From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 12:46:28 PDT
Hello Royce,
>looking at some of your comments, are you or have you ever been in the
>military?
So one can only have an intelligent point of view if they have been in
the military *AND* are a dyed in the wool Republican? I find that to be
very narrow minded.
The answer is no, I have not been in the military. Instead I have spent
the last 20 years studying warfare, politics, and economics. I went to
school for this too and have a degree. I also make military sims for
consumers and militaries as well. If that isn't enough to have an
informed opinion about what's going on, I'd suggest serving a couple of
years in the military isn't either.
>Some of you comments seem to follow the Dems talking points
>against Pres. Bush and against the war.
Funny, I think my comments follow the facts and not any political agenda.
Also note that my comments also follow the lines of seasoned Republicans
and top military leadership who served under Reagan, Bush Sr. and even
Bush Jr. Not to mention that the facts, and they are facts, clearly show
that the public was at the very least mislead prior to the war starting.
There are also real signs that Bush Jr. might be the first Repub
president that can not count on the votes of the military either this
November. Don't be foolish enough to think that only lefty liberals see
this war is being completely mismanaged.
The thing that angers me the most is that if Klinton had done even 1/5th
as much lying, deceiving, and blundering as Bush has done over Iraq, some
of you on this list would probably actually try and assassinate him. But
this is a good 'ol boy Republican who's in charge, so obviously he can do
no wrong because he isn't a stinking Democrat.
BTW, I voted for Bush Sr. and think he did a fantastic job with the 1st
Gulf War except that he bowed to political considerations and didn't
finish it when we had 500,000 troops in theater.
>I was in the military during the Vietnam conflict. I am not in favor of
>tucking our tails and running any more.
Neither am I. But attacking the wrong country in the wrong way isn't any
better. The war in Vietnam was unwinable (and arguably unnecessary)
because it was directed by politicians who didn't have a clue how to
fight a war. It isn't that bad *yet* in Iraq, but isn't going in the
right direction.
>I am also in kicking their rears over there, else, we will be fighting
>them over here.
We will be fighting them over here in greater numbers thanks to the
mishandling of the war over there. And it can get much, much worse than 9/11.
>Personally, I don't give a rat's rear what motivated Pres. Bush to go
>into Iraq nor who gets called up to serve their country. I was a product
>of the draft and I served my time.
>
>When you sign up and you draw the money, if a war breaks out during that
>time, then that is what comes with the territory.
Understood, but that ignores the fact that the military is not currently
set up to fight this war and therefore SOMETHING either has to change or
the current serving personnel are going to continue shouldering the
burden of a failed policy. I would think you as a Vietnam ear vet would
sympathize with that more than most.
>I know that this is being hard nosed, but, if they don't want to serve,
>then don't sign up and draw the pay. It's not just a job and a way to get
>an extra retirement for free.
I agree, and it is why I have zero sympathy for those who are going AWOL.
Sure, a lot of the fine print in their contracts is being exercised for
the first time (in some cases), but they did volunteer and should not
have if the fine print bothered them. Still, that doesn't get the
problems we face fixed, and therefore something needs to change if we
want to win.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:33:49 PDT