Gut Rumbles
 

April 29, 2005

an army of one

I agree with this post. How can we maintain an army if we aren't "sensitive?"

I want to suggest a few more good ideas.

*If a seargent ever screams "TAKE THAT HILL!!!" a mandatory time-out is required so that recruits can debate the worth of actually taking that hill. If they decide by majority vote that they don't want to take that hill, the mission is cancelled. After all, we live in a democracy.

* Assault weapons are dangerous. We have no business giving those things to soldiers. Somebody could get hurt. Recruits will practice with broomsticks and learn to shout "BOOM! BOOM! really loud when they pretend to fire.

* All soldiers will be trained mercilessly in how to separate recyclables from regular garbage. After all, they have a responsibility to save the planet, too.

* If the temperature is more than 80 degrees outside, everybody stays in the barracks. Do you know how many people die from skin cancer every year?

* All troops must undergo "sensitivity training." We require our troops to be sensitive, embrace diversity and worry a lot about offending anyone else.

* The names Chesty Puller, George Patton, Audie Murphy and Alvin York will NEVER be mentioned again. To do so is a court-martial offense. When we refer to military heroes, we will speak of Ted Kennedy, Barbra Striesand, Jane Fonda and Alec Baldwin.

* Our new military will be built on the French Model. They proved a long time ago that you can get your ass whipped in a war and still be snotty.

* NOBODY ever gets called a "pussy." If one person can't do it, then the training must be too dificult and we need to tone it down. Do you realize the self-esteem issues here? We don't want anyone to fail. We want happy soldiers.

* Read my edicts and obey. I'll show all those people who said a woman couldn't be Secretary of Defense.

Comments

Oh jeez, your brain went AWOL again!

No, no, no.....I get it...you're being facetious....BUT..... (little word for a profound diffferentiation)...

THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO BELIEVE ALL THAT CRAP!

Oooops, was this YOUR Carnival of the Crappers post?

Posted by: Maggie on April 29, 2005 07:42 PM

C'mon now Acidman,

I got something to make you feel better. Here is some old school rule-breakin' ass-kickin' from when the military was not pussified in your trackbacks.

Most enjoyable brawls I have watched.


Cordially,

Uncle J

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo on April 29, 2005 07:52 PM

Sounds like the Dutch or Belgian Army. Vote for Hillary, Pelosi, Boxer and Fienstien and we will get this.

Posted by: Dancusa on April 29, 2005 08:41 PM

My name is Gunnery Sgt Hartman YOUR SENIOR drill insructor. From now on until you ladies my island the first and last word out of your filthy sewers will be "SIR!"

DO YOU MAGGOTTS UNDERSTAND!

*BULLSHIT!* SOUND OFF LIKE YOU GOT A PAIR!

Posted by: G.Sgt.Hartman on April 29, 2005 09:27 PM

Hate to break it to you, but the Marines have required mandatory "sensitivity training" since Tailhook in '91. ('92?)

Posted by: GORDON on April 29, 2005 11:57 PM

JB, do you regard the campaign in Iraq as a 'war'? It is not. It is one of several campaigns ongoing in a war which is probably going to last a couple of decades. Tunisia didn't do anything to us, either, yet it was one of the first places we invaded during the Second World War.

The object of the war is to make sure that no Muslim country, or non-state actor, places itself in a position to threaten civilised nations, which is a difficult trick in the case of the non-state actors. There is no guarantee that the good guys (the West) will triumph.

You wrote, "Chasing out invading troops who had no business being there..." In the case of Iraq, casus belli existed prior to September 11th, what with the decade long shooting war which was occurring in the No-Fly Zones. Saddam was in violation of the Desert Storm cease-fire almost from the moment it went into effect. The Iraqi Ba'athists were only one of many Arab or Muslim enemy regimes which shall have to be knocked over before we're done.

If you will please pardon my asking, who do you think ought to win the war? Not just the campaign in Iraq, but the war proper?

Posted by: Mike James on April 30, 2005 03:18 AM

JB, you forget rather quickly that this nation was attacked, several times before September 11 of '01, solely on the basis of our existence as a nation.

I suggest you shut your piehole and step away from the computer. You obviously are in the grips of a severe mental disorder in which you cannot identify what is reality and what is not, or, you're using very powerful narcotics. It is a distinct possibility that both of the aforementioned could be happening at the same time, as well.

And if you're having such a problem being proud to be an American, you might consider relocating to a better country.

But, there isn't one, and you know it.
Prick.

Sorry Rob. I shouldn't have even responded to the putz, and I won't do it again, I promise.

Posted by: KenS on April 30, 2005 03:30 AM

new recruits must also believe, repeat and act in a manner that supports a favorite childhood saying.......
"I will try to be kind to all living things, and do them no harm"

Posted by: johndeerebilly on April 30, 2005 08:01 AM

jb

America has done preemptive attacks before, but not on this scale. read your history.

Posted by: hoosierboy on April 30, 2005 08:50 AM

Acidman,

You forget that in order to save the planet until we get CAFE standards implemented into Hummers, tanks and aircraft we will have to walk to battle. Hybrid cars may be substituted in an emergency to save the rare blue nosed muskrat or any other animal that may be in the way of the battle. By the way, we should be working on a biodegradable bullet to replace that evil nasty leaad that has proven fatal when inserted into the body at high velocities.

Posted by: hoosierboy on April 30, 2005 08:53 AM

I dare anyone of you on here to come over here to Baghdad and call my tankers pussified.

Thought so.

Is the Army different? Yes. Do we have mandatory EO and Sexual harassment training? Yes. But "pussified"? That's a ridiculous assessment. If you feel like waxing nostalgic, I'd pit your old crew against my tankers any day of the week and it would be no contest.

While recognizing the sarcasm, are you aware how many soldiers die or are severly injured during training, especially as heat casualties.? Being thier Medic, that's kinda my bag. It is possible to be attentive to the needs of your sodliers and still do the job. Ask any one of my boys.

Posted by: Cassidy on April 30, 2005 10:24 AM

A few comments in response . . .

Hoosier Boy--I did NOT say that this was the FIRST "pre-emptive" war in our history. Just a note for context . . . or history's sake. :-)

Kens--your opening statement is an invention of the MSM . . . in every war, including this one, there have been precipitating causes that had nothing to do with our mere existence as a nation. Being aware of those precipitating causes--all of them--and being able to rationally understand that America has not always been right--is fundamentally and Constitutionally a part of being an American. Replying with the old saw about loving it or leaving it, so to speak . . . is crap. The country is not defined by politicians and their political aims. It is defined by the people, their rights and their constitution. I have the right, nay, moreso, the duty, to raise the issues I raise, and for you to insist I leave is most UNamerican.

It used to be that this country could admit its mistakes and be better for it, and lead the world in that view of matters. Now, it is by sheer force. We could keep the Chinese and the Soviets at bay without nuclear exchange for 40-50 years without one missle being fired, but we just had to invade a two-bit , tin-horn dictatorship (which had no ties to 9/11)?

The ad hominem parts of your response are kinda like Gut telling me to "bite his ass." Water off a duck's back. :-)

Mike--thanks for some serious discourse. The term "war" has been subject to so many declensions by politicians that its very meaning is suspect. Of course, to declare war on an abstract term (War on Terror), allows what was formerly called "war" to be avoided . . . hence the "police actions" of Korea and Vietnam.

In the case of Iraq, as in Eastern Europe under Clinton, America volunteered itself to be the military lackey of the UN, a body with which, at least publicly, we have severe disagreements at best.

The Ba-athists were not "our" enemy, Mike. They may have been terrible for the people of Iraq, as was Hussein, but so were the premiers of the USSR and PRC. But since those countries did not attack us, we did not attack them. Iraq did not attack us, and lumping Iraq under the banner of some Muslim threat does not pass constitutional muster. There must be a direct attack, or provable imminent attack, to justify a declaration of war. Even were I to agree to a vague abstraction as a War on Terror (which is situational to human existence, not merely this present moment), then why did Congress pass on its Constitutional duty to declare war? Likewise, a part of the whole--a "campaign" as you put it . . . is still war, is it not?

Yes--the people of Iraq are divided--just as we would be in their shoes. Some would passively accept invasion and occupation; some would look for the opportunity to make money, others to serve the occupation and curry favor, and some (I would hope most!), would fight tooth and nail against any invader--even if said invader hated our former ruler.

I think you isolated perfectly the whole issue when you referred to the "non-state actors." Such can be pursued by the civilized states without wholesale invasions of sovereign nations. But I will carry this whole matter further . . .

I do like to jab with the "oil" bit . . . but the fact is that if Iraq and Afghanistan had no oil or pipelines, or if there were no business contacts between the players in both of those countries (and the families of the "non-state actors such as bin Laden) and the Bush family and associates, this abstract war on terror would not have occurred. There are so many intertwining matters on the matter of oil (including the now current "peak oil" scare that enviro-freaks are exploiting left and right like most other scares, and will be outted eventually--re: Thomas Gold), that to make the issue of war merely one of "terror" is simplistic at best, and the heighth of propaganda at worst.

Might not the peoples, if not the rulers, of other nations (almost 200), be a little pissed off at American bases in the middle of their countries? How would you react to a Chinese military base in LA? (Whoops, seems like Mexico beat them to that! Humor) Or Seattle? Or Savanah? Americans would go ballistic at such a thing. Why do we suppose the people of other nations should be compliant and simply accept our military presence?

These are questions and concerns that cannot be solved by flexing verbal muscles of machismo and threatening to annhilate "the enemy." All of this the last two years, and a crook and a liar like Chalabi is now the Deputy PM of Iraq? Oy vey!

Two final notes, Mike. One--terror is always an enemy--I just do not believe that America must jettison its constitution to fight terror. Not doing so has always been our strength. Notice--since the advent of the Korean War--we have fought under the banner of the UN. Which of those wars did we win? None.

Which brings me to my second final note. I have every bit of respect for the American military--having been one, and from a long line within my family, I have nothing but respect for those in uniform. What I diss are politicians who abuse that respect, get caught doing so, and then propagandize their excuses by calling those who disagree with their politics as being against the military.

Its a bullshit argument that is long past due being exposed. We will not win anything if we insist on ignoring the very constituion that defines who we are, and use those who faithfully defend the constitution as pawns in global politics. Our military should be as quicly defended from politicians as it is traitors

One more note to Kens--this is my country, too, Bubba, and I do not write for the silly reasons you listed in your response, I fight because it is the freeest of the free--a place where I can disagree with anyone, and do so in the full spirit of being an American. You may have impressed the groupies, but playground taunting about things this serious . . .

Well . . . I kinda chuckled. But feel free to do and say as you wish. Since I do understand America and my rights and freedoms to express disapproval with government actions (once upon a time that was a virtue), I understand you are free to stay here in America even if you disagree with me. By the way--recent polls put me in the majority. FYI

:-)

Posted by: jb on April 30, 2005 10:48 AM

Brevity, JB. Please.

Posted by: Brett on April 30, 2005 11:12 AM

Cassidy . . . you have my respect--having been one who took orders and did my duty no matter what, because I believed my country and volunteered in a time of war to serve . . .

I loved your response. You are not an armchair soldier. You are doing it, as many before have done so, believing in America.

So did this man . . . www.scuttlebuttsmallchow.com/racket.html . . . and he came to understand the reality of war beyond just the battlefield, and to understand why you and others in uniform now, just as I and others in uniform during Vietnam, or my uncles in POW camps in Korea, were played as pawns for rulers who abused their power.

The 20th century--supposedly the most intellectual century of history, was the single bloodiest beyond doubt or body count. And America is supposed to blindly follow the grandson of the man who financed, in part, Hitler's war in Europe.

I mentioned "connecting the dots" in a previous comment. Cassidy--when you do leave the military, and have some time for reflection, read everything you can on war and politics and history.

Connect the dots. Post me with your findings.

I think you will like General Butler.

ATB, and Godspeed in doing your your duty!

Posted by: jb on April 30, 2005 11:15 AM

Got-dam, JB. Can't you write a comment that is less than 300 words?

Bejus! If you have that much to say, start your own damn blog.

Posted by: Acidman on April 30, 2005 11:27 AM

Yeah, get back to Air America Radio to get more ammunition, JB. Al and Randi are waiting for you with bullshit up the ying-yang.

Posted by: Max on April 30, 2005 11:39 AM

Max . . . in the immortal words of the Acidman . . .

Kiss my ass.

Gut--give me an addy, I will pay a my portion of your bandwidth I use.

But Bubba--you do raise such interesting stuff. You always have. :-)

Posted by: jb on April 30, 2005 11:48 AM

No way to get close enough to kiss your ass, JB ... your head keeps getting in the way,

Posted by: Max on April 30, 2005 01:30 PM

Hey JB, Iraq attacked US forces several times in the decade after Saddam agreed to honor the terms of the UN's cease fire while the USA was enforcing the UN's sanctions on Iraq.

Are you ready to admit this fact?

Idiot.

Posted by: GORDON on April 30, 2005 03:20 PM

JB: are you familiar with the cease-fire terms of Operation Desert Storm? Have you ever heard of Operation Desert Fox?

Posted by: Juliette on April 30, 2005 05:17 PM

Max--that was cute.

Gordon--correction: the United States was NOT attacked. The United Nations forces, of which US forces were only a part, were attacked by someone who did not agree with the United Nations policing their country.

We submitted our military force to an outside power, mind you, which is also "extra-constitutional." Although--that fact did not serve Michael New well, when he refused to wear the colors of the United Nations and fight under their flag.

And were we to run around the globe enforcing every UN resolution, we would be drafting 60 year olds to keep up with troop demand, and it would still be unconstitutional. Besides, what nation is the undisputed leader in breaking UN resolutions? Imagine the fallout applying to pursuing that avenue!

Again, I can only repeat that remedial civics would help most of you get a grasp on what is and isn't constitutional. Either be so, or admit you yourselves are denying the document that defines us as American to begin with.

Thus the label you put upon me-- "idiot" (Greek - idios - "self-absorbed")--comes back home to you, Dude.

:-)

Posted by: jb on April 30, 2005 05:26 PM

Juliette

Familiar, but as an American who has not surrendered his sovereignty to the United Nations, nor who believes the constitution permits the wars a la the UN that both Bush's and Ole Billy BJ engineered through the auspices of the UN, I am not much inclined to think much of either operation. They were designed to trigger another war, and Bush and his cronies used the hype of 9/11 to suddenly decide Iran needed to be attacked for defying the UN after 12 years.

Yeah, sure . . . it all makes sense.

Either you believe in the document that defines who you are, or you don't. It is really quite simple.

:-)

Posted by: jb on April 30, 2005 05:44 PM

Correction to the last sentence of my response to Juliette - "Iraq" . . . not "Iran."

But--if y'all are watching, the administration is using the very same technique on a build-up to Iran as it did to Iraq. Watch and compare . . . most interesting.

Burned once, your fault; burned twice, my fault.

Posted by: jb on April 30, 2005 05:49 PM

I just started reading your comments and find it informative...and very entertaining. My only question is...who the heck is JB?

Posted by: BDB on May 2, 2005 03:34 AM

BDB

I am the resident troll who requests, and yes, at times, demands logical, provable answers to political tripe.

Unfortunately, most who respond here do so as former playground bullies--full of bad names and bullshit, but little if any cogent responses. In typical fashion, they try to marginalize what I say with things said that most parents would spank children for saying. I am both amused, and unimpressed. Spilling one's bile does not equate with rational thinking, however much these pseudo-intellectuals try (try) to slam me.

I have received one intelligent e-mail from the pack, the rest call me whatever and think they have accomplished something.

Of course, you can follow the pack, or think for yourself.

In any case, all the best

Who the Heck (jb)

Posted by: jb on May 2, 2005 05:26 AM

Even those who think for themselves usually end up joining a pack (or something resembling one) sooner or later (www.lewrockwell.com)

Alternatively, I've found an extremely humorous reflection on the whole situation right fucking here:

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=61

Posted by: JG22 on May 2, 2005 04:16 PM

Unfair, JB. I never called you a name. I don't consider that I am serving up "political tripe", but I thought you disputed with me using a tone of courtesy and respect, objectionable as I find your description of the United States as the villain of the piece.

Posted by: Mike James on May 2, 2005 04:33 PM

Mike--

Mea culpa . . . I painted way too wide a swath.

Posted by: jb on May 2, 2005 08:35 PM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.