Lost reply to Darin

[Dr. K]

This is very frustrating, but I want to re-post a reply to darin that got wiped when the board got reassembled. In regard to the charges of the Swift Boat Vetrans against kerry. i don't have Darin's post but here is my response:

 

 

I am prepared to accept that the medal reports contain BS. But Thurlow asserts that any innacuracies are Kerry's fault, without giving a shred of evidence. Why does it have to be Kerry's fault, when the same inaccuracies (according to him) are in his own citation? Seems to me he's more interested in blaming Kerry than exposing any truth.

 

Plus, there are witnesses who contradict him. So are the men on Kerry's boat lying? Including Rassman, the one Kerry saved? I'd like to know what you think.

 

I have no problem with Vets who served in Vietnam objecting to Kerry coming back and opposing the war afterwards. But I wish they would just come out and say that is why they are against him--which is a legitimate reason--instead of trumping up these charges. I have no problem with them saying they think he was grandstanding in his testimony to Congress in the early 70's. I have no problem with them asserting that anyone who opposed the Vietnam War, even if he fought in it, should not be trusted as commander in chief (though I disagree). At least we'd be having a real argument then. But to say, as they do in the ad, that they "served with Kerry" when most of them never even met him and all that means is that they were in Vietnam at the same time, is a cheesy lie, along with a half dozen other cheezy lies and assertions based on nothing but opinion in the ad.

 

Why can't they make the case on its merits, if they have one? Instead of this sleaze?

[Alaska Darin]

I don't know who is lying and frankly I don't care very much. I've always chastised those on the right who rip the guy about his service - even if he was a complete POS, he did his time. Him lauding himself over it doesn't sit well with me either.

 

I also don't think military service is as great a gauge of leadership as has been made out to be. The lion's share of people in the military (especially officers) are so far from being competent leaders it's actually laughable. Most people fall into the warm body category (exceptions are obvious combat operators who's daily tasks involve killing people and breaking stevestojan - or training for such endeavors) and are far more likely to do what is best for their career than what is best for their people or the mission.

 

To be honest, I haven't wasted 5 minutes reading about this particular political "football," though I did hear a little of an interview with one of the veterans on the evening drive home. Not enough to gleen whether the guy was worth anything or not, unfortunately.

 

Politics.

[blzrul]

I don't know who is lying and frankly I don't care very much.  I've always chastised those on the right who rip the guy about his service - even if he was a complete POS, he did his time.  Him lauding himself over it doesn't sit well with me either. 

 

I also don't think military service is as great a gauge of leadership as has been made out to be.  The lion's share of people in the military (especially officers) are so far from being competent leaders it's actually laughable.  Most people fall into the warm body category (exceptions are obvious combat operators who's daily tasks involve killing people and breaking stevestojan - or training for such endeavors) and are far more likely to do what is best for their career than what is best for their people or the mission.

 

To be honest, I haven't wasted 5 minutes reading about this particular political "football," though I did hear a little of an interview with one of the veterans on the evening drive home.  Not enough to gleen whether the guy was worth anything or not, unfortunately.

 

Politics. 

116[/snapback]

 

So ... Colin Powell, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK...to name a few, gained nothing from the military and are incompetent leaders. And all those advertisements that draw in young people telling them that being in the armed services is noble and will make them into better people while they serve their country, that's stevestojan too.

 

Well, I think you may have served, so I guess if you say that the military turns out incompetent leaders you are definitely in a position to have first-hand knowledge.

[Alaska Darin]

So ... Colin Powell, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK...to name a few, gained nothing from the military and are incompetent leaders.  And all those advertisements that draw in young people telling them that being in the armed services is noble and will make them into better people while they serve their country, that's stevestojan too.

 

Well, I think you may have served, so I guess if you say that the military turns out incompetent leaders you are definitely in a position to have first-hand knowledge.

260[/snapback]

Good post Debbie, as usual. Thanks for showing your ignorance yet again by reading into something and attempting to twist it around in your own special (retarded) way.

 

I especially liked your last statement, which was obviously supposed to be slam, but actually reads that my experience makes me more qualified than you to judge. Nicely done.

 

I didn't use absolutes (who can possibly gain "nothing" from any experience they've had?), nor did I mention anyone by name when I made the statement. There are some very good leaders in the Armed Forces (especially in the middle tier of enlisted folks), just as there are in the civilian world. However, military service alone is hardly an accurate gauge of quality leadership (maybe you've forgotten Abu Ghraib and the countless other examples you've embellished ad nauseum about?).

 

I'd venture to guess if they told the average recruit the truth about the military, recruiting would be even tougher than it already is.

[blzrul]

I also don't think military service is as great a gauge of leadership as has been made out to be.  The lion's share of people in the military (especially officers) are so far from being competent leaders it's actually laughable.  Most people fall into the warm body category (exceptions are obvious combat operators who's daily tasks involve killing people and breaking stevestojan - or training for such endeavors) and are far more likely to do what is best for their career than what is best for their people or the mission.

116[/snapback]

 

Oh I stand corrected. So the MAJORITY of the military ("Lion's Share") are incompetent, especially the officers.

 

Your words, you eat 'em. I'm not hungry. And actually if you think I slammed you that must be because you know something I don't. Odds are, since the "lion's share" are incompetent, you might well be in there.

 

I do agree with your last line about recruiters. I know some and of course know people who have been recruited. It's a tough job and my guess is if they weren't recruiting they would be right at home selling Edsels.

[Let'sGoBuffalo]

Good post Debbie, as usual.  Thanks for showing your ignorance yet again by reading into something and attempting to twist it around in your own special (retarded) way. 

 

I especially liked your last statement, which was obviously supposed to be slam, but actually reads that my experience makes me more qualified than you to judge.  Nicely done.

 

I didn't use absolutes (who can possibly gain "nothing" from any experience they've had?), nor did I mention anyone by name when I made the statement.  There are some very good leaders in the Armed Forces (especially in the middle tier of enlisted folks), just as there are in the civilian world.  However, military service alone is hardly an accurate gauge of quality leadership (maybe you've forgotten Abu Ghraib and the countless other examples you've embellished ad nauseum about?). 

 

I'd venture to guess if they told the average recruit the truth about the military, recruiting would be even tougher than it already is.

298[/snapback]

You are the ignorant one. It is SO obvious. AND. Did you ever notice that you NEVER attack the right wing nuts on this board? You only attack the people against Bush. YOU are so transparent! Go away for good! please! You moron!!

[DC Tom]

So ... Colin Powell, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK...to name a few, gained nothing from the military and are incompetent leaders.  And all those advertisements that draw in young people telling them that being in the armed services is noble and will make them into better people while they serve their country, that's stevestojan too.

 

Well, I think you may have served, so I guess if you say that the military turns out incompetent leaders you are definitely in a position to have first-hand knowledge.

260[/snapback]

 

What the hell? Darin said "military service isn't necessarily a gauge of leadership". By what stretch of your little idiot pea-brain did you get "the military turns out incompetent leaders"?

[blzrul]

What the hell?  Darin said "military service isn't necessarily a gauge of leadership".  By what stretch of your little idiot pea-brain did you get "the military turns out incompetent leaders"?

308[/snapback]

 

READ HIS ENTIRE STATEMENT not just what YOU want to read.

[DC Tom]

  You are the ignorant one. It is SO obvious. AND. Did you ever nitice that you NEVER attack the right wing nuts on this board? You only attack the people against Bush. YOU are so transparent! Go away for good! please! You moron!!

307[/snapback]

 

 

So nice to have you back. Went of the depakote, I see...

[Alaska Darin]

Oh I stand corrected.  So the MAJORITY of the military ("Lion's Share") are incompetent, especially the officers.

 

Your words, you eat 'em.  I'm not hungry.  And actually if you think I slammed you that must be because you know something I don't.  Odds are, since the "lion's share" are incompetent, you might well be in there.

305[/snapback]

It's actually a systemic problem, especially for officers. Their promotions are based on their superior's opinion, so it makes alot of sense for them not to rock the boat too much - even if that means their men aren't prepared for battle.

 

The tools for leadership creation in the military are all there. The problem is in the execution. Hence the reason so many propose massive changes AFTER their careers are over. Those who do it while they're still in tend to find their promotion path stifled.

 

"Heartbreak Ridge" is a very campy and kind of silly movie. Yet it is a microcosm of alot of things VERY wrong with the military.

[blzrul]

It's actually a systemic problem, especially for officers.  Their promotions are based on their superior's opinion, so it makes alot of sense for them not to rock the boat too much - even if that means their men aren't prepared for battle.

 

The tools for leadership creation in the military are all there.  The problem is in the execution.  Hence the reason so many propose massive changes AFTER their careers are over.  Those who do it while they're still in tend to find their promotion path stifled.

 

"Heartbreak Ridge" is a very campy and kind of silly movie.  Yet it is a microcosm of alot of things VERY wrong with the military.

317[/snapback]

Well there you go then. THAT would have been a better post because I do not disagree with you on any of these statements. How about that.

 

I have two friends who have known Colin Powell for decades - one served with him in VietNam. Once (before all this Bush crap) I attended a presentation Powell gave wherein he advocated questioning everything, pushing the envelope, etc. I was somewhat surprised. I queried my friends and they said "well, he got where he did in the military by shutting up and sucking up" ... which I think is a shame. I understand the need for discipline and conformance to a degree, but some of the most fabled military geniuses are those who conceived and executed creative - and unexpected - plans.

 

I'm not slamming Colin by the way, it just so happened that is the only high-level military guy with whom I have friends in common.

[Alaska Darin]

Well there you go then.  THAT would have been a better post because I do not disagree with you on any of these statements.  How about that.

 

I have two friends who have known Colin Powell for decades - one served with him in VietNam.  Once (before all this Bush crap) I attended a presentation Powell gave wherein he advocated questioning everything, pushing the envelope, etc.  I was somewhat surprised.  I queried my friends and they said "well, he got where he did in the military by shutting up and sucking up" ... which I think is a shame.  I understand the need for discipline and conformance to a degree, but some of the most fabled military geniuses are those who conceived and executed creative - and unexpected - plans.

 

I'm not slamming Colin by the way, it just so happened that is the only high-level military guy with whom I have friends in common.

324[/snapback]

I guess I'm sorry it took so long to get there?

[Berg]

It's actually a systemic problem, especially for officers.  Their promotions are based on their superior's opinion, so it makes alot of sense for them not to rock the boat too much - even if that means their men aren't prepared for battle.

 

The tools for leadership creation in the military are all there.  The problem is in the execution.  Hence the reason so many propose massive changes AFTER their careers are over.  Those who do it while they're still in tend to find their promotion path stifled.

 

"Heartbreak Ridge" is a very campy and kind of silly movie.  Yet it is a microcosm of alot of things VERY wrong with the military.

317[/snapback]

 

Not correct. Our promotions are based (at least through 0-5, and kind of 0-6) on the opinion of a bunch of senior officers who sit around a table and grade our records in an average of 3 minutes per candidate. It's possible for a superior to sabatoge an OPR, but unlikely (today) to be allowed nor have much of an effect unless the person is a total schmuck to begin with and has an overall poor record.

 

Its really too bad you had such a sour experience with officers, but your generalizations are not true. There are as many good (and bad) officers as enlisted, and the leadership I've seen is still significantly better in the AF anyway than in my civilian experiences with defense contractors.

 

It takes a certain amount of politics to make GO, and those are the ones who tend to be listened to AFTER separation/retirement. There are plenty of 0-5s and 0-6s who have counter opinions but aren't quoted nearly as often after their careers are over.

[Alaska Darin]

Not correct.  Our promotions are based (at least through 0-5, and kind of 0-6) on the opinion of a bunch of senior officers who sit around a table and grade our records in an average of 3 minutes per candidate.  It's possible for a superior to sabatoge an OPR, but unlikely (today) to be allowed nor have much of an effect unless the person is a total schmuck to begin with and has an overall poor record.

 

Its really too bad you had such a sour experience with officers, but your generalizations are not true.  There are as many good (and bad) officers as enlisted, and the leadership I've seen is still significantly better in the AF anyway than in my civilian experiences with defense contractors.

 

It takes a certain amount of politics to make GO, and those are the ones who tend to be listened to AFTER separation/retirement.  There are plenty of 0-5s and 0-6s who have counter opinions but aren't quoted nearly as often after their careers are over.

417[/snapback]

Ah, but it is correct. There are plenty of ways for the rater to sabotage his subordinate via wordplay or otherwise. You also kind of proved my point by saying that your promotion is determined by a board that gives an average of 3 minutes, rather than any actual performance (test or otherwise). Go along and get along. My wife worked in Wing or higher level command sections her entire career. The stories I could tell...

 

I'm sorry you think they aren't true. Keep in mind I was in an actual AF combat ops environment my whole career and my dealing with officers/senior enlisted folks who supported us was less than extraordinary - mostly because they were REMF equivalents who cared more about how they looked than making sure we had what we needed to do our jobs.

 

It's quite funny, because my wife and I used to have the same argument until her last assignment was to an operational unit. Oh the eye opening she went through.

 

There are definately 2 Air Forces.

[Berg]

Ah, but it is correct.  There are plenty of ways for the rater to sabotage his subordinate via wordplay or otherwise.  You also kind of proved my point by saying that your promotion is determined by a board that gives an average of 3 minutes, rather than any actual performance (test or otherwise).  Go along and get along.  My wife worked in Wing or higher level command sections her entire career.  The stories I could tell...

 

I'm sorry you think they aren't true.  Keep in mind I was in an actual AF combat ops environment my whole career and my dealing with officers/senior enlisted folks who supported us was less than extraordinary - mostly because they were REMF equivalents who cared more about how they looked than making sure we had what we needed to do our jobs.

 

It's quite funny, because my wife and I used to have the same argument until her last assignment was to an operational unit.  Oh the eye opening she went through.

 

There are definately 2 Air Forces.

428[/snapback]

 

What you said was promotions are based on superiors opinions, which is not true. At least no truer than for enlisted (who develops those tests anyways?).

 

I've been an admin assistant on a promotion board, and I can tell you OPRs mean virtually squat, so sabotaging those is misconceived as being effective (unless as I said they ALL are, in which case the person probably is a schmuck). The board members spend that three minutes looking for the proper boxes checked: PME, Awards&Decs, Adv Degrees, DP/P/DNP if applicable, a few seconds on the PRF and Letter to the board if submitted and that's it unless there is a significant difference between graders. The OPRs may come into play when they reasses the "maybe" pile to determine the cutoff point, but at that point they are down to a small number of records.

 

I'm not saying you didn't run across poor leadership. I said I'm sorry that was your experience, because I have met many good leaders both Es and 0s. And just as many worthless officers as enlisted. If you meant to crticize a specific group of Officers - i.e. in AF Combat Ops - that didn't come through in your original post. I've only met a few of those officers, so I can't speak to that career field specifically.

 

However, I have met hundreds of military officers (0-1 to 0-6 mostly) in my career, and I can say as a group I believe they are top notch and possess good leadership qualities and skills. Certainly better than the leadership I've seen in the defense contractor community.

[Alaska Darin]

Certainly better than the leadership I've seen in the defense contractor community.

446[/snapback]

That's definately true. I don't know how some of those people look in the mirror in the morning.

 

I actually met a couple of Chiefs who designed the SKT portion of the test for my career field. They were not very impressive, so it was no surprise that the test were based on facts that had little practical use. The tests are absolutely no measure of a person's ability to do their job, nor were the 7-level schools that were implemented.

 

Being forced to attend a school where things like "the origin of Unix" was being taught and the tests were open book in no way prepared me to lead my people. My course critique caused quite a ruckus and I was told I needed to think about where my allegiances lay (It certainly didn't lay at AETC). Whatever.

[Arondale]

But to say, as they do in the ad, that they "served with Kerry" when most of them never even met him and all that means is that they were in Vietnam at the same time, is a cheesy lie, along with a half dozen other cheezy lies and assertions based on nothing but opinion in the ad. 

 

Why can't they make the case on its merits, if they have one?  Instead of this sleaze?

70[/snapback]

 

I have read and listened to so many reports, as I'm sure a lot of us have. Here is what I understand. Most of the men in the book and on the tv ad were not among the 6-7 men serving on Kerry's exact swift boat. HOWEVER, that in no way means that they they did not serve with him.

 

As I understand, swift boats are similar to tanks, in that they never go out on missions alone. They always go in groups of at least two and as many as 6 or more. They are in close proximity. They trained together and live together. They experience the same battles and observe each other daily.

 

Kerry was an officer, in command of one swift boat. Of the 23 other officers in his group, I believe the stats are that 2 are dead, 4 have not commented and 17 are members of this group and against Kerry. These are men that would have been in daily contact with Kerry. The rest of the men served in the boats along side Kerry's boats. I'm sure some never saw Kerry, but I'm sure they served with men that served with Kerry, which does give them a perspective.

 

I personally do not like the ad. I do however think it is ridiculous that everything Kerry says about Vietnam is credible, but when you have 250+ veterans making statements, many of them decorated veterans, they are considered wackos.

[VABills]

"Heartbreak Ridge" is a very campy and kind of silly movie.  Yet it is a microcosm of alot of things VERY wrong with the military.

317[/snapback]

 

 

You got it. Even the jarheads have more then their fair share of !@#$ed up officers. That why the old saying still holds true "The sergeants run the Marine Corps".

 

I know my boss an LDO, prior enlisted, ensure we had more then our share of military training and understanding. I went through NCO leadership school as both a corporal and as a sergeant. When I was selected for SSGT, he sent me to the SNCO academy.

 

I had been through rifle range (2 weeks every year), gas chamber every 6 months, PFT every 3, testing on military and MC history every year. Add to that I went to physical security and installation security training at Norfolk with the Navy as well as NBC training and setup with the FBI teams.

 

My boss was one of the good ones, and he ensured that we were set to lead the Marine Corps into the future. Of ciurse they were pissed when I got out, but hey.

 

But that said I would say, I had no respect for at least half of the officers in my shop. These were the ones who barely passed their PFT's, never ran with their troops, and barely understood what the field they were in was doing. They were administrators only. We had a great Colonel, who I saw push a lot of Majors and Captains out of the MC after 10-15 years of service. He was pissed because previous bosses hadn't taken care of business and let these dirtbags work through and get promoted.

[erynthered]

You got it.  Even the jarhead have more then their fair share of !@#$ed up officers.  That why the old saying still holds true "The sergeants run the Marine Corps"

536[/snapback]

 

 

My Dad said the same thing about his time in Korea. They kept wanting to promote him to Lt, he said I've already seen 5 Lt's get sent home in BB, no thanks.

He was a Sarg. in the Army.

[blzrul]

I guess I'm sorry it took so long to get there? 

326[/snapback]

 

Of course you aren't. If we agreed right off the bat you would have missed an opportunity to hurl a personal insult at me, which is something you obviously thoroughly enjoy. Far be it from me to deprive you of your small pleasures.