I've had to opportunity and the honor to speak with many young men who have returned from Iraq and listened to their stories. These young men showed an amazing amount of compassion and restraint for bloodthirsty adrenalin junkies.

I don't remember calling anyone bloodthirsty. Where exactly did you see that in my post? I respect everything they do, but I could tell you a few Iraq stories from soldiers you probably would refuse to believe.

I don't have stats. However, I speak with very solid confidence that there is a 4-1 margin in votes by military personnel for Republicans. Maybe some fine link artists like cch5432 or Habib can find supporting documentation.

 

You totally avoided my questions, but I will answer yours first. When 3/4 of a military unit holds to a position, I side with the majority on what the general consensus is.

This is a story from the last election but it backs up what you said about military support being 4-1 for the President. While maybe not completely indicative of today's numbers it does support the thought that the soldiers in the military have seemed to overwhelmingly support the republican candidate.

Link

Presuming that I am the brainiac (I'm also devilishly good-looking) of which you speak, I did not say that we should vote for the favorite of the military, I just want to know why the military at least seems to vote overwhlmingly Republican, and why, when it comes to affairs of war their opinions don't seem to bear as much impact. Its a perfectly legitimate query.

 

I don't mean to but in late to this Hearsay but it "sounds" like you are saying the military holds sway over who we should vote for. I think the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job of trying to keep the military a "servant" of the civilian government and not vice versa. They have a voice and a vote but no more so than the civillian population.

 

As to why the notion that they have a better handle on things in Iraq, I agree. But I would say that this young man speaks his heart for himself and probably those right now beside him, but that doesn't mean he speaks for all veterans of this war or soldiers currently engaged. To be honest I've had 3 church members pull duty in Iraq in the last 4 years. Everyone of them came back with a less than enthusiastic view for the mission and the experience. They went because their country asked them but they have been changed by what they went through and felt a little lost once they got there as to what their mission was accomplishing. Now if I were to base Iraq strategy on those three views that I know, it would probably not be in the best interest of this country or our military.

 

I would also mention that for other servicemen I've known they too are staunch Republicans. Part of that is conviction and part of it is the reality that the GOP is historically big on Military Spending. They feel with the GOP in charge they can get what they need and also make a better living and o a better job. I can't fault them for that. But sometimes the reasons for backing one party over another is about spending and influence. That's human nature.

I don't remember calling anyone bloodthirsty. Where exactly did you see that in my post? I respect everything they do, but I could tell you a few Iraq stories from soldiers you probably would refuse to believe.

 

 

I'm sure there are some things that people wouldn't want to believe (why would this war be any different than any war before it and any war that will follow it?); but that's completely different from your statement that they are brainwashed, if your intent is to tie the brainwashing to turning them into people that are active duty because they want to go on the "ultimate hunt". If that wasn't your intent, simply say so and that will clear things up. Methinks Jim has been watching too many Rambo-like movies if he really things that there is any significant percentage of people on active duty because they just wanted to go on the "ultimate hunt".

 

To the extent there is something akin to brainwashing going on, the objective is not to turn them into people salivating to go on the "ultimate hunt", but rather is to form a very cohesive fighting unit, where soldiers and Marines, put their individual self interest behind their unit's interest, to follow orders and to accomplish the mission.

I don't remember calling anyone bloodthirsty. Where exactly did you see that in my post? I respect everything they do, but I could tell you a few Iraq stories from soldiers you probably would refuse to believe.

 

That was from Schue. You called them adrenaline junkies and thrill seekers.

I don't remember calling anyone bloodthirsty. Where exactly did you see that in my post? I respect everything they do, but I could tell you a few Iraq stories from soldiers you probably would refuse to believe.

Jim Shue said they were bloodthirsty.

I don't mean to but in late to this Hearsay but it "sounds" like you are saying the military holds sway over who we should vote for. I think the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job of trying to keep the military a "servant" of the civilian government and not vice versa. They have a voice and a vote but no more so than the civillian population.

 

As to why the notion that they have a better handle on things in Iraq, I agree. But I would say that this young man speaks his heart for himself and probably those right now beside him, but that doesn't mean he speaks for all veterans of this war or soldiers currently engaged. To be honest I've had 3 church members pull duty in Iraq in the last 4 years. Everyone of them came back with a less than enthusiastic view for the mission and the experience. They went because their country asked them but they have been changed by what they went through and felt a little lost once they got there as to what their mission was accomplishing. Now if I were to base Iraq strategy on those three views that I know, it would probably not be in the best interest of this country or our military.

 

I would also mention that for other servicemen I've known they too are staunch Republicans. Part of that is conviction and part of it is the reality that the GOP is historically big on Military Spending. They feel with the GOP in charge they can get what they need and also make a better living and o a better job. I can't fault them for that. But sometimes the reasons for backing one party over another is about spending and influence. That's human nature.

 

 

Fair post. Curious to know if the 3 members were in Iraq since the surge or before the surge? Some of my friends over there before and after the surge say its night and day.

 

Heck one of them (a Marine officer and pretty strong Democrat that I e mail with regularly) is livid about the Democrats trying to say McCain will just be another third term for Bush. He said that if Bush had listened years ago to McCain about troop strength, there would be many more American service members alive today and if Bush hadn't done the surge he might not be alive today. And he said that McCain's willingness to take on Bush on the troop strength issue was one of the major reasons he was going to vote for McCain and not Obama. So it really irritates him when they call McCain "McBush". I asked him why he wasn't going to vote for Obama since he is a pretty strong Democrat. He said that while Obama is a very bright young man, but is not ready to lead the country (the whole experience thing; maybe he was listening to Fox too much). When I then countered with Palin's inexperience and the "heart beat" away argument, he responded with: you have to go with the cards you are dealt when you play poker, not the next hand you may get.

 

And you are right about service people believing that R's generally are more pro military spending (for good reason I believe). I have to tell you that Clinton destroyed (and that is an appropriate word and not hyperbole) military morale while he was in office. These guys on active duty understand that given our small military (number wise) our military has to have the best technology and weapons money can buy. You can dang well bet that they are concerned that if Obama gets elected and listens to what Pelosi and Reid want to do, that military spending will be cut and they may lose their lives as a result.

Fair post. Curious to know if the 3 members were in Iraq since the surge or before the surge? Some of my friends over there before and after the surge say its night and day. .

 

That's a good point. A soldier that I corresponded with was in Iraq during the transition and changed his viewpoint considerably before he returned home.

Fair post. Curious to know if the 3 members were in Iraq since the surge or before the surge? Some of my friends over there before and after the surge say its night and day.

 

Heck one of them (a Marine officer and pretty strong Democrat that I e mail with regularly) is livid about the Democrats trying to say McCain will just be another third term for Bush. He said that if Bush had listened years ago to McCain about troop strength, there would be many more American service members alive today and if Bush hadn't done the surge he might not be alive today. And he said that McCain's willingness to take on Bush on the troop strength issue was one of the major reasons he was going to vote for McCain and not Obama. So it really irritates him when they call McCain "McBush". I asked him why he wasn't going to vote for Obama since he is a pretty strong Democrat. He said that while Obama is a very bright young man, but is not ready to lead the country (the whole experience thing; maybe he was listening to Fox too much). When I then countered with Palin's inexperience and the "heart beat" away argument, he responded with: you have to go with the cards you are dealt when you play poker, not the next hand you may get.

 

And you are right about service people believing that R's generally are more pro military spending (for good reason I believe). I have to tell you that Clinton destroyed (and that is an appropriate word and not hyperbole) military morale while he was in office. These guys on active duty understand that given our small military (number wise) our military has to have the best technology and weapons money can buy. You can dang well bet that they are concerned that if Obama gets elected and listens to what Pelosi and Reid want to do, that military spending will be cut and they may lose their lives as a result.

 

Before the surge. And you may have a point if the current climate is different (as it seems).

 

As to your points about Bush, that is what I've been saying all along. I never believed we should have gone to war. That's the first thing. But once we were in there EVERY expert was saying we were undermanned and not as supported as we should be and Bush ignored that counsel because it was not what he or his advisors wanted to hear.

 

Concerning your last paragraph, I would say that is pretty much what I've heard from career military people ad hominum.

Are you saying that we should not have campaigns? Just take a poll of the military?

 

Or should we ALL acknowledge that what they are laying down their lives for is my right to dissent without being punished? My right to vote for whomever I wish? My right to be for gays in the military? My right to NOT vote if I choose?

 

Isn't that the "Freedom" that they're fighting for?

 

Yes! God Bless every one of them. We don't have to agree with their choices but we doggone sure need to respect them.

Before the surge. And you may have a point if the current climate is different (as it seems).

 

As to your points about Bush, that is what I've been saying all along. I never believed we should have gone to war. That's the first thing. But once we were in there EVERY expert was saying we were undermanned and not as supported as we should be and Bush ignored that counsel because it was not what he or his advisors wanted to hear.

 

Concerning your last paragraph, I would say that is pretty much what I've heard from career military people ad hominum.

 

I know this is a jack and I am not a military or foreign policy expert, but I want to again throw out a possible reason for Bush not doing the "surge" from the get go: he may have had concerns (like his father did when the father decided not to pursue Hussein into Iraq during Gulf War 1) about the ramifications with the other Gulf countries if he looked like an occupier and not a liberator. Had we put in so many troops that we looked more like an occupier and not a liberator, how would the other Gulf countries had reacted? How would the Iraqi people have reacted? Would it have supported criticisms that we were there just for the oil? I do believe that sometimes you have to let things get really bad before you can do the good. We are winning the insurgency war in Iraq because the Iraqi people finally became so sick of the insurgents killing the Iraqis, ruining the electrical system and disrupting their lives, that they had to start working with us to defeat what was to them the greater evil. In other words, in order to be consider a good guy, there has to be a bad guy. If we had occupied the country, that may have not been possible.

 

No reason to beat me up too badly as I realize this is entirely speculation on my part and I am trying to find a reason for Bush not to support doing the surge to begin with. Its my nature. I'm still one of the 5% of people that trusts our elected officials and believes they make decisions in our, and not their, best interests. And I felt that way about Clinton and Carter too when they were in office (heck, I even believed Clinton when he said he did not have sex with that woman, I really did). Perhaps I'm gullible, but I believe everyone until they give me a reason to no longer believe them (and that's not a good quality in a lawyer by the way :laugh:)

So we all agree that some brainwashing does occur and their commander in chief would be?

So we all agree that some brainwashing does occur and their commander in chief would be?

 

Can you clarify the last part of the sentence? Not sure what you mean.

So we all agree that some brainwashing does occur and their commander in chief would be?

 

No, we do not. There is a distinct difference in mental preparation and "brainwashing". Brainwashing implies removing the capability of independent thought on a particular issue or issues. I have not witnessed that in anyone I talked to. In fact, I have been quite impressed with most.