Something I Think You Army Guys Might Like

[Annie]

*

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So are all these "sayings" yours or are you taking them from somewhere and not giving credit where credit is due?

 

[Annie]

So are all these "sayings" yours or are you taking them from somewhere and not giving credit where credit is due?

I think it interesting that the only ones to comment, were likely not military.

 

[Annie]

The sayings of others are in “quotes” - the rest are my own acquired by much learning and more experience.

This thread initially poked fun at the military; however, I think that we can all agree that the army is serious business. Certainly, jest has its proper moment, but the rest of the hour should be devoted to serious discussion.

The original post did not poke fun at the military. It was a humorous piece, written by someone who is still serving.
What are the sources of your 'learning and experience'?

 

[Annie]

The sayings of others are referenced by attribution, citation or direct quotes - the rest are my own acquired by much learning and more experience.

This thread initially poked fun at the military; however, I think that we can all agree that the army is serious business. Certainly, jest has its proper moment, but the rest of the hour should be devoted to serious discussion.

So #3 is all your original thoughts, acquired by much learning and more experience? I mean there are no "quote marks", nor attribution, nor citations. Funny how you deleted the recent post on the topic and replaced it:

Originally Posted by R. Crookshank View Post
The sayings of others are in “quotes” - the rest are my own acquired by much learning and more experience.

This thread initially poked fun at the military; however, I think that we can all agree that the army is serious business. Certainly, jest has its proper moment, but the rest of the hour should be devoted to serious discussion.

and replaced it with:

The sayings of others are referenced by attribution, citation or direct quotes - the rest are my own acquired by much learning and more experience.

This thread initially poked fun at the military; however, I think that we can all agree that the army is serious business. Certainly, jest has its proper moment, but the rest of the hour should be devoted to serious discussion.

 

[Annie]

The original post was deleted to make the noted correction regarding attribution, citation or direct quote. For example in Post #3, supra, I wrote: it is said that an army marches on its stomach; (emphasis added); which phrase is not in "quotes" but attributed to the saying of another and not myself.

As for your personal question regarding my learning and experience, I am considered a scholar in several areas of academic discipline, including military science; and I previously served as a regular army commissioned officer with experience leading men in combat.

Now that's clarification. Thank you. So you teach military science?

 

[Annie]

No. My credentials are that I am a graduate of the U.S. Army Infantry School Advanced Course (IOAC), and the Army War College (two-year correspondence course). I served two tours of duty in Vietnam; the first as a combat commander with units of the 101st Airborne Division, and the second as a combat advisor with the U.S. Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV). I resigned my commission at the end of the Vietnam war to read for law; and am now retired after thirty years federal practice. My continued interest in military science is purely academic.

Then, thank you for your service! Now as for the serious discussion, it would be a better idea IMO if you had started your own thread rather than derailing mine.

There was no 'poking fun' at the military in the OP, well perhaps a bit to Navy and Air Force, but to be expected considering the writer.

 

[eots]

what is this nonsense about derailing threads anyway. does that mean whenever you post something all you want to hear is kudos or what ? I have never really understood this derailing reference one person post one opinion that you don't like and what its game over your thread been ruined ? it seems to me that is the nature of a thread or conversation is that it starts with a topic and can branch off into other areas .often times ,like in this case far more interesting than the original post

 

[trobinett]

what is this nonsense about derailing threads anyway. does that mean whenever you post something all you want to hear is kudos or what ? I have never really understood this derailing reference one person post one opinion that you don't like and what its game over your thread been ruined ? it seems to me that is the nature of a thread or conversation is that it starts with a topic and can branch off into other areas .often times ,like in this case far more interesting than the original post

That is surely a matter of opinion.

 

[eots]

That is surely a matter of opinion.

hey get back on topic then ! I believe it was some stupid cartoon and this stuff about preemptively whacking all possible future threats or something

 

[Annie]

“That’s why we have an Army and not just a Navy and an Air Force with trillions of dollars worth of super weapons.”
_______________


Kathianne: With your permission, I would like to post a serious comment on the above-quoted reference in the parodied Field Manual regarding the current state of our armed forces.

Sure if your heart is just set upon doing so. First though, I think I'll add a bit to what you're quoting, just so it can be seen for the pointed parody it was written as:

FM 3-0 Operations for SAMS Students

1. The world is full of bad people. Mind you, not everyone is bad, but there are enough of them out there that we have to arm ourselves. Over the years, we’ve done a pretty good job of that. When the bad people scare us or hurt us, we have to whack them. This is hard, because you want to try and whack the bad people where they live and not where we live. Naturally, the bad people don’t want to get whacked, and they feel pretty smug because we aren’t mean enough to whack all of them at once. So we have to go over to where they live and whack them carefully. That’s why we have an Army and not just a Navy and an Air Force with trillions of dollars worth of super weapons. We don’t get such expensive weapons, because we break them a lot more rapidly. Even worse, the bad people can get close enough that they can whack Soldiers even though they get whacked a lot more.

2. Whacking bad people is dangerous. It’s also hard. It’s easier and safer to whack the bad people if you do it from the air or the ocean. That’s because the bad people can’t afford the super weapons that do stuff from there. That’s why we have to be nice to the Navy and Air Force; so they will whack bad people with great enthusiasm. Unfortunately, sometimes the Navy and Air Force get too enthusiastic at whacking people and they hurt Army Soldiers and other not so bad people that ended up in the wrong place. That’s why we have to spend a lot of effort telling them where we are and what we need them to do. We also try to stay out of their way when they are too busy whacking cities and countries and stuff. We also have to do a lot of explaining to civilian bureaucrats about what they need to do to clean up after the bad people get whacked. This is called “unified action” but it’s really like going over to the neighbors to apologize for breaking their window.

3. What makes this really hard is sorting out the not so bad people from the bad people. We try to whack the bad guys and miss the good guys. Of course, the not so bad people are all upset that we are over there whacking people. They want us to go back to where we live and leave them alone, unless the bad people are whacking them as well. They tend to go postal unless we help them keep their families alive and well. The best way to do that is to let their politicians and police do it while they stay out of our way. Unfortunately, their politicians and police screw this up a lot so we have to take time out from whacking the bad guys (or tricking the Air Force and Navy into doing that) and help out the not so bad people around us. Even though they won’t like us, sometimes they help us to find the bad people. This also helps us calm down the Air Force guys who would whack everybody at once. This is called “full spectrum operations.”

....

 

[Annie]

CS, don't you think that the success of the surge, the rejection of what went before already proves your point? Rumsfeld's ideas worked fine for invasion, but failed miserably in keeping the peace, do you think you are the only one who saw that?

 

[trobinett]

hey get back on topic then ! I believe it was some stupid cartoon and this stuff about preemptively whacking all possible future threats or something

Well, THAT certainly clears it up................

 

[Annie]

The success of the initial invasion (which was planned and executed under the Division organization) was offset by the failure of the subsequent occupation. The generals told Rumsfeld that we needed more troops on the ground to do the job; but he wouldn’t listen to them; and replaced any that opposed him with “yes-men.” The new “Surge” strategy is an admission of the fact; but, for the same reason (i.e., not enough troops), is doomed to failure. As retired Gen. John Batiste (former commander of the First Infantry Division) said: “He (Rumsfeld) served up our great military a huge bowl of chicken feces, and ever since then, our military and our country have been trying to turn that bowl into chicken salad; and it’s not working.”

Good job of recapping what I said in response to your post.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The claim that there were not enough National Guard or regular forces to help in Katrina is a bald faced LIE. 2/3rd of the National Guard in that state and others were still IN state. The Military was prepared to respond as well, but the Governor refused for 3 critical days to ask for them, playing then a game of "they should have come" knowing that until she signed or otherwise legally authorized their deployment, they could do nothing.

Further she placed the Guard in HER neck of the woods, not deployed to New Orleans, so that after the strorm with all the roads and most of the landing areas destroyed or blocked they couldn't get there quickly to help.

If Bush had illegally ordered the Army in with OUT the Governors authority we would now be listening to you and others claiming he tried to usurp her Authority and power.

 

[Annie]

See? The idea that Katrina was brought into a thread that was about a parody of Army jargon is what derailing is about. That's for the simpletons that wondered.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

See? The idea that Katrina was brought into a thread that was about a parody of Army jargon is what derailing is about. That's for the simpletons that wondered.

He made the claim here so the response has to be HERE. And as has been noted by our resident tin foil hat wearer, you don't get to decide what is and is not appropriate response in a thread once it is started. Nothing posted here is a violation of any rules and it all has a link to something to do with the original post. Not that even that is required.

And that is MR. Simpleton or Gunny Simpleton to you dear. )

 

[Annie]

He made the claim here so the response has to be HERE. And as has been noted by our resident tin foil hat wearer, you don't get to decide what is and is not appropriate response in a thread once it is started. Nothing posted here is a violation of any rules and it all has a link to something to do with the original post. Not that even that is required.

And that is MR. Simpleton or Gunny Simpleton to you dear. )

I never said it was. Get a grip. It was my reason though for suggesting another thread. Some will never get it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt:

Your reading of my post is dyslexic. The reference to Hurricane Katrina was a general (not specific) comment to the readiness capability of National Guard units to respond to natural disasters due to the deployment of these units overseas. The point is that we don’t have enough military forces. Don't you agree?

And we don't have enough because Clinton cut the military hard. BUT the Guard was NOT cut, claiming it was is a non starter. In fact reserve and Guard got active Units the Army cut.

The Democrats do NOT want more troops, it is just like the supposed claim they support a draft, it is a political trick, pushed to it, they WILL vote against any increase of any real size and would not support a real Draft. Those things cost money and they don't spend money on the Military unless forced to.

But yes we need at least 600000 more ACTIVE duty PERMANENT troops, most in the Army with a bit of an Increase in the Marine Corps.

With the dems taking over though we won't need it because they won't pursue any active military action anywhere that doesn't already have troops deployed. They think we can use police methods to oppose regimes and global terrorists. After 4 years of Dem control we will be right back to 9/11.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Democrats? I'm talking about Republicans (like Rep. Duncan Hunter), who, for political reasons, are turning a blind eye to the Bush administration's gutting of our armed forces. Apparently, this administration would be happy to have fewer "Few Good Men."

Sure thing, now provide evidence of this "gutting".

Last I checked both houses of Congress are controlled by the Democrats, remind me when they sponsored a bill to increase the end strength of the military by any significant number, even one blocked by those evil Republicans and President Bush.

You are of course aware how Congress gets to create the process for creating laws and not the President? That the President doesn't have any say at all in what bills the Congress creates and votes on, other then if they are passed to agree or disagree with them? That he has to find a Congressman to sponsor any bill he wants created?

The Democrats have had a YEAR to create a bill, remind me what happened to these bills? They control the process in both the House and the Senate, if they want a bill it will reach the floor to either be voted on or filibustered.