Let's Take A Look At The Military Records

[KCFlyer]

i'll see it sooner or later...i don't need to see it to have him make up my mind for me.
and actually i had reservations as to giving him moore money as it looks as though he has an eating disorder and i'd feel terrible if i contributed and he had a heart attack or a stroke...my oh my....don't want that on my shoulders...

[post="195398"][/post]​

So in other words...If I state that Hannity is pretty much just as clever as Moore in editing his work, I need to listen to his program, but for you to say Michael Moore presents nothing but a pack of lies who heavily edits his work, it doesn't matter that you haven't seen the film.

 

[KCFlyer]

First, Kerry's. As I have said, you would think that a US senator would know the laws and know that it takes and act of congress to re-enstate the draft.

Let me ask you this….if Bush is re-elected…and in June, we discover proof that Iran is selling nukes to terrorists, what will Bush do? IMHO, he will go before Congress and ask them to vote on reinstituting the draft. Never said he’d just implement it willy-nilly. Because if that comes to pass, and if our strategy is “preemptiveâ€, we don’t have the manpower to preempt anything. So given this new threat, and given that our military is all volunteer, and given that recruiting levels for our all volunteer army are decreasing – what will Bush do?

Kerry is also going around saying that Bush has a plan for the draft yet he himself is the one proposing raising the number of troops on active duty. That seem to me, very duplicitious in the least.

I believe if you read my post again, I couldn’t be clearer….Kerry is lying if he says he won’t institute a draft. So is Bush. And also as I said, I don’t doubt that Bush doesn’t have a plan for a draft – he didn’t have a plan for this war.

You can't in one breath say that the President has plans for a draft, and in the next say that you want to add two whole divisions to the army. That tends to lead me to believe that he is the one with a plan for a draft. Another typical dem tactic of accuse your enemy of what you are planing to do.

Then in that case, Kerry would be one step ahead of Bush in maintaining our preemptive stance.

I still don't believe that there will be a draft. First, congress will have to pass the required legislation and I don't see that happening. We have managed with an all volunteer military for a long time and I really don't see that changing.

If Sarin gas obtained from Iran is released in the NY subway system…if a dirty nuke goes off in Disney World… if the water supply to the city of Los Angeles is contaminated with chemical or biological agents that came into the port of Los Angeles undetected….are you saying that Congress won’t pass a resolution to reinstitute the draft?

Second, Even if the draft was signed today, most experts agree that it would still take about two years for it to be in place and start selecting anyone from it. It would not solve any immediate needs.

Good column in this weeks Newsweek – they mentioned in WW2, FDR wanted 50,000 aircraft ready in 5 months. He was told it was impossible. Yet…it got done. Bush hasn’t done anything to secure this nation…he’s had 2 years…and nothing. Now….you say that it wouldn’t solve immediate needs…are you admitting that Bush doesn’t have any plans for our future security? Because if he waits until we really need more troops, and it will take two years to get it done, doesn’t that put us two years behind the eight ball?

Third, the quality of the people in the military would diminish dramatically. The people there right now want to be there(ok so maybe a few don't) and they are at least somewhat motivated to do a good job. Addind conscripts would bring down morale, lower training standards, and reduce overall effectiveness.

The morale of much of the existing military is diminishing drastically right now. I know you don’t read much of what NWA/AMT says, but I do. And I gather that his sons don’t “want to be thereâ€, but they go because it is the job that they signed up for. And I think it’s more than a few who don’t want to be there.

We are not about to go storming into Korea. I really don' think that that would work so the number of troops needed there is not as many as you might think. There are troops still in europe stationed to protect against a force that no longer exists. By re-positioning those troops and moving some material around, we should be able to continue at the current levels. Maybe some more will be needed, but those can probably come from better enticements and recruiting efforts.

No….we won’t go storming into Korea…they might be harder to “beat†than Iraq. But tell me…if our strategy is preemptive, and we won’t go storming into Korea, does that mean we are willing to wait until a Korean nuke hits Seattle before we act?

 

[FredF]

So given this new threat, and given that our military is all volunteer, and given that recruiting levels for our all volunteer army are decreasing – what will Bush do?

I don't know what he would do I am not him. I don't believe that recruiting levels are droping. If I remember correctly, they are actually a little ahead. There are currently plans to re-deploy the troops in europe. I would imagine that those would be the first to get moved but again, It is not up to me.

If Sarin gas obtained from Iran is released in the NY subway system…if a dirty nuke goes off in Disney World… if the water supply to the city of Los Angeles is contaminated with chemical or biological agents that came into the port of Los Angeles undetected….are you saying that Congress won’t pass a resolution to reinstitute the draft?

That is a pretty big assumption here. We knew that Sadam had a history of using biological weapons, Iran doen't. We knew that Sadam was supporting terrorists, I am not sure if Iran is or not, so to compair the two countries does not work.

In reality there is only one way to deal with a nuclear threat and that is with deterrance. Kerry wants to stop development of new weapons and it sounded to me, like he wants to get rid of what we have. Go back and look at how we were forced to deal with Russia. Nuclear deterant. If we wanted to, we could turn all of iran into a mirror by melting the sand into glass and they know that. Dealing with them is a different course than iraq.

The morale of much of the existing military is diminishing drastically right now. I know you don’t read much of what NWA/AMT says, but I do. And I gather that his sons don’t “want to be thereâ€, but they go because it is the job that they signed up for. And I think it’s more than a few who don’t want to be there.

I listen to a former Marine that has a talk show everyday on the ride home. He get calls daily, from military servicemen, their families and friends that go on and on about how they understand what is going on in Iraq and how the morale is very high there. He gets calls daily on how when they see what is reported in the American media and what is actually going on in iraq, the two are not even close to each other. That is why I strongly discount almost every report I see or hear about the conditions in iraq, the morale of the troops or the dedication they have to complete thier mission.


But for both Korea and Iran, the President is trying to use international allies, supporters or just those that have a common interest to help in resolving the issues there. He is not itching to go storming into these countries and if a nuclear conflict emerges, then troop levels actually don't mean a whole lot except to go in after and mop up.


Heck, if the UN actually gets involved in it, it may take another 11 years before anybody does anything anyway.

 

[KCFlyer]

I listen to a former Marine that has a talk show everyday on the ride home. He get calls daily, from military servicemen, their families and friends that go on and on about how they understand what is going on in Iraq and how the morale is very high there.

[post="195408"][/post]​

And every day you read the comments of a former Marine, well thought out and well researched comments at that...yet you discount them because they don't support your view...why is this?

 

[FredF]

And every day you read the comments of a former Marine, well thought out and well researched comments at that...yet you discount them because they don't support your view...why is this?

[post="195413"][/post]​

I think you missed this part here

He get calls daily, from military servicemen, their families and friends that go on and on about how they understand what is going on in Iraq and how the morale is very high there. That is why I strongly discount almost every report I see or hear about the conditions in iraq, the morale of the troops or the dedication they have to complete thier mission.

 

[delldude]

So in other words...If I state that Hannity is pretty much just as clever as Moore in editing his work, I need to listen to his program, but for you to say Michael Moore presents nothing but a pack of lies who heavily edits his work, it doesn't matter that you haven't seen the film.

[post="195401"][/post]​

no its not that..like i said i'll see it but i've been kind of busy trying to get things in order as theres a very good chance i'll be out of work in the near term as i'm a mech at U...its a matter of other priorities right now.....
i'll rent it when the weather turns to crap....
like i said ,he wouldn't make me change anyway...thats all...

as far as i have heard hannity always has had both sides on as you hear people for and against BOTH canidates...so go figure...
have a nice day guy...

 

[KCFlyer]

I think you missed this part here

[post="195423"][/post]​

Think about this....in the course of daily radio talk show, only a handful of people get thru. And those that do have been carefully screened. Are you getting a truly representative sampling? Is this person national or local? If national, might I ask who he is? If local, are there THAT many people from your area serving in Iraq? And finally, if NWA/AMT were to call into this show, do you think he'd make it on the air?

 

[KCFlyer]

as far as i have heard hannity always has had both sides on as you hear people for and against BOTH canidates...so go figure...
have a nice day guy...

[post="195429"][/post]​

Come to think of it, I have heard opposing voices on Hannity's show. The problem is, when they make a point, Hannity tends to take over the conversation and the caller is usually dropped. He end's it with something about liberals. But....this is something to ponder...if Jesus were walking among us today, would he be a conservative or a liberal? My guess is that he'd be one holding the "anti" stance on Hannity's show.

 

[FredF]

Think about this....in the course of daily radio talk show, only a handful of people get thru. And those that do have been carefully screened. Are you getting a truly representative sampling? Is this person national or local? If national, might I ask who he is? If local, are there THAT many people from your area serving in Iraq? And finally, if NWA/AMT were to call into this show, do you think he'd make it on the air?

[post="195437"][/post]​

It is a local show and it is nobody gets screened off the show. He will talk to anybody that gets through. He has a call person but they do not screen callers.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Given the target audience of the show, it would be surprising if the callers said anything different. If it's the show I think it is, it would be even more remarkable if Ollie let anyone say different, unless it was to ridicule them.

That morale is high is more a tribute to the spirit of the troops than it is an indicator of the rightness or wrongness of the war they are asked to fight.

That military recruiting is not meeting its targets is evident in the application of 'stop loss' programs and the activation of the Individual Ready Reserve troops, one third of whom didn't bother to show up. It is evident in the decision by the Army to offer jobs to people who were not being offered re-enlistment in the Air Force and Navy and the fact that they were forced to offer re-enlistment bonuses where none had been offered before.

Recruiting for two divisions, roughly 20,000 to 32,000 troops depending on mission, would be difficult but not impossible. It would require the DOD to make significant, and long overdue in my opinion, changes in the compensation and benefits available to junior enlisted members. It is unrealistic to expect someone to fight effectively while their family is surviving at home only through use of food stamps. It is also unrealistic to expect a larger military and tax cuts at the same time.

Moving troops out of Europe is a good decision and one that is long overdue, but the decision to also take troops from Korea is an ominous one. The North Korean Army is NOT the Iraqi Army, and will not wait patiently while we redeploy from the Middle East then drop their weapons.

Since the end of the first Gulf War we have operated on the principle that we should be able to fight two Gulf War-sized conflicts simultaneously and we staffed accordingly. Now we are committed to the occupation of a country, along with the manpower requirements that entails, and would be hard pressed to meet the two-war standards we have set. We have also continued to focus more on warfare against large, regular forces rather than against smaller, mobile, clandestine forces like terrorists.

I think Kerry's committment to two new divisions is in recognition of the new manpower requirements our military faces. I also think that his committment to expand the Special Forces is in recognition of the realities of war against terrorists who have proven their ability to evade larger forces.

 

[KCFlyer]

It is a local show and it is nobody gets screened off the show. He will talk to anybody that gets through. He has a call person but they do not screen callers.

[post="195454"][/post]​

Great....can you post his phone number? I'll give NWA/AMT my phone card number so he might be able to call in. Think he'd get on the air? If he did, how long do you think the host would keep him on before pressing the "dump" button? Or are you saying that everybody who calls just happens to think that morale is great and Bush is right on with this war?

One thing I've noticed though....my wife can't stand this either....but I have a $1,000 stereo system in my car and I end up listening to a lot of talk radio (she wonders why I got such a hot shot system if I only listen to AM radio). And I've noticed that the vast majority of national and local talk radio shows have a decidedly conservative bent to them. And that the folks who call in also have a very "conservative" (and I hate to use that term to describe them...."neoconservative" is a better descriptor) leaning. Now, I know a lot of folks, even in die hard republican Kansas, who don't agree with Bush or the neoconservative agenda, but they rarely call talk radio shows. Which is why I say that talk radio isn't giving a truly representative picture of who is out there.

 

[FredF]

I actually don't have the number because I never call it myself. KC, since you are former ... marine? he would love to talk to you. He actually spends more time talking to people that have a differing .. um shal we say slant.


But better be carefull what you ask for

http://www.kimmershow.com/


As far as the slant of radio talk shows, the school of thought that I have heard the most and actually makes the most sense to me at least is that ratings drive the entertainment. Conservative shows actually garner more listners than liberals. Just look at the success, or rather lack of it, from Air America.

Most conservatives that I have listened to will let those with opposing view points get on and state their point while most liberal ones I have, won't. Just from the ones I have heard, the liberals tend to be more mean spirited and cannot stand anyone that disagress with them. I actually called one one time because he took a quote completely out of context. I got cut off in mid sentance.

About the only time the kimmer cuts people off is if they call just to basically call him names or the like. But he does clearly state that his show is entertainment and not a news program.

Semper Fi jar head.

 

[KCFlyer]

I actually don't have the number because I never call it myself. KC, since you are former ... marine? he would love to talk to you. He actually spends more time talking to people that have a differing .. um shal we say slant.
But better be carefull what you ask for

http://www.kimmershow.com/
As far as the slant of radio talk shows, the school of thought that I have heard the most and actually makes the most sense to me at least is that ratings drive the entertainment. Conservative shows actually garner more listners than liberals. Just look at the success, or rather lack of it, from Air America.

Most conservatives that I have listened to will let those with opposing view points get on and state their point while most liberal ones I have, won't. Just from the ones I have heard, the liberals tend to be more mean spirited and cannot stand anyone that disagress with them. I actually called one one time because he took a quote completely out of context. I got cut off in mid sentance.

About the only time the kimmer cuts people off is if they call just to basically call him names or the like. But he does clearly state that his show is entertainment and not a news program.

Semper Fi jar head.

[post="195471"][/post]​

Fred....I'm not the former Marine...NWA/AMT is. Yet you discount everything he posts, and...as an observer...you really haven't answered the questions he has asked you.

FWIW...Hannity plays nice while he's got an expert on the line, but will begin mocking what they say as soon as he's off the phone. For the regular old callers who disagree with him, they are lucky if they can get a word in edgewise, since Hannity is downright RUDE when faced with a differeing opinion from a "nobody". And I thought the ones who were "mean spirited" were on the conservative shows. I recall listening to Rush a few years ago when they ran ads for the American Spectator....the announcer SPAT out words like "Anita Hill", "Oliver Stone", and...with what sounded like gritted teeth..."Hillary Clinton".

 

[NWA/AMT]

http://www.kimmershow.com/

[post="195471"][/post]​

I used to listen to "The Kimmer" show and Danny McNulty's Golf Show on WGST when I lived in ATL. He is one of the better right wing talk show hosts but I don't know that I'd give him all the credit for being balanced that Fred does.

Meanwhile, on the only local liberal talk show in my area, I heard recently that the editor of the American Conservative magazine is endorsing Kerry.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

The station was then bombarded with calls from angry conservatives claiming it was all a liberal hoax,etc., and it got to the point that they simply gave up trying to take calls from listeners for the morning. Even two days later they are still being harrassed simply for reporting an easily verifiable fact.

Incidentally, while Marines often refer to each other as 'jarhead', a reference to our distinctive and very stylish haircuts, when anyone else does so it's considered an insult.

 

[FredF]

I never said he was balanced. I said he takes all callers regardless if they agree with him or not.