Jesus, I actually watched a few seconds of that crap!
When a grown man makes his voice go up to a woman's high pitch like that, to act like he's fuming, it just makes HIM the pussy.
Just another lifer jarhead.
First off, he was US Army, not Marines.Jesus, I actually watched a few seconds of that crap!
When a grown man makes his voice go up to a woman's high pitch like that, to act like he's fuming, it just makes HIM the pussy.
Just another lifer jarhead.
Even at that, I'd imagine they get that wrong most of the time.
So a former Lt Colonel who served in the U.S. Army is a "Jarhead" in your world? Just disregarding the fact that every other living soul in the military and out, use the term exclusively for Marines?Wrong again, redneck!
When the Vietnam War was raging, I dropped out of college to enlist, because I thought it was the patriotic thing to do. I did four years in the service, and then went back to college when I got out. So I know what a jarhead is.
Not since the American Civil War has a soldier "given up their lives" for anyone on American soil. Your claim inaccurately reflects the sacrifice of our military and who exactly they are making their sacrifice for.
What about Pearl Harbor? Navy personnel are soldiers and plenty of them died on Hawaiian/American soil. I would contend the harbor is our soil as well. Soldiers and pilots were also killed on the U.S. Army Air Force bases during the attack.
I know he's your buddy, but he says some really stupid stuff. I know we all do, but his bias just rubs me the wrong way.
I stand corrected, WWII is another example.
Why does his bias differ from your bias? He has an opinion on something, and so do you. He justifies his with an explanation, and so have you. However we aren't debating his bias, we are debating whether US troops, Jarheads in particular, are fighting currently to protect our "freedoms". My contention is they are not. They are fighting, troops are losing their lives because President Bush and his dumb dumb cabinet convinced the constituent of politicians to go to a war based on lies, political agenda and money.
He sounds like a whiney Ross Perot with his balls in a vise.Jesus, I actually watched a few seconds of that crap!
When a grown man makes his voice go up to a woman's high pitch like that, to act like he's fuming, it just makes HIM the pussy.
Just another lifer jarhead.
Fair enough, I was attempting to explain why I responded to him at all.
You are absolutely correct, troops do what they are told, all the way up the MCoC. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking military official, is told what to do. Which means you cannot fault them for their actions (unless criminal) -- but at the same time, you can't give them praise for something they haven't done.
While I agree with much of the content in your post, I think you're discounting the very real and tangible effect of letting your dogs off the chain every once in awhile as a reminder to those who would seek to harm us, that retribution will be swift and excessive. You kill 3000 of ours, we spend 10+ years killing between 1.3 - 4 million of yours and anyone else that lives in your vicinity. While it may not deter the maniacal zealots (nothing will short of death will), it does send a very clear message to the rest of the world. Something along the lines of you mess with the bull, you get the horns.
In general we live in a civil society, and every once and a while some jackass comes along ruins the party and sticks his dick in the mashed potatoes. That party pooper right now are the radical Muslims highly regarded in the Islamic state; where ever they may be. With the birth of ISIS I would actually tend to agree with you, that our military presence should be stronger now than ever before. If we had this discussion 3 years ago, I'd completely disagree.
It's funny you should mention that book, I have an annotated collectors edition. One of my favorite reads, right up there with my signed copy of Tao of Jeet Kune Do. I was going to post a few quotes that back up my theory, I'm just too tired and you probably already know them. He also didn't have the ability to bombard his enemies into the Stone Age from great distances. I think a great many of his tactics would have evolved significantly after due consideration to technological advances in warfare.
Valid point. What he dealt with then is nothing as it is now. Similar to how our Founding Fathers viewed guns and militia when drafting the Constitution.