Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see any military as the expression of the worst in humanity. The more a military is glorified, the less human its supporters. The use of force is abhorrent and should not be encouraged, but there's no convincing a human population that seems genetically predestined to be violent and self-destructive. Today's military exists as a ruse for the abuse of power across the globe in the name of freedom. Enemies are manufactured and become real threats in order to justify the massive expenditure with the ensuing total waste of lives providing real quantifiable benefit for very few people.
My heart goes out to all those who have invested any time of their lives to this lowest of human institutions because in today's world it uses every method imaginable to keep itself alive...when the vast majority of people, if they looked in their hearts, want the exact opposite. As I've written before, peace requires no taxation, no capital outlay and no natural resources, nothing but a change of mind. And freedom, for those who claim it must be fought for and that it isn't free seem unable to grasp that it, too, is a choice. The world is what you allow, for not only are you creating it in every moment, you are choosing which version of it (victim or perpetrator, for example) that you want at the same time. Only powerless people resort to a military because they've forfeited the choice to create what they really want...without even knowing it. Higher consciousness, indeed any path to enlightenment (harmony, balance, etc), would surely never involve a military.
So, on what future date will we each decide to create something different? C'mon, your heart knows this to be true.
You're not nearly as cool as you think you are. You probably hate the police too, but I'll bet you'd be the first one to call them if someone said BOO to you.
Can't say anything about the Hancock, I wasn't in the Navy.
I know Carter and Reagan had done it, but Clinton was the first to give a pay raise in over 8 years, and it was a significant raise at that.
What missions? Bosnia? Somalia?
Both of which were quite small in compared to any real war we've been in. We didn't need large military forces for those, honestly, we should have never been in Somalia. Thats one thing I look down on him for.
His policy that you're talking about was DADT, which the defense department supported, and Republicans are supporting right now. As far as women in the military, the same standards have been supported by every group since the Clinton administration. Clinton didn't put women in combat roles, Bush did.
I could care less what he made full bird colonels to do.
As far as him "loathing" the military, it was about the Vietnam war, which many didn't support. I give Clinton points for saying he didn't support that war, rather than taking the back way out of joining the guard like many politicians did.
I could care less about not wearing uniforms in the white house as well.
I don't know where you served, and who you talked to. However, you're average grunt, like me, liked Bill Clinton. Most of the guys I know who are still in, hated the last President we had, because he sent people on a half cocked mission, without support that was needed. As I said before, Somalia was the same thing, and thats the one black eye I see Clinton having. However, all and all, we still liked him.
The Clinton admin decided that we needed Female Fighter pilots in the Navy. I am fine with that and agree. However the admin decided that not enough females were making the grade. So they decided that we needed to lower the standards. People paid a huge price. The standards were there for a reason.
The Uniform issue. The issue is the reason they didn't want uniforms.
Fullbird colonols. You may not like or respect the fact that to attain such a rank took a great deal of effort and dedication. With it comes respect. Asking that of a colonol was at the very least ignorant and disrespectful.
It further indicates how he felt about those who serve.
Somalia is a classic example of how a know nothing leads. Disregard what your experts say and do it your own way instead. Good men died because Clinton didn't respect his generals enough to listen to them.
In am not saying that any President can get past his ego enough to listen.
I am however contesting that Clinton respected those who served. His actions and words say otherwise.
You and your friends liked Clinton. I don't challenge that. However if you look at election results Clinton did not carry the Military either time.
The Clinton admin decided that we needed Female Fighter pilots in the Navy. I am fine with that and agree. However the admin decided that not enough females were making the grade. So they decided that we needed to lower the standards. People paid a huge price. The standards were there for a reason.
The Uniform issue. The issue is the reason they didn't want uniforms.
Fullbird colonols. You may not like or respect the fact that to attain such a rank took a great deal of effort and dedication. With it comes respect. Asking that of a colonol was at the very least ignorant and disrespectful.
It further indicates how he felt about those who serve.
Somalia is a classic example of how a know nothing leads. Disregard what your experts say and do it your own way instead. Good men died because Clinton didn't respect his generals enough to listen to them.
In am not saying that any President can get past his ego enough to listen.
I am however contesting that Clinton respected those who served. His actions and words say otherwise.
You and your friends liked Clinton. I don't challenge that. However if you look at election results Clinton did not carry the Military either time.
What huge price did they pay for women fighter pilots?
Just because he made a bad military decision, doesn't mean he hates the military.
Probably because you never see ultra-liberals protesting outside firehouses or doctors offices. Then there's the city of Berkeley, California who told the US Marines they were unwanted and unwelcomed intruders to their city. The mayor and most of those council members were re-elected after doing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by songgirl
I don't know. My father was military, my brother is military, my ex is military. I've personally made several military moves, stayed alone while significant other was on sea duty . I guess my response would be that I respect our military as a whole, but I've known MANY military guys who are straight up a**holes. Just because they serve in the armed forces doesn't mean they are people of great courage or high morals.
Serving in the military is a very respectable profession but police officers, firefighters and doctors, for example, deserve the same degree of respect, IMO.
Yet, no one will ever start a thread on "your thoughts about our firefighters" and no one will ever post "police officers are awesome". Why is that? I understand and agree with respecting people in the military but I don't and I won't worship them as superior to hard working civilians, many of whom also risk their lives and spend long periods of time away from family without recognition or the great job security and fantastic benefits afforded to military members and their families.
Basically, military members deserve respect but claiming "I love our military" seems like some deranged form of hero worship to me.
Clinton loved the military, he was the first President in a very long time, who raised wages. I served while under Clinton, and I can tell you honestly, that most of us loved that man.
Now, Clinton reduced the size of the military, which has been needed for sometime, and I still support further downsizing.
Downsizing doesn't mean you hate the military
So Clinton was lying when he sent a letter to his ROTC commander telling him he loath the military?
I respect the military but I feel it needs to be heavily reformed away from re-fighting WWII and more towards constabulary actions, insurgencies, and fourth generation warfare/low intensity warfare.
We need less aircraft carriers, armor (tanks), submarines, and fighter planes and more helicopters, patrol boats, military police, and light infantry units.
We could maintain dozens of patrol boats and totally eliminate maritime drug smuggling and illegal immigration for the cost of a single useless aircraft carrier who's heyday was half a century ago.
You're wrong about aircraft carriers and fighter jets (not sure on the submarines and tanks). Aircraft carriers don't just carry fighter jets, they also carry helicopters, munitions, and a portable flight deck from which to conduct operations. The military has plenty of helicopters. The navy has a class of ships that are Marine Troop Carriers. They not only carry thousands of Marines to combat, they also carry their vehicles, cargo helicopters, attack helicopters, and landing craft. When it comes to humanitarian missions following a natural disaster, these are the best ships to have on the scene. I served on the USS Iwo Jima LPH-2 (the first Iwo Jima ship), we were a helicopter carrier with multiple jobs. Besides launching Marines for amphib attack, we also were a hospital and we could provide fuel for other ships and aircraft. When we went out to sea, besides having Marines and weapons, we also had a supply of emergency humanitarian aid supplies. Navy helicopters have done combat, provided humanitarian aid, search and rescue, and performed mine sweeping duty. We could maintain coastal patrol boats, but you'd need a large mother ship from which they could receive their fuel and food supplies.
So Clinton was lying when he sent a letter to his ROTC commander telling him he loath the military?
Have you read the entire letter?
I have, its about the Vietnam war, not the military itself, and the men and women who serve in it. Its aimed at Generals and Admirals who pushed for war, and were fighting it ineffectively.
As I said in another post, I honor this opinion over those of people who, like former President Bush, served in the guard as a scapegoat way of getting out of serving in Vietnam.
At least President Clinton had the testicular fortitude to stand up for his belief that the war was wrong. Others had no such fortitude.
My personal definition of bravery is to do that which needs to be done in spite of your fear. His running off to England, or others running off to Canada, is not brave. It is cowardly. If they truly wished to stand firm on their belief that the war was wrong then they should have stayed in the USA to make that statement and risk going to jail or prison for their beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Have you read the entire letter?
I have, its about the Vietnam war, not the military itself, and the men and women who serve in it. Its aimed at Generals and Admirals who pushed for war, and were fighting it ineffectively.
As I said in another post, I honor this opinion over those of people who, like former President Bush, served in the guard as a scapegoat way of getting out of serving in Vietnam.
At least President Clinton had the testicular fortitude to stand up for his belief that the war was wrong. Others had no such fortitude.
My personal definition of bravery is to do that which needs to be done in spite of your fear. His running off to England, or others running off to Canada, is not brave. It is cowardly. If they truly wished to stand firm on their belief that the war was wrong then they should have stayed in the USA to make that statement and risk going to jail or prison for their beliefs.
Vietnam did not need to be done.
Sometimes, saying no takes more bravery than accepting what they are told.
Sometimes, saying no takes more bravery than accepting what they are told.
Saying NO to the draft from inside the United States of America where you face penalties of law is brave. Flying to England and saying no to the draft is being a coward.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
