a deafening silence

[KillerMuffin]

Trying out the ol' MP trick, see if it works. This is kinda cool..

When the violin starts thinking that it writes the music, there's really no winning.

I'm not understanding your allegory.

This whole concept of "you have to be part of it to understand it" is bullshit, but it's a circular argument. It’s something big fish tell the little fish in boot camp to pump up their egos and make them feel superior – because a great part of the military mindset is the notion that you are “better” than others. Maybe that’s necessary for the role they play, but doesn’t make it any less a load.

Take your condescion and stick it where the sun don't shine chicky. That's the attitude you're dishing out. Okay. You don't have any concept how the military works. You know how childbirth works, but until you've done it, you don't have the conept. It doesn't make one better (those are your words, not mine) it makes one different. You can try something I've never seen you do, look at the other side of the issue, at how the other person views things, rather than your own. You have no idea why the marines sthink they're invincible. They never would have held Guadacanal if they didn't. You have no idea why the military does things they way they do. That much is patently obvious. Debate all you want, just watch it because your ignorance is showing. It doesn't matter if you ever find out what it's like to be in the military. It never has and it never will. The US has an all volunteer military, and we should be proud of that fact more than anything else about our military. Your perogative is to not be in and I respect that. I expect the same from you. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it, I expect you'd let me die.

The circular argument? Actually, it's an ending argument. Translation: You have no idea what you're talking about, therefore you should either A. Find out or B. Shut up? I see a dead end here.

The minute consideration of the draft getting reinstated falls under discussion, then this country takes another step toward defying the ideals it's based upon and repeating the mistakes of our past. And it’s an alarmist’s argument, btw.

It is alarming. And this argument is all ungrounded opinion on your part. Most of our industrialized peers require military service, the draft is alive and well and operating efficiently in places, not so efficiently in others. Not having to serve in the military is a priviledge. Switzerland, Germany, Spain, and South Korea all require compulsory military service laws in place. You should back your arguments with facts, there, MP, since we're starting to criticize debate style. I can degenerate along with you.

You want someone to agree with you because you walk a line? Tough shit. It doesn't work that way. Your opinion stays just your opinion the same way mine stays mine.

Don't give a fuck who agrees with me. Never have or I wouldn't have hooked up with the StudMuffin. You least of all sugar. Your opinion is based on innuendo and groundless insinutaions. Your only offering is that GW was a deserter? This is debating?

But don't tell me how educated I am on an issue. You have no concept of what I do or do not know. You don’t know my past experiences, you don’t know what people I do and do not know. Don’t personalize me in your justification of an issue.

I don't have to, babe, you did it yourself. All by yourself, without any help from me. Your ignorance on the situation shows itself.

I know exactly how the military is supposed to serve it's nation. Do you?

Why don't you explain it to me? This will be interesting.

You think ONE MAN in office fucked the military? Fine. enjoy that delusion all you want. Far be it from me to take away the security blanket of falsehood from you.

Let me explain chain of command to you and military responsibility. The person in charge gets to tell everyone what to do. The people under the person in charge don't get to question orders, they just get to do it. Otherwise they go to jail. The corollary is that the person in charge is responsible for everyone in his command. When the juniors fuck up, the senior is responsible for it. The ONE MAN in office is blanketly responsible for the military. That's why his name is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

Now, the military is fucked up, always has been, always will be. But the COMMANDER IN CHIEF is responsible for removing required funding, required manning, and required equipment to maintain readiness. Therefore people will die because of it. Therefore the COMMANDER IN CHIEF (do you understand this concept yet?) is responsible for it from the highest ranking general/admiral to the lowliest airman/private/sailor. It's call the CHAIN OF COMMAND. You have something like it in the civilian world, only you don't have to follow it. You can quit, or you can go over you bosses head, or you can tell your boss to fuck off if he gives you an order you don't like. In the military we cannot do these things. It's why it's called the military.

Now I'm not saying I'm better than you because I'm military, I'm saying I'm DIFFERENT than you. I'm not the SAME as you. Therefore I view things DIFFERENTLY than you do and might have a better UNDERSTANDING of things that are happening regarding the MILITARY than you, a CIVILIAN, does. You can assume I'm better than you if you want, won't bother me in the least.

Now, I realize that congress was the one who divvied up bases and reduced funding. In the end, however it is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF who is responsible for the military and ONLY the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. It's the most basic principle of the military. The CHAIN OF COMMAND. Ask whatever military source you think you may be privy to.


The truth, which has the military shaking, is that overall, the mindset of Americans is a little more enlightened than it was during the cold war. We're starting to see that there are enough bad guys at home - we really don't need to go looking for them. And the "bad guys" all that time ago turned out to be just people, too.

Do you know who our enemies are? How do you define an enemy? We do have them. They are arming against us. We have at least five countries that I know of that have declared War against us.

This may seem like a tangent to you, but there is a point to it. It's the concept of "Front Line Warfare." Do you know what a Front is? It's the line between the enemies engaged in war. It's called the Front Line, because that's the direction we're advancing. The enemy is presumably advancing in the opposite direction. Now, Front Line Warfare is what we've practiced pretty much up until now.

Another tangent here, bear with me. North Korea, whose largest export is stage 1 and stage 2 inter-continental ballistic missiles, has developed and is probably marketing (we can't prove it) stage 3 inter-continental missles. Do you know the difference? A stage 3 ICBM (why is that familiar?) can hit anywhere in the world. It's payload can be nuclear, chemical, or biological. That means that if Kim Il Jung decides to get pissed off at the US and doesn't fear reprisals, then he can launch a bunch of ICBMS and hit anywhere in the world, including the eastern seaboard, of the US.

Now, let's tie this together. With people such as the Ayatollah, Kaddafhi, Saddam, Kim Il-Jung, and Zhirinafsky (sp?) having access to such cheap methods of waging war, then the odds of the next one having no front line is pretty high. Saddam let us win the one in 91. The next time we get into it, he isn't going to be so nice. We never saw him move his republican guard divisions and we never actually encountered them. We "captured" all of those soldiers, who were essentially conscripts, because he let us do it. If we'd fought him then, we may or may not have won depending upon the other middle eastern nations who pretty much don't like us.

Why were we over there to begin with? Because the military's job is defined as protecting our civilian interests. Trade. That's it, we defend the nation and protect civilian trade. We trade oil with Kuwait because we sell what we pump from Alaska and hold it in reserve. It works out better for us economically to do so. The military was doing their job and the COMMANDER IN CHIEF (in the case GW Sr.) was RESPONSIBLE for it. You don't get to define how much responsibility the CIC gets by his political affiliations.

So, we are a little more reluctant to take up arms against other cultures. Go figure.

I wish we were! We're not. We probably never will be as long as we exist.

Oh, and what about the “bad guys” who really are still out there? We’re not going to stop them no matter how much we try. Sure, it’s nice posturing to keep ready, but we’re not talking about a strong nation out there keeping up with us or acting reasonable. The “bad guys” out there are have been living off the scraps of superpowers for so long mostly their goals are just to grab as much as they can and fuck tomorrow. Negotiations and summits are a game they play to bide time.

Once again, this your ignorance showing. First of all, you don't know who the "bad guys" are. If you did, then you'd be giving examples. Right, forgot you don't do that when you "debate." Secondly, there is no posturing about keeping ready. Readiness is the military's mission. Readiness is a definition of how available the troops are to be called on, not like being ready to go out and kick ass. We can't, by the way. Most of the senior enlisted I talk to are pretty convinced we're going to get our asses royally kicked. No readiness.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "bad guys" are you talking about people like Saddam? Do you assume he's crazy insane with no resources? What are you smoking? The man is sitting on the richest ground in the area and we've pretty much armed the hell out of him for 20 years prior to 1990. He claims the UN Sanctions are killing him, but hell, I claim to be pretty and smart too.

The bad guys of tomorrow may not exist today. The bad guys of yesterday may be tomorrow's friends. You never know these things. Hell, we hated Japanese and Germans less than 50 years ago, now we're allies. Sorry, that's my military paranoia sticking it's head up. The world will remain static and there will never be a war again, unless we start it, right? After all, there aren't any "bad guys" now, so why manufacture them? Does it bother you when your rose colored glasses slip?

As it has been said, we have enough firepower to blow up the world 100 times over. Our "state of readiness" and our arsenals don't need to be WHAT THEY WERE.

Do you know how the firepower works? Let's talk about our most basic weapon in our "enough firepower to blow up the world 100 times over." The Nuke. We'll never use it because we will destroy the world. Because of the post-Cold War nuclear prolifieration, you know, where the ex-USSR sold off it's stuff to anyone with cash? Like, oh, the Ayatollah, we didn't dump ours. We still have it. Then we have chemical and biological weapons. Like the Scud, we're all familiar with that one. It doesn't have to hit what it's aimed at to do tonnes of damage and kill off life as we know it. These are called weapons of mass destruction. We have them, their sole purpose is deterrance, we will never fight a war with them. No one should have them, but we do and currently there is no feasible means of disposing of them.

What about those really cool Laser Guided Missiles that we still use against Saddam when we do strikes? Do you know how they work? Some Airforce guy or navy guy presses a button and shoots them from the ship or the plane, right? Well, what about the laser guiding? It's on the ground. A ground team, usually army or marine, has to insert into enemy territory and "paint" the target with a laser so the missle can find it.


We’re facing people who live in 3rd world countries who have been bowing to the superpowers for so long they have nothing but hatred toward us. Cultures whose leaders spoon-feed their populace the notions that violence can equal acting on the behalf of their god.

I'm sorry, once again, you display the ignorance of not knowning your enemy and not knowning how they're armed. The "bad guys" aren't all 3rd world countries you know. Some of them aren't even that much. The haven't bowed and scraped to superpowers or gotten scraps for so long they hate us, they hate us because they can. Do you know why North Korea hates us? Because we protect South Korea and prevent reunification under the North Korean government. Had we not been there they would have reunified under a communist, turned dictatorship government ages ago. Before South Korean because industrialized and prosperous. You don't even know why they hate us, do you?

Whatever you do, don't ever discount Allah as just "their god." Freedom of religion is something very few places have. Ask the Taliban. Their religion is their way of life, not something they do on Sundays. It makes them fanatics and easy to dismiss in our eyes, because we're "enlightened" over here. Over there we're heathen scum lower than dogs because we're not "enlightened."

We would never think of sinking money, resources, and life for the purpose of fighting a war. An Islamic Nation would think nothing of doing that. It's not fanatasicm to them, it's their way of life. Jihad is something that's been with them since their inception. You may discount it to mean they're less threatening for it, but you can be glad the military never has. Besides, I don't know of a middle eastern country that is 3rd world. They're all pretty much industrialized. Israel certainly isn't 3rd world.

Closer to home we face teenagers getting their hands on machine guns and bombs and blowing away their peers.

You want the MILITARY to deal with this????? What is wrong with you?!?! Actually, if these teenages were in the military, they'd quit shooting each other. They wouldn't have time to.

Anyway, I don't see how Clinton's domestic agenda helped in any way. The education system hasn't improved any and while there are more people in jail, there is just as much crime in my neighborhood now as there was 10 years ago. The only difference is that the strippers can take it all off now.

And eventually, these people, who center their focus on one thing and ONE THING ONLY WILL do damage. The best we can do is try to limit it. But it's a given, no matter how hard we prepare.

This is the truest thing you've ever said. You're limited by your own views and your own political agenda. I'm limited by mine. In this election I had to choose between to concepts I hold very dear, the military and the Artic National Wildlife Reserve. The Democrat platform for the military scares the hell out of me. I don't think it will do anything to improve it and remove the rotten parts of it's infrastructure, whereas the Republican platform is more likely to make the military work better internally, in my opinion.

However, the Republicans are going to let them destroy ANWR. It's never been touched by human machinery, it's never been drilled, there are no pipelines across it. It's the largest pristine wilderness area left in the world. Within the year they'll start building the pipeline on it.

The military is FUCKED because our country is FUCKED, babe. Because our kids are undereducated, our general population is overworked and disillusioned. Because we’ve been conditioned to play “good guy / bad guy” for so long we don’t remember that the other side in any discussion has a reason for their beliefs too.

The military is FUCKED because Clinton FUCKED it. The military is fucked up, because the US is fucked up. There is difference toots. FUCKED means that it's screwed and people are going to die. Fucked up, means that it stinks to be in it. Clinton didn't fuck it up. He just didn't do a damned thing to un-fuck it up.

Human beings are inherently violent and we are inherently xenophobic. We don't like change and we don't like it when our comfort zones are disrupted. We fight when that happens. When it's done on a global scale, we require armies to take care of the problem. That's what's so fucked up about being human.

I have no problem with the military. I support them. But I don’t kid myself for what they are. And I don’t think GW is what the military needs. He’s ignorance putting another band-aid on gushing wounds, but that’s no big deal because most of the victims are too brainwashed to realize they’re bleeding.

You know, MP, you would think that the fact that the Military Vote traditionally belongs to the GOP would mean something. We're all brainwashed because we know from personal experience that the worst Commanders in Chief's had been democrats? We're not talking on a political level, we're talking about the commands the CIC's give to the military. We're talking about the things he tells us to do.

You have never had to do what the president has told you to do, have you? If GW came up to you on the street, looked at you, and told you to quit watching TV, you were going to go to Wal-Mart and pick up cigarette butts, you could tell him to fuck off. If GW came up to me and said the same thing (pre-retirement) I would have to salute and say "Aye-aye" and do it. This is a stupid example because it would never happen, but it illustrates the most basic premise of the difference a president makes to a civilian and a member of the military.

You see, the president can't kill you, but he can kill me. That's why it's so important to me. If GW wanted to, he could call me up right now and rescind my military retirement and put me on a ship and send me where I could be captured, tortured, raped, and killed. This is a worse case scenario, but every year military members die in the line of duty. We accept that when we sign up, mostly. Some of us desert, try the conscientious objector route, or play sick.

It's not brainwashing that makes the military mostly GOP. Don't patronize me by calling me a mindless drone with no brain. Under Bush the Stud's dependents and retirees had access to adequate health care, dental care, and any other military ameneties. The payment for risking his life was making sure that his family was cared for. Sure, it's military health care and therefore substandard, but if I needed to see a doc then, I could.

Clinton did away with that. Unless it's a large post with a hospital, then only active duty. We have to pay for health care and because we were military we didn't qualify for the state's health care program. We were on food stamps. No one I ever knew under Bush Sr. was on food stamps. No one had to have their bills subsidized. Under Clinton, being in the military was akin to being in a 3rd world country.

You want him? You got him. Enjoy.

Thank, I will. You may not, but I sleep better at night knowning he's in rather than Gore.

McCain would really have been the best. Stupid GOP mother fuckers.

 

[Problem Child]

PC standing on his chair...

..applauding KillerMuffin!

McCain would really have been the best. Stupid GOP mother fuckers. [/B]

You GO girl! Fucking outstanding!

I was going to answer MP point by point, but you did it SO much better than I ever could have.

It's amazing how easily people who have never served take their freedom for granted. They ramble on endlessly about "Hey, I had an uncle, yada, yada..."

I served because I wanted to, and I enjoyed my time in service. Fortunately I was never in combat, so I have no expertise in it other than what I've read. Accordingly, I would never attempt to pontificate on combat in the same way I've heard others (MP) here go on about the military in general.

That would be like me trying to win an argument with a woman about what it's like to have a baby. Sure, I've got a right to my opinion on childbirth, but compared to my mothers it's shit. (Yeah, I know KM already used this analogy, but I missed it when I read her post the first time. Besides it's sooo good!)


Peace

[Edited by Problem Child on 02-25-2001 at 02:26 PM]

 

[genderbender]

My Two Cents

This has been an interesting, heated conversation that I enter with a bit of trepidation. I feel fortunate that I've never been required to serve in the military. For some reason, when I graduated from college during the Vietnam era, the army didn't want me. I didn't follow my many friends who joined the National Guard. I simply took my physical, was classified 1-A and waited. It was 1967, the beginning of the big buildup and miraculously I wasn't called. I felt like I'd dodged a bullet!

I'll forego comment on the military, except to observe that those who serve have on occasion done some pretty reprehensible things while serving our country. For all of the noble ideas, the core-set of values, articulated for the military, soldiers, both officers and grunts, are human beings whose occasional stupidity and venality result in horror. Should I mention My Lai(?) or Tailhook? I don't expect those in the military to be perfect, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with comments that tend to idealize them.

The real comment I wished to make has been alluded to before, but I think its still worth repeating. Bill Clinton had the misfortune to become President at the end of the cold war. For as long as I've lived, America's political life has been shaped by our fear of nuclear annihilation. Our response was to build a powerful military force. President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex during his presidency in the 1950's. What he feared came to pass over the following decades as our military grew and developed ever more sophisticated and expensive weaponry.

Yet, with the demise of the Soviet Union ten years ago, the whole ball game changed. We no longer had the "Evil Empire" to justify our extensive, expensive military apparatus. Now, a reasonable person would conclude that with a vastly reduced threat we should save some money and reduce the scale of our military. Bill Clinton was given this opportunity.

Now, I'm aware that cuts were made; bases closed, manning levels reduced. But vested interests are powerful, whether we're talking about Raytheon and General Dynamics or Senator Lott with a state filled with military bases and contractors. Or how about Newt Gingrich, a congressman whose district included major defense contractors. Or the Chamber of Commerce from Smalltown, USA, who fretted over closure of the National Guard Armory. This painful readjustment is still very far from being finished. In fact, arguably, it hasn't really begun yet. Apologists for the military are grumbling even as we speak about Bush's decision not to add funds to Armed Services budgets mid-year, as has been the case every year, while staff of the Defense Department perform a thorough assessment of military strategy. Perhaps it will require a Republican to make significant changes in the military in the same way that it required a Republican to open relations with China.

Clinton, for all his personal flaws, was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mr. Clozoff articulates well some of the military's problems with Clinton, but IMHO anyone stepping into the minefield he found himself in was cruising for a bruising. As President Eisenhower suggested, the power of the military and the industrial complex that profits from serving it, is immense. Whomever initiates real change in the military, will have to face these powerful vested interests.

One final comment. Listening to Bush is little different than listening to Clinton when the subject is foreign policy. We're making the world safe for commercial and industrial interests of this country, not for democracy. To the extent the military might of this country, whether applied forthrightly or clandestinely, is being applied for that purpose it is IMHO unworthy of what we say this country stands for. Most of the world sees us as a bully, not as a protector. Those nations that applaud our efforts almost invariably do so because it serves their commercial interests. I guess the bottom line on this comment is, it's naive to tout our wonderful military without asking serious questions about why we're doing some of the things we do. This is especially the case when there are real problems in this country that cry for attention. I'll never be a supporter of Star Wars, simply because it's a boondoggle, corporate welfare that protects us from no real threat and claims huge amounts of money that could be used to address real problems, such as prescription drug benefits for the elderly. I sound like a Democrat, don't I?

As a final

 

[Madame Pandora]

When the violin starts thinking that it writes the music, there's really no winning.
What this means it that when an INSTRUMENT begins thinking it controls what it is used for, you can’t win a debate against it. Most military personnel think they are “in the know” because they serve. This is a little like a receptionist at Eli Lily thinking they contributed to the development of Prozac. What it means is that your side and my side cannot find common ground because the perspectives are so diametrically opposed. You think I can’t possibly understand, and I think you can’t possibly be impartial.

As for my condescension, take it for what you like or not, as I’ve always taken yours. The attitude I dish out remains the same. It doesn’t alter the minute someone kisses my ass or barks at me. Pardon me if I don’t shake in my boots, KM. You didn’t impress or intimidate me. You’re a woman who uses the same sharp manner to express herself as I do. You’ll forgive me if I don’t lose any sleep over a pot calling me a black kettle. As for how I influence you to “degenerate” in your style of debate, give me a break. Like I’m responsible because you want to take pot shots. Take them, fine, but don’t act like I make you descend from some high ground. You’ve never shied away from being a dirt fighter, same as me. I respect you more when you own up to it, although I’m sure my respect isn’t so very high up on your list right now. I got no personal grudge against you in this argument or any other. I just express myself with a sword rather than a kiss. You want to take it personally, whatever.

And yes, my stance has ALWAYS been that different views don’t make one way BETTER than the other, it makes them DIFFERENT. Go ahead and show me where I stated that MY view was better than yours, KM. I’d really like to see it. What you fail to see in your inane desperation to support your own argument is that I agree with you on many issues. And I DO see the other side of it. I just think the other side is jaded, and I’m sure you think MINE is. That is what makes this a CIRCULAR argument.

You, and most of the military want the GOP in office because they FUND the military indiscriminately. That there is a case for and against this is moot because it BENEFITS YOU. That is the bottom line. All the rest of this is gravy.

What I opposed at the start of all this was the statement that Bush #2 is a proper representative of the US Military. I don’t think he is. That you want him to be so is your loss of perspective. Don’t trade the fact that you want THE GOP IN CHARGE for the notion that you think Bush #2 is a good icon of the military. Frankly, I don’t think you or anyone else in the military gives a shit about what Bushbaby does or does not stand for. You just want the GOP there. Because that means the good times are back again.

My ignorance is showing? Oh, babe, whatever. I’m not going to blow smoke up your ass and say I can pilot a plane or fire a nuke. Most of the American population can’t. There is a difference between an EDUCATED argument, an IGNORANT argument, and one where the details just don’t matter. I’m not getting into a pissing contest with you over details that don’t relate to the debate at hand. I’ll tell you what, I’ll enlist, serve, and study for years at West Point, interview every soldier I can, scan through endless annals of military history and then return here with my “educated” perspective and debate you. Would that be better? Because I’ve got nothing better to do with my life than run out and gather information on an issue that neither you nor I will ever control. If I DID ever join the military, it wouldn’t be for those reasons, trust me.

You infer that the only “EDUCATED” perspective in this issue can come from someone who serves in the military? That’s a comfy little position. It assures you of winning the point, because I’ve already relented that I haven’t served. It’s also a point, btw, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

You say no one can understand childbirth who has never had a child. But, what you fail to grasp is that someone doesn’t NEED to EXPERIENCE it to be EDUCATED about it or suggest improvements, or even just have an opinion. I may be wrong, but I think there may be one or two male obstetricians out there who will back me on this. There was a guy named Lamaze who comes to mind…

You know more about the basic ins and outs of military life than me. Hell yes, I give you that. You know more about chain of command and probably no end of other things I can’t even guess at. But you think because you know these things and I do not that I can’t form an opinion of US policy? Do you think that GW – your CIC has as clear a view as you do? Give me a break.

And, let’s make one thing clear. I don’t dislike GW because he’s a GOP. I dislike him because he’s unfit for the job. I dislike him because to me he represents just how much politics in the US has gotten about “my side/your side” and not about the right guy for the job. He could be a nice guy for all I know, but I think he’s in way over his fucking head. Which is okay, because there’s plenty of guys waiting in the wings to direct his hands.

So, let’s dig through the details now.

1. You have no idea why the marines think they're invincible. They never would have held Guadacanal if they didn't.
Well, yes, truth is I DO know this. As I said, a great deal of the military mindset is to feel “superior” to others. This is true of ANYONE who has to put himself or herself into a high-risk situation. Soldiers, firefighters, cops, fuck – even racecar drivers. You have to BELIEVE you’re just so fucking good that no one else can beat you. You have to know in your heart and your GUT that you’re doing the right thing and God is on your side. If this is the truth or not doesn’t matter. They have to believe it to do their jobs.

2. You have no idea why the military does things they way they do. That much is patently obvious. Debate all you want, just watch it because your ignorance is showing. It doesn't matter if you ever find out what it's like to be in the military. It never has and it never will. The US has an all volunteer military, and we should be proud of that fact more than anything else about our military. Your perogative is to not be in and I respect that. I expect the same from you. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it, I expect you'd let me die.
This is an issue you plucked out of the air. One of the things I constantly joke about with my Italian friends is that they HAD to serve in their military. I AM glad that we live in a country which says you don’t have to pick up a gun and serve if you don’t feel the desire to. As for the policies of our foreign peers, I don’t see how that relates to GW being a good CIC.

Do I respect your right (and the right of anyone else for that matter) to be in the military? Hell yes. I’ve said that at least TWICE in this thread alone. What I don’t yield is the fact that this gives you some divine trump card in all discussions on the military. You want to characterize “disagreement” as a “lack of respect” go ahead. I’m not pulling my punches for you, babe.

As for letting you die, it is just that all or nothing crap that I’m talking about with the military mindset. You say you want my respect, but that’s not the truth. You DEMAND my respect, and that’s just not the way it works. Respect isn’t a GIVEN. It’s earned. The reason so many of the vocal military feel under appreciated is because they are too busy demanding and EXPECTING respect that they don’t pause to see what they already have. It makes you feel better to think I’m ignorant, go ahead. Don’t let me take away your cross. I know how much some military personnel get off on being the martyrs for the ungrateful masses.

3. As for how I think the US military should serve its country, I can only yield to the US Constitution. To aid in execution of the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections and repel invasions when called to do so by Congress. Congress, when last I looked, is a body elected by the people. So, the military’s role to me, is to carry out what it is ordered to do in defense of it’s populace’s ideals (as reflected by their elected officials), it’s country, and it’s citizens.

4. The President is the CIC and the buck does pretty much stop with him (in theory, anyway). In considerations of military actions, he is expected to require the opinion, in writing, of the bigwig of whichever arm of the military he is thinking of employing into action, etc. Let me ask you, in the case of GW – do you think he’s asking opinions or being TOLD what to do?

5. As for not being able to “quit” or tell your boss to go fuck himself because you’re in the military, that’s the role you SIGNED ON FOR when you joined. You may think it gives you some enlightened perspective of “HAVE TO” instead of “WANT TO” but it doesn’t. Most people spend their lives pressed up against “HAVE TO,” babe. You think it makes you more honorable because if your boss ordered you to pick up a candy wrapper you could go to jail for saying no? You may think “no one understands but us.” That’s your prerogative, but I got news for you, it’s not that complicated a concept. Believe me, the rest of us GET IT. That’s why weren’t not there. Most military concepts are not that difficult BY DESIGN. The theory of a chain of command is not exclusive to your sect. It operates day in, day out in different families, companies, and organizations in the world. And you’re right, the BIGGEST difference is that when it breaks down in the military people die. There are bigger steaks at risk. That doesn’t make the concept anymore complicated. It just makes it more important that it be adhered to.

6. Gee…we have enemies? Really? Wow…who knew? You mean after decades of declaring ourselves better than the rest of the word, raping other cultures, and sticking our noses where they didn’t belong, we’re got a few people stirred up and pissed? You want me to tick off the countries that don’t like us, the locations of current hostilities, and the history behind it all, here’s a good place to start: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/index.html. I’m not going to list everything I can think of or find only to have you get all excited because I miss one.

7. “The world will remain static and there will never be a war again, unless we start it, right? After all, there aren't any "bad guys" now, so why manufacture them? Does it bother you when your rose colored glasses slip?”
I never said any of this. If you want to make a point, fine, but don’t act like this is in response to something I said. My opinion is that the US needs to alter its military policies to begin allow for the emergence of a global community as opposed to just defending our little patch of dirt. If you don’t like that, oh well.

But it’s not primarily about all this “honor” and “American way” stuff anymore. What people want the military for now is MONEY. That you support that, go ahead, but don’t act like it’s a moral cause. Do we NEED more military for safety purposes? No. We WANT it for economic purposes. There are “bad guys” and they are real. But we don’t need to maintain the same level of military we maintained during the Cold War. You can spit and jump up and down and grunt as much as you want. To me, that dog just won’t hunt.

8. You say, of many of our “enemies” that “they hate us because they can.” Call me ignorant all you like, but that is the saddest statement I’ve ever heard you use. We put ourselves up as a target, we’ve done so for a very long time. We basically proclaim our country as sovereign of the world, and can’t understand why foreigners don’t like us. The US has done just as much back-stabbing as any other country in the world, committed as many grievous acts as you can name, fuck, we DROPPED THE BOMB, babe. We are the mafia boss of the world, thinking we’re so respected and loved while all the while the little guys are sticking their tongues out behind our backs and usually they’re looking for a good spot to plant the dagger. Most of them have pretty damn good reason to hate us and not all of it is propaganda. If I had to guess at why North Korea doesn’t like us, I’d have to send you back to this site [url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/korea.htm.[/url] I hate to repeat a reference, but I use this website for a great deal of my research. More of my stumbling ignorance I suppose.

9. I don’t discount anyone’s god. I’m not even going to address that. That you even infer I would repress or belittle anyone’s religion shows you have zero insight into me. All I said what that the leaders of such countries have a talent for enlisting people into kamikaze and terrorist acts and convincing them it’s the will of their god. That Westerners think of ourselves as more “enlightened” than the rest of the world is one reason we can’t get to a place of common ground with them.

10. We would never think of sinking money, resources, and life for the purpose of fighting a war.
Please, don’t accuse me of having rose-colored glasses and say this with a straight face.

11. No, I don’t think the military should have to address teenagers or acts of domestic terrorism. I never said that, despite your assumption. What I meant was that we have enough pressing matters at home to address. We have begun, as a nation, to allow for the possibility that maybe all the bad guys aren’t just outside the door, many are in the rooms with us. And, unless we begin to address them, it doesn’t matter how many enemies we arm ourselves against, we’re missing the point. We have generations of children who are disillusioned, uneducated, and unmotivated. You’ll forgive me if I want a government to maybe address the poverty its own nation, the ethics of the suppression of technologies, which would improve the standard of living (but effect the economy) and a host of other concerns above more military spending.

12. The military declined in health care, dental care, and other amenities? Welcome to the fucking USA, babe. Let me explain what’s been going on in the private sector. Big brother is screwing over union workers and doing away with as many benefits as they can, little by little. The GOP which will fund the military up the ass will continue to push legislation in favor of large companies to be able to shirk the guy who’s given his life over to a company for 50 years and screw him out of benefits at the last minute. Do I think you should have these benefits? HELL YES. But I think all Americans should have them. Yours declined along with the rest of the country.

Here’s the bottom line – you don’t respect my side of the argument. I don’t have a great deal of respect for yours. But I respect your right to have it. You think I’m ignorant, I think you’re biased. There’s not a lot of room for give there.

I will say once again that I have a great deal of respect for people who serve. I always have because I was taught to. Because people in my family and circle of friends have served, and even if I disagreed with policy and had differences of opinion, I respected the job they did. No one likes that the dogcatcher has to put puppies to sleep, but they’re glad he does his job. In “A Few Good Men” there is a very good line spoken by Demi Moore when asked why she defends a pair of military men who are on trail and she says, “Because they sit on a wall and they say ‘nothing’s going to happen to you. Not on my watch’.” I feel very much the same way. But I feel that because I DO, not because I SHOULD. My respect is there, but it’s not obligatory.

Bush #2 is incidental. It’s the GOP you want in power. All the details and understanding in the world doesn’t alter that. The GOP in power means the military goes to the top of the list, and if you’re in the military you WANT to be on the top of the list whether or not you belong there. I don’t have to know the intimate details of CCG guidance canards and LGB free-fall weapons electronics or the ins and outs of military deployment to educate myself on US domestic and foreign policy. Granted, any knowledge I have of these details will only help my understanding of the situation. But just because I can’t recite the Marine creed of every unit, that doesn’t mean I can’t know a little something about the core. (I do, however, have the creed of the AMPCR memorized…wonder why that is…)

Whatever your agenda, you’re welcome to it. I disagree. No member of the military DESERVES my respect. Most of them just have it. And the ones who have the most respect, in my experience, are the ones who spend the least amount of time bitching about how much they’ve earned it.

MP

 

[brazenblaze]

Seems like I started a fight and bowed out, but I didn't. Just seems that someone out there is reading my mind and putting them into words much better than I ever could.

I never thought I'd see the day but....

KM...can I hire you as my board mouth piece?
The wages won't be great, but the appreciation would be unlimited. (sort-of like being back in the military)

MP: my problem with your blasting the military...is you really don't KNOW what you are talking about. You CAN NOT understand the life we lead...by reading a newspaper or knowing someone who has been in. I don't speak for the entire MILITARY, however I DO know that my opinion is shared by A LOT of them. We DO actually talk to each other occasionally and interact on a level beyond our duties and assignments(go figure). I still remember what it was like in December, with all the TVs on post turned to CNN and the out cries in favor of Bush.

I agree that you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine.
However, once again I think your opinion is a little of center and uninformed regarding the military. I do not SERVE you or simple the "people" the American people.

I swear to "uphold the constitution and defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, to obey the orders of the PRESIDENT of the United States and the officers appointed over me". Don't remember there being a part about "SERVING the American people" in there.

Take it as brain washed all you want, but the Military IS founded on an age old belief system and they ARE still beliefs that TRUE soldiers still hold tightly to our hearts.
Drill SGT's don't instill these things in us and actually it isn't something that is talked about much. It is a commitment and a standard that some of us still set for our selves out of our own set of values and pride. It is called Patriotism. I don't agreed with your opinion on this, but I WILL continue to stand up and die if necessary for your RIGHT to have an opinion. That doesn't mean I SERVE you, it means I SERVE the constitution and the RIGHTS that so many like you take for granted. The key is the ability to recognize the difference.

 

[Guest]

Side note for those of you yelling about Mark Rich.

I seriously doubt Mark Rich is going to be murdering and dismembering his wife anytime soon, but a person Reagan pardoned did just that. I will be looking forward to your angry posts about what a crook Reagan was:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/25/pardonedkiller.ap/index.html

A man accused of killing his wife and dismembering and burning her body had once received a pardon from President Reagan.

 

[Siren]

For a thread called "deafening silence"

 

[Siren]

How did this thread become one about who has a right

 

[Problem Child]

Siren,

I don't think this is about anyone's 1st amendment rights. It's about their qualification and experience in regards to their opinion. John Keegan is probably the world's foremost military historian. I would gladly accept his views on why Germany was defeated in WWII, but I don't think he could tell me much about the real day-to-day life of an NCO in the U.S. Army. I hope you see what I mean.

MP,

Whenever someone gets in the middle of a dogfight (or catfight) they run the risk of getting bitten. I hope you and KM don't mind me butting in. Maybe I can respond to a few of your thoughts. I marked my responses with *** because I'm not sure how to turn off the bold in a quote.

When the violin starts thinking that it writes the music, there's really no winning.
What this means it that when an INSTRUMENT begins thinking it controls what it is used for, you can’t win a debate against it. Most military personnel think they are “in the know” because they serve.

***I like the analogy, but I don't really think it applies. Most military people don't think they are in the know about anything more than what directly affects them. Our job is to follow orders.

You, and most of the military want the GOP in office because they FUND the military indiscriminately. That there is a case for and against this is moot because it BENEFITS YOU. That is the bottom line. All the rest of this is gravy.

***This is true. The GOP has always been more supportive of the military in general, at least since Viet Nam. The point I think your missing is that what is important to the ordinary soldier is morale. Clinton was bad for morale. If you want me to list the reasons I will, butI think this is fairly well accepted amongst the military people I know. Gore was tarred by assoctiation to Clinton in this regard. Bush was the winner by default. McCain would have been the best point but got steamrolled by republican money.

What I opposed at the start of all this was the statement that Bush #2 is a proper representative of the US Military. I don’t think he is. That you want him to be so is your loss of perspective. Don’t trade the fact that you want THE GOP IN CHARGE for the notion that you think Bush #2 is a good icon of the military. Frankly, I don’t think you or anyone else in the military gives a shit about what Bushbaby does or does not stand for. You just want the GOP there. Because that means the good times are back again.

***See above

If I DID ever join the military, it wouldn’t be for those reasons, trust me.

***Just out of curiosity what would be the reason? This isn't a trick question; I'd really like to know.

You infer that the only “EDUCATED” perspective in this issue can come from someone who serves in the military? That’s a comfy little position. It assures you of winning the point, because I’ve already relented that I haven’t served. It’s also a point, btw, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
You say no one can understand childbirth who has never had a child. But, what you fail to grasp is that someone doesn’t NEED to EXPERIENCE it to be EDUCATED about it or suggest improvements, or even just have an opinion. I may be wrong, but I think there may be one or two male obstetricians out there who will back me on this. There was a guy named Lamaze who comes to mind…
You know more about the basic ins and outs of military life than me. Hell yes, I give you that. You know more about chain of command and probably no end of other things I can’t even guess at. But you think because you know these things and I do not that I can’t form an opinion of US policy? Do you think that GW – your CIC has as clear a view as you do? Give me a break.

***See my response to Siren at the start of this post. I think it applies here.

And, let’s make one thing clear. I don’t dislike GW because he’s a GOP. I dislike him because he’s unfit for the job. I dislike him because to me he represents just how much politics in the US has gotten about “my side/your side” and not about the right guy for the job. He could be a nice guy for all I know, but I think he’s in way over his fucking head. Which is okay, because there’s plenty of guys waiting in the wings to direct his hands.

***Hey, I agree with you re: Dubya. But Al Gore had 8 years to improve the military situation (low pay, low morale, over-extension of all our forces) and it didn't get done.

So, let’s dig through the details now.

1. You have no idea why the marines think they're invincible. They never would have held Guadacanal if they didn't.
Well, yes, truth is I DO know this. As I said, a great deal of the military mindset is to feel “superior” to others.

***That's a pretty marrow and unfair appraisal, in my opinion. Of course military people like to assume they're better than their foreign counterparts. What's the point of doing something if you don't do it to win, especially when it involves people dying. But the military mindset also consists of ideals like honor, country, and service. Giving something back, and protecting something you love. Obviously it's very hard to explain, and yes, some soldiers join for strictly selfish or personal reasons but believe me, to most of us it's a lot more than just wanting to be superior.

2. You have no idea why the military does things they way they do. That much is patently obvious. Debate all you want, just watch it because your ignorance is showing. It doesn't matter if you ever find out what it's like to be in the military. It never has and it never will. The US has an all volunteer military, and we should be proud of that fact more than anything else about our military. Your perogative is to not be in and I respect that. I expect the same from you. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it, I expect you'd let me die.

>>>edit note: I accidentally erased MP's response. Sorry MP.

***I'm glad we live in a country where there are enough people willing to serve and we don't have to force them to.

As for letting you die, it is just that all or nothing crap that I’m talking about with the military mindset.

***See above regarding military mindset. Again you're incorrect.

3. As for how I think the US military should serve its country, I can only yield to the US Constitution. To aid in execution of the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections and repel invasions when called to do so by Congress. Congress, when last I looked, is a body elected by the people. So, the military’s role to me, is to carry out what it is ordered to do in defense of it’s populace’s ideals (as reflected by their elected officials), it’s country, and it’s citizens.

***I agree.

4. The President is the CIC and the buck does pretty much stop with him (in theory, anyway). In considerations of military actions, he is expected to require the opinion, in writing, of the bigwig of whichever arm of the military he is thinking of employing into action, etc. Let me ask you, in the case of GW – do you think he’s asking opinions or being TOLD what to do?

***What makes you think he's such a puppet? Of course he's going to rely on Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and others. He's surrounded by some pretty heavy hitters. Would you prefer that he be surrounded by dolts. Do you remember what happened when LBJ started picking out bombing targets in Viet Nam?

7. “The world will remain static and there will never be a war again, unless we start it, right? After all, there aren't any "bad guys" now, so why manufacture them? Does it bother you when your rose colored glasses slip?”
I never said any of this. If you want to make a point, fine, but don’t act like this is in response to something I said. My opinion is that the US needs to alter its military policies to begin allow for the emergence of a global community as opposed to just defending our little patch of dirt. If you don’t like that, oh well.

***I basically agree with you here. But there are threats out there that are very dangerous.But many people who are always calling for military drawdown seem to have short memories. Before every major war this century we have reduced our military only to have to build it back up in a frenzy when the inevitable next war came along. The gulf war was the only exception (you may not want to call it a major war, but a hell of a lot of people died.) We had a strong force going in, and suffered very few casualties. Again, if you're going to play the game, play it to win. It's a dirty business.
China is a major non-nuclear and nuclear power, and they have become more and more bellicose in the last decade. Should we really ignore their threats?

But it’s not primarily about all this “honor” and “American way” stuff anymore. What people want the military for now is MONEY. That you support that, go ahead, but don’t act like it’s a moral cause. Do we NEED more military for safety purposes? No. We WANT it for economic purposes. There are “bad guys” and they are real. But we don’t need to maintain the same level of military we maintained during the Cold War. You can spit and jump up and down and grunt as much as you want. To me, that dog just won’t hunt.

***You're back to the military attitude again. 'Nuff said on that. You are also lumping the military industrial complex in with the ordinary serviceman. They have different motives.

8. You say, of many of our “enemies” that “they hate us because they can.” Call me ignorant all you like, but that is the saddest statement I’ve ever heard you use. We put ourselves up as a target, we’ve done so for a very long time. We basically proclaim our country as sovereign of the world, and can’t understand why foreigners don’t like us. The US has done just as much back-stabbing as any other country in the world, committed as many grievous acts as you can name, fuck, we DROPPED THE BOMB, babe. We are the mafia boss of the world, thinking we’re so respected and loved while all the while the little guys are sticking their tongues out behind our backs and usually they’re looking for a good spot to plant the dagger. Most of them have pretty damn good reason to hate us and not all of it is propaganda.

***Sure we've done some crappy things, butI think the good we've tried to do has far outweighed the bad.
The reason we're a target for the most people is we are trying to help their enemies. Yes, we we're a target in mogadishu when we were trying to feed people. We were a target in Europe in WWI and WWII. We were a target in Viet Nam, because we went in trying to stop communism and couldn't accept we were losing. We were a target in Beirut trying to protect people from groups like the Hezbollah. We're alway a target. It's part of world leadership and trying to do some good.

***And why was it wrong to drop the Bomb? Would it have been better to have a million more Americans and Japanese die?

9. I don’t discount anyone’s god. I’m not even going to address that. That you even infer I would repress or belittle anyone’s religion shows you have zero insight into me. All I said what that the leaders of such countries have a talent for enlisting people into kamikaze and terrorist acts and convincing them it’s the will of their god. That Westerners think of ourselves as more “enlightened” than the rest of the world is one reason we can’t get to a place of common ground with them.

***Do you really think that Muslims don't think they're more enlightened than us? Religion is the same the world over, everybody thinks theirs is the true way, don't kid yourself.

11. No, I don’t think the military should have to address teenagers or acts of domestic terrorism. I never said that, despite your assumption. What I meant was that we have enough pressing matters at home to address. We have begun, as a nation, to allow for the possibility that maybe all the bad guys aren’t just outside the door, many are in the rooms with us. And, unless we begin to address them, it doesn’t matter how many enemies we arm ourselves against, we’re missing the point. We have generations of children who are disillusioned, uneducated, and unmotivated. You’ll forgive me if I want a government to maybe address the poverty its own nation, the ethics of the suppression of technologies, which would improve the standard of living (but effect the economy) and a host of other concerns above more military spending.

***I'd like all these things to be fixed as well. Bush is doing a full military spending review to see where the waste is, so that massive spending increases won't be needed.

Here’s the bottom line – you don’t respect my side of the argument. I don’t have a great deal of respect for yours. But I respect your right to have it. You think I’m ignorant, I think you’re biased. There’s not a lot of room for give there.

I will say once again that I have a great deal of respect for people who serve. I always have because I was taught to. Because people in my family and circle of friends have served, and even if I disagreed with policy and had differences of opinion, I respected the job they did. No one likes that the dogcatcher has to put puppies to sleep, but they’re glad he does his job. In “A Few Good Men” there is a very good line spoken by Demi Moore when asked why she defends a pair of military men who are on trail and she says, “Because they sit on a wall and they say ‘nothing’s going to happen to you. Not on my watch’.” I feel very much the same way. But I feel that because I DO, not because I SHOULD. My respect is there, but it’s not obligatory.

***I'm at a bit of a loss. The tone of all your posts belies what you say here, but I don't know you, so I'll take you word.

Bush #2 is incidental. It’s the GOP you want in power. All the details and understanding in the world doesn’t alter that. The GOP in power means the military goes to the top of the list, and if you’re in the military you WANT to be on the top of the list whether or not you belong there. I don’t have to know the intimate details of CCG guidance canards and LGB free-fall weapons electronics or the ins and outs of military deployment to educate myself on US domestic and foreign policy. Granted, any knowledge I have of these details will only help my understanding of the situation. But just because I can’t recite the Marine creed of every unit, that doesn’t mean I can’t know a little something about the core. (I do, however, have the creed of the AMPCR memorized…wonder why that is…)

***More of the same. BTW it's Corps, not core.

Whatever your agenda, you’re welcome to it. I disagree. No member of the military DESERVES my respect. Most of them just have it. And the ones who have the most respect, in my experience, are the ones who spend the least amount of time bitching about how much they’ve earned it.

***This logic seems a little convoluted. Why don't you just say you respect individuals that don't complain? You make it sound as if we all have to interview for you, or send us or service records. Forgive me if I say it sounds a little arrogant.

MP

Thanks for listening.

[Edited by Problem Child on 02-25-2001 at 08:38 PM]

 

[Madame Pandora]

The End

Okay, gang...

This has escalated to a point where good debate just isn't possible anymore. I take a full lump of blame in that. In my previous posts I used a lot of snide shots and absolutes. Good debate is about neither. I still stand by the position I hold, but not the way I presented it in sections.

I'm done here. KM and PC, you'll have mail soon.

I can't believe a thread started by a troll got me all worked up. Damn...just damn.

MP

 

[Problem Child]

Madam Pandora

Probably a good idea, I think everybody's pretty well had their say.

We obviously disagree on many points, but it's sure fun debating them, as long as it doesn't get into character assasination.

Our paths will cross again, I'm sure.

P.S. how DO you turn off the bold when your posting in a quote? Sorry, I'm a HTML dope.

[Edited by Problem Child on 02-25-2001 at 09:38 PM]

 

[brazenblaze]

AMEN!

 

[April]

Re: Madam Pandora

Probably a good idea, I think everybody's pretty well had their say.

We obviously disagree on many points, but it's sure fun debating them, as long as it doesn't get into character assasination.

Our paths will cross again, I'm sure.

P.S. how DO you turn off the bold when your posting in a quote? Sorry, I'm a HTML dope.

[Edited by Problem Child on 02-25-2001 at 09:38 PM]

PC, you preface it with [b ] and end it with [/b ], taking out the spaces within the brackets.

 

[Purple Haze]

Wow, ask a question and see what you get.

Thanks for the answer, Oliver. But being as you're not in the service, your opinion isn't valid.

Yes I served, wore the boots, marched up "Mount Motherfucker" with a fifty pound pack, wore the uniform with pride and I still wear those boots, I replaced the worn out soles with a snow-tire type tread, I wear 'em when I'm shooting dog turds across the street with the snow-blower.. (I give 'em a nice "high shine" once in a while, the boots, not the dog turds) I don't think this makes me more of an authority on the issue at hand, it just feels good to say so.

Kennedy was a war hero, Eisenhower and George Bush were too, Reagan served, so did Carter and Nixon, not sure about Ford or LBJ, I'm pretty sure they did. Military service was a prerequisite to the Oval Office. It's not anymore, whether you like it or not, it's a fact. The generation that courageously laid down their lives in World War II is leaving us now. A genuine war hero is getting a little harder to come by, so expecting your president to be a bona-fide soldier is a thing of the past. A non-military politician served two terms, and a "sort of" military politician occupies the White House now. Expect more of the same in the future.

As far as readiness goes, I kind of like the idea that our service people are concerned about this, but I don't think we have as much to worry about as they'd think. We are the United States, and we can kick anybody's ass, and we do now and then. We don't have a big superpower to worry about anymore, but we do have lots of nukes out there that could potentially fall in the wrong hands (like there's a 'right' set of hands?) and there are lots of little third world terrorists that would love to toss some wicked shit our way. I don't think building more tanks and bigger armies can fix this problem, but I feel assured that we have secret agents keeping an eye on these little fuckers. Of course we wouldn't be generally informed of this, just like a lot of national security issues are hidden from view and maybe they should be.

I still remember when Bush Senior drew the "line in the sand." In the six months or so leading up to the all-out thrashing of Bagdahd. I like everybody else in the nation was glued to the TV, listening to all these news reporters and retired generals going on and on about what a formidable force Sadaam's army was, and what a nasty bunch of soldiers we had on our hands. It was a lot like the WWF, the war of the century kind of shit. The "Today Show" changed it's name to "America at War" or something like that and next thing you knew, all of our morning show people were off the couch and behind a desk, interviewing "experts" with cool little dioramas, toy tanks and little army men. It was kind of fun. It had to have suspense, because if it didn't you'd change the channel to the retired general with the cool graphics and the stuff that blew up.

Had our media showed us the horrific things that really happen in wars, we'd have turned the channel to "Alf."

Of course we squashed Iraq like bug, and no one was surprised.

Were we as a nation well informed? I doubt it.

We finally got to use the 5 trillion dollar war goodies the republicans put on our credit card.

GWB will do another military build up, and a tax cut to not pay for it. While I feel the military personell deserve a raise, I don't think we need a bigger Army. The Gulf War was proof of this.

Just my uninformed opinion.

 

[Problem Child]

Purple

Wow, ask a question and see what you get.


Of course we squashed Iraq like bug, and no one was surprised.

Actually I think a lot of people were surprised. We still had the ghost of Viet Nam hanging over us.

There's a line from the movie Stripes where Bill Murray says something like "Hey man, we're the U.S.A; we're 10-1-1. I think you get the point.

Anyway, I had just gotten out of an armored unit and was back in college and all my friends would ask, "How many soldiers will we lose?" After thinking about it, I guessed a maximum of 1,000-2,000 if the Iraqis were anything close to what they were touted to be, especially if they used gas.

I knew how good our armor divisions are, and wasn't surprised when they killed something like 1,000 tanks in 4 days. The mistake I made (like many others) was in overestimating the Iraqis (sp?), but what I was really surprised at was how good our air force was.

The point is that I think a lot of people were predicting massive casualties. I think it was Ted Kennedy who was throwing around numbers like 50,000 dead U.S. soldiers.

I'm glad he was wrong.