Media on the Military

LFWB_dad · April 22, 2006, 3:13am

The problem with the nuclear industry is that all the visionary leaders have retired.

Corbin McNeill was the last of the breed and I can’t see anyone like him or Bill Lee on the horizon. Utilities are dominated by risk adverse accountants running the industry like accuaries.

Corbin had the vision to start buying up nukes at 10 cents on the dollar when he was at PECO. At the time everybody thought he was nuts. A year later the stock went from $26 to $50. Then he went on to mastermind the PECO Commonwealth merger to create Exelon and at the same time invest in PBMR. When he leaves, John Rowe dumps the investment in PBMR and goes back to being a seller of a commodity.

The industry needs leaders.

Where is the next Corbin McNeill?

TacticalNuke · April 22, 2006, 12:11pm

You’re spot-on with no visionaries. With the exception of mergers, nobody in this industry takes risk. We don’t build new plants, we upgrade old ones. The other problem is we’re completely and totally at the whin of regulators.

While the NRC is important, especially considering the potential risk of the nuclear industry, we bend to their every whim (sometimes with little reason to do so). Further, the PUCO/OCC (which is the distribution side of regulation) is ridiculously overbearing. I’ve worked on both sides as a co-op, and I can tell you that they cause us to waste a lot of time. It’s kind of like medical malpractice suits, for every good complaint there are 1000 frivolous ones that cause us to expend manpower for absolutely no reason, while taking away from customers that really need help.

Anyway, the utilities industry is at a dead stand-still because we’re afraid of other utilities and of the regulators. We’re on a path to nothingness. Once we do life extensions on our nuke plants that’s it, they’re going to reach the end of their lives and then we’ll need new plants. But, apparently, nobody is looking that far ahead.

usna09mom · April 29, 2006, 1:51pm

CNO Says Navy Primed for Expanding Missions, Old and New 
4/27/2006

From Chief of Naval Operations Public Affairs

WASHINGTON (NNS) – Sailors are ready and willing to take advantage of the Navys expanding mission roles, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen told an audience at a leadership breakfast sponsored by Government Executive Magazine April 24 at the National Press Club in Washington.

Mullen said the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, spurred Department of Defense leadership to think differently about future conflict. Since the global war on terrorism has ushered in an era of changes in the Navys missions, which have steadily grown to support the Joint Force even further and are key components of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), he said its absolutely vital now that the Navy be prepared to fight and win both the big and small wars.

Weve gone from a blue-water Navy, which is clearly where we were before the [Berlin] Wall came down, to a Navy that has vastly expanded its mission sets in a world thats much more uncertain, much more unpredictable, and in a world that I believe the Navy and the Marine Corps have the ability and the maneuverability to be out and about, Mullen said.

Mullen noted that many Sailors are seeking ways to contribute to the Navys increasing role in Iraq, Afghanistan and other new missions around the globe, including Joint Task Force Horn Of Africa (JTF-HOA) and detainee operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Navys really trying to pitch in here," he said. "Weve got a lot of talent. I know that. And weve got COs that we can count on to lead the challenge.

Mullen noted that Navy commanding officers will soon lead half of the 12 U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan and that there are more than 10,000 Sailors serving in combat and combat support roles on the ground throughout the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility (AOR).

He spoke at length about the new Naval Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), established this winter in Norfolk, VA.

I think [NECC] actually represents both old missions and new missions, Mullen said. "It signifies the change. When its fully stood up, I think that itll be a command that oversees about 40,000 Sailors. Thirty thousand or so of them exist right now. There are Seabees, our cargo handlers; there are our EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) personnel, our master-at-arms forces.

We needed a command to oversee that - to really organize, train and equip these forces for the future. In addition to that, the new capability - specifically riverine - is where that will be embedded. Were very excited about that, Mullen added.

The Navy plans to build three 12-boat riverine security squadrons, the first of which is training now and will deploy to Iraq next year.

Mullen stressed that one of the key missions of expeditionary forces will be to build relationships with other navies and nations, to deal with conflicts in phase zero - in other words, preventing events from escalating to the point of conflict through better security and stronger relationships.

One of the most important parts I believe of QDR, is to focus us on what I call theater security cooperation and forward engagement. Its a strength for us, he said. Anybody whos been in the Navy, operating around the world, has always engaged with countries in many places. And this is not just a push from the United States Navy, this has been a requested capability of several chiefs of navies in recent years.

For related news, visit the Chief of Naval Operations Navy NewsStand page at <a href=“http://www.news.navy.mil/local/cno/[/url]”>www.news.navy.mil/local/cno/</a>

usna09mom · May 6, 2006, 1:03am

Army wants anti-war alums to stop using West Point name 
By WILLIAM KATES
Associated Press Writer

May 5, 2006, 3:17 PM EDT

SYRACUSE, N.Y. – The Army has warned an anti-war group called West Point Graduates Against the War to stop using the words “West Point” in its name, saying it is a violation of a registered trademark.

But William Cross, a 1962 West Point graduate, Vietnam War veteran and military psychologist, said Friday the group is upholding the cadets’ code of honor to be truthful and courageous and continuing their military commitment to uphold America’s constitutional freedoms.

“At West Point, we were taught that cadets do not lie, cheat or steal _ and to oppose those who do,” said Cross. “We are a positive organization. We are not anti-West Point or anti-military. We are just trying to uphold what we were taught.”

Last month, a parade of retired generals called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to step down, including three who were West Point graduates. The generals criticized Rumsfeld and the Bush administration for mismanaging the war in Iraq.

Cross co-founded the organization with West Point classmates Jim Ryan of Carmel, N.Y. and Joe Wojcik of Claremont, Calif. The group _ open to West Point graduates, their spouses and children _ has about 50 members. It launched its Web site in mid-April and has recorded more than 23,000 hits.

“We stand appalled by the deceitful behavior of the government of the United States … Lying, cheating, stealing, delivering evasive statements and quibbling not only has demeaned these deceivers and the United States of America, but has placed vast numbers of innocent people in deadly peril. We will not serve the lies,” the group says on its Web site.

On April 12, Army attorney Lori Doughty sent the group a letter, warning that it had violated the Army’s trademark and needed to immediately remove the words “West Point” from its name.

“I am sure you will agree, as a graduate of this institution, that it is deeply important to protect the valuable trademarks that enhance the image and standing of the United States Military Academy in the national and world stage,” Doughty wrote.

West Point spokesman Lt. Col. Kent Cassella said the military academy would have sent the organization a warning letter even if it was not opposed to the war.

“This is not a political issue. They did not ask for permission. We are doing what any college or university would do to enforce its trademarks,” said Cassella.

The Army registered the words “West Point” _ as well as “United States Military Academy,” “USMA,” and “U.S. Army” _ as trademarks in 2000 to prevent anyone else from using the phrases on educational material or commercial goods.

There is a licensing process to obtain permission to use “West Point” that Cross’ group did not go through, Cassella said. When a trademark violation comes to their attention, Army officials take action, he said. The Army has negotiated agreements with several local businesses allowing them to use “West Point” in their names, he said.

Attorney Joseph Heath, hired by Cross and his colleagues, sent a response May 1, raising several issues and questioning the academy’s stance. He said Friday he has not heard back yet from West Point.

Heath said it appears the Army is selectively deciding when to protect its trademark, noting that there already is widespread commercial use of the words “West Point.”

“You can’t choose who and when,” said Heath, a Navy veteran who also is opposed to the war.

The case also raises clear First Amendment concerns, he said.

“I would hope that the Army would be proud of these men and their willingness to promote democracy and freedom of speech,” Heath wrote back to the Army.

Meanwhile, Cross said his group is considering branching out to include military graduates from the Air Force and Naval academies.

On the Web:

<a href=“http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org%5B/url%5D”>www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org</a>

usna09mom · May 8, 2006, 1:36am

From the Los Angeles Times
The Guard’s Combat Role May Fade Out

Active-duty officers cite uneven performance in Iraq as reason to rethink the force’s future missions.

WASHINGTON National Guard troops in Iraq, which once constituted half the Army’s fighting force, have been dramatically reduced and could be largely phased out of major combat responsibilities next year as military officials debate their performance and what role they should play in future conflicts.

Iraq was an important test of whether the Army could use the Guard more aggressively and not just as a last resort. During the Cold War, the Guard was recast as the “strategic reserve” that would be used in the big fight against the Soviet Union that never came.

After the initial invasion of Iraq, the Army began the largest reserve mobilization since World War II. Guard units were assigned front-line responsibilities, roughly equivalent to active-duty units. Leaders of the Guard say their Iraq service has made their force the most capable and experienced it has ever been.

But the experience also has exposed weaknesses. Some active-duty soldiers argue the Guard was less prepared for the complexities of Iraq, while guardsmen complain they were subjected to longer separations from their families than active duty counterparts and had to train on out-of-date equipment.

The debate over the Guard is occurring partly inside of a larger process as the Army pursues a plan to reorganize how it trains and deploys active duty and reserve forces overseas. Some officers are suggesting the Guard’s combat role be reassessed.

The Guard reached a high of 50,285 troops deployed to Iraq in March 2005, a force that included eight combat brigades and a division headquarters. Today there are 23,000 Guard members and just two combat brigades. The Guard combat force will shrink to one brigade later this year as the Pennsylvania National Guard returns home. And if the overall drawdown continues, the National Guard brigade will be the first combat unit pulled next year, according to one senior defense official.

“The Guard will be the first on the off-ramp,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the list of units to be deployed is classified.

The military has deployed both National Guard and Army Reserve units to Iraq. Reserve soldiers are exclusively assigned to support units, such as transportation companies or civil affairs teams. The National Guard, which reports to each state’s governor unless mobilized by the federal government, provides both support and combat units.

Senior leaders say the Guard will continue to have a combat presence, albeit smaller, in Iraq. Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, said combat and combat service brigades would continue to serve next year in Iraq.

“The National Guard is not coming out of the war,” said Blum. “We will be proportionally represented in combat, combat support and combat service support.”

Still, there is a little doubt that the Guard is about to cross an important milestone at a time when the Army is examining its organization and future missions. Some active-duty soldiers argue the most capable guardsmen have served in combat support units military police companies or engineering battalions. In these units, Guard members often had civilian skills that complemented their military training and made them more adept, knowledgeable and flexible than active duty counterparts.

With 351 Guard soldiers killed in Iraq and another 2,867 wounded, many active-duty officers avoid criticizing the force. But some regular Army officers have suggested that many of the Guard units were too cautious, overly concerned with casualties and simply did not have the intensity of training to match the active-duty force. Guard units were not able to as quickly master the difficulties of the counter-insurgency fight, say some Iraq veterans.

“Iraq showed what we have really always known, that the more complex combined arms operations that take extensive training and considerable experience are more difficult for units that get two weeks of training a year,” said one Army general, who spoke on condition of anonymity because publicly criticizing the Guard is frowned on in the military. “We need to be honest with ourselves. Six months of preparation does not provide the same foundation as five, 10, 15 years of full-time experience.”

Some of those who want to reform the role of the National Guard blame commanders for not intensifying its combat training.

“The National Guard needs to get serious about national security,” said another Army official. “It was not a surprise they were not trained to do the job we wanted.”

Such critiques anger Blum, the National Guard chief, who said such comments are “old think” that would offend the 19 Guard brigades that have fought in Iraq.

“When they operate the same equipment and when they are given the same resources, the same opportunity to train, they should perform identically to their active duty counterparts and they do,” Blum says. “Except for the fact that they come in with civilian-acquired skills that bring extra capabilities that their unit would not normally have.”

Maj. Gen. Joseph Taluto, who led the Guard’s 42nd Infantry Division in Iraq, acknowledges that active duty forces may have gone into Iraq with more training. But once his soldiers were “in the soup,” they acquired as much expertise as their counterparts.

“It does not take much time for a citizen soldier who has a good understanding of soldiering to start doing something on a very high level when he gets in country,” Taluto said. “I have some company commanders who have some hard experience… They measure up at the same level.”

Guard officials argue that Iraq showed that their units were not given enough resources and said the Army must ensure they have sufficient training, soldiers and equipment if it intends to deploy them regularly. Although the Guard has 34 combat brigades on the books, only about 15 were considered capable of overseas service. Iraq showed that even those required significant upgrades of equipment and training before they could be sent to war.

The Guard also faced problems with some of its soldiers. Many guardsmen are older than the average active-duty soldier. That may mean they have more experience, but it also means they tend to be less physically fit and have a harder time keeping up in 125-degree heat, according to active-duty officers who have served in Iraq.

Guard brigades have also turned out to be understaffed, laden with soldiers who could not be deployed for medical reasons. That has meant that infantry brigades have had to turn to outside units to augment their ranks. The Pennsylvania Guard, for example, was augmented by forces from Michigan and Utah.

Blum said the Guard has been growing younger and replacing about 20% of its force every year. The Guard, he said, also has developed a system that allows units that are getting ready to deploy to carry extra soldiers, so they do not get caught short-handed in Iraq. But he also contended that augmenting brigades with units from other states actually strengthened the force.

Top Guard officials also say they can intensify the training once they get more resources and equipment. Both regular and Guard leaders acknowledge that at the beginning of the war, Guard units were sent to Iraq with inferior equipment. Although military leaders say that problem has been fixed, much of the new equipment arrives as the units are preparing to ship off. Taluto said that means Guard units have to learn how to use the new gear at the same time they are training to avoid roadside bombs and fight an insurgency.

Training and equipment deficiencies extended the preparation time needed by Guard units. So in addition to yearlong deployments in Iraq, Guard units would often train for six months far from home. Guard officials say they are trying to shrink those extended mobilization times that keep soldiers away from their families, fueling complaints and drawing ire from Congress.

The Army is working on what it calls a “force generation” model, its blueprint for deploying and rotating its various brigades worldwide. The plan would reorganize the Guard into what it calls an “operational reserve.” Guard brigades would enter a regular rotation, so that if they are called into overseas service, it would be within a set window of time once every six years. Units that are approaching their deployment window would get more resources and better training.

usna09mom · May 8, 2006, 1:38am

Some Army officials are using the force generation discussion to push for a broader review of the Guard after Iraq. They argue that the war in Iraq and natural disasters at home have shown that the Guard is not the best place for combat brigades, particularly heavy mechanized forces. Others say the Army should consider not deploying larger Guard units, and instead mixing smaller companies in with active duty organizations.

Although such voices remain a minority, the Army is trying to force the Guard to shed artillery and air defense units and convert them into military police or other combat support units. Other heavy units are to be remade into light infantry.

“A governor can’t use a tank battalion,” an Army official said. “The power of the National Guard in a state is boots on the ground and trucks. It is not tanks or attack helicopters.”

Michele A. Flournoy, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it was unlikely that the Army would use the Guard for major combat operations in the future because training simply takes too long. Instead, they would be most likely used for stability and peacekeeping operations like the Guard’s current deployments in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Sinai peninsula.

“I think this is well understood in the Pentagon,” said Flournoy, who will publish a new report on the future of the National Guard next month. “But there is some concern within the National Guard they don’t want to be pushed out of the war fight.”

Blum noted that stability operations in Iraq turned out to be complex combat operations. That reality, he argued, shows that as the Guard is transformed in the years to come, it has to be ready for any kind of fight.

“The Guard is a full-spectrum force that can do the full range of military operations on the ground and in the air. And we expect that there won’t be any military operations this country engages in that we’re not involved in, in significant ways,” Blum said. “If you are getting shot at, it is high-intensity conflict.”

LIGER71 · May 21, 2006, 7:16pm

West Point’s ‘warning’ westpointgradsagainstthewar.org is outrageous. I am a West Point graduate, Class of 1993 and I am opposed to this war. George W Bush DECEIVED the american people by lying about WMDs, the ‘imminent threat’ of the Iraqi regime,etc etc. More than 2,500 US soldiers are dead and thousands more maimed for life. there have been approximately 40 West Point graduates killed in this illegally waged war. Yet the ‘Brain Trust’ at West Point has an issue with we graduates who do not respect those who misrepresent the truth. All one has to do is look a this president’s approval numbers. I believe his approval rating is now in the 20s.

SHAME ON YOU WEST POINT ! I am so thoroughly disgusted I will never travel across this (STILL) great country to visit my Alma Mater again.

You’ve BLOWN it West Point!!

shogun · May 21, 2006, 8:19pm

Liger71:

There are people on all sides of the issues that face Americans today–but I see your statements as not in character with many other former grads (namely the retired general officers) who have spoken out, but still retain their love and respect for West point and its ideals and values. I find the website mentioned to be too nasty for my tastes. I can understand why the academy would be concerned as to how its name is used. Just my opinion, however.

Bill0510 · May 21, 2006, 10:13pm

There was a show on HBO tonight called Baghdad ER. A show about the primary medical facility in Baghdad servicing the military stationed there. Highly recommended.

Whether you support Bush or not, taking a look at the injuries and the harm that is coming to our young people there is eye opening. If more of the public were to see this, Bush’s approval rating would be even lower. [If that is possible.]

As I have said before, it is simply a shame that these young people are dying and becoming maimed for, ultimately, what will be no good purpose.

Zaphod · May 21, 2006, 10:47pm

I am SO glad and proud that so many of those young people walk out of the hospital and choose to go straight back to their units, reenlist, and/or volunteer for additional tours, because THEY who are THERE BELIEVE in what they are doing.

I’ll take their opinion over that of you and the media any day.

Zaphod · May 21, 2006, 10:51pm

Then so did Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Blair, the UN, and everyone else who, since 1991, had been talking about how dangerous Hussein was and how he could NOT be allowed to rebuild his WMD capability.

Yep. They were ALL in W’s pocket. :rolleyes:

You wanna talk about faulty intelligence (which came from the UN, CIA, NSA, MI-6, Mossad, et all, and all agreed), that’s definitely an argument with merit, but to accuse the President of lying is laughable and an indication that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Illegal? That’s funny, as I distinctly remember the Congress voting for it, and then voting for it AGAIN when the DEMOCRATS demanded an additional vote to show how supportive of the whole thing they were.

I guess we’ll be hearing from you on how Hillary Clinton should be tossed from office for having supported Bush in this “illegal” war, eh? After all, she voted FOR it.

I simply cannot believe how such hatred for a single person can blind so many people to realty.

Oh, and to all those who are eagerly looking at W’s poll numbers and rubbing your hands with glee: I should point out that the reason he is so far down is because guys like ME, who voted for him TWICE, are pretty damned ticked off at him for such things as ignoring the border problem, spending like a drunken sailor in non-defense areas, and trying hard to please everyone and therefore pleasing no one. It is NOT because this country has suddenly decided it wants to commit suicide and elect that bunch of screaming socialists (sorry, “progressives”) that now constitute the Democrat Party. I’m still waiting for them to give us a reason to vote FOR them aside from “We hate Bush!”.

In case you missed it, a bunch of these RINO Republican incumbents have been tossed recently in primary elections in favor of more truly Conservative candidates.

Oh, and I would never sully the name of my great Academy by using it to give any rediculous political group the credibility it could not muster on its own. The only example I can think of where I MIGHT is if some moonbat politician started a movement to disband the Academies (which HAS happened in the past, BTW), and my group was organized to DEFEND the ACADEMY.

Zaphod · May 21, 2006, 11:24pm

I’m wondering when the MSM is going to cover the story about that letter we intercepted from Al Qaeda, where they whine that they are losing the war everywhere EXCEPT in the American media?

How about playing that tape of Al Zarqawi (the Maximum Terrorist), where he can’t even operate his own weapon?

Oh, yeah… They’re still too busy running that tape of W trying to open the wrong door at that Chinese press conference for the millionth time. :rolleyes:

confused23 · May 22, 2006, 12:31am

“Then so did Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Blair, the UN, and everyone else who, since 1991, had been talking about how dangerous Hussein was and how he could NOT be allowed to rebuild his WMD capability”

<pre><code> Yes, they knew he wasn’t a good person, but they know nothing in Iraq merited an invasion. Half-wit. That’s why the Security Council didn’t give approval to an invasion. Oh and Democrats didn’t like the members of their party who voted for the war. That’s why Leibermann isn’t going to get re-elected and that’s why Clinton won’t get the nomination, because she voted for the war. And you know what I thought you would like the Clinton family since they allowed gays in the military, I am SURE that went well with the sailors (No offense to anyone else, but I HAD to say it).
</code></pre>

“Illegal? That’s funny, as I distinctly remember the Congress voting for it, and then voting for it AGAIN when the DEMOCRATS demanded an additional vote to show how supportive of the whole thing they were.”

Iraq was a soveriegn nation. It was illegal in the sense that the UN didn’t give approval, half-wit. Noone in the world gives a damn about U.S. Congressmen, most of the Republican ones were bought off by Abramoff.

<pre><code>Oh and Zaphod I can’t wait for November when the Democrats take over the House and/or Senate and can start impeaching Bush’s administration. Nuremberg Trials Part II, this time its personal. I can’t wait to see you scream your head off, you know what since you are in the NAvy, why don’t you just drown yourself in November. See you later “comrade”.
</code></pre>

confused23 · May 22, 2006, 12:42am

now that even Bill0510 from Texas , holy crap, has turned on Mr. Danger, here’s a treat for him.

"
And finally, New Rule: George Bush has to stop laughing at himself. (Referring to the Press Conference and the Bush impersonator). When you’re incompetence literally costs lives, giggling at it isn’t cute or funny. You know, there’s a guy who’s been running around the country pretending he’s the president, and I believe his name is George Bush. And he wants everyone to know that he doesn’t take himself too seriously. Which is working out great, because now nobody else in the world does either.

You know, if the Republicans really want to joke around, I’ve got one for you. Knock, knock.

AUDIENCE: Who’s there?

MAHER: Hillary. Now, this is our last show of the season, and I’m rather proud that we’ve gone all 13 weeks without once making George Bush the subject of our show-ending editorial. Because I didn’t want to start sounding like a broken record. Or, to you kids, a degraded MP3 file. Oh, there may have been a stray George Bush punchline here and there. But, come on. I am a comedian and he is a ■■■■■■.

But, f*** it, this is our, this is our last show. This is our last show for a while and I just want to say that when we come back on August 25th, the week of Bill Clinton’s 60th birthday, and a great time for him to do the show. Wouldn’t you love to see him do the show, folks? Bill Clinton, everywhere I go. So, your move, Mr. President. But when we come back, I hope we’re only months away from the beginning of impeachment proceedings.

But, wait. But not for what you think. Now, of course there is a laundry list of valid reasons for impeaching this president. But George Bush and his nest of vipers don’t deserve to be impeached with dignity for transgressions involving lofty affairs of state. They deserve the far worse state that Clinton got: being impeached for absolutely nothing at all!

And that’s why I want to impeach Bush over the fact that he lied about that fish! He said he caught a perch twice as large as any perch that’s ever been caught! And that’s a lie about a fish! In a time of war! And if he will lie about a fish, then…something, something, something, what do we tell the children? What do we tell Mrs. Paul?! That perch was as American as a McDonald’s fish sandwich. Assuming for the sake of argument that a McDonald’s fish sandwich contained fish.

So, Mr. President, don’t laugh at yourself, because breaking the law is not cute. Having Americans torture people isn’t adorable. Leaving poor people to drown wasn’t enchanting. And WMD’s wasn’t a shaggy dog story. So, I’ll make a deal with you. We won’t impeach you if you just stay on your estate I mean “ranch” and fish on your man-made lake. For perch. Maybe you’ll beat your own record.

But, for the next three years, just don’t touch anything. I was wrong when I criticized you for taking too much vacation time. It couldn’t be more the reverse. Take all the “me” days you want. But if you get any big ideas and try to do something, you know, like go to Mars or put the Ten Commandments on the flag, or turn the ports over to the Amish, then we’re going to have to put you in the only place we can be sure we can be safe from you. And it looks like this. [photo shown of David Blaine’s water-filled Plexiglas globe]

confused23 · May 22, 2006, 12:59am

i JUST READ THE WESTPOINT ANTI-wAR site! It seems at least some people listened in class.

Please read this <a href=“westpointgradsagainstthewar.org - This website is for sale! - westpointgradsagainstthewar Resources and Information.”>westpointgradsagainstthewar.org;

and this <a href=“westpointgradsagainstthewar.org”>westpointgradsagainstthewar.org;
Finally,some sense.

Zaphod · May 22, 2006, 8:21am

Oh, yay. The resident Bolshevik ■■■■■ is back…

:rolleyes:

Bill0510 · May 22, 2006, 8:44am

C23. As usual, you make no sense. I did not recently turn on “Mr. Danger,” whomever that is.

Z. Young people will believe just about anything if told often enough. I don’t think this is a valid measure as to whether the war is worth it.

As I have said many times, to me, it is not an argument of whether or not we should be in Iraq. That argument is a waste of time. We are there and we should fight to win.

I am angry at the post-invasion administration. I am angry that young people are dying because the administration refuses [has refused] to send in adequate troops to finish the job. Declare Marshall law, basically shoot the hell out of anybody that gets in the troops’ way, bomb the hell out of the rest of them, show them who’s boss, and then get the hell out of there.

The middle-east culture only respects force [that is why Saddam was in power for so long], anything less is considered weakness. This half-baked, yes, politically correct, effort we are making is just a Vietnamese path to accomplishing nothing. THAT is why I say that young people are dying for nothing.

Zaphod · May 22, 2006, 9:33am

In that case Bill, you have my very heartfelt and very public apology, because I agree with every single thing you posted in the quote above. I obviously and completely misunderstood your take on this.

Sometimes I hate the internet because the bandwidth is so restricted as compared to a face-to-face conversation, which makes misunderstandings like this one all too common.

I knew we were in trouble when we changed “INFINITE JUSTICE” to “ENDURING FREEDOM” because we didn’t want to offend anyone, and when we began dropping food as well as bombs. I knew we were in for it when we were not allowed to fly OUR flag from OUR tanks as WE rolled into Baghdad in victory.

As for the media, please don’t get me started. It’s way too early in the morning, and I can assure you if we were fighting this war the way you and I agree it should be fought, dim bulbs like Confused23, et al, would be screaming for our indictment for war crimes.

Such is the world we live in. :(

Bill0510 · May 22, 2006, 11:17am

Thank you. 
We really are not that far apart. My comments, all of my comments, are tempered by an additional 15 years of life and, yes, service to the country; albeit, in ways very different than yours.
I used to be a firebrand, yes “one-dimensional,” sort of person that you sometimes come across as. [Although I don’t think I was ever as naive as C23 comes across as.] But additional experience, a child that has done some amazing things, a healthy dose of skepticism, age, maturity, and, yes, a lawyer’s eye toward life has changed my outlook.

I can be as conservative as anybody. [I dislike lazy, dishonest, ignorant people that refuse to recognize facts.] I can be somewhat liberal. [Government has a role in protecting the weak and under-represented from the majority.] I recognize that [exaggerated] political correctness is a menace. I also recognize, however, that sometimes you fight the battle and sometimes you don’t. [re: words in a song]

Women and minorities are not fairly treated in this country. [Neither are they fairly treated in Afghanistan or much of the middle east.] I am more considerate of minorities and the poor because, despite what many would suggest, it is very hard to be one or the other or both in this country. It is not always a function of how talented you are or how hard you work. Sometimes, just sometimes, it is a function of who you know [or rather who your parents knew] and how much money you start out with. But that’s the way it is in this country and smart women [Wheelah?] and minorities [?] make the best of it and move ahead. The rest [and there are not as many as some would have you believe] pick up the crumbs and get swallowed up by the system.

The pendulum has swung too far in my opinion; it will swing back this fall.
That is why I am a wishy, washy middle of the roader. I have seen the damage that either extreme can inflict if left unchecked. [Remember, I am a child of the 60s and a young adult of the eighties.] I have seen give-away liberalism threaten the economy only to see give-away consevatism threaten to do the same thing. Amazing!

That does not mean that I don’t have some conservative, winner-take-all, tendencies. I do. [If we’re gonna have a war, then lets have a war, not the stupid police action this has become.] However, it also does not mean that I don’t have some compassion about the true needs of the country. [Health care.]

At the end of the day, I am like you: just some slob posting on the internet. If I had any real talent, i would be making policy, not typing words of wisdom [?] to some anonymous audience that can’t make a difference any more than I can. [Do you think President Bush reads this site?]

It would indeed make for an interesting meeting, face to face, for many of those that post on this site.

Zaphod · May 22, 2006, 11:25am

Well, I’m sad to say that “give-away Conservatism” is a contradiction in terms, and that all to often (in fact MOST of the time) the ones holding down the poor and minorities are the clowns claiming to help them.

Throw in a media that refuses to just tell us what happened, but rather what THEY think happend and what WE should think about it, and you have the mess we’re in.

I don’t think the pendulum has swung at all. It was WAY to the left in 1994, and came toward the right thereafter, but since 2000 I would hardly call what we have up in DC indicative of what real Conservatism is.

That’s why Bush’s numbers are down. Liberals dispise him because they have sunk into this miasma where all they see is a self-perpetuating and boundless rage that they don’t realize is consuming THEM, and Conservatives are all looking at each other and saying, “Excuse me, but isn’t this guy SUPPOSED to be a Republican and at least SOMEWHAT Conservative?”

It will be nteresting to see what happens this fall. Sadly, no matter which side wins, I believe they will all take from it EXACTLY the WRONG message. Not surprising, really, since all any of them really give a damn about is keeping their sorry asses in office. The difference is the level of damage they do while there.

And people wonder why I use the term “Congresscritter”. ;)

Media on the Military

CONNECT WITH US