Will He Ever Get the Hint?

[av8torntn]

Hey golvols thanks for taking the time to reply. I understand now that you just will not get it. You will probably never understand how the war in Iraq has anything to do with our national security no matter who could explain it to you. I was just trying to understand where you are coming from. Two days ago a fellow feeder driver told me all of our soldiers should be tried for war crimes for fighting in an illegal war so it is all good.

I was going to link the article in the army times that had all the recruiting numbers in it for you but it wasnt up anymore and i know it isnt really worth the effort since you do not really want any truth.Turns out that the Army recruited 5408 soldiers in april which was 108% of its goal marking the 23rd straight month to exceed its goal. The funny thing about the internet is you can find an article somewhere that will prove whatever position you want to take. I once told someone I know that democrats were cowards and he quickly found a speech from Senator Leiberman that proved me wrong. Of course I was wrong. And my point for bringing up my brothers in arms serving in harms way was that they completly do not agree with you. I could have just looked on the internet and found one of several polls that show that the troops support the mission. I know it would be a bad poll or something and I am sure you know cousin bob at camp victory or balad or somewhere else you will say will not agree.




Senior Geek you left out Gen Wesley Clark but you also left out the generals that do not agree with your point of view. I do not like to hear any of these retired officers coming out with their political views during a time of war, but they all have good insight. But when one says one thing and another says the opposite to me it just seems like it is politics. I will have to say that general speak is way way above my pay grade.


And to all thanks for taking the time to read my little rant. I just wish I wouldnt have taken a VBIED so I could go back but no reason to whine about that. I was thinking it sure was nice driving down the road with the only thing to worry about was where I was going to take my 15 minute break.

They only reason I posted in the first place was not to try and pick an online fight with anyone. It just really bothers me when people that dont like our president they want to drag in our troops some kind of way. They will either say that they are taking to long to do their job, or they are commiting war crimes on a mass scale, or they lost the war in Iraq, or well you have heard them all no reason to go through them over and over. I just sometimes take it personal since I have lots of good friends that go to work everyday with body armor on in a place so far away from their familys and they seem to get it. And even though I know why it seems like most of us over here dont understand I still take the snipes at my friends bad but I am working on having a little thicker skin.

 

[av8torntn]

I hope you are not counting on getting email or reading blog posts from any of them.
Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death

I see this as a good thing it is past time that they cracked down on some of the things that were showing up on the blogs. I saw a blog about a month ago where a pfc had posted an ariel photo with his can circled on it. This is a serious opsec violation. While Iraq is not an all out war it can still be a dangerous place. Of course we all know that our active duty guys are subject to the ucmj and do not get to enjoy alot of the same freedoms that we do.

 

[SeniorGeek]

I hope you are not counting on getting email or reading blog posts from any of them.

Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death



I see this as a good thing it is past time that they cracked down on some of the things that were showing up on the blogs. I saw a blog about a month ago where a pfc had posted an ariel photo with his can circled on it. This is a serious opsec violation. While Iraq is not an all out war it can still be a dangerous place. Of course we all know that our active duty guys are subject to the ucmj and do not get to enjoy alot of the same freedoms that we do.

I did not find the actual text of the new regulation. It seems that the Army thinks that releasing the OPSEC regulation to the public "...could cause harm to Army operations or personnel."

So they have made it an OPSEC violation to reveal regulations about what constitutes an OPSEC violation?

I find a response that is alleged to come from the Army (but I find no authoritative source) that clarifies the regulation we are no longer allowed to read, saying in part

Soldiers do not have to seek permission from a supervisor to send personal E-mails. Personal E-mails are considered private communication.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2007/05/03/#008697

To sum up what I have seen about this regulation:

• Many claim the new version requires permission for every message, or something to that effect,
• The Army decided that this new version should not be available to the public (though the previous version is already out there),
• The fact sheet (alleged to be from The Army) claims that the new version does not have the sort of changes many have complained about, but
• The "fact sheet" has details that are contrary to some of the details from an interview with the author of the new regulation at Army's Info-Cop Speaks

So I don't know what to believe about this new regulation. I can't tell if the modifications amount to censorship of political views or hiding crimes. Or just refining OPSEC standards.

I hope the military does something about other sources, too. According to DJ Elliott, IS1(SW), USN(Ret) on OPSEC, the OOBs and the Myopic Mis-Focus of Security Personnel, "The worst OPSEC violator in the senior staffs is the Pentagon."

There appear to be a number of people concerned about OPSEC violations, many of them searching websites for info - but I do not know how you go about reporting the violation you found.

 

[SeniorGeek]

... Senior Geek you left out Gen Wesley Clark but you also left out the generals that do not agree with your point of view.

I tried to limit myself to those who have left during W's reign - those who have some direct knowledge about the sort of support this Administration really gives our military command. I think Clark left before W took office, and Clark made Kosovo look like a cakewalk compared to Iraq.

I made two mistakes with Zinni - I misspelt his name, and I thought he retired after W's coronation. Zinni does not really fit my criteria any better than Clark. I also misspelt Eaton's name.

I find it rare that retired Generals speak out against the authority they spent their lifetimes defending. Usually, they remain silent. (Shinseki has not been outspoken, but has not been silent, either.) So I thought it notable that so many have left on principle.

Can somebody tell me how many Generals have retired after serving under W's reign (so far)? Can somebody tell me how many of those have been outspoken supporters of W's administration? That will help me get an idea of whether four is a significant number of Generals to retire and subsequently speak out against the Administration they served.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

"I say it is you that is letting our troops down by supporting a war that should have never been prosecuted in the first place."

Oh brother........

Unbelievable.

So, I guess supporting our troops during a "just war" is patriotic and supporting our troops during a war that is "unjust" is unpatriotic? Man, I didn't know being patriotic had so many stipulations.

 

[av8torntn]

I did not find the actual text of the new regulation. It seems t


From what I have heard there are not really any new rules. It is only a matter of how they are enforcing them. While I was over there you were not supposed to even take video during operations. We all know how many clips are on the internet. Heck I have even seen some made into training videos. I had only heard of one soldier though having to talk to CID. I would be willing to bet that it wasnt because he was sending an email to mom on mothers day saying hi.

 

[govols019]

There you go again, making stuff up. It's really starting to get boring. Get a new tactic, BAU.

 

[av8torntn]

I tried to limit myself to those who have left during W's reign - those who have some direct knowledge about the sort

Can somebody tell me how many Generals have retired after serving under W's reign (so far)? Can somebody tell me how many of those have been outspoken supporters of W's administration? That will help me get an idea of whether four is a significant number of Generals to retire and subsequently speak out against the Administration they served.

I cannot name them all but I think a big one that fits what you may be look for would be Gen. Tommy Franks ret. . I fell fairly confident that you cannot name all of them that have complained about one thing or another either. He may have some pretty good insight on both fronts in the war on terrorism. He has a book out that you may like to read if you are looking for some insight from a soldier on the inside. Just from reading your post though you might not want to know what he thinks. I personally do not care for generals much they just seem to political for me, but if it is just numbers that you are looking for I cannot help you. I do remember reading an article on this subject several months ago and I am sure you can find it if you are motivated enough to do so. I am not motivated enough to find it for you. The conclusion of the article was I think it was 90% of active duty soldiers supported the war on terrorism and the number of retired generals closely matched that poll. But I am sure you will be glad to hear the former commander of 1 AD is making an anti war ad that will be shown on TV soon. Oh yes that would be a general.

 

[av8torntn]

an interesting article to read I personally thought it would take a little longer than this guy does. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_iraqi_president_070511/

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

There you go again, making stuff up. It's really starting to get boring. Get a new tactic, BAU.

New tactic? Such as the Liberal tactic of living in denial? If you don't agree with something than it has to be made up. LOL.

 

[govols019]

My words are there in black and brown. Any honest person can see the truth about you.

 

[satellitedriver]

If you were referring to Afghanistan I would agree with you but Iraq is something totally different. They were never a threat to fight here anyway.

Our country has no business in nation building. Period.

I say it is you that is letting our troops down by supporting a war that should have never been prosecuted in the first place.

I have one grandfather that is a WWII vet, another a veteran of Korea and my father is a 5-time decorated Vietnam veteran. All volunteered for duty. All three oppose this war. I'd like to see someone call them weak willed to their face.

We are in a world war. Out of the last 18 major military actions in the world,all were instagated by radical Islamic militants. The fact that we chose to go to war with a dictatorship that directly funded Hamas and other radical Palestine suicide bombers, not to mention trying to kill a former president of the U.S., is justification in my mindset.
My family has fought in every war since the American Revolution. My Great grandfather, many generations back, came to America in 1674. My Grandfather served in WWI and WWII. My brother served in the Marines for 3 tours in Nam before getting hit and spent 1 year in Balboa Naval hospital getting rebuilt.
I would never disrespect anyone who has served this country.
I believe we, as a country, are weak willed in our prosecution of war. Our only mistake, in my mind, is we gave away the military advantage too soon. Instead of being politically correct, we should have locked down IRAQ as soon as we marched into Bagdad.
We can leave IRAQ, but we will not be leaving this war behind us. It will still be out there trying to figure out how to bring it to American soil.
War has always been about nation building. Radical Islamics want to rebuild our nation to their standards.

 

[toonertoo]

I agree, we can argue all day long but at the end of the day, we are there and its not like we havent made any ground. Its not like you can drive in to McDonalds, get your happy meal and leave. All you hear is it is an occupation. The fact that they can vote shows they have taken it very seriously. When is the last time in the USA you had to worry about your life at the voting booths? they did. Its just like any where that is bad where people are afraid to leave their homes. It shouldnt be that way and we need to take serious stances in the USA to rid ourselves of people who infringe on our ability to live our lives not in fear. The reason we havent is because of political incorrectness. People should fear the law when they screw up, but now the law is being attacked, because they didnt give enough warning, didnt wait long enough to pull the trigger, shot them while they were running away, etc. It all stinks. AS a law abiding citizen, if I see the lights go on, I pull over and I dont give them any crap. No matter how you feel about our police, you should lose all your attitude when you see a cruiser, that doesnt happen today. And that is what puts us back into the 17th century mindset of "those People"

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

My words are there in black and brown. Any honest person can see the truth about you.

That begs the question. My Liberal friend; when are you going to learn that relying on circular logic proves nothing?

 

[govols019]

I would never disrespect anyone who has served this country.

Neither would I. Supporting the troops doesn't mean you have to support the war. They are two different things. A point some people can't grasp.

The fact that we chose to go to war with a dictatorship that directly funded Hamas and other radical Palestine suicide bombers, not to mention trying to kill a former president of the U.S., is justification in my mindset.

So, when are we going to war with Iran and Syria? If that's all the justification you need, damned the consequences of such action, then there is a whole list of people to go to war with next.

 

[av8torntn]

Neither would I. Supporting the troops doesn't mean you have to support the war. They are two different things. A point some people can't grasp.



I will admit that I am one of those people that cannot grasp this. I have seen what this does to a 19 year old pfc that has been on patrol for three days, comes back to the fob, and has to choose between a hot meal, sleep, or standing in line for an hour to call his wife with their nine month child only to be told that while she supports him she cannot support his war. The fine men and women of our military usually take lots of pride in their work which is a point some people can't grasp.

 

[over9five]

"Supporting the troops doesn't mean you have to support the war."

Liberal double talk crap. It is obvious you have no idea what this coward talk does to morale over there. The enemy loves it, tho. They broadcast our brave congressman saying BS like that, and while it's destroying our troops morale, it emboldens our enemies.

Thinking like that is getting our troops killed.

 

[SeniorGeek]

"Supporting the troops doesn't mean you have to support the war."

Liberal double talk crap. It is obvious you have no idea what this coward talk does to morale over there. The enemy loves it, tho. They broadcast our brave congressman saying BS like that, and while it's destroying our troops morale, it emboldens our enemies.

To summarize: it is politically incorrect to say something that may decrease the self-esteem of our troops.

Did I get that right?

Thinking like that is getting our troops killed.

...and now it's the Thought Police!

 

[av8torntn]

no senior geek you did not get it right but then again who would have thought that you would

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

To summarize: it is politically incorrect to say something that may decrease the self-esteem of our troops.

Did I get that right?
...and now it's the Thought Police!

Politically Incorrect? Not even the issue. It's a moral issue if anything.