mnealtx 0 #51 January 18, 2007 Quote Visiting injured troops is for old liberal guys like me - I volunteer at a local Veterans' Hospital. These students are just chickenhawks in training - they can actually put their bodies where their mouths are, and like my (liberal) son did. And the students that are saying we should be in Afghanistan but aren't volunteering to go THERE are what... chickenchickens?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 January 18, 2007 QuoteBipartisanship requires BOTH sides, and it seems this group is trying. Why pick out a seperate issue to slam them and try to invalidate the other reason? Bipartisanship (noun) - anything that requires the Republicans to concede to the benifit of the Democrats.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #53 January 18, 2007 Quoteand yes i will continue to 'bash' those who advocate war without SERVING at all. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.. So, I guess famous Americans like Presidents Lincoln and FDR are hypocrites of the highest order. And Clinton (the dodgy draft dodger), too. Did you hear he got a blow job? Quote in fact i'd be very willing to amend the constitution (ala R.Hienlein) to disallow those who have NEVER served any vote or role in Government at all..you should REALLY have put YOUR ass on the line before you ask the same of anyone else. Are you a big fan of Hitler? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #54 January 18, 2007 QuoteAnd as far as Dems... .... not everyone is required to wear their party affiliation on their forhead yet.... as far as Dems, the word "Yet" is true. right now Dems are only required to wear it on their sleeves, just below the chip ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #55 January 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteand yes i will continue to 'bash' those who advocate war without SERVING at all. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.. So, I guess famous Americans like Presidents Lincoln and FDR are hypocrites of the highest order. And Clinton (the dodgy draft dodger), too. Did you hear he got a blow job? Lincoln served during the Black Hawk War of 1832. Roosevelt voluteered in 1917 but was asked to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy instead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #56 January 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteand yes i will continue to 'bash' those who advocate war without SERVING at all. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.. So, I guess famous Americans like Presidents Lincoln and FDR are hypocrites of the highest order. And Clinton (the dodgy draft dodger), too. Did you hear he got a blow job? Lincoln served during the Black Hawk War of 1832. Was Lincoln's 90 days of combat-free service any more noteworthy than Bush's ANG service? How so? QuoteRoosevelt voluteered in 1917 but was asked to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy instead. Oh. I thought he was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy before the start of WWI. He volunteered in 1917? Got a link? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #57 January 18, 2007 QuoteWas Lincoln's 90 days of combat-free service any more noteworthy than Bush's ANG service? How so? It looks like Lincoln.. re-enlisted twice....for 3 terms.... was actually in harms way during the Indian wars and got to see first hand .. the dead who he helped to bury... and.... SERVED OUT ALL OF HIS TERM OF SERVICE. ©November, 2002, revised March, 2003 by Robert A. Braun. All rights reserved. During the Black Hawk War, Abraham Lincoln of New Salem, Illinois served three enlistments. Each enrollment lasted for approximately 30 days. His first enlistment was as elected captain of a company in the 4th Regiment of Mounted Volunteers, of Gen. Samuel Whiteside's Brigade. Lincoln enrolled on April 21, 1832, and mustered out with his company at Fort Johnson (Ottawa) on May 27, 1832. The company served at Beardstown, and reportedly Lincoln's company helped bury the dead of "Stillman's Run"— although this occurrence is still under investigation. Along with the muster-out of Lincoln’s company was the general muster-out of what became known as the “First Army” of Illinois. While a new army was being raised and organized, Illinois enlisted and mustered in a 20-day interim regiment (the so-called “Second Army”) and the only defense the State of Illinois had until the so-called “Third Army” could be brought into the field. Lincoln re-enlisted on the same day he mustered out of his old company, and was mustered in on May 29 as a private in Captain Elijah Ises' Company, Twenty-Day Interim Regiment. He actively served with the company when General Henry Atkinson detached Captain Iles' command to ride north from Ottawa along the Kellogg Trail and reopen communications with Galena-- which had been out of touch with the rest of the world since the Felix St. Vrain Massacre. As part of this movement, Iles’ company (including Lincoln) spent an overnight at Apple River Fort... about a week before Black Hawk's attack against that strongpoint later in June. Once this ride was completed, the service of Iles’ company was essentially at an end. On June 16, Lincoln was mustered out. Lincoln's third enlistment was as a private in Captain Jacob M. Early's "Spy Company." This unit mustered in approximately June 20, 1832, and served as part of General Atkinson’s army as it moved north through present-day Beloit, Janesvilles, the Storr's Lake encampment (west of present-day Milton, Rock County, Wisconsin) and on to the “Trembling Lands” east of present-day Fort Atkinson, Jefferson County, Wisconsin. Atkinson's food supply dwindled, and his solution was to muster out most of his militia. Accordingly, Early's company (along with Lincoln) was mustered out and discharged on July 10, 1832 near present-day Coldspring, Jefferson County, Wisconsin. The story goes that Lincoln had his horse stolen, so he and companion George Harrison (not the Beatle) reportedly walked and canoed several hundred miles back to New Salem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #58 January 18, 2007 Quotein fact i'd be very willing to amend the constitution (ala R.Hienlein) to disallow those who have NEVER served any vote or role in Government at all And I think thats a terrible idea! Even Hienlein later decided that what he really meant to say was any government service at all instead of front line military.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #59 January 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteWas Lincoln's 90 days of combat-free service any more noteworthy than Bush's ANG service? How so? It looks like Lincoln.. re-enlisted twice....for 3 terms.... was actually in harms way during the Indian wars and got to see first hand .. the dead who he helped to bury... and.... SERVED OUT ALL OF HIS TERM OF SERVICE. I'm getting dizzy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #60 January 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand yes i will continue to 'bash' those who advocate war without SERVING at all. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.. So, I guess famous Americans like Presidents Lincoln and FDR are hypocrites of the highest order. And Clinton (the dodgy draft dodger), too. Did you hear he got a blow job? Lincoln served during the Black Hawk War of 1832. Was Lincoln's 90 days of combat-free service any more noteworthy than Bush's ANG service? How so? QuoteRoosevelt voluteered in 1917 but was asked to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy instead. Oh. I thought he was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy before the start of WWI. He volunteered in 1917? Got a link? Errata - he was asked to continue as Asst. Sec. of the Navy instead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #61 January 19, 2007 QuoteThe protestors haven't been around in months. Though they claim to love the troops and want us home, they don't talk to us, they don't visit anyone. could it be the lack of respect the get in return?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #62 January 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteand yes i will continue to 'bash' those who advocate war without SERVING at all. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.. So, I guess famous Americans like Presidents Lincoln and FDR are hypocrites of the highest order. And Clinton (the dodgy draft dodger), too. Did you hear he got a blow job? Quote in fact i'd be very willing to amend the constitution (ala R.Hienlein) to disallow those who have NEVER served any vote or role in Government at all..you should REALLY have put YOUR ass on the line before you ask the same of anyone else. Are you a big fan of Hitler? not a student of history are you? care to find ANY nice thing i've ever said about Clinton? (honestly i give a rats ass who he fucked or felated him.. his leadership however was less than stellar on many fronts)____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 January 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe protestors haven't been around in months. Though they claim to love the troops and want us home, they don't talk to us, they don't visit anyone. could it be the lack of respect the get in return? Sort of hard to get a lack of respect from the vets when they're not visiting them, isn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #64 January 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe protestors haven't been around in months. Though they claim to love the troops and want us home, they don't talk to us, they don't visit anyone. could it be the lack of respect the get in return? Excuse me? Who's getting the lack of respect here? I've seen these people turn their backs on wounded vets that came out to talk to them. It's a horrible double standard.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 January 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe protestors haven't been around in months. Though they claim to love the troops and want us home, they don't talk to us, they don't visit anyone. could it be the lack of respect the get in return? Excuse me? Who's getting the lack of respect here? I've seen these people turn their backs on wounded vets that came out to talk to them. It's a horrible double standard. Damn... I'm sorry, Max.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #66 January 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe protestors haven't been around in months. Though they claim to love the troops and want us home, they don't talk to us, they don't visit anyone. could it be the lack of respect the get in return? Excuse me? Who's getting the lack of respect here? I've seen these people turn their backs on wounded vets that came out to talk to them. It's a horrible double standard. your quote from above is one, "no one would speak to him". So much for respect the rank/position even if you dont respect the man. but in general i'm referring to the ignorant attitude of SOME(i dont think I can stress this word enough for it to seep thru the filters of some forum members) uneducated soldiers (and SOME of their leaders even who encourage their ignorance. I was arguing (friendly ofc) with a Capt about it over lunch today). Who cannot understand that lack of support for a MISSION is not lack of support for the SOLDIER. i will not (edit to fix typo) defend anyone who turns their back on a soldier.. Soldiers do a JOB and a thankless one for the most part (and no i dont consider yellow magnetic car stickers any form of thanks tbh)____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #67 January 20, 2007 Quote Who cannot understand that lack of support for a MISSION is not lack of support for the SOLDIER. Here we disagree. Not supporting the soldiers' mission is not supporting the job the soldiers must do, the job they want to do (thus maintaining a strong esprit de corps), therefore the soldiers are not supported.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #68 January 20, 2007 so (in your opinion) protest and resistance to an ill conceived, poorly planned Politically motivated, War of Aggression is the same as spitting on a soldier? i dont think we are ever going to agree on that.. I spend most of my time training and preparing soldiers and their equipment for War, and have deployed (twice as a civilian, once as a soldier) to directly support THEM. However that doesnt mean i'm going to stand idly by when POLITICIANS attempt to use a sword as a hammer... everyone should be against using a tool incorrectly.. it weakens (or breaks) the tool.. and like it or not Military Force is a tool... Soldiers should NEVER be unthinking drones.. and that is exactly what the "support the mission no matter what" mindset promotes____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #69 January 20, 2007 QuoteSoldiers should NEVER be unthinking drones.. and that is exactly what the "support the mission no matter what" mindset promotes I understand your point in that regard, I'll refine mine. The time to "not support" a mission is before execution of the mission begins. Once the force is deployed, the politics needs to remain at the water's edge. There should be less bantering about the policy (and the political CYA that's required etc) and more encouragement to do whatever it takes now that the path has been decided. I firmly believe that if this could have been adopted, and the political "concerns of consequences" were deflated in nature, we would not be where we are right now. Of course, I'm using hindsight as a measure here (can't be helped) and I'm not claiming to be objective.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #70 January 20, 2007 so in relation to this current plan, do you have an opinion (that you can share)? to me it is a half measure. we have put no where near the force required and this latest 'effort' is not enough either.. Politicians should give the Military the Mission, THEN give them the RESOURCES required to achieve it.. that isnt/hasnt happened yet (imo) and the failure to recognize that fact starts at the top.. do you think its fair or honorable to be told to go into combat with less than the force required to complete the mission?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #71 January 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteSoldiers should NEVER be unthinking drones.. and that is exactly what the "support the mission no matter what" mindset promotes I understand your point in that regard, I'll refine mine. The time to "not support" a mission is before execution of the mission begins. Once the force is deployed, the politics needs to remain at the water's edge. There should be less bantering about the policy (and the political CYA that's required etc) and more encouragement to do whatever it takes now that the path has been decided. I firmly believe that if this could have been adopted, and the political "concerns of consequences" were deflated in nature, we would not be where we are right now. Of course, I'm using hindsight as a measure here (can't be helped) and I'm not claiming to be objective. A war that was wrong in Feb 2003 before the invasion does not suddenly become right in March when the troops cross the border. It was wrong then, it is wrong now, and Bush's only solution to having dug himself into a deep hole is to call for more shovels. The troops are paying the price for Bush's hubris and incompetence. Supporting Bush is NOT supporting the troops.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #72 January 20, 2007 Quoteso in relation to this current plan, do you have an opinion (that you can share)? to me it is a half measure. we have put no where near the force required and this latest 'effort' is not enough either.. Politicians should give the Military the Mission, THEN give them the RESOURCES required to achieve it.. that isnt/hasnt happened yet (imo) and the failure to recognize that fact starts at the top.. do you think its fair or honorable to be told to go into combat with less than the force required to complete the mission? I shared, in a broad stroke, my idea in a previous thread, http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2531741#2531741 I never tried to formulate a detailed plan as my focus has been on a key other aspect of this conflict.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #73 January 20, 2007 thanks.. i missed that one.. just answered with my opinion in that thread..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)