Some Thoughts On War From Ron Kovic

Ya know who had the mission to guard our Corps TOC during deployement? No - not a company of Infantry. Not a battery of SHORAD Air Defenders. Not Delta Force. Not the (WI)MPs.

The Corps Band.

:thup:

:D
 
dmp said:
Ya know who had the mission to guard our Corps TOC during deployement? No - not a company of Infantry. Not a battery of SHORAD Air Defenders. Not Delta Force. Not the (WI)MPs.

The Corps Band.

:thup:

:D
Not surprised at that. I am of the mindset that ALL soldiers have value and all soldiers may (at one time or another) end up doing something outside their 'lane'. From cook (or band member) to the baddest, meanest SoB on the battlefield, those soldiers deserve credit for what they do... and we need everyone of them.
 
CSM said:
Not surprised at that. I am of the mindset that ALL soldiers have value and all soldiers may (at one time or another) end up doing something outside their 'lane'. From cook (or band member) to the baddest, meanest SoB on the battlefield, those soldiers deserve credit for what they do... and we need everyone of them.

My Drill Sergeant used to say: "When your position gets over-run, no matter WHERE your position is on the battlefield, you become an 11B."

Very true.
 
CSM said:
Ok... let's try this again. I had some technical difficulty getting back in to the board...all better now. SSG Asendorf musta hexed me! (j/k)

I did not discount Mr. Kovic's book because he sells it. I stated I had read it and did not agree with a lot of his PoV. You keep trying to present my position while ignoring what I have said and I am not buying it.

You mention a sliding scale...I have mentioned no other books. You keep trying to portray my position to fit your purposes and to denigrate my position on things. SO be it...I call that trolling.

If you want to come gunning for me, young SSG, bring BIG guns and your lunch!

I apologize for misjudging your background...it happens. I obviously will not be agreeing with your PoV too often.

I got me a ham sammich!

My point was that you attempted to discount his work telling us to "Keep in mind... [he's making money off this]" as if his capitalistic nature to sell his memoirs somehow tainted his view or shaded the telling of his view. Sometimes things are sensational because, well, they're sensational and for no other nefarious reason. I get this from my more liberal friends all the time and expect it from them. "Whoa dude, you make money working for a **gasp** corporation so your point of view is wildly distorted. Maybe hit this bong and you'll see the **truth**"

Now, while I will assume that you're not going to offer me a hit from a bong, I think that attempting to downplay (discount, shade, whatever you might call it...) his story simply because it's a story which has made money in print form is intellectually dishonest... unless, of course, you were kidding and I just didn't get it which would mean egg on my face... but you'll have to excuse me because I didn't see any accompanying smily!
 
jasendorf said:
I got me a ham sammich!

My point was that you attempted to discount his work telling us to "Keep in mind... [he's making money off this]" as if his capitalistic nature to sell his memoirs somehow tainted his view or shaded the telling of his view. Sometimes things are sensational because, well, they're sensational and for no other nefarious reason. I get this from my more liberal friends all the time and expect it from them. "Whoa dude, you make money working for a **gasp** corporation so your point of view is wildly distorted. Maybe hit this bong and you'll see the **truth**"

Now, while I will assume that you're not going to offer me a hit from a bong, I think that attempting to downplay (discount, shade, whatever you might call it...) his story simply because it's a story which has made money in print form is intellectually dishonest... unless, of course, you were kidding and I just didn't get it which would mean egg on my face... but you'll have to excuse me because I didn't see any accompanying smily!


You are assuming the guy isn't trying to hype the situation in attempts to sell product. CSM speculates that may be the case. Unless you 'are' the author, neither know - yet both assumptions are valid.
 
jasendorf said:
I got me a ham sammich!

My point was that you attempted to discount his work telling us to "Keep in mind... [he's making money off this]" as if his capitalistic nature to sell his memoirs somehow tainted his view or shaded the telling of his view. Sometimes things are sensational because, well, they're sensational and for no other nefarious reason. I get this from my more liberal friends all the time and expect it from them. "Whoa dude, you make money working for a **gasp** corporation so your point of view is wildly distorted. Maybe hit this bong and you'll see the **truth**"

Now, while I will assume that you're not going to offer me a hit from a bong, I think that attempting to downplay (discount, shade, whatever you might call it...) his story simply because it's a story which has made money in print form is intellectually dishonest... unless, of course, you were kidding and I just didn't get it which would mean egg on my face... but you'll have to excuse me because I didn't see any accompanying smily!


You dont get many smilies from a CSM (at least not the ones I know).

My position still is that part of the motivation for his current public statements is because he is making money from his book/movie rights. Let's face it, it is very popular to be anti war. To laud his works simply because they are anti-war is the intellectually dishonest stance (IMO) and trying to elevate his work for the same reason is also disengenuous.

His work is what it is. I can certainly understand his position (left a few chunks of my own meat in SE Asia) but that does not mean I have to agree with everything he says...and obviously I do not. That does not mean his postion (or mine for that matter) is anything less or more than it is. He is certainly entitled to his position and I am entitled to mine.

If you had read my posts you would know that I am not dismissing his work out of hand nor trying to denigrate anything. I am most ceratinly saying that he is making money from stating that position publicly (deny that if you can!) and that has got to have some impact (especially these days) on what he says. To imply that ALL his motives are altruistic is niave at best.
 
dmp said:
You are assuming the guy isn't trying to hype the situation in attempts to sell product. CSM speculates that may be the case. Unless you 'are' the author, neither know - yet both assumptions are valid.

This is true... but I'm going to give a veteran who lost limbs in the service of his country the benefit of the doubt.
 
jasendorf said:
This is true... but I'm going to give a veteran who lost limbs in the service of his country the benefit of the doubt.

Understood. You also have to understand that others have 'been there' as well and hold opposing views. Are you just as willing to allow those with opposing views to Mr. Kovic the same benefit?
 
I feel like we're Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas all of the sudden.

I can agree that part of his motivation for his current day statements is capitalistic in nature... and I won't begrudge him that. No one is 100% altruistic... not even me.

Of course being anti-war is popular. Anyone who is automatically pro-war has a screw loose. War should only be entered into reluctently if you ask me. And, I think that the sacrifices we ask of those serving in war should be lessened in any way we can without putting the security of our nation in jeopardy.
 
CSM said:
Understood. You also have to understand that others have 'been there' as well and hold opposing views. Are you just as willing to allow those with opposing views to Mr. Kovic the same benefit?

Of course. I promise that I won't assume that your or his views are magically wrong because there could be money involved. ;)
 
jasendorf said:
I feel like we're Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas all of the sudden.

I can agree that part of his motivation for his current day statements is capitalistic in nature... and I won't begrudge him that. No one is 100% altruistic... not even me.

Of course being anti-war is popular. Anyone who is automatically pro-war has a screw loose. War should only be entered into reluctently if you ask me. And, I think that the sacrifices we ask of those serving in war should be lessened in any way we can without putting the security of our nation in jeopardy.


I think this kid gloves approach is unfair to ask of the warriors. It increases their deaths immensely. Let's either tear shit up big or let them come home. Let's not put them in situations where they are sitting ducks unable to REALLY protect themselves with the big bangers.
 
jasendorf said:
I feel like we're Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas all of the sudden.

I can agree that part of his motivation for his current day statements is capitalistic in nature... and I won't begrudge him that. No one is 100% altruistic... not even me.

Of course being anti-war is popular. Anyone who is automatically pro-war has a screw loose. War should only be entered into reluctently if you ask me. And, I think that the sacrifices we ask of those serving in war should be lessened in any way we can without putting the security of our nation in jeopardy.


Now we are getting someplace!

I don't begrudge him that either. I submit that anyone who is automatically anti-war is also a bit screwy. I totally agree with your last two statements.

You sure are one high maintenance kind of guy there, SSG! Takes a lot of work to get you around to my way of thinking. You may not be *GASP* as liberal as you think you are!
 
jasendorf said:
Of course. I promise that I won't assume that your or his views are magically wrong because there could be money involved. ;)
Nice try but tap dancing wont work...they are not automatically 'right' either (money involved or not, limbs missing or not).
 
rtwngAvngr said:
I think this kid gloves approach is unfair to ask of the warriors. It increases their deaths immensely. Let's either tear shit up big or let them come home. Let's not put them in situations where they are sitting ducks unable to REALLY protect themselves with the big bangers.


Sacrifice. We fight like we do because we believe in life and liberty. Service men and women place the lives of civilians above their risks by their actions. I haven't forgotten 'honor'. Our service men and women fight honorably.
 
dmp said:
Sacrifice. We fight like we do because we believe in life and liberty. Service men and women place the lives of civilians above their risks by their actions. I haven't forgotten 'honor'. Our service men and women fight honorably.

That doesn't mean they should be treated like kleenex.
 
dmp said:
Soldiers? That's just not happening.

They roam around bumping into IEDs all day, it just seems pointless and unnecessary and WASTEFUL OF THEIR VERY LIVES. Let's use more strongarm tactics or bring them home. That's my uneducated opinion on the matter.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
They roam around bumping into IEDs all day, it just seems pointless and unnecessary and WASTEFUL OF THEIR VERY LIVES. Let's use more strongarm tactics or bring them home. That's my uneducated opinion on the matter.


Dude - you need to stop watching LMM, and actually get 'educated' on the matter.

:)
 
rtwngAvngr said:
I think this kid gloves approach is unfair to ask of the warriors. It increases their deaths immensely. Let's either tear shit up big or let them come home. Let's not put them in situations where they are sitting ducks unable to REALLY protect themselves with the big bangers.

While hoping not to incur the wrath of dmp... I think the lack of kid gloves is what dramatically increased the ranks of the Viet Cong (not to mention the insurgents led by Aguinaldo in the Philippines). Image matters whether it is justly earned or not.

I think a lesson learned during Vietnam was that it is impossible to bomb a third-world country into agreement with us. The kid gloves approach makes the job of those serving over there incredibly, almost unbearably, difficult. I wish I could say that we could just drag them all home right now. In fact, you can't imagine how much I wish that was a realistic possibility. But, it isn't. The only possible action right now is to finish the job... unfortunately, I think history has proven that killing a foreign country into submission rarely works. The British weren't able to do it with us and we weren't able to do it with the NVA and the Viet Cong and I don't think we'd see it work in Iraq or Afghanistan (just ask the British).
 
jasendorf said:
While hoping not to incur the wrath of dmp... I think the lack of kid gloves is what dramatically increased the ranks of the Viet Cong (not to mention the insurgents led by Aguinaldo in the Philippines). Image matters whether it is justly earned or not.

I think a lesson learned during Vietnam was that it is impossible to bomb a third-world country into agreement with us. The kid gloves approach makes the job of those serving over there incredibly, almost unbearably, difficult. I wish I could say that we could just drag them all home right now. In fact, you can't imagine how much I wish that was a realistic possibility. But, it isn't. The only possible action right now is to finish the job... unfortunately, I think history has proven that killing a foreign country into submission rarely works. The British weren't able to do it with us and we weren't able to do it with the NVA and the Viet Cong and I don't think we'd see it work in Iraq or Afghanistan (just ask the British).


Screw agreement. As long as they do what we say...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top