RE: Military Service and political leanings

RE: Military Service and political leanings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

inyouagain -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/22/2004 6:48:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rain What is CIC? The big cheese... the top dog... the Commander In Chief is the President. The CIC directs the JCS, DOD, SOD, SOS, FBI and CIA (and many more)... and from there it can get confusing. [;)] Inyouagain

iwillserveu -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/22/2004 8:57:47 AM)
quote: Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to shoot the guy. Great line. Can I steal it?[:)] (Yeah if I get permission is it stealing? When Shakespeare didn't get permission it means he owes lots of royalties?[:)])

topcat -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/22/2004 9:05:57 AM)
midear Iwill- Steal away- It's a family motto of sorts ("right after if you can't cheat- don't play") and my kid brother and a cousin have it as part of their USMC tattoo. Stay warm, Lawrence

iwillserveu -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/22/2004 10:38:18 AM)
It would probably be impolite to point out "things". Anyway, would you complain to discussing politics off board? (Self defined liberals usually are not, and conservatives often mistake what the G.O.P. says and what it does.) Oh I agree that oceans are not as wide as they were. The Libertarians are terribly short sighted on foreign policy.

inyouagain -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/29/2004 12:47:44 AM)
Is this a democratic, or majority feeling? Inyouagain [image]local://upfiles/11414/637A0AA539E34E58A77381E71E285D57.jpg[/image]

GoddessMarissa -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/29/2004 12:57:07 AM)
I think it's majority....lol

Sinergy -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (6/7/2004 12:03:55 PM)
Hello, There was a comment made on "Goodbye Mr. President" about Woodrow Wilson which I wanted to respond to, but I am moving it here as a more appropriate thread. World War One had as one of it's causes intertangling alliances which meant that if country A and B went to war, all their allies would declare war and start fighting as well. Woodrow Wilson oversaw the end of World War One, and envisioned making a place where nations could meet and discuss grievances as equals. He did this in the hopes that settling differences in an open forum could prevent the reoccurance of World War One. What ended up happening to this body is a number of countries attained Veto power, so it was no longer a situation where nations could meet as equals in an open forum. It was not provided with any real power to enforce it's decisions, etc. What the United Nations has become is a forum for individual countries to try to further their own political agendas at somebody else's expense. The United States is one of these countries, although we do generally provide the bulk of military muscle when the UN decides to become involved. The United States originally went to the United Nations and asked for them to sanction a US led invasion of Iraq. The United Nations refused, and the US invaded anyway. Then, after the United States was embroiled in a conflict which had no clear goals, no clear exit strategy, against an insurgent population armed with automatic weapons and RPGs, being fought by a military, composed of reservists who originally joined for more spending money at the cost of a weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, and have now been "drafted" to spend year(s) on foreign soil. The only real difference between Iraq and Vietnam is one is fought in deserts and cities while the other was fought in canopy jungles and cities. Well, that and the fact that soldiers in Vietnam could actually finish their tour of duty and come home. Before you accuse me of being a Hussein aficionado, understand I believe he was a despicable tyrant. My issue is what gave the US the right to invade? He did not have weapons of mass destruction, and the Bush Family (Bush Sr. was director of the CIA who trained Bin Laden to be a terrorist) has more of a connection to Al Qaeda than Hussein had. The United Nations was criticized by the United States for refusing to be involved, either in the race to war or sending in peacekeepers after the damage was done. Before I venture too widely off the topic, I just wanted to point out that I have no great love for the United Nations either, but the United Nations is not what Woodrow Wilson envisioned it to be either. Sinergy

Thanatosian -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (6/7/2004 7:04:20 PM)
quote: He did not have weapons of mass destruction Can you say serin gas??? last I looked that was listed as a WMD. do you think the guerillas in Iraq just happen to have serin shells that Saddam didnt know about? do you also think it is possible that while Bush Jr. was dicking around going to the UN and asking their permission/assistance that Saddam may have moved/sold/hidden his WMD's?? sorry for the flame, but you hit one of my hot buttons - one reason I try to avoid political and religious discussions

inyouagain -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (6/7/2004 8:56:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy ... The only real difference between Iraq and Vietnam is one is fought in deserts and cities while the other was fought in canopy jungles and cities. Well, that and the fact that soldiers in Vietnam could actually finish their tour of duty and come home. ... The only real way one could know and make this difference observation would be if one has been to both places. Have you been to either? Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines pulled their hitches in Vietnam, and rotated out at the end of each tour. They were mostly a Drafted force, and are not dealing with Bush Jr & Cheney's involuntary contract/enlistment extension... which you referred to. During the Vietnam conflict, a four year enlistment lasted four years. In BushGulf II, now all of a sudden a four year enlistment does not end in four years, but when Bush Jr & Cheney decide you've done your duty enough to ensure Haliburton makes mucho profits. Comparing Vietnam to BushGulf I or BushGulf II militarily is rediculous. Vietnam was a stand off postured conflict, with limited offensive targets of opportunity and rules of engagement. It was jungle warfare of a type never before seen in Korea or the Pacific during WWII, and quite a learning curve for an Army that had become increasingly mechanized. Many new military vehicles were developed and fielded in Vietnam based solely on terrain encountered there. Iraq and the Middle East are nothing like a hunkered down Army in a defensive posture. Both Gulf Wars were fought in an offensive capacity, and both won in short order I might add. In addition, delegation of authority was used to make the Gulf War Commander have all the decision making power needed to ensure command and control of all military branches of service, consolidation of command and control... which Washington DC kept mostly (with a deep time lag), during the Vietnam conflict. Apples and Oranges... no comparison to simply desert vs jungle... way lots more involved, and as a historian you should be fully aware of same. The only similarity I see is... it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, which is what happens when an opposing force blends it's troops into cover of the civilian sector. This was a tactic in Vietnam, but a standard operating procedure of muslim fanatical factions. They deliver their ordinance in civilian vehicles, often killing numerous innocent civilians in addition to the suicidal expendable bomber. It's remote controlled terrorism and stab-you-in-the-back warfare in Iraq, not orthodox warfare of any kind with Geneva Convention rules being recognized (Iraqi's execute prisoners routinely... they have 30 years of experiences, and are very used to the routine killing of helpless captives). If all your knowledge of both places comes simply from books, then more power to you... but you'll have plenty of arguments forthcoming as you meet veterans of both places, or of either place. They both look totally different from behind a desk. Inyouagain

scottcha -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (6/13/2004 8:06:37 PM)
Well I went about my military carreer in 01. It seems to be the only reason the youngsters are join these days is for the weaponry. I asked on of my pte. in my section, whether he swayed right wing or left wing. He had no idea what i was talking, he simply replied that he didnt have much knowledge involving the airforce.

NavyDDG54 -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/29/2006 8:45:31 AM)
I have been in the military for 3 years now, I have become decidedly conservative as a result. I see the liberal constantly attacking and degrading the US Military and it's members. We never hear about the good happening in Iraq, only the about the body count, as if my fallen friends are a political tool to be used to attack the President. reasons for a war in Iraq: 1) Saddam was a brutal dictator 2) Saddam tried to assassinate a former President of the United States(which last I check is considered an act of war) 3) Saddam continuosly violated sanctions, no fly zones, and military resitrctions placed on him by the UN after the first gulf war 4) Saddam had and USED WMD's in the past 5) Saddam was a major destabilzing force in the middle east 6) If there was no Al-Qaeda link to Iraq, while are top Al-Qaeda terrorists running the 'insurgency' in Iraq? 7) Saddam paid thousands of dollars to the familes of each suicide bomber in Israel, our ONLY ally in the middle east. need I go on?

caitlyn -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/29/2006 10:29:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54 I have been in the military for 3 years now, I have become decidedly conservative as a result. I see the liberal constantly attacking and degrading the US Military and it's members. We never hear about the good happening in Iraq, only the about the body count, as if my fallen friends are a political tool to be used to attack the President. reasons for a war in Iraq: 1) Saddam was a brutal dictator 2) Saddam tried to assassinate a former President of the United States(which last I check is considered an act of war) 3) Saddam continuosly violated sanctions, no fly zones, and military resitrctions placed on him by the UN after the first gulf war 4) Saddam had and USED WMD's in the past 5) Saddam was a major destabilzing force in the middle east 6) If there was no Al-Qaeda link to Iraq, while are top Al-Qaeda terrorists running the 'insurgency' in Iraq? 7) Saddam paid thousands of dollars to the familes of each suicide bomber in Israel, our ONLY ally in the middle east. need I go on? Can you post some examples of liberal leaders attacking or degrading the military? What I see, is liberal leadership not supporting the war in Iraq, which has nothing to do with not supporting the military. Many people feel that those that support the war in Iraq are the ones that are not supporting the military, in that they are sending them off to die for purposes that are really outside the scope of the purpose of our military. Conservatives are very quick to draw linkage between anyone that thinks our involvement in Iraq is foolish, and a blanket lack of support for our military ... an obviously faulty tool, and evidence of the poor position into which they have painted themselves. Conservatives also seem to find a way to ignore the point that many of the fancy weapons the military is using today, were paid for while a liberal administration was on watch. Interesting "lack of support" for the military.

DelightMachine -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/29/2006 11:36:58 AM)
quote: Conservatives also seem to find a way to ignore the point that many of the fancy weapons the military is using today, were paid for while a liberal administration was on watch. Interesting "lack of support" for the military. No, the liberal Clinton administration was not "on watch," it was in a weak position with a Republican Congress after 1994 (two years into the Clinton administration), and through much of the administration it was further weakened by Monicagate and some other scandals. Clinton didn't really have much choice but to agree to Republican-minded defense budgets. And most military weapons projects take place over a fairly long period of time, with proposals and research starting in one administration and eventual production and deployment taking place one, two or three administrations later. You could be right regarding some weapons systems and spending -- that the Clinton administration made a positive difference. But whenever I've heard the subject come up before, it always gets lost in a tangle of contradictory claims regarding this weapons system or that one, and this stage of development or that one, and whether one party proposed/supported/pushed for one thing or the other party did. I think you can say for certain that Clinton didn't always stand in the way.

GADomCpl -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/29/2006 1:18:53 PM)
I don't think that my service has changed my political views, although it has made me much more aware of whats going on around me and the world.

caitlyn -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/29/2006 5:29:02 PM)
Then lets not get involved in individual weapons systems, and instead talk about how much defense department money was saved closing pork barrel military bases.[;)]

Alumbrado -> RE: Military Service and political leanings (5/29/2006 6:24:08 PM)
I've been extremely liberal and an activist for progressive causes since junior high school. Serving in the military during Vietnam, as well as working emergency services and being a cop for several years has greatly enhanced my tendency to call BS on both sides of partisan squabbling masquerading as 'issues'.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125