Back from Iraq

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 16 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]407078[/snapback]</div>

Does housing the injured soldiers in Walter Reed(a bastion of mold and rats) constitute spitting on Veterans?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 14 2007, 09:54 PM) [snapback]405878[/snapback]</div>

Hope he does soon.

Hope that all our troops come back soon.

Hope that somehow, someday "we the people" can force the elected official to read world history before taking office: http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/history.html

 

ditto to skynight-

godbless and keep him safe.

we need idealists to help us along, even though they may not be on the path we think is correct.

some one at work was lamenting their son , who wanted to teach in the inner city- just think where we might be if some of these ideaists did not follow their own paths.....

what path did you take that your family did not approve?????

 

Best wishes for him from me too, the best news he could hear I suspect would be that he was reassigned to someplace here though.

I did have the chance to have a long discussion about a month ago with a troup who had just returned home and was discharged (the son of a good friend). Once he assured me that there was no chance that he could get "stop gapped", I fealt more comfortable about asking him about his experiences over there. First, he said they do get quite a bit of news from home through podcasts, email, and normal letters from home. The real bomb shell he dropped was that most of the troups feel the same way as the general public regarding the war. After I talked with him for a while, I did get to ask him if the general unpopularity of the war had any negative effects on the moral of the troups. His answer was that it clearly did not, that the troups clearly realize the peoples anger is directed at the planing and execution and not the servicepeople.

Our discussion went on for hours, the general impression I came away with was much the same as talking to someone who did actual fighting in WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, which are memories that will allways be with you, but you'd rather be able to put them out of your mind entirely.

 

tleonhar, it's "stop lossed".

Zen, glad to hear that your nephew's home for a while.

Joined the Army. :lol: :lol: :lol:

And again, they were right, but it was something that I had to do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 16 2007, 04:50 PM) [snapback]407088[/snapback]</div>

<Tisk> Silly wabbit, We hippies smoke lots of pot which gives us cotton mouth. Our salivary glands are so dry we have to roll the whole day's joints before we have our morning smoke so that we can lick the glue to keep the papers rolled.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 16 2007, 01:25 AM) [snapback]406614[/snapback]</div>

You're wrong. I do blame the current group of troops and bear no guilt about it. The reason is that I understand how military enlistment and retention works. Everyone over there now either signed up or re-enlisted after the Iraq invasion began in March, 2003. Since there are no terms of enlistment over four years, that means that everyone over there now had the opportunity to get out or not join in the first place. Instead, they all consciously chose to join/stay with the full knowledge that they'd be sent (probably repeatedly) to Iraq.

Imagine if all of those men and women had not joined or re-enlisted. Two things would have happened: conscription would have been brought back which, in turn, would have created a massive, active, anti-war movement identical to that during the Vietnam era, or the war would have ended simply due to insufficient manpower.

So, the constant supply of volunteers taking the big bonuses the military offers is the core reason the war continues.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Mar 16 2007, 10:45 PM) [snapback]407203[/snapback]</div>

OOPS h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Mar 16 2007, 04:54 PM) [snapback]407093[/snapback]</div>

The anti-war movement has been pretty responsible this time, and I think its because many of the older people involved in it remember the mistakes of their youth when factions within the anti-war movement blamed the soldiers themselves (the common epithet was "baby killer!", and my brother had to walk a gauntlet of sorts at SFO when he returned from Vietnam. That sentiment was active for quite a few years, and my brother made sure he didn't mention his military service to anyone he didn't know.)

You have very few people involved in the anti-war movement today who are for violent overthrow of the government and the establishment of Marxism, or are actively engaged in revolutionary activities such as murders of police officers, burning down banks, etc. People like Jane Fonda wanted America to be defeated, as they viewed the North Vietnamese as the legitimate people in that conflict. She now says she didn't know what the word "revolution" really meant back then, confirming that she really is stupid. Think Cindy Sheehan on mind altering drugs (mind altering enough that she thought Tom Hayden was a "stone fox").

But that's not the face of the anti-war movement today. Today, the factions within it are made up of, at the most extreme, folks like the Joan Baez wing of the 60's movement, people devoted to peace as a way of life, and their personal lives reflect that belief in how they treat others (pacifists). Joining the pacifists are opponents to the Iraq war who were still in favor of the Afghani attack to remove the Taliban and prosecute war against Al Queida. Its a much more benign movement from the standpoint of any kind of threat to American society. There is a minority that want America badly beaten in Iraq to "teach it a lesson", and a minority that are conspiracy theorists who believe American Zionism and the CIA used remote controlled airplanes to take down the WTC on 9/11.

But most anti-war folks today are just plain Americans.

I think they are wrong, but they aren't bad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Mar 17 2007, 11:20 AM) [snapback]407392[/snapback]</div>

And let me guess.. you're a liberal.

Typical.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Mar 17 2007, 12:20 PM) [snapback]407392[/snapback]</div>

Sorry that you think that way. Don't forget the big carrot that the military dangles in front of many kids who do not have the same opportunities in civilian life.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(barbaram @ Mar 18 2007, 01:13 AM) [snapback]407733[/snapback]</div>

I haven't forgotten about it. The massive marketing campaigns and huge bonuses the military services (particularly the Army) are using to lure in the poor and uneducated are utterly disgusting and reprehensible. I'm sure there was a spike in recruitment and retention when the Army-sponsored car of Mark Martin nearly won the 2007 Daytona 500.

Still, the bottom line is that there are only two reasons anyone is in the military today: those who agree with Bush and want to 'defend the US from terrorists by serving in Iraq'; and those who aren't interested in any noble cause but are simply mercenaries interested in their paychecks. Neither group is worth supporting. Worse, the entire lot are Bush's largest group of enablers, second only to the rock-solid (rock-headed) 30% of the country (according to the polls) that continue to support Bush and his flawed policies.

What's most ironic and disturbing about the situation is how the Bush adm has played the American public's Vietnam-era guilt for not 'supporting the troops'. Many Americans are ashamed about the lack of support for the poor bastards that were drafted and sent to Vietnam and are now trying to make up for it by unthinkingly 'supporting the troops' (usually by mindlessly displaying an asinine yellow magnet on the trunk of their gas-guzzling SUV). If they really wanted to 'support the troops', they'd have voted for John Kerry in 2004 and traded their SUV in on a hybrid.

The US servicemembers in Iraq today (particularly since the 'war' is now entering its fifth year) weren't drafted - they all volunteered to go or stay (for whatever flawed reason) well after the Iraq invasion began.

 

:blink: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Mar 18 2007, 10:34 AM) [snapback]407862[/snapback]</div>

I am an ACTIVE DUTY Navy Chief of 22 years. I have been in during the lean time and the good time and back again. I joined in 85. My motivations for enlisting are my business and I am sure there are those who will make broad generalizations and speak for me and my fellow shipmates why we did join.
For example, I just completed my bachelor’s degree while standing the watch, defending this country while deployed onboard the USS Harry S Truman CVN-75. A large number of enlisted people have highly skilled training and college degrees. For example most of the people in the reactor plants have already completed their four year degree by the end of their first enlistment. These highly educated sailors have skills that are in demand that is one reason they are paid a reenlistment “huge bonuses.â€
I guess ones lack of first hand knowledge of the military leads one to make wide sweeping generalizations and speak from ignorance. I submit this information to this chat room not to brag on my self but to offer civilians some first hand knowledge of navy men and women in order to rebut some outrages charges.
You said “that there are only two reasons anyone is in the military today: those who agree with Bush and want to 'defend the US from terrorists by serving in Iraq'; and those who aren't interested in any noble cause but are simply mercenaries interested in their paychecks. Neither group is worth supporting.â€
How do you know what motivates me or my fellow service members? Am I to understand that paychecks is not important? Do civilians work for free or just expect those in the military to work for free. The military was paid under the eight years of Clinton while I served on the USS Roosevelt and we bombed Bosnia and later Yugoslavia. How did the other side feel about the administration then? Were we mercenaries interested in paychecks back then too with a Democrat Commander and Chief President Clinton in office?
Let go of the hate. People are so blinded by thoughts of Bush and Republicans that they cannot make reasonable and logical arguments; their bias shows. If you dislike Republicans, knock yourself out and vote for Democrats. Now that I think of it, the democrats have both houses of Congress and can stop the funding for the war today; I guess they are warmongers too.
These wide sweeping generalizations based on ignorance must stop.

 

It's almost impossible to purposefully impress people with your education. Your misuse of proper English belies your point, and take a good look at your last paragraph. It's an example of 'the pot calling the kettle black'. Thank you for your service, but your post enforces rudiger's point (not that I agree with it).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Mar 18 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]407872[/snapback]</div>

You don't want to compare military service and experience, chief.

But thanks for playing.

 

Well my dad can beat up you dad. :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 18 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]407894[/snapback]</div>

Sorry “warmongers.†This is a chat post not a college level paper.
You right we are all unintelligent.