unquestionable very biased sources. First place all he did was identify where the information he posted came from which was Gary L. Bauer, (note the comma) a Christian media reporter. That's the same if I said Jack Smith, a NBC anchor person. I wouldn't have to define Jack Smith as a NBC anchor person but it helps identify the person. He said it didn't contain all the negative stuff most media reports have, not that it was unbiased. He never said that was all he read, as a matter of fact he said he had access to more media than most his age because he was home schooled. To make a statement that because information came from a Christian source that it is biased, less objective and contains a agenda is ridiculous. I'm certainly not all that religious but I think your comment is a insult to those on here that hold Christian values.



> The war is the result of religion and extremist ideologies, they simply do not think the way the western world does and they are jealous of our society, success and wealth. You can try to change their government but you will not be able to change their religion


These were the same words spoken years ago about most Asian countries. Japan, China, Korea, Viet Nam just to name a few. All you heard was they have war lords that constantly kill each other. They treat their people like dirt. They are jealous of us because they are slow and ignorant. They look funny and dress funny and they just don't think the way we do. None of them can see very well and so on and so on. Look today and you will see some of out strongest allies and trading partners and those same countries now thriving with a form of democracy except China but in truth, though China is a Communist state it's econommy is thriving and building through plain old capatalist ideas and programs.



> the original surge was 21,000 soldiers and 3 months - Now they want another 8,200 soldiers


This pretty much identifies where your information is coming from. First the media said the request was going to be for 30,000 additional troops long before the President had even decided if there would be additional troops sent. That was the media's guess........... the President corrected that when he gave his speech and identified that the Generals were requesting 18,000 additional troops to go along with a new plan and strategy, a new plan that he decided to sign onto and he was sending a little over 20,000. The word surge is another concocted media term. Only half that number has been sent to Iraq so where are you getting the additional request from. The 3 months, another media fabricated number, not the Presidents or the Generals on the ground. As a matter of fact the President and the Generals have said all along that it would be late in the year before they would be able to evaluate the success or failure of the new plan. You keep saying "Ask any soldier who is over there" as if you had a open hot line to all the soldiers in Iraq. Well, the word "any" in your statement needs to be changed because I've watched dozens upon dozens of interviews with the common soldier on the ground and they all to the letter have one major grip and that is the media is not reporting what is really happening, that progress is being made every day and if anything they think maybe the so called surge number is to small.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> There are plenty of guys your age in Iraq.


Really......... pray tell how you know there plenty 17 year olds in Iraq.



> WW 2 was different, we were attacked. We were not attacked by Iraq


Just like we were not attacked by North Korea, North Vietnam, Somalia, Panama, or Bosnia. Now........ what was your point? Better hang onto that Banana farm just a little longer.


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

Gohon

As I started out saying we are all entitled to our opinions however I would make the following counterpoints

1) If you doubt my numbers on troop surge and don't trust the media I suggest you go to www.military.com they talk 21,500 with potential to go to 48,000 (February). Additionally the surge has been implemented not just in new numbers of deployment but by extending the deployments of those already over there serving thus increasing the Troop counts).

2) (No I can't say I speek for EVERY soldier) I closely follow military blogs and clips posted on the net by men in uniform - I have not seen any that give votes of confidence to the Iraq Police or Army.

3) I have a close family member who has been over there doing house to house patrols and sweep missions for over a year, he has been shot at, had rockets, IED's and motor rounds explode less than a football field away on multiple ocassions and yes I talk to him on a weekly basis.

Your turn - what are you basing your facts on


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Centerfire

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions. I'm not saying i disagree with everything you say but I would caution you though that a site like military.com does not speak for the military. They have their own staff/writers and are no more accurate or inaccurate than other web sites just like them which exist on the net.

My facts are by actually listening to the President speak. It's not that hard as the news stations announce all day long when he is to speak. In addition watching and reading as many news sources as possible to attempt to strain the truth from all the bs. I appreciate that you have a family member in Iraq that you talk to often but one persons hearsay does not speak for all the service people over there. Even CNN and MSNBC do live interviews with the military personnel. They don't support what your family member is saying if in fact that is what you are saying. The Blogs............ one of the most uncontrollable news source out there. Responsible to no one they pretty much say what they wish whether truthful or not.

Of course not everything I say is fact but just my opinion but I do try, though not always successful to qualify which is which.


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

Gohon,

Then please enlighten me - just who do you trust and where do you get the real facts from


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

adokken I had lunch today here at the Lake with a Army recruiter, he wasn't aware there was a lot of 17 year olds in US uniforms.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Centerfire,

We're running ahead of each other here but I think I answered you question in my last post. However I will add that I rely more on Fox News than any other source. There are those that will scoff at that and snicker but that is their right also. Keep in mind I don't believe everything Fox puts out and as I mentioned I try to filter from as many news sources as possible. Please understand I'm not saying that military.com is a bad source. Just saying their staff and writers are in the business of news just like everyone else.


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

Plainsman,
I couldnt have said anything you did better myself. I really have nothing to write because you have stated all my ideas.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon, I watch Fox News a lot also. It may not be perfect, but it is the most accurate that I can find. Liberals will scoff, and try to discredit it, just like they try to demonize the NRA. Even sports people in their effort to be politically correct will scoff at the NRA, depending on the company they are in. That is gutless in my eyes. No I don't agree with everything the NRA does, but without them we would be in deep crap. Likewise without Fox News we surely would be poorer for information. 
As we have a National Guard unit here in Jamestown I have the chance to talk with many. Your right Gohon, they are disappointed with the way the general media portrays their actions in Iraq. My nephew's wife is currently on standby. Our neighbor lost their nephew in Iraq last year. We who are in a neighborhood with an active unit often talk to these people. They join for many reasons. Some out of a sense of duty, some for college money. I find those who join for a sense of duty almost always agree with your perception Gohon.


----------



## pheasantfanatic (Jan 20, 2007)

Adokken, I am not trying to be catty when I say this. I respect you for serving in the armed forces, but I don't have to be in the military to support my country and our troops.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Adokken the kid is 17 he has plenty of time for the service. You might want to go and see a recruiter and see what the qualifcations are to join now. I looked at the calender it is 2007 not the 40"s,50"s or 60's. I was 18 when I was drafted and this kid at 17 has a much better understanding of whats going on than I ever did at that age.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Do you want to fight in Iraq? JOIN THE FREAKNG MILITARY!!!

Until then, your comments mean JACK CRAP! !!

Fricken keyboard warriors&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

I have been in the Milatary who the hell are you talking to!!


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

MOS?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

You cried and whined for someone to move this thread and called it crap. Now you jump into the thread with the typical stupid remarks that everyone has come to expect from you. If you can't join the discussion in a adult manner why do you insist posting at all. Try shocking everyone on here for once and post something intelligent :idiot:


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

I say again....MOS


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Jiffy, your previous comments did make me think you didn't want to see this thread. I agreed and did move it. What is MOS?



> Move this crap out of the open forum for christ's sake!


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Once more...MOS please.


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

Jiffy said:

(Do you want to fight in Iraq? JOIN THE FREAKNG MILITARY!!!

Until then, your comments mean JACK CRAP! !!

Fricken keyboard warriors&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.)

I say: You post this without saying who you are responding to or in regard to what. Are you trying to belittle others with this sophomoric response. It appears to be the erratic rants of someone looking for negative attention.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Multi-Object Spectograph?
Mean Opinion Score? - discussion is to important to play games.
Model Output Statistics? Ya, it might snow today. 
Military Occupational Specialist? Is this what you did Jiffy?
Multi Organoleptic System?
MOS = without sound ?
Mean Old Sailor - what branch of military were you in Gohon? Jiffy might be referring to you.
Manual Of Style?- I really hate that publication. 
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Good grief Jiffy, when someone asks you what MOS is please be so kind as to explain.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

You know that little "quote button" on the top left hand corner is for quotes. You won't have to type it that way. :wink:

I'm responding to all you keyboard warriors out there that think Iraq is so just. Put down your keyboards and pick up a rifle. Actions speak louder than words you know.

And IF you do join.......how about picking a combat arms MOS. Its tough to fire a rifle from behind a desk.

Until then, your words mean nothing to me!

That is all I am going to say about this. I pretty sure most know my stance on this subject. If not and you have questions, do a freaking search! Talk about beating a dead horse. :roll:

What a bunch of keyboard warriors.......... :eyeroll:


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Mine was 0311, what is yours?


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Planisman MOS is short for Military Occupatioal Speciatity

It is a combination of letters and numbers like CMF 11B is for Infanty Rifleman and another letter is used for rank This is Army It has been 39 years and I don't remmber the exact combinations

I think this Jiffy is calling anyone who say's they were in the servce a lyer, if they don't give him thier MOS which is none of his dam bussiness
I really think this guy has mental problems a lot like a baby bird all mouth and ***. Acts like a war protester,

Using someone else's MOS is not that uncommon by someone who is a "want to be" but doesn't qualiify for Military Service


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

OH, I'm a "wanna be huh?"

Plainsman, why don't you ask your son? He's been to my house and has met me. However, I don't remember ever meeting you 280. You must know me or something. :eyeroll:

280, you assume too much. Don't put words is my mouth.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Jiffy said:


> Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Mine was 0311, what is yours?


Are you telling me that only someone with a MOS has the right to an opinion? You might be in the wrong country. If I am not mistaken military men of the past have died for freedom of speech.

Some military men have the same opinion as you Jiffy, some have opposing opinions. My goodness, now what do I do?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> 0311


MOS-0311 = Infantry/Rifleman? You want all of mine? Since the Navy uses ratings and designators instead of letters and numbers, It covers career service, rates E-1 through E-9 and W2 through W4 I doubt any of it would mean anything to you though, or anyone else for that matter. Maybe ABBK will give you all of his (maybe just one, don't know) from the Air Force from his 20 years plus service. Get over it Jiffy, it means nothing, proves nothing and no one is obligated to prove anything to you about their past. It certainly has absolutely no bearing on someone's right of expressing their opinion or their patriotism to this country.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, why don't you ask your son? He's been to my house and has met me.


I know you served Jiffy, thank you. I just don't agree with your attempt to silence those who have not served. Also, like I said many others who have served like you don't agree with you. Don't just keep saying MOS, give me some reason to agree with you, MOS doesn't cut it.


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

Jiffy,

MOS-

I be more interested to know your ASVAB score that makes you sooo much smarter than the rest of us


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Jiffy Let me inlighten you if possible. During the Vietnam era and in the first post of this thread Vietnam was compared to Iraq,then there was your fellow country men not in the Military burning their draft cards,burning the flag,leaving the country for Canada to avoid military sercve and this was on TV every night!!! There was the Kent State shooting where the NG shot several war protesters. When I got off the plane in Ca home from my first tour I was ment by a large group of protesters saying things I will not repeat but NEVER forgot! Did I dislike these folks then? You dam right I did, for 3 years I did nothing but dislike to the point of hating them. Then for some reason a light came on,If a man was willing to leave his family and his country to keep from doing something he didn't believe in,if he or she was will to march in prostest with the chance of getting the **** beat out of them,if burning your draft card and the flag with the possibility of going to jail, He had as much right to his opion as I did and had the right to stand up for what he belived. Grow up you are not the only that felt this way, Discussing the pull out of troops is for the future That dam MOS is the past.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Again, my opinion is that your opinion about combat and or sending people to it means nothing to me unless you have actually had experience in said subject.

Be my guest! Knock yourself out!! Give all the opinions you want. I'm just stating mine is all. Just like you guys, right?

Just since you asked centerfire I scored an 89. I signed up for 03, it wasn't taken out of necessity. I'm not claiming to be smarter than anybody. Opinions are not black and white, right or wrong.....right?

Again, any of you keyboard warriors of fighting age and able body want to make a differnce get off your computers and pick up a weapon. Put some merit behind your words. I can hook you up with the Marine recruiters number.......its also in the phone book in case you didn't know. :wink:

You boys have fun beating this one to death. I'm going home and drinking a few beers. Its FRIDAY! :beer:


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Sorry I misread your first post pheasantfanatic, I thought you said you were 17 when the Vietnam war was on, lucky you that you can join up
right now, Let us know when you enlist


----------



## pheasantfanatic (Jan 20, 2007)

No problem, Adokken


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Jiffy you can still reenlist and put your actions where your mouth is like your telling everyone else to. I still get my information from the guys that come back from Iraq. And still I'm waiting for one of them to say what they are doing isn't making a difference over there. So far all of the guys I talked to think they are needed and are helping the Iraki people.


----------



## pheasantfanatic (Jan 20, 2007)

Well said, Swift. I have a couple of friends in Iraq and they are of the same opinion :beer: (about Iraq anyway  )


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

We all served so that civilians could speak freely and live freely.

I had friends that felt the way Jiffy does after Vietnam. The anger and resentment ate them up and many of them became alcholics and pot heads dwelling on the negative. I myself fell into that rut for a while, luckily family support and good friends allowed me to slowly pull out of it.

Jiffy you and I and many others served willingly and did so for the right reasons, that many of our fellow citizens didn't is in no way a reflection of their patriotism or their right to an opinion about the politics of the war. As soldiers you and I served for civilians under their direction.

I personally am happy most people in this country never really see what war is first hand. I personally believe as long as our wars are televised and brought into our living rooms nightly we cannot win them because the horror cannot be handled by most of our civilian population.

Jiffy you know what I mean, it changes you 
forever, hardens you and can make you bitter if you let it.

Don't let it, get counselling if its bothering you, it bothered us all.

Put it behind you there are many things in life that cannot be understood in my opinion those things just need to be accepted and let go, for your own good.

94B20 in case your wondering. I thinks thats right, over 37 yearsa ago, the memory slips.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Put very well Bob. We are headed back to Ne. to visit with the family of Sgt. Wayne Cornell he was killed March 20th in Baghdad at the age of 26. He leaves behind a wife and a young son and daughter.

This makes the 3rd family freind to be burried that served in Iraq. Jiffy get rid of your self pitty many of us did, there alot folks a lot worse off than you.


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

> I personally am happy most people in this country never really see what war is first hand. I personally believe as long as our wars are televised and brought into our living rooms nightly we cannot win them because the horror cannot be handled by most of our civilian population.


BobM, you and I have had some good arguments on here but I have to say that I could not have put this better myself. I think they need to pull out the cameras and go to work then maybe let them back in when it is over.


----------

