Kerry & the Troops

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I suppose we've established what I wanted to establish.  That is, your hold a low opinion of our servicemen because they're in a position where they'll have to fight wars you don't agree with.  So be it.

That's all I was trying to get at.  I had made that inference from the beginning, but I wanted to hear confirmed.

[The Rabbi]

I suppose we've established what I wanted to establish.  That is, your hold a low opinion of our servicemen because they're in a position where they'll have to fight wars you don't agree with.  So be it.

That's all I was trying to get at.  I had made that inference from the beginning, but I wanted to hear confirmed.

And that's all we need to hear of Ezekiel's opinion.  I don't think he has anything further to add.  His experience with, what, a dozen captains in one military installation tells him that all servicemen are dumb as rocks.  He is entitled to that opinion.  No need to debate further.

[Ezekiel]

That is, your hold a low opinion of our servicemen because they're in a position where they'll have to fight wars you don't agree with.

Actually, I have issues that they willingly accept such a position.  (It's the same thing that created Wounded Knee, Mai Lai and our recent issues in Iraqi prisons.)

If the mission is bad or immoral, have the common decency -- isn't that who these supposed "patriots" are supposed to be? -- to attack the appropriate targets (leadership), not follow orders like automatons (which they do).  We didn't allow such a defense at Nurembourg (sp?), nor should we now.

In addition, I hold a, generally, low opinion because the military, often, represents the Lowest Common American Denominator (LCAD) of education, opportunity and success.  Indicating that ~88% of personnel have a high school diploma or GED is not comforting.

The obvious counter is, "that's better than open society."

That's crap.  When was the last time you held society up as righteous? 

[doczinn]

The obvious counter is, "that's better than open society."

That's crap.  When was the last time you held society up as righteous?

It's still better than the rest of society, which still makes your characterization of the miitary as the least-educated sector of society just plain wrong.

There are a few MOS's into which someone with low education and intelligence can enter, eg the infantry, and even in those will never rise very high.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That is, your hold a low opinion of our servicemen because they're in a position where they'll have to fight wars you don't agree with.

Actually, I have issues that they willingly accept such a position.  (It's the same thing that created Wounded Knee, Mai Lai and our recent issues in Iraqi prisons.)

If the mission is bad or immoral, have the common decency -- isn't that who these supposed "patriots" are supposed to be? -- to attack the appropriate targets (leadership), not follow orders like automatons (which they do).  We didn't allow such a defense at Nurembourg (sp?), nor should we now.

In addition, I hold a, generally, low opinion because the military, often, represents the Lowest Common American Denominator (LCAD) of education, opportunity and success.  Indicating that ~88% of personnel have a high school diploma or GED is not comforting.

The obvious counter is, "that's better than open society."

That's crap.  When was the last time you held society up as righteous? 

In recent times, our servicemen haven't had any need or cause to dispobey innapropriate orders - there haven't been any inappropriate orders given.  You may not like the current war, but there is no question that it was entered into by the duely elected leadership of the country, in accordance with the Constitution and all applicable laws.  To my knowledge, there haven't been any illegal orders given.  This isn't Nuremberg or Wounded Knee or Mai Lai, not by a long shot.  Those atrocities to not have any bearing on what's happening now.  It's a red herring.

The only times when our soldiers have acted illegally (which is statistically infrequent for an organization of this size and scope) is when an individual or very small group of individuals have acted outside their authority and against their orders.

I say it's remarkable that the military exceeds societal averages.  I might expect more of the military if the Pentagon had a stockpile of superhuman Americans hidden away somewhere from which to build its armies.  But expecting anything of that sort is irrational.

You can't possibly hold up society on average as being inferior.  It isn't and it can't be.  Inferior compared to what?  To itself?  Half of society will fall below the average.  Faulting society for that inescapable mathematical reality is senseless.

[lumpy]

wow... I go shooting and come back to a blackout and then this crap...

Ezekial :

Failed strategy, clustered mission

Hmmm... that seems to be about the only thing we'd agree on. that said... I'm a little offended that I got somehow stuck in the same category as you. You certainly prove that there are enough lunatics to go around for everyone.

Your description of our military obviously comes from a position of ignorance. Ironically I come from a military family and most of our circle of friends (retired officers) agree that this is a failed strategy and clustered mission... but unlike you, they actually have the intelligence understand the need for a military that isn't political. Now if only our current administration had the same understanding...

Indicating that ~88% of personnel have a high school diploma or GED is not comforting.

Of course you ignore that most join the Army at 18.

So... why the hell are you guys even responding to this guy? 

[Perd Hapley]

Lumpy, I don't remember anyone likening you to Ezekiel.  I hope you didn't get that impression from anything I said.  I only brought him up as an example of the kind of attitude you seemed to think did not exist. 

Ezekiel,

I don't intend to judge your entire character from my shallow knowledge of you, but it seems you don't understand citizenship.  Even in a representative republic with rights and freedoms, we don't get to individually decide whether this nation will or will not fight a war.  Those with a higher sense of duty than you or I have enlisted because they want to make that war work.  Or because they want to share the burden that others will have to bear, regardless of political opinions.  You claim our strategy is failed, and I wonder how you could know.  I submit it is a function of who you listen to and how much credibility you grant to them.  For the sake of argument, perhaps they're right.  But declining to serve in the military due to that belief is like self-fulfilling prophecy.  Of course we will lose if no one will fight.  Of course we will lose if soldiers desert in droves and other soldiers are influenced by that to do the same. 

Intelligence is not something that fits on a linear scale, (IQ measurements notwithstanding) that you can easily measure in a drunken conversation.  Whether a few military officers seem intelligent to someone in a completely different line of work is not an indication of how well they can fight or strategize against an enemy.  I would guess that, like most people, you don't have much training or experience in military science.  Nor do I.  So perhaps we should be careful in judging what strategy would have been more successful in Iraq or in the War on Terror in general.

[The Rabbi]

So... why the hell are you guys even responding to this guy? 

There's always at least one thing I can agree with someone on.

I dont see the point of giving Ezekiel any further platform.  He's made his views known.  I appreciate the comments that serving in the military does not mean being able to second-guess orders, strategy, or policy.
Is there anything else that needs to be said?

[lumpy]

There's always at least one thing I can agree with someone on.

that deserves a beer.

[Ezekiel]

Of course you ignore that most join the Army at 18.

Typically, they do so because they have no other options, or marketable skills, beyond their youth and naivete.  Decidedly not an uplifting picture.

I don't intend to judge your entire character from my shallow knowledge of you, but it seems you don't understand citizenship.  Even in a representative republic with rights and freedoms, we don't get to individually decide whether this nation will or will not fight a war.

I have a reasonable understanding of my rights and responsibilities, cannon fodder in the name of Draconian occupation is not one of them.  As for deciding individually whether this nation should fight a war, last check indicated to me that -- collectively -- most citizens consider this a bad idea, a botched operation and a raging cluster with no end.  I don't think such a position can be marginalized as individual.

Whether a few military officers seem intelligent to someone in a completely different line of work is not an indication of how well they can fight or strategize against an enemy.

Perhaps true, but said bezerkers certainly have no further standing then any of us as to WHETHER they should be fighting or strategizing against an "enemy."  There's, also, the current record of suckage that undermines their supposed intelligence: the best we'll possibly get out of this is a Korea-esque diplomatic stalemate.  (Which means we lost.)

So perhaps we should be careful in judging what strategy would have been more successful in Iraq or in the War on Terror in general.

Beyond, of course, determining whether we should continue down the money pit.

I dont see the point of giving Ezekiel any further platform.

"Sorry."

I appreciate the comments that serving in the military does not mean being able to second-guess orders, strategy, or policy.

I don't.  Frankly, as a leader, I think it is the definitive duty to second guess, point out alternatives, and actually think.

Is there anything else that needs to be said?

That's up to you.

[Perd Hapley]

I have a reasonable understanding of my rights and responsibilities, cannon fodder in the name of Draconian occupation is not one of them.  As for deciding individually whether this nation should fight a war, last check indicated to me that -- collectively -- most citizens consider this a bad idea, a botched operation and a raging cluster with no end.  I don't think such a position can be marginalized as individual.

  I'm not marginalizing it, I'm saying that it has been decided against by the people.  Whatever polls may tell you, the people have elected the officials that decided to invade Iraq.  The people returned George Bush to office even after people like yourself started calling it a "Draconian occupation" and a quagmire. 

Perhaps true, but said bezerkers certainly have no further standing then any of us as to WHETHER they should be fighting or strategizing against an "enemy."  There's, also, the current record of suckage that undermines their supposed intelligence: the best we'll possibly get out of this is a Korea-esque diplomatic stalemate.  (Which means we lost.)

Now, Ezekiel, you're confusing yourself.  Captains at Fort Sill are at the third rung of their military careers.  They do not decide whether we fight.  Further, they do not decide strategy within country.  I thought your side of the question were the ones claiming that the top leadership had botched things by refusing to listen to subordinates with good suggestions.  Captains would be the subordinates in this case.  And just what do you think a berzerker is?

Your intelligence isn't shining in this thread, should I make a snap judgement about your wits as you did with these guys relaxing in a bar?

Truthfully?  I think most of our troops are mindless, uneducated, boot-camp brainwashed automatons who adhere to a ridiculous foreign policy, regardless of their intelligent observation, based upon outmoded concepts of honoring those who issued the order.  (Have you found the order givers to be terribly honorable in recent memory?)

  Mindless?  How would you know?  Brainwashed?  Please.  Do you expect anyone to take that seriously?  Again, you don't understand citizenship.  Soldiers do not adhere to foreign policy, they follow orders, just like you follow orders when you have a civilian job.  Do you really think underlings in an organization should individually decide what overall course the organization should follow?  And you want to be a city manager, don't you? 

[CAnnoneer]

Blah, blah, blah. The military is not a democracy. Ranks follow orders. They cannot choose to disobey orders because they happen to disagree with the policies behind them.

You got beef with the system, phone your congressmen. Otherwise, you are suggesting a military coup d'etat against disagreeable policies by the civilian leadership. Just so that we are clear what we are talking about.

Soldiers that are in Iraq now are there for their country and the flag. They are not there because they agree with the policies that sent them there.

Whether you yourself want to serve or not is irrelevant. You certainly do not want to work in all professions out there, but you make use of the products and services others provide through their professions. Why is the military any different?

[Perd Hapley]

[sigh]  The infantry (and others) ARE "mouth breathers," if they continue to lie down, adhere to a code that has forgotton them, and acquiesce to a concept of leadership that has sold them out.  In sum, pawns.

The military is codified Socialism, and the final vestige for those who cannot hack Capitalism.

There are military veterans and reservists that own their own companies.  The military is a job like any other.  It is no more socialist than McDonalds.  Would you prefer we employ mercenary companies that fight at their own whim?  Come to think of it, that sounds more like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. 

Sir, I was an infantryman.  And I would go right now, if required.  My military contract expired last year.  I was planning to get married.  Just about two months out, I was suddenly faced with a possible stop-loss that would have sent me to Iraq and kept me in the military for at least another 18-24 months.  Did I make the slightest effort to beg my way out?  No.  I would have gone.  As it is, I am not much of a soldier, so they are better off without me.

I suppose I was a mouth-breather when I made A's for the past three semesters.  I suppose I was a mouth-breather when I was reading The Log From the Sea of Cortez in the driver's seat of my Bradley.  I suppose I was a mouth-breather when I was studying Marx and other Communist revolutionaries.  I suppose I was a mouth-breather when I was writing poetry in Bosnia, and reading W.E.B. BuBois.  Whatever.

[roo_ster]

Ezekiel:

Careful with that broad brush your using, the pigment could slop all over your own self.

Hmm. If I am a mouth breather, with my record of credentials and accomplishments, how might one classify this?  Perhaps The Straight Dope can provide a clue.

[Perd Hapley]

First sorry for my rushed response before I was heading out of the office. What I meant was that from the first moment I posted on this board many of you assumed I was a troll (whatever that means)...

I'll tell you what it means.  It refers to a person who posts to a board merely with the intention of stirring up emotions and personal attacks.  The first response to your first post was agreement.  You were not called a troll until you behaved trollishly.  In your fourth post, you betrayed your misconception that this board is some kind of Bush-loving, conservative echo chamber.  You accused us of a kool-aid-drinking hatefest and right away expected to have your post reported.  So, you insulted us as a group, baselessly, with the expectation that you would banned.  Trolls do that, especially this Blackburn fellow.  It was only after that that I called you a troll.  I do not retract the accusation, as your behavior has not changed.

As you can see, most of us find Ezekiel's posts far more offensive.  Have we called him a troll?  

[doczinn]

Typically, they do so because they have no other options, or marketable skills, beyond their youth and naivete.

Completely, objectively wrong.

As for deciding individually whether this nation should fight a war, last check indicated to me that -- collectively -- most citizens consider this a bad idea, a botched operation and a raging cluster with no end.

So you assert that a soldier is a moron for "blindly" following the policy if the government, and want him to blindly (by an individual decision) follow the much-less-coalesced "public opinion?" Public opinion is expressed through the process which elected George Bush. Approval of the war, like it or not, was expressed by reelecting George Bush. You position, then, regardless of how you try to justify it with twisted logic, is that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

said bezerkers certainly have no further standing then any of us as to WHETHER they should be fighting or strategizing against an "enemy." 

Well said, except for the slur. You admit, then, that military members should not get to decide who the enemy is, or when to fight him? It's very big of you to reverse yourself like that.

[JonnyB]

Hey!

Did anyone mention that the troops are from the Minnesota National Guard? 1/34th Infantry - Go Red Bull!

Rumor has it that everyone in the photo has at least one college degree! I can't substantiate that, though.

My son is in Fallujah; he has a degree in Construction Management and was employed as a project manager before being activated.

jb

[Perd Hapley]

Zeke, I think you have a bigger problem in that you imply that no intelligent, free-thinking person would believe in the Iraqi war.  That is, flatly and objectively, untrue.  If you wish to possess any intellectual honesty, you will have to face the fact that intelligent, well-informed people disagree on major issues, such as Iraq.  You must further accept that some people much smarter than you or I have done things that completely contradicted their material well-being.

So, even if you think they've made some bad choices and are misled in certain matters, you must allow the possibility that some of those people wearing the uniform in Iraq are smarter than any of us.  And I'm willing to admit there are some hardened, gun-hating leftists who are smarter than I am.  Or at least smarter than you.

[lumpy]

You were not called a troll until you behaved trollishly.  In your fourth post, you betrayed your misconception that this board is some kind of Bush-loving, conservative echo chamber.  You accused us of a kool-aid-drinking hatefest and right away expected to have your post reported.

Hmmm... are you ignoring the context? My third post was about how many of you seem to focus on Kerry because it's politically more expedient than focusing on the actual candidates and issues. Many of you use Kerry to throw a broad blanket on all democrats, as you implied and stated all over this board.

As far as my use of the term neocon... you seem to take that as some sort of slander... the terms roots are conservative, not liberal and the term was coined originally by conservatives. the fact that many neocons run from the term today is a testament to the current state of political discourse. To many on your side the term 'liberal' is a slander to those of us on the left... actually I think much of the problem today is that the democrats are to PC to stand up and proudly accept that term. I am a liberal and I don't have any issues with that. Those that support Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush support neo conservative values... the fact that many on the right find it derogatory is unfortunate and very telling.

as far as my fourth post... you ignored what I was responding to...

Congratulations, Lumpy.  You fooled me.  It took me a second to realize that even YOU don't really believe it was "obvious Bush joke."

So, are you going to keep being distracted, or are you going to start a thread on the Iraq war, the VA, etc.?  Why are you in this thread, anyway?

I was talking about Kerry and you suggested I leave. I was talking about Kerry and you made the same error I did with you which was to make assumptions about me. I apologized for that and will do so again... but again... I have been on topic thoughout my postings with the ocassional off topic remark to respond to a poster. In fact I was the one that posted Kerry's prepared text... I was the one that posted his comments in context. Again... if I posted anything as fact and am incorrect I would appreciate it being pointed out to me.

If the purpose of this board is to simply tell each other how much you hate Kerry and to not have debate, discussion or facts then let me know and I'm gone. If I make you uncomfortable maybe you need to look at what it is that makes you uncomfortable and address that, not suggest that I leave, or that I'm behaving as a troll.

[lumpy]

In an interview with KABC shortly after he was accused of having an affair with a gay prostitute and using methamphetamines, Evangelical leader Rev. Ted Haggard denied claims about him made by a male prostitute.

During his appearance, which may be heard below, Haggard compares his sex scandal to the calls on Senator Kerry to apologize for "botching" a joke about the Iraq war.

"We live in a crazy world," Rev. Haggard said, "as you know, John Kerry said some things and we all know he didn't mean what they're saying he meant."

On air, Haggard denied knowing accuser Mike Jones, having ever had gay sex or using any type of illegal drug. It has since been reported that he admitted to his overseers at New Life Church that some of the accusations against him were true.

Apparently even republican anti-gay, allegedly gay, evangelicals understand what Kerry meant.

[Ron]

We often hear what we want to hear in life.

Being a conservative and being familiar with JFKerry over the years it is not a stretch for me to believe he is once again denigrating the troops. He has done it on a regular basis.

The Democrats/progressives/liberals don't want to think the worst of JFKerry, they accept his explanation at face value, they believe the best of him.

I look at what he said. Maybe he didn't mean what he said, I'm not so sure.

[Ezekiel]

Damned fine post: no offense taken.  (I can play with th big boys.) 

Zeke, I think you have a bigger problem in that you imply that no intelligent, free-thinking person would believe in the Iraqi war.  That is, flatly and objectively, untrue.  If you wish to possess any intellectual honesty, you will have to face the fact that intelligent, well-informed people disagree on major issues, such as Iraq.  You must further accept that some people much smarter than you or I have done things that completely contradicted their material well-being.

So, even if you think they've made some bad choices and are misled in certain matters, you must allow the possibility that some of those people wearing the uniform in Iraq are smarter than any of us.  And I'm willing to admit there are some hardened, gun-hating leftists who are smarter than I am.  Or at least smarter than you.

[Ezekiel]

Hmm. If I am a mouth breather, with my record of credentials and accomplishments, how might one classify this?

Searching for that opportunity I believe in.  That's, actually, quite difficult to do these days.  Ugh! 

[lumpy]

Being a conservative and being familiar with JFKerry over the years it is not a stretch for me to believe he is once again denigrating the troops.

while, given the evidence, I have to disagree with your position. All that aside, I'd have to ask... even if you think he denigrated the troops, what does that have to do with anything other than Kerry is an idiot. Do you believe that Kerry speaks for me?

My position on this board has consistently been that this has allowed the republicans to focus on a non-issues and keep the focus off their losing issues Iraq, ethics, spending, stem cell... it's apparently worked great for the right to run on the fact that Kerry is an idiot who is not running, rather than their own record. 

By the way... on the stem cell issue... the reason researcher are excited about embryonic stem cells is that they can develop into anything. They offer the promise of a more diverse range of health solutions than Adult stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, which come from the inner cell mass of a human embryo, have the potential to develop into all or nearly all of the tissues in the body. The scientific term for this characteristic is "pluripotentiality."

Adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are unspecialized, can renew themselves, and can become specialized to yield all of the cell types of the tissue from which they originate. Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop into cells of another tissue, no adult stem cell has been shown in culture to be pluripotent.

The potential of embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research may eventually lead to therapies that could be used to treat diseases that afflict approximately 128 million Americans. Treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson's patient's brain; transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients; and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.

btw; source for the above...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html

[Ron]

what does that have to do with anything other than Kerry is an idiot

Being the most recent Democratic nominee for President he is the standard bearer of the party and a reflection of it also IMHO.

How is that not germane?

Where does he differ with his party on issues concerning the WOT/Iraq?