Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Apr 24, 2006.
Wow ... 22 years old.
Do you remember when you were 22?
Fresh out of college?
Got your first job?
Hanging out with your gal?
Your whole world ahead of you??
Yup I do actually, but that utopia you speak of wasn't my story. Lets see at 22 I had a 4 year old and a 2 year old, I was a Specialist in the Army. Stationed at the Pentagon and had a plane fly into my place of duty! No college at the time, No just hanging out. Nope I ensured that our Nuclear messaging systems were functioning right in the case of a nuclear attack, I was also helped to ensure that the Missile detection systems worked properly. Its sad but the man was performing his duties and next time you shouldn't compare the average 22 year old civilian with the average 22 year old service member, they aren't on the same page of maturity!
But, they are on the same page of life. It's one thing to fight a war that must be fought, but it must be so hard on soldiers and their families to have to constantly rationalize a war so as to give greater meaning to what their loved ones are doing in Iraq. It's honorable to die serving your country, but it's more meaningful to die serving a noble cause, which Iraq is not, and it's more honorable to stand up and serve the truth, even if that goes against the Party line.
As a soldier you do not get to make that distinction!
That is a valid point, with one distinction, and that is "while still serving",
which is why they (generals) do not speak their minds while still serving.
After retirement, it is their right, their duty to speak up.
It seems that more and more of them are coming forward every day.
Soon after Rummy took over a lot of high ranking generals retired. They didn't agree with the changes he wanted to implement, it is not a new issue.
Seems to me that the resistance to change is how Rummy is justifying the attacks on him. As if to say they are opposed to his transformation policy. Is that what you are saying?
As I see it, very few of the recent attacks on him have come from generals/etc who retired five years ago, although there are some of those. Instead, these are guys that served under him as recently as six months ago.
Rumsfeld is thrilled with these latest developments. 7 car bombs yesterday in Bagdad...more in Egypt....chaos and mayhem..and Rummy is "thrilled"
Sometimes when you VOLUNTEER to join the Armed Forces a funny thing happens - you end up in a war
No, back in the summer of 01 Rummy started to question some of the ways of thinking in the Pentagon. He wanted a lighter force geared toward urban combat as opposed to the convential cold war style that was in place. He wanted to extend the length of time people could serve, he didn't understand why a guy would be forced out at 20 or 30 years realizing that most of these people were in their prime producing years. He realized their limitations in battle but he wanted to put them in the "Desk" jobs and extend the limit on length of service. He wanted to change the cold war mentality, he also wanted to restructure the military strategically around the world. A lot of the generals working on the Joint Staff didn't like it, they also didn't like the fact that one their own was turned down for the JCS job after Shelton retired. Rummy chose Myers, which p!ssed them off originally.
Now I am not saying that all of the generals that called for Rummy's resignation were part of what I described, all I am saying is it is not a new issue. A lot of people didn't pay attention to this stuff because the news media didn't care, which meant the majority of the people in the country didn't care. Then it was over shadowed by 9-11 and a lot of generals were forced off of the JCS as it was restructured by Myers and Rummy. They also have had a lot of resistence by the civilian's in the Pentagon as well, due to them trying to make changes to the civilian system (almost all for the good) most notably making it easier to fire an incompetent GS worker which nearly takes an act of congress.
Separate names with a comma.