"Backdoor Draft" declared legal

[burner69]

Slightly less important than stimulating our economy, how is it fair that the top 1%, who pay 50% of the taxes in this country are taxed the most? Just doesnt make sense, everyone wants america to be fair but that surely isnt. People would invade others privacy, take their money through taxes, and waste it on failed social programs

They still have more than enough money, and most of them got it from very questionable ways. The top 1% earn more than some poor countries, I believe. I'm sorry, I've worked in some crappoy jobs on crappy pay before, and worked my ass off. There's no way they're doing so many more times work than me so their pay cheque skips up from £3.75 an hour (what I was on) to £2'476 an hour, or whatever these corporate geezers are on. Sorry, but they should be taxed a lot more than the rest of us, they're getting off very lightly indeed.

 

[Kyorisu]

Many contracts deal with possibilities. These contracts deal with the possibilty of war or emergency.

So many people are defending their country for their term of service is over, get yanked back in by the collar. Some of these people probably did realize that they may be called back. I do doubt they thought it would be instantanious though.

War is a giant meat grinder, you're fighting over the corpses of the dead, trying so desperatley to stay away from the jagged blades below.

In all fairness their contracts should atleast grant a period of time after their "Active service" when they can not be called back under any circumstances, after that duration is over they may be requested to return.

 

[GhostFox]

You do realise that a lot of people who sign on for the military are college and school drop outs?

As far as I know all branches of the US millitary still require a High School diploma to join. You also have to pass the ASVAB, which requires quite a bit of reading. And math.

The millitary is not suckering in kids who dropped out of school and cannot read.

 

[burner69]

As far as I know all branches of the US millitary still require a High School diploma to join. You also have to pass the ASVAB, which requires quite a bit of reading. And math.

The millitary is not suckering in kids who dropped out of school and cannot read.

I'm aware, in the UK at least, that you need some education. But it's minimal. And the IQ test you have to pass to get in is a joke.

"Bill is taller than Barry" Who is taller, Bill, or Barry.

I've got a friend who has an IQ of under 90, is dyslexic, and passed the intelligence test. Believe me, he would not have been able to get through his contract.

 

[Bodacious]

You do realise that a lot of people who sign on for the military are college and school drop outs? People who aren't v.good at reading. I've seen what recruiting agencies for the army are like here in the UK, they just tell you how great the army is, then it's all "sign sign sign, get in the army". In the article posted the people were clearly unaware of this extra obligation, which, when sprung upon them, they naturally didn't want to do.
There's a problem there, both with them, and the system.

And please explain how Iraq is fighting for our country. Not to undermine bod's work, I just don't feel it is fighting for the US anymore than invading Mongolia would be right now.

No we agree on something, that the poeople whining are morons, ignorant if you will. But I fail to see why it is the system's fault for them not reading the contract. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

[GhostFox]

And the IQ test you have to pass to get in is a joke.

"Bill is taller than Barry" Who is taller, Bill, or Barry.

I doubt if it is that simplified. If it is then it is different in England. The US ASVAB I saw had quadriatic equations and such on it.

 

[Bodacious]

Sorry, Bodacious. I still don't see how this has dismantled anything. I don't recall anybody questioning the legality of the situation. They just thought it was bad that these people were being held longer than they enlisted for. It doesn't help that they're being forced to participate in a war that they also believe to be immoral and illegal.

So why bring it up? Why did Kerry mention there was a backdoor draft after Bush said there would be no regular draft? Is it me or was Kerry trying to make it sould like Bush was trying to swindle everybody as far as the draft goes? What was Kerry's goal in mentioniong the "backdoor draft" as a rebuttle to what the president said?

This judge's ruling dismantles nothing. All it concludes is that yes, there is a "backdroor draft" (or whatever you want to call it) and it's legal.

And because it is legal, and always has been, it doesn't exist. If it were illegal before, then yah it wouldn't dismantle anything.

But just because it's legal doesn't make it alright.

So it is alright to ignore a contract and sign it anyways?

However, a contractual obligation is still just that. But considering the kinds of areas that military recruiters tend to target, I think they should lay out the terms nice and clear. Because as it currently stands, they're like some of those drug companies.

I can't speak for other recruiters but it wsn laid out to me nice and clear. I am working on calling the Military Entrance Processing Station and getting ahold of the contracts these people to sign. Why are you making excuses for people being idiots?

 

[burner69]

So why bring it up? Why did Kerry mention there was a backdoor draft after Bush said there would be no regular draft? Is it me or was Kerry trying to make it sould like Bush was trying to swindle everybody as far as the draft goes? What was Kerry's goal in mentioniong the "backdoor draft" as a rebuttle to what the president said?

Welcome to politics.
How many things did Bush say about Kerry? About his time in Vietnam, is one example I can think of.

People use scare tactics, usually exagerating matters to make them seem worse than they are.

The thing is here us wacky lefties are saying that it's immoral for a complicated contact to be given to people, some of whom are not great readers, not having it explained to them, and then suddenly they're being FORCED to go back into the army, when they don't want to.

The left may have used it to get people's attention, but it still deserves to be looked at. Especially when sending them over there is in no way protecting the US from attack, quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[gh0st]

They still have more than enough money, and most of them got it from very questionable ways. The top 1% earn more than some poor countries, I believe. I'm sorry, I've worked in some crappoy jobs on crappy pay before, and worked my ass off. There's no way they're doing so many more times work than me so their pay cheque skips up from £3.75 an hour (what I was on) to £2'476 an hour, or whatever these corporate geezers are on. Sorry, but they should be taxed a lot more than the rest of us, they're getting off very lightly indeed.

What is "more than enough" money? Do you have more than enough? If you were rich would you like to be taxed outrageously? Would you maybe consider moving your business or finances to a different place, with less taxes?

Not only that you imply they do them in "very questionable" ways. What are those ways? Are they illegal? I bet they arent, lets see your sources.

As was suggested before you are making outrageous claims and yet you dont back them up at all. The top 1% make more than some poor countries? The average 1% earner makes 290 thousand dollars+

Look at it this way, the top 5% of earners pay 53% of the sales tax. Those few people pay for half the social infrastructure of this country. And you say they should pay more? Thats absurd.

Or maybe youd like to look at it this way: The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%. The top 50% of earners pay for a incredible 96% of our taxes. You would tax them more? I dont think so.

 

[burner69]

Not only that you imply they do them in "very questionable" ways. What are those ways? Are they illegal? I bet they arent, lets see your sources.

Very questionable= Moving factories to third world countries where children work for a few cents an hour, with very few rules on punishment to workers. Children working 12 hour shifts often get beaten by their employees if they're seen to be slacking.

Take a look at tea and coffee planations, workers who're tried to escape working from them have been executed, and many more scarred for life from severe beatings.

We sell 600,000 shirts a year. Every shirt costs £50, but the shirts cost only £5 to make in Asia. -- Doug Hall, chairman Newcastle United FC

We get 11p an hour for an 11-hour day, six or seven days a week. -- Melanie, Filipino worker

If they knew I was in a trade union I'd be sacked, maybe beaten up. -- Hasina, Bangladeshi worker

Clothes sold in Britain by some of fashion's biggest names are made in in sweatshops where female workers are tricked into bonded labour and banned from becoming pregnant. Some have been forced to have abortions if they do. -- Fran Abrams

Then there's McDonalds, as one example of the fast food market, putting chemicals in their food to make it addictive, then hard selling it to kids, even putting shops up in schools. That is sick.

Then there's the fossil fuel companies; this it what bothers me:

Esso (ExxonMobil in the US) gave more dollars than any other company to get the Kyoto treaty-bustin' halfwit George Bush in the White House. As soon as he got it into office, whoosh goes the international agreement on global warming. Fact: In 2000, Esso made the biggest profit in history - $17.7bn - yet it spent not one cent on renewable energy! Find out more at www.stopesso.com, www.boycottamerica.org,

taken from www.urban75.com

You don't think perhaps the workers getting beaten, forced into having abortions should get perhaps a little more of the massive profits these companies are making?

 

[gh0st]

Alright, I'll give you this one because I dont want to argue the issue of child labor. Forget anything about the top 1% of earners, we will assume for the time being that they are all slave holding white supremecists, hell bent on world domination and destroying the environment. So lets dig a little deeper. Even you wouldnt blame the top 50% of earners in the country for helping host child labor. However they pay 96% of our taxes. Are they big business men? Are they the ones in suits running corporations? They certainly arent the top 1%, making 300K a year. Less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. But this top 50% gets paid at least 26000 dollars carrys the weight of our countries taxes. How about them, should they be taxed more? Raising taxes is never a solution, theres always better ways to appropriate the money we get already.

Ill just add one thing about child labor. Blaming it on companies, who historically have to maintain competitive labor, isnt right. Blaming the rich who have to run the company, pay its thousands of employees, and feed their familes, isnt right. This is your misconception though. You think that greedy corporate execs waltz into a sweatshop, grab the merchandise, hand them a few pennies, and leave. Companies typically buy the merchandise from factories where this is permitted, where the factory hires these people sort of "under the radar." To understand it, you have to understand the climate and culture of the country to begin with. Use google and learn how these are often their only choices of work, how their government rapes them of every penny they make, just like you would do to our upper class. Much of the time this activity happens without the company knowing; after all, it isnt their business to investigate how other companies handle themselves.

edit: I just realized how off topic this is... if you want to continue this, you might as well PM me.

 

[burner69]

edit: I just realized how off topic this is... if you want to continue this, you might as well PM me.

Tryin escape the debate eh? I joke.

I think we can agree to disagree on this one. Needing to stay ahead of the competition is no excuse to allow these things to go on, they are highly immoral. IMO.

But yeh, agree to disagree --- Wow a debate that ended without flaming :O

 

[smwScott]

"So why does the left bring it up?"

Political gain. It was a campaign slogan just like "flip flopper" or whatever else. However, behind the shallow campaign slogan are people who are forced to deal with the situation.

"They aren't being forced back in, they never got out. Why is it the gov's fault they didn't know what was in the contract?"

It was certainly conducted in an under the table manner. Do these people bear the responsibility for not reading or understanding all of the fine print? Yes. Was it immoral and irresponsible for the US Government to enlist people knowing that they probably aren't aware of the full terms of their agreement? Of course, but that's the way of the world.

"So why bring it up if it is not questioning it? It might be legal to do so but is it not questionable ethics to try and get out of contractual obligations?"

You can question the ethics of something without questioning its legality. Republicans believe that abortion is morally wrong, although it is clearly legal. They call attention to it because of personal moral beliefs. Is it "ethically questionable" to try and get out of a contract? Yes, assuming they knew the full terms of the agreement before signing it. I think the more morally reprehensible act was the government knowingly deceiving people.

"Stop loss has always been a law in the military and is nothing new and is in the contract that these people signed. Always has been. If anything happened under Clinton stop loss would have been enacted. Why is it being questioned now?"

It has always been questioned, pretty much everytime it has been put into effect. It is controversial and in many peoples opinion wrong.

"The idea that there is backdoor draft is eliminated. Ignore the facts all you want, the backdoor draft doesn't exist, and what this judge says makes it so."

It's hardly been eliminated. It exists, and backdoor draft is the term that has identified it. The term implies that it is a loophole or "get-around" in order to get soldiers that don't want to join. Sounds pretty accurate to me.

"That is a valid perception but where is your voice when it comes to people not fulfilling their contractual obligations?"

Under normal circumstances I would say that you must honor your agreements. But the fact of the matter is that many of these people simply didn't understand the full extent of the contract. Also, the government did their best to word the contract in a way so that it would slip by many people. These people thought they were agreeing to however many years, then after they completed that duty they were called back for more.

"For that assumption I bite my thumb at you, sir. I was in Kuwait/Iraq for 9 months. I was in Iraw for 4 of those 9 months. There goes that assumption. I have done as much as they have, if not more."

I take my hat off to you for what you have done. You have my respect and my appologies for false assumptions.

 

[Korgoth]

Hey shouldn't you guys that are arguing that they should have read the documents they signed a little closer, the same ones that yell "support the troops, support the troops"...

Where is your support now?

 

[gh0st]

Hey shouldn't you guys that are arguing that they should have read the documents they signed a little closer, the same ones that yell "support the troops, support the troops"...

Where is your support now?

Doesnt everybody support the troops? The left always has "support our troops: bring em home" rallys, and I have a support our troops armband. Everybody yells support the troops, because its, uh, the right thing to do.

It isnt "support the troops; have them illegally quit."

 

[Korgoth]

It also isn't "support the troops and make them stay a year longer in a combat zone than they thought they would have to because the contract is misleading, but legal as ruled on by a judge"

 

[gh0st]

It also isn't "support the troops and make them stay a year longer in a combat zone than they thought they would have to because the contract is misleading, but legal as ruled on by a judge"

Its not misleading, its just a matter of reading the fine print. This is an obvious question you can ask your recruiter; and they will answer truthfully. I know, because I've asked this very same question to a Marine recruiter.

 

[MarcoPollo]

you can ask your recruiter; and they will answer truthfully.

exactly and that applies with anything that you would need to know about...so even if the people recruited are illiterate ( which I dont think is true ) they at least have a big enough brain capacity to ASK A QUESTION and if they LIE about that THEN i would be on burners side about the ethicality of this issue

 

[Korgoth]

How are you supposed to know to ask about something that you don't know about?

 

[Bodacious]

How are you supposed to know to ask about something that you don't know about?

I don't get it, why are you trying to justify people being morons and not reading a contract they sign? It is their own fault and no one else's.

 

[Korgoth]

So you are calling our soldier who are serving our country morons? Yet you have the audacity to say that democrats don't support our troops and aren't as patriotic as you?

Considering they are doing a job no one else wants to, or are to affraid to, wouldn't you agree that we owe them the common courtesy of NOT ADDING FINE PRINT to the contract that determines whether or not they enter life or death situations.

 

[burner69]

So you are calling our soldier who are serving our country morons? Yet you have the audacity to say that democrats don't support our troops and aren't as patriotic as you?

Considering they are doing a job no one else wants to, or are to affraid to, wouldn't you agree that we owe them the common courtesy of NOT ADDING FINE PRINT to the contract that determines whether or not they enter life or death situations.

Agreed.

I hate this whole concept of "Support the troops, but if they complain about getting taken into combat against their will, screw um, morons."

When it comes to the military handing out contracts to lots of people, you'd think they'd have the common courtesy of explaining the fact that they might be called to go into combat after their service is up, and not just hiding it away in small print and not telling them about it.

Support the troops, just don't support taking civilians who don't want to go to war, and making them troops.

People who are no longer in the army, who don't want to go to war being taken to war says to me "backdoor draft". Legal as it may be, I disagree with it.

 

[Bodacious]

So you are calling our soldier who are serving our country morons? Yet you have the audacity to say that democrats don't support our troops and aren't as patriotic as you?

I am calling the people who didn't read a contract they signed morons.

Considering they are doing a job no one else wants to, or are to affraid to, wouldn't you agree that we owe them the common courtesy of NOT ADDING FINE PRINT to the contract that determines whether or not they enter life or death situations.

Why are you looking past the facts? The fine print wasn't "added" it was ALWAYS THERE!

 

[Korgoth]

The "people" that signed the contracts happen to be soldiers... Thats what I said, don't try and weasle out of it now....

And my point still stands, why add fine print to such a contract? Why doesn't the military be fourthcoming about the obligations that our soldiers sign on for?

Its also funny you call them morons for not reading, go back and re-read what I said, I didn't accuse the military of ADDING the fine print after they signed, I knew it was always there, but someone had to add that to the contract, it doesn't just appear out of nowhere. My question was, Why put fine print on such a contract? Why not be honest? But that logic will cause your head to explode, because in your eyes, our government is nothing but honest.

 

[Bodacious]

ALLRIGHT! I FOUND IT! I found the contract every person in the miltary signs. Reservist, whatever, this is the piece of paper they sign.

Source

(4) Required upon order to serve in combat or other
hazardous situations.

FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial enlistment,
I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part
of that service not served on active duty must be served
in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an
Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or
national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become
a member during that period, my military service may be
extended without my consent until six (6) months after
the end of that period of war.

And this line is the kicker:

I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS DOCUMENT. ANY QUESTIONS I HAD WERE EXPLAINED TO MY
SATISFACTION. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT ONLY THOSE AGREEMENTS IN SECTION B OF THIS DOCUMENT OR
RECORDED ON THE ATTACHED ANNEX(ES) WILL BE HONORED. ANY OTHER PROMISES OR GUARANTEES MADE TO
ME BY ANYONE ARE WRITTEN BELOW:

Anyone else want to say the contract was misleading?

 

[Korgoth]

That doesn't change a single thing. Just like any EULA, i'm sure you read every line and have your lawyer with you, or tech support on the line answering any questions you have. Yeah right, its still misleading, its hidden, and its dishonest, no matter the legality of it.

EDIT: and thats crazy, it says extended six months, I know people personally who have been kept a year or more.

 

[Bodacious]

The "people" that signed the contracts happen to be soldiers... Thats what I said, don't try and weasle out of it now....

And? I called them morons. So what? They should have read their contract.

And my point still stands, why add fine print to such a contract? Why doesn't the military be fourthcoming about the obligations that our soldiers sign on for?

Read my link above. Download the form and read it yourself. THE FINE PRINT WASN'T ADDED, IT WAS ALWAYS THERE! The enlistee even certified that he read the document.

Its also funny you call them morons for not reading, go back and re-read what I said, I didn't accuse the military of ADDING the fine print after they signed, I knew it was always there, but someone had to add that to the contract, it doesn't just appear out of nowhere.

So why say, as you even said in this post, "why add fine print to such a contract?" The correct syntax would be, "Why have that particular fne print in such a contract?"

My question was, Why put fine print on such a contract?

Hey! There you go! That sentance works, too.

Why not be honest? But that logic will cause your head to explode, because in your eyes, our government is nothing but honest.

I talked to the guy that helps them fill out these contracts. Read the contract. You have to sign up for 8 years. You have choice of serving 8 years active, 8 years reserve, 4 years active, 4 years reserve, 2 years active, 6 years reserve, 6 years active, 2 years reserve. They have to put in that contract how many years active and how many reserve. Call any recruiter and ask him if they explain it or not how the years active and reserve are broken down.

Why put it in there? A great number of reasons. People have signed up for 8 years for an incrdibly long time. Why is it an issue now?

 

[Bodacious]

That doesn't change a single thing. Just like any EULA, i'm sure you read every line and have your lawyer with you, or tech support on the line answering any questions you have. Yeah right, its still misleading, its hidden, and its dishonest, no matter the legality of it.

I would think an enlistment contract is a little bit more important than a EULA.

Its on page 2 for crying out loud! The signature line is on page 3! They didn't read the contract. how is this ok in your book?

EDIT: and thats crazy, it says extended six months, I know people personally who have been kept a year or more.

Read: "my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war."

The war isn't over is it?

You were the one saying I needed to go back and read? pfft...

 

[Korgoth]

It is an issue because these people feel they have served the time they signed up for and are being kept past that time. When they signed up (more likely than not, during peace time) they were under the impression that they would serve their time honorably and be done with it. Such is not the case when we have three different wars in the span of four years (the broader war on terror, and conflicts in afghanistan, and iraq)...

There is a distinct paradox here that I would like to point out. During the past elections we (the public) were promised by bush countless times that there was no need, nor would there be a need for a combat draft and return to conscription under his administration. And this has been echoed repeatedly by rumsfeld and pretty much the entire administration over, and over again. Now if our volunteer army is enough and there is no need for reinstatement of a draft, why on earth would they need to keep people years after their service was up?

Does that mean we (dems) were right in saying that our armed forces were/are being stretched to the limit... Explain this to me please. (not meant in a smart ass way, i really want to hear your explanation)


EDIT: didn't see your last post, but then if taken literally and they can be held up to six months after the war is over, these men and women can be forced to serve indefinately? The "war on terror" doesn't have an end in site imo. And you got me, I rushed through it, and didn't read it all the way. (see how easy it is to overlook )

 

[burner69]

Read: "my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war."

The war isn't over is it?

You were the one saying I needed to go back and read? pfft...

Yes it is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989459.stm

It ended almost a year ago, officially speaking.

Also, read the BS about WMDs... he knows of hundreds of sites where they'll be, trust him :thumbs:

 

[GhostFox]

but then if taken literally and they can be held up to six months after the war is over, these men and women can be forced to serve indefinately?

Indefinitly? No, that would never hold up. And yes the soldiers need to be protected. But are they being unfairly used in this situation? No, they are not. They all know what is in that contract and what they are in for. I've known plenty of people in the millitary. I have never heard anyone express the slightest hint of surprise at their ToD being extended. They also understand that after they are discharged they remain on active reserve for usually about 8 years.

I know they want to come home, but this is their job. Let's say you worked in an office and you signed a contract stating that you'd work any and all required overtime. If your boss needed you to work a 12 hour overtime shift on Friday do you really think that you shouldn't have to work it because you either a) didn't read the contract, or b) have a tv show you'd rather be home watching?

Because if you answer that you would be requried to work it in my example, there is no logical argument for the other situation.

 

[Bodacious]

Yes it is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989459.stm

It ended almost a year ago, officially speaking.

Also, read the BS about WMDs... he knows of hundreds of sites where they'll be, trust him :thumbs:

Give me a break. You ned to read Bush's speach or even that article for that matter.

From your source:

Earlier, Mr Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer warned that the president's speech would not mark the end of hostilities "from a legal point of view".

There are legal implications to declaring a war officially ended: under the Geneva Conventions, once war is declared over, the victorious army must release prisoners-of-war and halt operations targeting specific leaders.

So no, despite whatever way you want to try and spin what Bush said, the war isn't over.

 

[burner69]

So no, despite whatever way you want to try and spin what Bush said, the war isn't over.

From where I was sitting, Bush said the battle had been won in Iraq. He declared victory. If, one year after that speech, I was taken back because, actually, the war isn't over, I'd be complaining too.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_776227.html

 

[Bodacious]

It is an issue because these people feel they have served the time they signed up for and are being kept past that time. When they signed up (more likely than not, during peace time) they were under the impression that they would serve their time honorably and be done with it. Such is not the case when we have three different wars in the span of four years (the broader war on terror, and conflicts in afghanistan, and iraq)...

Awww, were their feewings hurt? Maybe they should pay closer attention next time they sing a legall binding document? They get no sympathy from me. Ignorance is no excuse.

There is a distinct paradox here that I would like to point out. During the past elections we (the public) were promised by bush countless times that there was no need, nor would there be a need for a combat draft and return to conscription under his administration. And this has been echoed repeatedly by rumsfeld and pretty much the entire administration over, and over again. Now if our volunteer army is enough and there is no need for reinstatement of a draft, why on earth would they need to keep people years after their service was up?

Ok, for one, their service isn't up, unless their obligated service is up. If their obligated service is up, then they would have legal grounds to not go back in and that would be a legitimate complaint. However, that is not the case. All of these people are still under the umbrealla of their obligated service. The military has held no person past their obligated service, althougth I guess they could if it came down to it. Eventually, though, they are going to let those people go becaue the army isnt' going to have enough money to pay all these people.

Does that mean we (dems) were right in saying that our armed forces were/are being stretched to the limit... Explain this to me please. (not meant in a smart ass way, i really want to hear your explanation)

There are plenty of other troops in many other AORs that have never been to Iraq. From my perspective, the DoD is doing what it can to not upset the other AORs and calling up reservists is the way to do that. For example, if we pulled more active duty marines out of Japan and sent them to Iraq and left Japan practically defenseless NK would have an open window.

EDIT: didn't see your last post, but then if taken literally and they can be held up to six months after the war is over, these men and women can be forced to serve indefinately? The "war on terror" doesn't have an end in site imo. And you got me, I rushed through it, and didn't read it all the way. (see how easy it is to overlook )

You don't have to sign it, so I dont' expect you to read it all, no harm there.

Military operations end. Operation Iraqi Freedom is still ongoing. If not that it is some other name. When those operations end stop loss ends as well. There will have to be peacetime for several reasons. First and foremost econimically. If Bush asks for too much more money even republicans are going to be upset. For two, the people being kept in are going to have to get out because the more recruits the more the gov has to pay everybody. And last, the conflict has to end sometime. Eventually there will be enough Iraqi troops trained enough to replace our guys.

 

[GhostFox]

The speech called an end to major combat operations. It means that the Iraqi army was defeated. That was only half on the US mandate in Iraq. Bush should have made that more clear, but most people who follow the news realized that it didn't mean "the war is over and our troops are coming home."

 

[Bodacious]

From where I was sitting, Bush said the battle had been won in Iraq. He declared victory. If, one year after that speech, I was taken back because, actually, the war isn't over, I'd be complaining too.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_776227.html

Major Combat Operations != end of the war.

Quit spinning it. Read what I quoted from your own source.

From this second source:

He stopped short of declaring victory or an end to the war. Such declarations could trigger international laws requiring the speedy release of prisoners of war, limiting efforts to go after deposed Iraqi leaders and designating the US and Britain as occupying powers.

Keep trying to spin it, burner69, I lik hitting your curve balls out of the park. Using your own sources to defeat you is the best part.

 

[burner69]

Keep trying to spin it, burner69, I lik hitting your curve balls out of the park. Using your own sources to defeat you is the best part.

No I read that bit. I'm saying it was all over the news, with headlines like "Victory" "Saddam toppled". If I were on reserves I'd be thinking "hey, they can only call me up for another 6 months."

Bush did the spinning.