The missing link here is trying to equate modern day professional soldiers
with Viet-Nam era draftees. Two different animules. Today's soldiers are
there for one reason and one reason only. Money. Take away the pay and the
benefits and see how many stand tall for first formation next Monday. Sure
it's nice to have some heart string tugging sort of reasons and it works
well in movies.In real life the reasons soldiers fight, is the same as the
reason NFL linebackers play football. They support the team not the owners.
They work for money first, applause is a distant second. Same way it's been
for thousands of years.
I've noticed this inability of people to get over the Viet-Nam Syndrome. I
guess the guilt trip is strong and well it should be for the way soldiers
were treated back then. But you should reserve paybacks on that guilt for
those of that era. Today's military is highly trained, highly motivated and
highly paid professionals. Not one was drafted against his or her will.
And most of them hold most of you, who worry so much about not much, in
amused contempt. They don't work for you, they work for the government.
They don't care about Mom, apple pie, and the cornfields of Iowa, they care
about their fellow soldiers, their unit, their equipment, their job and
their paychecks. They go where sent and do the job they are paid to do, be
it Afghanistan, Iraq or Iowa.
And the word national in National Guard ought to speak volumes.
By the way. The service members who guard us on the ships transiting and
working in the 'hot spots' of the world range from US Marines to Puerto
Rican National Guard. The soldiers coming back with the returning equipment
were half regulars and half National Guard on extended tours of active duty.
And not one Kerry voter in the bunch.
That's the long way of explaining the word silly to describe the discussion,
and that's being kind.
M.
"felton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:36:00 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:
Well, let's do the numbers... 600 per year X 10 years (according to the
long term commitment Rummy's been talking about = 6000 American
Soldier deaths + 3 x 6000 injured = 18,000 people dead or injured,
18,000 x 3 (people in each family) = 54,000 American lives screwed
up + x number of Iraq civilians + x number of foreign troop casualties.
Not a great number.
I wasn't suggesting that any number is a good number. Currently I
think the heat is on to do something prior to the election because
those WMDs didn't show up and all we seem to have managed to do is get
our hands firmly on the tar baby. It may be too early to say how this
area will be stabilized, but looking around in that part of the world
I would have to say that a Western style democracy friendly to the USA
seems an unlikley outcome. This whole thing has been a mystery to me.
"felton" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Feb 2004 05:01:37 GMT, (SAIL LOCO) wrote:
It is more than a bit amusing that the right wind whackos have
chosen
to make Viet Nam an issue,.
Try to keep up with current events Bub. Kerry's people started
this
thing.
Funny thing is however Kerry's handelers arn't talking about what
Kerry
did
after he got out.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"
Yes, it was the Democratic Party Chairman who seems to have started
that "deserter" business. That whole issue does seem like a waste of
time and energy. I well remember the days of the draft lottery, and I
don't remember anyone hoping for a low number
I was referring to
this goofy Kerry/Jane Fonda balloon that Rush is floating. The only
real connection I can see to the Viet Nam days is that I question the
thinking that has gotten us involved in Iraq. The good news is that I
don't think we will be there for 10 years at a cost of over 50,000
Americans, but for me, 600 is too many if we didn't have a justifiable
reason to go. Not to mention the huge expenditure of our tax dollars.
I wonder how the American sentiment would view this war and our
elected leadership if we still had a draft and it *might* affect all
the young folks, instead of the few?