Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
For the American Soldier, Not a Good Storyl!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 349760" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>There you go "THINKING" again when it concerns me!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p> </p><p>Tie,</p><p>How do you formulate a civilian public policy at the Washington level and then when those policies place our soldiers in the middle of civilians fighting the bad guys if you will, and from those fights innocents are sadly killed or injuried and instead of accepting this as a result of the policy, you throw the foot soldier under the bus so to speak. Do we throw the pilot who dropped the bomb that destroyed the target but killed innocents in the surrounding area. We call it collateral damage and go on! And I'm not slamming pilots so don't even go there. As Jones said so well, this is war boys and girls so pull up you big boy and big girl pants and face it!</p><p> </p><p>To put in a comparison we might all relate too. How many times has some Glenlake deskjockey or some IE expert who wouldn't know paper from plastic make a decision for the trenches that creates a situation that alienates some customers and then this "rocker scientist" with his other "rocket scientist" buddies condemn the driver or supervisor as the fault when the real culprit is the person would created the new policy? I would hope that comparison would make it a bit clearer as to what I mean but are you going to play SuperUPS Man and defend the religion of Glenlake or will you be like the rest of us as realists and understand and admit that policies, good or bad have un-intended consequences and maybe we sometimes really blame the victim (driver/supervisor) rather than step back and consider the policy itself?</p><p> </p><p>Under that, it you are gonna blame the victim, then be honest enough to not stop there and go up the ladder to the top to the civilain creators of the policy as well. The chain of command has a duty to speak out as they pledged an oath to support and defend the Constitution and......oh that's right. They speak out or offer anything other than what the civilian command wants to hear and they find themselves demoted or out of a job.</p><p> </p><p>Man does that sound like UPS or what!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>Tie! Tie! Put the cape up! Do not take the cape out!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p> </p><p>I know the video was an antiwar source and I'd never insult any of you by saying otherwise but we've treated this war with antiseptic glasses and not considered looking at all aspects of it. Some antiwar types are truly antiwar but many are not and are only doing bidding for opposing political forces. The roles oddly were reversed 10 years ago with another conflict and it gets defended mostly by the fact that it was prosecutued by the "international community". I know it's a tired saying but if the international community jumps off a cliff does this make it right? Appears in some quarters that is the case. How fast they also forget that their guy also wanted a war with Iraq but he feared the attack from the opposing political side if he did. Should speak volumes about how principled the Warrior class really is! LOL! </p><p> </p><p><strong>WE WANT WAR! As long as it's not the other side leading it!</strong> I'd say from my POV this slogan operates pretty well from either side of the political street. IMO both McCain and Obama proved that point this past week with their AIPAC speeches.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 349760, member: 2189"] There you go "THINKING" again when it concerns me! :wink2: Tie, How do you formulate a civilian public policy at the Washington level and then when those policies place our soldiers in the middle of civilians fighting the bad guys if you will, and from those fights innocents are sadly killed or injuried and instead of accepting this as a result of the policy, you throw the foot soldier under the bus so to speak. Do we throw the pilot who dropped the bomb that destroyed the target but killed innocents in the surrounding area. We call it collateral damage and go on! And I'm not slamming pilots so don't even go there. As Jones said so well, this is war boys and girls so pull up you big boy and big girl pants and face it! To put in a comparison we might all relate too. How many times has some Glenlake deskjockey or some IE expert who wouldn't know paper from plastic make a decision for the trenches that creates a situation that alienates some customers and then this "rocker scientist" with his other "rocket scientist" buddies condemn the driver or supervisor as the fault when the real culprit is the person would created the new policy? I would hope that comparison would make it a bit clearer as to what I mean but are you going to play SuperUPS Man and defend the religion of Glenlake or will you be like the rest of us as realists and understand and admit that policies, good or bad have un-intended consequences and maybe we sometimes really blame the victim (driver/supervisor) rather than step back and consider the policy itself? Under that, it you are gonna blame the victim, then be honest enough to not stop there and go up the ladder to the top to the civilain creators of the policy as well. The chain of command has a duty to speak out as they pledged an oath to support and defend the Constitution and......oh that's right. They speak out or offer anything other than what the civilian command wants to hear and they find themselves demoted or out of a job. Man does that sound like UPS or what! :happy-very: Tie! Tie! Put the cape up! Do not take the cape out! :wink2: I know the video was an antiwar source and I'd never insult any of you by saying otherwise but we've treated this war with antiseptic glasses and not considered looking at all aspects of it. Some antiwar types are truly antiwar but many are not and are only doing bidding for opposing political forces. The roles oddly were reversed 10 years ago with another conflict and it gets defended mostly by the fact that it was prosecutued by the "international community". I know it's a tired saying but if the international community jumps off a cliff does this make it right? Appears in some quarters that is the case. How fast they also forget that their guy also wanted a war with Iraq but he feared the attack from the opposing political side if he did. Should speak volumes about how principled the Warrior class really is! LOL! [B]WE WANT WAR! As long as it's not the other side leading it![/B] I'd say from my POV this slogan operates pretty well from either side of the political street. IMO both McCain and Obama proved that point this past week with their AIPAC speeches. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
For the American Soldier, Not a Good Storyl!
Top