using deaths of military personal in debates...

[ADK_Forever]

People who come back from the battlefield ****ed up, had problems before they went. Combat only brought it to the surface. Just more actual experience.

So, in your world you're saying that the military has been signing up more head cases than ever before to correlate with the highest suicide and domestic violence incidents in history?

And oh yeah, what "actual experience" are you yapping about?

Are you going to post any evidence to this silly claim?

 

[cpwill]

I'm willing to bet that if I go to my grandfather or any of his old war buddies that served and said "you didn't fight for your country or any of that bull****, right? just cause you wanted to kill people, right?" that they would take offense to that entire notion.

I'm willing to bet that if John Kerry said during the 2004 campaign that he didn't sign up "for love of country or any of that bull****" that all the people in this thread would still be talking about how big of an ass he had made of himself.

I understand everything you said, and alot of it makes sense, you have to ingrain some of this into people to get them to be as they need to be in order to deal with combat. It's not pretty, I'm sure, but required.

But, if someone tells me that he signed up just to blow **** up and kill people, and it had nothing to do with love of country, wanting to protect his fellow Americans, etc. it makes me start to wonder if what he/she did was really all that noble in the first place simply cause of motive, which I don't even like admitting just cause of the sound of it, but I'm just being honest.

But in the end, I still don't believe that blowing stuff up and killing people is anywhere near the top of the list for most people that sign up.

you are definitely mistaking 'why people signed up' with 'what people tell themvelves when they are Grunts'. again, i would recomend that book; as it's clear you are unaware of what you are talking about.

 

[cpwill]

Well, the army must be a helluva lot different than the Marines, because I know plenty of soldiers who don't want to go to Afghanistan and who don't want to kill a "terrorist" (or anybody else

one of the reasons we are better at combat. we deliberately train to want those things. it makes us more aggressive in the assault, more likely to hold fast in the defense, and less likely to retreat or get captured. all those folks who complain that Boot Camp is brainwashing? they are absolutely right. and I wouldn't have it any other way. :thumbs:

They know what their job entails, and they're willing to do what they have to do, but it's not like they're chomping at the bit for a damn deployment.

that might also be due to the fact that ya'll spend a year + in-country, whereas we do in-out, in-out tours of 7 months. you get some Marines that want to skate, that is true, and plenty of guys on their second tour want to take a break and spend time with their families.

but I can tell you that when we were told for an entire 6 month workup that we were going to Afghanistan, only to find out at the end that we were going on a MEU instead, we were bitterly dissapointed. we spent the entire time reading reports of Marines getting hit with large kinetic EF. very frustrating. like this:

FARAH PROVINCE, Afghanistan — In the city of Shewan, approximately 250 insurgents ambushed 30 Marines and paid a heavy price for it. Shewan has historically been a safe haven for insurgents, who used to plan and stage attacks against Coalition Forces in the Bala Baluk district.

..The day started out with a 10-kilometer patrol with elements mounted and dismounted, so by the time we got to Shewan, we were pretty beat,” said a designated marksman who requested to remain unidentified. “Our vehicles came under a barrage of enemy RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) and machine gun fire. One of our ‘humvees’ was disabled from RPG fire, and the Marines inside dismounted and laid down suppression fire so they could evacuate a Marine who was knocked unconscious from the blast.”

The vicious attack that left the humvee destroyed and several of the Marines pinned down in the kill zone sparked an intense eight-hour battle as the platoon desperately fought to recover their comrades. After recovering the Marines trapped in the kill zone, another platoon sergeant personally led numerous attacks on enemy fortified positions while the platoon fought house to house and trench to trench in order to clear through the enemy ambush site.

“The biggest thing to take from that day is what Marines can accomplish when they’re given the opportunity to fight,” the sniper said. “A small group of Marines met a numerically superior force and embarrassed them in their own backyard. The insurgents told the townspeople that they were stronger than the Americans, and that day we showed them they were wrong.”

During the battle, the designated marksman single handedly thwarted a company-sized enemy RPG and machinegun ambush by reportedly killing 20 enemy fighters with his devastatingly accurate precision fire...


that guy is a KING.

 

[apdst]

So, in your world you're saying that the military has been signing up more head cases than ever before to correlate with the highest suicide and domestic violence incidents in history?

And oh yeah, what "actual experience" are you yapping about?

Are you going to post any evidence to this silly claim?

Obviously, since the conditions that soldiers are exposed to in combat, it will tend to bring deeper problems to the surface. That's just common sense.

BTW, what unit were you in? You post your primer and I'll post mine. Cool?

 

[Simba]

You have no right to pretend that you speak for every marine. Like any group of people, everyone in the Marines have their own reasons for what they do. You expose your hypocrisy for committing the same sin you denounce others for.

Well said. Yet, may I add....unlike the originator of this thread...as a former enlisted infantryman...later and infantry officer....I never looked forward to combat. I simply prepared for it as a measure of duty, and prepared for it well.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Obviously, since the conditions that soldiers are exposed to in combat, it will tend to bring deeper problems to the surface. That's just common sense.

BTW, what unit were you in? You post your primer and I'll post mine. Cool?

From your past posts, you'll forgive us if we don't put much stock in your common sense. :roll:

Do you ever search out anything to support your wild and wacky hypothesis? :2wave:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Obviously, since the conditions that soldiers are exposed to in combat, it will tend to bring deeper problems to the surface. That's just common sense.

BTW, what unit were you in? You post your primer and I'll post mine. Cool?

IF they have deeper problems it might bring them to the surface :shrug: Believe it or not - a lot of people are quite balanced.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You have the wife of a soldier (Spiker) and the mother of another (me) telling you that you're not right.
If every US service member joined for the sole reason of wanting to be deployed so they can kill insurgents, why do so many choose non-combat MOS's?

Well you are the "women folk" we expect the women folk to help throttle us back. :thumbs:



Many choose non combat type jobs because... wait for it. They don't want to see.... combat and good for them. that said, you can't compare the warrior mindest to the support folk.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Actually, non military opinions should matter more. Some have said that they went into the military to blow this up, to shoot things and to kill people. Basically, little boys' dreams of being GI Joe. Those folks are the ones whose opinions should matter the least! Their heads aren't on political issues, only tactical issues, and keeping their heads, which have nothing to do with decisions like "should we or shouldn't we get out of this war?" That is why it doesn't matter what the guys in the field fighting have to say in any poll.

Don't get me wrong. They deserve our undying gratitude and support. They just should not control the big issues. They are too close to them to be objective.

Also, any person who joins just to kill people wear the patriot hat only as a secondary reason for being there. They didn't join to defend their country. They joined to kill. It is a subtle difference but, it is a difference.

It is easy to opine on what combat soldiers go through when you yourself were not a combat soldier. Seeing the realities of war, up close and personal like, whom do you think is better suited to decide to send others sons into harms way?


The mechanic or the warrior?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

IF they have deeper problems it might bring them to the surface :shrug: Believe it or not - a lot of people are quite balanced.

I agree with this..... I will also say first of all, thank your husband for me. If it wasn't for people like him, I'd probably be dead or in a world of hurt by now.... Lets just say after I got out of the military, the first thing that saved me was getting a job as a PMC.... After that what saved me, was a guy like your husband....


These people are angels sans the wings. :thumbs:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I agree with this..... I will also say first of all, thank your husband for me. If it wasn't for people like him, I'd probably be dead or in a world of hurt by now.... Lets just say after I got out of the military, the first thing that saved me was getting a job as a PMC.... After that what saved me, was a guy like your husband....


These people are angels sans the wings. :thumbs:

Thank you, I will definitely pass it on to him - he always appreciates the thanks.
The job is really stressful, as you can imagine - and knowing that people fair better after leaving the program is a great energy boost for everyone in the field.

 

[apdst]

IF they have deeper problems it might bring them to the surface :shrug: Believe it or not - a lot of people are quite balanced.

Most of the soldiers I served with were quite balanced. The folks who come home ****ed up and I don't mean just having adjustment/rebooting issues, I mean rally ****ed up, are a small minority of soldiers who serve on the battlefield.

 

[ADK_Forever]

It is easy to opine on what combat soldiers go through when you yourself were not a combat soldier. Seeing the realities of war, up close and personal like, whom do you think is better suited to decide to send others sons into harms way?


The mechanic or the warrior?

In this case... the mechanic, definitely. It would NEVER be the warrior. Ever.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

In this case... the mechanic, definitely. It would NEVER be the warrior. Ever.

Because you know the mindset of both?


Please, I'd much prefer follow the warrior into battle, than the mechanic. Just as I would rather have the mechanic fix my Corvette than the warrior. :shrug:

 

[ADK_Forever]

Please, I'd much prefer follow the warrior into battle, than the mechanic.

As is your MO, you intentionally spun your own question... again. :doh It's once again obvious how it is almost impossible for you to participate in an honest conversation.

The actual question you asked, that I replied to was, "whom do you think is better suited to decide to send others sons into harms way?".

The question wasn't who to "follow", it was who should "send others sons into harms way?". It's a subtle difference I don't expect you to pick up on.

Decisions of war are not dependant on soldiers opinions just as a business is not run based on opinions of the assembly line.

However, if I were going into battle I would rather follow someone who is trained and experienced in battle, not how to operate a radio. :roll:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

As is your MO, you intentionally spun your own question... again. :doh It's once again obvious how it is almost impossible for you to participate in an honest conversation.

Wow. so is this where I am supposed to whine like you do about personal attacks?

The actual question you asked, that I replied to was, "whom do you think is better suited to decide to send others sons into harms way?".

The question wasn't who to "follow", it was who should "send others sons into harms way?". It's a subtle difference I don't expect you to pick up on.

actually I think its pretty much the same. :shrug:

Decisions of war are not dependant on soldiers opinions just as a business is not run based on opinions of the assembly line.

You would think though that a manager who has spent time on the assembly line might have a better insight into plant operations than one hired who has not spent time on the line...

However, if I were going into battle I would rather follow someone who is trained and experienced in battle, not how to operate a radio. :roll:

hmm, exposing your blatant ignorance in an attempt to lie once again about my service.


I'll make it real simple for you once again.

I was a ROMAD an ETAC for most of my career. , look it up and stop being so damn ignorant.


http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/airforce/a/aftacp.htm





Wherever American military forces are found, TACP airmen are sure to be nearby. Nicknamed the "Air Force infantry" because they spend most of their career assigned to Army units, tactical controllers can most often be found embedded with special operations......


The fight for peace and freedom takes the tactical controllers into some of the roughest terrain and most inhospitable conditions in the world. Whether they are braving the freezing temperatures and thin air in the mountains of Afghanistan, or in the desolate, searing deserts of Iraq, wherever Special Forces are needed, TACP goes. Often they are the first in and last out.

TACP airmen can be recognized by their black berets. Although the burgundy berets of Air Force pararescuemen and the crimson berets of Air Force combat controllers are easily recognized, the black beret is seldom seen worn by Air Force members.

In the field, tactical controllers wear a battle uniform that is unremarkable, without name or Air Force labels, rank insignia or unit markings. Instead, their uniforms are adorned with small patches that make them visible to American pilots using special night-vision equipment, and are clearly marked on the sleeves and boots with each airman's blood type.

Tactical controllers are Ranger and airborne qualified, and are proficient in static line and high-altitude, low-open parachute tactics, as well as in air assault and scuba operations.

Their training begins with basic radio maintenance and operation, then continues with land navigation and combat air support basics, followed by survival school, where they learn resistance, escape and evasion tactics.




now if you have any honor, you would do the right thing and apologize.

 

[zimmer]

After seeing this happening on this forum a couple of times I’m just going to speak my mind…

Several thousand men and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 9 years. **** sucks. May they rest in peace, and my condolences go out to their families. But what pisses me off about the whole thing (other than terrorist killing my fellow Americans) is how their deaths are used to justify ending a war.

Being a active duty Marine who is hoping to be able to hop on an upcoming afgan deployment, it’s nothing but a kick in the balls when I hear some little punk bitch collage kid crying about how we are sending marines and soldiers to their death. Shut up. Every Marine I know is wishing they were in Afghanistan getting shot at so they could kill a terrorist. Not for country or any of that bull****… But because they joined to see combat and they want to experience it. You go to an infantry barracks back at Lejeune and I want you to ask everyone there if they want to kill a terrorist. The answer will be yes. I want you to find me a Marine who doesn’t want to see a 500lb JDAM level an insurgent’s position. Or witness a couple LAVs firing their 25mm’s bringing death and destruction to the enemies of this nation. I’m coming up on 3 years now and I haven’t found one.

The fact of the matter is people who join, especially the infantry, want to see combat. For all of the marines that have died do you think they would be insulted to hear that some liberal punk, who doesn’t even know them, used there their death as a tool to somehow get others to feel sympathy for him and his buddies in the name of peace and harmony? F@#$ NO! Stop using the death of marines and soldiers to end a war.

There are reasons to stay and reasons to pullout. It’s debated all over the news, internet, and this very forum. But don’t throw around the deaths of Marines and Soldiers to better your argument of why we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan. If you truly respect those who have lost their lives, don’t do it…

Thanks for your service.
You and your buddies. Past and present.

Be safe and give 'em hell.

There are millions of us who love and have the deepest respect for what you do... and won't forget.

Don't let the ****heads get you down.

.

 

[apdst]

As is your MO, you intentionally spun your own question... again. :doh It's once again obvious how it is almost impossible for you to participate in an honest conversation.

The actual question you asked, that I replied to was, "whom do you think is better suited to decide to send others sons into harms way?".

The question wasn't who to "follow", it was who should "send others sons into harms way?". It's a subtle difference I don't expect you to pick up on.

Decisions of war are not dependant on soldiers opinions just as a business is not run based on opinions of the assembly line.

However, if I were going into battle I would rather follow someone who is trained and experienced in battle, not how to operate a radio. :roll:

Do you think Obama is qualified? :rofl

 

[cpwill]

Many choose non combat type jobs because... wait for it. They don't want to see.... combat and good for them. that said, you can't compare the warrior mindest to the support folk.

well, i have met a few of the POGish persuasion that would have made good grunts.

but generally .... :shrug: yeah. And i can say that now having spent time on both sides of that fence.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Wow. so is this where I am supposed to whine like you do about personal attacks?

Only a very insecure person would confuse an observation of fact for a personal attack. :roll:

actually I think its pretty much the same.

You prove my point.

You would think though that a manager who has spent time on the assembly line might have a better insight into plant operations than one hired who has not spent time on the line...

Annnd again... you prove my point. :doh

exposing your blatant ignorance in an attempt to lie once again about my service.

lie? You are so used to calling anybody who disagrees with you a liar you don't even know what it means anymore. :lamo

I'll make it real simple for you...

We expect no more.

I was a ROMAD an ETAC for most of my career. , look it up and stop being so damn ignorant.

Are you going to do some one arm push ups now? :lol:

now if you have any honor, you would do the right thing and apologize.

This is rich coming from you. :2rofll:

 

[ADK_Forever]

Do you think Obama is qualified?

President Obama was legally elected. That MAKES him qualified. Having served in the military is not a prerequisite for being president. It might help you to look the qualifications to be president up in the Constitution. They are spelled out in very simple language.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

President Obama was legally elected. That MAKES him qualified. Having served in the military is not a prerequisite for being president. It might help you to look the qualifications to be president up in the Constitution. They are spelled out in very simple language.

Sometimes I agree - having prior experience in the military or not, as so far, seems to not matter when making brash war decisions
Bush, Truman, Wilson, Adams . . . were they qualified?

I do consider my political support very carefully because of this, though. Not necessarily "has he served?" but more so "what does this person propose to do?" . . . "how might this person deal with a crisis" - party platform and prior political activity are the only inklings to what one might do.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Only a very insecure person would confuse an observation of fact for a personal attack. ll:

Perhaps you should see a shrink.

You prove my point.

Annnd again... you prove my point. :dh

How so specifically? You debate like a 12 year old. Seriously, just like you claimed US soldiers were tried and convicted for water boarding, you simply make puerile statements and stick your fingers in your ear... :shrug:

lie? You are so used to calling anybody who disagrees with you a liar you don't even know what it means anymore. :

Really? Tell me this... Who do you think us warfighters would choose to follow into battle? regular trigger pullers, or the guy who can call in CAS? Only a fool would suggest not having someone tasked to direct air strikes and CAS with you....


Furthermore, are you suggesting you haven't lied about my service and attacked me both here and in PM?

well?

We expect no more.

Trolling. :shrug:

Are you going to do some one arm push ups now? :lol:

So basically, you attack what I did in the service, then when I corrected you from your willful lying, you suggest I am bragging? Face it, you were a tank mechanic during peace time, you coming after me and my service makes you look pathetic, more pathetic than your usual posting makes you look. More pathetic than your avatar and your silly signatures.....

Grow up.

This is rich coming from you. :2rofll:

Since I make bank these days, anything coming from the Greatness that is the Good Reverend is "rich".... :shrug:

 

[apdst]

President Obama was legally elected. That MAKES him qualified. Having served in the military is not a prerequisite for being president. It might help you to look the qualifications to be president up in the Constitution. They are spelled out in very simple language.

Being elected to a public office doesn't qualify a person by default. Sorry, your blind support of PBO fails you.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

What does that argument mean, now, anyway?
"Was he qualified"

Well - even if you didn't think he *was* he sure as hell is now :shrug: He's been president for over a year. . . how things were during the election campaign season isn't really an issue, anymore. Life moved forward.