Stan Horwitz wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> > > People aren't exactly flooding the military so they can fight in Iraq.
> > > That's why some soldiers are doing their second, third or more tour of
> > > duty over there.
> > >
> > > http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
> > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14999341/#storyContinued
> > > http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ep26,1,4149783.
> > > story?coll=la-headlines-world
> > > ( http://tinylink.com/?tOoGSHOdIL )
> >
> > The repeated tours have little to do with military recruitment, it has to do
> > with the current Bush doctrine of commiting limited numbers of troops to the
> > Iraqi theater. That's why McCain is so insistent on increasing troop levels
> > to Iraq. The fracked up notion of Bush, and the departing Rumsfield, that
> > you can use small levels of deployed troops to remove the enemy in one area,
> > then leave and move the troops to the next hot spot is crap. You have to
> > have the number of troops needed to take AND HOLD disputed ground. Trying to
> > win this action "on the lean" is unexcusable.
>
> I heard a news story just the other day about the National Guard (or it
> might have been the Reserves), you lose all your benefits if you leave.

Back in my home country, when the enployees refuse to move to the new
capital and tried to quit the job, they were not allowed. Unlike here,
they wear green uniform and wave guns on the people's head openly








>
> So if you go fight a tour in Iraq, then decide to drop out when your
> tour of duty is over, you get no benefits at all. There's a bit of a
> movement in congress to fix that situation, but I have no idea how much
> momentum it is gathering.