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 think the intense disciplinary training that enlistees go through goes a long way toward enabling people to suppress certain unsociable behavior tendencies. Considering the extremely intense and high-stress situations our military personnel have to undergo, it's amazing there aren't more regrettable incidents of excessive force, and that is to the military's credit.

Sorry guys, completely forgot about this thread. It's been a busy week.

 

That's a ridiculous assertion, IMO.

 

A lot of liberals (particularly left-leaning entertainers and performers) have said and currently say things such as "Why do they always send the poor?" (Ozzy, Serj Tanken, etc.). Is it the poor or the bloodthirsty?

 

Maybe you don't agree with that, but I am just saying that many subscribe to that theory.

 

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.

 

Many of you are operating under some incorrect assumption that I somehow attached more than the qualifier "some" to this. To act like there aren't some folks in the military who tend to be "Gung Ho" to an excessive degree means you're just putting your heads in the sand. There's some, but I never said most or all. I stand by my statement.

 

I believe you should withdraw your statement and apologize to our military personal. My son was in the Marines for 8 years and was by no means "bloodthirsty". He was not an avid hunter, he did go a couple of times. What you are doing is no better than a rascist stereotyping minorities.

 

Lighten up, and don't be so emotional. My brother did tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. I've heard many stories, good and bad. Met lots of his buddies, some nuts, some great people. You act as though I said every single enlistee was somehow bloodthirsty, and I said no such ridiculous thing. I thank your son, his buddies, my brother and his buddies, LN, my father and grandfather and their buddies for their service to this country. I apologize for nothing other than you getting emotional and reading what you wanted to read.

 

This qualifies as the worst, most offensive, most inaccurate thing I've ever read on this site. Good gracious. I'm actually glad that someone with such a belief does not support the same man I do for President and is a member of a different political party.

 

Good Lord. Lighten up and don't be so emotional.

Sorry guys, completely forgot about this thread. It's been a busy week.

 

 

 

 

 

Many of you are operating under some incorrect assumption that I somehow attached more than the qualifier "some" to this. To act like there aren't some folks in the military who tend to be "Gung Ho" to an excessive degree means you're just putting your heads in the sand. There's some, but I never said most or all. I stand by my statement.

 

 

 

Lighten up, and don't be so emotional. My brother did tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. I've heard many stories, good and bad. Met lots of his buddies, some nuts, some great people. You act as though I said every single enlistee was somehow bloodthirsty, and I said no such ridiculous thing. I thank your son, his buddies, my brother and his buddies, LN, my father and grandfather and their buddies for their service to this country. I apologize for nothing other than you getting emotional and reading what you wanted to read.

 

 

 

Good Lord. Lighten up and don't be so emotional.

 

When you post offensive things about the young men and women risking their lives in the military, you are dang right I'm going to be so emotional. So you can keep your advise to me to yourself.

 

Here's your original post:

 

Guys, let's not avoid the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Today's military is a volunteer profession. Doesn't it make a lot of sense that those who join the military -- and I can't stress the phrase as a general rule enough -- are perhaps a bit bloodthirsty to begin with, and wouldn't really be predisposed to voting Democrat under any circumstances?

 

You show me the word "some" in there and I'll smooch your fanny on Fountain Square in Cincinnati at noon on Friday. To the contrary, while your sentence is somewhat difficult to understand, if I interpreted it correctly, you were saying that as a general rule, those that joined up voluntarily are perhaps a bit bloodthirsty to begin with. The phrase "general rule" to this attorney that drafts documents all day long, means the majority, not the exception. Thus you were stating that the majority of men and women who volunteer to risk their lives for this country are a bit blood thirsty to begin with. And you can't see why people get emotional. Simply amazing but certainly not surprising considering the source. Perhaps you would feel different about your post if you had followed in your father's and brother's footsteps. And I'll believe that your brother and father agree with your premise when they tell it to my face.

Its both. You asked for why their opinion should have more impact than others, and I believe our response has a significant impact on morale.

 

 

If I were a single issue voter, and the war in Iraq were my single issue, I could see where I would consider the soldier's opinion more significantly. However, I'm not a single-issue voter. And, like it or not, we're stuck in Iraq for quite a while longer. No matter who sits on the royal throne in the White Castle in DC, we won't be out real soon. I'm no idiot (I know...that's a news flash for some. ).