Permanent military base. sm
Posted By: CeeCee on 2006-06-21
In Reply to: Please enlighten me as to what it means. - PK
This has nothing to do with anything. We have permanent military bases in many European countries. That does not mean we are involved in the politics in those countries. It means, and I have said this three times but I will try again, that when the Iraqi Democratic government is finally in place, they will decide what happens with prisoners of war. Right now, we are involved in that. In the future, we won't be. I am not sure how much clearer I can make it. Very much to the contrary of what the poster Democrat has posted above, this is not a partisan brouhaha that the media has somehow missed. They miss very little. It is something you are misunderstanding. There is plenty out there on the internet that explains it. That might be your first step, or, if you are determined to be upset about it, then there is little anyone can do. Now, having said that, I am off to other boards. Have a nice day.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
If they were born on a military base, they
are considered U.S. citizens. Military bases anywhere in the world are considered U.S. soil.
they were not born on a military base either
they have dual citizenship.
Is America in a permanent decline?
Is America in a permanent decline?
The dollar is plunging. Detroit's car dominance is history. London claims to be outfinancing Wall Street. So maybe it's time to ask whether the era of US dominance is over for good.
By Ernest Beck, MSN Money
Forbes magazine's annual list of the world's richest people is eagerly anticipated as a barometer of wealth and power. And each year the mighty U.S., whose economy is often described as the envy of the world, has dominated the rankings.
Until now, that is.
In its most recent survey, the Forbes billionaire list changed dramatically: The United States made only four appearances in the top 20, compared with 10 names two years ago. India, by contrast, posted an astonishing four in the top 10, twice as many as the U.S. While America still leads the overall list, Russia, the new nation of raging capitalism, ranked second. Its 87 billionaires pushed aside Germany, the former runner-up. Is Wall Street's dominance over?
Many Americans are still rich, of course; many more are comfortably middle class. And the economy, though weak, is nowhere near collapse. But the shift in the billionaire allotment reflects broader trends. While globalization is indeed producing fabulous wealth in countries that were once considered basket cases, many are asking whether the U.S. is losing its competitive edge and surrendering its long-held leadership positions in business, finance and innovation to foreign competitors.
"The U.S. was always No. 1 and assumed it would be No. 1 and acted accordingly," says Doug Rediker, a former investment banker and a co-director of the Global Strategic Finance Initiative at the New America Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank. "Now other nations are catching up. There are competitors fighting for market share in every industry. The U.S. is under pressure."
Consider the sinking value of the dollar: The greenback is still the world's reserve currency, but its continuing erosion carries a symbolic value, telling the world that the U.S. doesn't have its financial house in order. At home, that means higher prices for food and fuel; it also means more-expensive vacations for Americans traveling abroad.
Talk Back: Do you think America is locked into decline?
The incredible shrinking dollar has also made America a great place for Europeans -- wielding their strong euros and pounds -- to go on cheap shopping sprees, swamping our department stores and designer boutiques to pick up bargains. The U.S., once an elite shopping destination, is becoming their giant outlet mall. Foreign tourists on shopping sprees
And what about Detroit's once-vaunted role as an auto industry leader? That has been diminished by more-nimble global competitors. Companies such as Japan's Toyota are threatening the once-indomitable General Motors with more-stylish design and advanced engineering. While GM was turning out gas-guzzling SUVs and Hummers, Toyota got on the green bandwagon early with hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars, and is now reaping the rewards as gas prices soar. Meanwhile, Wall Street faces rivals in cities such as London, which is attracting so many international banks and companies to its booming stock and capital markets that it now claims to be the new center for global business and finance -- a title disputed, of course, by New York City boosters.
Still, argues Michael Charlton, the chief executive of Think London, the city's official foreign-direct-investment agency, "It is a valid claim that London is the world financial capital because its status is based on its international credentials and because we trade so successfully internationally." Is London the next global capital?
Even New York's pre-eminent position as the center of the booming global art market is being challenged -- again by London, a city that once shunned contemporary art. Nowadays, London's galleries and auction houses are crowded with new collectors, including many newly rich Russians, clamoring for the work of blue-chip artists.
Taken together, some say, the evidence suggests the U.S. might be heading into a twilight phase -- one in which it is ceding to other nations its usual claim to superlatives and leadership as well as its adventurous, cutting-edge spirit. A spate of recent books has explored this development, including Newsweek Editor Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World." Among the examples he cites: The world's tallest building is in Taipei, Taiwan; the largest publicly traded company is in China; India will soon have the world's biggest oil refinery; and Macau has overtaken Las Vegas in gambling revenue. Map: Global markets on the rise
The reality is a bit more complex, but we do now live in a multipolar world, and we had better get used to it. Forget the superpower rivalry between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, as well as the brief time in which the U.S. was the only superpower. Forget the time when there was no Airbus, only Boeing and Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas.
Today the centers of power, finance and trade have realigned into three heavyweight blocks: the U.S., the European Union and Asia, with the last dominated by China and India, boasting massive populations and rapidly developing economies. Each group is looking out for its own interests and using its might to influence economic policy and world affairs.
So where does that leave the U.S.?
Rediker, of the New America Foundation, says the U.S. is still a major player in the global economy and isn't likely to become a second-tier nation anytime soon. But, he adds, it's time to recognize that "it's also not the only player, and as such, can't dictate terms to the rest of the world."
In the short term, that shift in thinking might not cut prices at the pump or in grocery stores, or restore strength in the dollar. But it could become part of a wider strategy on how the U.S. can deal with the world's evolving economic structure and encourage business leaders to adopt a broader, bolder outlook to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
Despite the challenges and gloomy outlook fostered by the credit crunch and subprime mortgage mess, many believe the U.S. economy remains both formidable and resilient, with deep reserves of talent, entrepreneurship and continuing investment in research and development.
Even General Motors is trying to change: It has vowed to design an electric car and have it on the road by 2010.
"We should not underestimate the ability of the U.S. economy to transform itself," says Mauro Guillen, a professor of international management at The Wharton School in Philadelphia. "It has one of the most flexible economies and continues to be a magnet for the best and the brightest." Although the nation is at a crossroads in many respects, Guillen adds, "The U.S. will weather the storm."
temporary jobs lead to permanent jobs -
projects are always just temporary; however, they lead to more permanent positions. Also, by the time some of these "temporary" jobs are over, the crisis should be settling down too. Do you think that rebuilding our infrastructure is going to happen in a day, week, or month?
What should we do? Tell these people who will be temporarily paid not to work for the next couple of years on these jobs because they are only temporary? That is a good idea - nobody do the temporary jobs, that way the projects will never get done and the deficit will not go up, and the economy will just continue to decline...
That's a great way to handle it!
and I base mine on
available information .... don't just pull them out of my bellybutton.
I definitely don't base it JUST on morals
I guess I should have been more elaborate on that. And you are completely right, most presidents change their tune after they get into the white house. I feel like we are almost gambling when we vote, who will change less?
Honestly, if we could take the candidates and even the VPs and just mush them into one candidate, I think we would be flying pretty high.
I think my biggest fear right now is that myself and a lot of people I know are one step from losing our homes and standing in the breadline. I Get upset that my husband and I both work extremely hard to keep what we have (which isn't much) but that we can't seem to get any assistance whatsoever. Yet someone can have seven kids and never work a day in her life and be taken care of. Do I think this will change? No. I feel like the middle class in the economy is a lot like "the middle child" in a family - often forgotten about, but expected to behave anyways.
On religion, check out my reply to Kaydie. I've written a short summary of a part of the book I mentioned to her in response to you saying that Jesus was a highly evolved human being (I used to believe the same thing)
Josh Mcdowell puts it like this: either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.
If he spent his life telling everyone that he was the Son of God and getting people to believe and follow him and he knew that he wasn't, then he was a liar. But the question poses, can someone that evil hearted (remember a lot of his disciples left there homes, family, jobs, etc to follow Him and were even killed defending His name) never do wrong? See I believe that there were enough people that hated Jesus that after he died if someone tried to talk about how great he was they would have been writing about ANYTHING wrong he did if they knew that he did. We would have heard about it.
Lunatic - If he did all this not knowing that he was being deceptive, and he really believed that he was the Son of God, then he had to be crazy. But this is crazy to the tenth power. Most lunatics who believe they are something else believe they are something tangible, such as a dog or a butterfly or another human. To believe that your the Son of God (remember, there was no Son of God in history before him, so it's not like it was a term thrown around or an unoriginal idea) is very unlikely. Not to mention how eloquent of a speaker Jesus was and how he was so easily able to explain things.
Lord - If Jesus was neither a liar or a lunatic, then he must be who he says he is - Lord, the Son of God. And since the Son of God cannot sin, he cannot lie, which means when he says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father EXCEPT by me" then he must not be lying.
Josh Mcdowell explains this a lot better than I can (that's why he's a PhD and I'm an MT! :-D ) but in case you never get to check out his book, I just wanted to give a recap. It helped me make my decision that he is Lord, because for a long time I wanted to believe that he was just "a great man" or "a great teacher" but I feel now that it was so rude of me to say that of someone who personally died for me.
Just my ideas! Thanks for giving me yours! It's nice to be able to talk back and forth about this without anyone getting upset! :-D
Deeni, please don't base all on one
I'm a Christian, but I see a lot of Christians who just are paranoid about anything and everything under the sun. They become paralyzed with "end times," the antichrist, etc. They become so entranced by this stuff that they lose their joy in their faith. I'm not like this. I feel Obama is there because he's supposed to be there, and I'm just working, paying bills, and enjoying my life and family. We're not all the "fire and brimstone" kind. :) I actually feel sorry for those Christians that feel this way because they're not acknowledging who is really in charge and these things are happening because they're supposed to. "Let it go!" I say to them. lol I'm sure you will agree. :)
I want to know what facts you base this on.
Unless, you know her personally, that is.
U.S. air base closing which is a key to
This is not good. Just heard on the news that we need McCain, Romney, and Obama to talk to Russia about this special base closing. But of course, the senate and congress are too busy with this stimulus, stated the ex-FBI agent to fight terrorism.
Supposedly Russia prime minister stated he was FOR (not against) helping fight terrorists, but instead, Russia is actually working with Taliban. Basically, "Russia is bullying Obama." This needs to be worked out soon or terrorists are going to get stronger and attack when we are at our weakest, which I say is about now. We have already lost 150 vehicles for fighting because of base closing and do we seriously have 15,000 troops? Or are some of our young ones in high school and college going to be drafted soon.
MOSCOW — Kyrgyzstan's president said Tuesday his country is ending U.S. use of an air base key to military operations in Afghanistan_ a decision with potentially grave consequences for U.S. efforts to put down surging Taliban and al-Qaida violence.
A U.S. military official in Afghanistan called President Kurmanbek Bakiyev's statement "political positioning" and denied the U.S. presence at the Manas air base would end anytime soon.
The United States is preparing to deploy an additional 15,000 troops in Afghanistan and Manas is an important stopover for U.S. materiel and personnel.
Ending U.S. access would be a significant victory for Moscow in its efforts to squeeze the United States out of Central Asia, home to substantial oil and gas reserves and seen by Russia as part of its strategic sphere of influence.
Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev spoke on a visit to Moscow minutes after Russia announced it was providing the poor Central Asian nation with billions of dollars in aid.
Bakiyev said when the U.S. forces began using Manas after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the expectation was that they would stay for two years at most.
"It should be said that during this time... we discussed not just once with our American partners the subject of economic compensation for the stationing (of US forces at the base)," he said on Russian state-run TV. "But unfortunately we have not found any understanding on the part of the United States.
"So literally just days ago, the Kyrgyz government made the decision on ending the term for the American base on the territory of Kyrgyzstan," he said.
Col. Greg Julian, the U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan, denied there was any change in U.S. use of the base and he noted that Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, just recently traveled there.
"I think it's political positioning. Gen. Petraeus was just there and he talked with them. We have a standing contract and they're making millions off our presence there. There are no plans to shut down access to it anytime soon," he told The Associated Press.
As recently as Jan. 19, Petraeus said he had received Kyrgyz assurances that Russia was not pushing for the base to close.
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said: "I have seen nothing to suggest, other than press reports, that the Russians are attempting to undermine our use of that facility."
The United States set up Manas and a base in neighboring Uzbekistan after the September 2001 attacks to back operations in Afghanistan. Uzbekistan expelled U.S. troops from the base on its territory in 2005 in a dispute over human rights issues, leaving Manas as the only U.S. military facility in the immediate region.
Moscow, which fought a 10-year war in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, was initially supportive of U.S. efforts to keep Afghanistan from collapsing into new anarchy and stem the spread of militancy northward through ex-Soviet Central Asia.
But as Kremlin suspicions about U.S. foreign policy have grown, so has Russian wariness about the U.S. presence in Central Asia. Russia also uses a military air base in the ex-Soviet nation.
During his visit last month, Petraeus said that Manas would be key to plans to boost the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan. He also said the United States currently pumps a total of $150 million into Kyrgyzstan's economy annually, including $63 million in rent for Manas.
About 1,200 U.S. troops are based at Manas.
Russia, however, agreed Tuesday to provide Kyrgyzstan with $2 billion in loans plus another $150 million in financial aid.
Kyrgyzstan is one of Central Asia's poorest countries and has been buffeted by political turmoil for years. Its economy has been strained to the limit this winter after neighboring Uzbekistan significantly raised prices for natural gas.
Most Kyrgyz have been supportive, or at least accepting, of the U.S. presence, though in 2007, widespread anger erupted after a U.S. serviceman at Manas shot and killed a Kyrgyz man during a security check. Kyrgyz investigators had asked the serviceman face criminal prosecution in their country.
Petraeus said during a trip to the region last month that the investigation will be reopened.
Central Asia is key to U.S. efforts to secure an alternative supply line to forces in Afghanistan. The main route, through the Khyber Pass in Pakistan's northwest, has occasionally been closed in recent months due to rising attacks by bandits and Islamist militants, including one on Tuesday that destroyed a bridge.
During his visit, which included a stop in Kyrgyzstan, Petraeus said Washington had struck deals with Russia and several Central Asian states to allow the transhipment of supplies heading to Afghanistan.
NATO spokesman Eric Povel said the alliance could not comment because use of the base was an issue for the U.S. and Kyrgyzstan.
"It's not a NATO base," he said.
your way off base and don't know what your talking about
In my relationship with my partner we don't do sm, bondage, strange fetishes, and we certainly don't abuse each other. We don't do 3-ways or wife/husband swapping. We also don't do polygamy and certainly no domestic violence.
We have a normal sexual relationship and show tender loving care to each other. We respect each other, give each other privacy and never force the other into anything. We love each other unconditionally and when we're together we feel the love each of us shows the other. I trust my life with my partner. We have a totally natural and normal relationship with each other.
There are many couples (heterosexual) who do sm, bondage, strange fetishes, 3-ways, wife-swapping and polygamy and most domestic violence is commited by a heterosexual couple.
So I would say if anything heterosexual couples are not normal.
LOL, oh give it up, you are so off base it isn't funny! sm
You mean gt/Libby/deedee/DixieDew??? LOL!!! 
Once again, gt, you are not thinking from a base of fairness.
But I didn't expect you to. And when another poster actually did, you responded with HOW COULD YOU. I expected that, as well. So much for philosophical conversation, exploring intent, and misspeaking. I notice you never mentioned Maher, which, again, is typical. I drew a cogent correlation and you dismissed it completely. Again, expected. Thank you, Gadfly, for the conversation.
Seems like SP's speech energized O's base too.
su
Please don't base your decision on who you vote...sm
for on this or any other board. Look at the issues and make your decisions based on them, not personalities or rhetoric.
If you base your perceptions of the entire
populace of our country from the postings on this forum, you need to get out more.
I'm sorry they said bad things about your candidate. It obviously hurt you deeply.
You base your impression of all liberals
He is a television personality. That would be like basing an impression of all conservatives on Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. None of them are there to provide objective opinion, and in a lot of ways they are caricatures for infotainment.
I consider myself a liberal, but I would not base my impression of all conservatives on any one individual of that political persuasion.
I do think that Obama will listen to knowledgeable people no matter what their political affiliation is. No one person (or political party) has all the answers and it is going to take a cooperative effort to get us started on the road out of this mess. Good ideas are good ideas no matter what the source is.
P.S. I don't think much of Olbermann really. He doesn't even vote. He strikes me as a blowhard critic. It will be interesting to see how/if his program changes in the next few months. She is way more liberal, but I prefer Rachel Maddow's show. She seems much more genuine and personable.
The Commander in Chimp's base is hopeless...sm
I saw one post on Alternet earlier today which stated that if 911 were an inside job, that Bush probably had to sacrifice for the greater good.
Has anyone seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whhbPVrb5KM
CG, me, Hillary's angered base, feminists,
We'll all be pushing long and hard against having what's-her-name represent us and squash the Bimbos Unite! movement before it even takes off.
You are so off base. BE PATRIOTIC, s tand behind the NEW PRESIDENT OF THE USA !!!!
nm
We ARE the military.
You forget that when it comes time to put themselves on the line, you have just as many Democrats stepping forward as you do Republicans - and many more Dems go on for careers in public service. You think you own the Army? The Marines? The Navy? Well you're wrong. The military is a BIPARTISAN operation. Your problem in understanding this is that you refuse to listen to anything BUT soldiers confirming your tunnel vision. I watched the C-Span coverage of Saturday's march AND the C-Span coverage of Sunday's pro-war attempt. I listen to what all veterans have to say, not just a few that I can brand as like me. You won't have any kind of a realistic view of the whole picture until you consider BOTH sides of the issue.
I was in the military all through the 80s.
Ex-husband is a 100 percent disabled Vietnam vet with PTSD. Currently 1 son in the Army on his 2nd enlistment (in Korea even as we speak, as well as serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq). My other son and daughter-in-law also served in the Army.
The military is not the only way
su
The military could get him...yes
I can't say enough good about our young warriers but they can only follow orders.
How did they get in the military? sm
They ENLISTED. The draft was abolished in 1973 after the end of the Viet Nam War.
If our military can
be waterboarded during training, I think I could handle it for 50K. That would be a nice payment on my house. Where do I sign up?
I say let the military do what they have sm
to do to get the information they need. If the media would stay away from the military, battlefields, etc things would not drag on as long as they have. Our soldiers are limited as to what they can do or say to these bunch of terrorist because there is a camera or a microphone, it seems, recording their every word or every move they make.
The enemies of this country do not care what they do to us, but we are suppose to "molly-coddle" the terrorists and for goodness sake, don't "torture" them. Out guys go through more "torture" in boot camp than we are allowed to give to the worst terrorist when trying to get information from them.
Personally I say get the media, the papers, the TV, etc out of the battlefield. Let our soldiers do what they need to do and get back home! I wonder what the soldiers who found Sadam Hussein would have done if the media had not been breathing down their necks? If I had my guess, they probably would have blown him away and stuffed him back in the hole saving a whole lot of hassle and money.
love the military
that is why I want them home. Cant fight a war without military, so no military, no war. No immoral, illegal war. Bush will have to finally face up to facts that he lied about this war, this war is wrong. Let him send his daughters or let him finish his military duty. No we are not going to send our sons and daughters to your illegal war, Bush..
The military is not a kid club. sm
Drinking age and fighting is an old and worn out reasoning. Besides, they get all the alcohol they want. What are we supposed to do with men and women who choose to join the military. Put it in writing that they will never have to go to war? And where was the left's outrage when Clinton sent men and women into his little skirmishes. I never heard a word then. Never saw one leftie holding a sign that said NO MORE MOGADISHUs. In fact, the left hardly even mentions it. Why is that exactly?
I never said all the military supports the war.
That is a flat out untruth.
How can one's child being in the military sm
equate to a point for foreign affairs experience? Please explain that to me. I know a lot of people whose children are in the military, in the war zone and not one of them would say they have foreign affairs experience. Also, didn't she herself say she doesn't know anything about Iraq.
And so you think our military isn't fed a load of
they've been sent to do is 'morally right'? Dont' get me wrong, they are brave, upstanding young men and women who believe in the country. But once they sign on that dotted line, they've gotta go & do what they're told during their enlistment. Even if it's for dubious reasons. So what you wanna bet they get fed a WHOLE lotta propaganda.
Suicide rates amongst our military is at an all-time high, as well. Ever wonder why that might be?
The majority of the military
have always been conservative. However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years. Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past.
Cut military spending!
How about we spend less on war and more on the citizens of the United States? Those who have family members in the military whose livelihood depends on war may call this socialism, but I call it common sense!
yes, they enlisted in the military
but they didn't enlist in the war.
I stand behind our military too but
I sure as heck am not going to stand behind a president who sends our young men and women in harms way for his own personal gain and that of his oil cronies. What happened to bin Laden? Don't tell me that our military men and women couldn't take him out. And how about McCain saying he knew how to get him. How anyone who can support this administration and this war is beyond me. Isn't it "Mission Iraqi Freedom" now? What about 9/11? Who has paid for that? And today Iraq has given us "permission" to stay for 3 more years? Permission??? We have no business meddling in their business to begin with. Wasn't Bushes and Sadam friends before they became enemies???
I'm from a military family, too
My grandfather fought in WWI and WWII. He received 5 medals for the battles in WWI in France, plus the French Etagierre. My father and mom's brothers were army. My gf retired in the 1970s. My one uncle retired in 1990 from the Army. My son was in the Marines. They all enlisted.
AND BECAUSE OUR MILITARY IS BROKEN.....
The biggest selling product in the US right now is GUNS. So you think the cowards in this country can't protect themselves? Think again. Your family members weren't drafted and because they made that choice doesn't make everyone else cowards. You insult this country with your pious crap.
You don't need military at our borders.....
that's against our constitution. That's what our National Guard is for, to protect OUR borders. Combat military is not supposed to be involved in this country. I do not want our troops on the borders of my country; I want our national guard sent down to do what they are supposed to do, protect our country against foreign invasion.
I am sick to death of paying for illegals and their anchor babies by the thousands and thousands....
Good question.....why is our country allowing this and then punishing our agents to shoot one of them. Maybe more shooting would stop a lot of their illegal trespassing into our country if they knew they would be shot.
And who never served in the military
and is on record as despising it? Class? Obama!
Military does NOTHING with blessings of
You are so very misinformed. You can not compare the CEO of a car company to the United States Military.
not true...the military does most everything without
the blessing of the president directly. However, in this case, you are right. He did give the direct go ahead, although I doubt he planned it. By the way--with your vast knowledge of the military, do you know what the CNO is, let alone who it is without looking it up? I do.
not true...the military does most everything without
the blessing of the president directly. However, in this case, you are right. He did give the direct go ahead, although I doubt he planned it. By the way--with your vast knowledge of the military, do you know what the CNO is, let alone who he is without looking it up? I do.
Yes, and could put the country and/or our military
nm
I have 4 sons in the military ..sm
and have changed my views on the war. It is not what you hear from the "left", it is not what you see in Hollywood movies, the whole story is not being told by vets who solicit funds for "peace" and "truth" organizations.
The majority of Iraqi do want us there and our help. They do not hold all troops responsible for the acts committed 6 years ago by a few. Several troops have been convicted and sentenced - something no other country would do to it's troops in the same circumstances.
These photos not released are no worse than what we've seen, but they're a talking point for the "left." I expect they will be eventually released and the "left" will be off on another tangent b/c the "torture" meme lost traction.
The "left" isn't interested in law of the land and justice yadayada - they just gnaw at bones of contention and get a warm fuzzy until their "leaders" throw them the next bone.
Comment on enlistees in the military
I notice that repeatedly there is a rhetoric among conservatives that if an 18-year-old (or 19 or 20) signed up, then that was their adult decision and there's no use complaining over it. War is war and they have to go.
Okay, so why is it fine for an 18-year-old to be considered mature enough to make a major life decision like enlisting in the military but at same time is not allowed to drink alcohol for 3 more years in most states? So.....he/she can kill folks but not take a drink of beer. Seems like rather skewed logic.
Secondly, when those folks of ALL ages enlisted they put their faith in the powers that be in this country that their service would be used wisely and that they would NOT have their lives squandered for a highly questionable and suspect war. To me that is the crux of the matter -- sure they signed up but many of them did not sign up to fight in a spurious and illegal war. They put their faith in the US military and were let down, as far as I can tell. Very sad.
Who's REALLY signing up for the military these days.
Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters
By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, August 22, 2005; 8:00 AM
There was an eye-opening article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a few days ago that explored the increasing difficulty the military is having recruiting young people to enlist. As has been well reported in many newspapers, including The Washington Post, the Army and Marines are having a particularly tough time meeting recruitment objectives, in part because of Americans' concern about the war in Iraq.
When you dig deeper into the reason for this phenomenon, it turns out that parents of potential soldiers and sailors are becoming one of the biggest obstacles facing military recruiters. Even top military officials acknowledge this and unveiled a new series of ads this spring targeted at influencers such as parents, teachers and coaches.
But the Post-Gazette raises another issue. There has been much talk about the relationship between race and ethnicity and military recruitment. But what about social and economic class? Are wealthier Americans, who are more likely to be Republicans and therefore more likely to support the war, stepping up to the plate and urging their children and others from their communities to enlist?
Unfortunately, there has been no definitive study on this subject. But it appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.
The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
Military service isn't for our son, she told Rivera. It isn't for our kind of people.
The Post-Gazette piece focused on parental disapproval of military recruitment efforts, and dealt only tangentially with the larger question of class. What we do know is that recruiting is down across the board and that both the Army and Marines have fallen significantly behind their recruiting goals.
This is what the Army's hired advertising company, Leo Burnett, had to say about the ads targeting influencers that it began running in April: Titled 'Dinner Conversation,' 'Two Things,' 'Good Training' and 'Listening' (Spanish-language ad), the commercials portray moments ranging from a son telling his mother he's found someone to pay for college, to a father praising his son who has just returned from Basic Training for the positive ways in which he's changed. They capture the questions, hopes and concerns parents have about a career serving the United States of America and include families from many different backgrounds.
I asked Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins for further explanation on the intent of the ads.
Clearly it was to talk to influencers, she said. She said studies have shown that today's young people yearn to serve their country in one way or another. The problem is that today the people who influence their decisions are less likely than they were in past generations to recommend [military service].
Why?
In part because the economy is strong, said Robbins. In part because they are concerned about the war. And in part because fewer of them have a direct relationship with the military or have ever served.
So would it be logical to conclude that, if the strong economy is one of the reasons it is more difficult to recruit, the most affluent parents should be the most difficult to reach? After all, their children have more options, including college, than less affluent parents? And if that's true, isn't it somewhat ironic that the military is paying millions of dollars ultimately to influence the behavior of the parents who are among the most likely to be supportive of the war in Iraq?
I disagree with your premise, Robbins said, arguing that the military is represented strongly across the board by people of all income levels and faces challenges in recruiting at all income levels.
Referring to the Post-Gazette anecdote, she said, One woman saying stupid things does not a trend make.
Actually, I did have a premise, but it wasn't unshakable. But because neither the Army nor the Defense Department keeps detailed information about the household incomes of the people who join, it was not easy to prove or disprove.
So let's approach the issue this way: In the 2004 election, household income was a pretty decent indicator of how one might vote. Voters from households making more than $50,000 a year favored Bush 56 percent to 43 percent. Voters making $50,000 or less favored Kerry 55 to 44 percent. Median household income as of 2003 was $43,318, according to the U.S. Census.
The wealthier you become, apparently, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP advantage grows more pronounced for people from households making more than $100,000. People from households with incomes exceeding that amount voted for Bush over Kerry by 58 percent to 41 percent. Those from households making less than $100,000 favored Kerry over Bush 51 to 49 percent. And nearly two-thirds of voters from households making more than $200,000 favored Bush over Kerry.
Those making more than $100,000 made up only 18 percent of the electorate, which explains why Bush won by a narrow 2.5 percentage points in the general election.
This raises all sorts of complicated socioeconomic questions, such as whether the rich expect others to fight their wars for them. Or, asked another way, are they more likely to support the war in Iraq because their families are less likely to carry part of the burden?
Certainly, there are no absolutes here. Many of the wealthy are Democrats, some of whom support the war. Some of whom oppose it. Many of the poor and working class are Republicans, and support the GOP on Iraq.
By looking at long-term trends, it seems logical that some of those most likely to support Bush and his Iraq policy are also those least likely to encourage their children to go into the military at wartime. And it raises questions, such as, if you are among those most likely to support the war, shouldn't you be among those most likely to encourage your child to serve in the military? Shouldn't your socioeconomic group be the most receptive to the recruiters' call? And would there be a recruitment problem at all if the affluent put their money where their mouth is?
Several social scientists have studied the question of economics and class in military enlistment. Many of these studies don't look at the officer ranks, which might tend to counter some of the class argument. But officers, of course, make up a relatively small portion of the military.
Among the more recent studies was one done last year by Robert Cushing, a retired professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. He tracked those who died in Iraq by geography and found that whites from small, mostly poor, rural areas made up a disproportionately large percentage of the casualties in Iraq.
I talked to two other academicians who have studied the issue. Their conclusions, though reached prior to the war in Iraq, were helpful because of their understanding of the historical implications of the class question.
David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organizations at the University of Maryland, said contrary to conventional wisdom both the poorest and the wealthiest people are underrepresented at the bottom of the military ranks, for completely different reasons. This trend held for both from the conscription years of Vietnam through at least the late 1990s.
Poorer people, he said, are likely to be kept out of the military by a range of factors, including higher likelihood of having a criminal record or academic deficiencies or health problems.
Back during Vietnam, the top [economic class] had access for means of staying out of the military, said Segal. The National Guard was known to be a well-to-do white man's club back then. People knew if you if joined the guard you weren't going to go to Vietnam. That included people like Dan Quayle and our current commander in chief. If you were rich, you might have found it easier to get a doctor to certify you as having a condition that precluded you from service. You could get a medical deferment with braces on your teeth, so you would go get braces -- something that was very expensive back then. The wealthy had more access to educational and occupational deferments.
Today's affluent merely see themselves as having more options and are not as enticed by financial incentives, such as money for college, Segal said.
The Army was able to provide socioeconomic data only for the 2002 fiscal year. Its numbers confirm Segal's findings that service members in the highest and lowest income brackets are underrepresented, but because those numbers chronicle enlistments in the year immediately following the 2001 terrorist attacks, it's difficult to ascertain whether this was a normal recruiting year.
Segal and Jerald G. Bachman, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, have studied the correlation between a parental education levels and likelihood for their offspring to enlist.
Examining data from early to mid-1990s, they created five categories, with one being the lowest level. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found the children of the most-educated parents -- those with post-graduate degrees -- were the least likely to join the military. The children of parents with high school diplomas were three times more likely to enlist.
One of the interesting phenomenon of today's politics is that, in general, Republicans tend to be more educated on average than Democrats, with a larger percentage either holding a bachelor's degree or having attended some college. But Democrats represent a larger portion of the super-educated -- that is, those holding graduate degrees. So Democrats are made up of the least and the most educated, with Republicans congregated largely near, but not at, the top.
So how did those near the top of the educational tree do in Segal's and Bachman's study? They were half as likely as those in group two to enlist. And because there are far more people who have been to college or have bachelor's degrees than there are people who have post-graduate degrees, the former group has far more political influence, just in sheer numbers.
While there have been changes in racial and ethnic enlistment trends, with the number of black recruits dropping precipitously since the Iraq war, Segal and Bachman said they've seen nothing to indicate significant changes in the class -- of which education levels is a prime indicator -- trends in the military.
Journalists can get themselves in trouble by drawing simplistic conclusions based on less-than-exhaustive research, and we won't do so here. But we can at least raise the question of whether the rich are more likely to support the war because their loved ones are less likely to die in it.
Comments can be sent to Terry Neal at commentsforneal@washingtonpost.com.
© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
Skinheads don't join the military.
They have their own militia. If you or anyone at the NYT knew how the military works, there is a quite extensive questionnaire before you are inducted and questioning regarding subversive groups. KKK is one of them. The KKK has actually greatly dwindled in size. Add to that the fact that the majority of the military now is made of minorities and you get the picture. Skinheads would not rape a woman of color. It's not what they do. In fact, it is the antithesis of what they do. They might kill them, but rape them...no way. Educate yourself. You just look foolish when you continue to downgrade our military this way.
I come from a long line of military. sm
And none of them feel that way. To each his own.
I am a firm supporter of the military, but --
My exhusband was a soldier the entire 20 years we were married and is in fact in Iraq right now; my son, whom I love dearly, is graduating from basic training on Friday. I support the military wholeheartedly, but that does not mean I have to support McCain.
I don't believe that our soldiers should be where they are and I don't believe they should have ever been where they are. And I believe that when they come home, they should have better support and better care than they are getting.
But I have the utmost respect for the military and their families and would always hope and pray the best for them. They did after all fight to give me the right to disagree on who their commander-in-chief should be.
That being said, I also do not think that serving in the military should be experience that counts in running the country. Just because McCain is a a war hero and former POW does not make him entitled to be the leader of the United States of America. That would be the same as saying my ex-husband could have that job; he has just as much experience in the military as McCain, not as a POW, but he has served many more years than McCain did.
What about the military votes not being counted? nm
x
Once again, a "civilian military force" that is
ENDORSED BY BUSH.
That little tidbit was conveniently deleted from the link that was provided.
Keep believing all the hype and the lies. That's your choice, but don't insult me because I can tell the difference.
|
