stevendedalus stevendedalus

Explanation for Memo to Troops

▼

Explanation for Memo to Troops

from JoeUser Forums

Let me explain my rather harsh peek into the psychology of the troops in Iraq. It was motivated by the arrogance of Republicans on this blog site taking for granted that it is the duty of troops to support and vote for their incumbent commander in chief. Obviously these bloggers are suffering from amnesia when it was perfectly okay for the military to hate Clinton, and the military absentee votes showed this both times he ran. Even Powell during the first term was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and did not hide his contempt for Clinton. Often these fair-minded bloggers comment that the troops are overwhelmingly for Bush without acknowledging that the millitary is also overwhelmingly Republican, and as a result loyalty to the commander in chief is irrelevant. In ‘96 the military had no difficulty preferring Dole, not only that he was a Republican but, ironically a veteran of combat, which now, because of the vicious attacks on Kerry’s war record, the military  does not consider him a proud veteran.

What our friendly opponents on this blog site don’t seem to realize is that as citizens, members of the military are entitled to hear the other side and vote as they sees fit and in a democracy has nothing whatever to do with disloyalty should they choose another.

For a blogger to interpret my blog as sedition is shameful. Even a loyal, honorable soldier has the right to fire or retain his commander in chief when up for election.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 22, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
10,980 views 42 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
To me the simple fact that he publicly threw away his awards is reason enough for members of the armed forces to dislike and absolutly not trust him.
A ticked off youthful moment does not negate what he did and he, as was stated, still does not apologize. Im in the Army, I would never vote for kerry for many reason but his anit-war record would be enough, not to mention his shifting votes on the same type of issues. Also I will not vote for Bush, I admire him for many things but I feel he put this country at a huge disadvantage by his statements and that of his cabinet. I vote for Nader, he wont win, I still vote and thats that.
Reply #27 from PolMach Forums Top
2nd amendment huh? Interesting. This conversation is about to get way off topic.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If I played Mr. Literal here this would mean to me 1) Militia = citizens drafted into military service; 2) keep and bear Arms = everyone has the right to own weapons.

Playing Devil's Advocate here: strictly speaking, any form of gun control is unconstitutional.

I feel a bit like I'm playing both sides of the fence here, though, so let me quickly say that while I agree that one cannot really argue with this (unless we got into a whole debate on the side about gun-related deaths and whatnot, and really what place does that have in this thread), I have other reasons why I'm voting for Kerry. You can vote Bush for whatever reason you like, though.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
I'm not asking if you'd vote for him but just how you'd view him if he came out and said he was wrong.


No change. If he would have said that soon after he made those bogus statements in order to win political office. Then maybe my opinion would have changed. But since then he has repeatedly continued to make wrong moves. Most of the time to get public attention. The man has a track record of saying anything to look like he is on both sides of an issue.

I don't know your feelings on this but; I am guessing if Bush publicly said he was sorry for Iraq and begged forgiveness (what the DNC wants) it would not change your vote either. While I’m not much Bush fan I know that Bush is Damned if he does and Damned if he don't, but at least he will stick to his principles. While Bush had been misinformed (just like Kerry and most the world Governments says they had been). Kerry knew well before his fails statements what he was doing and was making calculated risk for getting votes. Now its time for those that he stepped on up his political career to bring him down.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
If I played Mr. Literal here this would mean to me 1) Militia = citizens drafted into military service; 2) keep and bear Arms = everyone has the right to own weapons.


Let a man more learned than I on the Constitution say something about this.

Michael Badnarik on Gun Control:

If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. Allow me to point out some fallacies in the arguments frequently used by the anti-gun movement.

First, it is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a "community right", because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights.

Second, the phrase "well regulated militia" is frequently misconstrued to mean:
a. lots of government regulations; and,
b. only the National Guard is allowed to carry guns.

It is necessary to understand the definitions common in America during the time of our war for independence. "Well regulated" used to mean "well prepared". Every man was expected to have a rifle, one pound of gun powder, and sixteen balls for his weapon. He was also expected to be ready to USE that rifle within sixty seconds of the alarm being sounded. Hence the term "minute man".

It is disingenuous for anyone to promote the argument that "militia" refers only to the National Guard in light of the fact that the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, and the National Guard wasn't formed until the early 1900's. This argument is totally without merit, unless you want to imply that our founding fathers were able to predict the future.

I sincerely believe that statistical evidence supports the idea that crime increases exponentially wherever gun control is instituted as the governing policy. Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the strictest gun control policies in the United States. The cities with the highest murder rates are Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It doesn't take a PhD to be able to draw the proper conclusion from this evidence. England and Australia have recently instituted strict gun control measures, and both countries have seen the statistics on violent crime quadruple. In contrast, I am told that the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a municipal ordinance that requires homeowners to have a firearm available. Home invasions have dropped to less than 10% of their original rate, indicating to me that criminals value their lives more than they value your property.

I have no doubt that members of the anti-gun crowd would be happy to offer statistical data which appears to contradict the numbers I have just mentioned. Even if they could, their alternate statistics are not enough authority to strip me of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. My rights are non-negotiable. I don't care if someone else doesn't like it. I don't care if they toss and turn at night, anxiously worried about what I might do with my firearm. My rights are not predicated on whether or not you LIKE what I'm doing. You only have a complaint when I present a "clear and present danger", which is not the case if I have my firearm in a holster.

Repealing unconstitutional gun control laws will be one of my first priorities as President of the United States.


What will you type about Gun Control and 2nd Amendment now?
- Grim X
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
What will you type about Gun Control and 2nd Amendment now?


I'm moving this to another thread.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
he mocked your service in the Pacific by having a group of hippies raise an American Flag upside down in reminiscent of your follow Marines that sacrificed their lives on Iwo Jima.
I'm sure the image was not mocking Iwo, but the inversion symbolized how far the nation had distanced itself from the noble and heroic intent of war. That said, it was indiscreet to reference the honor of the original icon of such a solemn and heroic battle for political gain, lest it be misconstrued as you indeed have proven. I agree with you, though on different grounds.  
I say you are a Marine is because once a Marine always a Marine
Absolutely.
A right is something that I can do without asking.
On dangerous soil here without freedom under law.Were I you I would relax; "communities make a lot of dough from hunting licenses and would not forgo the revenue.
suppose he did come out and say "I was wrong, and I'm sorry." Would that change your opinion of the man?
I rather doubt it; to admit to wrong is a non-issue because it is foreign to their side.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
No change. If he would have said that soon after he made those bogus statements in order to win political office.
He lost his very first run for office so he did not gain anything from it. Moreover, usually people tend to forgive what was said in the fires of youth.  True, Kerry never apologized out of principle bred in a hairy time; however, he did admit to Tim Russert that with the wisdom of age he would have phrased it differently.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top


Actually every unit recieves many complimentary copies of Army Times.
Yes the poll was conducted primarily through email but snail mail entries were also added.
And no, the inital forces in Iraq had, in the beginning, little acces to the internet. But when I left there were "internet cafes" all over the place and most units made thier own. Now im quite sure that the vast majority of service members have regular acces to the internet.
BTW the poll was sent out to us via our AKO email address's.

stevendedalus:
regardles of how he would have "phrased it differently" his actions spoke louder than words. And from the soldiers ive talked to it really wasnt that he was against the war, most troops were, it that he dishonored the soldiers who fought and died, who returned disabled, and anyone else involeved in vietnam, by throwing away his medals. Soldiers fight hard for those cheap little tokens of national gratitude. To throw them away underscores the sacrifice made by others, either by life or limb
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
BTW the poll was sent out to us via our AKO email address


My husband got his in our verizon email inbox . . .
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #33 By: Dysmas - 10/24/2004 2:17:25 AM
stevendedalus:
regardles of how he would have "phrased it differently" his actions spoke louder than words. And from the soldiers ive talked to it really wasnt that he was against the war, most troops were, it that he dishonored the soldiers who fought and died, who returned disabled, and anyone else involeved in vietnam, by throwing away his medals. Soldiers fight hard for those cheap little tokens of national gratitude. To throw them away underscores the sacrifice made by others, either by life or limb


Hear, Hear! Well and truly spoken! I have not said anything bad about Kerry's service record. I think that ANYONE who serves deserves at least a thank you. My main gripe with Kerry has always been about what he said and did after he returned home. And BTW before I forget..... "Dysmas" Thank you for your service to your country!
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks drimmler. I, of course, agree with ya on this.



Yeah, I guess it sounded like it was the only way it was delivered. Sorry, I guess my point was that Army Times did it's best to poll as many soldiers as it could
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, I guess it sounded like it was the only way it was delivered. Sorry, I guess my point was that Army Times did it's best to poll as many soldiers as it could


I'm sure that's true.
Reply #38 from PolMach Forums Top
My husband got his in our verizon email inbox . . .


Texas Wahine

I'm Not sure about the AF (I think your husband is that branch, Sorry if not). I regulary forward my email to my AKO (Army Knowledge of On-line) when I travel. It is fast, easy, and always available. Three years ago was the first time I had seen the internet in the field. It realy made the soldiers day to feel that they are still part of the world. (Some older soldiers would prefer to keep the isolation effect)

Of the Companies and friends I have over there now they regularly email day to day things like work questions and jokes. I heard of one keeping in contact with his D&D gaming group too.

I'm not saying every body has it, but any of base larger then 100 personnel will have an MWR tent or orderly room that has a internet connection, if not a conction to the section laptop or computer.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lee: He's Army.

I regulary forward my email to my AKO (Army Knowledge of On-line) when I travel. It is fast, easy, and always available.


He has an AKO account, but he doesn't use it for email purposes. He does have a yahoo account, and he is able to check our verizon account online.

Three years ago was the first time I had seen the internet in the field. It realy made the soldiers day to feel that they are still part of the world. (Some older soldiers would prefer to keep the isolation effect)


My husband has MWR internet access, but rarely uses it. At work he uses a laptop for his job and for finishing up his correspondence courses that he needs for his promotion (almost finished, BTW! ), and he is able to use it to send and receive email, watch the South Park episodes and other things on the server, etc. It is really a blessing for him to have ready internet access like that.

I'm not saying every body has it, but any of base larger then 100 personnel will have an MWR tent or orderly room that has a internet connection, if not a conction to the section laptop or computer.


I'm sure that's true with stationary troops. Of course, the soldier to computer ratio is not always such that a soldier can go online often. Still a good thing, though.
Reply #40 from PolMach Forums Top
At work he uses a laptop for his job and for finishing up his correspondence courses that he needs for his promotion (almost finished, BTW! ),


Good, I know how tough it is to keep up with class work in the field.

Sorry, I got the Branch wrong.

watch the South Park episodes and other things on the server


God I know how it feels missing the good episodes. When I lived in Germany the first few years of the Simpson it was maddening to not get them on the Armed forces network. They showed them only as pre-shows at the movie theators before the main feature. I know some poeple that would go in to a movie just to see the Simpson takes.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Soldiers fight hard for those cheap little tokens of national gratitude. To throw them away underscores the sacrifice made by others, either by life or limb
You have a point but the gratitude wasn't diminished; rather, it was a protest against the gross civilian mismanagement of the war.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
I understand that you disagree, as do I. Thats alright, I am aware that there are more than one side to a story, but there are a few situations where its hard for me to objectivly view an issue. My family, my faith, my service.
As for it being a protest against civillian mismanagement, i dont know. civillans dont award you medals, civillans dont commit war crimes and so on. And, given the time period, wether or not there even was real mismanagement, the soldiers who fought during Nam fought as all soldiers do, bravely. They were under extreme situations, a nation that is against the war and administration but expressed it and blamed it mostly on the soldiers. Those service members did a great job and the only reason I think we "lost" the war is because there wasn't only no support at home, there were protests to go along with it. Some of the most dis-heartining things at those anti war protests were; the buring of the American flag, burning of draft cards ( yes the draft was bad but it was in place at the time.)
and lastly anti-government ( no problem) and anti-war ( soldiers fight wars for thier bretheren, so they can stay alive and see their familys again, not just because they belive in a cause or not, they are sent and want nothing but to accomplish the mission, that means they can go home.) returning veterans. Those veterans lashed out at any aspect of the war, from top to bottom, including throwing away military decorations. military decorations, not civillan decorations. Hence casting a shadow on the military, the service members, and, as I said, dishonoring everyone who wore, is wearing, and will wear a military uniform.
This man should not be our president, if he apologized I could say "well ok........" but not only hasn't he, he continues to deflect and distort his actions at that time. Kerry should face it, if your running for CIC, you better damn well not have done anything to actually protest soldiers or dishonor thier service.