RE: Military Service and political leanings

Join Our Community

As the Collar Turns:

Collarchat.com - BDSM Forum

Home Login Event Calendars Search

RE: Military Service and political leanings

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off Topic Discussion >> RE: Military Service and political leanings

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Military Service and political leanings - 5/22/2004 6:48:01 AM

inyouagain

Posts: 427
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to rain)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Military Service and political leanings - 5/22/2004 8:57:47 AM

iwillserveu

Posts: 1641
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

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?

)

_____________________________

When the Lady smiles i can't resist her call. As a matter of fact, i don't resist at all. Well that depends if it is a smile or a grimmace.

(in reply to topcat)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Military Service and political leanings - 5/22/2004 9:05:57 AM

topcat

Posts: 1013
Joined: 1/31/2004
From: Long Island
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

-there is no remission without blood-

(in reply to iwillserveu)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Military Service and political leanings - 5/22/2004 10:38:18 AM

iwillserveu

Posts: 1641
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

When the Lady smiles i can't resist her call. As a matter of fact, i don't resist at all. Well that depends if it is a smile or a grimmace.

(in reply to Estring)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Military Service and political leanings - 5/29/2004 12:47:44 AM

inyouagain

Posts: 427
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

Is this a democratic, or majority feeling?

Inyouagain

Thumbnail Image

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to rain)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Military Service and political leanings - 5/29/2004 12:57:07 AM

GoddessMarissa

Posts: 240
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Las Vegas NV
Status: offline

I think it's majority....lol

_____________________________

D/s makes the world go round~~
www.Domina.ms/love

(in reply to inyouagain)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Military Service and political leanings - 6/7/2004 12:03:55 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

"Why am I surrounded by fricking idiots?" Dr. Evil

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle, 44th Vice President of the United States

(in reply to GoddessMarissa)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Military Service and political leanings - 6/7/2004 7:04:20 PM

Thanatosian

Posts: 688
Joined: 5/10/2004
From: New Castle, PA
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Apply Usual Caveats Here

An expert is somone who has made all the mistakes there are to be made

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Military Service and political leanings - 6/7/2004 8:56:57 PM

inyouagain

Posts: 427
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Military Service and political leanings - 6/13/2004 8:06:37 PM

scottcha

Posts: 1
Joined: 3/16/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to rain)

Profile

Post #: 30