Bad News for Liberals: Military Deaths Lower than some years of "Peace"

[darin]

Maybe not the Generals but I'd say I am smarter than the people that are currently telling them what to do. The generals take orders and do as they are told and do a damned good job with what they have as well.

Immie

What that tells me is you've never been around senior executives or leaders. I've sat 2 feet from 3-star Generals and heard them talk about strategy and war fighting and planning and training. The level of expertise generally required to get to that level is ASTOUNDING. I know many Majors who retire because they won't get promoted - one of whom is now a contractor on post. This guy would pwn ANYBODY I've met when it comes to discussing the operational Army.

My point is this - at least in the Army - to rise to the level of Colonel or General takes unparalleled leadership, dedication, knowledge of not only how to USE a fighting force, but how to deploy, maintain, sustain, administer, and re-deploy thousands of "20-year-olds-with-weapons".

To see people on a forum claim intellectual superiority to some of our finest (however humanly-flawed) military minds is nauseating.

Look - you have to admit - the simple truth is you AREN'T more-capable or you'd be doing it. If you were as smart or capable as you say, you absolutely would be making a LOT of money DOING it - not simply bragging about it on a forum.

KnowwhatImean?





[edit]
I want to address a misconception. Your statement "Generals take orders" is FAIRLY wrong.

Most of the time it works like this:

The head-guy or gal asks his/her subordinates for THEIR plan to accomplish a task. The subordinates' staffs work night and day drafting a 'how-to' plan. Later, the subordinates take their plans to the boss. The boss reviews the plans and shoots holes in it, which have to be fixed. After they are fixed, the boss gives the 'order' to execute.

The way you're describing it is some autonomous oder-making robot sits isolated in a room and spits out direction. By the time a 3-star, or even a Colonel gets an 'order', he/she's has PLENTY of chances for input. Most of the time.

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you realize there are fewer people who eat mashed potatoes during the course of a week than there are monkies in Zanzibar? Act now!

[Immanuel]

Look - you have to admit - the simple truth is you AREN'T more-capable or you'd be doing it. If you were as smart or capable as you say, you absolutely would be making a LOT of money DOING it - not simply bragging about it on a forum.

KnowwhatImean?

I never once said I was smarter than our military leaders. I said the people that are leading them... as in the Bush Administration. And maybe, it is not smarter than... maybe it is just not as corrupt, or prideful or what have you. Maybe, my priorities would have been different. No, there is no maybe about that... my priorities would have been to defend this country and not occupy another nation. Big difference... we are not talking intelligence here, we are talking ethics.

Immie

[PostmodernProphet]

Again - for the what? 5th time?

I pulled out those numbers to illustrate a point. That point is this:

"There are many causes of Death among those who serve in our Military. Death as the result of hostile action is one of many."

Our soldiers are NOT dropping like flies in Iraq, as MOST of the LMM would have our populace believe. In fact, there were MORE DEATHS, over-all, during the 1990s, than there has been in the 2000s due to this war. News organizations and liberals get all horny when an RPG kills our soldiers. Democrats and others rant and rave and blabber and foam at the mouth when talking about our soldiers being in "Harm's way"....yet there is NO EXPRESSED CONCERN over deaths in our Military, EXCEPT when it's a death from a War lead by a President they HATE. These numbers show ANY service to our nation puts a person in "Harm's way" - "Getting killed on the battlefield is one way that people in the military wind up dying, but it's not the main way."

there are many reasons why it was good that we took action in Iraq.....there are many reasons why we need to continue until the job is finished.....but if the point you are trying to make is that "it's okay, we haven't lost that many soldiers"....then I am not with you....that reason sucks and you shouldn't have raised it.....

[darin]

there are many reasons why it was good that we took action in Iraq.....there are many reasons why we need to continue until the job is finished.....but if the point you are trying to make is that "it's okay, we haven't lost that many soldiers"....then I am not with you....that reason sucks and you shouldn't have raised it.....

Nope. That's not the point I'm making.

I'm saying Military folk die. They die in service to their nation. In fact, more have died from suicide and 'accidents' than in recent wars. It's the nature of he business.

[darin]

I never once said I was smarter than our military leaders. I said the people that are leading them... as in the Bush Administration.

Silly - the leaders of our military leaders ARE our Military Leaders.

[Immanuel]

Most of the time it works like this:

The head-guy or gal asks his/her subordinates for THEIR plan to accomplish a task. The subordinates' staffs work night and day drafting a 'how-to' plan. Later, the subordinates take their plans to the boss. The boss reviews the plans and shoots holes in it, which have to be fixed. After they are fixed, the boss gives the 'order' to execute.

The way you're describing it is some autonomous oder-making robot sits isolated in a room and spits out direction. By the time a 3-star, or even a Colonel gets an 'order', he/she's has PLENTY of chances for input. Most of the time.

The Head Guy in this case would be a Senior Bush Administration Official. Yes, he MIGHT have asked for the input of the Generals... asking and taking the advice are not necessarily the same things.

Aren't there accusations that Bush told them to come up with a plan of war before 9/11? I do not know if that is true or not, but if they are then it would seem the idea was not to fight terrorists, but rather to occupy Iraq. which would lead to questions as to what ARE we doing in Iraq right now.

Okay, so maybe I am turning in to a conspiracy theorist and maybe I do hate Bush, but I love my country and I honor the men and women who are dieing today for us.

Immie

[darin]

You think bush is dumb because you don't like him - that's the problem. Further, you assume ANYONE he's appointed or endorsed is dumb because you don't like Bush.

[Immanuel]

You think bush is dumb because you don't like him - that's the problem. Further, you assume ANYONE he's appointed or endorsed is dumb because you don't like Bush.

I didn't say dumb or stupid. You put those words in there.

I do not hate him.

And I don't think the Admin is dumb.

Now, if you exchanged the word corrupt for dumb, I would agree with you.


I do not believe any of them are dumb. It takes a hell of a lot of smarts to get where they are. I cannot and will not deny that.

I do, however, believe that the system of government that we have at the moment, corrupts these people. By the time they get to where they are they have had to sell their souls way too often.

That is the plain and simple truth of my beliefs about our political leaders today.

Immie

[darin]

Maybe not the Generals but I'd say I am smarter than the people that are currently telling them what to do. The generals take orders and do as they are told and do a damned good job with what they have as well.

Immie

So - are you SMARTER than they are, or are you just more 'ethical' in your mind?

[Immanuel]

So - are you SMARTER than they are, or are you just more 'ethical' in your mind?

I'll put my ethics up against Bush's, Cheney's or any of them in a heart beat.

And again, you brought the discussion of "intelligence" into the fray, not me:

Why aren't you in the Army? I mean, you seem to have been blessed with Superior Military Strategy insights. You know better how to fight this war than, say, LTG Dubik, who now oversees training of the Iraqi forces?

I don't think I'm smarter... but I do think I am more ethical than any politician out there.

Immie

[Immanuel]

So - are you SMARTER than they are, or are you just more 'ethical' in your mind?

And here, post #78, is where I clarified what I was saying.

I never once said I was smarter than our military leaders. I said the people that are leading them... as in the Bush Administration. And maybe, it is not smarter than... maybe it is just not as corrupt, or prideful or what have you. Maybe, my priorities would have been different. No, there is no maybe about that... my priorities would have been to defend this country and not occupy another nation. Big difference... we are not talking intelligence here, we are talking ethics.

Immie

[darin]

And here, post #78, is where I clarified what I was saying.



Immie

Okay. So...Bush (and those he appoints) is (are) less ethical than you. You should run for office.

[Immanuel]

Okay. So...Bush (and those he appoints) is (are) less ethical than you. You should run for office.

Heck no!

Don't want it.

I've said it before (on this board I think, but maybe not) and I will say it here. I believe that the vast majority of individuals who enter the world of politics do so with the desire to help this country. However, by the time they reach the level of Congress or the Presidency they have had to "give in" on their moral beliefs so many times for the funding it takes to get to where they are that they have been corrupted.

I don't want the job and if it paid more money every year than Bill Gates has acquired in his entire life time, I still would not take the job. I'm not saying I would not like to put my thoughts and beliefs into action, but I don't want the temptation. Thank you for the nomination, but as a decent human being I must emphatically decline.

God Bless,

Immie