DHS Document on Right Wing Extremism

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    You and CDB can piss off on this theory... only people that haven't served criticize so blatantly.
    This is a bull**** argument. I don't need to be a master carpenter to know a ****ty dovetail joint when I see one, I don't need to be a soldier to know what is and is not a proper or constitutional use of the military. I respect the military and all those in it who are willing to sacrifice for this country's good. However, soldiers are not automatically saints, nor are the civilian politicians who decide how they are used. In fact the latter tend to be idiots more often than not, and in my opinion the military has been ill used by them for the better part of the last century and currently.

    To go through what myself or any other Sailor/Soldier/DevilDog/Airman at least deserves some sort of respect.
    And exactly how is questioning the use of the military as dictated by politicians disrespectful? You are not saints, what you go through does not excuse you or the people who give you assignments from moral and ethical judgement.

    The shear amount of getting pissed at least deserves them that. They should be afforded some extra respect and/or leniency while following orders, cause Lord knows nothing else is given.
    I am not questioning the troops, I am questioning morons like Sean Hannity and his ilk who try to transform legitimate policy debates and dissents into attacks on the military. It's a bull**** debate tactic and only idiots and people who are overly emotionally involved fall for. My guess is you're in the latter category. Get over it.

    If they cut a fart in the green zone while getting mortared, damn strait they are defending our freedoms while flatulating.
    No, they are not. Soldiers are only defending our freedom if they are fighting a legitimate threat to our freedom. Iraq in general, Saddam in particular, and the thirty thousand or so dead Iraqi civilians out there, not to mention the thousands of troops we lost in achieving the end of killing all of them, were never a threat to US security or safety. They were never a threat to any US citizen's rights or well being. Our security is arguably worse off because of the troops we had to sacrifice thus far.

    Another favorite debating tactic of the neocons is to ask if the world is better off without Saddam. I counter with asking whether or not the world is better off without the thousands of our troops killed and the thousands of Iraqis killed in order to achieve this end? What do you think, are we better off minus a few thousand of our youngest, strongest, hard working and patriotic? How about the families here and in the middle east now minus a father, a mother, a son or daugher, are they better off?

    Why not stop by the airport and spit on them when they return home?

    Adams
    Your emotions are clouding your judgement on this one, DA. If you honestly conflate questions of policy with attacks on the troops then you need to take a step back and realize there is a big difference between honorable men and women who are willing to die for the well being of others, and the **** storm of vile ****s in DC who are mostly responsible for taking these well meaning people and using them for means other than for which they were intended.

    My quip about soldiers farting is meant to lampoon the idiotic positions of neoconservatives like Hannity and others, who cheer every 'mission' and every use of the military as if it's beyond question the most moral and ethical thing to do. There's ****loads of innocent dead brown people who were never a threat to a single US citizen would disagree for one, and I am not willing to let people like Hannity, and you if that's your wont, to use the sophmoric debating tactic of conflating policy with the troops and thus make the questioning of the former an insult to the latter. I will question policy I find unacceptable and I refuse to let the overly delicate feelings of some and the moronic debating tactics of others stand in the way of that questioning.

    Or, in other words, I will not grant the position that every action of any soldier at any given time, whether under fire or not or following orders or not, is somehow automatically in my interest or the interest of this nation, nor in defense of our freedoms. As with any action the judgement depends on the context. In order to defend my freedom there must first be a legitimate threat to that freedom.


  2. You are not only attacking policy. For hells sake, attack policy away, i could give a rats ass. BUT, to say a soldiers successful mission is anything but to be congratulated is asinine. A soldier is orders to perform a function, and cannot renig on doing so. But instead of giving such the credit they deserve, you demean what was accomplished, BECAUSE YOU do not agree with what was done.

    Comparing the work of a carpenter with the work of a soldier is very insulting, and I will refrain from responding.

    A soldier is ordered, and denying that order is unhonorable, and immoral. You are thinking in a hippie world were everything is made of chocolate and rainbows. Morallity is subjective, and yours lie in other places.

    Adams
    Last edited by DAdams91982; 04-23-2009 at 03:23 PM.
    The Historic PES Legend
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    You are not only attacking policy. For hells sake, attack policy away, i could give a rats ass. BUT, to say a soldiers successful mission is anything but to be congratulated is asinine. A soldier is orders to perform a function, and cannot renig on doing so. But instead of giving such the credit you deserve, you demean what was accomplished, BECAUSE YOU do not agree with what was done.

    Comparing the work of a carpenter with the work of a soldier is very insulting, and I will refrain from responding.

    A soldier is ordered, and denying that order is unhonorable, and immoral. You are thinking in a hippie world were everything is made of chocolate and rainbows. Morallity is subjective, and your lies in other places.

    Adams
    I agree Adams. To say that one doesn't agree with a war is one thing, but to imply that an individual Soldier has anything other than one vote out of 110 million to do with the decision to wage war is totally off base. The decision to use force always falls back on civilians in Washington. They're the ones that should be held accountable for US foreign policy.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Correct, but did you know that DHS's legal counsel advised against using overly broad language in the report. DHS's head shed went against the advice of their own legal counsel and released it without changes.
    Link, please.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    You are ingoring the broader problem associated with this memo. Past memos are arguably just as overly broad in defining leftist, peace oriented groups as terrorist or extreme in nature. Remember Project Megiddo? The various communications during the Bush years that indicated the FBI/CIA were potentially monitoring groups like Green Peace? This is hardly new. What is new is the source: ERB. The Extremist and Radicalization Branch of DHS. This is in effect the first government office whose sole purpose is to spy on, classify, and asses threats based on US citizens' ideological and political associations. ERB was brought into existence under Bush, not Obama. A recent article on the subject points out that,



    The import of this report isn't that the current administration is anti right wing, it's that for the first time in the history of this country - thanks to Bush and all those who under his leadership were so quick to **** on the consitution and use such feces as lube for a nice slippery slope - federal, state, and local police have essentially all be deputized to report on the peaceful and constitutionally protected activities of the citizens of this country for possible use in detention and questioning. Your fixation on the ideological slant has lead you to ignore this point altogether. Or, perhaps you wouldn't much care except that by an accident of administration it was pointed at your ideology and not the lefty's?

    Bush was wrong to start this, Obama is wrong to continue it. The ideology slant is window dressing that obscures, perhaps intentionally, the larger point that instead of protecting and serving law enforcement is now poised to move wholesale into the business of monitoring and reporting and starting to more and more ressemble an occupying military force rather than a civilian law enforcement instrument.
    Man, when I agree with you, I *REALLY* agree with you!
    •   
       


  6. BUT, to say a soldiers successful mission is anything but to be congratulated is asinine. A soldier is orders to perform a function, and cannot renig on doing so. But instead of giving such the credit they deserve, you demean what was accomplished, BECAUSE YOU do not agree with what was done.
    So by your logic every soldier that ever accomplished a mission in history should be congratulated?

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Alto View Post
    So by your logic every soldier that ever accomplished a mission in history should be congratulated?
    Way to liberally twist my words to make it say what you want.. if you do not see the US implementation of my comment, then you are not for this conversation.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  8. Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    Man, when I agree with you, I *REALLY* agree with you!
    Funny... cause when you DON'T agree... you REALLY don't agree. No middle ground for you my friend.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  9. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Way to liberally twist my words to make it say what you want.. if you do not see the US implementation of my comment, then you are not for this conversation.

    Adams
    I'm not "liberally twisting," your words. I'm asking you a question and you're completely avoiding it. Let's try again. So, based on what you've just added, only US soldiers should be congratulated on a completed mission?

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Alto View Post
    I'm not "liberally twisting," your words. I'm asking you a question and you're completely avoiding it. Let's try again. So, based on what you've just added, only US soldiers should be congratulated on a completed mission?
    YES... I thought that was the implication. If a US soldier is ordered to perform a mission, and he succeeds, he SHOULD be congratulated. There was no skating the question, your words were loaded and didn't warrant a response.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Alto View Post
    I'm not "liberally twisting," your words. I'm asking you a question and you're completely avoiding it. Let's try again. So, based on what you've just added, only US soldiers should be congratulated on a completed mission?
    If you have a problem with the mission US Soldiers are assigned, you should criticize the politicians who assign them the mission. US Soldiers don't get to pick and choose missions.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    If you have a problem with the mission US Soldiers are assigned, you should criticize the politicians who assign them the mission. US Soldiers don't get to pick and choose missions.
    They do however have a choice whether or not to join the military, and I assume have some idea of the missions they are go on beforehand. I can understand not criticizing soldiers for policy, but nor do they deserve automatic congrats for completing a mission. If they want congratualtions then the mission better be constitutional, authorized along the same lines, and to the benefit of the population at large in defending their liberties. I have yet to see a single mission that I know of that fits that bill in the last few decades at least.

    Also please stop the Just Following Orders BS. Soldiers are humans, they can and are in fact required to make ethical judgements about their missions. They are not just androids that kill on command. This constant prattle about them having no choice is nonsense. They do have a choice. That is at once the source of the respect they deserve and the rock and a hard place they may find themselves in when enforcing policy not in the US's best interests.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Way to liberally twist my words to make it say what you want.. if you do not see the US implementation of my comment, then you are not for this conversation.

    Adams
    Aha, so it's only US soldiers that can do no wrong and deserve universal praise...

  14. YES... I thought that was the implication. If a US soldier is ordered to perform a mission, and he succeeds, he SHOULD be congratulated. There was no skating the question, your words were loaded and didn't warrant a response.

    Adams

    So who should be congratulating the US soldiers? Just US citizens? What about British, Iraqi, etc. civilians?

    And are there any other nations in particular, at this point in time, whose soldiers should be congratulated on accomplished missions? (Assuming you didn't reaallly mean that only US soldiers should be congratulated)

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Alto View Post
    So who should be congratulating the US soldiers? Just US citizens? What about British, Iraqi, etc. civilians?

    And are there any other nations in particular, at this point in time, whose soldiers should be congratulated on accomplished missions? (Assuming you didn't reaallly mean that only US soldiers should be congratulated)
    We're wasting our time with this line of questioning. Reason is not the driving force behind the other side of this argument. Plain statements are in order:

    The military is made of human beings, not saints, and is commanded by politicians, who are definitely not saints.

    While soldiers are not to be confused with the policies they are asked to enforce, neither should they congratulated for enforcing policies that are not constitutional or serve the end of protecting the freedom of Americans.

    It is more than possible, in fact likely, that policy they are asked to enforce will not be in the interest of protecting the liberty or safety of American citizens.

    While I respect them for their willingness to sacrifice to the end of protecting liberty and safety and this mutes individual criticisms, soldiers are not morons and should consider the ends to which they are going to be put by the largely incompetent civilian leadership before they join the military.

    These states are mere fact. They do not condone or encourage "spitting " on soldiers as some here have irrationally suggested. They are mere clarifications of an issue that too many people onone side of the debate concerning the use of the militaery try and cloud by playing on the emotions of the patriotic and overly/personally involved.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    We're wasting our time with this line of questioning. Reason is not the driving force behind the other side of this argument. Plain statements are in order:

    The military is made of human beings, not saints, and is commanded by politicians, who are definitely not saints.

    While soldiers are not to be confused with the policies they are asked to enforce, neither should they congratulated for enforcing policies that are not constitutional or serve the end of protecting the freedom of Americans.

    It is more than possible, in fact likely, that policy they are asked to enforce will not be in the interest of protecting the liberty or safety of American citizens.

    While I respect them for their willingness to sacrifice to the end of protecting liberty and safety and this mutes individual criticisms, soldiers are not morons and should consider the ends to which they are going to be put by the largely incompetent civilian leadership before they join the military.

    These states are mere fact. They do not condone or encourage "spitting " on soldiers as some here have irrationally suggested. They are mere clarifications of an issue that too many people onone side of the debate concerning the use of the militaery try and cloud by playing on the emotions of the patriotic and overly/personally involved.
    irrationally suggested? Do you live under a rock?

    As for your statement of morality as a soldier. Do you REALLY feel that has any warrant in the military? Your views are so very tunneled and skewed that you apparently know nothing about how our defense system works. If a soldier stands up and says he doesn't believe in what is being done so he will not perform that mission... what do you expect to happen. Rainbows and chocolate waiting at home for him? Or maybe his nice fluffy kitten ready to cuddle up for a warm nap near the fire place. You have a Utopian expectation of life. You call me when people aren't trying to kill Americans in one form or another, and I will concede to your argument that Soldiers are immoral.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  17. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    irrationally suggested? Do you live under a rock?
    Yes, and last I checked I had not only not spit on any soldiers, but the last donation I had given to someone was to a local guy who my dad used to work with who works personally with vets who have mental problems adjusting to civilian life. Before that it was my friend's lukemia charity.

    As for your statement of morality as a soldier. Do you REALLY feel that has any warrant in the military? Your views are so very tunneled and skewed that you apparently know nothing about how our defense system works.
    No, DA, it is your views that are tunneled and skewed to the point that anyone not offerring free blow jobs to enlisted men is somehow defiling their honor and that of the whole military. Please explain to me what is so wrong with this particular statement. I'm not asking for another emotional tirade about soldiers being spit on, how hard their lives are, what wonderful people they all are, etc., etc., etc. I want to know what specifically is wrong with this statement: "Not all US military missions are in the best interests of the United States, especially when they are not constitutionally authorized and do not serve to protect the freedoms and lives of American citizens from clear and present dangers."

    If a soldier stands up and says he doesn't believe in what is being done so he will not perform that mission... what do you expect to happen?
    I know, I know, God forbid the enlisted man think for himself, the world might end in an orgy of gay ass ****ing or something... This is completely beside the point as no one is blaming the soldier for the policy he is enforcing, just as I wouldn't blame a gun or a knife for the way it is used. However a soldier is not an inanimate object and can't be regarded as such.

    Rainbows and chocolate waiting at home for him? Or maybe his nice fluffy kitten ready to cuddle up for a warm nap near the fire place. You have a Utopian expectation of life. You call me when people aren't trying to kill Americans in one form or another, and I will concede to your argument that Soldiers are immoral.
    Sure. Just point me to the statement where I said soldiers are immoral you liar. Quote me directly. Where is it? I have said soldiers are capable of making moral judgements on their own. How the **** does that translate what passes for your mind into "soldiers are immoral"?

    You are exactly the type of person the Hannities of the world love to manipulate. God forbid someone question a policy, it's direct affront to our precious troops and the God awful and so delicate sense of pride, why the merest act of questioning anything they are ordered to do must be the highest form of treason!

    Death penalty to anyone who dares think for themselves!

    I'm sure all of the 30,000 dead Iraqis had as their primary objective the destruction of American's freedoms.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Yes, and last I checked I had not only not spit on any soldiers, but the last donation I had given to someone was to a local guy who my dad used to work with who works personally with vets who have mental problems adjusting to civilian life. Before that it was my friend's lukemia charity.
    This was a generalization, not directed at you per say, but aimed at the rationale that US soldiers are bad because they carry out the orders from above them, and that since not disregarding such orders is a mark on their moral character.


    No, DA, it is your views that are tunneled and skewed to the point that anyone not offerring free blow jobs to enlisted men is somehow defiling their honor and that of the whole military. Please explain to me what is so wrong with this particular statement. I'm not asking for another emotional tirade about soldiers being spit on, how hard their lives are, what wonderful people they all are, etc., etc., etc. I want to know what specifically is wrong with this statement: "Not all US military missions are in the best interests of the United States, especially when they are not constitutionally authorized and do not serve to protect the freedoms and lives of American citizens from clear and present dangers."
    There is NOTHING wrong with THAT statement. But your notions earlier were not expressly directed at the policy makers.

    And as I said, Soldiers DO warrant a certain level of respect. It is easy to criticize from behind a keyboard.

    I know, I know, God forbid the enlisted man think for himself, the world might end in an orgy of gay ass ****ing or something... This is completely beside the point as no one is blaming the soldier for the policy he is enforcing, just as I wouldn't blame a gun or a knife for the way it is used. However a soldier is not an inanimate object and can't be regarded as such.
    HOLY FCK man... You just don't get it. A soldier CAN think for themselves... BUT can they act for themselves... FCK NO. Get that into you skull, democratically elected officials gets to tell the military what to do, the E3 on the front line getting shot at has no SAY in what he/she can or cannot elect to do.

    Sure. Just point me to the statement where I said soldiers are immoral you liar. Quote me directly. Where is it? I have said soldiers are capable of making moral judgements on their own. How the **** does that translate what passes for your mind into "soldiers are immoral"?
    Your statement of soldiers can think for themselves and does not absolve them of the atrocities they have committed implies their acts are immoral, thus they are immoral... do you not get your own statements?

    You are exactly the type of person the Hannities of the world love to manipulate. God forbid someone question a policy, it's direct affront to our precious troops and the God awful and so delicate sense of pride, why the merest act of questioning anything they are ordered to do must be the highest form of treason!

    Death penalty to anyone who dares think for themselves!

    I'm sure all of the 30,000 dead Iraqis had as their primary objective the destruction of American's freedoms.
    I don't even know why I debate with you... you have no concept of the military heirarchy, and what a troop can or cannot do. Question policy all you want, i don't care about policy... but disregarding the troop at the ground level serving out those policies pisses me off. Join the military and walk up to your CGO, and let them know the dead Iraqis hold more weight in your mind than your own fallen citizens, and see what that gets you.

    Hannity or not, faulting someone because they respect what the military does is ridiculous. Enjoy your freedoms my friend... there is always Russia.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  19. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    They do however have a choice whether or not to join the military, and I assume have some idea of the missions they are go on beforehand. I can understand not criticizing soldiers for policy, but nor do they deserve automatic congrats for completing a mission. If they want congratualtions then the mission better be constitutional, authorized along the same lines, and to the benefit of the population at large in defending their liberties. I have yet to see a single mission that I know of that fits that bill in the last few decades at least.
    I don't think congratulations are necessarily in order, but criticizing those sworn to follow the orders of elected officials for following the orders of elected officials is ignorant.

    Also please stop the Just Following BS. Soldiers are humans, they can and are in fact required to make ethical judgements about their missions. They are not just androids that kill on command. This constant prattle about them having no choice is nonsense. They do have a choice. That is at once the source of the respect they deserve and the rock and a hard place they may find themselves in when enforcing policy not in the US's best interests.
    Obviously you've never been a Soldier, so I'll excuse your ignorance. Soldiers take pride in their country and thus take pride in executing the orders of their country. They have a choice....to be a good Soldier or bad Soldier. A good Soldier follows orders with very few exceptions.

    This actually came up in my Officer Basic Course. A chaplain was giving a block of instruction on Just War Theory. My question was, "Why does just war theory matter to us when we have to go to war when ordered no matter whether it was a just or unjust war?" I didn't get an answer, nor did I expect one. The US has many checks and balances, Soldiers are not nor were ever envisioned as one of them. I would not feel an ounce of remorse for participating in an unjust war, though it may cause me to question the individuals who sent me there.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I don't think congratulations are necessarily in order, but criticizing those sworn to follow the orders of elected officials for following the orders of elected officials is ignorant.
    Why? It's not something I'm prone to do, I'd rather give people, especially soldiers the benefit of the doubt. But it's not like what the military does is by and large a secret. However, doesn't joining and swearing to follow those orders at least on some level indicate a general agreement with them on an individual level?

    Obviously you've never been a Soldier, so I'll excuse your ignorance.
    Irrelevant. I have been and continue to be a citizen whose life and liberty are on the line and in greater danger these days than before because of what politicians have ordered the military to do currently and in the recent past. And since the last attack, 9/11, was essentially in my backyard and a few hundred people I was connected with got wiped among the thousands, my opinion will ****ing be heard, military experience or not.

    So soldiers are automatons then. You see, here is the crux of the issue: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If soldiers were mindless wretches who were trained like dogs to merely do this or that upon command, I'd agree. I do not however agree, nor do I give a **** about tradition, military law, and past experience as I think those are major causes of some of the problems with military action. As such, I would want to see more often than we do these days, soldiers and especiall exsoldiers, speaking out when they do have a chance and a choice.

    A good Soldier follows orders with very few exceptions.
    So there are exceptions then, as I said. Thanks.

    This actually came up in my Officer Basic Course. A chaplain was giving a block of instruction on Just War Theory. My question was, "Why does just war theory matter to us when we have to go to war when ordered no matter whether it was a just or unjust war?" I didn't get an answer, nor did I expect one.
    You should have pressed the question. The answer might not have been good, or useful, or one either one of us would want to hear. But the question needs asking in my opinion if the military is to be regarded as more than a mere tool, like a knife or gun.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Why? It's not something I'm prone to do, I'd rather give people, especially soldiers the benefit of the doubt. But it's not like what the military does is by and large a secret. However, doesn't joining and swearing to follow those orders at least on some level indicate a general agreement with them on an individual level?
    I joined because I love this country for what it represents and its founding principles, though I agree that of this country's principles have changed for the worst over time. I also joined to pay for college. This wasn't my primary purpose for joining, but many Soldiers do join initially as a way of bettering themselves. The military offers "a way out" for many poor and and inner city kids.

    Irrelevant. I have been and continue to be a citizen whose life and liberty are on the line and in greater danger these days than before because of what politicians have ordered the military to do currently and in the recent past. And since the last attack, 9/11, was essentially in my backyard and a few hundred people I was connected with got wiped among the thousands, my opinion will ****ing be heard, military experience or not.
    You misread what I was saying. I didn't say your opinion was irrelevent, I was saying if you have never been a Soldier or been around other Soldiers you probably don't understand a Soldier's mentality. Soldiers often take pride in remaining apolitical and following orders. A professional Soldier is an occupation, the best Soldiers seek to be the best at their job that they can be, just like the best firefighters or police officers seek to be the best at their job they can be. As a Company Commander, my goal is to get my 200 Soldiers as ready to execute the mission tasked to me as possible. I want them to know their job and know the skills necessary to do whatever is asked of us, whether that is assisting in Katrina or fighting in Afghanistan. I know that these Soldier's lives are in my hand and that distractions can be lethal to them. While you seem to be considering whether force should be applied. They are considering the best way to apply that force. If they expanded to determining whether force should be applied, it would be at the detriment of their mission and ultimately could cause Soldiers to die.

    So soldiers are automatons then. You see, here is the crux of the issue: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If soldiers were mindless wretches who were trained like dogs to merely do this or that upon command, I'd agree. I do not however agree, nor do I give a **** about tradition, military law, and past experience as I think those are major causes of some of the problems with military action. As such, I would want to see more often than we do these days, soldiers and especiall exsoldiers, speaking out when they do have a chance and a choice.
    I'm a Soldier speaking out right now. At the same time, Soldiers have to be very careful about speaking out as it is illegal to speak out against those in your chain of command for while still active duty. Soldiers are not mindless wretches trained like dogs, they just understand that they execute orders, not decide orders. That's why our armed forces is ran by civilians, as a check and balance against military dictatorship.

    So there are exceptions then, as I said. Thanks.
    There are exceptions, I won't murder a baby even if the President is standing next to me ordering me to do so. At the same time, if I am ordered to execute a mission that goes against my sensibilities on what the role of the government and military should be, I'll execute anyways. I may not like it, but I took an oath.

    You should have pressed the question. The answer might not have been good, or useful, or one either one of us would want to hear. But the question needs asking in my opinion if the military is to be regarded as more than a mere tool, like a knife or gun.
    I really already knew the answer. Just war is irrelivant to Soldiers, as they don't pick when and where they'll fight. I don't think the military should be regarded as anything more than a tool to execute directives for the elected officials in this country.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I joined because I love this country for what it represents and its founding principles, though I agree that of this country's principles have changed for the worst over time. I also joined to pay for college. This wasn't my primary purpose for joining, but many Soldiers do join initially as a way of bettering themselves. The military offers "a way out" for many poor and and inner city kids.
    And I'm not happy about that as I feel some of them are basically railroaded into the military. However, as to you specifically: one, thanks for the service; two, I personally will never vote to send your ass anywhere unless the threat is clear, present, and about to blow up; three, I have no problem footing the education bill as I'd rather have smart people with guns than stupid. Now try and not get shot.

    You misread what I was saying. I didn't say your opinion was irrelevent, I was saying if you have never been a Soldier or been around other Soldiers you probably don't understand a Soldier's mentality.
    Dad was a ranger, trust me when I say I get it. I might have been in the military too had I not been 6'4" by the time I was in fifth grade with ****ty eyes and knees. Suffice it to say I was the only kid I know not in the military who awoke to reveille almost every morning. Dad was a card.

    Soldiers often take pride in remaining apolitical and following orders. A professional Soldier is an occupation, the best Soldiers seek to be the best at their job that they can be, just like the best firefighters or police officers seek to be the best at their job they can be. As a Company Commander, my goal is to get my 200 Soldiers as ready to execute the mission tasked to me as possible. I want them to know their job and know the skills necessary to do whatever is asked of us, whether that is assisting in Katrina or fighting in Afghanistan. I know that these Soldier's lives are in my hand and that distractions can be lethal to them. While you seem to be considering whether force should be applied. They are considering the best way to apply that force. If they expanded to determining whether force should be applied, it would be at the detriment of their mission and ultimately could cause Soldiers to die.
    Fair enough, as a matter of priorities I could care less if the 'rightness' of the mission is way, way down on the list for the most part.

    I'm a Soldier speaking out right now. At the same time, Soldiers have to be very careful about speaking out as it is illegal to speak out against those in your chain of command for while still active duty. Soldiers are not mindless wretches trained like dogs, they just understand that they execute orders, not decide orders. That's why our armed forces is ran by civilians, as a check and balance against military dictatorship.
    Good balance against dictatorship, bad balance against frequent, bloody ass wars it seems.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Now try and not get shot.
    Good advice.


    Dad was a ranger, trust me when I say I get it. I might have been in the military too had I not been 6'4" by the time I was in fifth grade with ****ty eyes and knees. Suffice it to say I was the only kid I know not in the military who awoke to reveille almost every morning. Dad was a card.
    Damn....how tall are you?

    Fair enough, as a matter of priorities I could care less if the 'rightness' of the mission is way, way down on the list for the most part.
    Also, what's 'right' at the tactical level is a lot different than what's right at the strategic level. Congress and the President may be worried about whether invading Iraq is the 'right' course of action, whereas I'm worried about my Soldiers doing the 'right' thing staying alive and not killing non-combatants. On some level, it could be analogous to the question of whether any Soldiers in Nazi Germany did the 'right' thing, or were they all wrong simply because their nation was wrong strategically.

    Good balance against dictatorship, bad balance against frequent, bloody ass wars it seems.
    True.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Damn....how tall are you?
    Still 6'4". Seems that was all I had in me.

    True.
    And not necessarily in the army's interest.

  25. It's really happening. First,we witnessed the martyrdom of that saint of a man Dr.Tiller. Now, the holocaust killer.

    There was also the muslim convert who shot the soldier. Sorry, I forgot that doesn't count.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Feedback on SNS RK Extreme 500,TTA 500 and Reduce XT
    By Colin in forum Supplement Logs
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-08-2009, 09:56 PM
  2. Am i on right way?..
    By mgpugong in forum Supplements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-10-2009, 09:04 AM
  3. Cycle on right after PCT?
    By pvtpARTS in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-29-2009, 09:14 PM
  4. PAIN ON RIGHT SIDE WHEN PRE LOADING CYCLE SUPPORT?????
    By twistedfords in forum Supplements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-12-2009, 08:35 PM
  5. badminton is on right now
    By Rugger in forum General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-11-2008, 03:07 AM
Log in
Log in