![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Aug. 17th, 2004
get a real Army
Aug. 17th, 2004 12:09 pmSomeone whose LJ I read is deployed as a reservist in Iraq. The latest scuttlebutt is that, while reservists can now only be activated for two years out of every six, DOD is thinking of making that a per theater rule. So that you can be activated for two years for Iraq, then reactivated for Afghanistan for another two years, then sent home for two years (or activated for two years for duty in Europe so a European-deployed unit can go to Iraq), then activated for Iraq again.
If the current armed forces of the United States are not sufficient for the job they're assigned to do, we need to increase the regular forces to a level where they can perform their necessary functions. We should not be treating guard and reserve forces, which have been since World War II considered to be a reinforcement for our combat forces in the event of a mjaor war of limited duration, as if they were available for unlimited duration, in effect a regular force that is not as well paid or as well provided for and whose members have jobs in the civilian economy, as well as homes and families, that need them. Som sacrifice is part of what they signed up for, but being treated this way is not. This is an attempt to evade facing the necessities of the wars that the administration has wished on the American people by invading Iraq. We're there now, we need to get the job done, and we need to do it properly. Reactivate some of the regular divisions that have been stood down in the past twenty years. But don't keep expecting the reserves and guard to shoulder an endless burden. That's not what they're there for.
If the current armed forces of the United States are not sufficient for the job they're assigned to do, we need to increase the regular forces to a level where they can perform their necessary functions. We should not be treating guard and reserve forces, which have been since World War II considered to be a reinforcement for our combat forces in the event of a mjaor war of limited duration, as if they were available for unlimited duration, in effect a regular force that is not as well paid or as well provided for and whose members have jobs in the civilian economy, as well as homes and families, that need them. Som sacrifice is part of what they signed up for, but being treated this way is not. This is an attempt to evade facing the necessities of the wars that the administration has wished on the American people by invading Iraq. We're there now, we need to get the job done, and we need to do it properly. Reactivate some of the regular divisions that have been stood down in the past twenty years. But don't keep expecting the reserves and guard to shoulder an endless burden. That's not what they're there for.
from The Independent
Absolutely not! Anne Coulter is a vicisous, evil bitch whose horrid brand of invective should earn her nothing but scorn and disdain. The character of Ainsley Hayes was smart, fast-talking (even for a West Wing character), and a dedicated Republican, but she had tremendous integrity and sensitivity. She acted on her principles and supported her arguments with facts and well-thought-out opinion. Her character and that of Clifford Calley were models for the way intelligent, capable Americans can disagree on vital issues without descending to the kind of bile-spewing that seems to be popular in many sectors of both the conservative and liberal political worlds, much to my dismay.
Edit: "How do you begin to argue with someone who operates so far outside the generally accepted confines of political debate? " My question would be, "Why bother?"
[Anne Coulter] is thought to be the inspiration for Ainsley Hayes, an extremely right-wing Republican lawyer in The West Wing.
Absolutely not! Anne Coulter is a vicisous, evil bitch whose horrid brand of invective should earn her nothing but scorn and disdain. The character of Ainsley Hayes was smart, fast-talking (even for a West Wing character), and a dedicated Republican, but she had tremendous integrity and sensitivity. She acted on her principles and supported her arguments with facts and well-thought-out opinion. Her character and that of Clifford Calley were models for the way intelligent, capable Americans can disagree on vital issues without descending to the kind of bile-spewing that seems to be popular in many sectors of both the conservative and liberal political worlds, much to my dismay.
Edit: "How do you begin to argue with someone who operates so far outside the generally accepted confines of political debate? " My question would be, "Why bother?"
After a remark by my professor, I looked at the course syllabus again. The homework assignements that I tore my hair out getting done are *optional*. Complete them and you get extra credit that boosts your base "class participation" grade. Well, I feel a bit foolish, but woo hoo! He seems to be very happy with the work I've doen on them, so yay me! :-)