Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Many thanks to our fearless leader.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Many thanks to our fearless leader.

---

Way to think half empty.

First of all the suicide rate article is similar to the crime rate article a couple week back. The rate may be the highest ever, but its fractional when compared to the same demographic in the general population. The crime rate for Iraq veterans is far less then the same for non-vets in the same age group.

In fact, based on statistics alone, serving in Iraq, in particular, or the military in general makes someone far less likely to commit a violent crime then for a civilian (although it seems that gang and drug violence probably weigh heavily on those results).

As for the combat readiness argument. Fact is we have tens of thousands of battle hardened vets ready to serve in defense of this country. Faced with a conventional attack our military is very well prepared. The article argues that the military is unprepared for unconventional attacks. I disagree. Our nuclear deterrent would make successful unconventional attack by a foriegn invader completely impossible. Thus we are prepared to both deter and destroy hostile aggressors using both conventional and unconventional weapons which is the very essense of Defense and the central purpose of the military.

The article does point out that the US military is unprepared to assist in civil response to limited unconventional attacks, such as terrorist attacks. Since that is not the primary purpose of the military that is not surprising. Such roles must by law fall upon civilian authorities at the State, Local, and Federal level with the military role being that of a supporting actor.

In that regard the article outlines the military's plan to prepare a specialized force to respond to such incident to augment, support, or temporarily take the place of civil agencies. Such a force has been in the works since the failure of Louisina's State and Local authorities after Katrina and the President's lack of legal authority to simply 'take control' without permission of the Governor. The idea of a military Rapid Deployment Force, brigade sized, and authorized for use in those situations has been floating around since then.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Many thanks to our fearless leader.

---

Way to think half empty.

---

Quote:

---

First of all the suicide rate article is similar to the crime rate article a couple week back. The rate may be the highest ever, but its fractional when compared to the same demographic in the general population. The crime rate for Iraq veterans is far less then the same for non-vets in the same age group.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, based on statistics alone...

---

Quote:

---

As for the combat readiness argument. Fact is we have tens of thousands of battle hardened vets ready to serve in defense of this country. Faced with a conventional attack our military is very well prepared.

---

Quote:

---

The article argues that the military is unprepared for unconventional attacks. I disagree. Our nuclear deterrent would make successful unconventional attack by a foriegn invader completely impossible.

---

Quote:

---

The article does point out that the US military is unprepared to assist in civil response to limited unconventional attacks, such as terrorist attacks. Since that is not the primary purpose of the military that is not surprising.

---

Quote:

---

Such roles must by law fall upon civilian authorities at the State, Local, and Federal level with the military role being that of a supporting actor.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hmmmmm

Thousands of " Battle Hardened Veterans " return after US policy fails completely in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Suffering from PTSD, general piss off, lack of support, etc

Then put these people in a crisis inside the US

Can you hear the gunfire ?

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It's a war, bad shit happens, that's why folks with any sense never want one to begin with.

And sometimes using a tool means using it up, and that goes for people too - who agreed, whether they truly understood that or not, to be that tool, to be used, to be used up.

Not every casualty is caused by enemy fire.

These folks are just part of the same butchers bill, is all, and one they agreed to pay when they signed on the dotted line.

And anyone expecting the military to keep it's promises to them when they have not ever since 1850 even made a pretense of doing so isn't gonna get a whole lot of sympathy from me.

And maybe, just maybe, if folks were really that worried about such a damn small percentage of folk having so much power over the rest of us - they might start considering not giving it to em in the first place, eh ?

Pardon me for not really having a lot of sympathy for folks who volunteered to be the cabals strongarm, awright ?

I might sound callous about it, but before you get out the flamethrower try thinkin it though and understanding that I see little, if any difference between these folk and the ones who DID catch a bullet, right... they volunteered to do a lethally dangerous job, and it killed them.

The how of it is meaningless to my way of lookin at it, they gave their life to something they believed in, and while I can respect that - I do not respect how that belief was obtained from them.

The job sucks, and it may kill you, and if you don't have peace with that beforehand, the time to have thought about that was before you signed on the dotted line.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22923548/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guarding_america

Many thanks to our fearless leader.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Gino, that's kinda one of the points I was makin there, though.

The military lies, and doesn't hold to any of those promises, and it's demonstrable fact that they have not effectively done so since 1850 at least...

So why would anyone with a lick of sense expect them to do so ?

As for not being what they signed up for, I said..

"The how of it is meaningless to my way of lookin at it, they gave their life to something they believed in, and while I can respect that - I do not respect how that belief was obtained from them."

I'm all for holding the Command Staff accountable - the grunt on the ground, he just takes orders, doesn't know a damned thing but what they tell him, and places his faith in them to make the right decisions when issuing those orders.

And they betray that faith, in every way possible, always have - and while I do think they should indeed be held accountable for it, why for cryin out loud didn't they consider that fact before they signed up ?

It's like buying a used car from the same guy that ripped off your father and grandfather, and expecting not to get ripped off THIS time, isn't it ?

Just sayin...

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Rap, my only answer to that.. is thus.

"If you have taken the King's shilling, than you are the King's man, and as such, no friend of mine..."

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Just for clarification, I went digging in my fileboxes and found the original survey, as I swiped a copy just in case some day I needed to cover my ass about it.

EXACT TEXT - this is typed verbatim.
====================================
The United States government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement:

`I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.'

Circle One

YES NO
====================================
This copy is dated 08-06-1986

Apparently, from researching the text, it was given again in 1991, and 1994, which drew some media attention at the time, and I would lay odds it's been given at least one more time since.

If you answer NO to that question, your career is over, on the spot, to my knowledge no one who has done so has EVER been promoted again, time in grade notwithstanding.

And that tells you all you need to know, doesn't it ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

---