Comments on: So Whatever Happened to Ruthlessness?

By: The Sundries Shack

The Sundries Shack — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:56:16 +0000

[...] So Whatever Happened to Ruthlessness?The Sundries Shack [...]

By: Old-dawg

Old-dawg — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:46:10 +0000

To get back to the main issue, this is entirely accurate an assessment. Our first mission is to kill as many terrorists/AlQuada/Taliban as possible. To do this properly, we must be much less concerned with collateral damage and, instead, communicate by our actions that those who aid and assist our enemies will pay a direct and immediate price. This will require us to attack the Taliban in Pakistan, concentrating on that area which Pakistan has abandoned. This may require a return to the use of Napalm instead of smart bombs. It will require us to become much more focused on our first mission than on nation-building.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:48:53 +0000

Now you're changing the subject, Carol. Your contention, made quite plain, is that since I have not served in the military, I have no standing to speak on military matters. I have given you several examples of national leaders, including Commanders-in-Chief who did not serve either and you move the goalposts to whether or not members of their family served.

The simple fact is that military service has never determined whether or not someone could speak about the military, have a decision about war, vote during wartime, or even lead the entire military. The Constitution itself places the military entirely under civilian control with no service qualifications. Now you want to change it because….well…because you have the notion that only service gives expertise, or some such nonsense. And you hypocritically excuse President Clinton because, what? Fewer soldiers died in Kosovo than have in Iraq (two completely different wars with two completely different circumstances).

And you can't even get your facts straight. The President did not hide out during Vietnam. He flew jet interceptor planes as part of a mission that hundreds of pilots take on even today. Would you say that those pilots are shirking their duties? The President also volunteered to go to Vietnam as a pilot and serve in combat. He was refused that request because he did not have the requisite years of service and, by the time he did, we were pulling out of Vietnam and didn't need volunteers. I suspect that you don't really know what the mission was of the Air National Guard at the time.

Really, Carol. If you're going to use the "chickenhawk" argument, at least make it compelling and logically-consistent. Otherwise don't bother.

By: carolh

carolh — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:24:39 +0000

Let's see, Lincoln did not serve in an Army during war time but his only surviving son did, fighting for the Union during the Civil War. Roosevelt was of course paralyzed by polio in young adulthood, but all four of his sons fought in WWII and all four were decorated for combat bravery. Are any children, neices, or nephews of Bush, Cheney, et. al. serving in this war? Can you name one? Clinton did not fight in Viet Nam but he also did not support the war. Bush, OTOH, hid out in the Texas Guard while supporting it, sending others to die in his place. I was a young adult during Viet Nam and we all knew that the Guard would keep you safe, but you couldn't get in without connectons. Clinton sent troops to Bosnia, true, but how many have died there? Any? Compare that to the number of troops dead and wounded in Iraq. It is one thing not to fight in war like some of the early founding fathers did, but quite another to duck out when your country calls because you had, in Cheney's words "other priorities."

By: The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Eye on the Watcher’s Council

The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Eye on the Watcher’s Council — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:48:33 +0000

[...] The Sundries Shack, “So Whatever Happened to Ruthlessness?” [...]

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:53:36 +0000

Such famous pounders of the war drums as Patrick Henry, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin never served a day in the military.

Abraham Lincoln spent about two months in 1832 in a state militia.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt never served in the military either.

Neither did Bill Clinton.

The latter three, along with Jefferson, actually ordered men into combat where many died. One of them ordered men into a war zone where we still have troops to this day (that would be Clinton, by the way). Save for the drum-pounding of the first group, there would be no United States of America right now. That is one of the reasons that those four men, along with others of the founders, established a nation where the military is subordinate to civilian leaership and there is no requirement that the Commander in Chief have a moment of military service.

Of course this requires some interest in facts and history and such and it doesn't apear that your interested in either of those things. But, hey, enjoy the script you're reading. It's worked quite well for you all thus far, hasn't it?

By: carolh

carolh — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:43:47 +0000

If you are pounding the war drums and complaining that the war is not being fought "ruthlessly" enough it ought to know what it is to have shots fired at you in anger. The people who brought us this war, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and all the neo-cons and the vast majority of right wing blowhards have never been in combat. In fact, when they had the opportunity to go to Viet Nam and actually fight they, like Cheney, had "other priorities." War seems simple when you have never fought in it. By you answer, I assume that you are of enlistment age. I am not interested in anything you have to say.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:32:51 +0000

Carol, why, exactly must I enlist to have an opinion on the war we're fighting? Do you propose that only those who have served in the military be able to speak on matters of war?