This war could undermine the professional core of the military in the same way that the Vietnam conflict did.
Re: Foxfyre
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Foxfyre wrote:You don't quite grasp what the Stop Loss provision is, Cyclop, but it has been in place for 30 years and the soldiers also know about that when they sign up. I read somewhere that only about 7000 guys are affected by it anyway. It is still a 100% volunteer army because they still don't have to sign up in the first place.
Foxfyre, I continue to be amazed by the amount of monkey doo doo you toss around here.
Have you ever listened in to the high pressure military recruiters operating in areas of the poor. They know full well that these poor immature kids have little options for education or jobs. The military promises them pie in the sky it has no intention of honoring---and these young naive kids believe it. Why, because they've been convinced their government would never lie to them.
How sad it is when they learn the truth, if they live through the learning process.
It's been well documented that today's recruiting process is a shocking panic response that, in many cases, is dishonest and disgusting, and has forced the military to recall its recruiters for retraining. This happened only because they got caught on film.
BBB
At least your honest in why you don't support our troops.
Yup she is. On top of giving encouragement to their enemy and accusing our military of participating in all sorts of immorality, not the least of which is the war itself, now they are saying the guys on the front lines are too stupid to know any better. Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good illustration of not supporting the troops.
McG
McG wrote: "At least your honest in why you don't support our troops."
Another insite figment of his warped imagination.
McG, if you really supported our troops, you would be as outraged over the recruiter tactics as am I.
BBB
Military recruitment now is no different and no more outrageous than it has ever been other than the signing bonuses are better. Some might say the army is a viable ticket out of the ghetto for those 'undereducated, immature, unemployed' (BBB's words, not mine) kids who are recruited. I don't have any statistics to support it, but according to my 'inside sources' on the ground in Iraq, etc., there is a high rate of reenlistment by the less advantaged folks. The well off are interested in getting their service behind them and get back to lucrative jobs. For many, the military offers opportunities for better education, skills, and a foot in the door for future employment that would be harder to achieve without military experience.
I suggest you find a sponsor and get onto Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque for a few hours BBB. Take some time to talk to the gate guards, the clerks, the maintenance supervisors, the mechanics, the pilots, and the officers, many who have been deployed over there or who expect to be. See how mistreated they think they are, and how professional and bright and enthusiastic they universally are.
And you should consider the words of all the military personnel, current and former, who state that questioning the neccessity of fighting is the highest form of supporting the troops.
Foxfyre
Foxfyre, I'm too bush shoveling out the monkey doo doo by a glib spreader.
BBB
DrewDad wrote:And you should consider the words of all the military personnel, current and former, who state that questioning the neccessity of fighting is the highest form of supporting the troops.
That's too funny for a response.
No amount of patriotic posturing by a bunch of tight-sphynctered, chickenhawk desk-jockeys is going to amount to a hill of non-existent WMDs, in my opinion.
Does the left support the troops? Does the right? I'm sure if the troops could answer collectively, they'd all pretty much say the same thing...who gives a ****?! People who ask questions like this are just so full blind partisan idiocy that they'd rather go around blustering and bragging about how much more patriotic they are than those on the other side. And there's always got to be some phantom enemy on the other side, whether it's the left, or the commies, or the muslims. It's all about them proving how much more patriotic they are than the "others".
If it weren't so pathetic, it would be hilarious.
McG is laughing at the troops. Is ridicule a form of support there, fancy pants?
FreeDuck wrote:McG is laughing at the troops. Is ridicule a form of support there, fancy pants?
Don't confuse my laughing at Drewdad with laughing at our troops... Actually, that sounds like something Cycloptichorn wouold say... you guys aren't conspiring are you?
McGentrix wrote:DrewDad wrote:And you should consider the words of all the military personnel, current and former, who state that questioning the neccessity of fighting is the highest form of supporting the troops.
That's too funny for a response.
I fail to see the humor. I suspect that a vast majority of the "bring it on; lock and load" contingent have never had someone shooting at them in earnest.
The e-mails, letters, and personal testimony coming back is the troops do know who does give a **** and they are grateful to those who support them. They are also frequently discouraged and angry by those who attempt to use them to get at their commander in chief and they think that is just plain wrong.
Meanwhile, I stick to my own personal conviction that once the posts dissolve into ad hominem attacks, overt, backhanded, or indirect, those flinging them are out of ammunition and are running on pure partisan schmuck.
Foxfyre wrote:The e-mails, letters, and personal testimony coming back is the troops do know who does give a **** and they are grateful to those who support them. They are also frequently discouraged and angry by those who attempt to use them to get at their commander in chief and they think that is just plain wrong.
Meanwhile, I stick to my own personal conviction that once the posts dissolve into ad hominem attacks, overt, backhanded, or indirect, those flinging them are out of ammunition and are running on pure partisan schmuck.
As if this whole thread isn't one big ad hominem.
You're a riot, foxy.
McGentrix wrote:FreeDuck wrote:McG is laughing at the troops. Is ridicule a form of support there, fancy pants?
Don't confuse my laughing at Drewdad with laughing at our troops... Actually, that sounds like something Cycloptichorn wouold say... you guys aren't conspiring are you?
Paranoia and conspiracy theories, how very righty.
All of this vying for affection from the troops must make you very weary.
I would put forth again that the objective of articles such as the one starting this thread, and the posting of the thread itself, is to convince the troops that the left hates them. Next thing you know, they'll be posting stories about a soldier being called a baby-killer. Those who are convinced that they are the "real" troop supporters do nothing but further this nonsense.
I could care less who supports the troops; I'm tired of anti-war freaks supporting the terrorists who are killing my brothers and sisters.
When the killers use the anti-war freaks words as weapons against my fellow soldiers I see that as supporting the enemy. You give them words to use and that only adds to others joining them in their fight.
The same thing happened in Vietnam and it is happening again today.
joefromchicago wrote:If criticism of the war at home demoralizes the troops at the front, then that is not a reason to curb the criticism, that's a reason to educate the troops. After all, in practical terms, it's easier to train a relatively small number of military personnel (who are already in the habit of being trained) than to restrain the unruly political passions of tens of millions of civilians back home. Moreover, focusing on the military, rather than the civilians, will have less of a restrictive effect on the "marketplace of ideas."
In any event, I find it hard to believe that the members of the armed forces are glum and pouty because there's a vigorous debate going on about the wisdom of American policy in the middle east. If that's the case, however, we need to find a way to make them happy warriors again. Maybe getting them involved in arts and crafts projects, or gardening, or putting on amateur theatricals will distract them from the distant, uncomfortable reminders of a democratic process. Or perhaps something as simple as a directive from the commander-in-chief, ordering everyone in the ranks to "cheer up," might do the trick.
I think the issue is really one of undermining the will of the troops and civilians to fight while a war is in progress and people are dying. Surely there must be a way to criticize the wisdom of the war in the first place without "sabotaging" the war effort.
People opposed "Mr. Madison's War," the War of 1812--and the New Englanders who ostensibly suffered most from the impressment of American sailors made hay while the sun shone selling provisions to the enemy at Halifax. People opposed "Mr. Polk's War," the Mexican War. People in the South opposed secession and a war of rebellion to the extent that the western counties of Virginia seceded from the state, and became West Virginia two years later; the people of eastern Tennessee were such staunch unionists, that Lincoln's second Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a Tennessee Unionist, and the Confederates felt obliged to lay seige to Knoxville. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and even had an Indiana Congressman arrested and imprisoned.
People vociferously opposed the Spanish War, and especially the wars against the Hukbalahap and Moro insurgencies. People opposed the First World War. People opposed the Korean and Vietnam Wars. World War Two is about the only war in American history in which the opposition to war so small as to be insignificant.
Guess this country just breeds traitors, by the right-wingnut definition.
Setanta wrote:Guess this country just breeds traitors, by the right-wingnut definition.
That's not it at all. It's just that now we are in the information age and we have to endure it more than we did in the past. It's more noticeable and more grotesque now than in past wars.
