I read that. I just can't get my head around it.
Having said that, I also don't understand civilians, who have never
spent a day in the service, who know f*uck-all about warfare, giving
orders to the military.
What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
Keep firmly in mind that TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) does NOT
normally contain armored transport resources for those units deployed as
infantry ... they normally WALK. :)
You improvise and do the best you can ...a time honored solution to the time
honored fact of politicians hamstringing the fighting man.
It ain't like this administration invented, or even had that much to do,
with the situation under discussion.
Well, it _is_ a Constitutional safeguard which we damn well better fight to
Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?
Again... just asking.
Tsk, tsk ... or just baiting? In any event, these shallow, irrelevant
questions miss the mark completely.
There is no question that we have the tools to do the job. The question is
do we have the will?
When the sheep ultimately look up and see, ONCE AGAIN, their loved ones
dying in the streets of Hometown, USA, just hope like hell there is enough
of that "will" left to get the job done.
So, has anybody missed hockey this season?
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
What would you like to hear? ... "Nuclear"?
Sorry, not from me..
All military unit's readiness to perform a mission revolves around two major
categories: Men and Materiel. Depending upon the mission, and often
political necessities, neither has to be at "full strength", according to
the respective table of organization and equipment, to perform effectively.
I wouldn't worry too much about the "tools" at this point ... as noted
above, the "will" to finish what we started is the bigger concern, due the
fools and dunderheads, and the media that fuels their antics, who refuse to
see the consequences of not doing so.
No, that's definitely what I would not like to hear. Although I am sure
that for some there is no limit to the "tools" that would be employed.
It's not just a question of the military. There are political,
economic, and public relations tools to be used as well. Those that
consider only the military tool and neglect the other tools can rapidly
find themselves in a losing battle. Treating everything like a nail
because all they know how to use is a hammer.
No argument that our armed forces are functioning above all possible
expectation. And the problems in Iraq are certainly not the fault of
I think it is the fools and dunderheads that got us into this mess to
begin with. Besides, the rights of free speech and free press are
fundamental to a democracy (at least until some dunderhead decides
It's hard to disagree with you, but the point is moot ... we're in it up to
our eyeballs. The task now is to deal a blow to our avowed enemies while we
extricate ourselves, or walk off and stick our heads in the sand, ignoring
global reality in the 21st century.
There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy. Couple
that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either side, and you end
up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken to be based passion and
politics, instead of reason.
There are alternatives besides "staying the course" and "sticking our heads
in the sand." It is not a sign of weakness to learn from our mistakes, it
is a sign of resiliency and strength. I also believe that now the mistake
of going to war has been made, we must succeed ... and adjustment of our
approach is much needed. It is not unpatriotic for that to be pointed out.
Nonsense. American ideals are the only thing worth fighting for.
Sometimes fighting while upholding those ideals is harder, but in the long
run worth it. When you start censoring free press and free speech in the
name of supporting the war, then you are already operating in a dangerous
haze based on passion and politics.
That is a damn provincial attitude to the rest of the world, and a perfect
example of head-in-the-sand when it comes to global terrorism.
Whoa .. bucko!. Not old enough to remember WWII, or much American history
There is nothing "nonsense" about limits on free speech. AAMOF, it is a
historical fact in this country since day 1 (remember the principle of
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), particularly in times of war or
national danger ... and if we lose this one, WWII will look like a walk in
Solution: get your head out of the sand and start listening to what is going
on around you when it comes to a "free press" also ... Dan Rather and CBS,
and the paying of "journalists" by the present administration, sound
No, this idea that somehow we have to give up our freedoms in order to
more effectively fight terrorism is wrong. The idea that somehow our
democratic process of free speech, free press, and political opposition
somehow provides aid to the enemy is wrong, too. It's entirely possible
to fight a smart war on terrorism and still protect our ideals. We are
not fighting a smart war on terrorism.
There are some people that say we need to permit torture, indefinite
imprisonment of American citizens without charge or legal counsel,
suspension of habeas corpus, supression of free speech, censorship of
news reports from the battlefield -- those people scare me as much as
Bin Laden. Countries that allow this wake up one day and find they live
in a dictatorship.
Right, I'm not old enough to remember WWII (I'm only in my early-mid
40's). I do remember a fair amount of American history. America's not
perfect, but generally it has valued democratic ideals and in the
periods of history where that's not been done it's usually viewed
negatively later (e.g., Joe McCarthy, Nisei camps, etc).
Yes, there are limits on free speech, especially involving public safety
and libel. Of course that's not what we are talking about. We are
talking about whether or not the political opposition has the right (or
duty) to point out the failings of the current leadership. I believe
they do. We are talking about whether the process of democratic dissent
provides aid to the enemy. I believe it does not.
I agree that the press is not doing as good a job as it ought to. It's
not asking the critical questions, it's sloppy, it's partisan. It
accepts dodges and nonanswers from our politicians. It's even being
bribed by our politicians. But for all its many faults, it's still part
of the system of (what used to be and ought to be) essential checks and
Of course, that is EXACTY what I was talking about. :)
Right on ...
Do you not think that "will" can also be gauged from the amount of
ostensible dissent, particularly when the dissent is trumpeted as an agenda
by some in the news media"?
What do you think of Tedddy boy calling for a firm pullout date, even
knowing that the terroist would benefit immensely from that knowledge? While
it is no more than political posturing in his case, it shows a reckless
disregard for those in harm's way, IMO. Ask the surviving POW's from RVN
what effects the likes of Jane Fonda had on their existence as prisoners.
While I can't disagree, and that is the ideal However, I am afraid that may
be rapidly disappearing. What makes me say that is my perspective of
approximately 50 year of seeing how narrow the field has become in all forms
of media here where I live. From a three newspaper town one newspaper in a
city of 4 million, from numerous radio stations to most being owned by one
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.