Dying veteran's F-U letter to Bush and Cheney

[DC Tom]

Understood, but I'm of the belief that:

 

A) One should remain crouched like a readied tiger until one is "attacked" (it's perfectly acceptable for the US to declare a much wider air and naval perimeter for defense purposes, assuming those perimeters are disclosed to the world, and are based on a defensive position linked to current cutting edge technology at all times.)

 

B) Total War is a legitimate response to external aggressors.

 

One could debate that...but only on principle. The logic itself is fundamentally sound.

[OCinBuffalo]

all volunteer x if you're poor, have no good alternatives and see a realistic opportunity to improve youy place.

This is such a BS argument. You should go interveiw cadets at West Point, and see how many of them came from a poor background, and had no alternatives. Also, you should go interview any of the Special Opertions people in any of the services...and ask the same question.

 

Yes, there are a lot of Johnny Hayseed from bum!@#$, kansas, but your observation of his choices and the conclusion you draw....is tainted and therefore retarded. From Johnny's perspective, he could have spent the rest of his life as a farm hand, a cowboy, a hunting guide, a whole bunch of things that in Johnny's mind(but not in yours) are completely different jobs with wide variance on what has to be done each day...and been quite happy....

 

....weren't you to the one arguing how rich people can't be happy, because money makes you sad, last week?....

 

...but Johnny wanted to see the world, or at least more of it than bum!@#$. And God Forbid, Johnny is capable of abstract and deep thought as well, and as an American, realized he was willing take on the necessery duty so many suppsedly "more refined" individuals lack the conscience and introspection, never mind the balls, to accept. So, from Johnny's perspective, he had plenty of options and all the choice in the world, but he chose service to others.

 

But you don't understand that, do you, because in your silly little mind, only peole like you are capable of choosing to serve others.

 

You don't care to understand Johnny. No, you'd rather project your narrow views onto Johnny, and then conclude "well, Johnny had little choice but join the Army." And then conclude "That's not fair to Johnny to have such crappy choices in life".

 

But your argument, both Johnny and I will tell you, is based on pure, 100% ignorance, then supported by projection, and concludes with a shameful amount of condescension....with an undercurrent of smug running throughout.

 

Par for the course for your average (*^*&%^$^#liberal argument.

Edited March 26, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

This is such a BS argument. You should go interveiw cadets at West Point, and see how many of them came from a poor background, and had no alternatives. Also, you should go interview any of the Special Opertions people in any of the services...and ask the same question.

 

Yes, there are a lot of Johnny Hayseed from bum!@#$, kansas, but your observation of his choices and the conclusion you draw....is tainted and therefore retarded. From Johnny's perspective, he could have spent the rest of his life as a farm hand, a cowboy, a hunting guide, a whole bunch of things that in Johnny's mind(but not in yours) are completely different jobs with wide variance on what has to be done each day...and been quite happy....

 

....weren't you to the one arguing how rich people can't be happy, because money makes you sad, last week?....

 

...but Johnny wanted to see the world, or at least more of it than bum!@#$. And God Forbid, Johnny is capable of abstract and deep thought as well, and as an American, realized he was willing take on the necessery duty so many suppsedly "more refined" individuals lack the conscience and introspection, never mind the balls, to accept. So, from Johnny's perspective, he had plenty of options and all the choice in the world, but he chose service to others.

 

But you don't understand that, do you, because in your silly little mind, only peole like you are capable of choosing to serve others.

 

You don't care to understand Johnny. No, you'd rather project your narrow views onto Johnny, and then conclude "well, Johnny had little choice but join the Army." And then conclude "That's not fair to Johnny to have such crappy choices in life".

 

But your argument, both Johnny and I will tell you, is based on pure, 100% ignorance, then supported by projection, and concludes with a shameful amount of condescension....with an undercurrent of smug running throughout.

 

Par for the course for your average (*^*&%^$^#liberal argument.

in brief response: poorer people die more often in recent american wars. http://juneauempire.com/stories/053110/opi_647103553.shtml. is that not an important measure?

[DC Tom]

in brief response: poorer people die more often in recent american wars. http://juneauempire....647103553.shtml. is that not an important measure?

 

Define "more often."

[TakeYouToTasker]

in brief response: poorer people die more often in recent american wars. http://juneauempire....647103553.shtml. is that not an important measure?

The only thing it's an important measure of is our societies willingness and ability to systemically offer disadvantaged individuals the chance to earn themselves an unparellelled promotion of social and economic status in a single generation.

[IDBillzFan]

Define "more often."

 

More than "less often" but less often than "all the time."

[birdog1960]

Define "more often."

read the book. it's full of tables and jargon. you'll no doubt enjoy it.

 

The only thing it's an important measure of is our societies willingness and ability to systemically offer disadvantaged individuals the chance to earn themselves an unparellelled promotion of social and economic status in a single generation.

you're a peach

[birdog1960]

a nice summary and review of the book from an important perspective for those not inclined to read it. the author is a west point grad, career military, whose son was killed in action in iraq. i especially like his last 2 paragraphs. http://www.thenation.com/article/154459/unequal-sacrifice#

[DC Tom]

read the book. it's full of tables and jargon. you'll no doubt enjoy it.

 

I'm asking YOU to define it.

Edited March 26, 2013 by DC Tom

[birdog1960]

I'm asking YOU to define it.

and i'm telling you to read the book or the review. bacevich is more eloquent than i'll ever be in this piece. and with much more knowledge and experienced on the issue. you don't need me to define it to understand my point. it's all right there.

[TakeYouToTasker]

you're a peach

They sign up, a choice they make themselves, because of the opportunities military service gives them.

 

Socially, they are viewed with honor. They immediately earn the respect of an entire nation for their willingness to serve in our nation's defense.

 

Economically, they earn themselves great privlidge. They receive training in cutting edge technologies which they can later leverage in civilian life. They earn themselves a pension, favorable treatment in aquireing a home loan, and financing for college. And should they choose to not use that college funding for themselves, they can pass the privlidge down to their children. They also earn themselves preferable hiring status, and a resume enhancement unavailable anywhere else.

 

Finally, they learn the merits duty, sacrifice, respect, and hard work; which when combined with those other benefits create a real path to an upper-middle class existance or better.

 

I'm not exactly sure what your issue is with providing those who need it a real chance to earn themselves the life that you have.

[DC Tom]

and i'm telling you to read the book or the review. bacevich is more eloquent than i'll ever be in this piece. and with much more knowledge and experienced on the issue. you don't need me to define it to understand my point. it's all right there.

 

I don't need to define it to understand your point. YOU need to define it to understand your point.

[OCinBuffalo]

in brief response: poorer people die more often in recent american wars. http://juneauempire....647103553.shtml. is that not an important measure?

Not if you don't deal with it in proper context. Or, in especially your case, if you know nothing about defense policy, strategic policy, tactics, operations, etc., and how those relate to our society as a whole.

 

The simple fact is: I respect this guy's right to be bitter about dying, and to question the need for it. It truly is sad, and it is also a perfectly valid human response.

 

However, ultimately I can't(not don't) care: soldiers die in war, period. As a society, we have to make choices, and one of those HAD to be: putting this guy in danger of dying. War is one scenario in government where we don't get to duck the consequences of our choices. There is no 'just run a deficit', 'just spend some more money', in war. People die, that's the end of it, and nothing "fixes" it.

 

I can explain why we ALL can't care that poorer people die in war, in full context, if you'd like.

 

But I will only do it if you promise to act like an adult.

Edited March 26, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

Not if you don't deal with it in proper context. Or, in especially your case, if you know nothing about defense policy, strategic policy, tactics, operations, etc., and how those relate to our society as a whole.

 

The simple fact is: I respect this guy's right to be bitter about dying, and to question the need for it. It truly is sad, and it is also a perfectly valid human response.

 

However, ultimately I can't(not don't) care: soldiers die in war, period. As a society, we have to make choices, and one of those HAD to be: putting this guy in danger of dying. War is one scenario in government where we don't get to duck the consequences of our choices. There is no 'just run a deficit', 'just spend some more money', in war. People die, that's the end of it, and nothing "fixes" it.

 

I can explain why we ALL can't care that poorer people die in war, in full context, if you'd like.

 

But I will only do it if you promise to act like an adult.

well, at least were not wasting time over a semantic debate about more often versus greater percentage. i think bacevich understands the full context better than most. he clearly sees the casualty gap as a travesty. and i can't find fault with his reasoning.

[TakeYouToTasker]

well, at least were not wasting time over a semantic debate about more often versus greater percentage. i think bacevich understands the full context better than most. he clearly sees the casualty gap as a travesty. and i can't find fault with his reasoning.

I'll state this again, prefaced with the fact that military service is a systemic means of providing incredible opportunity to the under-privileged in exchange for a service those who are paying for that systemic means of economic and social ladder climbing find valuable.

 

They sign up, a choice they make themselves, because of the opportunities military service gives them.

 

Socially, they are viewed with honor. They immediately earn the respect of an entire nation for their willingness to serve in our nation's defense.

 

Economically, they earn themselves great privilege. They receive training in cutting edge technologies which they can later leverage in civilian life. They earn themselves a pension, favorable treatment in aquireing a home loan, and financing for college. And should they choose to not use that college funding for themselves, they can pass the privilege down to their children. They also earn themselves preferable hiring status, and a resume enhancement unavailable anywhere else.

 

Finally, they learn the merits duty, sacrifice, respect, and hard work; which when combined with those other benefits create a real path to an upper-middle class existance or better.

 

The truth is that people coming from more privileged backgrounds don't typically have as great a need for the incredible, multi-generational, leg-up that service provides; and as such they view that potential cost/rewards from a different angle.

 

This certainly isn't cause to fret over any disparity in socio-economic differences in those inclined to serve, and those not inclined to. It's cause to celebrate the idea that we have an institution that provides a real life changing beneifit to almost any American who chooses to reach for it, regardless of prior social and economic status.

Edited March 26, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

well, at least were not wasting time over a semantic debate about more often versus greater percentage. i think bacevich understands the full context better than most. he clearly sees the casualty gap as a travesty. and i can't find fault with his reasoning.

 

You are the absolute worst kind of hypocrite.

[....lybob]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

The unemployment rate for veterans dropped last year, according to a report out Wednesday from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, but vets still lag behind non-vets in the job market.

 

The unemployment rate for veterans who have served in the U.S. military since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 dropped by 2.2 percentage points in 2012, to 9.9%.

 

But that's still higher than last year's 7.9% unemployment rate for nonveterans, the report said.

Army veteran Marcel Rowley of South Lake Tahoe, Calif., who served in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, said that he had a difficult time trying to secure part-time employment while going to school on the GI Bill. He said that as soon as he mentioned the time period during which he served, the job interview would "taper off," as the interviewer realized he was a war veteran.

"With all the ski resorts out here, you would think it would be fairly simple [ to get a job,]" he said. "But because of PTSD, companies won't hire veterans. It's because they're afraid they're going to have an episode in the work place."

Related: Job challenges loom for war vets

Rowley, who has started up an advertising business, also said that serving in the infantry during combat did not provide him with skills that are valued by civilian employers.

Larry Korb, senior fellow at the think tank Center for American Progress and a Vietnam-era Navy veteran, said that fears of post-traumatic stress disorder and a lack of "transferable skills" are widespread issues for veterans -- especially infantry vets from the army and Marines -- who are looking for civilian jobs.

"I talked to a lot of vets who don't even say they were in the army, because there is this big concern about PTSD," said Korb, who was an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration. "In terms of your technical proficiency, you're not going to learn a whole lot when you're doing counter-insurgency."

 

There was a similar disparity in 2011, when the unemployment for post-9/11 veterans was 12.1%, compared to 8.7% for nonveterans.

The unemployment rate for all veterans, not just those who served in the post-9/11 era, was relatively low at 7% last year, the report said.

Women veterans tended to have a higher unemployment rate than men, according to the report. Among post-9/11 veterans, men had an unemployment rate of 9.5% last year, compared to 12.5% for women.

Korb said that many women veterans, in addition to dealing with the stigma of PTSD, are also struggling with the high incidence of rape in the military.

"You get PTSD plus sexual violence, and it would make any person have more problems than normal," he said.

[TakeYouToTasker]

...lybob:

 

That data doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

The argument that you are piggybacking onto is that a disproportional number of the poor are serving in the military. If the ultimate takeaway is that the unemployment rate for veterans is lower than it is for the rest of the poor community, then what does that tell you?

Edited March 28, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

...lybob:

 

That data doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

If the argument that you are piggybacking onto is that a disproportional number of the poor are serving in the military. If the ultimate takeaway is that the unemployment rate for veterans is lower than it is for the rest of the poor community, then what does that tell you?

 

That the military kills poor people in even greater numbers, to get the unemployment rate so low...

[OCinBuffalo]

well, at least were not wasting time over a semantic debate about more often versus greater percentage. i think bacevich understands the full context better than most. he clearly sees the casualty gap as a travesty. and i can't find fault with his reasoning.

That's because you've never really thought about it properly, and neither has this guy.

 

You haven't, because neither of you have been forced to think about it properly. You've never been put in the position to actually have to make a decision, in real time, about who dies and who doesn't, or more realistically, what % of risk are you willing to take on vs. mission objectives? Or, given the mission, and the fact that it must be done, for real, this isn't some idiocy from division, you know somebody is going to have to die to get it done....who should that be, and how many? Or, this mission is so important, that it's worth: all of us.

 

Oh sure, as a doctor who lives off Medicare, I am sure you've assisted plenty of families with the EOL stuff. That's not this.

 

This is saying: There is no "we choose to lose no one"...in the grown up world. And, if somebody is poor, there's statistical evidence for why: less intelligence. Sure there are outliers, but in general: lack of intelligence. We chose to lose the people that have the least likely chance to contribute to society, because we have to choose somebody.

 

Btw, how many Rhodes scholars do you find on the average police force? Where are your stats about poor people joining the police and their propensity to die? IF a police officer, from a poor background dies, is that a great travesty as well...but only because...they were poor?

 

What would you have us do instead? Turn all our Medical School kids into leg infanty? The same reason why we shouldn't do that, is the same reason why you should never be allowed to command an infantry battalion. Poor allocation of resources. You don't posess the right mentality for the job. There's nothing wrong with you, necessarily, it just meand that you must seek life elsewhere, never mind the fact that as a doctor, you are near the top of the list. (Is that what this is about, feeling guilty? Let me tell you: nobody appreciates your guilt based on condescension, certainly not Johnny Hayseed from Kansas)

 

However, the job, must be done, and it must be done properly by people who are strong enough to bear the massive responsibility, and those people are near the top of the list, higher than you in fact, as well.