Whatever bro, I'm sorry it's so hard for you to understand what I am trying to say. I wish I could sit around and talk about this a while longer, however, quite ironically actually, I have to work on my thesis.
Whatever bro, I'm sorry it's so hard for you to understand what I am trying to say. I wish I could sit around and talk about this a while longer, however, quite ironically actually, I have to work on my thesis.
I am a ex USN Electronics Technician (who had little more then a HS education), as is true a majority of the enlisted personel in all branches of the milatary, this is not an insult, it is a fact. Why get uptight? Did the techs of the 507th screw up? You bet they did, if it had been my day (1972) I would blame the execellent hash, but in this day an age they don't get away with that. So it was a simple mistake. I am glad they are home safe, but heros? No, they are not heros. Perhaps the helo piolets did something to deservet that accolade, but, not the techs of the 507th. It should take something more then simply surviving to earn that title. Perhaps, if the story of the capture is better known, I will change my feelings.
Thank you, that is what I'm saying. It's not an insult to the armed forces to point out that the majority has only a high school education, it is fact. And that ties in to the sad reality that the majority of the people who defend this country come from lower income backgrounds and see the military as a way of improving thier lives. After all, doesn't the gov. bribe the poor to join by offering them money for college etc? How many would actually join out of patriotism? Obviously none of the armchair patriots in this forum.
Yes it is quite ironic that you are working on a thesis. Quite ironic. Maybe you should get RossGr to write it for you.
i don't see what the big deal is either. my dad knew some guys who spent 7 years as POW's in vietnam.
styrafoam
Platinum Member
- Jun 18, 2002
- 2,684
- 0
- 0
There was an interview on one of the cable news channels last week with a member of the convoy who was not captured. He was at Rammstien getting treated for wounds the sustained in combat and the reporter asked him about how the entire event transpired. The soldier stated there was no wrong turn involved in their ambush, they were traveling on the pre-determined route. They were unable to fight back effectively because of sand clogged weapons; his vehicle made it out because they were at the front and basicly barreled through while the units towards the back were surrounded, being fired upon from all directions.
I think the reason for the fanfare is the fact that they were alive period. The fact that they were show on T.V. along with images of apparently executed m.i.a.'s painted a pretty grim picture. I was happy to see them come out of the whole ordeal alright and I don't think less of them because the media needs a story and turns the family/friends/peers celebrating their safe return into a major event.
It may be a fact, but the manner in which you pointed it out ("They have to pass high school at some point and be able to read.") most certainly comes across as being derogatory. Also, in no way does the military "bribe the poor" by offering incentives to join any more than a private company "bribes" an executive by offering a company car. Again, that's a negative connotation, but that seems to be a common theme with your posts.
Lastly, at least armchair patriots support the military -- where does that leave you?
I admit the "at some point be able to read" was derogatory and I withraw that statement. As for you comparing a college loan to a company car, that is ridiculous. Someone who is being offered a company car already has a job, or is being offered a job with an added incentive. The gov. offering a poor person money to go to college so that they may have some opportunity to have a better life, in exchange for them agreeing to die for a cause they may or may not beleive in is bribery. A soldier who is joining to serve their country needs no other incentive, one who joins because its the only way they can go to college is being bribed IMO. As for me, I support the military for the same reason I pointed out. A lot of them are there as a result of their social circumstance, not because they beleive in this war or not. I do not support the people who sent them there, and I do not beleive that me not blindly supporting the actions of this adminsitration makes me unpatriotic. You can support the military without supporting the people who control them, after all, how many people in this administration who are adamently pro-war have ever even seen a day of combat? Wolfowitz? Perle? BUSH!!??
It's silly that they are getting a lot of attention, but at the same time, it's understandable.
Part of the story of our SUCESSFUL victory in Iraq is bringing back prisoners of war. They aren't exactly heros; rather, they are icons of bravery, strength and resolve. Their return exemplifies the military's commitment to each person who serves our country. It's also a feel good story and sometimes that's really just needed after the losses we've taken.
I too would love to watch more live coverage in Iraq just sightseeing and area recaps instead of the rehashed POW stories (my gawd, they showed Jessica Lynch's plane for like an hour and a half on the run way with the hatch closed) or inplace of the Laci Peterson story... Oh well...
Part of the story of our SUCESSFUL victory in Iraq is bringing back prisoners of war. They aren't exactly heros; rather, they are icons of bravery, strength and resolve. Their return exemplifies the military's commitment to each person who serves our country. It's also a feel good story and sometimes that's really just needed after the losses we've taken.
I too would love to watch more live coverage in Iraq just sightseeing and area recaps instead of the rehashed POW stories (my gawd, they showed Jessica Lynch's plane for like an hour and a half on the run way with the hatch closed) or inplace of the Laci Peterson story... Oh well...
yes, why? it's almost not fair, it's like making fun of the handicapped.
A Rep president who needed to plead for a federal court to overrule a state one for him to reach power, one whose only business venture was successfull because it was subsidized by the taxpayers, those are classics.
You can support this just and legal action without blindly supporting the puppet moron in charge of the GOP right now, the reasons behind this war are real and substantial in their own regard.
You should also be able to oppose this war while still supporting Bush otherwise, have yet to see that scenario from the anti-war crowd, this makes their protests all that more questionable. I find it hard to believe they are all anti-war, and anti-bush, and that one isn't the sole fuel for the other. I know I am not the only who feels this way about this issue and him respectively.
I have a new found respect for you Alistar, all this time I thought you were a blind Bush lover. However, and I hope you beleive me, I would be against this war whether Bush was president or not. I disagree with how the whole thing was handled, but that is my point of view. The fact that Bush is a moron and is responsible for the war makes a lot of anti-war people seem anti-Bush, many are, but I beleive a lot would still be against the war even with a diff. president.
let me ask you this then, why are you against THIS war, and how do you think it should have been handled differently by the President, whoever it may have been?
I don't beleive the threat was immenent. We waited for 12 years, we could have waited a little longer for the inspectors to do their job. We had 1441 on the table, if the inspectors found anything, we would have the whole world behind us in leading this war, including me. This war was all about politics. Bush needed to ride the whole war on terrorism thing to keep his ratings up and peoples attention diverted from other issues, and he succeded magnificiently. Now we risk not finidng anything and looking like total jackasses. If we do, he will be avenged and I will forever shut my mouth on the issue. But even if he does, I think inspectors, with ever increasing international pressure on Baghdad, would have eventually led to the same result. Eventually not good enough? There was no immenent threat, if he had them, he would have used them on us when we invaded, besides, he had no way of getting them to the States, and if he did, why did he not do it in the last 12 years. You see, I beleive that if 9/11 had not happened, neither would this war. Don't get me wrong, Saddam is scum, and I'm glad to see him gone, I just don't agree with the way it was done. We could have pulled some Mujahideen tactics and armed the Iraqi resistance if we really cared about seeing Saddam go, hell it worked against the USSR, didn't it? No, we wanted a presence there for Bush's political agenda, so we had to invade.
Read this please.
"But he has given the Americans information about other unconventional weapons activities, they said, as well as information about Iraqi weapons cooperation with Syria, and with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. It was not clear how the scientist knew of such a connection."
IMHO this was a legitimate fear, both were in his country.
I would agree if not for 9/11 this would not have happened, and that was the concern that raised the possibilities he could strike the US, by means of supplying a terrorist or doing it themselves in this manner. 2 Iraqi "diplomats" were arrested at embassys worldwide, and 14 terrorist attacks were uncovered, these were being planned by OFFICIAL reps of the Iraqi govt.
We already know certain countires would have opposed any measure that would have given Saddam an ultimatum, and would have rejected anything that would have led to his removal from power. Diplomacy was not going to make them turn their back on that money. They also made arms sales they couldn't afford to be publicized. We knew this beforehand and yet he still made the effort. I don't think anyone could have gotten a different reaction or outcome from the UN.
"But he has given the Americans information about other unconventional weapons activities, they said, as well as information about Iraqi weapons cooperation with Syria, and with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. It was not clear how the scientist knew of such a connection."
IMHO this was a legitimate fear, both were in his country.
I would agree if not for 9/11 this would not have happened, and that was the concern that raised the possibilities he could strike the US, by means of supplying a terrorist or doing it themselves in this manner. 2 Iraqi "diplomats" were arrested at embassys worldwide, and 14 terrorist attacks were uncovered, these were being planned by OFFICIAL reps of the Iraqi govt.
We already know certain countires would have opposed any measure that would have given Saddam an ultimatum, and would have rejected anything that would have led to his removal from power. Diplomacy was not going to make them turn their back on that money. They also made arms sales they couldn't afford to be publicized. We knew this beforehand and yet he still made the effort. I don't think anyone could have gotten a different reaction or outcome from the UN.
You see, the problem with this is that too much is circumstantial. It's hard to convince people with anonymous scientists and evidence that is far from concrete. The scientists say they are reluctant to divulge more info. for fear of reprisals, why can't the Army offer them, as well as their families, protection? It all goes back to the buzz words that anyone who is against this war is going to rightly point out: allegedly, suspected, possibility, credible (anonymous) sources. I'm not saying that the threat may not exist, I'm saying that concrete evidence doesn't, and you would be hard pressed to convice a world body that is perenially skeptical of the US and its intentions, to accept and support action based on the evidence that we have provided. The Bush administration's rhetoric does not do too much to persuade people on the US's noble or security intentions either. Maybe if this was handled with more diplomatically ept hands, it could have been sold. We'll never know.
<- - - - 20 year Army vet.
To begin with, the Montgomery GI Bill for education is a basic entitlement to all soldiers who elect participation. This program originated during the period of conscription in 1944 so that service members might receive higher education upon returning home from service. The same principle applies today.
The Army college fund, which is an enhancement to the GI Bill, is only offered for certain specialties. Indeed, most of these specialties are typically combat arms related. However, some specialties (MOS) involve highly skilled training and above-average intelligence. Therefore, a longer commitment is required because you, the American taxpayer, partially foot the bill for training that can last up to a year or more. Qualified talent, such as high school graduates and those with college backgrounds, are sought for enlisted positions because they have proven more successful and disciplined in military service than non-graduates.
Next, the fact that the unpopular draft no longer exists presents other compelling issues for a modern, capitalistic society concerned with defense. Since DoD will not conscript individuals, the defense of our nation is accomodated by volunteers. After the Vietnam War, it was discovered that volunteers and professionals are arguably more effective in performance of military duty than conscripts because of their inherent willingness for service. In keeping with a volunteer fighting force, the U.S. military must usually compete with corporate America for qualified applicants. To compete with the private sector, various incentives (or "bribes", as you mistakenly label such measures) are offered. Incentives generally include college fund, enlistment and reenlistment bonus, advanced paygrade, and college loan repayment.
Finally, young people, between the ages of 17-34, usually join the military for any or all of the following five reasons: money, adventure/travel, vocational-technical training, higher education benefits or service to country. In conclusion, educational benefits are not the sole reasons for enlistment.
To begin with, the Montgomery GI Bill for education is a basic entitlement to all soldiers who elect participation. This program originated during the period of conscription in 1944 so that service members might receive higher education upon returning home from service. The same principle applies today.
The Army college fund, which is an enhancement to the GI Bill, is only offered for certain specialties. Indeed, most of these specialties are typically combat arms related. However, some specialties (MOS) involve highly skilled training and above-average intelligence. Therefore, a longer commitment is required because you, the American taxpayer, partially foot the bill for training that can last up to a year or more. Qualified talent, such as high school graduates and those with college backgrounds, are sought for enlisted positions because they have proven more successful and disciplined in military service than non-graduates.
Next, the fact that the unpopular draft no longer exists presents other compelling issues for a modern, capitalistic society concerned with defense. Since DoD will not conscript individuals, the defense of our nation is accomodated by volunteers. After the Vietnam War, it was discovered that volunteers and professionals are arguably more effective in performance of military duty than conscripts because of their inherent willingness for service. In keeping with a volunteer fighting force, the U.S. military must usually compete with corporate America for qualified applicants. To compete with the private sector, various incentives (or "bribes", as you mistakenly label such measures) are offered. Incentives generally include college fund, enlistment and reenlistment bonus, advanced paygrade, and college loan repayment.
Finally, young people, between the ages of 17-34, usually join the military for any or all of the following five reasons: money, adventure/travel, vocational-technical training, higher education benefits or service to country. In conclusion, educational benefits are not the sole reasons for enlistment.
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,764
- 5,925
- 146
It reminds me a bit of the reporter who took it upon himself to make a run into Tikrit, and got their vechicles shot up and fired back at people along the way. Other media talking heads lauded them for bravery, I would have them under military arrest for idiocy.
This is not to say that those POW's were not doing the job. It is just some things you don't brag about.
EDIT: The real heroes in that story are those that risked their lives rescuing them, and they will be forever nameless.....Ironic.
This is not to say that those POW's were not doing the job. It is just some things you don't brag about.
EDIT: The real heroes in that story are those that risked their lives rescuing them, and they will be forever nameless.....Ironic.
Exactly, I wonder how we would have found Jessica Lynch without that Iraqi guy who risked his life to give us information on her whereabouts etc. I'm sure he'll get a parade one day...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter