Tech Support Forums - TechIMO.com - View Single Post

Toadman · May 17th, 2008, 06:30 PM

In the rear with the gear and a clipboard. My son(31B) thanks you everytime he goes outside the wire and so do I.

But don't let us stop you from quoting the rest of the article:

"Nearly 60 percent of readers who participated... said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40 percent of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because 'we're wasting lives and resources there.'" (A minority 41 percent voted to fight on "until the insurgency is totally defeated.") This was, of course, a self-selecting vote of 5,440 Military.com readers, but no less startling for that.

Add in another modest set of recent figures and perhaps you have a hint of a shift in the sentiments of a military that has, in the last decades, been increasingly supportive of the Republican Party and an imperial foreign policy. Recently, the Federal Election Commission released its July quarterly figures on contributions to presidential candidates--and Congressman Ron Paul of Texas modestly made the news because the libertarian candidate managed to pull in more money than the military icon (and war supporter) Senator John McCain for the quarter and so slipped into third place in the Republican presidential dollars sweepstakes. Since Paul garners but 2 to 3 percent of the vote in recent presidential opinion polls (up from 1 percent earlier in the year), this was certainly striking in itself--an effect perhaps of his exposure in the ongoing presidential TV debates where he manages, on Iraq among other subjects, to sound like neither a Republican Tweedledum, nor Tweedledee.

But hidden in Paul's poll figures was another story--possibly far more consequential--that's been noticed only by a few blogs and websites that actually bothered to sort out and add up the numbers. The candidate who (along with Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson in the Democratic column) simply wants the US out of Iraq, no ifs, ands, or buts--no "combat brigades" vs. advisors--got a higher tally of contributions from people who have "military employers" than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat.[/i]

Present US forces are, of course, all-volunteer, not draftees (or not exactly anyway, given recent tour extensions in Iraq and stop-loss mandates), but why should they want to be endlessly re-deployed to a lost war in a lost land? By the time the Bush Administration is done, the Paul campaign may be swimming in military money.

May 17th, 2008, 06:30 PM	#890 (permalink)
Toadman Ultimate Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: 30-41,000ft Posts: 4,719	In the rear with the gear and a clipboard. My son(31B) thanks you everytime he goes outside the wire and so do I. But don't let us stop you from quoting the rest of the article: "Nearly 60 percent of readers who participated... said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40 percent of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because 'we're wasting lives and resources there.'" (A minority 41 percent voted to fight on "until the insurgency is totally defeated.") This was, of course, a self-selecting vote of 5,440 Military.com readers, but no less startling for that. Add in another modest set of recent figures and perhaps you have a hint of a shift in the sentiments of a military that has, in the last decades, been increasingly supportive of the Republican Party and an imperial foreign policy. Recently, the Federal Election Commission released its July quarterly figures on contributions to presidential candidates--and Congressman Ron Paul of Texas modestly made the news because the libertarian candidate managed to pull in more money than the military icon (and war supporter) Senator John McCain for the quarter and so slipped into third place in the Republican presidential dollars sweepstakes. Since Paul garners but 2 to 3 percent of the vote in recent presidential opinion polls (up from 1 percent earlier in the year), this was certainly striking in itself--an effect perhaps of his exposure in the ongoing presidential TV debates where he manages, on Iraq among other subjects, to sound like neither a Republican Tweedledum, nor Tweedledee. But hidden in Paul's poll figures was another story--possibly far more consequential--that's been noticed only by a few blogs and websites that actually bothered to sort out and add up the numbers. The candidate who (along with Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson in the Democratic column) simply wants the US out of Iraq, no ifs, ands, or buts--no "combat brigades" vs. advisors--got a higher tally of contributions from people who have "military employers" than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat.[/i] Present US forces are, of course, all-volunteer, not draftees (or not exactly anyway, given recent tour extensions in Iraq and stop-loss mandates), but why should they want to be endlessly re-deployed to a lost war in a lost land? By the time the Bush Administration is done, the Paul campaign may be swimming in military money. Last edited by Toadman : May 17th, 2008 at 06:44 PM.