P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-01-04, 09:32 AM   #1
greedy_lars
everything you do
 
greedy_lars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: wlll come back around to you
Posts: 3,982
Default compel em. buy em. do something!

Strained U.S. Army Offers Fat Re-Enlistment Bonuses
2 hours, 42 minutes ago
By Charles Aldinger

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, stressed by global deployments, is offering re-enlistment bonuses of up to $10,000 to soldiers in Iraq , Afghanistan and Kuwait, Army officials said on Monday.

Soldiers currently in those countries -- and others headed there in the coming three months to replace them -- could receive lump payments of between $5,000 and $10,000 for enlisting for at least three years of additional Army service, the officials told reporters.


The drive to keep troops came as the Army said it would prohibit soldiers serving in or rotating home from Iraq and Afghanistan this winter and spring from retiring or leaving the service for other reasons while there or for up to 90 days after returning to their home bases.


Col. Elton Manske, a spokesman in the office of the Army's deputy chief of staff, said the Army had budgeted $63 million for the re-enlistment program in the current fiscal year ending next Sept. 30.


"It (the money) is there and we are aggressively looking to get soldiers to take advantage of it," Manske said. But he said studies showed no indication that troops were preparing to leave the volunteer service in large numbers when their current contracts ended.


The American military, especially the Army, is suffering stress from global deployments of tens of thousands of troops in the wake of the 2001 attacks on America.


Officials said regular Army troops now in Iraq and Afghanistan who will rotate home in the coming months will not be allowed to retire or leave while they are there in order to maintain key "in-together, out-together" unit integrity.


Manske and other army officials said the 90-day "stop loss" period after the units return home was to allow soldiers whose enlistments are up or who wanted to retire after 20 or more years of service to muster out of uniform efficiently and to take advantage of job training for the civilian sector.


There are 1.4 million active-duty troops in the American military, including 480,000 Army soldiers, and some senior Army officers have privately called for increases in the number of troops in that service because they have borne the brunt of the deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.


REPLACING SOLDIERS


The Pentagon is preparing to begin replacing the roughly 123,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq and 11,000 in Afghanistan -- most of them Army soldiers -- with fresh troops. Among the first units rotating home beginning this month will be the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky.


Members of both parties in Congress have argued that the Army is too small to perform its duties in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and elsewhere and needs thousands of more soldiers.


Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said he remains "absolutely open-minded" about a possible increase in the number of soldiers in the Army but told reporters earlier that he has seen no evidence of that need.


Ted Carpenter, a defense analyst with the Cato Institute think tank, said the "stop loss" decision undercuts the concept of an all-volunteer military, which America has maintained for three decades.


"Clearly, if large numbers of personnel have their terms extended against their will, that violates the principle of volunteerism," Carpenter said. "It also suggests just how strained the military is in trying to provide for the Iraqi occupation plus all the other U.S. obligations around the world."

from

----------------------------------------------------------

lets see, ive read and seen storys about wounded US soldiers who after returning and getting treated, then sent home - a leg or whatever, were then told my their commanders that when they dident have enough money to buy food, well do what all of hungry America is being told to do, go beg at a church or something. Dont expect the army to feed ya or yer kids. what was the embarrasingly low amount i heard US soldiers get payed for fighting in Iraq? and with high level peeps starting to publicly admit we might be there for 'years' wonder why less peeps are raceing in to join.

so how long before the draft? still wanna vote for Bushie?
greedy_lars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-04, 09:39 AM   #2
pod
Bumbling idiot
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vancouver, CA
Posts: 787
Default

I think anyone supporting the war should be fully ready to join the army. First in line guys, come on!
pod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-04, 10:57 AM   #3
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Default

Shhh greedy, we're not supposed to talk about that.

From some funny articles I ran across a while back:

this

Quote:
In early November, a few news reports noted that the DoD’s “Defend America” website was running an announcement recruiting local draft board members. When this reporter called the phone number listed on the website on Nov. 5 to get more information, I was told to call the press office. There, the duty officer said he knew nothing about the posting, and referred me to the Selective Service System’s Public and Congressional Affairs Office. Asked about the web posting – an official-looking notice bearing the Selective Service System seal, Selective Service public affairs specialist Dan Amon told me his office “can’t remember ever having put it on there.” Acknowledging that “it sounds like us,” he carefully repeated, “No one remembers” posting it. When I called back the DoD press office and reported Amon’s response, the duty officer, Ensign Ott, asked me where I had seen the news reports about the notice, and suggested I could ask his boss about it. A short time later, he called me back and told me the site had been taken down. So, if you go to www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html, you’ll get “file not found.” But it did exist on Nov. 5.

Maybe someone jumped the gun. Talking about reinstituting the draft before Election Day 2004 could be political suicide for Bush. But if he is re-elected, could there be a post-election surprise?

Clearly, the administration has a problem. Robert Dove, an American Friends Service Committee staff member who runs the New England region GI Rights Hotline, says there has been an “obvious increase” in hotline calls. Hotline staff are seeing an increase in AWOLs and UAs – absences without leave from the Army and “unauthorized absences” from the Navy.

Many of these callers are in advanced training, preparing to be shipped out to places like Iraq or Afghanistan. That’s typically when recruits start finding out that things aren’t what they signed up for, Dove told the World in a phone interview.

Many joined for the promise that they will get “up to $50,000” for education, he said. It turns out they have to apply in order to be eligible for the funding, have to put in a certain amount of time and done certain jobs in the service, and have to pass exams. After jumping those hurdles, only a handful get some money, Dove said, and most of those get between $2,000 and $3,000, just enough for a couple years of junior college. And, they have to pay a $1,200 fee, deducted in monthly installments from their military pay.
and this

Quote:
As early as last November, however, red flags were being raised. The Journal News in New York state, for example, featured an article regarding New York's Selective Service System need for draft board members in case "a military draft would ever become necessary." And Rep. Charles B. Rangel's Dec. 31 op-ed piece in The New York Times entitled "Bring Back the Draft" caused considerable uproar, especially as it was accompanied by legislation introduced by Rangel and Sen. Fritz Hollings to do just that.

"The experts are all saying we're going to have to beef up our presence in Iraq," Rangel said in the Nov. 3, 2003 edition of Salon.com. "We've failed to convince our allies to send troops, we've extended deployments so morale is sinking, and the president is saying we can't cut and run. So what's left? The draft is a very sensitive subject, but at some point, we're going to need more troops, and at that point the only way to get them will be a return to the draft."

As most point out, however, any mention of conscription would be ill-advised before the 2004 election. "A number of analysts said yesterday that while any public suggestion of a draft would be politically suicidal for U.S. President George W. Bush in an election year, he could find himself with few other options if he is returned for a second term and the fighting in Iraq is still raging," the Toronto Star recently reported. "I don't think a presidential candidate would seriously propose a draft," the Cato Institute's Charles Pena added. "But an incumbent, safely in for a second term -- that might be a different story."
More liberal hysteria here.
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-04, 11:07 AM   #4
span
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by pod
I think anyone supporting the war should be fully ready to join the army. First in line guys, come on!
BOOO!!! WAR BAD!!!!

i'd join the army in a heart beat if you were used as a target practice dummy.
span is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-04, 11:19 AM   #5
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Default

The trouble with guys like you span is you all get used up in the front lines early on.

Ah well, Darwinian evolution at work.
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-04, 11:48 AM   #6
span
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ramona_A_Stone
The trouble with guys like you span is you all get used up in the front lines early on.

Ah well, Darwinian evolution at work.
eh, it's better than dying at home a bitter old man seeing conspiracies and Men in Black around every corner, at least i'd be making a difference and not just spouting the same old lefty talking points everyone has heard and disregarded long ago.
span is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-04, 11:56 AM   #7
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by span
at least i'd be making a difference
Speaking purely hypothetically, of course.
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-04, 12:08 PM   #8
greedy_lars
everything you do
 
greedy_lars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: wlll come back around to you
Posts: 3,982
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by span
...spouting the same old lefty talking points everyone has heard and disregarded long ago....

you mean the ones you always respond to?

greedy_lars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-04, 02:09 PM   #9
span
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by greedy_lars
you mean the ones you always respond to?

i gotta fill my day with something, after my morning prayer to Saint Dubya theres not much to do
span is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-04, 04:23 PM   #10
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Speaking of conspiracies......"Fair and Balanced"


Fox fattens lead on CNN in peak year for cable news

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...06ratings.html
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-04, 05:37 PM   #11
span
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sinner
Speaking of conspiracies......"Fair and Balanced"


Fox fattens lead on CNN in peak year for cable news

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...06ratings.html
i guess all those viewers would be classified as S factor candidates by the whiny, elitist left
span is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-04, 02:14 AM   #12
tambourine-man
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
 
tambourine-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sinner
Speaking of conspiracies......"Fair and Balanced"
Fox fattens lead on CNN in peak year for cable news
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...06ratings.html
I'm surprised people still bother watching those crappy 24-hour 'news' channels - way I see it, there's only so much news in the world that's going to be relavant.... after you've told people what the news is and had a few people give an opinion on it - what's left to do?

George W. Bush Loves Michael Jackson...

Have a read... I've posted this link before but I think it sums up 24-hour news coverage.
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002

"I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003
tambourine-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-04, 10:43 AM   #13
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by tambourine-man
I'm surprised people still bother watching those crappy 24-hour 'news' channels - way I see it, there's only so much news in the world that's going to be relavant....

Your link was ignored, I don't believe G.W. Loves Michael Jackson......

Anyhow, who decides what is and is not relavant to individuals around the world? You? Those channels spit out all kinds of different news from all around the world. Some--maybe a lot-- I find irrelavant, like what JLo and Ben had for supper the night before but there are people out there who care about that sort of shit, so they tell it.


Well things are looking up////


PepsiCo inks deal with Iraqi bottler

No. 2 soft-drink maker signs a deal with Baghdad Soft Drinks to distribute its products in Iraq.


NEW YORK (Reuters) - PepsiCo Inc., the nation's second-largest soft drink maker, said on Wednesday it signed a deal with Baghdad Soft Drinks Co. to bottle and distribute Pepsi products in Iraq.

The move, which the company said is expected to create about 2,000 jobs at Baghdad Soft Drinks, marks PepsiCo's return to Iraq after a 13-year absence mandated by international trade sanctions. PepsiCo entered the Iraq market in 1950.

The deal calls for Baghdad Soft Drinks to bottle PepsiCo's trademark Pepsi-Cola as well as its Seven-Up and Mirinda drinks.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/07/news...reut/index.htm
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-04, 11:43 AM   #14
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

Claim: Coca-Cola was once considered anti-Semitic for refusing to do business in Israel.

Status: True.

Origins: The
last thirty-odd years have seen allegations of anti-Semitism hurled at both Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and for both companies the charges stemmed from their one-time reluctance to do business with Israel.

Successfully doing business in the Middle East often depended upon not doing business in Israel. The Arab League was quick to boycott, and multinational concerns were forced to choose between the smaller market of Israel and the much larger market of the combined Arab states. For firms caught in the middle, it was a "no win" situation.

Coca-Cola's turn in the harsh spotlight of public opinion came in 1966.

April 1 1966: At a press conference in Tel Aviv, businessman Moshe Bornstein accused Coca-Cola of refusing to do business in Israel out of fear of reprisals and loss of profits in the Arab soft drink market. A week later in New York, the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith released a statement backing up the charges, triggering headlines across the U.S.A. Coca-Cola was in hot water, and the American public was demanding answers. It was also rejecting the answers it was getting.

In 1949 Coca-Cola had attempted to open a bottling plant in Israel, but its efforts had been blocked by the Israeli government. As long as no one questioned the company too closely, the failure of this one stab at the Israeli market appeared to provide a satisfactory answer for Coca-Cola's conspicuous absence from the Israeli market. In the meanwhile, Coca-Cola was content to continue quietly serving the much larger Arab market, a market it was likely to lose if it began operating in Israel.

In 1961 an incident in Cairo involving civil servant Mohammad Abu Shadi momentarily shattered the quiet. Shadi had come into possession of a Coca-Cola bottle manufactured in Ethiopia, mistaken the Amharic lettering on its label for Hebrew, and publicly accused Coca-Cola of doing business with Israel.

The manager of Coca-Cola's Egyptian bottling operations wasted no time (and little thought) in assuring the press that Coca-Cola would never allow the Israelis a franchise. With their hands forced by their bottler's impolitic statement, company officials quickly invented the explanation that Israel was too small to support a franchise and gave their reasons for staying away as purely economic, not political. For the time being, this seemed to keep a lid on the brewing storm.

It wasn't until 1966 that people began to wonder openly why it was that nearby Cyprus had no difficulty supporting its Coca-Cola franchise despite their having only one-tenth the population of Israel. The comfortable aura of quiet was shattered by Bornstein's charges and the subsequent uproar they raised in the U.S.A.

When these issues came to light in 1966, they proved highly embarrassing to Coca-Cola. The administrators of Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan announced they would stop serving Coke, and the owners of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Emporium on Coney Island followed suit. Faced with the prospect of a Jewish boycott in America, the company attempted to right the tipped canoe by announcing it would open a bottling plant in Tel Aviv. (Such is the price of business: Israel with the fury of America behind it became a much more attractive market than it ever had been all on its own.) The Arab League struck back by placing Coca-Cola on its boycott list. The boycott began in August 1968 and lasted until May 1991 (or until 1979 in Egypt, where they made their own rules).

Pepsi's entry into Israel in 1992 did not go smoothly — the evolution theme of its "Choice of a New Generation" ad campaign (in which man was portrayed as evolving from a monkey into a Pepsi drinker) angered the strictly observant haredi community. Though Pepsi pulled the campaign from Israel, it found itself in more hot water over a 1993 Michael Jackson tour. Jackson's unthinking flashbulb-popping arrival on a Sabbath was viewed by many observant Jews as a desecration. For a time Pepsi lost its kashrut (kosher) certificate because it was deemed to be promoting a culture that would corrupt the nation's youth through rock music concerts and advertisements featuring scantily-clad women.

Prior to 1992, Pepsi had backed the other horse, choosing to service the lucrative Coke-less Arab markets in the boycott days. For its decision to stay out of Israel (and thus itself avoid being placed on the Arab League's blacklist), Pepsi faced continued criticism in the United States. In certain circles it was considered politically incorrect to be seen drinking Pepsi.

The Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith investigated claims that Pepsi was participating in the boycott of Israel. U.S. law prohibited American companies from taking part in this boycott, but the law was vague, and outright violations were hard to pin down. Nothing ever came of the investigations, and Pepsi was never placed on the American government's list of violators.

Pepsi always denied it was the fear of losing their Arab markets that kept them out of Israel. Like Coca-Cola in 1961, Pepsi fell back upon the claim of Israel's being too small to support a franchise. At least this time the excuse was a bit more believable -- Coca-Cola's already holding down the lion's share of the Israeli soft drink market gave this claim a bit more plausibility. Even so, Pepsi was doing business in many other small markets and much more often than not competing head-to-head against Coca-Cola. If these conditions were keeping them out of Israel, then why weren't they equally keeping them out of these other markets?

Many people in the United States believed Pepsi was going along with the boycott, whether it was proveable in the eyes of U.S. law or not. Those lucrative Arab markets did not come without a price, and Pepsi paid it in loss of goodwill in the U.S. A significant number of American cola drinkers grew up suspecting Pepsi of being anti-Israel and refrained from buying their product. By contrast, Coca-Cola appeared heroic.

This appearance failed to take into account Coca-Cola's fast stepping to shake off similar charges in the 1960s. Pepsi's mud-spattered skirts were but Coca-Cola's hand-me-downs — same skirt, just a bit older.

Today you can get either Coke or Pepsi in anywhere in the Middle East, and the days of the boycott have faded into memory. Even so, there are still those who observe the stricture of "Coke is for Jews; Pepsi is for Arabs." Old wounds are not necessarily healed wounds.

Barbara "Pepsi challenge" Mikkelson
from
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-04, 01:59 AM   #15
tambourine-man
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
 
tambourine-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
Default [rant]

Quote:
Originally posted by Sinner
[b]Your link was ignored, I don't believe G.W. Loves Michael Jackson......

Quote:
Anyhow, who decides what is and is not relavant to individuals around the world? You?
Nope... what's relavant is generally decided by the networks themselves. As Richard Salent, Former President of CBS News put it, "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." I tend to switch off when they introduce the 'talking heads' (that's usually when they're desperate for something to say).
Quote:
Those channels spit out all kinds of different news from all around the world. Some--maybe a lot-- I find irrelavant, like what JLo and Ben had for supper the night before but there are people out there who care about that sort of shit, so they tell it.
Isn't that what "E!" and other celeb news channels are for?

Actually, (now that I read my own post again), I don't object to the occasional trashy news subject, what annoys me is when 24-hour news channels seem to be desperately seaching for something to talk about - not because it informs those watching, but because it's easier than sitting there infront of the cameras and being honest by saying: "well shit, we told you all we know, so now we're going to tell you again and add-in some made-up stuff, to make it seem like we're making progress on a story".

I must say, CNN and FOX are quite good at it - they're very smooth and never seem to get ruffled by a lack of journalistic progress (actually journalism's the wrong word). In the UK, we're subjected to BBC-24 and the ITV News Channel. They're terrible to watch because the lack of anything to update a story is obvious. I'll give you a hint - see if you notice it next time you watch a 24-hour 'news' channel... as soon as the presenter starts speaking slowly (or even stutters) he or she will start asking incisive questions like:

"Errr, yes... so... what's the mood like there, Simon?"

I love it when they ask that question - it makes me feel so empowered knowing that I know what 'the mood' is like. "The mood here, after this momentous succcess, is jubilant, John" (like the humungous crowd of people behind Simon, jumping up and down and slapping themselves in the face, didn't already inform me of that fact)... or "The mood, here in Iraq, is very low, John" (like people being blown up and shot in the face makes this unexpected - there's nothing like being cracked over the head by a disgruntled soldier to 'lower your mood'. I'm so glad Simon made the effort to tell me how 'Iraq' or 'Basra' is feeling... Hey... did you know that the mood in my diary is 'papery' or that 'Albania' is currently feeling albany-ish?)

In particular, I like the way the presenters ask the reporters questions, whilest simultaneously providing the answer... (this question is usually a follow-up to the 'mood' question)...

"Simon, there's a sense of [insert emotion/cogntion] in the air, is there not?"

Simon then has to do one of two things, he can either cling to the shreds of reality and go with: "No John, actually, there's a sense of lavender in the air", or he can just go along with the rubbish line of questioning with, "Yes... John, I really cant tell you how the [insert emotion/cognition] is growing here [cue mindless fluffy waffle about whatever fills time]".

On a final note, I recently dropped in on FOX news a few weeks back. Now, I hate bashing FOX news for it's attempts to appeal to the lowest common denominator - it's kinda like giving retarded people a hard time for being so slow... but I was a bit pissed off by the way they flash up one-word captions beneath news items (kinda reminded me of that scene in 'Clockwork Orange')... as if I was monumentally stupid enough not to understand the concepts that some dicknose politician was yacking on about... "DANGER"... "STAB"... "SECURITY"... went the captions, like some spastic attempt to reinforce a point...

...and as for that constant little box in the left hand corner with the "TERROR ALERT" sign...

[/rant]
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002

"I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003

Last edited by tambourine-man : 08-01-04 at 08:43 AM.
tambourine-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-04, 11:09 AM   #16
greedy_lars
everything you do
 
greedy_lars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: wlll come back around to you
Posts: 3,982
Default Re: [rant]

Quote:
Originally posted by tambourine-man
- there's nothing like being cracked over the head by a disgruntled soldier to 'lower your mood'.
[/rant]

hahahahahhhah gooooood post dood man!
greedy_lars is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)