Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on May 27, 2003, 08:29:00 AM
-
:cool:
Trust in the Military Heightens Among Baby Boomers' Children
By ROBIN TONER
New York Times
May 27, 2003
The topic in John Sunderdick's leadership class at Mount Hebron High School in Ellicott City, Md., was the military. The first task was word association.
"Just write down the first word that pops into your head" connected to the military, Mr. Sunderdick, 25, said.
The results would have gladdened the heart of any recruiter:
"Strong," "bravery," "proud to be an American," "service," "Bush," "really hard workouts" and "heroes."
A few students wrote negatives like "blood" and "imperialism." But by and large, the class of 18 sophomores and juniors voiced a striking degree of confidence in the military.
In fact, researchers and polling experts say, the class reflects a long-building trend that has intensified with the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and the successful military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Americans' trust and confidence in the military has soared, even as it has declined in other institutions like corporations, churches and Congress.
From 1975 to 2002, the percentage of Americans who expressed a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the people who ran organized religion fell, to 45 percent from 68. Those expressing a great deal or a lot of confidence in Congress declined, to 29 percent from 40, according to a Gallup Poll. But also in 2002, Americans who expressed a great deal or a lot of confidence in the military rose, to 79 percent from 58 in 1975.
The positive image is particularly striking among the children and grandchildren of baby boomers, said David C. King, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard and co-author of the new book "The Generation of Trust: How the U.S. Military Has Regained the Public's Confidence Since Vietnam" (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research).
Those generations have come to "trust the government, and especially the U.S. military, more deeply than their baby boomer parents ever have," Professor King said.
Neil Howe, a co-author of books about generations who has consulted with the military on recruiting, said: "The idea of nationality, being a nation, is important to people shaped by 9/11. This is a generation that knows nations really matter. They trust government."
They are also steeped in the values of cooperation, teamwork and service in the schools, Mr. Howe said, adding, "`All of these things argue in favor of trust, or support, of the military."
Opinion polls back that up. A poll by the Harvard Institute of Politics, based on interviews with 1,200 college undergraduates last month, found that 75 percent said they trusted the military "to do the right thing" either "all of the time" or "most of the time." Two-thirds of the students said they supported the Iraq war. Hawks outnumbered doves more than 2 to 1.
In contrast, in 1975, 20 percent of people ages 18 to 29 said they had a great deal of confidence in those who ran the military, a Harris Poll found.
Researchers argue that the trend in part reflects simple experience. Young people coming of age during quick and successful military actions, like the Persian Gulf war in 1991 — "It looked and felt like a video game, and America won it decisively," Professor King said — or the action in Iraq this year are quite likely to have very different attitudes from those who came of age during the Vietnam War.
"How the military is doing has a lot to do with it," a sophomore in Mr. Sunderdick's class, Jessi Dexheimer, 15, said. "Now that they've done so well in Iraq, people feel good about them. But people felt differently about Vietnam."
Todd Gitlin, a professor of sociology at Columbia and a scholar of the 1960's, said: "If you grew up in the 60's, the military is to some degree tainted. I won't say forever tainted. But it is tainted by its implication in the Vietnam War. And if you came of age in the last five or six years, the military looks a lot more like defense than aggression."
Professor King said his research showed that people born in 1952 reflected the lowest level of trust in the military. They were 16 in the year of the Tet offensive, the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a high water mark in the antiwar movement.
In Mr. Sunderdick's class, Vietnam seemed very distant history. Even the teacher was born after Saigon fell. Several students said they thought that the Iraq war was much more like World War II, a war with a clear rationale waged by a country intent on defending itself, reflecting the effectiveness of the Bush administration's case for going to war.
"We actually got attacked," a student, Jessica Cowman, said. "In Vietnam, it wasn't an attack on us. We got hit in World War II, at Pearl Harbor, and we got hit in New York and at the Pentagon. It wasn't like that with Vietnam."
Another student, Stephanie Isberg, said: "People are more personally affected, especially by 9/11. My uncle almost died. So I have a more positive viewpoint about going in and taking out terrorists than I probably would have if nothing had happened."
Since Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Sunderdick said later, students in his government classes seemed far more engaged "in how things work, why we do what we do."
Another teacher, Angela Sugg, head of the social studies department at Mount Hebron, said she had noticed more students reciting the Pledge of Allegiance since Sept. 11, 2001.
"I even remember kids right after 9/11 saying, `I guess we better say it,' " Ms. Sugg said.
Peter D. Feaver, an associate professor of political science at Duke and an expert on relations between military and civilians, said the terrorist attacks brought home to Americans their "personal connection to the mission of the military."
"In the post-cold-war era," Professor Feaver said, "from when the walls fell down to when the towers fell down, Americans didn't have a lot of personal connection to the mission. It was what I called a voyeuristic connection to the military."
There are other factors. Professor King said the military had improved its performance and professionalism, symbolized by "a well-trained all-volunteer force." Added to that are years of advertising by the services and, even more important, popular culture. The dark movies about Vietnam gave way to more upbeat visions like "Top Gun" and "An Officer and a Gentleman."
Even so, the growing popularity does not, necessarily, translate into a surge in enlistments, experts say.
Spokesmen for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines said they were all hitting their recruiting goals even before the terrorist attacks and the ensuing military actions, and that they had been doing so for at least the last few years.
A spokesman for the Air Force Recruiting Service, First Lt. Jason McCree, said calls as well as visits to the Air Force Web site increased when the Iraq war began.
"As far as qualified applicants coming up to recruiters," Lieutenant McCree added, "we have not seen an increase. We've been doing really well as far as recruiting, and we've continued to do well."
In Mr. Sunderdick's class, all the students said they viewed the military positively and supported the troops; 7 of the 18 said they would consider the military as a potential career.
-
it should read "Trust in the Military Heightens Among Baby Boomers' Children except on issue of marines or sailors dating daughter". :)
-
Heh heh, he said Sunderdick.
-
And to think... it was only 30 years ago that people were throwing paint and blood on them.
Popular oppinion of the military has always been fickle... and will continue to be for some time.
MiniD
-
This makes the Liberals cry.
Remember it was them who sent 100's of Lawyers to Florida to try and through out the votes of the military.
the children are future voters.
-
Originally posted by JBA
This makes the Liberals cry.
Liberal does not mean anti-military.
-
I don't get it, MT. How were you able to type your response while sobbing uncontrollably over that article?
You must be a closet republican.
-
a survey of 18 kids sparks a 3,000 word article.
obviously, that was not a seattle or san francisco school.
-
the day the fighting spirit of our military is dependant on a baby boomers whatever that is or your average college kids opinion of the military is the day we are truly ****ed. its really neat that were trusted now. never mind the fact that the boys were carrying the load like real pros when many of the citizens they were defending were ready to piss on their graves. public opinion is about as stable as either of my ex wives or a skyscraper built on sand. you get the picture.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
when many of the citizens they were defending were ready to piss on their graves.
Another straw man set up by the right to discredit the left. The military is held in high regard by most Americans. Those who don't feel that way are either somewhere left of Stalin, or somewhere right of Burch.
-
You sound like some sort of political counselor. Tard.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Another straw man set up by the right to discredit the left. The military is held in high regard by most Americans. Those who don't feel that way are either somewhere left of Stalin, or somewhere right of Burch.
I donno MT, some progressives here in the Bay Area just dont seem to get it - and they are by no means communists even by by my loose definition of the term but they have a serious disdain for the american military.. Guess those are baby boomer vietnam protestors who havent changed?
-
Originally posted by senna
You sound lile some sort of political counselor. Tard.
Always attack that which you don't understand...
Black and white I defined these terms
Quite clear no doubt, somehow
Ahh but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now.
patience grasshopper, when you can snatch the idea from my post you will be a man.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I donno MT, some progressives here in the Bay Area just dont seem to get it - and they are by no means communists even by by my loose definition of the term but they have a serious disdain for the american military.. Guess those are baby boomer vietnam protestors who havent changed?
I meant figuratively left of Stalin... not necessarily communist. But you get the idea.
-
>Always attack that which you don't understand...
Who me, whos the one printing this garbage. And thats from a scholar of all people. If I see any AK wielding Stalin leftis radicals in California, or any bald headed right wing extremists in the hills around Sierra, I'll be sure to let you know.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I meant figuratively left of Stalin... not necessarily communist. But you get the idea.
I know MT, thats what I meat by "loose definition of communism", just sometimes it scares me how otherwise resonable people distrust our military so deeply.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Another straw man set up by the right to discredit the left. The military is held in high regard by most Americans. Those who don't feel that way are either somewhere left of Stalin, or somewhere right of Burch.
youre over my head dude. i dont know what you mean by straw man and i never thought that all liberals disliked the military and i never doubted that plenty of Americans support the military. the point is that professional warriors do their job with excellence because they believe in the code of the professional warrior. public opinion is heavily controlled by the press. if you work at the pointy end of the spear and think that the majority of the public knows the real story you either grow up real fast or grow very unhappy and change jobs. all that story said to me was "hey look we appreciate you now no harm done". the harm will be undone when the people responsibile apologize to the guys they should have appreciated and respected and didnt. im not one of the unappreciated by the way. but i have served with guys who are a part of that group so ive heard what was done and said by the unappreciative. that article is like the first class steward going down to the boiler room one day after spending ten years on the ship and saying "hey guys i just want you to know i really think you do a hard job well". so ****in what. the only reason the guy is down there is to make himself feel better by trying to do what he thinks will be seen as the right thing to do, not what he knows is the right thing to do. me? jaded? nah. :)
-
<---- This liberal is a veteran that currently works for the U.S. Navy.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
And to think... it was only 30 years ago that people were throwing paint and blood on them.
I guess My Lai created some image problems.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
I guess My Lai created some image problems.
only to those with a lack of perspective. since the war has ended nva have agreed that it was only atrocity of its type commited by American soldiers for the duration of the war. the atrocity was stopped in progress by other American soldiers. and the American soldiers who did commit war crimes were tried found guilty and punished by the American military. i never heard of similar legal proceedings on the part of the vc when their guys murdered innocent south vietnamese. has the govt of VN tried the co and guards of the hanoi hilton for war crimes yet? any who doubt that my lai was an isolated incident should keep in mind that any actual atrocity commited by Americans would have been used for propoganda by communist forces. face it the most extreme members of the antiwar crowd in America were played like violins by the commies of VN. they swallowed every lie they were given hook line and sinker just like the little puppets they were meant to be.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
sometimes it scares me how otherwise resonable people distrust our military so deeply.
They don't deserve trust...dateing back to and before Tuskegee-Syphilis "testing", to the modren denials of the effects and use of depleated uranium.... These aholes don't deserve our trust..... maybe our respect .. but not our trust....
tho's who forget histroy..are doomed to repeat it.
-
Excuse me Manedew???? Would you care to elaborate on your quote???? I'm just a bit confused by it.....who is the "they"???
"They don't deserve trust...dateing back to and before Tuskegee-Syphilis "testing", to the modren denials of the effects and use of depleated uranium.... These aholes don't deserve our trust..... maybe our respect .. but not our trust.... "
-
Originally posted by Manedew
They don't deserve trust...dateing back to and before Tuskegee-Syphilis "testing", to the modren denials of the effects and use of depleated uranium.... These aholes don't deserve our trust..... maybe our respect .. but not our trust....
tho's who forget histroy..are doomed to repeat it.
oversight is necessary with almost every structure that wields power. what was the tuskegee syphilis test? as for du i was warned in 1991 gulf war to be careful around ko'd tanks and bmps and such. are you talking about du poisoning from residue after du round hits armor? most of what ive heard said about du related sickness is really inaccurate. i heard a guy on npr claim that we were using "du tipped" cruise missiles to poison iraqi troops even. :)
-
Originally posted by anonymous
and the American soldiers who did commit war crimes were tried found guilty and punished by the American military.
The 'American Military' tried real hard to cover it up.
Calley ended up spending a couple of years on house arrest.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
The 'American Military' tried real hard to cover it up.
Calley ended up spending a couple of years on house arrest.
all the same it was soldiers who fought to prevent the cover up. didnt know the guy got away with house arrest though thats bull****. i heard from some guys that he was sentenced to life at hard labor?
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
The 'American Military' tried real hard to cover it up.
Calley ended up spending a couple of years on house arrest.
It was also the US Army that stopped the massacre at the point of a gun. There was a unit commander that ordered his troops to fire on any fellow US soldier that didn't cease his fire. This action prevented more slaughter of innocents.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Opinion polls back that up. A poll by the Harvard Institute of Politics, based on interviews with 1,200 college undergraduates last month, found that 75 percent said they trusted the military "to do the right thing" either "all of the time" or "most of the time." Two-thirds of the students said they supported the Iraq war. Hawks outnumbered doves more than 2 to 1.
In contrast, in 1975, 20 percent of people ages 18 to 29 said they had a great deal of confidence in those who ran the military, a Harris Poll found.
This is news?
I'm curious why they don't show a poll of 1,200 50-something adults in 1975 or 1,200 50-something adults in 2003 to compare with the student polls. I'm not buying this "Generation of Trust" thing unless these researchers can prove that aggregate public opinion hasn't shifted from mistrust to trust over time.
EDIT: I just reread and noticed that they include Gallup numbers which indeed show an aggregrate upward trend in military trust, and given the sample size, the difference between the aggregate and student samples probably doesn't significantly differ.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Manedew...I am still awaiting your response to my post earlier.
-
It's obvious 'they' means the military, guttboy....
Grun: "....people distrust our military so deeply."
Mane: "...They don't deserve trust."
I'd personally like to know what is meant by trust in this case. Trust them to do the job well? Trust them not to cheat on their taxes?
Actually, upon a re-read of the article it seems pretty clear that "trust" means "confidence", as those two words are used interchangeably. If that's the case, I would think it'd be hard to argue that the military isn't worthy of it. You point those guys at something and it's pretty dang likely that they're gonna kick booty.
If you think "trust" is meaning something else here.... what is it and what would be an example of it?
-
Nash,
I am still waiting for Manedew's response. I would like to hear what he has to say. I would also like to hear what he has to say about your post. Well written.
Manedew?
-
I maybe mistaken, and I don't assume to answer
for Manedew, but I believe he is referring to the many tests the military has conducted on un-suspecting and non-consenting troops.
Testing included but wasn't limited to:
1. the effects of radiation exposure
2. troop effectiveness after consumption of LSD.
The military has also denied any relationship between Agent Orange and the alarmingly high cancer rate (and many other reported illnesses) among Vietnam Vets
Gulf War syndrome.
Also denied by the military that there is any link between the 1st Gulf War and the many reported illnesses by vets believed exposed to biological fallout from Iraq's destroyed "milk factories".
I think I understand Manedew's reply of respecting the people serving in the military, but not trusting the military.
-
I thought I was pretty clear ... "They" the US military (and goverment for that matter) should not be trusted ..
Many, and I mean many, people attribute Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) to DU ammunition ... they also attribute it to the staggering increase of cancer rates in Iraq since 1991.
These days I trust "them" less than anytime in my life.... there's just something in the air... and I think alot of you can smell it.
This military which often ignores it's vets, and won't even admit that GWS exsists or that agent ornge was bad ....
What scarey to me is that American mass media is quickly becomeing bedfellows with them... oh wait I mean embedded. This was the major power check, good reporters keep the military in check, but they will likely not be heard any longer on any large to medium-sized networks if the FCC vote passes. Last few years when the FCC lifted the ownership restrictions on radio, all the high power stations across the country were quickly bought up by conglomrates like Clear Channel. This next vote would enable ownership of all major networks under one company, even all newspapers and radio could be owned by very few people .... Most people who think about it can see lack of diversity in media ownership is bad. This contributes to my lack of trust too.
.... some of us more educated computer dweebs can get our news from other sources, but most americans can't, or won't.
If you mean by trust in our ability to win a war of attrition... I'd never argue, USA would kick bellybutton and has... but other wars ..... Wars like Veitnam, that for the most part was not a war of attrition, we will proably lose. If you have gurrellia fighters, fighting your troops IMHO it's not a place you should be attackiong unless you truley reguard yourself as a conquerer.
-
(http://www.buzolich.com/indecorum/images/retard.jpg)
I found that on the Internet and was itching to use it, so I came here and immediately posted it on the first Ripsnort thread I saw. :p
-
Interesting that they included 'Bush' in the POSITIVE replies.. :p
-
Originally posted by Manedew
If you mean by trust in our ability to win a war of attrition... I'd never argue, USA would kick bellybutton and has... but other wars ..... Wars like Veitnam, that for the most part was not a war of attrition, we will proably lose. If you have gurrellia fighters, fighting your troops IMHO it's not a place you should be attackiong unless you truley reguard yourself as a conquerer.
Obviously you think it was the military that "lost" the Vietnam war. I'm not talking about doctored casualty reports, or pentagon level politcal bs. I suppose you think that the Tet Offensive was a major military victory for the NVA and VC too. If you think that the American military could not have "won" the Vietnam war, you need to go study some history.
You are, apparently, a very very bitter person with a significant degree of paranoia about all things goverment. That's fine, pathetic, but fine nonetheless. However, in the future, might I repsectfully suggest that, in your next condemnation post, you differentiate between diatribes against political insittutions, in which the PENTAGON is certainly included, and the actual on the ground military combat unit.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Actually, upon a re-read of the article it seems pretty clear that "trust" means "confidence", as those two words are used interchangeably. If that's the case, I would think it'd be hard to argue that the military isn't worthy of it. You point those guys at something and it's pretty dang likely that they're gonna kick booty.
If you think "trust" is meaning something else here.... what is it and what would be an example of it?
Nash is EGGGSAKLY RIIIIIIIIIGHT!
and he has the coolest avatar too!
So Manedew, go whine somewhere where someone might give a sh#t!
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Obviously you think it was the military that "lost" the Vietnam war.
Obviously they did.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Obviously they did.
LOL! You are just as obviously wrong as Manedew. :p :p
American political and Pentagon leaders kept the military from doing what it took to win the war. The military didn't lose it!
-
Trust the military?
What next, trust the CIA?
-
Be quiet foreigner or we will bomb you again.... You know how the US army just loves to bomb brown people! ;)
-
I was raped by a howitzer
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
You are, apparently, a very very bitter person with a significant degree of paranoia about all things goverment. That's fine, pathetic, but fine nonetheless. However, in the future, might I repsectfully suggest that, in your next condemnation post, you differentiate between diatribes against political insittutions, in which the PENTAGON is certainly included, and the actual on the ground military combat unit.
Personal attack.
-
<-- ex navy
military gets a big ZERO on the trust o meter.
the republic side of our government gives the military way to much unaccounted for power.
google us military scandals
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&domains=fark.com&q=us+military+scandals&spell=1
177,000 hits :)
military is a nessisary evil sorry but its true.
-
Thats why being a mercenary is better.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
You are, apparently, a very very bitter person with a significant degree of paranoia about all things goverment. That's fine, pathetic, but fine nonetheless.
Why do you draw that conclusion?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Why do you draw that conclusion?
Well, with regard to Manedew, it's an obvious comclusion from all of his posts. If you read my post after that one, you'll see that I agreed completely with you Nash!
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Obviously you think it was the military that "lost" the Vietnam war. I'm not talking about doctored casualty reports, or pentagon level politcal bs. I suppose you think that the Tet Offensive was a major military victory for the NVA and VC too. If you think that the American military could not have "won" the Vietnam war, you need to go study some history.
You are, apparently, a very very bitter person with a significant degree of paranoia about all things goverment. That's fine, pathetic, but fine nonetheless. However, in the future, might I repsectfully suggest that, in your next condemnation post, you differentiate between diatribes against political insittutions, in which the PENTAGON is certainly included, and the actual on the ground military combat unit.
You might want to read what I write before you rant with your preconcevived notions about what you think i was talking about.
I pointed out that Vietnam was MOSTLY not a war of attrition, and that if your not willing to be a CONQUERER you will lose such a war...
Your actually agreeing with me in serveral ways...Does that make you bitter too? :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Personal attack.
Not a personal attack at all, just a statement of fact.
And all I did was suggest that he not insinuate that the military on the ground was at fault, as opposed to Pentagon and political leadership.
Geez, come to think of it, Sandy, you left wing liberal wacko,
(:D I listened to Rush today:D), I'd think you'd agree with me since all you lefties support the troops but not the generals or the republicans.
Have a nice conservative day!:cool:
-
>Personal attack.
Now now, why cant we just debate the subject like reasonable men?
-
Originally posted by Manedew
You might want to read what I write before you rant with your preconcevived notions about what you think i was talking about.
I pointed out that Vietnam was MOSTLY not a war of attrition, and that if your not willing to be a CONQUERER you will lose such a war...
Your actually agreeing with me in serveral ways...Does that make you bitter too? :D
Nope. Not bitter one bit. I don't hate the government, just loathe some of the dumb people that get into it at times.
But your apparent insinuation that the U.S. military could not win the war in Vietnam is just plain wrong. While I will grant you that the Vietnam war was MOSTLY not a war of attrition, that is not the fault of the military, and neither is the defeat. The US didn't win that war, not because it couldn't, but because Johnson, et al., micromanaged the combat and would not let it be a war of attrition.
-
so in otherwords .. they wern't willing to be conquerer's... read it handsomehunk
-
I may stand to be corrected on this subject but wasnt the concept of pulling out first initiated or formulated a bit past about half way into the entire span of the war? Then the latter half of the war was a gracefull or ungracefull termination of an unwanted conflict. My perspective is not political, just asking from those who might know.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Not a personal attack at all, just a statement of fact.
So... when you stated, "You are, apparently, a very very bitter person with a significant degree of paranoia about all things goverment." you really meant that he not insinuate that the military on the ground was at fault, as opposed to Pentagon and political leadership?
-
Originally posted by Animal
I was raped by a howitzer
Gotta be careful what you wear. You never know what you'll attract. :D
-
Seems so Sand. :)
Put another way, Mane is paranoid of the government. That is unless he blames the "government, Johnson, the Pentagon and the political leadership" (anything but the troops).
In even simpler terms... He's paranoid of the govenrment unless he blames them.
Make sense? Me neither. :)
Syz? ;)
.... oh look at this happy face/text ratio. Sickening...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
So... when you stated, "You are, apparently, a very very bitter person with a significant degree of paranoia about all things goverment." you really meant that he not insinuate that the military on the ground was at fault, as opposed to Pentagon and political leadership?
Now Sandy; if that had been a personal attack, I'd have used such terms as "handsomehunk", "*******", or the ever popular ahole, or even You Stupid Nit or You Dumb Bich! But I didn't. Nope, not me. I am an honorable Rook and therefore deal only with the facts as presented.
I will refrain from using smilies as it is also apparent that the smilie quotient has been exhausted by Nash's sickeningly smilied up post!
-
They don't deserve trust...dateing back to and before Tuskegee-Syphilis "testing", to the modren denials of the effects and use of depleated uranium.... These aholes don't deserve our trust..... maybe our respect .. but not our trust....
Well Manedew.....
I am one of those individuals that you call "Aholes" above. I am currently on active duty in the USAF, I have been since 1986. You are entitled to your opinions, but when you make a blanket statement about the thousands of United States military personnel..."Aholes"...as you call us...I have to speak from the heart....its a bit upsetting.
You are entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your thoughts, you are entitled to do just about anything you want in this nation of ours......there is a reason for that.
I would venture to guess that there is a large majority (not all I do not like making blanket statements) of us _______<----Insert your word in the United States military who take pride in the US and what it stands for. I take pride in the fact I can have an opinion that is different from you. I take pride in the fact that I can do just about anything in this great country. I take pride in the fact that I have guys that fly and fight along with me that do their jobs so that we can keep those rights. I take pride in the fact that the US military does a hell of a lot of good in the world. Perhaps a look at the good things the US military does on occassion would be in order as well.
Is it all perfect in the US military and Govt???? No. Name a corporation, organization, or club for that matter that is. Is the US military or govt out to get you or its citizens.....In MY opinion NO WAY.
Just my three cents....and I am truly sorry that you feel the way you do about the US military.
Respectfully,
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Now Sandy; if that had been a personal attack, I'd have used such terms as "handsomehunk", "*******", or the ever popular ahole, or even You Stupid Nit or You Dumb Bich! But I didn't. Nope, not me. I am an honorable Rook and therefore deal only with the facts as presented.
I disagree, sir. You've described "namecalling." It's just one form of personal attack. Maybe it's just me but I consider it to be a personal attack anytime the focus of a message or statement is directed toward perceived qualities of the author rather than content of the author's message.
If nothing else... we do have one thing in common... we're both Rooks.
-
Was gonna jump in and say that Sandy is a brother-in-arms but he beat me to it.
Dangit Syz! Didn't Sister Mary Margaret teach you to espouse liberal ideals!!!?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I disagree, sir. You've described "namecalling." It's just one form of personal attack. Maybe it's just me but I consider it to be a personal attack anytime the focus of a message or statement is directed toward perceived qualities of the author rather than content of the author's message.
Well, I respectfully beg to differ on whether my "personal attack" was an ad hominum argument or not. I submit that it was only an observation based upon the tenor of his posts and that the substance dealt with the insinuation that the military lost.
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
If nothing else... we do have one thing in common... we're both Rooks.
Damn, now I have to figure out a way to agree with a liberal.
Shoot, RUSH is gonna be pissed off!
:D :D :D
-
You've created a monster, MT. :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Was gonna jump in and say that Sandy is a brother-in-arms but he beat me to it.
Dangit Syz! Didn't Sister Mary Margaret teach you to espouse liberal ideals!!!?
ROFL
Actually it was Sister Charles Helena under the tutelage of PRincipal Sister Mary Margaret. You been looking at my school records Tahg?
:D
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
RUSH is gonna be pissed off!
:D :D :D
Rush won't know... he's brain dead.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You've created a monster, MT. :D
Nope, just really bored IRL. I can't help stirring thepot whenever possible. I thought that's what the dirvel on this BBS was supposed to be for.
My boredom should change soon, I hope, and you won't see much of me. Till then ........:eek: :eek: :eek:
-
j/k ;)
"I thought that's what the dirvel on this BBS was supposed to be for."
For the most part, that's pretty much exactly right as far as I can tell. :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Rush won't know... he's brain dead.
As head of the great right wing conspiracy, he has spies everywhere. I suspect that Sandman is a RUSH spy, and also Blix, and Gsholz, and SLO, and .........
Oh, okay nurse... Yes, I should take my pills today, shoudln't I.
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Nope, just really bored IRL. I can't help stirring thepot whenever possible. I thought that's what the dirvel on this BBS was supposed to be for.
My boredom should change soon, I hope, and you won't see much of me. Till then ........:eek: :eek: :eek:
It's a hard choice... to stir the pot or to simply troll... :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's a hard choice... to stir the pot or to simply troll... :D
Well, I do have to grudgingly admit that you seem to have grandly succeeded in the art of the continuous troll with your avatar, thus leaving more time for stirring.
Well done, Sir Rook!
;)
-
our guys in VN were a hell of alot more professional than most are aware of. it wasnt a war of attrition. the losses being inflicted on enemy were far greater than the losses we were taking. and gulf war syndrome isnt related to du residue. its weakened immune system caused by fast heavy immunizations combined with exposure to oil and burning oil smoke and maybe traces of bio and chem. thats from one of our docs. that story about the airborne fac sucks. if you still talk to the guy tell him facs dont have to put up with that kind of **** anymore. maybe it will make him feel better.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
LOL! You are just as obviously wrong as Manedew. :p :p
American political and Pentagon leaders kept the military from doing what it took to win the war. The military didn't lose it!
The objectives and constraints for a military campaign are ALWAYS determined by political leaders. By your logic the military has never won a war either.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
The objectives and constraints for a military campaign are ALWAYS determined by political leaders. By your logic the military has never won a war either.
Well, I guess your statement would be true if it weren't so totally and inescapably false. :D
For your statement to be true, I'd have had to say that the loss could never be blamed on the military. But, I didn't say a military defeat could not be blamed on the military. Of course it could. What I said was taht the military on the ground were not allowed to win the fight. There is a difference, but then who am I to tell Monte, the once and great logician.
Your "logic" is flawed too because you would suggest that political leaders win war. Nope, wrong again, but not quite so completely as before, so there is hope for you I think.
If a war has been won, a) the fight has been won by the military warfighters, b) the populace has supplied and supported the military warfighters, c) the political leaderhsip convinced the populace to make the sacrifices necessary to win the war. and allowed the warfighters to fight the war instead of micromanaging the war effort for political purposes.
War is a group effort but when you are looking for cause and effect in a lost battle or war, it is clear that a military force can fight all the battles it is assinged brilliantly, and kill many many of the nme, but if the politcal leaders say don't go here, don't go there, then the war is lost. But, that is not the fault of the military. At least not in my skewed logic, it isn't.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
. But, that is not the fault of the military.
It doesn't matter WHY they were defeated, read my post.
We don't debate whether or not Germany's military was defeated in WW2, even though their defeat was due to incredibly stupid political decisions.
Sorry, but no amount of revisionist ranting is going to change the outcome of the Vietnam war.
-
>Germany's military was defeated in WW2
They lost the Battle of Brittain. If they had gained air supremecy and invaded England, they would have probably won wwwII. Everyone would be driving Porches, Mercedes, VWs, and Audis. The inevitable invasion from America would have probably failed due to u-boat infested trans Atlantic support channels. Or America might have shifted its efforts east and conquered most of Asia and its resources after the defeat Japan. Then Russia and America would have definately nuked each other without some sort of buffering proxy countries. Germany would have been left with a frozen Army and Europe or at least most of it still in ruins.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
It doesn't matter WHY they were defeated, read my post.
We don't debate whether or not Germany's military was defeated in WW2, even though their defeat was due to incredibly stupid political decisions.
Sorry, but no amount of revisionist ranting is going to change the outcome of the Vietnam war.
Who is ranting now? I didn't argue about the outcome of the war, just that the fault cannot be laid at the feet of those who actually fought it.
And, of course it matters WHY they were defeated. There have been many many debates about what caused Germany, Japan, and Italy to lose WWII. It's SOP that every military mission, successful or not, is fully debreifed to find out why the outcome was as it was. The outcome of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc etc etc have and will be "debriefed" for decades to come.
-
Well I played a board game called Axis and Allies with my friends and every time I took England, I ended up conquering the board. If I got really desperate or was in a bad pinch, I would invade an ally and take his resources. Isnt that what any descent evil dictator would do.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Everyone would be driving Porches, Mercedes, VWs, and Audis.
Not everyone, but many millions are! And that doesn't mention all the millions of Japanese cars!
Waiting for the other shoe to drop!
And Hey Mr. Coffee: don't drink Decaf and you won't yawm so much, but you'll probably be just as bored.
-
Decaf, never...
:)
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Well I played a board game called Axis and Allies with my friends and every time I took England, I ended up conquering the board. If I got really desperate or was in a bad pinch, I would invade an ally and take his resources. Isnt that what any descent evil dictator would do.
I actually got my start in gaming with RISK. Great game! And what was that game where you didn't use dice to conquer the world, but had to negotiate, and forms alliances, and screw your allies eventually?
-
Um Im thinking... Well I've played Axis and Allies, Battleship, checkers, chess, and a bunch of Avalon Hill games. They all use dice except checkers and chess and Battleship. I only played RISK once and we didnt even finish the game.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Another straw man set up by the right to discredit the left. The military is held in high regard by most Americans. Those who don't feel that way are either somewhere left of Stalin, or somewhere right of Burch.
In light of the many negative posts in this thread (mostly libs) would you care to revise your assesment MT?
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Sorry, but no amount of revisionist ranting is going to change the outcome of the Vietnam war.
dude please explain to me in detail the cause and circumstances of withdrawal of American military from SVN. also explain to me how long after American military left SVN before saigon fell to the commies and what happened in that period of time.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
dude please explain to me in detail the cause and circumstances of withdrawal of American military from SVN. also explain to me how long after American military left SVN before saigon fell to the commies and what happened in that period of time.
Uh, I don't think you want to go there anon!;)
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
I didn't argue about the outcome of the war, just that the fault cannot be laid at the feet of those who actually fought it.
OK, we can agree on that.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
>Germany's military was defeated in WW2
They lost the Battle of Brittain. If they had gained air supremecy and invaded England, they would have probably won wwwII.
Far more important was the dumb political decision to start WW2 in the first place, and then to declare war on Russia and the USA.
Under these circumstances, even a best case 'what if' scenario for Germany - Russia and England defeated - Germany gets nuked in summer 1945.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
OK, we can agree on that.
Whew, glad that's over!:D
Next!:D
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Far more important was the dumb political decision to start WW2 in the first place, and then to declare war on Russia and the USA.
Under these circumstances, even a best case 'what if' scenario for Germany - Russia and England defeated - Germany gets nuked in summer 1945.
Well if Germany had taken over UK, considering the information and people there, there is a good chance that they would've won the race for the atomic bomb .
-
The game sans dice is Diplomacy.
-
Originally posted by guttboy
Well Manedew.....
I am one of those individuals that you call "Aholes" above. I am currently on active duty in the USAF, I have been since 1986. You are entitled to your opinions, but when you make a blanket statement about the thousands of United States military personnel..."Aholes"...as you call us...I have to speak from the heart....its a bit upsetting.
You are entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your thoughts, you are entitled to do just about anything you want in this nation of ours......there is a reason for that.
I would venture to guess that there is a large majority (not all I do not like making blanket statements) of us _______<----Insert your word in the United States military who take pride in the US and what it stands for. I take pride in the fact I can have an opinion that is different from you. I take pride in the fact that I can do just about anything in this great country. I take pride in the fact that I have guys that fly and fight along with me that do their jobs so that we can keep those rights. I take pride in the fact that the US military does a hell of a lot of good in the world. Perhaps a look at the good things the US military does on occassion would be in order as well.
Is it all perfect in the US military and Govt???? No. Name a corporation, organization, or club for that matter that is. Is the US military or govt out to get you or its citizens.....In MY opinion NO WAY.
Just my three cents....and I am truly sorry that you feel the way you do about the US military.
Respectfully,
you people never bother to read anythign do you..... I said in my first post "respect, but not trust" you just assume..... you don't read
-
Originally posted by Nash
The game sans dice is Diplomacy.
Lotta fun but I always had trouble finding enough people willing to learn how to play.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Lotta fun but I always had trouble finding enough people willing to learn how to play.
Play by email... there are plenty of people avaible and it's great fun.
http://www.diplom.org/
-
Manedew,
If YOU would read your post as I quoted and will do so again...
They don't deserve trust...dateing back to and before Tuskegee-Syphilis "testing", to the modren denials of the effects and use of depleated uranium.... These aholes don't deserve our trust..... maybe our respect .. but not our trust....
Now if you would take the time to READ what I said to you in MY post then we would be on the same sheet of music.....
"These aholes don't deserve our trust....maybe our respect....but not our trust....."
If you took the time to READ the response I sent to you...not once did I argue about "trust" or "respect".
What I took offense to was the "Ahole" comment. Like I stated in my post...... you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that...every American has that right.
So when you say......
you people never bother to read anythign do you..... I said in my first post "respect, but not trust" you just assume..... you don't read
I get a bit peeved....
I read AND I did NOT assume......If you had taken the time to READ my post which was meant earnestly then we could discuss things.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
But your apparent insinuation that the U.S. military could not win the war in Vietnam is just plain wrong. While I will grant you that the Vietnam war was MOSTLY not a war of attrition, that is not the fault of the military, and neither is the defeat. The US didn't win that war, not because it couldn't, but because Johnson, et al., micromanaged the combat and would not let it be a war of attrition.
I have a few objections to some of the points you've made here (and not just you, but some of the others in this thread).
First of all, Vietnam was absolutely a war of attrition. The North Vietnamese knew that merely surviving and giving the appearance of solvency and military competency would, over time, turn the tide of American opinion against the war. That's a strategy not unlike the one employed by Washington et al. during the American Revolution. In that context, the Tet Offensive was a disastrous tactical blunder for them and a huge strategic success.
In addition, Johnson's micromanagement certainly played a major roll in America's defeat (though if you consider the political climate, his micromanagement makes slightly more sense even if it remains unforgiveable). However, you seem to ignore the incompetence of military leadership at the time as well. Military leaders pleaded with civilian leadership to provide them with the troops necessary to "win the war" -- and without fail despite grudging reluctance, civilian leaders did this. The number of troops in Vietnam steadily increased as per the stated requirements of the military leadership. The problem was that military leaders kept increasing their estimates of the troops necessary to secure victory until the numbers approached politically unsustainable levels. How could competent military leadership have been so wrong about the troops needed time and again?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Of course there's respect for the military these days given recent successes. In fact this situation resembles the state of mind jsut before the Vietnam war. Even then it took years of pointless casualties for the general opinion to change.
The tragic truth is that the military were found wanting in Vietnam and I don't mean the ordinary fighting men. I mean their commanders. They simply failed to defeat the Vietnamese. Sure they beat them every time. They threw all sorts of technology at the NVA and the VC when what was needed were dedicated men on the ground. But you can win every battle and still lose the war as actually happened. Politicians played their part in the failure too but ultimately the Generals must take some of the blame.
Since then the junior leaders in Vietnam rose to senior rank and the lessons were learned. They were not going to make the same mistakes as their predecessors and on the whole they have not.
The danger is that this new found confidence could lead to another quagmire. If the Iraqis were more militant it would have been Vietnam in desert fatigues. An attack on Iran. although unlikely would be a quagmire. They know how to fight.
I think the current respect is justified but it's a fragile thing.
-
I disagree, If the Iranian military was as good as the Iraqi military was, then Iran would've done better in the Iran Iraq war. A US war with Iran would be much like Operation desert storm, except with less civilian casualties .
-
Originally posted by Suave
I disagree, If the Iranian military was as good as the Iraqi military was, then Iran would've done better in the Iran Iraq war. A US war with Iran would be much like Operation desert storm, except with less civilian casualties .
I don't honestly believe that any conventional military on this planet could defeat the United States at this point. That doesn't mean that America would necessarily win quick wars with minimal loss of civilian and military life, but it would win nonetheless with sufficient political and public support.
Pakistan observed it best after the first Gulf War when it reflected upon the American war machine. Either obtain a nuclear deterrent, or die.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I have a few objections to some of the points you've made here (and not just you, but some of the others in this thread).
First of all, Vietnam was absolutely a war of attrition. The North Vietnamese knew that merely surviving and giving the appearance of solvency and military competency would, over time, turn the tide of American opinion against the war. That's a strategy not unlike the one employed by Washington et al. during the American Revolution. In that context, the Tet Offensive was a disastrous tactical blunder for them and a huge strategic success.
In addition, Johnson's micromanagement certainly played a major roll in America's defeat (though if you consider the political climate, his micromanagement makes slightly more sense even if it remains unforgiveable). However, you seem to ignore the incompetence of military leadership at the time as well. Military leaders pleaded with civilian leadership to provide them with the troops necessary to "win the war" -- and without fail despite grudging reluctance, civilian leaders did this. The number of troops in Vietnam steadily increased as per the stated requirements of the military leadership. The problem was that military leaders kept increasing their estimates of the troops necessary to secure victory until the numbers approached politically unsustainable levels. How could competent military leadership have been so wrong about the troops needed time and again?
-- Todd/Leviathn
Todd:
I clearly included the incompetent Pentagon Military leadership in the cause for the loss. My beef was with the insinuation that the military on the ground, if left to run the battle, could not have won. That's all. The problem wasn't just the number of troops, as much as it was how they were employed. It was the targeting, the objectives identification and planning, etc etc. All of that control failed. About Tet, the failing there was that the leaderhsip allowed the media to portray it as a massive defeat for the US, instead of the blunder it was for NVM. The media just said, see, after all the poiunding by US troops, the NVM just mounted this terribly huge offensive and that means that we can't beat them.
-
// hijack warning
Syzygyone I still didn't have been able to take a photo of the "fourchette à huitres" but I've found a pict on the net
http://www.meilleurduchef.com/cgi/mdc/l/fr/boutique/produits/cout_huitre/ess-fourchette_huitre.html
Just to let you know I didn't forgot ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
// hijack warning
Syzygyone I still didn't have been able to take a photo of the "fourchette à huitres" but I've found a pict on the net
http://www.meilleurduchef.com/cgi/mdc/l/fr/boutique/produits/cout_huitre/ess-fourchette_huitre.html
Just to let you know I didn't forgot ;)
ROFL
Thanks for that but since I've forgotten everything I learned in the two years of french I took in college, (during the Vietnam war) I can't read that site. But, the fork looks formiddable.
:D :D :cool: :cool:
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
<---- This liberal is a veteran that currently works for the U.S. Navy.
Don't ask don't tell?
Sorry Sandy, couldn't resist... :p