The Galloping Beaver
So tell us how you really feel, Dave!
Bravo! This is largely, though by no means the only reason, why I don't do fridge magnets, ribbons or decals.
Not that I've served, but I won't dishonour the memory of family members who have with cheap, meaningless displays.
helluva post, Dave!
*APPLAUSE*
Well written and well said Dave, and entirely appropriate. This is no less than the exact truth regarding the repeated smearing anyone that dared question how the governments of GWB and SH ran their respective militaries was automatically attacking the troops in some fashion/being disloyal. Anything from contracts to soldier pay to proper equipment on the front lines to how discharged disabled vets are taken care for both militaries even to alas Geneva Conventions questions appearing to have substance behind them, with Bush's having much more on top of it as you noted in your post. The American military is in terms of its ground component all but shattered at this time, and you don’t get there overnight, that takes years of significant neglect and damaging policies. The Harper government appears to be willing to follow in the mold of the GWB/GOP approach to the military but has yet to do anywhere near as much damage thanks to lack of power (majority) and time in office to date, but he appears to want to make up for it.
What really startles me about our respective military situations is regarding the ground forces component, I suspect that the American military is the more damaged/ready to fall apart, because of Iraq and the gutting of the human component as well as the equipment fatigue, and I never thought I'd see that day after the Vietnam fiasco. Not that I am saying our military is all that healthy either, but compared to what I've been seeing happen to the US ground forces I honestly get the impression it is the better off of the two at the current moment, especially in terms of ability to be healed given the proper fiscal resources. I never thought I'd be able to say that before GWB came along and was facilitated by those too busy enjoying his attitude and anti-liberal bullying manner to see the very real damage being done to the military these people claim they care so much about. The damage done on the human side to the volunteer military in the US is horrific and don't see how they can overcome the recruiting negatives they have acquired over the past several years anytime soon, even once the government changes after next year. Then there are the massive deficits they are running, especially when you take all the accounting tricks out of it and reduce it to real terms, meaning it is going to be difficult to reinvest major amounts above and beyond what is needed to keep some troops in Iraq.
I don't see them getting out anytime soon altogether, they simply have made too much of a mess out of it to then leave it alone. The only way I see the Americans gone within the next three years is if either an international force replaces them or somehow against all appearances a strong enough force is created within the government/military of Iraq to prevent complete disintegration into warfare once withdrawal occurs.
One of the reasons I come your blog Dave is to this voice of experience about military issues.
I can't remember if I have thanked you for your service to our country and your continued dedication to these issue. So I will thank you now, and I will thank you in the future.
I also remember a few of the retards who come on your blog here and dared to question your service and service record. I have to admitt I did enjoy the royal boot kick you gave those morons.
anyways, excellent post!
Zorph
That’s all fine and dandy that you found a single convenient target to prop up your case, but I really must reject your notion that the left side of the blogosphere is the only one pointing out said injustices towards the troops. I just can’t accept that.
I’m not going so far as to compile a list of examples. Maybe if I had a little more time for this sorta thing. But I rest easy with my case, knowing that my blogging partner and I have been all over these issues for as long as we have been blogging. Likewise, I can recall countless posts from groups like Mil Bloggers, the majority right leaning, about the same things. I think you need to check your left and right of arch again, before you group all of us right wingers together on this one.
The simple fact is that every time the “progressive” half of the blogosphere decries the mistreatment of the troops, it seems to be ultimately about laying down reasons to pull them out. Is supporting the troops but not supporting the mission still supporting the troops? This is the bigger issue I think. I’ve no doubt the majority of our soldiers support the mission. This is the general consensus I get from my comrades at least. Likewise with the US military, those boys, like us, know what they’re getting into when they join, and besides those few inevitable exceptions, I’ve no doubt they’re behind the mission as well.
So, are you supporting the troops who fight in your name when you don’t support their majority sanctioned mission, a mission the troops are 110% behind?
A side note on Scotians comment. It pains me to see such ignorance on certain matters. The US military is not in tatters. There no longer exists a recruiting crisis in the US. No, US soldiers don’t have perfect equipment, but they are the best equipped military in an imperfect world. If anything, Iraq has transformed their army into a more streamlined, more combat capable, highly experienced, fighting force. I’m sure Dave, as a former military man, will at least back me partially on this matter.
Oh, out of curiousity, what was your trade back in the good ol' days?
Blogging Tory Junker shows up to piss and moan:
That’s all fine and dandy that you found a single convenient target to prop up your case, but I really must reject your notion that the left side of the blogosphere is the only one pointing out said injustices towards the troops. I just can’t accept that."
That's nice, Junker, old boy. So let's make ourselves comfortable while you slowly and lovingly show us the error of our ways.
"I’m not going so far as to compile a list of examples..."
Well, that was fun. Do drop in again sometime. Ta ta.
Ah Junker, I'm surprised you haven't been here before.
Your assertions are, as always, utter garbage.
To answer your pathetic question, when I was a Royal, I was a rifleman and later I was a swimmer canoeist. That's something of an understated role, but please, spend some time looking it up. I left the Royals as a C/Sgt.
My later career in Canada was with the navy. I retired having commanded a destroyer.
Don't bother asking any more questions. You don't deserve answers since, as CC pointed out, you washed your own shit-nicks in the river.
Bye!
Great post, Dave. It's funny how the idiots decided that only they could support the troops -- maybe they should try being the troops some time, and then they'd have the slightest leg to stand on.
So, Junker, you think by asking Dave what his trade was, you gain some kind of credibility in this whole exchange? Well... good for you.
Great post! I'm gonna write something about SH slashing that benefit that CF people got for living in more jurisdictions. What with all his surpluses n' all.
"junker," ... thanks for yet again revealing the amazing stupidity of your kind.
Evidently your claims to having a history of caring about the troops is utter bullshit.
I take it your argument is: "Yes, the left has been unfairly maligned about hating the troops, and that meanwhile, the governments that I support treat them like shit, but because I [note: Lying] wrote a post abot them in the past, they aren't getting ripped-off now?
It's confusing, I'll admit. But you thought of it.
Junker said
"Is supporting the troops but not supporting the mission still supporting the troops?"
I'm really getting sick of hearing this word "support" as if everyone knows precisely what it means (right up there with "globalization"). Since this isn't a right-wing blog, and since you claim to be a reasonable person, Junker, kindly clue me in on what, exactly, "supporting the troops" means.
Junker:
If displaying ignorance is so problematic for you then why did you display such appalling ignorance in your comment in this thread? As you will note Dave did not agree with you, and with good reason, because he knows I am right on this. For one thing have you looked at the retention rates of company level officers like captains? Have you looked at the amount of increase over the last four years of recruiting bonuses required? Have you even bothered to consider the amount of institutional experience being lost instead of retained and its implications for the force as a whole? Clearly not, otherwise you would not have written that piece of tripe you did nor said I was the one showing ignorance on this issue. The US ground forces are all but shattered at this point, they cannot maintain the force levels they currently have through next year, and they are utterly incapable of deploying significant ground forces to a new combat theater because they have so badly overstrained the ground forces in Iraq.
Next time you call someone ignorant and declare they do not know what they are talking about, it would help you look like someone worth taking seriously instead of the bad joke you came off as if you actually were able to back it up. Main reason people around here take me seriously is I've demonstrated a pattern of relying of fact based information to derive my opinions from, you should try it sometime you might be surprised at how well it works, but it will necessitate you stop looking at things through a political partisan's lens first. Somehow I doubt you capable of that.
Dave,
Good insight. Here is a link to a blogger who just spent some time with troops training to deploy to Afghanistan in 2008.
http://walrusmagazine.com/blogs/
...right#blogs_top
Thanks Drew. Interesting article!
I was directed here by The Moderate Man and I thoroughly enjoyed this post. I must return here.
I was also fascinated by Junker's somment. Having actually been one of the troops during the late unpleasantness in Viet Nam, I think I have the authority to discuss supporting the troops, and supporting them by pulling them out, which to my mind is one and the same.
Officially, our sole reason for being in Iraq ended in May, 2003 when Mr Bu$h sat in the lazy seat on an S3 as he was chauffeured out to the Lincoln for his mega-photo op. Perhaps Junker remembers "Mission Accomplished"? The again, perhaps he doesn't with all the stars in his eyes.
When you don't feed 'em, don't supply 'em, don't clothe 'em, don't armor 'em, don't pay 'em, don't medic 'em, and don't supply proper medical recovery and recuperation, you're not supporting them.
As Scotian so properly pointed out, the institutional memory of the Army is walking away because the troops are being frittered away for one child's vanity and industry's profits, and they're being replaced with officers and leaders that would have been declined the opportunity to extend 40 years ago. The same holds true for all the E5s and E6s who are pulling the pin after 10 and 12 years. Their loss will haunt the Army for the next 15 or 20 years.
Hey Lurch. Glad to have you visit.
To take it further, which side of the house has always clammered for more military spending, for better equipment for the troops, for better pay? In which party has this been a consistent theme for years?
Ideally, supporting the troops and not supporting the mission are indeed two seperate entities. However, they become entwined when that non-support is a simple polical lever, or ammo to shoot wildly. And surely, it must be hard for a lot of soldiers to grasp why there is such vocal group clammering to have them withdrawn from what they see as, ultimetly, a humanitarian mission, a mission they are behind.
To clarify, to support the troops means that when you send them into battle in your name, OR as representative to your nation, you send them with the best and deadliest equipment available. Also, you do not have them living in run down shacks and eating at food backs back home. Finally, as Vietnam painfully taught the US, you give the boots on the ground clear and concise ROE's that are not polically motivated, that allow them to do the job right.
Admitidly, the Liberals, after a horrendous period in the 90s, did actually start imrpoving the lot of our soldiers when Afghanistan fired up. When the conservatives took power, they continued this trend, and much more.
While the Conservative government isn't doing a perfect job in this matter, its doing a far better job than its predecessors, and possible replacements.
As for the blog issue, its interesting but mostly irrelivent. No one here has tracked a trully representive trend in left and right blogs. Still, I reject the idea that its only "progressives" pointing out the wrongs. Furthermore, many of the "wrongs" brought up by the left are used as political ammo only.
On the state of the US army, I believe a few of you are undervaluing the benefits of a combat experienced army. Long periods of peace time can play hell on an army. You talk of "institutional experience." What exactly does that mean, in an entire army of combat veterns? Are you saying that US officers don't have enough time behind their desks? That the NCO's teaching new recruits were better at their job without having "been in the shit"?
To be sure, long periods of warfare, like Vietnam, have seen an army destroyed as well. But I put forward that, in that case, it had much more to do with the draft, half assed comitment by the leadership, and a large, almost militant anti-war movement.
re M@, not looking for credability, just curious.
"I'm gonna write something about SH slashing that benefit that CF people got for living in more jurisdictions. What with all his surpluses n' all."
Thwap, are you talking about the changes in PLD being implimented this coming spring? If so, might have some intsight into that. Also, by "your kind", you mean conservatives?
re Dave, thanks for the link, interesting bit on Maple Guardian.
Junker,
Regarding this:
I believe a few of you are undervaluing the benefits of a combat experienced army. Long periods of peace time can play hell on an army.
You know what else can play hell on an army? Overcommitment to a long, pointless war. For evidence, see: US Army. (And Marines. And National Guard.)
Furthermore, no amount of fighting in the past is going to prepare an army for its tasks in the future. WWII did not prepare our army for the Cold War. The Cold War did not prepare our army for 90s peacekeeping. 90s peacekeeping did not prepare our army for Afghanistan. Congratulations -- you've joined our top generals, from Haig onward, in preparing to fight the next war like the last war. You'd think someone, somewhere, would learn that lesson by now.
No one here has tracked a trully representive trend in left and right blogs.
Maybe you'd like to search your very own blog for "Walter Reed" and see what comes up. Not a lot of outrage -- and a patently false opinion, cribbed from Ann Coulter of all people, that the Walter Reed scandal was an example of government-run health care (false because Walter Reed was a result of a high proportion of privatised services).
Then go to Canadian Cynic, or Red Tory, or We Move To Canada, or any other progressive blog, and see what comes up.
...not looking for credability...
Well, that's a good thing.
Well, it takes two to dabble in ignorance. I wrote the caveat long ago that my fridge magnet doesn't begin to address the appreciation I have for the military. But it's something, perhaps small, perhaps like a poppy, which says I think about them. And they matter to me. If you infer that by extension if you don't have a yellow ribbon, that this means I think you're not supporting the troops, that would be your misapprehension. Not mine.
I've been blogging for about six months. I'll let you know about things you've written two years ago in two years. Thanks for the plug anyway. It's nice to hear you don't think we're all insane.
My god, what a fucking moron.
To take it further, which side of the house has always clammered for more military spending, for better equipment for the troops, for better pay? In which party has this been a consistent theme for years?
Not the Conservatives, that's for sure. You are undoubtedly too young to have experienced a six year pay freeze at the hands of Mulroney and the kick in the nuts the navy took over submarines. Look it up. The Conservatives talk a good story and always break their word.
Ideally, supporting the troops and not supporting the mission are indeed two seperate entities. However, they become entwined when that non-support is a simple polical lever, or ammo to shoot wildly. And surely, it must be hard for a lot of soldiers to grasp why there is such vocal group clammering to have them withdrawn from what they see as, ultimetly, a humanitarian mission, a mission they are behind.
That is the line that Harper is trying to feed everyone. I can support the troops on the ground without supporting the government decision to send them. Most people can. That you can't suggests you are too stupid to actually recognize the difference.
Most service members know they are sent from a democracy and there will be dissenting voices. As for the mission to Afghanistan being viewed as a humanitarian mission by those troops, you might want to investigate that a little deeper. Most are itching to put their combat training into action... and I don't blame them one bit for that, but your assessment of their view of the mission came straight out of your sorry ass.
Cont'd
Admitidly, the Liberals, after a horrendous period in the 90s, did actually start imrpoving the lot of our soldiers when Afghanistan fired up. When the conservatives took power, they continued this trend, and much more.
That's so much horse shit. The Liberals inherited a massive deficit and cut spending in all departments, DND and CF included. Nobody liked it, but it was explained at the time and whether you like it or not, the current CDS was a Martin selection and the rapid rise in defence spending was a Martin initiative. 3/4 of the projects announced by Harper were approved in principle under the previous government. Beyond that he has pushed "owned" strategic airlift which NOBODY wanted and the CDS objected to. The navy has been forced into a northern vessel project they did not ask for and do not want. The navy told Harper how the north could be patrolled more effectively using different tools and he ignored them. Further, there is no workable plan to provide continuing crews to those ships. Well Done!
While the Conservative government isn't doing a perfect job in this matter, its doing a far better job than its predecessors, and possible replacements.
Why? Because you voted for them? So far the job they have been doing is pathetic. To wit: One defence minister didn't survive a second year.
On the state of the US army... followed by senseless and uninformed babble...
Read Lurch above you. He is a former US Viet Nam veteran. Or go read Moderate Man, a USMC veteran. They both think you're full of shit. I have no reason to argue with them.
re M@, not looking for credability, just curious.
Why don't I believe that the way you'd like me to? In any case, note that no one asked the same question of you. Now THAT's curious.
If you haven't heard of a spell-checker, investigate the possibility should you ever decide to return.
Ahhh... Raphael, the line that sunk you was "Not too many bloggers have picked up on this story..."
Thousands of bloggers had flogged it to death by the time you wrote those words.
I told you. Watch out for the booby traps.
Junker, thanks for commenting back. Institutional memory is a funny thing because it doesn't just descend from the clouds like rain. ("It doesn't rain in the Army, it rains ON the Army") You as an individual or as an organization gain that memory slowly. Actually, "institutional memory" is shorthand for knowing how the wheels turn, and where you put the grease, and where you put the lever.
They key point about losing midlevel foremen like E5s and E6s is that these are the future's job site foremen. They've got 8 or 12 years in now, and they're leaving because the strain has become too great. I have a couple of writing buddies who have been alerted for their fourth deployment to Iraq; their families have fallen apart. Their wives are incapable of being both mother and father, as well as earning an adjunct income. With a missing stable father figure, the children suffer. Their grades at school deteriorate, behavior patterns change, they become "problem children" and all because they know were Daddy is, know he could die, and they're scared.
It takes years to create and train an NCO, and more years to make him into and effective combat leader. You spend a lot of time in the classroom and in the field learning tactics, operational tactics, map reading, radio operation, weapons and man management, the 4 ways of doing things and achieving a goal and perhaps most important of all, how to train and manage a squad or platoon. This one task requires a deep understanding of human nature because the reality is that having stripes on your sleeve is not the sole requisite for command. Men have to trust you and want to follow you, and they only invest in your leadership after you prove yourself worthy of their trust.
The next generation, the replacements for these lost NCOs are neither as well-educated, nor as well trained professionally to replace them. You really learn the art of combat leadership in training, not in combat.
Since I'm new here, I'm going to be more polite than our gracious host. I won't say you're full of shit. I think you may not really understand what you're opining about.
It's good to have an opinion. That just shows a person has the ability to evaluate circumstances. But you've misread this situation. My Army is dying, and I can't do a G_ddamned thing to save it. It's being killed by misuse. It's a fighting force, not a police force, and the tragedy of Iraq is that it's been misapplied for a deception.
Saying the soldiers believe in their mission is immaterial. They wouldn't have joined if they didn't believe in themselves, and they wouldn't be effective soldiers if they didn't believe they could knock the dicks off any other group of men in the world. They have pride in themselves, and therefore naturally have an emotional investment in what they're doing over there.
I would submit to you that arming all three sides of an ethnic and sectarian civil war is NOT a "humani
Junker once again pops in to drag the quality of discourse down to his level:
"While the Conservative government isn't doing a perfect job in this matter, its doing a far better job than its predecessors, and possible replacements.
... Furthermore, many of the "wrongs" brought up by the left are used as political ammo only."
Translation: "It's unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized; now excuse me while I slag the Liberals while I'm here."
Good boy, Junker. It's like I've always said -- there's no issue so fundamental that a right-wing hack can't take it and fuck it up entirely.
The inspiration for this entire dust-up, Blogging Tory Raphael Alexander, tries to use his newbieness as an excuse:
"I've been blogging for about six months. I'll let you know about things you've written two years ago in two years."
With all due respect, Raphael, fuck you. I invite interested readers to return to Raph's original post, in which he did not simply state that this was something that lately came to his attention, oh no:
"One could write it off if it were one or two stories in the media, perhaps even from news sources considered to have a political bias. But more and more lately we are hearing about Iraq war veterans being cheated out of bonuses, compensation, and basic benefits in all forms of the American media."
Right there, Raph, is the big lie: "But more and more lately ..."
No, Raph, it's not just "lately." As a number of us have already pointed out, some of us in Not-stupid-land have been all over this story for quite some time now, and proof of that is all over the blogosphere.
It would be forgivable if you had simply stated that you had only recently become aware of this issue - then we might accuse of only being a bit slow on the uptake.
But when you suggest that this issue is only now making news? I repeat -- fuck you. Let me recommend something called "Google" -- you'd be amazed at what you can learn from it. Now go away and do some reading, and try not to embarrass yourself this badly again.
There's a good boy.
By the way (and I apologize for this sudden spate of opinion), but for those of you who aren't familiar with "Junker" above, I refer you to his blog, where we read:
"A Father (Paul) and his Canadian Forces Son (Junker) blogging from the Right side of the aisle."
That's right -- the above jaw-dropping ignorance about all things military comes from someone who is actually serving in the Canadian forces.
Just take a minute and let that realization wash over you.
Then be afraid. Be very afraid.
I think it's simply a matter of perspective. It absolutely has not been talked about that much inside the circles in which I read and browse, and to assume I'm going to wade into the leftosphere to distinguish every nugget of truth from the shrieking hysteria of every time Stephen Harper so much as sneezes, is what is dishonest here.
Your patronizing tone [and guttural language] lends itself to no attempt at harmonizing bipartizan issues, but shows a transparent to the total disregard of your ideological adversaries regardless of the issue at hand. And then you rather dishonestly ignore my comment on your own reproachable website in which I said I certainly had heard of some bloggers [like stageleft] writing about it. But is it inaccurate to say that "not too many" bloggers have written about it? Not really. After all, "not too many" is an indefinable number which could mean two or two million [which in proportion to the blogger community could be as small potatoes as your point here].
It's enough, in my opinion, that I tried to share this sentiment with the BT community. To flog me for it screams of partisan dishonesty.
Junker:
Regarding your absurdity about institutional memory, are you really that ignorant? Lurch has already dealt with the non-com side of that point. When your company level officers are running away from retention in droves you are losing the officer side of the non-coms Lurch discussed. For someone that claims to be a member of the Armed Forces of Canada you appear to be quite ignorant of some basic military realities, one of which experience/institutional memory from combat only works if it is passed down to the newer members from those that gained it, which if they are quitting after gaining it clearly isn't going to be happening. Which means you need to be retaining those that gained that experience. Yet it is those that are gaining that experience that are leaving and are being replaced by lower and lower qualified entrants (as in people that never would have been accepted before now because the manning/recruiting situation is so desperate) who not only are not learning from those departed experienced soldiers but are starting from a lower/less informed/educated position to begin with.
That you simply came back with a glib bit of nonsense about institutional memory and the advantages of a blooded combat force without understanding just what the conditions required for that to be the case are nor that they are not present in the situation the US military finds itself in speaks volumes for your understanding of these issues regardless of whether you are wearing a uniform or not. Just because you wear a uniform does not make you well informed on all things military (granted, it should increase the chances you know something, but so far your contributions have yet to show that in your case), and to use it as a sole source for authority to back up arguments does not a good argument make.
Sorry Junker, far from showing my and others "ignorance" you yet again displayed your own. BTW, Dave is quite right regarding the Mulroney years, and Harper has not exactly been giving the military what it has been asking for either. No, he gives it what he thinks is best regardless of operational realities/requirements as defined by the military experts. That hardly shows support for the military, what it does show is support for his partisan claims of being the party/leader that supports the military, a crucial difference. It is called the difference between a politician’s rhetoric and the reality the military actually has to deal with. For someone that appears to be trading in on his being a member of the military your ignorance of basic military issues and realities and your willingness to allow partisan lenses to blind you to those realities speaks volumes to your credibility on such matters, and it isn’t a positive speech. You might want to remember that wearing that uniform does not automatically instill knowledge/wisdom superior to those that do not wear the uniform, and acting li is does is to my mind dishonouring it.
RA:
You were the one that made the claim about it not being covered much in the blogosphere despite there being years worth of exactly such efforts on the progressive side of the blogosphere in both US and Canadian cases. The fact that you allowed your partisan biases to determine your reading material does not change this, nor does it magically make your claim any better. It has been clear for years that the US military personnel were being massively shorted and screwed by their government and if you truly cared about such things for reasons other than political partisanship you would have been aware of this.
So now you come back with this whiny "oh you are picking on me unfairly" bit. That speaks far more about you then it does anyone else, and what it says is not pretty. The more I encounter your writings online the more I am coming to the conclusion that the good rep you had with some progressives was clearly undeserved. Try not making unfounded, unsupported by facts assertions and you might not get ridiculed so much next time out. Until you do that though you can expect what you got and for you to whine about it after you have been shown for being wrong is just juvenile.
Scotian, as I said before, it's difficult to sift through the refuse of progressive incoherency to find some startling points of truth. Ridiculing me is not only uncalled for, it's pretty much a waste of everyone's time.
Shorter RA on 12.01.07 - 10:40 am
"I've got nothing"
What a twat.
RA:
As any serious researcher knows one must sift through the chaff to find the wheat. If that is too much intellectual effort for you then stop trying to play in the adult leagues. It is really that simple, or as FF said following, you've got nothing. You let your partisan disdain win out over intellectual honesty, and that again speaks nothing but negatives regarding your credibility and worthiness to be taken seriously. Don't forget RA, you made the assertion, you were wrong, and now you defend your being wrong because it was too much work to be bothered to verify before you went ahead and made the claim? That is truly pathetic, as is your inability to recognize that advancing such an excuse does you no service nor gives you any credit for being anything other than a partisan fool who shoots his mouth off without knowing what he is talking about and willing to denigrate those you disagree with based on your belief as opposed to actual fact.
If I were you RA I'd stop digging any deeper, as it is the hole you dug yourself into with this is more than deep enough to drop a couple of skyscrapers into and still have room for more.
Junker said:
"to support the troops means that when you send them into battle in your name, OR as representative to your nation, you send them with the best and deadliest equipment available."
Oh, what horseshit! And here I was expecting something so goddamned profound.
Let me clue you into something, J: WE (the citizens) DON'T SEND FUCKING TROOPS INTO BATTLE! That happens because the bourgeois politicians who get their slimy mitts on the levers of power either do what their bosses tell them or what they see is in their bosses' interests.
Afghanistan has as much bearing on you and me as workers as Haiti did: the troops are there to pay lip service to those roaches in Washington.
My how the cheap shots, insults, and accusations of flat out lying fly when I stick my head into the left side of the blogosphere.
M@: ref "You know what else can play hell on an army?" Re-read my last post. Yes I acknowledge that long periods of peace AND long periods of conflict can be harmful to an army.
ref Walter Reed. Not sure what my blogging partner wrote on the matter. I myself know very little of the controversy, it occured at a time when I was kinda cut off from the blogoshpere and 24 news cycle. Can't really comment, sorry.
Re. Dave. ref the Mulroney years. Yes, the conservatives did their share of damage in the 80's. Regardless, I doubt very much that the Liberals or NDP would be feeding more money into our military than the CPC is, if they were in power today.
While the viability of high visibility items like Strategic Airlift and Northern Patrol craft could certainly be argued, the boots on the ground have received a plethora of mission critical equipment as well. Be it our new MBTs, the highly resiliant APV(RG-31) with a very useful remote gun system, or the deadly M777. The list goes on: sophisticated electronic jammers that block radio detontated IEDs, a new radio that single-handedly replaces our old HF, VHF, and UFF rads, new guns for the snipers, improved C7's for the infanteers, advanced computers and software that are moving us into the much acclaimed "digital battlefield", and even new desert boots(when we found out the old ones are shit). The list goes on. It's not flashy like a Globemaster, and it certainly doesn't make the news, but I guarentee the army hasn't seen an influx of equipment like this for decades.
Re. Todd. If you would be so kind then, what is your definition of supporting the troops? Should we, the citizens, ever send them into battle?
Sorry I haven't responded to everyone here, as you can see, there was a lot thrown at me, especially ref US Army combat effectiveness. I'll be back later and get into that.
Wow, we've gotta live one here.
Junker,
Walter Reed. Look it up if you don't know. If you're too idle to do your homework we ain't gonna do it for you.
Go look up the trial and procurement schedules for all that shiny kit as well overall CF budget increases you're waxing on about, and then correlate it with the Liberal tenure.
Oh, and look up gun and gunner while you're at it; then look up rifle, rifleman, and sniper. Cornflake.
Cornflake,
Something else:
When you say things like "deadly M777" you're a sick fuck who glories in war.
I've travelled on my own through 3 former war zones in the Balkans and SE Asia. In every case the impact of military weapons systems has destroyed the lives of the people living there beyond your futile imagination. In some places there is a palpable absence of men of fighting age because they are all dead. Killed in action, or simply taken from their homes and families and exterminated. In other, families are missing spouses and siblings and limbs. Quaint mountain villages, empty and scarred from shell and rifle fire. Can't walk on the grass because of UXO. In Laos, this stuff will still be killing and maiming people for the next 230 years. Laos is a land of Buddhist peasant farmers - victims of other peoples' wars. Can you imagine the impact on your life when a 155mm round kills and maims your friends and family. Take some time to think about it. Really, do that.
I know soldiers who've had to pick up bits and pieces of woman and children after they were shelled at play - a soccer pitch in Sarajevo; the aftermath of the Medak pocket; Taleban and friendly fire in Afghanistan. I have a good friend, I've known since I was a kid, who is what you might describe as damaged - he can't relate to people normally anymore - it happens when you see your best friend and some four year old girls explode in front of you. None of these people glory about weapons and killing as you just did.
Are you stable? Do you have death fantasies? Do you get off on shit like this? Because, really, you make me want to vomit when you make fetish statements like "deadly M777". Grow the fuck up.
"Todd. If you would be so kind then, what is your definition of supporting the troops?"
I pay taxes. I don't have any choice _but_ to support the troops.
Beyond that zero-point, things get much less clear than I'm sure you'd prefer.
I certainly do _not_ morally support the illegal, unethical, and racist invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by foreigners.
"Should we, the citizens, ever send them into battle?"
You really don't read very well, do you?
WE can't send soldiers into battle; others do it, rubber-stamping "our" names on their foreheads as if it were an annointing. WE don't have a say in the matter.
I have visited the left side here
for the first and possibly last time.
For all of your "pro-peace" posturing
the discussion here is by and large
infantile, illinformed and ugly.
Tht's right you lefties are not very nice people. How am I going to see you side of an arguement when
"what a twat" is the best someone can manage.
Sad - you really are.
Be relieved you don't travel farther left into the blogosphere, Flip darling. The well-reasoned thrashing you've seen here is a lover's caress compared to what J-Boy could've gotten elsewhere . . . .
I just popped in here as an observer to read the comment as recommended by Junker. I am not here to argue the basic point of the original post, or to defend anyone or attack anyone. But as Flip has posted, there really was a lot of venom thrown around pretty liberally and regardless of the opinions of Junker or RA, there was no call for such nasty language. What did all the name-calling do to advance the original post?
Opinions are like Assholes.....we have one. My opinion is not always right, or perceived as such by everybody, but the same goes for anybody else's. Degrading personal insults to another person's intelligence, beliefs or political affiliation just dumbs-down and discourages debate. Debate is civilized discussion of two separate ideas or opinions, and the basis of our democracy and freedom of speech. Grown-ups can agree to disagree on those points, and in a mature way can even blow another person's argument right out of the water.... using polite language, not name-calling.
As For Junker's comments, right or wrong, he does make a few valid points, as does Lurch. Both tried to be civil. I do not argue the validity of both their arguments, but even if they don't agree with each other, they tried to be mature.
The topic in question is worthy of debate, too bad it was used as a hammer to beat the Blogger's who have a differing position over the head with. Kind of sad, indeed.
Ah, I see Junker's echo chamber has come out to decry his having his head handed to him for his sloppy work and how in some cases that was done in a fairly aggressive manner after Junker wrote his whining post in which he was misleading and quite willing to distort context to play the persecuted victim of an unsolicited/unwarranted and unprovoked chastising. What a shock/surprise...NOT! After all, we all know that the political right is the definition of civility and good manners in how it critiques those it disagrees with and how they never use harsh nor foul language to do so with. (this is called being sarcastic and not literal for those incapable of recognizing this)
This constant refrain of the vapours by those on the right whenever they are toasted for displaying their own ignorance/arrogance and get called on it never ceases to amuse me. That all this shows more than anything else is how frail these egos and senses of self worth/respect truly are, otherwise they would not need to pull such self serving tripe as we have seen here from Junker's defenders. It is also amazing to note that these defenders are chastising for manners instead of dealing with content/substance of why Junker was treated so roughly. Now, if these voices had instead come to show why Junker's arguments had merit and therefore the chastising he got was undeserved, then they would have been acting in an intellectually honest fashion, but that is not what they did now is it?
Sorry you so called lefty blog virgins whose delicate virgin ears and eyes are so horrified by how one of your own was treated, the only people that will find this at all serious/credible are your fellow travelers, everyone else will see it for the crap that it is, assuming of course they come back to this thread since it had effectively died until you all came in with this weaseling defence of your man Junker.
"Opinions are like Assholes.....we have one"
How curious that they're not likened to brains, which we all (apparently) have, too.
Don't even think that your "opinion" matches automatically another's "opinion" in depth and veracity.
One opinion can be an asshole, while another . . . need not be.
(Man, some liberal, pomo dickhead's _got_ to fry in Hell for encouraging this kind of false equivalence in the blogosphere.)
You misunderstood, arctic_front. I was civil with Junker because I am new here. Factually, I have nothing but contempt for Junker and the positions he has so poorly and illogically staked out.
He is wrong on the facts, wrong on the history, and wrong and the deductions and lessons to be taken from the history.
I am accustomed to heaping large portions of scorn upon righties who try to defend the indefensible, and when a familiar member of a group, I am fully capable of being even more vile and uncivil than these gentle men who visit here regularly.
After you've seen the elephant, sonny, and been shot at, and shot back, and (possibly) killed and survived I will give attention to your foolishness. Until that time you're just not qualified to discuss warfare with me.
My apologies to Dave, and the other regulars for losing my temper.
I see now that my attempt to be civil was lost on you folks. Or my attempt to show that civil debate trumps any or all positions, no matter the subject.
I am sorry I bothered to reason with you. I was not here to defend Junker, his or your positions....just to try to get a civilized debate on an important subject. Keep the communication open and decent. I will leave and walk away shaking my head at the absurd reaction to a reasonable concept of mature debate.
Lurch: I respect your personal experience in war time, something I can't match. But for somebody with your experience in a fighting war, I would have thought that you could be more of a teacher of your experiences, rather than a mouthpiece spouting more venom. If you disagree with somebody, that is perfectly fine. To beak-off like a jerk to somebody that you disagree with shows only your lack of manners. This topic is not a left-right issue.....but you seem to have forgotten that. Instead, you let yourself be dragged down to a level i think is probably beneath your intellect.
If the debate on any given subject must be brought down to the lowest common denominator as this one has, I fear for our future. Open and honest debate must not include such petty rants and recriminations.
Scotian: You sir, are just an ass.
Todd: You have a point, but your message is lost when you resort to infantile language to get that point across.
I am not a Neo-Con wingnut, I like to think that I watch and read both sides of any issue with an open mind. Both sides of the political spectrum have something to offer, and somewhere in the middle is the truth. But both sides have to watch how they portray their message. Intellectual dishonesty or partisan rhetoric serves no master.
The comments on this thread are a disgrace to civil debate. If preaching to the converted is all you seek, then you have won. Where is the sense of fair play or balance in that? Hollow victory perhaps?
No, arctic_front, and I'll tell you why: I live in a super-charged state in the US,and I have endured seven years of the most savage invective from your political soul-mates about me and my fellow citizens and our rejection of corporate imperialism disguised as international freedom delivery. We have been labeled traitors, cowards and terrorist sympathizers for pointing out the stupidity of attacking Iraq as a response to Saudi Arabia's assault on my country. For speaking out as a veteran and human with a conscience I have had my dog poisoned, my home vandalized, and my car keyed and graffiti-painted twice. I've been physically assaulted twice in public.
We have seen our Constitution desecrated and our political and economic way of life irreparably changed by soulless men (and their mindless adherents) who have acted in exactly the same way as war criminals we hung for the same crimes after the Second World War.
Everything that thinking people warned of has come to pass. My nation's reputation is in tatters, diplomatic assurances of my country's representatives are met on the international front with disbelief if not outright risible laughter, and we find public fear of our country throughout the world. My country slouches forward into a future mimicking a third-rate banana republic or corporate dictatorship and may well be beyond redemption.
It was not my actions that brought us to this point, sonny; it was your side's mindless war lust and refusal to think before shooting.
Do not preach to me of civility because you have lost that right. My country may never again be the shining example of honor, dignity, and fairhandedness it once was. It was the childish fear and arrogance f the right that has brought the US (and the world) to this state.
Considering all this, I was actually quite restrained, I assure you. The rage in my heart for what the right has done to me, the country I fought and bled for, and my fellow humans around the globe warrants far worse than you experienced.
af:
And with that you prove my point. You chose to insult personally rather than refute, just like Junker I might add, unless in your world calling someone an ass is considered addressing someone on their substance instead of being a personal attack. Try practicing what you preach and then you might be credible, especially on your protests about civility. This civility argument you use is one of the craven defences of the right whenever they are pinned down on facts, and you just showed that for all your claims to the contrary you are one of them by your actions here. Try not acting like a Southern belle on a fainting couch next time then you won't be compared to such, real simple that, and do not try to claim you are more concerned with civility than defending Junker given what you said at Junker's blog and then came here to defend him from shows that for the lie that it is.
You sir are not merely an ass but an incompetent, intellectually deficient, dishonest hypocritical one at that.
arctic_front said:
"Waah! Waah! Todd an' everyone's all mean on me! Waah!"
(translation)
"You have a point, but your message is lost when you resort to infantile language to get that point across."
I seriously don't care if you particularly get my point or not (you came back for more with the same stick, so I guess you didn't). If you come into an argument with some alogical tripe (which all here are aware of) about how everyone's entitled to an opinion (as if it's the recently revealed Word from some Almighty) you get what you pay for.
"Both sides of the political spectrum have something to offer, and somewhere in the middle is the truth."
Spoken like a true opportunist.
"If an ignorant peasant or shopkeeper, understanding neither the origin nor the sense of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, discovers himself between the two fires, he will consider both belligerent camps with equal hatred. And who are all these democratic moralists? Ideologists of intermediary layers who have fallen, or are in fear of falling between the two fires. The chief traits of the prophets of this type are alienism to great historical movements, a hardened conservative mentality, smug narrowness, and a most primitive political cowardice. More than anything moralists wish that history should leave them in peace with their petty books, little magazines, subscribers, common sense, and moral copy books. But history does not leave them in peace. It cuffs them now from the left, now from the right. Clearly – revolution and reaction, Czarism and Bolshevism, communism and fascism, Stalinism and Trotskyism – are all twins. Whoever doubts this may feel the symmetrical skull bumps upon both the right and left sides of these very moralists."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/...rals/
morals.htm
Commenting by HaloScan
