You know what you all can do?
GO FUCK YOURSELVES!
Why? Because when I had this post up I got blasted for a comment that eventually got removed that had implied the soldier volunteered for it.
Well guess what I’m not the only “scumbag” that said it now. “Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers.”Senate leader Mitch McConnell (R) (as if you wondered…)
So now who is the real asshole? Assholes!
Now go feign your moral outrage on a fucking US Senator hypocrites!
oh and I forgot to add
grrrrrrrr
Tags: Politicians, Politics, Republicans, wingnut-o-sphere
Damn! Don’t be pissed at me, I happen to agree with you!
I’m just an angry veteran that enlisted for the money and not patriotism. My anger is like a shotgun sometimes.
The man was a volunteer, just like you, me and a lot people we know were. He knew that something bad could happen to him in service, though I don’t think any of us really understood exactly what that “bad” meant until it happened to us or our teammates.
IMO the photo was needful to show though. Many full-time professional civilians don’t have enough understanding of what “harm’s way” means.
I’m not sure what you were trying to say with the original post though.
I was trying to say a few things, you got most of it.
Donviti….practically invented ‘shock ‘n awe’ for civilians….keep up the good work!
Does anyone know whether Feroce has gone off on Mitch McConnell yet?
I hope he does soon. Otherwise he will suffer the “hypocrite syndrome” the next time he files for candidacy, and with his “open government support”(one would hope that comes from an open mind), that would not be good for the state……..
“Does anyone know whether Feroce has gone off on Mitch McConnell yet?”
Kavips,
TPM is hardly the pillar of fair and balanced reporting. Therefore the cut and paste job doesn’t impress me much.
Having said that, I really don’t see the similarity in the posts, given the angle that angered me most – a suggestion that one might not know the dangers involved in the duty they sign up for. I tend to believe that most people who serve, especially in the combat arms area, know exactly the dangers and are driven to carry out their duties because they care for their country, family and fellow man.
In other words, I don’t think one has to agree with the policy makers while carrying out the assigned mission.
I have found, that outside of special operations, that most of our troops really do not know the danger of what they sign up for.
It’s one thing to say, “oh I might be killed” and another to see just half of your best friends head gone.
Most people who have been there, don’t talk about it…it is awful…..
That is the problem with war. No one discusses it and yet it brings our the worst elements in human nature……friendly fire…when you find out that you did it, how do you live with that?
Today this problem is compounded by the fact that the bulk of our on-the-ground soldiers, are our National Guard. In one way this is good. Our oldest, and most experienced, are in hot neighborhoods.
So it’s a fine line as to whether one knows what he signed up for, or “really” knows what he signed up for…..
And when in Combat, one tends to be too busy keeping alive to worry too much about policy being pondered half a world away……..
Kavips,
Trust me, most of us who went in for SpecOps didn’t really know what we signed up for either. I don’t think you can know – not viscerally and deep down – what can happen until your see it or experience it.
You never really know danger until you’ve faced it. You can plan to mitigate and manage it, you can train to deal with it, but there is still nothing like facing it live and in person. Still, though, is it really surprising that McConnell wants Americans to know that they don’t need to worry about the price that these soldiers and Marines really pay? Part of the entire bamboozlement of the last several years has been the work to misdirect Americans from knowing that real people are really hurt by this business. That doesn’t imply that these guys are victims, but if your country asks you to shed your blood for it, then the country should be aware of that cost in living color.
Kavips, Jonolan and Cassandra
I don’t disagree with any of your points. I think our views can co-exist.
I also believe we all have had major problems with policy regardless at what point we have said something and to whom.
What bothered me about dv’s original post was that I thought it missed a point (although his later comments left me wondering if I had missed his).
The point is this: scarred, disfigured, crippled, and emotionally mangled veterans–as well as body bags–will ALWAYS be the consequence of making war.
Both the potential gains and the realistically calculated chance of achieving it had better be weighed against those gruesome realities BEFORE we start sending out people to die, or worse (in some cases) NOT to die.
I was a medic, not special ops or even infantry, but I have filled body bags, treated third-degree burns, and picked shrapnel out of people’s faces.
Gives you a different perspective on the old Clausewitzian “war is politics by other means” argument.
All those who joined the National Guard never thought they’d be sent to a war. They’re coming home in body bags and horribly maimed. They aren’t professionals.
Others who are over there because they were unemployed or couldn’t afford a college education and got roped in by the Military sales pitch are not what we should call professional soldiers.
The career military and the mercenaries (oops, I mean Blackwater employees) are the only professionals.
Even if they weren’t drafted, none of them deserved to die in a war made up by a bunch of lying criminals. They were screwed — just like anyone who believed this crap. It’s one thing to die defending your country (when was the last war that happened?)and one to die for lies.
Anybody who joined the National Guard and “never thought they’d be sent to a war” was not paying attention, since thousands of Guardsmen served in the First Gulf War, Haiti, Bosnia, Kossovo, Sinai, Somalia, and other hotspots around the world throughout the 1990s.
“Others who are over there because they were unemployed or couldn’t afford a college education and got roped in by the Military sales pitch are not what we should call professional soldiers.”
When did it happen that adults who are looking for specific benefits (college tuition, a steady job) suddenly become victims when they sign a very clear contract that explicitly says, “We reserve the right to send you to places around the world without your consent to get your ass shot off?” Moreover, while there ARE abuses in military recruiting, by far the norm is that people are given repeated opportunities to get themselves out before they complete their initial training. They don’t tend to sugarcoat this life; funny, some of us who did it are proud of it, so we don’t lie about the risks.
“It’s one thing to die defending your country (when was the last war that happened?)…”
Depends how exactly how narrow your definition of “defending your country” is–and that’s where there is room for legitimate and necessary debate. I think the American overthrow of the Taliban met the qualification and still enjoys consensus support. So the answer to your question literally would be, what, 2001?
Finally, although it may be both popular and trendy here to suggest that our National Guard troops, even our non-career soldiers “aren’t professionals,” the history of American citizen-soldiers and the nature of the training received by most (admittedly not all) of our troops belies this assertion.
If, indeed, this is “a war made up by a bunch of lying criminals,” then why have the leading Democratic hopefuls to replace Bush all generally agreed that it will take them years to end it, even on their own terms? Why has only Ron Paul steadfastly maintained that he will order them out the day he is inaugurated? (Not a commercial for Ron, by the way; I have not signed on as one of his supporters.)
If, indeed, this is “a war made up by a bunch of lying criminals,” then why have the leading Democratic hopefuls to replace Bush all generally agreed that it will take them years to end it, even on their own terms?
That non-sequiter makes no sense whatsoever.
I know it didn’t; what I meant to say was,
“So why haven’t any of the Dems running for President said they’ll get the troops out in less that years.”
Sometime even when my fingers type words they don’t type sentences.