Comments on: U.S. troops to stay for the long haul? http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/ Korea... in Blog Format Fri, 16 May 2008 03:25:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: railwaycharm http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44790 railwaycharm Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:19:33 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44790 One note about the Army staying for the long haul. B.B. Bell is known for shutting things down, it is his forte. One note about the Army staying for the long haul. B.B. Bell is known for shutting things down, it is his forte.

]]> By: railwaycharm http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44789 railwaycharm Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:14:24 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44789 GI, good for you! I have a friend at Ballad Iraq who is supporting the Army as a contractor. He might as well be back in the Army (Retired First Sergeant). I have been toying with the idea to join the reserves. Don’t listen the panty-waist leftist hunyuks, informed Americans know the value of the mission. Thanks for protecting us! GI, good for you! I have a friend at Ballad Iraq who is supporting the Army as a contractor. He might as well be back in the Army (Retired First Sergeant). I have been toying with the idea to join the reserves. Don’t listen the panty-waist leftist hunyuks, informed Americans know the value of the mission. Thanks for protecting us!

]]> By: GI Korea http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44766 GI Korea Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:50:30 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44766 I have met quite a few people over the age of 35 who have enlisted in the Army after 9/11 including one who worked for me who was 37 and worked in the world trade center. He made it out and his family fully supported him enlisting a year after the attack because he was just so pissed off about what happen and finally decided to do something about it. He was prior service for eight years prior before getting out and becoming a network engineer. He can't run very fast and may not be the strongest person in the unit, but he has many skills and experience that are useful for the army. The increase in the enlistment age is primarily targeting people like the one I just mentioned. Prior service people looking to serve their country again that have useful skills. People on the left look at the increase in the enlistment age as desperation, I see these older patriotic people enlisting and serving their country as inspiring. The left can take a lesson from these people instead of calling them "ex-cons, drug addicts, and skinheads.” I have met quite a few people over the age of 35 who have enlisted in the Army after 9/11 including one who worked for me who was 37 and worked in the world trade center. He made it out and his family fully supported him enlisting a year after the attack because he was just so pissed off about what happen and finally decided to do something about it. He was prior service for eight years prior before getting out and becoming a network engineer. He can’t run very fast and may not be the strongest person in the unit, but he has many skills and experience that are useful for the army.

The increase in the enlistment age is primarily targeting people like the one I just mentioned. Prior service people looking to serve their country again that have useful skills. People on the left look at the increase in the enlistment age as desperation, I see these older patriotic people enlisting and serving their country as inspiring. The left can take a lesson from these people instead of calling them “ex-cons, drug addicts, and skinheads.”

]]> By: snow http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44548 snow Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:36:46 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44548 "has raised its maximum enlistment age from 34 to 42" Are you serious? Wow, it must be tough for a 42-year-old to keep up with those young punks. But I'm sure there are some guys who have the fitness, the smarts and the motivation to do it. All the power to them. Also, thanks GI Korea for putting the lie to the falsehood that "recruitment is so desperate that they’re enlisting ex-cons, drug addicts, and skinheads." More leftist bs bites the dust. “has raised its maximum enlistment age from 34 to 42″

Are you serious? Wow, it must be tough for a 42-year-old to keep up with those young punks. But I’m sure there are some guys who have the fitness, the smarts and the motivation to do it. All the power to them. Also, thanks GI Korea for putting the lie to the falsehood that “recruitment is so desperate that they’re enlisting ex-cons, drug addicts, and skinheads.” More leftist bs bites the dust.

]]> By: dogbertt http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44490 dogbertt Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:02:49 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44490 There you go, cm. Next time try harder. There you go, cm.

Next time try harder.

]]> By: Robert Koehler http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44485 Robert Koehler Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:33:06 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44485 Something I've learned the hard way is that the Internet can sometimes be a difficult place to express sarcasm. Anyway, I think the "proper" protocol with those sort of things is to link the reference so as to minimize the potential confusion, especially for those who didn't read the original comment. Something I’ve learned the hard way is that the Internet can sometimes be a difficult place to express sarcasm. Anyway, I think the “proper” protocol with those sort of things is to link the reference so as to minimize the potential confusion, especially for those who didn’t read the original comment.

]]> By: jodi http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44484 jodi Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:29:09 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44484 Yeah I was a little confused by that one too...glad it's been cleared up. :S Yeah I was a little confused by that one too…glad it’s been cleared up. :S

]]> By: umetaro http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44483 umetaro Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:27:13 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44483 What's funny is I'd read that thread yesterday, but I guess the lack of quotes around "dirty patronizing gyopo" steered my mind in another direction. I'm still confused though... that wasn't a random personal attack? It was an attempt at sarcasm using a running joke? I think someone needs to work on their communication skills... What’s funny is I’d read that thread yesterday, but I guess the lack of quotes around “dirty patronizing gyopo” steered my mind in another direction. I’m still confused though… that wasn’t a random personal attack? It was an attempt at sarcasm using a running joke?

I think someone needs to work on their communication skills…

]]> By: gbnhj http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44481 gbnhj Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:06:10 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44481 Robert beat me to it, but that seems to be right. Not too kind however, using Jodi's comment like that. Robert beat me to it, but that seems to be right. Not too kind however, using Jodi’s comment like that.

]]> By: Robert Koehler http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44480 Robert Koehler Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:03:41 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/26/us-troops-to-stay-for-the-long-haul/#comment-44480 Actually, he was simply referring to something said in a <a href="http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/07/24/two-infant-bodies-discovered-in-frenchmans-home/#comment-44159" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">previous comment thread</a>... Actually, he was simply referring to something said in a previous comment thread…

]]>