[Nightcrawler]

From the Montana Standard (http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2004/04/08/newsopinion/hjjfjfjbhghbid.txt).



Heroes don't come wholesale

By Andy Rooney Tribune Media Services - 04/08/2004



Most of the reporting from Iraq is about death and destruction. We don't learn much about what our soldiers in Iraq are thinking or doing. There's no Ernie Pyle to tell us and, if there were, the military would make it difficult or impossible for him to let us know.
It would be interesting to have a reporter ask a group of our soldiers in Iraq to answer five questions and see the results:

1. Do you think your country did the right thing sending you into Iraq?

2. Are you doing what America set out to do to make Iraq a democracy, or have we failed so badly that we should pack up and get out before more of you are killed?

3. Do the orders you get handed down from one headquarters to another, all far removed from the fighting, seem sensible, or do you think our highest command is out of touch with the reality of your situation?

4. If you could have a medal or a trip home, which would you take?

5. Are you encouraged by all the talk back home about how brave you are and how everyone supports you?

Treating soldiers fighting their war as brave heroes is an old civilian trick designed to keep the soldiers at it. But you can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting comfortably back here at home.

Our soldiers in Iraq are people, young men and women, and they behave like people — sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes brave, sometimes fearful. It's disingenuous of the rest of us to encourage them to fight this war by idolizing them. We pin medals on their chests to keep them going. We speak of them as if they volunteered to risk their lives to save ours but there isn't much voluntary about what most of them have done. A relatively small number are professional soldiers. During the last few years, when millions of jobs disappeared, many young people, desperate for some income, enlisted in the Army.

About 40 percent of our soldiers in Iraq enlisted in the National Guard or the Army Reserve to pick up some extra money and never thought they'd be called on to fight. They want to come home.

One indication that not all soldiers in Iraq are happy warriors is the report recently released by the Army showing that 23 of them committed suicide there last year. This is a dismaying figure. If 22 young men and one woman killed themselves because they couldn't take it, think how many more are desperately unhappy but unwilling to die. We must support our soldiers in Iraq because it's our fault they're risking their lives there. However, we should not bestow the mantle of heroism on all of them for simply being where we sent them. Most are victims, not heroes.

America's intentions are honorable. I believe that and we must find a way of making the rest of the world believe it. We want to do the right thing. We care about the rest of the world. President Bush's intentions were honorable when he took us into Iraq. They were not well thought out but honorable.

President Bush's determination to make the evidence fit the action he took, which it does not, has made things look worse. We pay lip service to the virtues of openness and honesty, but for some reason we too often act as though there was a better way of handling a bad situation than by being absolutely open and honest.


Depending on what your definition of "hero" is, he's right in that not everyone overseas is a hero. If my unit gets activated, and we're sent to Kuwait to guard some supply point, never being in any real immediate danger, are we heros? Are we any more heros than the thousands of troops who've rotated through Kuwait in the last ten years?

However, I find very distasteful Mr. Rooney's attempt to spread the liberal culture of victimhood to the military. That comment about the Guard and Reserves, specifically.

I'm in the National Guard. I didn't join for college money. Did I want to go to Iraq? Did I want to get pulled out of school and deployed for a year or more to one of the crappiest places on the planet? Of course not!

But had my unit been activated, I would've went. I wouldn't have been happy, we all would've complained, but we'd all have gone and done our jobs. I knew the score when I signed the contract; the same contract that each one of us signed.

But it's not a big a problem as Mr. Rooney would have us believe. Yes, many Guard units have been deployed so long that it's really hurting the soldiers' civilian careers.

But reserve component units, which make up some 40% of the current Army, are over there, serving admirably and honorably, and for Mr. Rooney to paint them all as little more than just misguided conscripts is annoying, to say the least.

Are there problems? Yes. Is it the end of the world? No. (The suicide rate for soldiers in Iraq, while higher than the Army in general, is lower than the general population.)

Mr. Rooney seems to think that you're either a hardcore professional soldier or a poor, abused, misguided sap who was forced to be in the service. And that's bullcrap, bluntly.

[Langenator]

Goddammit...I used the last of my bark bags on that 'Solidarity with Fallujah' thread.

Luckily, there's no more food in my stomach to throw up.

Some people need to have some sense beaten into them with an ax handle.

[JoeSF]

Poor Andy, He just doesn't get it. Maybe he was out of town when the towers came down?
Then again, he is campaigning for Kerry.

[Thumper]

Ernie Pyle? Ernie's rolling around in his grave on whatever godforsaken atoll they buried him on.

Andy would have had about a hundred pounds on Ernie, but I'll bet Mr. Pyle would stomp his axe in a fair fight.

Ernie Pyle would never go so far out of his way to undermine the morale of "his" troops.

[R.H. Lee]

More vile vitriol from another leftist wrapping himself in the 1st Amendment.

If these toads were as restricted in the exercise of the 1st as we are in the exercise of the 2nd, they would be reduced to using old Smith Corona typewriters.:barf: :barf: :barf:

[Malone LaVeigh]

Maybe he was out of town when the towers came down?
Towers <=> Iraq
S**t <=> Shinola

[JoeSF]

Towers <=> Iraq

Ohhh Okaay... I get it.. you think there isnt any connection between Iraq and the world trade towers!
Good for you!

[Mikul]

Pinning the term hero on everyone remotely associated with heroic activities is an insult to those truly deserving the moniker.

[R.H. Lee]

Ohhh Okaay... I getit.. you think there isnt any connection between Iraq and the world trade towers!
Good for you!

Not as long as you overlook that fact that Saddam paid rewards to families of homicide bombers, harbored international terrorists, and sponsored terrorist training camps in Iraq.

[w4rma]

First off, you misquote Andy Rooney in your title. He says *most* U.S. soldiers are not heros. He does not say that (all) U.S. soldiers are not heros. Many soldiers are indeed heros and Andy Rooney goes out of his way to make that distinction.

Secondly, Andy Rooney is trying to explain that U.S. soldiers are regular folks doing a hard job just like the rest of us. He's also trying to explain that most of them are being given lip service instead of being treated well and that at this point they aren't voluntarily over there because stop loss has been in effect for more than a year now.

He's also, obviously, on their side trying to get them home sooner than later.

I think that Andy Rooney's POV is a **much** better one of soldiers than the POV espoused by this right-wing leader who is extremely close to the Republicans currently in power:

“Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy,” Kissinger told Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein (The Final Days, Simon & Schuster, 1976 (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/06/266114.shtml)).

[R.H. Lee]

I think that Andy Rooney's POV is a **much** better one of soldiers than the POV espoused by this right-wing leader who is extremely close to the Republicans currently in power:

Of course you do. Like Rooney you support giving aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldening them. I'll bet you both cheer when a U.S. Marine or Infantryman dies, too.

In times past, you BOTH would be executed for sedition.

[Lone_Gunman]

Is there a way to oppose a war without being accused of emboldening the enemy and committing sedition?

[w4rma]

I'll bet you both cheer when a U.S. Marine or Infantryman dies, too.Bullcrap.

[Thumper]

Is there a way to oppose a war without being accused of emboldening the enemy

Is there a conceivable situation where "citizens' " anti war remarks wouldn't embolden an enemy?

Once troops are committed, one should STFU.

[Nightcrawler]

Frankly, I'm not at all concerned with what Henry Kissenger said 28 years ago. The article doesn't mention the US Democratic Party or the US Republican party, and neither did I. I don't belong to either party, I don't vote along party lines, and I have no intention of joining a political party anytime soon (odd for a political science student, perhaps, but I can beat my own drum, thanks).

I don't see where it's relevant to the issues I have with Mr. Rooney's comments, either. But, I suppose it's too much to hope for that any article that deals with the Iraq War in any sense avoid turning into some sort of ideological shouting match. *shrug*

As for soldiers doing a hard job "like the rest of us"...when's the last time that, during your morning commute, you had to worry about getting blown up by a road-side bomb? When's the last time any of us, sitting comfortably here at our computers, arguing politics over the internet, were shot at by a person that hates you with the utmost intensity? How many of us have to deal with thousands of their fellow Americans calling them murderers and accusing them of all manner of atrocities?

No, the soldiers in Iraq are going through a lot more than the rest of us.

It's worth pointing out, though, that enlistment rates are still very high. Reenlistment rates for soldiers returning from Iraq have been suprisingly high as well. The whole Army isn't stop-lossed, you know.

But whatever. I'm not going to argue with you. I'm sure there are plenty other people here that'll do that for you.

You know though, I can see why President Clinton was so hesitant to put troops on the ground in Kosovo. I mean, sure, few on the political left were complaining and calling him Hitler when he was bombing Yugoslavia (a country that didn't attack us and posed no threat to the US whatsoever, and in a campaign that was without UN support), but troop casualties are bad politics, very bad politics indeed. Unfortunately, this is what the enemy is gambling on. They think if we get our nose bloodied badly enough, we'll pull out. We pulled out of Somolia in 1993. Osama Bin Laden hoped to get us to pull out of Saudi Arabia through his terrorist attacks, including the USS Cole and the World Trade Center. The enemy in Iraq, and their Iranian backers, are convinced that if they kill enough Americans, we'll up and leave.

Whether or not we do remains to be seen, I suppose.

[greyhound]

Is there a way to oppose a war without being accused of emboldening the enemy and committing sedition?

Definately. Problem is the "We support the troops" is often followed by a "but", which is then followed by an anti-Bush diatribe about starting the war. Seems its hard to separate the support from politics.

On the other hand, some on the right are going to see any criticism of the war as hating the troops.

People are hyped on both sides during an election year, I guess.

[Lone_Gunman]

w4rma,

I disagree with about 95% of the stuff you say here, but I think accusing you of cheering when a US soldier is killed is a pretty desperate attempt to discredit you arguments.

[Lone_Gunman]

Thumper,

Once troops are committed, one should STFU.

I can't agree with that statement.

Using that logic, the German citizens couldn't have opposed the Nazis after th invasion of Poland. The Japanese couldn't have opposed the Emperor after Pearl Harbor.


Doesn't that same logic justify what the insurgents in Fallujah are doing right now?

[Thumper]

Using that logic, the German citizens couldn't have opposed the Nazis after th invasion of Poland. The Japanese couldn't have opposed the Emperor after Pearl Harbor.

Interesting choice of analogies, Lone...you starting to have some second thoughts?

[Lone_Gunman]

I guess its been a long day Thumper, whatcha talking about?

[Thumper]

You know what I mean...

I haven't been to Gitmo since we started locking up suspected terrorists, but I have been to Dachau and Buchenwald. I don't think there's much comparison.

Comparing the U.S. conduct with the conduct of the Japanese during WWII is a little off base, too.

When we start off on the road to genocide, I'll have no problems with open criticism of the war.

[R.H. Lee]

Doesn't that same logic justify what the insurgents in Fallujah are doing right now?

The old moral equvilency canard. Only true if you consider bloodthirsty murdering thugs who strap explosives to children as equal to U.S. forces.

Do you?

[Lone_Gunman]

I havent heard of any explosives strapped to children in Fallujah.

I will repose my question, though, as no one has answered it:


How can a citizen oppose a war without committing sedition?


Thumper, at no time did I compare US government conduct now to Japanese government conduct in WW2. My comment dealt specifically with individual citizens, from either country, that might have opposed the war their country was in at that time.

[Thumper]

You haven't seen any mutilated Iraqi corpses hanging from bridges, either.

[Thumper]

Thumper, at no time did I compare US government conduct now to Japanese government conduct in WW2. My comment dealt specifically with individual citizens, from either country, that might have opposed the war their country was in at that time.

Ah...sorry. I took you in the context of this discussion.

[Lone_Gunman]

Thumper, I edited my last post right as you were posting.

No, there have been no mutilated Iraqi corpses hung up anywhere, but how does that relate to my previous comment that children have not (yet anyway) been used as weapons in Fallujah?

I am not in anyway supporting the savages in Iraq, the problem I have is that in this discussion, the issue of children used as weapons was brought up by another poster in reference to a discussion about Fallujah, and as far as I know none has been used.

[Iain]

Riley - have there been suicide bombings (or your favourite term) in Falujah?

Nightcrawler -

I agree with your desire to keep political rantings out of this. I have been expecting this thread since I noted that you and others took great, and understandable, offense to the term 'mercenary-slave' that another poster used in another thread.

I'll try to be concise. I expect if you look in the right places you will find all sorts of philosophical handwringing from all sides on the nature of a professional army in a free country. I also expect that many of us here would extend our beliefs in not, at a state level, forcing citizens to do things to compulsory service and even 'the draft'.

If you employ people to do the fighting, who do you end up employing? I personally have met and known several soldiers/soon to be soldiers. Crudely, there were two sets. One would be the 17 year olds. The other is the graduate.

17 year olds first. I went to school with a few guys who ended up serving. A very close personal friends father was a 17 year old recruit. Had a predilection for violence and drinking. He left the Forces in his forties. In that period he served in military intelligence in Northern Ireland (very scary work) and ended up at the embassy in Beijing because he had mastered four languages including Chinese. There are obviously great prospects for the right people.

The graduates. Army/Navy/Air Force helps put them through university and then they go in after that and become officers.

Couple of questions.

1. Does your army take on foreign nationals so that after they have served they become citizens of the US?

2. Do we know of a preferable scheme to a standing professional army?

Thanks guys.

[Cosmoline]

Rooney is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I may not think this was a wise war to get into, but at this point every word spoken against the effort directly aids those who are killing and mutilating our troops. Make no mistake--the real front line is here. Our troops won't lose unless we quit on them. And Rooney wants us to quit on them. Wants us to attack them by asking foolish morale-destroying questions in the field.

[Lone_Gunman]

Cosmo,

So once again I will ask an unanswerable question?

Is there any way for a citizen to oppose a war without commiting sedition?

If there is no way to do this, then how could we ever oppose an unjust war?

[ACP230]

Mr. Rooney did some good work as a journalist in WWII.
I honor him for that.
Unfortunately, he's been a waste of air time and newsprint for the past 20 years.
He should have retired a long time ago.

[R.H. Lee]

St Johns:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_04a7214c9040808c001e.html

[Iain]

Riley - noted. Thanks.

[R.H. Lee]

If there is no way to do this, then how could we ever oppose an unjust war?

What is an 'unjust war'? And who is to decide?

There are those who will not defend themselves even under the most threatening of circumstances; whose world view denies the existence of evil, and who truly believe that negotiation and understanding and consensus will allow a live and let live environment. (ie Kerry)

If you view radical islam as simply a problem of (mis) communication, you may subscribe to that notion. Tell it to the Israelis.

If, on the other hand, you comprehend that THERE ARE THOSE WHO WANT TO KILL US, then you understand the "pre-emptive and illegal" (sic) war in Iraq.

[Pendragon]

Treating soldiers fighting their war as brave heroes is an old civilian trick designed to keep the soldiers at it. But you can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting comfortably back here at home.

So all of us who respect and encourage our soldiers are just in on the joke?

Our soldiers in Iraq are people, young men and women, and they behave like people — sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes brave, sometimes fearful. It's disingenuous of the rest of us to encourage them to fight this war by idolizing them. We pin medals on their chests to keep them going. We speak of them as if they volunteered to risk their lives to save ours but there isn't much voluntary about what most of them have done. A relatively small number are professional soldiers. During the last few years, when millions of jobs disappeared, many young people, desperate for some income, enlisted in the Army.

We should encourage them to fight because, right now, that is their job and the better they fight, the sooner they will be done and the less causalties we will take.

We do not pin medals on them to keep them going, we do so because bravery and sacrifice are admirable and rare qualities that deserve to be recognized. The medals symbolize the intangible. To imply that men risk and sacrifice and die for small baubles and trinkets is disgusting.

As for volunteering, you volunteer to serve and do what you are told. You are not given the luxury of volunteering for every task or mission. Such a military would be laughable.

About 40 percent of our soldiers in Iraq enlisted in the National Guard or the Army Reserve to pick up some extra money and never thought they'd be called on to fight. They want to come home.

As for those that signed up for money, were they lied to? Were they told to join the reserves because they would NEVER be called upon? I think not. I am sure nobody has returned the money or other benefits.

One indication that not all soldiers in Iraq are happy warriors is the report recently released by the Army showing that 23 of them committed suicide there last year. This is a dismaying figure. If 22 young men and one woman killed themselves because they couldn't take it, think how many more are desperately unhappy but unwilling to die. We must support our soldiers in Iraq because it's our fault they're risking their lives there. However, we should not bestow the mantle of heroism on all of them for simply being where we sent them. Most are victims, not heroes.

Having to fight in a war after volunteering makes you a victim?

How many people are in the military? How many over there? Some people simply cannot take that kind of pressure - they off themselves out of fear or shame or confusion or depression - its tragic, but thats the human condition, not some unique property of this conflict.

Mister Roony should take more naps.

[Jeff White]

Andy Rooney has finally lost it. w4rma, you are wrong, he is being as condescending towards our soldiers as Kissinger ever was.

Let me rebut some of Mr. Rooney's points:

Most of the reporting from Iraq is about death and destruction. We don't learn much about what our soldiers in Iraq are thinking or doing. There's no Ernie Pyle to tell us and, if there were, the military would make it difficult or impossible for him to let us know.

There are plenty of latter day Ernie Pyles in Iraq. There are still embedded reporters with many of the units fighting. But their reports aren't being aired. Why? Perhaps it's because the producers in New York, safe behind their desks and with a presidential election campaign to win, don't want to let the truth out? I'm sure the embedded reporters are still filing stories. But we don't see them.

1. Do you think your country did the right thing sending you into Iraq?

The answer to this would be a resounding yes. Polls in the Military Times newspapers and Stars and Stripes bear that out.

2. Are you doing what America set out to do to make Iraq a democracy, or have we failed so badly that we should pack up and get out before more of you are killed?

Again the answer is in support of the operation. Most soldiers I know who are deployed feel that the American public is not being told of all the good things they are doing there. Military Times and Stars and Stripes polls prove it. Again, that's not what the American people are being told. Stars and Stripes and the Military Times newspapers are pretty limited circulation. Our military makes up a very small percentage of our population. I would bet that most Americans don't personally know anyone serving. Much ess have anyone in their family in the military. Rooney and the rest of the mainstream media can get by with these lies because of that.

3. Do the orders you get handed down from one headquarters to another, all far removed from the fighting, seem sensible, or do you think our highest command is out of touch with the reality of your situation?

No soldier at company level ever thought the generals knew what was going on. Of course they are going to say the highest levels are out of touch. You have to remember that the soldeir at platoon or company level sees such a tiny portion of the battlefield that he can't but think that.

4. If you could have a medal or a trip home, which would you take?

Everyone almost to the man or woman would take the trip home. Ask that question of any deployed army and see what answer you get. A combat zone isn't a nice place to be. A big part of you always wants to be home. And when you're home, there is a big part of you that wants to be there because you feel you're not carrying your share of the load.

5. Are you encouraged by all the talk back home about how brave you are and how everyone supports you?

Yes they are! I have had friends tell me stories of how well the American people treat them when they come home that brouight tears to their eyes when they told me. It's much more preferable to when I entered the military and we were discouraged from wearing our uniforms off post because of they could bring on derisive comments and insults. Perhaps you want to go back to the days of calling the men and women who do what you don't have the stomach to do baby killers. Trust me on this Mr. Rooney, would you dare to call my son CPL White (Bradley gunner B-129th Infantry) a derisive name because he's serving I would gladly sacrifce my second career as a peace officer by punching you squarely in the nose.

Treating soldiers fighting their war as brave heroes is an old civilian trick designed to keep the soldiers at it. But you can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting comfortably back here at home.


I seem to have missed this old civilian trick in December of 1974 when I enlisted. The fact of the matter, Mr. Rooney, is that in a society where we have decided to let a professional army defend the country, the civilians sitting comfortably back home should feel that way. Because they cannot begin to understand the burdens and sacrifices that are being made in their name by those who choose to serve.

Our soldiers in Iraq are people, young men and women, and they behave like people — sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes brave, sometimes fearful. It's disingenuous of the rest of us to encourage them to fight this war by idolizing them. We pin medals on their chests to keep them going. We speak of them as if they volunteered to risk their lives to save ours but there isn't much voluntary about what most of them have done. A relatively small number are professional soldiers. During the last few years, when millions of jobs disappeared, many young people, desperate for some income, enlisted in the Army.

You're right, our soldiers are just like the society they serve. Some are better then others. But you are wrong when you said they haven't volunteered for what they are doing. No one who has their wits about them enlists in the military thinking they would never have to go to war. Your assertion that they were forced into the military because of a poor economy is just bunk. The soldeirs who are serving in the US and Europe are spoling to get into the fight. Commanders are having to turn down volunteers when it comes time to round out units that are about to deploy.

About 40 percent of our soldiers in Iraq enlisted in the National Guard or the Army Reserve to pick up some extra money and never thought they'd be called on to fight. They want to come home.

Mr. Rooney you are so full of BS with this assertion that it's almost not worth replying to. I spent 21 years of a 29 years Army career as an AGR training and readiness NCO in National Guard Infantry and Artillery units. The focus of training was always preparation for war. All soldiers received an annual mobilization briefing. They have known that they were a big part of the nations defense from day one. The Clinton administration deployed them on peacekeeping missions to the Siani and the Balkans. Reservists have been continually called on since August of 1990. Let me tell you something about these soldiers who you say never expected to fight. I was on leave on September 11, 2001. I was just getting out of the shower that morning when I heard on the radio that an airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center. I turned the TV on in time to see the second tower hit. I immediately went into the armory. My phone rang for two days with these soldiers who you insult by saying they were only there for the money asking me when they were going to war. They were leaving me phone numbers of anyplace they could possibly be found in case we needed them. You sir, are not fit to clean the latrine in the armories where these men and women drill.

One indication that not all soldiers in Iraq are happy warriors is the report recently released by the Army showing that 23 of them committed suicide there last year. This is a dismaying figure. If 22 young men and one woman killed themselves because they couldn't take it, think how many more are desperately unhappy but unwilling to die. We must support our soldiers in Iraq because it's our fault they're risking their lives there. However, we should not bestow the mantle of heroism on all of them for simply being where we sent them. Most are victims, not heroes.

And studies are showing that the Army's high suicide rate is directly related to the feminization of the military that was done under the Clinton administration under the guise of creating more opportunity for women. These suicides have been prdominately in combat service support Units, not combat units. Basic training was changed from a very stressful environment into a knder, gentler environment in order to get more women through. The Army's combat arms, Infantry, Armor, Artillery and Engineers never backed off. Their all male one station unit training environments didn't change much. The Army knew that they couldn't afford to let people who couldn't handle the stress into combat units in any number. Our combat service support soldiers never expected to be in combat. However in Iraq they share many of the same risks as their brothers in combat arms. But they haven't had the benefit of the stressful initial entry training to weed out those who are unable to take it. The new chief of staff is changing that. Every soldier a rifleman is the new motto. I doubt if that would have flown under the Clinton administration.

Mr. Rooney, your not going to stir up dissent on the college campuses, because no one who doesn't want to serve will have to. You have no right to put down those who choose to serve because you don't agree with the political party who sent them there. I failed to see a similar column from you in 1996 when we went into the Balkans. Were those soldiers victims or heros?

Jeff

[Drjones]

Did anyone catch his little segment on last night's 60 minutes?

He pulled a bunch of random gadgets out of his kitchen drawer and then questioned why he had multiple copies of gadgets that never even got used in the first place.

:rolleyes:

I thought it was a joke, but when I realized that he was indeed seriously spending his little slot in 60 minutes on that "topic," I realized that he is officially insane.

[Pendragon]

The thing that really ticks me about the "they just did it because of the bad economy" is this:

The economy was roaring in the 1990s and only JUST started to slow down in 2001 and then 9/11 happened.

If you joined before 9/11, the economy was not that bad or at least not bad for very long.

If you joined after 9/11, how could you POSSIBLY not have an idea that war was brewin'?

[Gordon Fink]

Rooney is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.…

How exactly?

~G. Fink

[Greg Bell]

FUDGE Andy Rooney. That POS should be dragged through feces, drowned in urine, set on fire and fed to rabid howler monkees--and buried in a potter's field!!:cuss: :cuss:

[bountyhunter]

But it's not a big a problem as Mr. Rooney would have us believe. Yes, many Guard units have been deployed so long that it's really hurting the soldiers' civilian careers.

But reserve component units, which make up some 40% of the current Army, are over there, serving admirably and honorably, and for Mr. Rooney to paint them all as little more than just misguided conscripts is annoying, to say the least.
I would say two things:

1) Mr Rooney's concept of "hero" as well as who a reservist is and why they join the reserves reflects the era when Mr Rooney served. His observations are reasonably accurate for WWII era.... most reservists were ducking the draft. I won't elaborate because I don't want to start a war over Ronald Reagan, but the rtecords speak for themselves (not 100% universal, but a reasonably accurate opinion).


2) As to your opinion of Guard and Reservists, I am not certain EXACTLY how happy they are to be there but the Army recently did an anonymous survey and said about 70% were either "unhappy" or "very unhappy". I think Mr Rooneys opinion about general morale is closer to the truth than yours.

The other accurate barometer about how happy the units are to serve is in how fast they were stanpeding to get out when their terms were up... how fast? Well, the forces have implemented "stop loss" to prevent soldiers from leaving service even though their tours are over. That says another clear statement about unit enthusiasm.

Some of the troops are gung ho. Marine actives are generally looking for good fight, but National Guard were never intended to serve as police 10,000 miles from home.... they are a stateside militia to Guard our Nation (hence the name) It is reasonably logical to assume most people are not happy being forced to perform duty they never signed up for.

[bountyhunter]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rooney is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How exactly?
Don't jump at sucker bait. That's just a reprint of the Bush propoganda that anybody who questions the war is a traitor who is supporting our enemies and hurting our soldiers. Whenever you see that BS, just sprinkle it on your lawn and make it green up.

[JoeSF]

If Bush were really as bad as Hitler wouldn't Andy be locked up? And wouldn't we not be having an election in November? I don't like what Andy said, but at least he can say it and we can all say what we think.

What Andy Rooney thinks is just that.... What he thinks. And as DR Jones pointed out, he was just lost in his kitchen drawer. Sooo.....

[bountyhunter]

FUDGE Andy Rooney. That POS should be dragged through feces, drowned in urine, set on fire and fed to rabid howler monkees--and buried in a potter's field!! Absolutely. Just because he served in the armed forces that came ashore at Normandy and has spent 50 years covering the news of world affairs, sure doesn't give him the right to voice an opinion that makes George W Bush's war look bad. I say we just shoot him and get it over with.:eek:

[idd]

Is there a way to oppose a war without being accused of emboldening the enemy and committing sedition?

How dare you even ask such a traitorous question! Guards, seize him!

What is an 'unjust war'? And who is to decide?

Wars fought by our enemies* are "unjust wars." Wars fought by us and our allies are "just wars." They use torture; we use physical persuasion. They sponsor terrorism; we practice counterterrorism. They forment wars of aggression; we employ pre-emptive retaliatory strikes. I hope that this clear things up for you.

There are those who will not defend themselves even under the most threatening of circumstances...(ie Kerry)

Kerry is actually rather hawkish. (http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec270.html) Maybe you forgot that he voted for the war?

Is there any way for a citizen to oppose a war without commiting sedition?

Why are you supporting the terrorists???? It's cause you're an anti-American leftist who hates America and blames America first, right? You commie!

Once troops are committed, one should STFU.

Mega dittos, man! Haven't they learned the proper lessons of the 20th Century? We must follow our leaders blindly if we are to remain a free people. After all, they are so much smarter, wiser, and more moral than we. :barf:

*Such as Iraq, post-1990.

[Lone_Gunman]

FUDGE Andy Rooney. That POS should be dragged through feces, drowned in urine, set on fire and fed to rabid howler monkees--and buried in a potter's field!!


Technically, I think you may have just committed a felony.

[Greg Bell]

Andy Rooney is an idiot. Some people are just so moronic that ad-hominem is appropriate.

[bountyhunter]

I don't like what Andy said, but at least he can say it and we can all say what we think. But prior to the Bush admin, Americans all pretty much agreed that speaking your opinion was part of being an American. Bush now says it means you are a traitor, a Terror lover, and someone who is giving aid to the enemy. And Bush followers think that the people who spoke against the war should be punished by being boycotted out of business. As one gentlemen so succinctly put it:

"We'll teach that son of a bitch that freedom of speech comes with a high price."

Really? Freedom of speech USED to be the law in the USA.... not lately, though.

[bountyhunter]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUDGE Andy Rooney. That POS should be dragged through feces, drowned in urine, set on fire and fed to rabid howler monkees--and buried in a potter's field!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Technically, I think you may have just committed a felony. NOPE, Rooney's just a private citizen and that generic statement does not rise to the level of conspiracy to commit the said acts.

However, you can not say such a thing about the President, that is a federal offense. Ergo, under federal law, his life is worth more than ours.

[bountyhunter]

Wars fought by our enemies* are "unjust wars." Wars fought by us and our allies are "just wars." They use torture; we use physical persuasion. They sponsor terrorism; we practice counterterrorism. Let's be accurate now: they use terrorism, we use "justifiable pre-emptive military force".:confused:

[Greg Bell]

"But prior to the Bush admin, Americans all pretty much agreed that speaking your opinion was part of being an American. Bush now says it means you are a traitor, a Terror lover, and someone who is giving aid to the enemy. And Bush followers think that the people who spoke against the war should be punished by being boycotted out of business. As one gentlemen so succinctly put it:

"We'll teach that son of a bitch that freedom of speech comes with a high price."

Really? Freedom of speech USED to be the law in the USA.... not lately, though."




This is such poo. Leftys are usually the first out of the gate with the "unpatriotic/unAmerican" whining. It is a preemptory strike of sorts. Like some people who scream racism, or sexism just to gain an advantage. Leftys are the Omarosa's of the world.

[Kim]

I think Ole Andy's eyebrows have finally grown into his brain!:D

[greyhound]

I will repose my question, though, as no one has answered it:

By stopping at "We support the troops" and not following with "but," and railing about this illegal/unprovoked/not part of the WOT/ war.

That's a separate issue and needs to be de-linked from the men doing the fighting.

Do that, and IMO, you are honorably disagreeing with the war but supporting the troops.

Separate the support from the political; and make the arguments separately, not in the same sentence.

If polls are to be trusted, we're about 50/50 on support of the Iraq invasion right now. (Goes up or down depending on good and bad).

I think the 50 % in favor could agree with dissent as long as it avoids the dreaded "but".

Just like after 9/11 when it was " We agree that the attacks were terrible, but..."

[idd]

Just like after 9/11 when it was " We agree that the attacks were terrible, but..."

but what?

[Moparmike]

First off, you misquote Andy Rooney in your title. He says *most* U.S. soldiers are not heros. He does not say that (all) U.S. soldiers are not heros. Many soldiers are indeed heros and Andy Rooney goes out of his way to make that distinction.

Secondly, Andy Rooney is trying to explain that U.S. soldiers are regular folks doing a hard job just like the rest of us. He's also trying to explain that most of them are being given lip service instead of being treated well and that at this point they aren't voluntarily over there because stop loss has been in effect for more than a year now.

He's also, obviously, on their side trying to get them home sooner than later.

I think that Andy Rooney's POV is a **much** better For once, me and w4rma agree.

*ducks beer bottle and various fruit, lets boos decrease*

Now hear me out. I also think that Rooney has severly misstated facts, and had no freaking idea that Jeff White's answers would be those given 90+% of the time. He obviously has a very ill-informed view of the National Guard and Reserves, as well as an ill-informed view of the Military in general. Being a liberal will do that.

I really dont think that Rooney's intention was to slander our troops. Express an ill-informed, misguided view? Yes. But not slander.

[greyhound]

" We agree that the attacks were terrible, but..."

"we/they deserved it because (insert some foreign policy that caused the world to hate the "Great Satan", etc, etc)"

When I hear John Kerry talking about squandering the good will of the world and our "allies" after 9/11 I want to throw up.

We had the good will of the world as long as we joined the victimhood club and tries to change "why they hate us".

When we made it clear the bombs were gonna rain, the crocodile tears stopped.

[4570Rick]

Andy Rooney no longer has the sense God gave a Soda Cracker. Cloistered In his little cocoon for the last 25 years has obscured his view of reality to the point that every thing that comes out of his mouth stinks of unenlightened idiocy. :mad:

[idd]

"we/they deserved it"

Can you specifically identify one person inside the US who claimed that "we/they deserved it"?

[Jeff White]

boutyhunter said;
The other accurate barometer about how happy the units are to serve is in how fast they were stanpeding to get out when their terms were up... how fast? Well, the forces have implemented "stop loss" to prevent soldiers from leaving service even though their tours are over. That says another clear statement about unit enthusiasm.

The truth about Stop Loss is that in the Army it only affects 7000 soldiers who are in units that are already deployed.

Issue Date: January 19, 2004

Stay put
Retirements, separations for thousands of deployed troops put on hold

By Laura Bailey
Times staff writer

Another 7,000 soldiers scheduled to retire, leave the Army or change assignments this spring now have to put their plans on hold.

The Army is expanding stop-loss/stop-movement policies to soldiers in all active-component units currently serving in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan.

The order, which became effective Jan. 7, applies to all soldiers still deployed overseas in Operation Iraqi Freedom 1.

It also will affect soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan in the fourth rotation of soldiers there, Elton Manske, chief of the Army’s enlisted division, G-1, said at a Pentagon press briefing Jan. 5.

The decision means soldiers scheduled to retire or leave the Army and those scheduled to rotate to new assignments this spring will have to stay overseas with their units and remain with them until 90 days after the unit returns to its home base.

Affected units include elements of the 82nd Airborne Division, from Fort Bragg, N.C; the 3rd Armored Cavalry Division out of Fort Carson, Colo.; the 1st Armored Division based in Germany; the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; and the 101st Airborne Division, out of Fort Campbell, Ky.

Half of the 7,000 affected soldiers will have to rearrange the retirement or separation plans they had this spring. The other 3,500 soldiers will have to postpone moves to new duty stations, the Army estimates.

Most will slog out an additional two or more months with their units as they await replacements in the Army’s next large-scale rotations of troops into Iraq and Afghanistan.

The active-component troops in the next rotations — Operation Iraqi Freedom 2 and Operation Enduring Freedom 5 — already are under a stop-loss policy that was announced in November. Reserve units mobilized for war on terrorism missions have been on stop-loss status since November 2002.

All soldiers under this latest stop-loss policy will be required to stay with their units for 90 days after redeploying. However, according to the written policy regulation, soldiers may waive the 90-day stabilization period in order to accept assignment, schooling or re-enlistment opportunities.

Also, those due to retire or end their service can request exemption from the 90-day period once they have finished their out-processing.

“Once the soldier has completed the by-law requirements that the U.S. Army has committed to do, then the soldier can leave,” Manske said.

He said the 90-day period is meant to give soldiers plenty of time to deal with paperwork, medical issues, career counseling and other end-of-service issues. “It’s to make sure that we and the soldier are ready for their transition.”

Soldiers who don’t request to leave early can devote the full 90 days to transitioning, he said.

Officials say this latest stop-loss/stop-movement policy is intended to prevent the loss of key senior leaders critical to combat deployments and to increase the readiness of the deployed units by keeping them stable and intact.

Since the end of major combat operations in Iraq was announced May 1, units have seen soldiers and commanders come and go through scheduled retirements, separations and assignment changes. Since May, 16,000 soldiers have transitioned out of the Army, and many of those came from units in combat zones. Also, last summer, hundreds of commanders left Iraq ahead of their soldiers because of scheduled reassignments.

Lt. Col. Franklin Childress, spokesman for the G-1, Army personnel division at the Pentagon, said constant comings and goings lead to instability and lack of readiness. He added that commanders in theater had requested the new policy.

“Commanders felt like they needed it to have units stay together for unit cohesion and effectiveness.”

Few exceptions will be made to the new stop-loss/stop-movement rule, Childress said.

Most soldiers scheduled for career training are not exempted from the policy.

Those scheduled for NCO training courses and other training this spring will be rescheduled, according to the policy regulations.

However, stop-movement exceptions will be made for the following:

•Soldiers identified for special-operations accession courses.

•Officers scheduled for officer and warrant officer candidate school.

•Soldiers scheduled for Army Medical Department related schooling.

•Soldiers with compelling or compassionate reasons.

“Every case is considered on an individual case-by-case basis, but by and large those people that are on the stop-loss are there for the duration. We want to keep these units together.”

Childress said by keeping soldiers in theater longer, the policy will also cut down on frequent deployments.

“When individual soldiers leave, replacements have to come from somewhere. We want [stop-loss/stop-movement] to prevent back-to-back tours.”

Childress said the order also helps to promote unit stabilization — a new personnel system the Army gradually is moving toward. The system would man units with groups of soldiers who train and stay together. It would replace the Individual Replacement System, in which soldiers come and go from units individually.

More on the stop-loss policy is available through MILPER message 04-053 available at: https://perscomnd04.army.mil/MILPERmsgs.nsf/All+documents/04-053.

And are soldiers actually leaving in droves? Re-enlistment rates don't show that.

Issue Date: April 12, 2004

Retention high in Europe; midyear goal met

By Gina Cavallaro
Times staff writer

Soldiers stationed in Europe are re-enlisting in droves, and that has helped retention noncommissioned officers meet or exceed mission requirements halfway through fiscal year 2004.

The last year’s long and arduous deployments notwithstanding, the command’s re-enlistment numbers are as strong as ever.

U.S. Army Europe’s top career counselor says it is par for the course. “It’s all we’ve ever been… ahead of the game,” said Sgt. Maj. William Sharpsteen, command career counselor for U.S. Army Europe.

As of March 31, the last day of the second quarter and midpoint for fiscal 2004, the command had re-enlisted more than its goal of 1,271 initial, midcareer and career soldiers.

The numbers of midcareer re-enlistments appeared sluggish through the latter part of the second quarter, and Sharpsteen thinks he knows why.

“Because we are in a situation where the majority of soldiers who were there [in Iraq] for a year are going through a reintegration process, then they take block leave,” he said.

“We lose them for about 1½ months and they’re not reachable. A lot of the eligible soldiers are just not available,” Sharpsteen said. “But even in that scenario, we’re still doing quite well.”

Soldiers also may be waiting to see what’s coming in re-enlistment incentives.

Serving an overseas tour has its advantages, and for certain military occupational specialties, there are concrete benefits in the Overseas Tour Extension Incentive Program. Some soldiers can get special monthly pay for extending a tour, 15 to 30 days of consecutive nonchargeable leave and paid round-trip transportation to the United States.

In each of the past six years, U.S. Army Europe has surpassed the total Army retention mission accomplishments by up to 80 percent.

“Obviously, we come into the Army to travel. We get over here and we’ve got all these great things,” he said, referring to Europe’s diversity and the travel opportunities soldiers can take advantage of during a tour there.

Sharpsteen also credited the Army culture and the experience of living with other soldiers in a foreign country for making a unique environment.

“We’re so tight. We do a lot of training together and it’s not like in the states where we travel away to see our families. In Europe, our families are those around us,” he said.

Sharpsteen spent 12 months in Iraq as V Corps command career counselor and “re-enlisted skads of people,” he said.

“It’s been a tumultuous year. We had sort of a roller coaster. Here we thought we were going to be overstrength, we were moderating our retention,” Sharpsteen said in reference to Operation Iraqi Freedom and how it has changed retention goals.

Soldiers re-enlisting also have asked about the possible closing of some European bases, he said.

“I tell them that, from my experience, wherever I hang my hat, I’m still a soldier.”

My friend you are totally incorrect with this statement;

Some of the troops are gung ho. Marine actives are generally looking for good fight, but National Guard were never intended to serve as police 10,000 miles from home.... they are a stateside militia to Guard our Nation (hence the name) It is reasonably logical to assume most people are not happy being forced to perform duty they never signed up for.

The National Guard is a reserve of the Army. When General Creighton Abrams was Chief of Staff, he came up with the Total Force doctrine that put enough of our capability into the reserve components that it would be impossible for a future commander in chief to do to the Army what LBJ did, destroy it from withing by engaging in an unpopular war without mobilizing the country by mobilizing the reserves. Later, both Bush the 1st then Clinton totally misjudged the threat facing the nation and drew the stength of our military down to the point where we needed the Guard and Reserve to do routine day to day operations. There was no other choice after 9-11. To say that the Guardsmen neither knew where they fit into the defense structure of our nation is to either lie or to be misinformed. I know because I gave some of those briefings. Everyone who joined the Guard and Reserve in the last decade knew they could and probably would be deployed.

In fairness to your side of the argument, Rumsfeld will have totally destroyed the military by the time he finishes a second term as Sec/Def. The transformation plan for the Army will strip it of it's long term combat capabiltiy. We will be left with a lager number of units like the Marine MEUs that are good for quick in and out operations but will be unable to sustain themselves for an extended periosd of time. The cutbacks in troop levels that are planned will ensure that the soldiers we have left will be overextended.

The problem is a military under John Kerry and whoever he would appoint as Sec/Def will most likely be closer to the Canadian Armed Forces in capability then what Rumsfeld envisions. Given that, Bush is the best choice for the continued defense of the nation. Perhaps if the democratic platform was to expand back to a 16 division army so we can win the GWOT I could support them.

Jeff

[Drjones]

Let's be accurate now: they use terrorism, we use "justifiable pre-emptive military force".:confused:

You are not really that intellectually devoid as to be unable to distinguish between terrorism and a legitimate military operation, are you?


Further, I'd like to remind you that saddam was in violation of a cease-fire agreement, on many, many occasions in fact.

We were "justified" (as if we have to justify our actions to anyone else) in going to war with Iraq on that fact alone.

He was shooting at our planes on a regular basis, in violation of a cease-fire agreement.

[Khornet]

not difficult, it just hasn't been tried by the antiwar crowd. But I'll give a few hints about what NOT to do, then you're on your own:

-you soldiers are uneducated, ignorant pawns, too stupid/poor to see what we, in our olympian wisdom (we read books, you watch Hannity) see as an unjust war.

-you dumb slaves are dying for nothing but Bush's reelection campaign. Or oil. Or Halliburton. Or American Imperialism. Take your pick.

-Your Commander In Chief is a Nazi. That's why Andy Rooney, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand et. al. are all in jail. He's such a Nazi that no dissent is heard anywhere.

-Bush is a liar. He made it all up.

-When Bush visits the troops, it's not because he respects their service. It's just a reelection photo-op.

Get the picture? The general tone, with all too few exceptions, is NOT that "we think this war unwise and unjustified for this and this and this reason"; it's "You guys s**k, you're evil, you're liars, you're Nazis, you're doing it for money and power, all who oppose the war are silenced and oppressed(that's why we're not really having this discussion--you've all been gagged) blah blah blah.

Find a way to oppose without expressing contempt for America and you won't be "seditious". A few do find a way, but they really are the minority of the voices I hear.

[Delmar]

I suppose that if we got out a oujia board and summoned the ghost of Ernie Pyle and people who served in a combat zone in most any war you would like to name, NONE of them would have honestly told you they were having a great time and "wished you were here."
Thats why they call it a war-all the dirty 4 letter cuss words were already taken.

What do they think about their generals and upper leadership? Probably the same thing I thought about mine when given another nasty assignment in a far away hell hole:
These guys have an advanced taste for feces!
Understandable-the closer you get to the shooting, the smaller your world becomes.

What Rooney said about the reserves and national guard is something to wonder about-yeah, he might have made Omaha beach, but he sure wasn't with the 29th-gee, that was a national guard unit! I don't believe he went in with the assault troops, and that would make sense. What the heck kind of planning would replace a rifleman with a correspondant anyway?

For me, anyone, from an 11Bushbeater to the clerk, active/reserve/national guard, in now or in years past, deserves our thanks. Not just for being wounded or being sent to ungodly places most will never know just how bad it was, but for the simple act of raising their hand and making themselves available to protect our country. If Andy can't snap to that, he is way out of touch.

The military hasn't had a draft in some time. The reason for that is simple-there are men and women in this country who will give up their own personal freedom so that we can have ours. Sure, some join for the bennies, but the end result is the same.

I don't know where the idea from some people comes from where you are going to be locked up just for your opinion on the war comes from. If that were true, there are several people on the High Road who would be in jail-along with most of the folks over at DU. Thank a military man or woman for the right to speak your mind. If you have trouble with folks who don't like your particular point of view, get over it, and by all means, excerise that right. Most folks in the military do not have that luxury. They CAN go to jail for voicing opposition to our leadership.

Some of us may not like the way Bush is leading the country on the war on terror, but despite that, a tip of the hat goes to those who serve, and no dimensia riddled old fossil who happens to be a so-called reporter is going to change my mind. It doesn't matter to me what he did or where he was stationed, the American soldier has always been something special to me, and that will always be so.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The only evidence Rooney offers in support of his theory is that there have been 23 suicides in the past year.

According to statistics from the National Institute of Mental Health, there were 10.7 suicides/100,000 individuals in 2001 . However, the ratio of male to female is 4:1. Therefore, the rate for males is 17.2/100,000, assuming a 50/50 population gender split. 1 in 7 soldiers deployed in Iraq is female. Assuming 130,000 soldiers deployed in Iraq, one would expect 19.2 male suicides and 0.78 female suicides for a total of 20. The 23 suicies in Iraq is most likely not significantly different from any random group of 130,000 people in the US with a 6:1 split of male to female over a year.

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp (Headlined: ROONEY'S ASININITY)

[griz]

How dare you even ask such a traitorous question! Guards, seize him!

:D Thanks, I needed that.


Greyhound, stopping one's expression of "dissent" at "I support our troops" doesn't sound like dissent at all. If the dissent gets expressed separately would somebody accuse the dissenter of not supporting our troops?

[TaurusCIA]

Absolutely. Just because he served in the armed forces that came ashore at Normandy and has spent 50 years covering the news of world affairs, sure doesn't give him the right to voice an opinion that makes George W Bush's war look bad.

This is the reason you have NO credibility for many on this board. Almost everything you say includes the mantra "George W Bush is bad". Any legitimate point you may have had is lost in your obvious bias.

But prior to the Bush admin, Americans all pretty much agreed that speaking your opinion was part of being an American. Bush now says it means

Some appear to "love" to "hate" Bush.

[TaurusCIA]

Those that put their life in jeopardy to protect us are not perfect but most are the salt of our freedom while most journalists appear to have lost any saltiness they may have had and aren't fit for the d---hill. IMO

(Luke 14:34-35) "Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? "It is neither fit for the land nor for the dunghill..."

[Eskimo Jim]

I agree with Thumper.

Maybe each and every soldier isn't a 'hero' however, all of them are doing a tough job that they did volunteer to do by accepting a commission or enlisting. The soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines deserve a lot of gratitude and consideration for the task that they have undertaken.

I think that Andy Rooney has been at CBS way too long. Some of his pieces were entertaining however he has become just another left wing whacko.

-Jim

[bountyhunter]

[QUOTE"We'll teach that son of a bitch that freedom of speech comes with a high price."

Really? Freedom of speech USED to be the law in the USA.... not lately, though."




This is such poo. Leftys are usually the first out of the gate with the "unpatriotic/unAmerican" whining. It is a preemptory strike of sorts. Like some people who scream racism, or sexism just to gain an advantage. Leftys are the Omarosa's of the world.
."[/QUOTE] OK, I guess I hallucinated all the posts I read and the internet boycotts against any performer who had spoken against the war. I can definitely smell where the pooh is piled and I think you will need to check your pockets.

[bountyhunter]

By stopping at "We support the troops" and not following with "but," and railing about this illegal/unprovoked/not part of the WOT/ war.

......I think the 50 % in favor could agree with dissent as long as it avoids the dreaded "but".
Excuseme, but did you read your posts? It's OK to dissent as long as all you say is:

"We support the troops."

But we are not allowed to say anything against the war or the chain of stupid actions that got us into it?

So, in your mind, dissent is OK as long as nobody says anything negative against the administration?

Could you please go look up the definition of "DISSENT" and get back to us?:barf:

[bountyhunter]

The truth about Stop Loss is that in the Army it only affects 7000 soldiers who are in units that are already deployed. The truth is also that it is being used in both the Marines and Navy reseve units which are attached to the Marines, and I can tell you the Navy people are furious about it. They did not sign on to be indentured servants with permanent contracts. Bottom line, the point is that stop-loss would not be necessary if people were not leaving as fast as they could...


To say that the Guardsmen neither knew where they fit into the defense structure of our nation is to either lie or to be misinformed. My statement was that the Guard are presently being used in a capacity for which the Guard was never originally intended when it was designed. I am aware that both the Guard and Reservas are NOW considered extensions of AD today, it began under Reagan as a way to cut costs for salaries of a standing army. You keep the permanent army small and yank the reserves in whenever needed and only pay them for their service time. I am simply saying the Guard was intended to be a militia for defense of this country, not a police force to use in occupied countries 10,000 miles away.

[Khornet]

The Right strongly dissented during the Clinton years. Yet none of their dissent took the form of contempt for America we now hear. As I've pointed out before, when we of the right were raging against Clinton, did we burn flags?

'nuff said.

[bountyhunter]

Let's be accurate now: they use terrorism, we use "justifiable pre-emptive military force".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are not really that intellectually devoid as to be unable to distinguish between terrorism and a legitimate military operation, are you?
You are not so "intellectually devoid" (sic) that you are unable to comprehend that most of the world perceives "pre emptive strikes", whether by Israel or the US, as simply using massive military force to impose their will on a smaller nation? The point I was making is that in every conflict since the dawn of time, one man's terrorist was another man's freedom fighter. It just depends on which propoganda machine you are listening to. I was also saying that the use of pre-emptive military force against a country which posed no imminent threat to us is a morally bankrupt policy.

[bountyhunter]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. Just because he served in the armed forces that came ashore at Normandy and has spent 50 years covering the news of world affairs, sure doesn't give him the right to voice an opinion that makes George W Bush's war look bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is the reason you have NO credibility for many on this board. Almost everything you say includes the mantra "George W Bush is bad". Any legitimate point you may have had is lost in your obvious bias.
Actually, the reason I take so much incoming fire from dufi is exactly the opposite reason: my credibility is dead on. I stood by my guns since six months before the war and then listend to all the "Told you sos" when they found the scary portable bio lab... that turned out to be a gas generator for weather ballons. And the vast underground nuke plant... that was a fake story printed by FOX news. And the "Ha ha, we won" when our troops took Baghdad, and I just shook my head and repeated my warning: "The real war starts now." I have refrained from "I told you sos" even though I took heat for saying Bush's "proof" of WMD's was bogus... in total context, it is your side which would be found to have ZEO credibility on the subject of Iraq and the present position about the chances of a positive outcome for our occupation strategy is more of the same pipe dreams.

As to your false statement (sorry if that's redundant) which was:

Almost everything you say includes the mantra "George W Bush is bad". You might try reading the post you are trying to attack to avoid looking foolish. My statment was:

doesn't give him the right to voice an opinion that makes George W Bush's war look bad. Which clearly refers to the statements made by Andy Rooney... which you now attribute to me. I know re-writing history is a republican pastime, I didn't know re-writing posts was as well.

This is the reason you have NO credibility for many on this board. I will give you three guesses as to whether I give a flying crap what standing I have amongst people who are totally oblivious to a steady stream of lies and deceptions holding to their beliefs in the face of the truth. Next time you see Bush's new ad showing bodies being hauled out of the WTC and his linking them to the war in Iraq, ask yourself why it is both he and Cheney were forced to admit that they failed to find any credible link between Hussein/Iraq and Al Qaeda. It is on videotape, it is public record that they said it. You sir are following a liar who will not even admit that his obsession with taking down Hussein is making him distort reality even today as to who our enemies actually are, just so he can cloak his disaterous folly in Iraq with the catch-all blanket of "War on Terror". As to who has credibility? You might look to the person you are following, his administration is fresh out.

[bountyhunter]

The Right strongly dissented during the Clinton years. Yet none of their dissent took the form of contempt for America we now hear. God help me. No contempt? Do you recall senior generals disciplined for openly calling Clinton a draft dodger? Do you know official orders were handed down to all services to crack down on the open contempt being shown towards Clinton? My wife was an XO in a navy reserve unit at the time and Clinton was being used as a daily joke by "the right". She had to discipline people to get them to shut up about it. No contempt by the right? What world do you live on..... :barf:

[TaurusCIA]

You might try reading the post you are trying to attack to avoid looking foolish. My statment was:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
doesn't give him the right to voice an opinion that makes George W Bush's war look bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Foolish is as foolish does there Skippy...

You qualified his statements as "makes George W Bush's war look bad" he didn't.

You called it Bush's war.

America's intentions are honorable. I believe that and we must find a way of making the rest of the world believe it. We want to do the right thing. We care about the rest of the world. President Bush's intentions were honorable when he took us into Iraq. They were not well thought out but honorable.

Severe antagonism toward the current admin appears to blind you to your own extreme bias.

[Thumper]

Read his statement again, bounty. You'll notice it says contempt "for America," not Clinton. He's correct there.

I agree with you, of course, that the military held Clinton contemptable.

[bountyhunter]

You called it Bush's war. Finally something we agree on. I do believe it is fair to call it Bush's war for the simple reason:

1) he was the one who was obsessed with making it happen.

2) Absent GWB's actions, the war would not have occurred.

So, I will admit that I consider the Iraq Folly to be George Bush's war, and I also admit I think it was a disaterous plan of action for all of the reasons I said prior to the war (which were proven true) and all of the reasons I now give as to how much it is costing, will cost, and how remote the possibility is for a positive long-term outcome (time will tell for those). That is my opinion. Period.

[bountyhunter]

Read his statement again, bounty. You'll notice it says contempt "for America," not Clinton. He's correct there.

I agree with you, of course, that the military held Clinton contemptable. That is a shell game with failed logic. You are saying that those who now criticise Bush and his actions are showing contempt "for America", but those who openly ridiculed Clinton as a womanizing buffoon and draft dodger who was afraid to use military force in Kosovo were not showing contempt "for America"? You can't have it both ways, sir... you are using the defective reasoning projected by George Bush that any words against him are "against America", while using dems as trget practice is "justifiable criticism" of the issues. Excuse me, but this is where the steaming pile has been growing for the last three years.

[R.H. Lee]

I would be last on the list villifying George Bush over the Iraq war. He did not act 'unilaterally'- Congress approved and the coalition includes +-68 other nations, not to mention the uneforced U.N. resolutions.

However, it is nigh impossible for an objective mind to assert that GWB did not lead us into this war. He initially set the bar VERY high in demanding Saddam's removal and regime change-maybe due to faulty intelligence assuring the existence of WMD in Iraq. That is what led to the invasion and occupation plan, and the accusations of 'quagmire' that are now being made.

In hindsight, would it have been better to invade, destroy 95% of Iraq's military capability, then withdraw (ie Gulf War I)?

[jimpeel]

Any time I read or hear "Andy Rooney" I stop right there, ignore the rest and move on. He is a dried up, impotent old man with one foot in the grave whose synopses are on the leading edge of insanity.

He is washed up as an entertainer, reporter, and human being and will soon pass from among us to his well earned obscurity.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The truth is also that it is being used in both the Marines and Navy reseve units which are attached to the Marines, and I can tell you the Navy people are furious about it. They did not sign on to be indentured servants with permanent contracts.

When I was in the Navy, I signed an 8-yr enlistment contract with a 5yr obligation for active duty. The Navy made it very clear to me that while I would probably be discharged after five years into the Individual Ready Reserve, they could and might decide to extend my active duty obligation at any time they chose up to the full eight years.

So, while you are correct that they did not sign permanent contracts to be indentured servants, they certainly are well within the contract they DID sign with the Navy.

Bottom line, the point is that stop-loss would not be necessary if people were not leaving as fast as they could...

Did you even read any of Jeff's comments? Stop-loss has nothing to do with people leaving the service - it has to do with keeping units cohesive while they are in the middle of a war in a combat zone.

Even if every single person in the military reenlisted, stop-loss would still be necessary to stop personnel turmoil in units deployed to Iraq. If 1/3 of your unit is going to rotate to a new duty assignment with some other unit (maybe in Iraq, maybe not) during the one year period they are in Iraq, that is going to make it very difficult to carry out your mission.

[mercedesrules]

(Thumper) Once troops are committed, one should STFU.
Then free speech is in for trouble, Thumper, since the United States Government (USG) has over a quarter million uniformed troops occupying about 700 bases in something like 130 countries. (http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1181) :uhoh:

MR

[TaurusCIA]

Next time you see Bush's new ad showing bodies being hauled out of the WTC and his linking them to the war in Iraq, ask yourself why it is both he and Cheney were forced to admit that they failed to find any credible link between Hussein/Iraq and Al Qaeda. It is on videotape, it is public record that they said it. You sir are following a liar who will not even admit that his obsession with taking down Hussein is making him distort reality even today as to who our enemies actually are,


Supporting terrorism is the only link that I care about.

I think some here have a big obsession against anything Bush.

I don't follow anyone...I am no longer in the military. I listen to all sides and disagree with all sides when appropriate.

Enemies in the War on Terror are anyone who actively participates in terrorism or anyone who aids and abets those who do...Including individuals, groups or states.

"Terrorism in any form not just your little nicely boxed AQ version."


For a refresher on our War on Terror positions... (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75171&perpage=25&highlight=war%20on%20terror&pagenumber=2)

[Khornet]

that's two posts in a row failing to answer my point. Makes me think you don't have a response.

Just so we're clear: conservative contempt for Clinton never took the form of flag-burning. Leftist contempt for current administration policy often takes that form. Leftist dissent often takes the form of "solidarity with Fallujah" and "We support our troops when they shoot their officers" and "America= Imperialism" ad nauseam.

There just is no getting around the fact, BH. That's why you can't confront my point. I'm not saying you, personally, hate your country. I AM saying the Left in general does.

Which leads me to another thought: what will you say when, if the US does cut and run, people say that we might have succeeded except that, like the Vietnam protesters before the, the antiwar Left cut the legs out from under us? How will you answer? That you vigorously supported the good points but opposed the foolish ones? That you defend America but disagreed wwith Bush? Because the photos of the protests, with all those slogans and burning flags, have been saved all over the place--and they'll be held against you. Be ready.

[Gordon Fink]

Don’t jump at sucker bait.…

Well, Cosmoline seems like a smart guy, so I thought he would be able to explain how “Rooney is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” If Rooney hadn’t said “America’s intentions are honorable,” I guess I could make a case for him giving psychological aid to the enemy, if they could understand English or even get American TV. Of course, I don’t think the “aid and comfort” definition of treason refers to anything but material support.

~G. Fink

[TheEgg]

This is not addressed to all who posted on this thread -- I think it will be obvious who I mean.

I am really tired of poisonous political partisans of all stripes.

Bush is not the Devil, nor is he a saint.

Kerry is not the Devil, nor is he a saint.

Both are politicians that need to be watched very carefully at all times, and make d**n sure you keep your hand on your wallet and count your change!

Remember that no matter what camp you are in, we are all Americans, we are all in this together, and each of us deserves a fair and respectfull hearing of views, without being called names. We should not degrade ourselves by reducing our debate to the level occupied by professional political partisans -- we are better than that.

Back on topic, I think that there is very little in Mr. Rooney's article that contributes to any understanding of the issue.

[R.H. Lee]

If Rooney hadn’t said “America’s intentions are honorable,” I guess I could make a case for him giving psychological aid to the enemy, if they could understand English or even get American TV. Of course, I don’t think the “aid and comfort” definition of treason refers to anything but material support.

Let me give it a shot.

Our enemy-radical islamofascistjihadists-are not all the illiterate gangbangers portrayed by CNN. They have money, brains and an understanding of the American political system. You can bet they understand English-the 19 hijackers on 9/11 certainly did. They know that the U.S. government will bend to the will of the people, and if they can create enough anti war sentiment among the U.S. population, it is likely we will withdraw our military forces from their land(s). They have looked at Vietnam and understand the power of public opinion.

So 'aid and comfort' is no longer limited to physical/material aid, it now includes a public relations battle-a war of opinion-for the 'hearts and minds' of the American people.

High profile "journalists" like Rooney who sit on the sidelines and take elitist pot shots at GWB give such 'aid and comfort' to our enemies and embolden/strengthen their resolve to fight.

[BigG]

The difference betw John Q. Public and Andy Rooney expressing the exact same opinion is this: Rooney is a public figure with a bully pulpit. He knows his word is going to be spread far and wide. There used to be a standard of decency or public responsibility where a public figure would not express an inflamatory opinon like this but that disappeared AFAIK around the time John Kennedy was assassinated. Since that time we have had these self appointed opinion spinners eager to "push the envelope" to see who can say the most outrageous things. It says more about the mass of Americans who could stifle this sort of idiot by judicious letters to the network but are too apathetic, than the idiocy spewed forth by commentators like Mr. Rooney. :barf:

[J. Garand]

"About 40 percent of our soldiers in Iraq enlisted in the National Guard or the Army Reserve to pick up some extra money and never thought they'd be called on to fight. They want to come home."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this I can diagree. Every gaurdsman or reservist TRAINS to deploy. What? They didn't think it would happen? They don't want to go?
Shouldn't have signed Sam's contract or took his money.
There are people on this board who got drafted and never had a choice about it.
I don't feel thier pain. They are federalized and in it. Welcome aboard.
Support for the president and our people in uniform is critical. Anything else is percieved by the enemy as weakness.

[greyhound]

Can you specifically identify one person inside the US who claimed that "we/they deserved it"?

Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Norman Mailer off the top of my head. Plus lots of signs at the ANSWER rallies.

Not exactly mainstream Americans, I'll admit.

Far as

But we are not allowed to say anything against the war or the chain of stupid actions that got us into it?

the original question was

Is there a way to oppose a war without being accused of emboldening the enemy and committing sedition?

I looked at the "without being accused part" and said not to tie "we support troops" with the "but" "Bush lied, not part of the WOT, etc".

I fully support the right of all to dissent and in fact welcome it.

I guess I am splitting hairs a little here; what's really the difference in saying "We support the troops" then starting a new sentence outlining (hopefully rational, not "Bush and his cronies want all the oil") arguments is not much different.

I've just seen too much of the "Insert patriotic phrase here" then the "but" since 9/11.

I can't believe its been almost 3 years since 9/11. I still can't get through a day without thinking about it.

[idd]

Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Norman Mailer off the top of my head.

Can you help me out with some cites? I'm running web searches and just cannot find them saying that the US "deserved it." (Chomsky referred to the attack on the WTC as a "horrendous crime" (http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyintv.html).)

The only guy I found who said that we "deserve" it is Jerry Falwell, with Pat Robertson in his amen corner.

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

[Because of the groups named above, God allowed] "the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve." - Sept. 13, 2001, on "The 700 Club" television program. Pat Robertson, who was interviewing Mr. Falwell, verbally agreed with him.

[Khornet]

you can't really mean the Left never said we deserved it. WTC was still smoldering when we heard this was all because of America's support for Israel, America's imperialism, America's disregard for the "root causes", etc etc.

For every leftist remark that 9/11 was a crime, there is a "But": but we can see how the terrorists would be moved to do it. The first words out of the left were along the lines of "We must ask ourselves what we did to make them attack us."

[idd]

you can't really mean the Left never said we deserved it.

Then it should be easy to prove, right? Lots of folks - the counterterror pros in the FBI and CIA, the Hart-Rudman Commission, etc. - said that we should expect an attack. After it happened and everyone was asking "why?" various theories were put forward, e.g., "they hate freedom" or "it's cause we back Israel." I've looked at statements made by Chomsky, Sontag, Mailer, Moore, etc., but have not found any expressing the belief that we "deserved it." Along the way I found a lot of other stupid stuff, e.g., the claim that bin Laden "was one of the many religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA" (Chomsky). I've seen no evidence - and I've been running down that claim for years - that bin Laden was ever a CIA asset, although they certainly knew who he was.

The only people who said we deserved it (that I have found) were a couple of reactionary theocrats (Falwell and Robertson) in the Taliban wing of the Republican Party.

[Drjones]

You are not so "intellectually devoid" (sic) that you are unable to comprehend that most of the world perceives "pre emptive strikes", whether by Israel or the US, as simply using massive military force to impose their will on a smaller nation? The point I was making is that in every conflict since the dawn of time, one man's terrorist was another man's freedom fighter. It just depends on which propoganda machine you are listening to. I was also saying that the use of pre-emptive military force against a country which posed no imminent threat to us is a morally bankrupt policy.

I'll give half a dead rat's rear what the rest of the world thinks when it becomes even a fraction as great a place as the United States of America is.

And don't give me that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" leftist BS.

We did iraq a HUGE favor by getting rid of saddam. Yes, we have a vested interest in doing so.

So what?

[fix]

The point I was making is that in every conflict since the dawn of time, one man's terrorist was another man's freedom fighter. It just depends on which propoganda machine you are listening to.

No. It depends on which side you're on.

[clubsoda22]

we need to set a higher standard for hero. It's an abused term. Every soldier is not a hero, every soldier that dies is not a hero. the soldier that jumps on the grenade in a selfless act to save his comrades, now that's a hero. The guy who's carrying the flag under enemy fire is a hero.

I've made this argument since "hero" first started to be abused in connection to flight 93. The guys who rushed the cockpit were heroes, the people who sat in their seats and pissed themselves were tragically murdered innocents, but not heroes.

Back at home i serve with multiple fire/ambulance companies. Personally, i resent the hero title. I didn't do anything special. The guy who ran in and risked his neck to save the kid trapped in the burning house was the hero, i was just support. Good for him, i don't mind not being the hero of the day.

In theater and film, the hero is the lead actor, what's with calling bit roles and extras heroes?

Sorry, but not everyone can be a hero, you actually have to make an effort and go out of your way to earn that title.

Definitions of Hero: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

1: In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.

2: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life

3: A person noted for special achievement in a particular field

There are millions of soldiers...you're gonna have to make yourself stand out if you want to be counted among heroes

[fix]

There are millions of soldiers...you're gonna have to make yourself stand out if you want to be counted among heroes

There is a measure of validity to your point, but you also need to remember that the troops are a very small percentage of the population to begin with...so the hero brush is not quite as broad as you make it out to be.

[idd]

greyhound and khornet, I'm still awaiting evidence for your claim that either Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, or Norman Mailer stated that "we deserved" to be attacked on 9-11.

Take your time.

[thefitzvh]

The truth is also that it is being used in both the Marines and Navy reseve units which are attached to the Marines, and I can tell you the Navy people are furious about it. They did not sign on to be indentured servants with permanent contracts.

This is the biggest problem I have with bountyhunter's posts... lack of fact checking with respect to military matters. Not just this thread, but many.

When you join, they make it clear that they are under NO OBLIGATION to release you until the conclusion of a major campaign. It's law, and they tell you numerous times before you sign. If someone's pissed off about it, it's their own damn fault for not reading the fine print.

If you were ever in the military, you'd know that. You have, in this thread and others, made assumptions and statements about military life and opinions, etc, that simply are not true.

I'm sorry, sir: but the fact that your wife is in does not give you credibility. Ask her about what happened when she joined. If she never heard about the above "condition" then either she's lying to you, or she wasn't paying very good attention.

James

[Sergeant Bob]

David Kopel
National Review Online

Bowling Truths (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp)
Michael Moore’s mocking.

From the article.....
Yet the connection the movie draws between Lockheed and the Columbine mass murder is even more tenuous than the connection with Manson. The Columbine killers had no connection to Lockheed, but they did listen to Marilyn Manson. And Brian Warner's choice of the stage name of "Manson" shows that mass killers can enjoy enduring pop-culture fame — precisely what the Columbine killers hoped to achieve. (I avoid mentioning their names so as not to assist their vicious quest.)

After blaming Lockheed for 13 deaths at Columbine, the film moves on to blaming the United States government for 3,000 deaths on September 11. It does this by arguing that we got what we deserved, because our nation revels in the killing of civilians by air.

A montage of U.S. foreign-policy atrocities (to the tune of "What a Wonderful World") concludes with the statement that the U.S. gave $245 million to the Taliban in 2000-01. The next shot is of the World Trade Center in flames.

In fact, that money was not given to the Taliban government, but rather to U.S. and international agencies that distributed humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. In other words, the fact that the United States gave money to Food For Peace and for girls' schools for Afghan refugees is supposed to prove that the America deserved to be attacked by al Qaeda.

Right after the footage of the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers, Bowling shows a B-52 memorial at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Moore intones: "The plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972." The point is obvious: that the United States government and al Qaeda both perpetrate murder by airplane.

In fact, the plaque on the B-52 at the AFA is not as Moore describes it. The plaque says "B-52D Stratofortress. 'Diamond Lil.' Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26-year history in the command. Aircraft 55-083, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52Ds credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam Conflict Flying out of U-Tapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southern Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas Eve, 1972."

Moore thus confirms the absurdity of the blame-America-first position popular among the Hollywood Left, by showing that such views require the ignoring of obvious facts — such as the difference between financial aid to a dictatorship and humanitarian aid to refugees, or between fighting enemy pilots and perpetrating war crimes against civilians.
-------------------------------------------------------

I haven't seen the entire movie, as the barf factor was too high and I couldn't sit through the whole thing, so I can't attest to what Moore was trying to say with this portion of the film.
But, if it is as reported, I'd say he pretty much blames America.
I'm sure others will have a competely different "take" on his mockumentary.

Do with it what you will.