PDA

View Full Version : Soldier's email to the Des Moines register


Cochise
06-15-2007, 09:41 AM
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070523/OPINIon01/705230371

Carlson: Shift news to successes in Iraq, soldier urges
JOHN CARLSON'S IOWA

A tired and disgusted Iowa soldier fired off an e-mail a few days ago, telling family and friends how things are going in Iraq.

A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Jim Funk has flown more than 80 combat missions since he arrived there in October.

He described his Boone-based unit's successes after 5,000 hours of flying out of LSA Anaconda, a huge American base north of Baghdad. He talked about the tragedies he and his fellow Iowans have witnessed and his worries of becoming complacent as he goes on mission after mission.

Morale?

"We're treading water," the Ames man told the people closest to him. "We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us.

Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our 'illegal occupation' of Iraq."

His greatest frustration? The performance of the people who deliver the news to the American people.

I'll let him say it, in his own words, in the letter, which found its way to me:

"Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.

"We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn't see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you're not exempt, you suck also).

"Let's give you an example. A couple of days ago we conducted an air assault. We lifted troops into an area for an operation. The operation went well and our ground troops killed (insurgents) and took several prisoners, freed a few hostages and uncovered a weapons cache containing munitions and chemicals that were going to be used in improvised bombs.

"The next morning I woke up and turned on AFN (Armed Forces Network) and watched the nightly news (NBC). Nothing, none of that reported. But the daily car bomb report was reported, and the file footage was not even from the event. There was a car bomb in the Sadr City area and your news report showed old car bomb footage from another part of town from some other time.

"So we really set the enemy back that night but all the enemy had to do was turn on the news and be reassured that the enemy's agenda (objective) was still going to be fed to the American public.

"We, the soldiers, keep breaking the back of the enemy. You, the media, keep rejuvenating the enemy.

"How hard would it be to contact the PAO (public affairs officer) of the 1st CAV, 36th CAB, 25th ID or the Marines and ask what did you guys accomplish today - good and bad? How about some insurgent blooper videos? Now that would be something to show on the evening news.

"Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers."

It's a punch in the nose to the news media from Funk, 39, a full-time employee of the Iowa National Guard.

Why did he write it?

"I am just tired of busting my butt over here and coming home every night and turning on the TV (Armed Forces Network) and hearing how we are failing miserably," he told me in an e-mail.

You may agree with what Funk has to say. You may not.

Many in my business certainly won't. But Funk is a soldier, fighting a war, who has earned the right to be heard.

Columnist John Carlson can be reached at (515) 284-8204 or jcarlson@dmreg.com

recxjake
06-15-2007, 09:47 AM
Bet you won't find this on the nightly news either.

jAZ
06-15-2007, 09:57 AM
Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives.
That says everything you need to know about his perspective.

He's frustrated, but too close to the action.

Even the President and his people have stopped making this case. You can support the troops by not supporting their mission. It's important to debate the war and our role over there. The President, the Generals and the Soldiers don't get carte blanche to do whatever mission they want whenever they want.

The reality is that he, his Generals and his Commander In Chief all work for us as American Citizens. We are ultimately responsible for all of this stuff.

And if the public doesn't support the war, and seeks to pull the troops out... then that's very much OK.

Cochise
06-15-2007, 10:10 AM
That says everything you need to know about his perspective.

He's frustrated, but too close to the action.

He's too close to Iraq to understand what's happening in Iraq?

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:16 AM
He's too close to Iraq to understand what's happening in Iraq?
I didn't say that.

Did you read my post? I don't need to retype it just because you want me to have said something else.

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:21 AM
He's too close to Iraq to understand what's happening in Iraq?
However, even though that wasn't what I said... or was talking about.

Just because a solider is in Iraq doesn't mean he has a full understanding of anything but what he's exposed to.

Just because I live in Tucson and have a good understanding of the economic condidtions here... doesn't mean I know what our national economy is doing.

I'd be rather arrogant to say I do. And you'd be rather arrogant to tell others to stop questioning me if I were to say I do.

dirk digler
06-15-2007, 10:29 AM
Very good article Cochise thanks for posting it. I agree totally that there should be more good news coming out of the news media instead of just all bad.

But as the Don Henley song goes Dirty Laundry sells.

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:48 AM
"Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers."

It's a punch in the nose to the news media from Funk, 39, a full-time employee of the Iowa National Guard.

Why did he write it?

"I am just tired of busting my butt over here and coming home every night and turning on the TV (Armed Forces Network) and hearing how we are failing miserably," he told me in an e-mail.
I don't blame him because can't see the forrest through the trees. It's not his job to do so.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_report_11
Pentagon: Iraqi violence still rising
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Thu Jun 14, 1:51 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday.

In its required quarterly report on security, political and economic developments in Iraq, covering the February-May period, the Pentagon also raised questions about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to fulfill a pledge made in January to prohibit political interference in security operations and to allow no safe havens for sectarian militias.

Overall, however, the report said it was too soon to judge whether the security crackdown was working.

The security operation was launched Feb. 14 and is still unfolding as the last of an additional 28,000 or so U.S. forces are getting into position in and around the Iraqi capital. The Pentagon is required by Congress to provide its initial assessment of the operation in July, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has said he will report in September.

Wednesday's broader report, the eighth in a series, said that while violence fell in the capital and in Anbar province west of Baghdad during the February-May period, it increased in other areas, particularly in the outlying areas of Baghdad province and in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad and in the northern province of Nineva.

Chiefnj
06-15-2007, 10:52 AM
Someone call FOX and complain.

StcChief
06-15-2007, 11:31 AM
Better yet don't watch the news.

kepp
06-15-2007, 11:38 AM
Just because I live in Tucson and have a good understanding of the economic condidtions here... doesn't mean I know what our national economy is doing.

I'd be rather arrogant to say I do. And you'd be rather arrogant to tell others to stop questioning me if I were to say I do.
You admit this and then, in the same breath, claim to know more about what's going on in Iraq than he does? :rolleyes:

jAZ
06-15-2007, 03:44 PM
You admit this and then, in the same breath, claim to know more about what's going on in Iraq than he does? :rolleyes:
WTF are you talking about?

I admit this and then claim he doesn't know as much about what's going on in Iraq as the Pentagon and the Congress.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_report_11

Pentagon: Iraqi violence still rising
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Thu Jun 14, 1:51 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday.

In its required quarterly report on security, political and economic developments in Iraq, covering the February-May period, the Pentagon also raised questions about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to fulfill a pledge made in January to prohibit political interference in security operations and to allow no safe havens for sectarian militias.

Overall, however, the report said it was too soon to judge whether the security crackdown was working.

The security operation was launched Feb. 14 and is still unfolding as the last of an additional 28,000 or so U.S. forces are getting into position in and around the Iraqi capital. The Pentagon is required by Congress to provide its initial assessment of the operation in July, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has said he will report in September.

Wednesday's broader report, the eighth in a series, said that while violence fell in the capital and in Anbar province west of Baghdad during the February-May period, it increased in other areas, particularly in the outlying areas of Baghdad province and in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad and in the northern province of Nineva.

Taco John
06-15-2007, 04:08 PM
"Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives."

This guy sounds plenty brainwashed. I'd love to hear his thoughts on what exactly the mission and objectives in Iraq are. But apparently we're not supposed to know these things because they embolden the enemy: they might then know what we're there to do and try to stop us! :eek:

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 08:28 PM
You want to know what is simply amazing to me?

It's unmitigated and sheer arrogance, contempt, and condescension for our troops that motivates anyone to say that the "troops have died for nothing." We have a volunteer force in this country; anyone who doesn't understand what their possible sacrifice is about...need not apply. It's really as simple as that. Anyone who suggests that the troops don't really understand what they are "in for" or their possible sacrifice, is egaged in self-delusions and motivated by ideological ignorance.

It's insulting and patronizing to our fine troops to suggest those brave men and women who have fought don't understand that simple concept.

Unbelievable gall, IMO. :shake:

mlyonsd
06-15-2007, 08:44 PM
You want to know what is simply amazing to me?

It's unmitigated and sheer arrogance, contempt, and condescension for our troops that motivates anyone to say that the "troops have died for nothing." We have a volunteer force in this country; anyone who doesn't understand what their possible sacrifice is about...need not apply. It's really as simple as that. Anyone who suggests that the troops don't really understand what they are "in for" or their possible sacrifice, is egaged in self-delusions and motivated by ideological ignorance.

It's insulting and patronizing to our fine troops to suggest those brave men and women who have fought don't understand that simple concept.

Unbelievable gall, IMO. :shake:

One would think that someone in country risking their life would know more than someone that hasn't been there.

The guy might be wrong, but to question his intelligience by suggesting he's been brainwashed is pretty arrogant.

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 08:48 PM
One would think that someone in country risking their life would know more than someone that hasn't been there.

The guy might be wrong, but to question his intelligience by suggesting he's been brainwashed is pretty arrogant.Yup. Any veteran (at least ones from the post-Vietnam, all volunteer force we've had in place now for over 30 years) understands the risk, and they understand their possible sacrifice. To suggest otherwise, is simply peacenik bullshit.

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:09 PM
You want to know what is simply amazing to me?

It's unmitigated and sheer arrogance, contempt, and condescension for our troops that motivates anyone to say that the "troops have died for nothing." We have a volunteer force in this country; anyone who doesn't understand what their possible sacrifice is about...need not apply. It's really as simple as that. Anyone who suggests that the troops don't really understand what they are "in for" or their possible sacrifice, is egaged in self-delusions and motivated by ideological ignorance.

It's insulting and patronizing to our fine troops to suggest those brave men and women who have fought don't understand that simple concept.

Unbelievable gall, IMO. :shake:
Shouldn't you post this sort type of completely unrelated musings in a seperate thread?

Or did I miss the person who said anything on this thread about either "troops having died for nothing" or "troops don't really understand what they are 'in for'"?

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:11 PM
The guy might be wrong, but to question his intelligience by suggesting he's been brainwashed is pretty arrogant.
I hardly think it's a stretch to suggest that part of military service is voluntary brainwashing.

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:12 PM
Yup. Any veteran (at least ones from the post-Vietnam, all volunteer force we've had in place now for over 30 years) understands the risk, and they understand their possible sacrifice. To suggest otherwise, is simply peacenik bullshit.
Where are you getting this "understand the risk" stuff?

You seem to be grabbing stuff outa the air here. I must be missing something.

Taco John
06-15-2007, 10:52 PM
One would think that someone in country risking their life would know more than someone that hasn't been there.

The guy might be wrong, but to question his intelligience by suggesting he's been brainwashed is pretty arrogant.


By suggesting that I'm arrogant, you have emboldened the enemy. People are dying indirectly because of your assertion.

Taco John
06-15-2007, 10:53 PM
Shouldn't you post this sort type of completely unrelated musings in a seperate thread?




That's Kotter's gig... He's a filibusterer. All fluff, no stuff.

Amnorix
06-15-2007, 10:58 PM
You want to know what is simply amazing to me?

It's unmitigated and sheer arrogance, contempt, and condescension for our troops that motivates anyone to say that the "troops have died for nothing." We have a volunteer force in this country; anyone who doesn't understand what their possible sacrifice is about...need not apply. It's really as simple as that. Anyone who suggests that the troops don't really understand what they are "in for" or their possible sacrifice, is egaged in self-delusions and motivated by ideological ignorance.

It's insulting and patronizing to our fine troops to suggest those brave men and women who have fought don't understand that simple concept.

Unbelievable gall, IMO. :shake:

There is a fundamental difference between what the serviceman or woman signs up for, and what happens if the military is "misused" (for lack of a better term). It is, at least hypothetically, entirely possible for volunteer troops to die for nothing. If they are used in a way that is wasteful of their talents, abilities, training and the furtherance of this country's direct and indirect national goals, then (in such a situation), volunteer or not, they died for nothing in a certain sense.

Again -- I'm not saying this IS the case in Iraq, but merely as a hypothetical. Your statement suggests that because they are volunters, and know that they MIGHT die in combat, that they cannot possibly be wasted. That's incorrect.

Amnorix
06-15-2007, 11:05 PM
One would think that someone in country risking their life would know more than someone that hasn't been there.

Not necessarily. It's all context. Being well read in the subjects, I have a much better understanding and knowledge of the causes and critical events, strategies, decisions and key events in World War II than nearly any soldier that fought through it.

Do I know diddily compared to them about how soldiers got through daily life or the specific particulars as to the jobs that EACH did, specific to that person? Definitely not.

But GI Joe knew nothing about the solving of the Enigma code, or Code Purple, or the numerous strategic mistakes Hitler made, or how the diversion of troops to subdue Greece may have cost Hitler the conquest of Russia, or the decision to press on in Egypt rather than take Malta may have cost Rommel any realistic chance of winning in Africa prior to the American landings, or the negotiations with the French leadership prior to those landings, etc. ad infinitum.

I grant, of course, that the modern soldier is better educated and better informed than the average soldier of prior generations -- CNN and the internet etc. being what they are, but a soldier is HYPER focused on daily to daily realities of survival and mission accomplishment, and isn't (and probably shouldn't) be remotely concerned with larger strategic objectives and consdierations. That's the job of his superiors within the military.

Logical
06-15-2007, 11:20 PM
This John Carlson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carlson

If so he is not exactly an unbiased media source with no agenda.

I think it is sad that soldier feels we don't support him because we oppose the occupation.

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 11:46 PM
I hardly think it's a stretch to suggest that part of military service is voluntary brainwashing.

You would certainly know a lot about brainwashing....as a perfect victim, yourself....


Where are you getting this "understand the risk" stuff?

You seem to be grabbing stuff outa the air here. I must be missing something.
Just because some of you are smart enough to not directly say it, because you know how ridiculous it would be....doesn't mean you haven't said it, if indirectly, through the things you have said.

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 11:51 PM
There is a fundamental difference between what the serviceman or woman signs up for, and what happens if the military is "misused" (for lack of a better term). It is, at least hypothetically, entirely possible for volunteer troops to die for nothing. If they are used in a way that is wasteful of their talents, abilities, training and the furtherance of this country's direct and indirect national goals, then (in such a situation), volunteer or not, they died for nothing in a certain sense.

Again -- I'm not saying this IS the case in Iraq, but merely as a hypothetical. Your statement suggests that because they are volunters, and know that they MIGHT die in combat, that they cannot possibly be wasted. That's incorrect.

If you mean, by "wasted"...that some will die, who shouldn't have--I can see why you would think that way. However, make no mistake....no soldier I ever served with was unaware the possibility of that....and yet they served willingly and proudly, with full knowledge of that possibility.

Logical
06-15-2007, 11:52 PM
You would certainly know a lot about brainwashing....as a perfect victim, yourself....



Just because some of you are smart enough to not directly say it, because you know how ridiculous it would be....doesn't mean you haven't said it, if indirectly, through the things you have said.

Now Rob is channeling your inner being jAZ, be careful he will be psychicly stealing your wife soon.

DaneMcCloud
06-16-2007, 01:04 AM
Personally, I think this is a work of fiction. I find it hard to believe that a soldier in Iraq would allow his personal letters to be published while serving. Especially without the intervention of the military.

Taco John
06-16-2007, 04:06 AM
Just because some of you are smart enough to not directly say it, because you know how ridiculous it would be....doesn't mean you haven't said it, if indirectly, through the things you have said.



There you have it Justin. Even though you didn't say it, and Kotter couldn't come up with any quotes that would even put you in the neighborhood, you know you said it. Indirectly. You're indirectly killing troops.

WHY WHY WHY!



(Kotter, you're robbing kids of a good education)

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2007, 04:39 AM
1) Thou shalt not question the soldier.
2) Thou shalt not question 'Mer-ca
3) If anyone transgresses either 1) or 2), they hate 'Mer-ca and love the terrorists
4) Every time a soldier dies a liberal gets his wings.

Saggysack
06-16-2007, 05:28 AM
I hardly think it's a stretch to suggest that part of military service is voluntary brainwashing.


It's exactly why they mainly look for the young. 18yr olds are the easiest to mold.

It's not all bad though, I would be twice the shitbag I am today if it wasn't for the military. I'm willing to bet, that it is that way with most prior military members though.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 08:31 AM
....

(Kotter, you're robbing kids of a good education)

Are you really this obtuse? To think that my discussions/personal-political-beliefs-expressed-here/behavior/antics/sillinesss HERE...has ANY bearing whatsoever on the execution of my professional responsibilities in the real world? :spock:

That would be like me suggesting your moonbat-wacko-conspiracy loyalities that you made abundantly clear here, should somehow reflect on your own professional conduct.

I'm quite sure you'd LOVE to have your clients/accounts read about your thoughts on 9/11... LMAO LMAO LMAO

jAZ
06-16-2007, 08:57 AM
Just because some of you are smart enough to not directly say it, because you know how ridiculous it would be....doesn't mean you haven't said it, if indirectly, through the things you have said.
I'm trying to express my sincere desire to understand your comments. I don't see any connection to this discussion at all. It seems completely out of left field. Like... no one is thinking about the idea even if some might have an opinion on it.... kinda left field.

What in this thread prompted you to bring this into the discussion? Can you quote the person/comment that got you thinking on this line?

jAZ
06-16-2007, 09:01 AM
There you have it Justin. Even though you didn't say it, and Kotter couldn't come up with any quotes that would even put you in the neighborhood, you know you said it. Indirectly. You're indirectly killing troops.

WHY WHY WHY!



(Kotter, you're robbing kids of a good education)
Wow... if he thinks that I'm the one starting (even indirectly) that topic of discussion... and not someone else on this thread... then I'm REALLY lost.

Help Kotter. Just quote the part that gave you suspicion of even an unspoken POV on that subject.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 09:11 AM
Wow... if he thinks that I'm the one starting (even indirectly) that topic of discussion... and not someone else on this thread... then I'm REALLY lost.

Help Kotter. Just quote the part that gave you suspicion of even an unspoken POV on that subject.

If I'm REALLY bored later...I'll attempt to do a search for you.

However, two things: have you EVER criticized anyone who has made those claims (the soldiers died for "nothing," or anything similar?) here in DC? Second, why is it such a stretch, based on the things you've said about this war and Bush's "lies" and the tragedy and 'folly' of this war....for anyone to think you would agree the troops lives have been "wasted" or they have died for "nothing?" I don't recall you criticizing Sheehan, Edwards, or any of the other disrespectful moonbat critics of this war, when they've said such stupid shit. Maybe I missed it though.

As I said, if I'm really bored...I'll do a search later; but the search function on this site, as you know, sucks boaws.

jAZ
06-16-2007, 09:20 AM
If I'm REALLY bored later...I'll attempt to do a search for you.

However, two things: have you EVER criticized anyone who has made those claims (the soldiers died for "nothing," or anything similar?) here in DC? Second, why is it such a stretch, based on the things you've said about this war and Bush's "lies" and the tragedy and 'folly' of this war....for anyone to think you would agree the troops lives have been "wasted" or they have died for "nothing?" I don't recall you criticizing Sheehan, Edwards, or any of the other disrespectful moonbat critics of this war, when they've said such stupid shit. Maybe I missed it though.

As I said, if I'm really bored...I'll do a search later; but the search function on this site, as you know, sucks boaws.
Ok, I'm going to assume it's a simple oversight on your part, or a lack of clarity on mine. But the topic in question that I'm referencing is this...

"Anyone who suggests that the troops don't really understand what they are "in for" or their possible sacrifice, is egaged in self-delusions and motivated by ideological ignorance.

It's insulting and patronizing to our fine troops to suggest those brave men and women who have fought don't understand that simple concept.

Unbelievable gall, IMO."

That's the subject I'm lost as to why it's here in this thread.

I'm not disputing anything WRT to "wasted". There are plenty of people who largely feel that way. But that's definately not what I've been asking about. And neither of those topics are raised in this thread here by anyone but you as far as I can tell.

(Note: there is no need for you to search the archives to find references to wasted. I'm not asking for that, as I agree people feel that way.)

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 09:34 AM
Ok, I'm going to assume it's a simple oversight on your part, or a lack of clarity on mine. But the topic in question that I'm referencing is this..."Anyone who suggests that the troops don't really understand what they are "in for" or their possible sacrifice, is egaged in self-delusions and motivated by ideological ignorance.

It's insulting and patronizing to our fine troops to suggest those brave men and women who have fought don't understand that simple concept.

Unbelievable gall, IMO."That's the subject I'm lost as to why it's here in this thread.

I'm not disputing anything WRT to "wasted". There are plenty of people who largely feel that way. But that's definitely not what I've been asking about. And neither of those topics are raised in this thread here by anyone but you as far as I can tell.

(Note: there is no need for you to search the archives to find references to wasted. I'm not asking for that, as I agree people feel that way.)

I began that post, with "You want to know what is simply amazing to me?"...which suggests that this was an aside from the original thread starter. The sort of comments directed at this soldier by some, are consistent with the thinking of those that also suggest our soldiers lives have been "wasted" or they died for "nothing." It's complete misguided and arrogant hogwash in my book. My aside demonstrates, an even larger arrogance in my mind....than the one here in this thread (of "we know better than the troops on the ground" sort of bullcrap.


That post:

"Anyone who suggests that the troops don't really understand what they are "in for" or their possible sacrifice, is engaged in self-delusions and motivated by ideological ignorance. It's insulting and patronizing to our fine troops to suggest those brave men and women who have fought don't understand that simple concept. Unbelievable gall, IMO."

THAT post is my response to anyone who considers our soldiers lives to have been "wasted" or say that they have died for "nothing."

And it speaks to a more ridiculous arrogance than the one directly addressed here, but is another example of the sheer arrogance and disrespectful condescension that you, and other critics....direct at our soldiers when you say some of the things you say.

I know you will disagree....but that's my take.

jAZ
06-16-2007, 09:42 AM
I began that post, with "You want to know what is simply amazing to me?"...which suggests that this was an aside from the original thread starter. The sort of comments directed at this soldier by some, are consistent with the thinking of those that also suggest our soldiers lives have been "wasted" or they died for "nothing." It's complete misguided and arrogant hogwash in my book. My aside demonstrates, an even larger arrogance in my mind....than the one here in this thread (of "we know better than the troops on the ground" sort of bullcrap.


That post:



THAT post is my response to anyone who considers our soldiers lives to have been "wasted" or say that they have died for "nothing."

And it speaks to a more ridiculous arrogance than the one directly addressed here, but is another example of the sheer arrogance and disrespectful condescension that you, and other critics....direct at our soldiers when you say some of the things you say.

I know you will disagree....but that's my take.
Well, I guess that helps a little. Thanks.

I don't mind asides, but yours seems to be an aside to an aside which really seemed (not only wrong, IMO) but way, way off topic.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 09:52 AM
Well, I guess that helps a little. Thanks.

I don't mind asides, but yours seems to be an aside to an aside which really seemed (not only wrong, IMO) but way, way off base.

Let's try this, then:

1. Generally speaking, who is more knowledgeable and credible about what is actually "going on" in Iraq? Soldiers, or the journalists and pundits who are writing about it....usually from the safety of some cubicle in NY or Washington....to beat a deadline so they can make "happy hour" at the ESPNZone.

2. Do you consider our soldiers lives to have been "wasted" and them to have died for "nothing?" Which clearly suggests you consider them, mostly, to not understand their own possible sacrifice....or to have been, generally, "brainwashed" by the evil government?

3. Do you think it's condescending and arrogant for people to seriously question the competence, knowing sacrifice, and personal commitment of the soldiers who serve our country in an all volunteer force?

I'll eagerly await your take on these items. Especially to the extent that I've misunderstood or misconstrued YOUR actual position.

Thanks.

PunkinDrublic
06-16-2007, 10:22 AM
What a bunch of garbage. Sending our servicemen and women into handle an impossible situation (nation buildding) is really what I would call not supporting the troops. Calling for our troops to be brought back alive and not in flag draped coffins is supporting the troops.

Phobia
06-16-2007, 10:27 AM
I don't think the soldier's opinion is off base. Many people believe in the power of positive thinking and encouragement. There's very little encouraging about Iraq in the media today. I'm certain there's plenty of daily successes over there - it can't all be negative but that's what dominates the airwaves. That has to be incredibly frustrating to our troops. I think he's right in the assertation that it encourages the insurgents.

But then, I'm just a brainwashed former military guy so what do I know?

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 10:29 AM
What... Calling for our troops to be brought back alive and not in flag draped coffins is supporting the troops.

I can agree with that. :clap:

Maybe you would be intested in answering the questions I posed to jAZ? How about it? FTR, I really would like to hear the answers to those from someone who feels so strongly about their opinion from that side. Thanks in advance, if you decide to take up the challenge. :thumb:

RINGLEADER
06-16-2007, 10:33 AM
Well Jaz is entirely right that any American has the right to express himself in almost any way in any forum (despite what Trent Lott may believe).

I think the long-term implications of this war are important to consider. I think many don't give those implications their proper weight. Just my opinion.

That said, both practically and politically, the people in charge of this war have screwed it all up. I have always been for the idea of trying to impose the ideals of democracy but there is no reason why our troops should still be policing that country. I realize it takes us, in the best of conditions, 4 years to manufacture officers, but whether we change course today or five years from now the Iraqis are going to have to pull themselves up eventually.

Imagine the difference in the situation if Bush had framed success on that aircraft carrier as getting Saddam, establishing a new govt, and training a new army and then PULLING BACK TO BASES that would allow us to project our power when needed, keep a footprint in the enemies backyard, protect the flow of oil, and get our soldiers off the streets of Baghdad.

If he had done that Iraq would have many of the same problems it does today, but our soldiers wouldn't be dying the way they are because of them.

PunkinDrublic
06-16-2007, 10:53 AM
I can agree with that. :clap:

Maybe you would be intested in answering the questions I posed to jAZ? How about it? FTR, I really would like to hear the answers to those from someone who feels so strongly about their opinion from that side. Thanks in advance, if you decide to take up the challenge. :thumb:

What is the question? I get lost reading you and Jaz's tit for tat semantics.

Phobia
06-16-2007, 11:06 AM
What is the question? I get lost reading you and Jaz's tit for tat semantics.

No kidding. The point of the entire thread is lost with the method of debating - and it has nothing to do with the thread at all - it's mostly personality/agenda clashing.

jAZ
06-16-2007, 11:08 AM
Let's try this, then:

1. Generally speaking, who is more knowledgeable and credible about what is actually "going on" in Iraq? Soldiers, or the journalists and pundits who are writing about it....usually from the safety of some cubicle in NY or Washington....to beat a deadline so they can make "happy hour" at the ESPNZone.

2. Do you consider our soldiers lives to have been "wasted" and them to have died for "nothing?" Which clearly suggests you consider them, mostly, to not understand their own possible sacrifice....or to have been, generally, "brainwashed" by the evil government?

3. Do you think it's condescending and arrogant for people to seriously question the competence, knowing sacrifice, and personal commitment of the soldiers who serve our country in an all volunteer force?

I'll eagerly await your take on these items. Especially to the extent that I've misunderstood or misconstrued YOUR actual position.

Thanks.
1) Both have their perspectives. One sees the trees better, one sees the forrest better. My guess is that the war correspondants have the best perspective being on the ground every day and simultaneously dedicated to being an observer.

Additionally, the collective widsom of the country as a whole is probably the most knowledgable.

2) Ok... now I see your cognitive linkage between a comment in this thread and your rant about "understand(ing) their own ...sacrifice". It's the concept of brainwashing. That's the answer to my prior question, I believe.

You (not anyone else here) have made the link that the "brainwashing" mentioned above requires "(not) understand(ing) their own ...sacrifice". That's not correct and speaking for myself, it's not the notion subject matter of the brainwashing I reference.

3) I don't see any examples of anyone questioning "knowing sacrifice" or "personal commitment" of soldiers. Reid called Pace incompetent, but he's a political appointee. Maybe you mean something else, but I don't see it. I don't think that any human on earth (solider or not) is patently above having questionable motives of any sort (including all 3 you mentioned). It's case by case.

That said, I do think that there is very much a recognized, accepted, encouraged and generally necessary practice of "brainwashing" for soldiers in the military. As is rightly pointed out, a battlefield soldier needs to have sufficient commitment to the mission to make their actions as good as needed to do the job. Brainwashing is part of the perperation for putting aside doubt and doing what you are ordered.

Republicans, pundits like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, the NeoCons and the Bush Administration have very clearly abused this issue for political purposes in order to hold power and avoid accountability. That abuse of our soldiers and of our democracy (by inserting them into the poliitical process as human political shields) is completely repulsive and as bad an action as those who blamed the solider for following orders and doing their job during Vietnam.

jAZ
06-16-2007, 11:15 AM
I don't think the soldier's opinion is off base. Many people believe in the power of positive thinking and encouragement. There's very little encouraging about Iraq in the media today. I'm certain there's plenty of daily successes over there - it can't all be negative but that's what dominates the airwaves. That has to be incredibly frustrating to our troops. I think he's right in the assertation that it encourages the insurgents.

But then, I'm just a brainwashed former military guy so what do I know?
The soldier has a job. Follow orders.

The politicians have a job. Represent the public by giving those orders and make specific decisions about funding and authorization.

The public has a job. Hold the politicians accountable.

The public should debate each other loudly on the merits. The politicians should listen and act accordingly. The soliders should follow orders.

That's what they signed up for. To follow orders and turn over the authoritiy of decision making and influence to others.

And trust that those others will not abuse them by sending them to combat needlessly, and will manage their sacrafice with great care.

That's how it works.

The media used to have a job. Report the news.

The media now has a new job. Make money.

That doesn't help anyone. That much it seems we can all agree upon.

jAZ
06-16-2007, 11:22 AM
No kidding. The point of the entire thread is lost with the method of debating - and it has nothing to do with the thread at all - it's mostly personality/agenda clashing.
I was trying to address this fact by pointing this out to Kotter. Sometimes acknowledging the problem makes it worse.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 11:34 AM
....That said, I do think that there is very much a recognized, accepted, encouraged and generally necessary practice of "brainwashing" for soldiers in the military. As is rightly pointed out, a battlefield soldier needs to have sufficient commitment to the mission to make their actions as good as needed to do the job. Brainwashing is part of the perperation for putting aside doubt and doing what you are ordered.

Republicans, pundits like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, the NeoCons and the Bush Administration have very clearly abused this issue for political purposes in order to hold power and avoid accountability. That abuse of our soldiers and of our democracy (by inserting them into the poliitical process as human political shields) is completely repulsive and as bad an action as those who blamed the solider for following orders and doing their job during Vietnam.

Your concept of military education and indoctrination, as "brainwashing" is the main problem here. IMO, you have a very twisted, demented, and arrogant view...of soldiers and military service. Your view is condescending, misguided, and insulting.

Indoctrination, military training and education are not brainwashing, any more than YOUR constant indocrination, liberal propandizing, and partisan ideological grandstanding that you subject yourself to every day. Frankly, it's not even close; if either you or our troops are really being brainwashed.....the answer lies in your mirror.

Personal choices, based on one's sense of duty, honor, and country...leads many very bright, competent, and educated fine young people to choose a career of service to their nation. They don't do so, unknowingly or naive as to the possible consequences of their choice--or as to their potential ultimate sacrifice.

There is NO DRAFT. This is a volunteer force. No one is holding a gun to their heads when they join, and certainly....anyone so dumb as to not fully understand their possible sacrifice, quite frankly, is likely not even eligible for service, because they do not meet basic psycholocial and intelligence requirements for joining the service in the first place. This is not WWI or WWII, or Vietnam. Military service is not what it used to be, and you seem unable to grasp that concept.

I'm just sickened by the continued insistence by folks like you....that, basically, say.....our troops are naive and stupid, and don't really understand their service and possible sacrifice. It is condescending, arrogant, and entirely pompous for anyone to suggest our soldiers have died for "nothing" or that their lives and service has been "wasted."

Period. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 11:38 AM
What is the question? I get lost reading you and Jaz's tit for tat semantics. 1. Generally speaking, who is more knowledgeable and credible about what is actually "going on" in Iraq? Soldiers, or the journalists and pundits who are writing about it....usually from the safety of some cubicle in NY or Washington....to beat a deadline so they can make "happy hour" at the ESPNZone.

2. Do you consider our soldiers lives to have been "wasted" and them to have died for "nothing?" Which clearly suggests you consider them, mostly, to not understand their own possible sacrifice....or to have been, generally, "brainwashed" by the evil government?

3. Do you think it's condescending and arrogant for people to seriously question the competence, knowing sacrifice, and personal commitment of the soldiers who serve our country in an all volunteer force?

...
Thanks. I think the reaction of some posters, including jAZ....to this thread topic, is indicative of an even more pernicious attitude that many have toward our soldiers. That is what I'm trying to flesh out from those questions. I was hoping to be proven wrong, by jAZ....but given his answers, thus far....I was right on target.

Phobia
06-16-2007, 11:48 AM
Kotter, soldiers ARE brainwashed. I realize that's a pretty callous way of looking at it, but how else do you rationalize hours of "Blood and Guts" chants? The military specifically desensitizes soldiers through an intense training regimen. I'm not saying it's wrong - it's entirely necessary. But calling it anything other than "brainwashing" is sugar-coating it, IMO. I'm not even a disgruntled former military guy and I acknowledge this.

I'll also acknowledge that people back home had a whole heckuva lot better idea of what was happening during GW1 than I did. We had virtually zero access to media over there. The guys in Iraq have a lot more access now, so that point may be moot.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 11:58 AM
Kotter, soldiers ARE brainwashed. I realize that's a pretty callous way of looking at it, but how else do you rationalize hours of "Blood and Guts" chants? The military specifically desensitizes soldiers through an intense training regimen. I'm not saying it's wrong - it's entirely necessary. But calling it anything other than "brainwashing" is sugar-coating it, IMO. I'm not even a disgruntled former military guy and I acknowledge this.

I'll also acknowledge that people back home had a whole heckuva lot better idea of what was happening during GW1 than I did. We had virtually zero access to media over there. The guys in Iraq have a lot more access now, so that point may be moot.Well, if you want to call it "brainwashing," you are certainly entitled to do that. My bottom-line is that brainwashing implies a high level of manipulation, deception, and exploitation of ignorance....usually in defiance of one's own personal choices and free will. By that definition, military indocrination and training is NOT brainwashing.

To suggest that indoctrination and training is really "brainwashing".....suggests such a broad definition for the term, that all Americans are subjected to some sort of brainwashing all the time. Schooling, sociological conditioning, marriage, family roles, employment and careers, and nearly every other cognitive arena....is subject to "brainwashing." I don't accept such a broad characterization. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

jAZ
06-16-2007, 11:59 AM
Kotter, soldiers ARE brainwashed. I realize that's a pretty callous way of looking at it, but how else do you rationalize hours of "Blood and Guts" chants? The military specifically desensitizes soldiers through an intense training regimen. I'm not saying it's wrong - it's entirely necessary. But calling it anything other than "brainwashing" is sugar-coating it, IMO. I'm not even a disgruntled former military guy and I acknowledge this.

I'll also acknowledge that people back home had a whole heckuva lot better idea of what was happening during GW1 than I did. We had virtually zero access to media over there. The guys in Iraq have a lot more access now, so that point may be moot.
Well, there goes my last 5 minutes of typing.

;)

jAZ
06-16-2007, 12:05 PM
Well, if you want to call it "brainwashing," you are certainly entitled to do that. My bottom-line is that brainwashing implies a high level of manipulation, deception, and exploitation of ignorance....usually in defiance of one's own personal choices and free will. By that definition, military indocrination and training is NOT brainwashing.

To suggest that indoctrination and training is really "brainwashing".....suggests such a broad definition for the term, that all Americans are subjected to some sort of brainwashing all the time. Schooling, sociological conditioning, marriage, family roles, employment and careers, and nearly every other cognitive arena....is subject to "brainwashing." I don't accept such a broad characterization. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
Indoctrination is the more broad term. It's teaching a doctrine.

Brainwashing is the act of taking one set of beliefs and replacing it with another through...
"...isolation from former associates and sources of information; an exacting regimen calling for absolute obedience and humility; strong social pressures and rewards for cooperation; physical and psychological punishments for noncooperation, including social ostracism and criticism, deprivation of food, sleep, and social contacts, bondage, and torture; and constant reinforcement." (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9016186/brainwashing)

jAZ
06-16-2007, 12:07 PM
If you prefer, the alternate term is "Coercive Persuasion".

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 12:16 PM
If you prefer, the alternate term is "Coercive Persuasion".That's at least more honest....

Brainwashing (according to the dictionary... )
1. any systematic effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person against his will, usually beliefs in conflict with his prior beliefs and knowledge.
2. a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques
3. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
4. forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs
5. Brainwashing techniques range from vocal persuasion and threats to punishment, physical deprivation, mind-altering drugs, and severe physical torture.

Phobia
06-16-2007, 12:25 PM
That's at least more honest....

Brainwashing (according to the dictionary... )
1. any systematic effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person against his will, usually beliefs in conflict with his prior beliefs and knowledge.
2. a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques
3. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
4. forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs
5. Brainwashing techniques range from vocal persuasion and threats to punishment, physical deprivation, mind-altering drugs, and severe physical torture.

I don't think boot-camp and military life is a stretch from 2, 3, and 4.

PunkinDrublic
06-16-2007, 12:27 PM
1. Generally speaking, who is more knowledgeable and credible about what is actually "going on" in Iraq? Soldiers, or the journalists and pundits who are writing about it....usually from the safety of some cubicle in NY or Washington....to beat a deadline so they can make "happy hour" at the ESPNZone.

Well I would agree with what Amnorix said about soldiers knowing more about their own day to day operations as well as their jobs and knowing how to survive. It is the job of our media in this country to ask the tough questions, hold our government accountable for their decisions so I would hope they are well versed in knowing our strategy, policy and what the overall mission is because that's part of their job. Also that's a gross generalization of people covering the war. What about imbedded journalists who risk their lives going over to Iraq to cover the war. I know you think there's this evil liberal media conspiracy but come on.

2. Do you consider our soldiers lives to have been "wasted" and them to have died for "nothing?" Which clearly suggests you consider them, mostly, to not understand their own possible sacrifice....or to have been, generally, "brainwashed" by the evil government?

Look, I'm not about to tell some soldier that he or she is wasting their time risking their lives to protect their fellow soldiers in harms way. 90% of our Men and Women in uniform are serving with honor and dignity considering this administration and their enablers put the troops in a no win situation. I don't think the soldiers are brainwashed as much as it is very much frowned upon (and that's putting it lightly) to speak out against the commander in Chief and the occupation. Military personel are under strict orders as far as what they can and can't say to the media. So to answer your question lives are not wasted when trying to protect the lives of other soldiers or Iraqi citizens but our presence in Iraq is hurting more than helping.

3. Do you think it's condescending and arrogant for people to seriously question the competence, knowing sacrifice, and personal commitment of the soldiers who serve our country in an all volunteer force?

No, because while I think peoples intentions and sacrifices are noble, I don't understand why someone would choose to partake in an occupation where there is no end in sight. If someone truly believes in what we are doing over there I can respect that.

Phobia
06-16-2007, 12:33 PM
I don't think the soldiers are brainwashed as much as it is very much frowned upon (and that's putting it lightly) to speak out against the commander in Chief and the occupation. Military personel are under strict orders as far as what they can and can't say to the media.

Frowned upon? It's a downright violation of the UCMJ. They can do brig time for "speaking out".

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 12:34 PM
I don't think boot-camp and military life is a stretch from 2, 3, and 4.
"Forcible" and "torture" and "destroying one's basic convictions" and implying the use of "mind altering drugs"....doesn't comport with anything I witnessed on a routine basis during my military service. Joining the service is a willful choice and exercise of free will. Maybe we are just caught up in the semantics of it though. :shrug:

PunkinDrublic
06-16-2007, 12:36 PM
Frowned upon? It's a downright violation of the UCMJ. They can do brig time for "speaking out".

That's why the majority of vets speaking out are men and women who are discharged. Aren't they still trying to bust that former Marine in KC for protesting in uniform?

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 12:39 PM
1. Generally speaking, who is more knowledgeable and credible about what is actually "going on" in Iraq? Soldiers, or the journalists and pundits who are writing about it....usually from the safety of some cubicle in NY or Washington....to beat a deadline so they can make "happy hour" at the ESPNZone.

Well I would agree with what Amnorix said about soldiers knowing more about their own day to day operations as well as their jobs and knowing how to survive. It is the job of our media in this country to ask the tough questions, hold our government accountable for their decisions so I would hope they are well versed in knowing our strategy, policy and what the overall mission is because that's part of their job. Also that's a gross generalization of people covering the war. What about imbedded journalists who risk their lives going over to Iraq to cover the war. I know you think there's this evil liberal media conspiracy but come on.

2. Do you consider our soldiers lives to have been "wasted" and them to have died for "nothing?" Which clearly suggests you consider them, mostly, to not understand their own possible sacrifice....or to have been, generally, "brainwashed" by the evil government?

Look, I'm not about to tell some soldier that he or she is wasting their time risking their lives to protect their fellow soldiers in harms way. 90% of our Men and Women in uniform are serving with honor and dignity considering this administration and their enablers put the troops in a no win situation. I don't think the soldiers are brainwashed as much as it is very much frowned upon (and that's putting it lightly) to speak out against the commander in Chief and the occupation. Military personel are under strict orders as far as what they can and can't say to the media. So to answer your question lives are not wasted when trying to protect the lives of other soldiers or Iraqi citizens but our presence in Iraq is hurting more than helping.

3. Do you think it's condescending and arrogant for people to seriously question the competence, knowing sacrifice, and personal commitment of the soldiers who serve our country in an all volunteer force?

No, because while I think peoples intentions and sacrifices are noble, I don't understand why someone would choose to partake in an occupation where there is no end in sight. If someone truly believes in what we are doing over there I can respect that.

Thanks for the very reasonable, fair, and thoughtful response.

I just get a little more than irritated and peeved when I sense folks are denigrating and belittling our troops...or are ridiculing and impugning their service. It's a real sore spot with me. They are among our nation's best and brightest, in my opinion....and they deserve better than they often get. I appreciate your views though, because you...are not among those who would do that to them. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 12:41 PM
That's why the majority of vets speaking out are men and women who are discharged. Aren't they still trying to bust that former Marine in KC for protesting in uniform?

Probably. Would Bill Gates stand for rank insubordination and open public criticism of him, or his policies though? I don't see that as too much different than what we see in the private sector....at least with most jobs, in most places. :shrug:

Phobia
06-16-2007, 12:45 PM
"Forcible" and "torture" and "destroying one's basic convictions" and implying the use of "mind altering drugs"....doesn't comport with anything I witnessed on a routine basis during my military service. Joining the service is a willful choice and exercise of free will. Maybe we are just caught up in the semantics of it though. :shrug:

Torture could be too strong a word. I guess I was more focused on "forcible". Yeah, you join willfully but once you get to bootcamp your free will is gone. Those DIs own you and they make it well known. Using a loose definition of torture, I'm guessing some the tactics employed in bootcamp could fit as well. Physical exertion to the point of dropping (and beyond) is possibly even more torturous than other methods, IMO.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 12:48 PM
Torture could be too strong a word. I guess I was more focused on "forcible". Yeah, you join willfully but once you get to bootcamp your free will is gone. Those DIs own you and they make it well known. Using a loose definition of torture, I'm guessing some the tactics employed in bootcamp could fit as well. Physical exertion to the point of dropping (and beyond) is possibly even more torturous than other methods, IMO.
It might have something to do with me having been through OBC, as opposed to real Basic. Life for us pussy Army officers was probably less arduous than for you Marine/Jarhead type enlistees. :p

You probably heard this one, but....you know how Marines and bananas are alike? :hmmm:




They both start out green, turn yellow, and die in bunches. ;)

Phobia
06-16-2007, 12:51 PM
No, I've not heard that one before. I don't think anybody has ever been ballsy enough to say that joke to a jarhead.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 12:52 PM
No, I've not heard that one before. I don't think anybody has ever been ballsy enough to say that joke to a jarhead.

Heh. At least no one who's sober. I do think I used it a few times at a club, but I'm quite certain me and my buddies outnumbered them. :p

Phobia
06-16-2007, 12:54 PM
Heh. At least no one who's sober. I do think I used it a few times at a club, but I'm quite certain me and my buddies outnumbered them. :p

You probably said it to some admin pogues or members of the band.

PunkinDrublic
06-16-2007, 12:54 PM
Probably. Would Bill Gates stand for rank insubordination and open public criticism of him, or his policies though? I don't see that as too much different than what we see in the private sector....at least with most jobs, in most places. :shrug:

Well that's why I take the soldiers alleged e-mail with a grain of salt. Yes it could be his genuine thoughts and feelings but the fact is that soldiers are kept on a tight leash as far as what they can and can't say to the media.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 12:57 PM
You probably said it to some admin pogues or members of the band.

Or a cook, truck driver, or some other real REMF... :p

You were a grunt, right--or was it a communications dude? I was a tanker.

Phobia
06-16-2007, 01:00 PM
Nah, I wasn't a grunt. I was a computer geek. Heh.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 01:20 PM
Well that's why I take the soldiers alleged e-mail with a grain of salt. Yes it could be his genuine thoughts and feelings but the fact is that soldiers are kept on a tight leash as far as what they can and can't say to the media.
There's a difference between silence resulting from being kept on a tight leash though, and publicly taking a stance against the lack of balance in the media coverage one sees....as a result of being THERE. JMHO though.

Nah, I wasn't a grunt. I was a computer geek. Heh.

That's probably why I felt comfortable telling the joke to you then. Heh. ;)

Phobia
06-16-2007, 01:23 PM
Nah, I wasn't a grunt. I was a computer geek. Heh.

Just to clear things up, EVERY jarhead is a grunt first. EVERY jarhead goes through combat training in addition to boot camp. EVERY jarhead is required to spend time combat training for 2 weeks annually plus qualify with their rifle once a year. So, we're all grunts.

Phobia
06-16-2007, 01:24 PM
That's probably why I felt comfortable telling the joke to you then. Heh. ;)

Next time I see you I'm breaking your arm just to prove I can still do it.

Phobia
06-16-2007, 01:25 PM
Well that's why I take the soldiers alleged e-mail with a grain of salt. Yes it could be his genuine thoughts and feelings but the fact is that soldiers are kept on a tight leash as far as what they can and can't say to the media.

They let up on the leash when you're speaking out in support of the military.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 01:27 PM
Next time I see you I'm breaking your arm just to prove I can still do it.
What....you gonna start speaking to me in FORTRAN or COBAL, and hope I break it in a fall when I start laughing my ass off? :spock:



Actually, it's more likely you slam the door on your cooler or smoker on my arm, as I try to steal a beer or some ribs from your tailgate....:hmmm:

:p

Phobia
06-16-2007, 01:35 PM
It's funny you said those two languages, that was exactly what I was trained in at Quantico. The moment I left Quantico I wrote exactly zero lines of code. I was a network guy for my entire enlistment.

Logical
06-16-2007, 02:17 PM
Are you really this obtuse? To think that my discussions/personal-political-beliefs-expressed-here/behavior/antics/sillinesss HERE...has ANY bearing whatsoever on the execution of my professional responsibilities in the real world? :spock:

That would be like me suggesting your moonbat-wacko-conspiracy loyalities that you made abundantly clear here, should somehow reflect on your own professional conduct.

I'm quite sure you'd LOVE to have your clients/accounts read about your thoughts on 9/11... LMAO LMAO LMAO

Why do you not just ignore it when TJ says that, you getting defensive gives him what he wants.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 02:28 PM
Why do you not just ignore it when TJ says that, you getting defensive gives him what he wants.

I usually do. It's just become pathetic and annoying--especially coming from someone, who despite our differences of opinion....I generally regard as being much more intelligent than those sort of remarks coming from him would indicate.

Logical
06-16-2007, 02:46 PM
Let's try this, then:

1. Generally speaking, who is more knowledgeable and credible about what is actually "going on" in Iraq? Soldiers, or the journalists and pundits who are writing about it....usually from the safety of some cubicle in NY or Washington....to beat a deadline so they can make "happy hour" at the ESPNZone.

2. Do you consider our soldiers lives to have been "wasted" and them to have died for "nothing?" Which clearly suggests you consider them, mostly, to not understand their own possible sacrifice....or to have been, generally, "brainwashed" by the evil government?

3. Do you think it's condescending and arrogant for people to seriously question the competence, knowing sacrifice, and personal commitment of the soldiers who serve our country in an all volunteer force?

I'll eagerly await your take on these items. Especially to the extent that I've misunderstood or misconstrued YOUR actual position.

Thanks.

Rob,

Lets get back to this letter, the soldiers suggestion that people who want the occupation to end do not support the troops is just wrong. Many of us (not all) feel we should not be sacrificing (not wasting big difference) the young lives of these individuals for a people who will never make this sort of government work. The idea that because he is a soldier makes him right about us not supporting the troops is not a good assumption.

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2007, 03:06 PM
Rob,

Lets get back to this letter, the soldiers suggestion that people who want the occupation to end do not support the troops is just wrong. Many of us (not all) feel we should not be sacrificing (not wasting big difference) the young lives of these individuals for a people who will never make this sort of government work. The idea that because he is a soldier makes him right about us not supporting the troops is not a good assumption.

Call it support if you wish. I simply have a difficult time calling, what I see as, arrogant and condescending disregard for the personal choices, service, and sense of duty that most soldiers have....as "support." It wouldn't be the first time we disagreed though.

Logical
06-16-2007, 03:42 PM
Well Jaz is entirely right that any American has the right to express himself in almost any way in any forum (despite what Trent Lott may believe).

I think the long-term implications of this war are important to consider. I think many don't give those implications their proper weight. Just my opinion.

That said, both practically and politically, the people in charge of this war have screwed it all up. I have always been for the idea of trying to impose the ideals of democracy but there is no reason why our troops should still be policing that country. I realize it takes us, in the best of conditions, 4 years to manufacture officers, but whether we change course today or five years from now the Iraqis are going to have to pull themselves up eventually.

Imagine the difference in the situation if Bush had framed success on that aircraft carrier as getting Saddam, establishing a new govt, and training a new army and then PULLING BACK TO BASES that would allow us to project our power when needed, keep a footprint in the enemies backyard, protect the flow of oil, and get our soldiers off the streets of Baghdad.

If he had done that Iraq would have many of the same problems it does today, but our soldiers wouldn't be dying the way they are because of them.

Wow a Ringleader sighting, welcome back and nice post.

Taco John
06-16-2007, 03:44 PM
I usually do. It's just become pathetic and annoying--especially coming from someone, who despite our differences of opinion....I generally regard as being much more intelligent than those sort of remarks coming from him would indicate.



That's right bitches! I'm reeeeal smart... :p

Taco John
06-16-2007, 03:47 PM
For the record, I think that it's probably best to leave it to the individual soldiers to determine if their service has been wasted or not. I think only they can really decide that.

But that being said, I've talked to plenty of vets who felt that their and their compatriots lives were wasted in Vietnam. In fact, I just had a conversation with my wife's uncle last weekend when he said this very thing almost word for word. Are you telling me that this man isn't supportive of our troops because of his opinion on how the government uses them?

Logical
06-16-2007, 03:52 PM
Call it support if you wish. I simply have a difficult time calling, what I see as, arrogant and condescending disregard for the personal choices, service, and sense of duty that most soldiers have....as "support." It wouldn't be the first time we disagreed though.

Why do you try to make it about the individual soldiers, like we don't understand their dedication and appreciate their choice to take up arms for our nation? You degrade yourself by trying to degrade our intellect with such diversionary tactics. We can understand and appreciate their willingness to make the sacrifices and still not support our governments policy choices. That is what we are doing Rob not supporting George Bush and this administrations choices.

mlyonsd
06-16-2007, 09:44 PM
I hardly think it's a stretch to suggest that part of military service is voluntary brainwashing.

It's not a stretch. I agree military service begins with brainwashing.

But the guy that wrote the letter is in the Guard, not FT military. He's also 39 which gives him plenty of life experiences. We're not talking about a 19 year old kid here.

He is more apt to be your next door neighbor than a brainwashed private.

go bowe
06-16-2007, 11:19 PM
I hardly think it's a stretch to suggest that part of military service is voluntary brainwashing.now that's the stuff we like to hear...

brainwashing?

you can't be serious...

seriously...

Logical
06-16-2007, 11:23 PM
It's not a stretch. I agree military service begins with brainwashing.

But the guy that wrote the letter is in the Guard, not FT military. He's also 39 which gives him plenty of life experiences. We're not talking about a 19 year old kid here.

He is more apt to be your next door neighbor than a brainwashed private.

I agree but it does not IMO change the fact he cannot and should not confuse not supporting the occupation policy with not supporting the troops.

go bowe
06-16-2007, 11:27 PM
It's not a stretch. I agree military service begins with brainwashing.

But the guy that wrote the letter is in the Guard, not FT military. He's also 39 which gives him plenty of life experiences. We're not talking about a 19 year old kid here.

He is more apt to be your next door neighbor than a brainwashed private.not another one...

you guys are gonna overpower me with your numerical strength (all 2 of you)...

brainwashing?

we're not talking about china here...

or korea...

we're talking about american troops, they grew up in america, they're educated and highly trained...

but brainwashed?

go bowe
06-16-2007, 11:32 PM
Why do you try to make it about the individual soldiers, like we don't understand their dedication and appreciate their choice to take up arms for our nation? You degrade yourself by trying to degrade our intellect with such diversionary tactics. We can understand and appreciate their willingness to make the sacrifices and still not support our governments policy choices. That is what we are doing Rob not supporting George Bush and this administrations choices.:thumb:

you should make copies of that last sentence and hand them out to people when they first come to d.c. and to anybody else who makes that argument...

RINGLEADER
06-17-2007, 07:12 AM
I wouldn't say "brainwashing". I'd say "indoctrinating". But not in a bad way - mainly to preserve our soldiers' lives and the general chain of command. You do have to get some people used to the idea of killing other people though. Maybe that's what he meant.

Mr. Kotter
06-17-2007, 07:14 AM
...You do have to get some people used to the idea of killing other people though. Maybe that's what he meant.

It comes natural to real men. ;)

alanm
06-17-2007, 10:20 AM
Nah, I wasn't a grunt. I was a computer geek. Heh.
Who joins the Marines to work on computers? :hmmm:

Duck Dog
06-18-2007, 07:36 AM
Great article. I think he's 100% right.