Gentlemen, I may have found the most ironic story yet
Darrien
Somehow, in that situation, I don't think that my last words
would have been printable in any respectable newspaper.
Eric Takabayashi
Bill Cosby, on the futility of being told to go out with clean
underwear:
"First you say it, then you do it."
Fabian
> http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2604313/detail.html
>
> Somehow, in that situation, I don't think that my last words
> would have been printable in any respectable newspaper.
Is she in line for a Darwin, or did she manage to breed?
--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk
Michael Cash
<Darrien...@NA.COM@hotmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on
going with:
>http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2604313/detail.html
>
>Somehow, in that situation, I don't think that my last words
>would have been printable in any respectable newspaper.
"Lawton swerved to avoid a utility pole, crossed into the oncoming
lane and crashed into the building, Richmond said. "
This sounds like my first attempts at playing Grand Theft Auto III
last night.
Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson
> [stuff]
Ironic? Time to drag out the old Allanniss Morrissette and "Sepponians
don't understand it" lines.
Ken
Darrien
"Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson" <ken_ni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6afefaef.03110...@posting.google.com...
Iggnnorranncce is bliss.
Brett Robson
>
>http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2604313/detail.html
>
Well it would be ironic if he was telling her friend not use a mobile when she's
driving, or maybe asking for directions to the phone shop.
.
----
"No country hides itself behind the paper screen of cultural elitism like Japan,
which, considering they've bought their entire civilisation from other people's
hand-me-downs, is a bit of a liberty."
Eric Takabayashi
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:07:53 GMT, Darrien ...
> >
> >http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2604313/detail.html
> >
>
> Well it would be ironic if he was telling her friend not use a mobile when she's
> driving, or maybe asking for directions to the phone shop.
It was sad how she was studying to be an EMT but didn't wear a seat belt. She might
have saved some lives.
Brett Robson
>
>Brett Robson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:07:53 GMT, Darrien ...
>> >
>> >http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2604313/detail.html
>> >
>>
>>Well it would be ironic if he was telling her friend not use a mobile when she's
>> driving, or maybe asking for directions to the phone shop.
>
>It was sad how she was studying to be an EMT but didn't wear a seat belt. She
>might
>have saved some lives.
EMT?
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:54:27 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
>>
>>Brett Robson wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:07:53 GMT, Darrien ...
>>> >
>>> >http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2604313/detail.html
>>> >
>>>
>>>Well it would be ironic if he was telling her friend not use a mobile when she's
>>> driving, or maybe asking for directions to the phone shop.
>>
>>It was sad how she was studying to be an EMT but didn't wear a seat belt. She
>>might
>>have saved some lives.
>
>
>EMT?
Emergency Medical Technician. A paramedic, in other words. You know,
one of the people who crewed the ambulance which came and tried to
rescue her retarded ass.
Bryce
"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:289iqvca289gh2vdh...@4ax.com...
O yeah, all those "Insta-Heros" from 9-11. You know, the firemen and EMT's.
Eric Takabayashi
The life she saved could have been her own, and all that.
Eric Takabayashi
> > >EMT?
> >
> > Emergency Medical Technician. A paramedic, in other words. You know,
> > one of the people who crewed the ambulance which came and tried to
> > rescue her retarded ass.
>
> O yeah, all those "Insta-Heros" from 9-11. You know, the firemen and EMT's.
No, I did not have that in mind.
They're heroes anyway.
Bryce
"Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
news:3FA9512F...@yahoo.co.jp...
What about the garbageman that picks up our garbage everyday permitting our
neighborhoods from succumbing to disease and hundreds of people dying,
putting his life on the line because at any time he could get pricked by a
needle or bit by a diseased rat? Is he too, then, not a hero? And if he is,
then isn't anyone in any job or industry a hero? If this is so, we need to
come up with a different idea of what a hero is, because it is way, way
overused.
Eric Takabayashi
> "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> news:3FA9512F...@yahoo.co.jp...
> > Bryce wrote:
> >
> > > > >EMT?
> > > >
> > > > Emergency Medical Technician. A paramedic, in other words. You know,
> > > > one of the people who crewed the ambulance which came and tried to
> > > > rescue her retarded ass.
> > >
> > > O yeah, all those "Insta-Heros" from 9-11. You know, the firemen and
> EMT's.
> >
> > No, I did not have that in mind.
> >
> > They're heroes anyway.
>
> What about the garbageman that picks up our garbage everyday permitting our
> neighborhoods from succumbing to disease and hundreds of people dying,
> putting his life on the line because at any time he could get pricked by a
> needle or bit by a diseased rat?
No, and they don't keep that in mind. Even Japanese police do not necessarily
have a large risk factor. JSDF personnel even less. So now, another generation
of Americans is learning the hard way that joining the military is not simply
a way to pay for school, gain a skill, travel, or earn money, and among
themselves, anyway, many probably regret being there now or joining up,
particularly the reservists who've had to leave regular jobs as well as their
loved ones for an untold duration. And as last time in the Gulf, I feel sorry
for such people. Officers again insist that recruits know the risks upon
enlisting. I doubt they realized it would occur so soon or frequently.
> Is he too, then, not a hero? And if he is,
> then isn't anyone in any job or industry a hero?
No. By the way, when I've lived through UPW strikes as a child, or simply had
too much or the wrong kind of trash to put curbside, I've taken trash to the
landfill or collection site myself. I walked though and on top of such heaps
of trash, as well, before people thought of such things. Even the people of
Smoky Mountain appear to think food and money, before the real health risks
they face.
> If this is so, we need to come up with a different idea of what a hero is,
> because it is way, way overused.
It is. But not for people who knowingly put their lives on the line on a
regular basis with the express intention of trying to save the lives of
others. Even taxi driver, one of the highest risk jobs in the US by number of
annual deaths, does not expressly entail that.
Haluk
yazdi:289iqvca289gh2vdh...@4ax.com...
may her retarded ass rest in peace
Bryce
Well, at least we agree that it's overused.
Michael Cash
<fuk...@takethisout.hotmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on
going with:
>
If I may take this opportunity to go off on a tangent...
Can someone explain to me why Jessica Lynch got the Bronze Star?
Declan Murphy
> If I may take this opportunity to go off on a tangent...
>
> Can someone explain to me why Jessica Lynch got the Bronze Star?
Photo opportunities, television ratings, distraction from the cakewalk
turned quagmire?
--
"Thank God I'm an atheist" - Luis Bunuel
Darrien
"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message news:f21nqvk705ukbchnc...@4ax.com...
> If I may take this opportunity to go off on a tangent...
>
Just wipe it off when you're done.
Brett Robson
Apparently she was raped up the arse. Do they issue sailors their's when they
sign up, or do they have to finish their first tour?
Michael Cash
I, apparently, have been robbed.
Michael Cash
<Darrien...@NA.COM@hotmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on
going with:
>
>"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message news:f21nqvk705ukbchnc...@4ax.com...
>
>> If I may take this opportunity to go off on a tangent...
>>
>
>Just wipe it off when you're done.
And miss seeing Bryan and Brett fighting over who gets to lick it
clean? I think not.
MatthewOutland
Then i remembered you're fat
Rafael Caetano
> do not necessarily have a large risk factor. JSDF personnel
> even less. So now, another generation of Americans is
> learning the hard way that joining the military is not
> simply a way to pay for school, gain a skill, travel, or
> earn money, and among themselves, anyway, many probably
> regret being there now or joining up, particularly the
> reservists who've had to leave regular jobs as well as
> their loved ones for an untold duration. And as last time
> in the Gulf, I feel sorry for such people.
Really? Why do you feel sorry?
But I didn't know reservists were called. Is it that the US Army
doesn't have enough active soldiers?
> Officers again insist that recruits know the risks upon
> enlisting. I doubt they realized it would occur so soon
> or frequently.
You mean, guys enter the US Army as soldiers and don't expect to go to
the front?! Weird.
Rafael Caetano
Bryce
"Rafael Caetano" <rcae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:94a6da7.03110...@posting.google.com...
Well, they are earning their paychecks now.
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi <eta...@yahoo.co.jp>
> > No, and they don't keep that in mind. Even Japanese police
> > do not necessarily have a large risk factor. JSDF personnel
> > even less. So now, another generation of Americans is
> > learning the hard way that joining the military is not
> > simply a way to pay for school, gain a skill, travel, or
> > earn money, and among themselves, anyway, many probably
> > regret being there now or joining up, particularly the
> > reservists who've had to leave regular jobs as well as
> > their loved ones for an untold duration. And as last time
> > in the Gulf, I feel sorry for such people.
>
> Really? Why do you feel sorry?
Because despite any claims of officials, people don't REALLY know the
chance of going off to war or coming home dead. The military promotes
itself as giving people opportunities for employment, education, and self
improvement, or in the case of the national guard, a second income. They
don't say, come join up and we'll ship you off to the Middle East for up
to a year or more at a time, and maybe come back dead.
> But I didn't know reservists were called.
Yes, tens of thousands of them. And the national guard, too - the one
weekend a month, two weeks a year people. For duty of up to a year or
more without their regular jobs or families.
I feel sorry for them.
> Is it that the US Army doesn't have enough active soldiers?
That could be one reason. And according to their own surveys, a
significant proportion in Iraq don't want to reenlist, and many want to
go home, which will reduce numbers further.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/031016/43/28ihr.html
Thursday October 16, 10:10 PM
Many U.S. troops in Iraq not to re-enlist: poll
By Indo-Asian News Service
Washington, Oct 16 (IANS) A significant proportion of U.S. troops
deployed in Iraq said they are not satisfied with their situation there
and do not plan to re-enlist, Xinhua reported Thursday quoting The
Washington Post.
The report in the Post, quoting a poll of U.S. troops in Iraq by the
Pentagon-funded newspaper Stars and Stripes said half of those questioned
described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient.
The survey, which was conducted in August, recorded about one-third of
respondents complaining their mission lacks clear definition and
characterising the war in Iraq as of little or no value, and found 40
percent said the jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with
their training.
In the survey, 34 percent of respondents described their personal morale
as low, compared with 27 percent who described it as high and 37 percent
who said it was average. A total of 49 percent described their unit's
morale as low, while 16 percent called it high.
A total of 49 percent of those questioned said it was "very unlikely" or
"not likely" that they would remain in the military after they complete
their current obligations.
The findings, drawn from 1,935 questionnaires presented to U.S. service
members across Iraq, conflict with statements by military commanders and
U.S. administration officials that portray the troops as high-spirited
and generally well prepared.
[snip]
Their own survey found this, and they reported this themselves.
I feel sorry for them.
> > Officers again insist that recruits know the risks upon
> > enlisting. I doubt they realized it would occur so soon
> > or frequently.
>
> You mean, guys enter the US Army as soldiers and don't expect to go to
> the front?!
Yes, despite the claims of any military officials. Believe it or not,
many people who join the US military are not Rambos, but people who want
jobs, training and opportunities.
> Weird.
Not at all.
"Expect to go the the front"? How often do wars occur? Always? Once
during a period of a four year enlistment?
No, only about once a decade, or once in three decades.
Eric Takabayashi
> > You mean, guys enter the US Army as soldiers and don't expect to go to
> > the front?! Weird.
>
> Well, they are earning their paychecks now.
They are always earning their paychecks even if they enlist and serve
during peacetime, as surely as when joining the police, fire department or
paramedics. They are like insurance.
cc
"Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> Because despite any claims of officials, people don't REALLY know the
> chance of going off to war or coming home dead.
You mean they were sick the day their school made the field trip to
Arlington or what ?
Normally, in American schools, there are 2 compulsory subjects : English and
American history. That's not the case ?
So, they should be able to read the conditions and 2 or 3 articles about
their future employer, and they should have heard about all wars the USA
lost, and the number of death per victory.
If they are too idiot to know that, well...you have a serious ethical issue.
Is it well to hire mentally retarded people to fight in the name of one's
country ?
>The military promotes
> itself as giving people opportunities for employment, education, and self
> improvement, or in the case of the national guard, a second income.
>They
> don't say, come join up and we'll ship you off to the Middle East for up
> to a year or more at a time, and maybe come back dead.
I'm pretty sure they write it somewhere in the contract, in the pages of the
middle, printed in smaller characters.
> "Expect to go the the front"? How often do wars occur? Always? Once
> during a period of a four year enlistment?
>
> No, only about once a decade, or once in three decades.
Once in a decade ? Which one did you select for 1980's, which one for the
1990's ?
When I say I find many Americans are as ignorant as Japanese kitty-chan
collectors, that's not because they didn't read Red Badge of Courage , but
because of what you've just written. Yeah, I'm sorry too.
A guy called Zoltan Grossman compiled that list, but I had the same in all
my history textbooks, in the chapter US military interventions. That does
not include regular interventions or when they help other armies. More
details in the book "A century of U.S. military interventions ", published
in Sepponia, probably avalaible and affordable to any candidate to US army
enrollement.
IRAN 1980
LIBYE 1981
SALVADOR 1981-92
NICARAGUA 1981-90
LIBAN 1982-84
HONDURAS 1983-89
GRENADE 1983-84
IRAN 1984
LIBYE 1986
BOLIVIE 1986
IRAN 1987-88
LIBYE 1989 .
ILES VIERGES 1989
PHILIPPINES 1989
PANAMA 1989-90
LIBERIA 1990 .
ARABIE SAOUDITE 1990-91
IRAQ 1990- ?
KOWEÏT 1991
LOS ANGELES 1992
SOMALIE 1992-94
YOUGOSLAVIE 1992-94 .
BOSNIE 1993-95
HAITI 1994-96
CROATIE 1995
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 .
LIBERIA 1997
ALBANIE 1997
SOUDAN 1998
AFGHANISTAN 1998
IRAK 1998- ?
YOUGOSLAVIE 1999- ?
YEMEN 2000 .
MACEDOINE 2001
ETATS-UNIS 2001.
AFGHANISTAN 2001
CC
Eric Takabayashi
> "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
>
> > Because despite any claims of officials, people don't REALLY know the
> > chance of going off to war or coming home dead.
>
> You mean they were sick the day their school made the field trip to
> Arlington or what ?
No.
> Normally, in American schools, there are 2 compulsory subjects : English and
> American history. That's not the case ?
It is.
> So, they should be able to read the conditions and 2 or 3 articles about
> their future employer, and they should have heard about all wars the USA
> lost, and the number of death per victory.
They don't think it means them, any more than volunteers who joined the armies
of France or Germany, or the JSDF, thinks they joined up to fight or die in
wars.
> If they are too idiot to know that, well...you have a serious ethical issue.
No, the military does. Peruse their home pages even now. Do you see, join up
and prepare to ship off for a year long tour of the Middle East, anywhere? Not
even the Marines say that, and they're probably the first to go.
Top Stories: "Miramar Marine wins Price is Right". Do you see, "More dead from
Iraqi suicide bombers"? Do you see, "More volunteers for Iraq needed to spend a
year away from their loved ones"?
No, I see "The drill field is worse than a combat environment? According to
Sgt. Jason N. Ingle, drill instructor, Platoon 2021, Company H, the answer to
that question is yes."
I don't see anything about the war in Iraq or the wounded, dead and homesick in
there. In Afghanistan in 2001, the drill sergeant reports "his combat
experience during Operation Enduring Freedom was fairly tame".
> Is it well to hire mentally retarded people to fight in the name of one's
> country ?
They need people to follow orders like things President Bush will come up with,
not ask questions or want out when they see what the conditions are really
like, like about half of US troops surveyed by the Pentagon's own newspaper.
There is no way to REALLY know, until they get there.
> >The military promotes
> > itself as giving people opportunities for employment, education, and self
> > improvement, or in the case of the national guard, a second income.
> >They
> > don't say, come join up and we'll ship you off to the Middle East for up
> > to a year or more at a time, and maybe come back dead.
>
> I'm pretty sure they write it somewhere in the contract, in the pages of the
> middle, printed in smaller characters.
Yes, but fighting in wars halfway around the world is not what the US military
is normally about.
> > "Expect to go the the front"? How often do wars occur? Always? Once
> > during a period of a four year enlistment?
> >
> > No, only about once a decade, or once in three decades.
>
> Once in a decade ? Which one did you select for 1980's,
None.
> which one for the 1990's ?
The Persian Gulf War.
> When I say I find many Americans are as ignorant as Japanese kitty-chan
> collectors, that's not because they didn't read Red Badge of Courage , but
> because of what you've just written. Yeah, I'm sorry too.
>
> A guy called Zoltan Grossman compiled that list, but I had the same in all
> my history textbooks, in the chapter US military interventions.
Look for the list called "wars".
> That does not include regular interventions or when they help other armies.
Neither did I.
> More
> details in the book "A century of U.S. military interventions ", published
> in Sepponia, probably avalaible and affordable to any candidate to US army
> enrollement.
>
> IRAN 1980
> LIBYE 1981
> SALVADOR 1981-92
> NICARAGUA 1981-90
> LIBAN 1982-84
> HONDURAS 1983-89
> GRENADE 1983-84
> IRAN 1984
> LIBYE 1986
> BOLIVIE 1986
> IRAN 1987-88
> LIBYE 1989 .
> ILES VIERGES 1989
> PHILIPPINES 1989
> PANAMA 1989-90
> LIBERIA 1990 .
> ARABIE SAOUDITE 1990-91
> IRAQ 1990- ?
> KOWEマT 1991
> LOS ANGELES 1992
> SOMALIE 1992-94
> YOUGOSLAVIE 1992-94 .
> BOSNIE 1993-95
> HAITI 1994-96
> CROATIE 1995
> ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 .
> LIBERIA 1997
> ALBANIE 1997
> SOUDAN 1998
> AFGHANISTAN 1998
> IRAK 1998- ?
> YOUGOSLAVIE 1999- ?
> YEMEN 2000 .
> MACEDOINE 2001
> ETATS-UNIS 2001.
> AFGHANISTAN 2001
NIce list. How many of those are wars?
Bryce
When it comes down to it... they all made their own decisions.
cc
"Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> They don't think it means them, any more than volunteers who joined the
armies
> of France or Germany, or the JSDF, thinks they joined up to fight or die
in
> wars.
European "volunteers" or "not volunteers" know it can mean *them*.
> No, the military does. Peruse their home pages even now. Do you see, join
up
> and prepare to ship off for a year long tour of the Middle East, anywhere?
I see Rambo the Warrior on the first recruitment page, Ken Kasugi on the
second, that sounds like a TV game...well, I didn't imagine that. The youth
that sign after seeing that page probably expect to fight and become the
talento of the year. Sorry for your country.
I come from another planet :
http://www.recrutement.terre.defense.gouv.fr/
If you check the page of the Etat-Major, you'll see the number of deaths in
recent operations. That's only 2 in Cote d'Ivoire, but that's enough to
scare a number of
wannabe warriors.
> Yes, but fighting in wars halfway around the world is not what the US
military
> is normally about.
?
> > IRAN 1980
....
> > AFGHANISTAN 2001
>
> NIce list. How many of those are wars?
OK, none are wars, like there is no war in Iraq now. Someday you'll explain
me in what the guys that die during military interventions are less dead
that those killed 'at war'.
BTW, why do you complain those guys in post in Irak ? That's an interesting
place, not further from home than Okinawa.
CC
Rafael Caetano
> > Really? Why do you feel sorry?
>
> Because despite any claims of officials, people don't REALLY know the
> chance of going off to war or coming home dead.
Well, then they're really stupid, sorry.
[reservists]
> I feel sorry for them.
I feel sorry for the reservists if they were drafted. If they enlisted
voluntarily in the Army, even if it was 20 years ago, then they asked
for it, no?
I don't know how it works in US, though. In Brazil, there's draft. So
I'm a reservist even though I've never worked for the Army.
> > Is it that the US Army doesn't have enough active soldiers?
>
> That could be one reason. And according to their own surveys, a
> significant proportion in Iraq don't want to reenlist, and many want to
> go home, which will reduce numbers further.
Which is fine.
[snip]
> > You mean, guys enter the US Army as soldiers and don't expect to go to
> > the front?!
>
> Yes, despite the claims of any military officials. Believe it or not,
> many people who join the US military are not Rambos, but people who want
> jobs, training and opportunities.
I'm not saying they're all Rambos (although some apparently think they
are).
I don't claim they all enter the Army looking forward to go to war.
Only that they should be aware that the Army is ultimately about war,
that they _might_ go to war, kill people, suffer a lot and maybe get
killed. If you enlist, you're making a choice based on this. You can't
claim you just want a job, and you don't know or care for the
consequences. This is true of any Army. But in the case of US Army,
there's also the fact that chances of going to war are significant, as
opposed to (say) the Brazilian Army.
> "Expect to go the the front"? How often do wars occur? Always? Once
> during a period of a four year enlistment?
>
> No, only about once a decade, or once in three decades.
Oh. Either you aren't up-to-date with the US foreign policy of the
past 50 years, or we mean different things when say "war".
Rafael Caetano
Eric Takabayashi
> When it comes down to it... they all made their own decisions.
No, when it all comes down to it, they didn't have all the facts.
Eric Takabayashi
> "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
>
> > They don't think it means them, any more than volunteers who joined the
> armies
> > of France or Germany, or the JSDF, thinks they joined up to fight or die
> in
> > wars.
>
> European "volunteers" or "not volunteers" know it can mean *them*.
Care to try backing that up? Is that what surveys of current soldiers show? Is
the opportunity to fight and die overseas what the recruiters are offering?
It is simple enough to show through the military's own survey, that the
soldiers and other Americans are not happy about the situation.
> > No, the military does. Peruse their home pages even now. Do you see, join
> up
> > and prepare to ship off for a year long tour of the Middle East, anywhere?
>
> > http://www.usmc.mil/
>
> I see Rambo the Warrior on the first recruitment page,
Do you see him in the Middle East, perspiring, surrounded by distrustful and
resentful locals, with guerrillas trying to kill him? Do you see his family who
are worried about him? Do you see pictures of coffins and honorably discharged
injured coming home?
The best you will get is "News from the front":
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/deployed
Alright, there is some news, like "Mortuary Affairs: We Take Care of Our Own",
August 25, 2003
Do you notice such news is a little different from what other Americans are
getting? Do you notice the US recruitment pages are different from what you say
European sites are like? How many deaths do you see reported there?
> Ken Kasugi on the
> second, that sounds like a TV game...well, I didn't imagine that. The youth
> that sign after seeing that page probably expect to fight and become the
> talento of the year. Sorry for your country.
Yes, I feel sorry for the people serving in the Middle East, the nearly half
who do not understand why they are there, because their leaders have no good
explanation and they did not think deeply enough before signing.
> I come from another planet :
> http://www.recrutement.terre.defense.gouv.fr/
> If you check the page of the Etat-Major, you'll see the number of deaths in
> recent operations. That's only 2 in Cote d'Ivoire, but that's enough to
> scare a number of
> wannabe warriors.
Sorry, I don't read that language. Care to explain how they promote themselves
to potential recruits? Are they offering the chance to ship overseas, fight and
maybe die? Or are there other reasons to join the European military, when
voluntary?
>
> > Yes, but fighting in wars halfway around the world is not what the US
> military
> > is normally about.
>
> ?
Read the US recruitment pages, watch a few recruiting commercials, and you
would know. People tried to recruit me for years, calling me on the telephone
at home, or sending me pamphlets and form letters. No one ever mentioned
fighting, and note that I was still a student when the first Gulf war occurred.
> > > IRAN 1980
> ....
> > > AFGHANISTAN 2001
> >
> > NIce list. How many of those are wars?
>
> OK, none are wars, like there is no war in Iraq now.
It was a war until some low ranking Iraqi signed a piece of paper, and the
President announced otherwise. Actually, it was an invasion.
Now it's an occupation. Looking back at 20th century history, you'd think US
leaders would understand what "Occupation" meant. Tens of thousands of
Americans are still in and around Asia.
I knew before it started, that Americans would realize their mistake in Iraq.
> Someday you'll explain me in what the guys that die during military
> interventions are less dead that those killed 'at war'.
Look at how many troops are involved, look at the level of casualties, and you
will understand the difference between most US military actions, overseas
stations, and what the US calls "war". There were more casualties in the one
suicide bombing in Lebanon before the US pulled out (and note that after the
Vietnam War, such levels of resistance DID used to get Americans out), but that
was a much smaller operation than the nearly 200,000 US troops who went over to
the Middle East this year, and the nearly half million allied troops that went
over last time.
America's first encounter with a suicide bomb
Thursday, October 23, 2003 Posted: 11:33 AM EDT (1533 GMT)
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) -- Twenty years ago the United States had its first
experience with the suicide bomb -- initially its embassy, then its Marine
barracks, blasted to shreds by a truckload of explosives that killed 241
servicemen and launched a new era in the Middle East. The reverberations are
still being felt.
Today the 19-year-old soldier on duty at Beirut airport's Parking C lot shrugs
indifferently when told that this was where the doomed barracks stood. He
wasn't even born when the bomb went off on October 23, 1983. For many like him,
it's a distant memory, one of scores of atrocities committed during Lebanon's
1975-1990 civil war.
But for Washington it was a watershed. It ultimately drove the U.S. military
out of Lebanon. A decade later American forces pulled out of Somalia, their
mission again wrecked by violence.
[end]
Many of today's soldiers have not learned, or do not recall such lessons, and
the military recruiters aren't telling them.
Despite having the superior military force, Americans used to learn when they
weren't wanted after some highly publicized casualties, and they left the
unstable regions despite any loose ends and accusations of shirking
responsibility.
The second President Bush has not learned this lesson, but I am afraid he will
learn the hard way. Perhaps during next year's election, if not sooner.
And I feel sorry for the people who have paid and will pay the price of his
lesson.
> BTW, why do you complain those guys in post in Irak ? That's an interesting
> place, not further from home than Okinawa.
Iraq is an interesting place with a rich culture and history, a worthy place to
visit and study.
That is not what the Americans are enjoying now.
Compare that to what US soldiers can get in Okinawa, and notice the difference.
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> > > Really? Why do you feel sorry?
> >
> > Because despite any claims of officials, people don't REALLY know the
> > chance of going off to war or coming home dead.
>
> Well, then they're really stupid, sorry.
Insult the people who serve if you like, I will not. I will insult their
leaders.
> [reservists]
> > I feel sorry for them.
>
> I feel sorry for the reservists if they were drafted. If they enlisted
> voluntarily in the Army, even if it was 20 years ago, then they asked
> for it, no?
No, they did not ask to go to Iraq, leaving behind jobs and families for a
year or more, and they certainly did not ask to be disabled or die.
I don't believe the average 18 year old is thinking about what can happen 20
years in the future or consequences of their actions. It's why young people
do stupid things.
[Note: joining the military is not stupid.]
> I don't know how it works in US, though.
We don't have compulsory service, and currently no draft.
I am waiting to see what will happen if recruitment numbers fall as low as
some people think they might, and the US is unable to maintain their presence
in the Middle East with an all "volunteer" force.
> In Brazil, there's draft. So I'm a reservist even though I've never worked
> for the Army.
And if you are not one of those who support eliminating the draft or
compulsory service, then you are one of those who approve of the system, even
if it means you being torn from your family, being shipped overseas, and
dying, no?
> > > Is it that the US Army doesn't have enough active soldiers?
> >
> > That could be one reason. And according to their own surveys, a
> > significant proportion in Iraq don't want to reenlist, and many want to
> > go home, which will reduce numbers further.
>
> Which is fine.
No, it shows morale is very poor. You do not want 100,000 people with poor
morale and guns. You could get a Vietnam. You could also get some inhumane
behavior.
> [snip]
> > > You mean, guys enter the US Army as soldiers and don't expect to go to
> > > the front?!
> >
> > Yes, despite the claims of any military officials. Believe it or not,
> > many people who join the US military are not Rambos, but people who want
> > jobs, training and opportunities.
>
> I'm not saying they're all Rambos (although some apparently think they
> are).
> I don't claim they all enter the Army looking forward to go to war.
> Only that they should be aware that the Army is ultimately about war,
> that they _might_ go to war, kill people, suffer a lot and maybe get
> killed. If you enlist, you're making a choice based on this. You can't
> claim you just want a job, and you don't know or care for the
> consequences.
For many, such as some members of minorities, military service is the BEST
opportunity for training and jobs. Ultimately, if I don't have money for my
children's adult education, and their future prospects are bleak, I would
wholeheartedly recommend service in the JSDF or US military. And if they are
deployed to some war zone, I would expect them to do their duty and fulfill
their responsibilities.
And I would still feel sorry for them.
> This is true of any Army. But in the case of US Army,
> there's also the fact that chances of going to war are significant,
The chance of the US being involved in some military action is great.
The chance of PERSONALLY going to war and becoming a casualty, is rather
slim, even now after about 200,000 US soldiers have been deployed to the
region. There are still well over a million soldiers left who have not yet
deployed. I do not know why the US is calling up reservists and national
guard who have their families and regular jobs, when there are so many active
personnel available.
> as opposed to (say) the Brazilian Army.
>
> > "Expect to go the the front"? How often do wars occur? Always? Once
> > during a period of a four year enlistment?
> >
> > No, only about once a decade, or once in three decades.
>
> Oh. Either you aren't up-to-date with the US foreign policy of the
> past 50 years, or we mean different things when say "war".
We mean different things. What happened in Afghanistan is probably the most
minor thing I'd call a US war in recent years. Getting Noriega, or helping
American students out of Grenada, was not war.
Bryce
> Bryce wrote:
>
> > When it comes down to it... they all made their own decisions.
>
> No, when it all comes down to it, they didn't have all the facts.
>
No. That's bullshit. When you join the army for fun rather than for the
possibility of going to war, you might be correct.
Bryce
> cc wrote:
>
> > "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> >
> > > They don't think it means them, any more than volunteers who joined
the
> > armies
> > > of France or Germany, or the JSDF, thinks they joined up to fight or
die
> > in
> > > wars.
> >
> > European "volunteers" or "not volunteers" know it can mean *them*.
>
> Care to try backing that up? Is that what surveys of current soldiers
show? Is
> the opportunity to fight and die overseas what the recruiters are
offering?
>
> It is simple enough to show through the military's own survey, that the
> soldiers and other Americans are not happy about the situation.
>
That's funny. I'm American and I'm happy with the situation.
Bryce
> Rafael Caetano wrote:
>
> > Eric Takabayashi <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> > > > Really? Why do you feel sorry?
> > >
> > > Because despite any claims of officials, people don't REALLY know the
> > > chance of going off to war or coming home dead.
> >
> > Well, then they're really stupid, sorry.
>
> Insult the people who serve if you like, I will not. I will insult their
> leaders.
You still don't understand that they enlisted and were not forced to join.
>
> > [reservists]
> > > I feel sorry for them.
> >
> > I feel sorry for the reservists if they were drafted. If they enlisted
> > voluntarily in the Army, even if it was 20 years ago, then they asked
> > for it, no?
>
> No, they did not ask to go to Iraq, leaving behind jobs and families for a
> year or more, and they certainly did not ask to be disabled or die.
so they pilfer off the government taking these monthly checks and the minute
a war starts???????? c'mon.
Michael Cash
<fuk...@takethisout.hotmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on
going with:
>
We are in solid agreement on this. You sign up; you take your chances.
It's a crap shoot, and if anyone who can't stand the odds has no
business getting in the game to begin with.
Bryce
Further, we've been paying them for years, doing nothing. Without the tax
base, who would be fighting the wars. Most people go into the army because
they can't do anything else in life. Is it akin to being an engrish teacher
in Japan? Well, that's another story. The point is, they wanted the free
ride.... the free college..... the free everything. Now they've gotta pay
for it and the families are whining? It's distasteful and sickening hearing
those families and military personnel bitch and moan about it.
cc
"Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> > European "volunteers" or "not volunteers" know it can mean *them*.
>
> Care to try backing that up? Is that what surveys of current soldiers
show?
I've never heard of such surveys, maybe because there are none. It is
obvious they know and everybody knows.
> It is simple enough to show through the military's own survey, that the
> soldiers and other Americans are not happy about the situation.
Ignorance....or a sort of hypocrisy from people that didn't want to see the
possible consequences last year ? That's not the first time your militaries
have reasons to complain.
> Sorry, I don't read that language. Care to explain how they promote
themselves
> to potential recruits?
That's not written here, but I can tell you they have many candidates for
all the offers, especially for overseas positions, even in case of fighting
(like Gulf War I) or blue helmets stints.
That's easy to understand. My cousin is a gendarme (a military that protect
us against our inner enemies ! Normally they never go outside French
territory or colonies.), each time he is affected away from his base, he is
paid x% more, depending on how far, plus for certain missions retirement
points are increased too. For instance, if he goes 3 months to New
Caledonia, he has 30% more on his paycheck, additional paid holidays to
compensate the week-ends he spent there, and that period counts as 6 months
of work for retirement. In case they really fight, get hurt, kidnapped,
etc, they get even more compensations. They are also given advancement more
easily. So the young bachelors tend to volunteer a lot. If they are
(un)lucky, certain militaries are active in half a dozen of real fights,
spend a couple years in a dangerous hell, and can earn a full retirement at
35 yr old...or die before. But, they know that.
What you see on the web site are offers, for each position there is a
concours more or less formal -from a simple interview to 2 weeks of tests in
different subjects on a defined curriculum. They take those with best
results. You have here the conditions to apply for over 400 different jobs.
Each group is described (degrees and/or work experience, you need to pass a
fitness test anyway), and they also say what qualities they expect from you.
They want to attract the fittest persons, especially those with technical
qualifications, so they say things like "participate in challenging research
projects" and give details for each specialty.
>Is
> the opportunity to fight and die overseas what the recruiters are
offering?
I've never heard about the existence of "army recruiters" after 1948 or 1870
(I should check, there was a complete reform)....
The positions and contracts are decided at the level of the ministry and are
published
(in details in an official publication), that's the rule for all the public
jobs. Job descriptions are clear. The official offers always precisely
explain if the position is geographically fixed or you can/will be sent away
(and how far, how long, with or without financial/retirement bonification is
even precised), if you can refuse or not, the length of engagement, if you
can quit or not, if you can choose where you'll work, if your widow and
orphans are eligible for special benefits, etc. A number of contracts are
for a given location and once that's over, you have no obligation to accept
the next propositions, others say you can be sent anywhere anytime and can't
refuse, that you are active x years, reservist x years.
I have consulted the details about diplomatic jobs, passed examinations and
applied for certain positions. That was cristal clear. I finally refused the
offers they made me as they all not only uninteresting, but concerned
countries in a special situation (Panama, Burma...just in the middle of
riots, that was as you say :Going there was the only way to know what that
was like. I wasn't that desesperate to get a job and was too young.). They
didn't hide it, and well you never pass the first examination if you never
read newspapers anyway. At the interviews , they ask you : "You know you'll
work abroad, in difficult countries, you're sure that's not a problem ?
etc.". The army is not different.
The second thing is about the duty to defend your country. I've even seen
pages of the GIGN special police or the Legion, there was nothing
ramboesque, but more "Our job is dangerous, but we are mature responsible
men....". They don't need brain dead dare-devils.
>Are they offering the chance to ship overseas, fight and
> maybe die?
Yes, when that's the case.
A cousin that was hired as civilian staff to do web design has 0% chances to
be sent overseas or to fight, she has signed no engagement of that sort.
Highschool friends that were hired as trying pilot for fighting planes were
clearly told the high mortality of that job, even when there is no
intervention in war. A friend told me that in average, 1 in 10 of the pilots
had an "accident"...but for him that's acceptable, as his hobbies,
paragliding and acrobatic snowboard are not less dangerous.
> Read the US recruitment pages, watch a few recruiting commercials, and you
> would know. People tried to recruit me for years, calling me on the
telephone
> at home, or sending me pamphlets and form letters. No one ever mentioned
> fighting, and note that I was still a student when the first Gulf war
occurred.
OK, their style sucks, but US medias show you the deaths all the time, the
veterans with the Gulf Syndrome, and current/ex-militaries that participated
in all the interventions I listed or spent months guarding an embassy in
some desert full guerrilleros...
Really the guys that "didn't" know are immature dumbies. I'm sure that's a
huge disadvantage for an army to have troups of kids and that makes the
situation in Irak even worse. No wonder the morale is so low, the kids miss
their TV and their Mums, they don't even understand where they are, what's
the history of that country and who are the Iraki ,and the grown-up locals
don't understand in what teenagers with more guns than cold blood can do
anything positive for them, they probably fear accidents more than anything
else.
You're asking why they call reservists ? Well, that's obvious, they call the
mature ones to do the real job and babysit the brats.
>It was an invasion
....
> Now it's an occupation.
Irak had already been occupied for 8 years...
>Looking back at 20th century history, you'd think US
> leaders would understand what "Occupation" meant. Tens of thousands of
> Americans are still in and around Asia.
>
> I knew before it started, that Americans would realize their mistake in
Iraq.
The Americans never seem to realize. Oh yeah, there are individuals that see
things differently, but the majority seems to always forget and jump into
the same trap with the same confidence, optimism, naivity...
For the French, Indochine and Algeria caused a real change in mentalities,
the feeling that an area was over and that couldn't be done again. Our army
was downsized to maybe 1/10th .The failure of the first Gulf War also lead
to the same conclusion : we were wrong.
If that 1st conflict had not happened, it's likely public opinion and
leaders would have supported or less opposed the new US project.
But Americans seem to have such a short memory. Just to think the generation
that took the Vietnam war in their teeth find it normal that their children
sign as military to pay for their studies !
> Iraq is an interesting place with a rich culture and history, a worthy
place to
> visit and study.
....
> Compare that to what US soldiers can get in Okinawa, and notice the
difference.
Maybe in 40 years, that will be like Okinawa.
Frankly, if you really think your army has disgusting recruitment methods,
why don't you do anything to change that ? Maybe you don't feel concerned,
as that's not your social class that sends teenagers to the fire.
CC
cc
cc
Eric Takabayashi
So who are you claiming is joining the army for the possibility of going
off to war? Evidently not the people surveyed by the Stars and Stripes.
Eric Takabayashi
> > It is simple enough to show through the military's own survey, that the
> > soldiers and other Americans are not happy about the situation.
>
> That's funny. I'm American and I'm happy with the situation.
Are you serving in a war zone?
Michael Cash
Here's where we're going to start disagreeing.
>Further, we've been paying them for years, doing nothing.
Which is the ideal situation.
>Without the tax
>base, who would be fighting the wars.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by that.
>Most people go into the army because
>they can't do anything else in life.
I disagree strongly with that. In my own case, it wasn't until *after*
I left that Navy that I discovered I'm not worth a shit for anything.
>Is it akin to being an engrish teacher
>in Japan? Well, that's another story. The point is, they wanted the free
>ride.... the free college..... the free everything.
It isn't nearly as good as you make it sound. And it hasn't always
been as good as it is now. Ask Bryan what sort of educational benefits
they had in place for people who were in the military at the time he
and I were. Short answer is: They sucked.
>Now they've gotta pay
>for it and the families are whining? It's distasteful and sickening hearing
>those families and military personnel bitch and moan about it.
What is distasteful is the WTC victims/families being given millions
upon millions of taxpayer dollars, tax-free if I understand it
correctly, while military members who are killed receive a pittance
and the families are TAXED on it.
Eric Takabayashi
> "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
>
> > > European "volunteers" or "not volunteers" know it can mean *them*.
> >
> > Care to try backing that up? Is that what surveys of current soldiers
> show?
>
> I've never heard of such surveys, maybe because there are none. It is
> obvious they know and everybody knows.
It is not, and they do not.
> > It is simple enough to show through the military's own survey, that the
> > soldiers and other Americans are not happy about the situation.
>
> Ignorance....
Yes. I feel sorry for them. Quitting the military is not like quitting at
McDonald's.
> or a sort of hypocrisy from people that didn't want to see the
> possible consequences last year ? That's not the first time your militaries
> have reasons to complain.
>
> > Sorry, I don't read that language. Care to explain how they promote
> themselves
> > to potential recruits?
>
> That's not written here, but I can tell you they have many candidates for
> all the offers, especially for overseas positions, even in case of fighting
> (like Gulf War I) or blue helmets stints.
Then why don't the Germans and French want to go over and help fix Iraq now?
> That's easy to understand. My cousin is a gendarme (a military that protect
> us against our inner enemies ! Normally they never go outside French
> territory or colonies.), each time he is affected away from his base, he is
> paid x% more, depending on how far, plus for certain missions retirement
> points are increased too. For instance, if he goes 3 months to New
> Caledonia, he has 30% more on his paycheck, additional paid holidays to
> compensate the week-ends he spent there, and that period counts as 6 months
> of work for retirement. In case they really fight, get hurt, kidnapped,
> etc, they get even more compensations. They are also given advancement more
> easily. So the young bachelors tend to volunteer a lot.
Japan will pay 100 million yen to the survivors of JSDF personnel killed. Dying
in Iraq is financially speaking, likely the best thing many middle class JSDF
personnel could ever do for their families.
Is that any reason for them to be less careful with their lives, or their
families to feel less worried?
> If they are
> (un)lucky, certain militaries are active in half a dozen of real fights,
> spend a couple years in a dangerous hell, and can earn a full retirement at
> 35 yr old...or die before. But, they know that.
> What you see on the web site are offers, for each position there is a
> concours more or less formal -from a simple interview to 2 weeks of tests in
> different subjects on a defined curriculum. They take those with best
> results. You have here the conditions to apply for over 400 different jobs.
I'm glad you realize this. Did you know most US military personnel are not in
infantry, for example, but in other supportive roles with civilian counterparts
such as cook or nurse?
> Each group is described (degrees and/or work experience, you need to pass a
> fitness test anyway), and they also say what qualities they expect from you.
>
> They want to attract the fittest persons, especially those with technical
> qualifications, so they say things like "participate in challenging research
> projects" and give details for each specialty.
>
> >Is the opportunity to fight and die overseas what the recruiters are
> offering?
>
> I've never heard about the existence of "army recruiters" after 1948 or 1870
> (I should check, there was a complete reform)....
We have them in the US, right now.
> The positions and contracts are decided at the level of the ministry and are
> published
> (in details in an official publication), that's the rule for all the public
> jobs. Job descriptions are clear. The official offers always precisely
> explain if the position is geographically fixed or you can/will be sent away
> (and how far, how long, with or without financial/retirement bonification is
> even precised), if you can refuse or not, the length of engagement, if you
> can quit or not, if you can choose where you'll work, if your widow and
> orphans are eligible for special benefits, etc. A number of contracts are
> for a given location and once that's over, you have no obligation to accept
> the next propositions, others say you can be sent anywhere anytime and can't
> refuse, that you are active x years, reservist x years.
>
> I have consulted the details about diplomatic jobs, passed examinations and
> applied for certain positions. That was cristal clear.
You fail to realize that the US is different from this, and the military's own
findings prove it. Your first reaction is to dismiss the US soldiers as
mentally retarded. How kind of you. Perhaps the US was also mentally retarded
to join WWI and WWII to help Europe with their problems.
Would you be willing to understand there is something else at work?
> I finally refused the
> offers they made me as they all not only uninteresting, but concerned
> countries in a special situation (Panama, Burma...just in the middle of
> riots, that was as you say :Going there was the only way to know what that
> was like. I wasn't that desesperate to get a job and was too young.). They
> didn't hide it, and well you never pass the first examination if you never
> read newspapers anyway. At the interviews , they ask you : "You know you'll
> work abroad, in difficult countries, you're sure that's not a problem ?
> etc.". The army is not different.
You and I were able to turn down offers of military service because we have
better. Would you believe there are some sad people who need to consider
military offers of employment attractive? I have a young relative who joined
the Army for, get this:
He wanted health care for his child with leukemia, and despite his work
experience and training as a diesel mechanic, he could not secure other
employment.
He is no longer in the military, but he most certainly did not join up for the
chance to fight and die abroad. He did not even have to leave his family or
country, as he served in his home state.
If he had been allowed to be a freeter and live off his parents like millions
of Japanese, perhaps he would have taken advantage of it, but this option was
not available to him. He had to learn to try to be independent at a young age.
I forgot to mention he was injured before joining the military, which also
worked against him getting a regular job.
> The second thing is about the duty to defend your country. I've even seen
> pages of the GIGN special police or the Legion, there was nothing
> ramboesque, but more "Our job is dangerous, but we are mature responsible
> men....". They don't need brain dead dare-devils.
Neither does the US, and that is not what the military gets. They do, however,
often get people who did not see better opportunities for employment or
education.
> >Are they offering the chance to ship overseas, fight and
> > maybe die?
>
> Yes, when that's the case.
> A cousin that was hired as civilian staff to do web design has 0% chances to
> be sent overseas or to fight, she has signed no engagement of that sort.
> Highschool friends that were hired as trying pilot for fighting planes were
> clearly told the high mortality of that job, even when there is no
> intervention in war. A friend told me that in average, 1 in 10 of the pilots
> had an "accident"...but for him that's acceptable, as his hobbies,
> paragliding and acrobatic snowboard are not less dangerous.
Your family and friends are not ordered into a dangerous situation for their
hobbies, and can give up their hazardous hobbies any time. Would you believe
being in the military, even a volunteer one, is different from paragliding?
> > Read the US recruitment pages, watch a few recruiting commercials, and you
> > would know. People tried to recruit me for years, calling me on the
> telephone
> > at home, or sending me pamphlets and form letters. No one ever mentioned
> > fighting, and note that I was still a student when the first Gulf war
> occurred.
>
> OK, their style sucks,
Good. You understand this much.
> but US medias show you the deaths all the time,
Now see if you understand this: the US government and media are putting quite a
different face on US military actions, than what we are getting abroad. And
despite the bad news such as the undeniable deaths, that gets through in the
US, there is even more which does not, according to people actually at the
front, who are not appearing in the media, and according to non-American and
independent journalists.
> the veterans with the Gulf Syndrome,
The US denies such a thing exists. Other doctors do not, and I do not.
> and current/ex-militaries that participated
> in all the interventions I listed or spent months guarding an embassy in
> some desert full guerrilleros...
>
> Really the guys that "didn't" know are immature dumbies. I'm sure that's a
> huge disadvantage for an army to have troups of kids and that makes the
> situation in Irak even worse.
Yes, it does. It is a sad day when Iraqis claim that it was better living with
Saddam's military and secret police before the Americans came, and even US
officials must admit their lack of knowledge and cultural sensitivity to reduce
even the most basic of understandings such as entering homes prepared for
battle, and searching girls and women at gunpoint while the men of the house
and neighborhood watch.
> No wonder the morale is so low, the kids miss
> their TV and their Mums, they don't even understand where they are, what's
> the history of that country and who are the Iraki ,and the grown-up locals
> don't understand in what teenagers with more guns than cold blood can do
> anything positive for them, they probably fear accidents more than anything
> else.
> You're asking why they call reservists ? Well, that's obvious, they call the
> mature ones to do the real job and babysit the brats.
>
> >It was an invasion
> ....
> > Now it's an occupation.
>
> Irak had already been occupied for 8 years...
Occupied like the US occupied and controlled Japan?
> >Looking back at 20th century history, you'd think US
> > leaders would understand what "Occupation" meant. Tens of thousands of
> > Americans are still in and around Asia.
> >
> > I knew before it started, that Americans would realize their mistake in
> Iraq.
>
> The Americans never seem to realize. Oh yeah, there are individuals that see
> things differently, but the majority seems to always forget and jump into
> the same trap with the same confidence, optimism, naivity...
Yes, I feel sorry for the Americans who were so quick to support their
government, and are having second thoughts now because they suddenly realize
they were misled. And I feel more sorry for those with loved ones in possible
danger.
> For the French, Indochine and Algeria caused a real change in mentalities,
> the feeling that an area was over and that couldn't be done again. Our army
> was downsized to maybe 1/10th .The failure of the first Gulf War also lead
> to the same conclusion : we were wrong.
We were wrong to help Kuwait when they couldn't help themselves? Why?
> If that 1st conflict had not happened,
Tell it to Hussein. I'd be happy with the US military at home, paid to be a
mere "self defense force" whose most common duty was providing aid after
natural disasters.
> it's likely public opinion and
> leaders would have supported or less opposed the new US project.
If the US public simply learned that politicians often tell baldfaced lies
particularly before elections, they'd save themselves a lot of trouble. I feel
sorry for approximately half of Japanese who voted on Sunday. People who vote
LDP should have better reasons than "there's no one better" or "it would be no
different" as is commonly reported.
> But Americans seem to have such a short memory.
Yes, they do. Not "seem".
> Just to think the generation that took the Vietnam war in their teeth find it
> normal that their children sign as military to pay for their studies !
Why not, if that is what the US military is for some reason, willing to offer.
> > Iraq is an interesting place with a rich culture and history, a worthy
> place to
> > visit and study.
> ....
> > Compare that to what US soldiers can get in Okinawa, and notice the
> difference.
>
> Maybe in 40 years, that will be like Okinawa.
Americans today wouldn't want to wait or pay for Iraq for 40 years. Note
Americans have already forgotten how much they are already paying for the US
military presence in Japan, Saudi Arabia, or the military in general, while
complaining about spending for the "war on terror".
> Frankly, if you really think your army has disgusting recruitment methods,
> why don't you do anything to change that ?
What disgusting recruitment methods? Joining the military for education,
employment, and self improvement are perfectly acceptable. They even promote
free travel, though that alone would be quite a foolish reason to join. People
who want free travel can work on a cruise ship.
> Maybe you don't feel concerned, as that's not your social class that sends
> teenagers to the fire.
I just told you, and it has always been true, if I didn't have money, I would
wholeheartedly recommend JSDF or US military service to my children, and would
have joined myself. I also recommend the JSDF to Japanese.
Eric Takabayashi
> You still don't understand that they enlisted and were not forced to join.
You still don't understand that the military is an attractive opportunity for
many people which they would not otherwise have. Who else will give them free
training and money for college if their parents can't?
> > No, they did not ask to go to Iraq, leaving behind jobs and families for a
> > year or more, and they certainly did not ask to be disabled or die.
>
> so they pilfer off the government
Who is pilfering off the government? Are you looking for an argument about
taxes again? Do you claim to be supporting your country better than as a
soldier who may have to die for it?
> taking these monthly checks and the minute a war starts????????
You act as if it is strange that they are uncomfortable with fighting in a war,
as even a professional soldier should be.
> c'mon.
No, c'mon, why don't you go over to Iraq to do better?
Eric Takabayashi
> We are in solid agreement on this. You sign up; you take your chances.
> It's a crap shoot,
I am glad you are here. I have been waiting for the input of former service
personnel.
Then would you believe you are merely lucky not to have been like them?
> and if anyone who can't stand the odds has no
> business getting in the game to begin with.
If you had been called to fight the Soviet menace or the rampaging hordes of
Grenada, you wouldn't have the misgivings of the men and women who are currently
serving? Did you have to go to war to learn that you did not want to reenlist?
Eric Takabayashi
> Further, we've been paying them for years, doing nothing.
Who says the US military has been doing nothing for years?
> Without the tax base, who would be fighting the wars.
The US military was and is fighting the wars. I don't always agree with their
actions, but thank God for the US military.
> Most people go into the army because they can't do anything else in life.
What?
> Is it akin to being an engrish teacher
> in Japan? Well, that's another story. The point is, they wanted the free
> ride....
The US military is not a free ride. The soldiers have sacrificed their freedom
and ordinary lives, even when not at war, because they may have to defend the
lives and freedoms of people like you.
Do you claim to do better than they?
> the free college..... the free everything.
It's not free. It's part of the compensation and benefits package for their
jobs.
> Now they've gotta pay for it and the families are whining?
Recall that even military personnel who do not go to war, and former service
personnel can and do complain about the service, despite living long enough to
take advantage of benefits such as money for college after service, or
retirement with pension at the age of 38. Why should people who pay a greater
price than they, such as being surrounded by hostile people in a hot dusty
foreign country, being shot at, without a good explanation for it all, be
different?
Do you call people who served in peacetime who were not satisfied with it,
whining bitches, too?
> It's distasteful and sickening hearing those families and military personnel
> bitch and moan about it.
No, it is sad. I feel sorry for them.
Then be glad you do not live during the time Americans did not have a choice,
and Americans actually had to fight for their freedom with their own hands.
Rafael Caetano
> > Well, then they're really stupid, sorry.
>
> Insult the people who serve if you like, I will not.
> I will insult their leaders.
The leaders wreak havoc only so far as "the people who serve" follow
their orders. If you think these people are morally exempt because
they're following orders, well...
> > [reservists]
> > If they enlisted voluntarily in the Army, even if it was
> > 20 years ago, then they asked for it, no?
>
> No, they did not ask to go to Iraq, leaving behind jobs
> and families for a year or more, and they certainly did
> not ask to be disabled or die.
You have a strange view on what means to join the Army... but I give
up on this.
> I don't believe the average 18 year old is thinking about
> what can happen 20 years in the future or consequences of
> their actions. It's why young people do stupid things.
Agreed. They usually don't think about the consequences. But they
should.
> [Note: joining the military is not stupid.]
I respect your opinion (in Mencken's sense).
> We don't have compulsory service, and currently no draft.
>
> I am waiting to see what will happen if recruitment
> numbers fall as low as some people think they might,
> and the US is unable to maintain their presence
> in the Middle East with an all "volunteer" forces
Then I hope they would finally get their asses out of Middle East. But
I suspect that you disagree, so let's pass that... so, supposing that
US stays, and they can't get help from other countries. In that case,
do you support the draft?
> And if you are not one of those who support eliminating
> the draft or compulsory service,
Oh, but I do. I thought I had made it clear, sorry.
> then you are one of those who approve of the system, even
> if it means you being torn from your family, being shipped
> overseas, and dying, no?
No, I don't approve of that, Eric. That's why I said "I feel sorry
only if they are draftees".
(...)
> No, it shows morale is very poor. You do not want
> 100,000 people with poor morale and guns. You could get
> a Vietnam.
So what? That's what is bound to happen when a country invades every
"rogue" country in the world.
> You could also get some inhumane behavior.
??
[snip]
> > You can't claim you just want a job, and you don't know
> > or care for the consequences.
>
> For many, such as some members of minorities, military
> service is the BEST opportunity for training and jobs.
Sure, but you could say the same of some mafia jobs. Now, I suppose we
agree that mafia jobs are immoral. The problem is, I also think that
the Army is often immoral. The Iraqi war is unjust, for instance.
Apparently we disagree on this premise, so it's useless to discuss it
further.
(...)
> And if they are deployed to some war zone, I would expect
> them to do their duty and fulfill
> their responsibilities.
>
> And I would still feel sorry for them.
I see what you mean.
So let me give another example to make my position clear. Suppose
someone decides to become a fireman. He should be aware that he may
have to put his own life in danger many times in the future. Obviously
he can't claim afterwards, "Oh, but I didn't know it would be
dangerous". Even so, I would feel sorry if he died while working. Why?
Because his job is to save lives.
Now, do you really think that a soldier is like a fireman? Do you
believe that the wars (or conflicts, call it what you like) that US
has fought were all in the defense of the American citizens?
Rafael Caetano
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi <eta...@yahoo.co.jp>:
> > Rafael Caetano wrote:
> > > Well, then they're really stupid, sorry.
> >
> > Insult the people who serve if you like, I will not.
> > I will insult their leaders.
>
> The leaders wreak havoc only so far as "the people who serve" follow
> their orders.
Do not expect a mutiny or coup soon.
> If you think these people are morally exempt because
> they're following orders, well...
No.
> > > [reservists]
> > > If they enlisted voluntarily in the Army, even if it was
> > > 20 years ago, then they asked for it, no?
> >
> > No, they did not ask to go to Iraq, leaving behind jobs
> > and families for a year or more, and they certainly did
> > not ask to be disabled or die.
>
> You have a strange view on what means to join the Army...
Ask a recruiter what they have to offer. I know. They wanted me to be all
I could be, aim high, be one of the few, the proud, or enjoy "job
opportunities, skill training, money for college and travel in today's
high-tech Navy". War in the Mideast or against the former Soviet Union on
the nuclear battlefield during my time, was never, ever mentioned.
> but I give up on this.
>
> > I don't believe the average 18 year old is thinking about
> > what can happen 20 years in the future or consequences of
> > their actions. It's why young people do stupid things.
>
> Agreed. They usually don't think about the consequences. But they
> should.
>
> > [Note: joining the military is not stupid.]
>
> I respect your opinion (in Mencken's sense).
>
> > We don't have compulsory service, and currently no draft.
> >
> > I am waiting to see what will happen if recruitment
> > numbers fall as low as some people think they might,
> > and the US is unable to maintain their presence
> > in the Middle East with an all "volunteer" forces
>
> Then I hope they would finally get their asses out of Middle East. But
> I suspect that you disagree, so let's pass that... so, supposing that
> US stays, and they can't get help from other countries. In that case,
> do you support the draft?
What other way is there, if the military does not give up and they don't
have the numbers, when allies and the UN are unwilling? Praying for peace
like Japanese?
> > And if you are not one of those who support eliminating
> > the draft or compulsory service,
>
> Oh, but I do. I thought I had made it clear, sorry.
>
> > then you are one of those who approve of the system, even
> > if it means you being torn from your family, being shipped
> > overseas, and dying, no?
>
> No, I don't approve of that, Eric. That's why I said "I feel sorry
> only if they are draftees".
>
> (...)
> > No, it shows morale is very poor. You do not want
> > 100,000 people with poor morale and guns. You could get
> > a Vietnam.
>
> So what? That's what is bound to happen when a country invades every
> "rogue" country in the world.
It's not the soldiers' fault their government and voters are stupid.
> > You could also get some inhumane behavior.
>
> ??
Some is already happening.
> [snip]
> > > You can't claim you just want a job, and you don't know
> > > or care for the consequences.
> >
> > For many, such as some members of minorities, military
> > service is the BEST opportunity for training and jobs.
>
> Sure, but you could say the same of some mafia jobs.
The US military is not the mafia.
> Now, I suppose we agree that mafia jobs are immoral.
Not all of them. Nowadays, mafia members are business people. Japanese
mafia are heavily into legitimate businesses, though such as stock
ownership and loans.
> The problem is, I also think that the Army is often immoral.
Oh. Well yes.
> The Iraqi war is unjust, for instance.
> Apparently we disagree on this premise,
It is clear we do not disagree about Iraq.
If the US military is not going to be a real global police force, doing
such as freeing North Korea to save tens of millions of oppressed people
and millions of starving peasants, they should stay at home where they
are safer and appreciated. If such as Europeans, Japanese or Iraqis want
to bitch about the presence or actions of the US military, they can take
care of their own damned selves and never again ask for aid of any kind.
How quickly they forget.
> so it's useless to discuss it further.
>
> (...)
> > And if they are deployed to some war zone, I would expect
> > them to do their duty and fulfill
> > their responsibilities.
> >
> > And I would still feel sorry for them.
>
> I see what you mean.
Good. Because that is what I mean.
Bryce seems to think I want the US military to be a welfare system for
people who can't do any better. It is not, and should not be. And if US
service personnel could be as well informed and qualified as cc claims
European service personnel are, that would be a most welcome change.
But they are not mentally retarded or stupid.
> So let me give another example to make my position clear. Suppose
> someone decides to become a fireman. He should be aware that he may
> have to put his own life in danger many times in the future. Obviously
> he can't claim afterwards, "Oh, but I didn't know it would be
> dangerous".
No, but in light of such as the WTC attacks and aftermath, they can make
the valid claim that they did not know it would be THAT dangerous, just
like ignorant young service personnel who never grew up with war the way
my ancestors lived with war.
> Even so, I would feel sorry if he died while working. Why?
> Because his job is to save lives.
Note firefighters can quit if they regret their decision, and I do not
believe firefighters would be treated like criminals for going AWOL.
> Now, do you really think that a soldier is like a fireman?
In the sense that they represent a kind of insurance like I said, yes.
> Do you believe that the wars (or conflicts, call it what you like) that
> US
> has fought were all in the defense of the American citizens?
No. Why do you think I would believe so?
Brett Robson
>
>You have a strange view on what means to join the Army... but I give
>up on this.
As you are such an expert, perhaps you can explain to me exactly what it means
to join the army. I'm especially interested in what valid reasons for joining
the army would be.
.
----
"No country hides itself behind the paper screen of cultural elitism like Japan,
which, considering they've bought their entire civilisation from other people's
hand-me-downs, is a bit of a liberty."
Michael Cash
<eta...@yahoo.co.jp> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Michael Cash wrote:
>
>> We are in solid agreement on this. You sign up; you take your chances.
>> It's a crap shoot,
>
>I am glad you are here. I have been waiting for the input of former service
>personnel.
>
>Then would you believe you are merely lucky not to have been like them?
I was sort of drawn to the Navy to begin with, since I like the idea
of having my bunk and the chow hall never more than a short walk away.
But I also thought about what sort of conflict I thought would be most
likely in the (then) future, were there to be any during my
enlistment. My opinion on the matter was that on a ship was probably
as safe a place to be as any. What were US Naval losses in conflicts
like Korea and Vietnam, for example, compared with those of the ground
pounders? I liked the odds.
Still, though, the cold war was still going on and I have seen my fair
share of Soviet ships and aircraft. We once cruised up near
Vladivostok in what the Soviets asserted were their territorial
waters. We went to show them that we didn't recognize that assertion.
Also went and spent some time up in the Persian Gulf are during the
summer of 1985.
All that being said, I will more directly answer your question. Yes, I
consider myself merely lucky not to have been like them. When you sign
that contract and turn your ass into a chunk of US Govt Property, you
have no way of knowing what you may or may not be called upon to do.
But anyone joining the active services or the guard/reserve forces
figuring it's a sure thing they won't be placed in circumstances where
they may be injured, maimed, or killed is a fucking idiot. Military
service carries with it that risk. It goes with the territory.
>
>> and if anyone who can't stand the odds has no
>> business getting in the game to begin with.
>
>If you had been called to fight the Soviet menace or the rampaging hordes of
>Grenada, you wouldn't have the misgivings of the men and women who are currently
>serving?
Your sentence is worded in such a way as to give the impression you
think all of the men and women currently serving have misgivings.
Surely that's not the way you meant it, is it?
Would I have been scared shitless? Hell yes. But once again, this all
traces back to shit you're supposed to know and accept *before* you
sign over body and soul to Uncle Sam. Would I have done as ordered?
Without having actually ever been in that situation, I can only
speculate and say that I certainly hope like hell that I would have.
Such would have been my intention, as I most certainly was aware of
that potential eventuality when I joined up.
>Did you have to go to war to learn that you did not want to reenlist?
No. I just needed the prospect of trying to create a family while
looking at a 3/5 rotation. Three years shore billet. Five years sea
duty. Sucks.
And keep in mind that the military neither needs nor wants everybody
to reenlist. It's sort of a pyramid scheme, and there has to be an
inflow and outflow from the bottom layer. The inflow comes from
recruitment, of course. Outflow comes, in part, from people getting
promoted. Not everybody can get promoted on and on and on. Otherwise
we'd have a few million 5 star generals. And then who would clean the
toilets? Nobody, that's who. The majority of the rest of the outflow
comes from people who serve an enlistment or two and then move on to
something else.
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On 11 Nov 2003 03:31:22 -0800, Rafael Caetano ...
>>
>>You have a strange view on what means to join the Army... but I give
>>up on this.
>
>As you are such an expert, perhaps you can explain to me exactly what it means
>to join the army. I'm especially interested in what valid reasons for joining
>the army would be.
You get to enjoy face-painting without having to go to something faegy
like a soccer game.
Eric Takabayashi
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:09:13 +0900, Eric Takabayashi
> <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
> >Michael Cash wrote:
> >
> >> We are in solid agreement on this. You sign up; you take your chances.
> >> It's a crap shoot,
> >
> >I am glad you are here. I have been waiting for the input of former service
> >personnel.
> >
> >Then would you believe you are merely lucky not to have been like them?
>
> I was sort of drawn to the Navy to begin with, since I like the idea
> of having my bunk and the chow hall never more than a short walk away.
> But I also thought about what sort of conflict I thought would be most
> likely in the (then) future, were there to be any during my
> enlistment. My opinion on the matter was that on a ship was probably
> as safe a place to be as any. What were US Naval losses in conflicts
> like Korea and Vietnam, for example, compared with those of the ground
> pounders? I liked the odds.
Hmm. You're right. But perhaps other men like greater opportunities for walking on
grass, driving a car, or mingling with the opposite sex.
> Still, though, the cold war was still going on and I have seen my fair
> share of Soviet ships and aircraft. We once cruised up near
> Vladivostok in what the Soviets asserted were their territorial
> waters. We went to show them that we didn't recognize that assertion.
> Also went and spent some time up in the Persian Gulf are during the
> summer of 1985.
>
> All that being said, I will more directly answer your question. Yes, I
> consider myself merely lucky not to have been like them. When you sign
> that contract and turn your ass into a chunk of US Govt Property, you
> have no way of knowing what you may or may not be called upon to do.
> But anyone joining the active services or the guard/reserve forces
> figuring it's a sure thing they won't be placed in circumstances where
> they may be injured, maimed, or killed is a fucking idiot. Military
> service carries with it that risk. It goes with the territory.
Sure thing they would NOT be placed in such circumstances? Of course not.
But did you ever think it would be a sure thing you WOULD live under such
circumstances, as people in Iraq have realized they are in, perhaps longer than a
year at a time?
> >> and if anyone who can't stand the odds has no
> >> business getting in the game to begin with.
> >
> >If you had been called to fight the Soviet menace or the rampaging hordes of
> >Grenada, you wouldn't have the misgivings of the men and women who are currently
> >serving?
>
> Your sentence is worded in such a way as to give the impression you
> think all of the men and women currently serving have misgivings.
> Surely that's not the way you meant it, is it?
No (Stars and Stripes' negative findings only go about as high as 50%), but why
would they not have a right to some misgivings?
> Would I have been scared shitless? Hell yes.
Good. Thank you.
> But once again, this all
> traces back to shit you're supposed to know and accept *before* you
> sign over body and soul to Uncle Sam. Would I have done as ordered?
> Without having actually ever been in that situation, I can only
> speculate and say that I certainly hope like hell that I would have.
> Such would have been my intention, as I most certainly was aware of
> that potential eventuality when I joined up.
Since we are not hearing about mass dereliction of duty or personnel going AWOL
(there may be some "contientious objectors" in the US), even in the most critical
news pieces, we are left to believe that US military personnel are doing their duty
as well, no matter how they may personally feel or how worried their families are,
and thus not deserve being characterized as whining and bitching.
> >Did you have to go to war to learn that you did not want to reenlist?
>
> No. I just needed the prospect of trying to create a family while
> looking at a 3/5 rotation. Three years shore billet. Five years sea
> duty. Sucks.
So why begrudge people on the front who are voicing their misgivings now, keeping in
mind they are doing their duty as they had agreed to do? Was there a clause saying
they couldn't complain or decide not to reenlist before their service was up? Did
their families sign any agreement that they couldn't be worried about their loved
ones actually going off to war?
Declan Murphy
> Michael Cash wrote:
>>I was sort of drawn to the Navy to begin with, since I like the idea
>>of having my bunk and the chow hall never more than a short walk away.
>>But I also thought about what sort of conflict I thought would be most
>>likely in the (then) future, were there to be any during my
>>enlistment. My opinion on the matter was that on a ship was probably
>>as safe a place to be as any. What were US Naval losses in conflicts
>>like Korea and Vietnam, for example, compared with those of the ground
>>pounders? I liked the odds.
>
> Hmm. You're right. But perhaps other men like greater opportunities for walking on
> grass, driving a car, or mingling with the opposite sex.
Quite a few members of my extended family, and many of my friends, are
soldiers, in the military of 3 different countries. I was only a
part-timer (a "chocolate soldier", and glad of it). Perhaps they should
also have joined the Navy (like my old man) because they don't get much
in the way of greater opportunities for walking on grass (as opposed to
"in" it), driving/riding in vehicles (even a mechanised army mostly
walks, runs, crawls & digs) and as for mingling with the opposite sex?
What? At least these days there are women on (some) ships. In an
infantry platoon? Carrying a GPMG? It just doesn't happen.
--
"Thank God I'm an atheist" - Luis Bunuel
cc
"Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
>> It is
> > obvious they know and everybody knows.
>
> It is not, and they do not.
It is obvious for Europeans that the army is an army and not an
administration like the ministery of education.
> You fail to realize that the US is different from this, and the military's
own
> findings prove it. Your first reaction is to dismiss the US soldiers as
> mentally retarded. How kind of you.
Wait a minute, I've never said anything about US soldiers in general. Most
of those I've met in really life were perfectly aware of their military
condition and what they had signed for.
Those that signed "without knowing" and took seriously the crap
communication on the webpage you indicated are dumbies.
You say a survey showed they were very numerous in Irak....Dumbies or
hypocrites, you decide.
Ask Mike or Bryan or others if they didn't know the
conditions and would have said in a survey they didn't know they had a
chance to be sent away from their family and participate to a war.
> You and I were able to turn down offers of military service because we
>have
> better.
Not at all. I measure 1 m 58. The minimum is 1 m 60 for women. Suppose I
found the way to grow up of 2 cm, they wouldn't have let me pilote because I
wear contact lenses.
> Now see if you understand this: the US government and media are putting
quite a
> different face on US military actions, than what we are getting abroad.
That's not true. I have spent months in the US and didn't notice a real
difference with most other countries. We hear the same speeches of Bush
everywhere. The Americans have the same internet as you and me. They are
free to be "critical" about what their leaders and mass media say.
> there is even more which does not, according to people actually at the
> front, who are not appearing in the media,
That's not a scoop.
> > the veterans with the Gulf Syndrome,
> The US denies such a thing exists. Other doctors do not,
Precisely. And that "doubt" was widely discussed in the US media too, as
biased as they can be.
> We were wrong to help Kuwait when they couldn't help themselves? Why?
Because we failed to restablish a peaceful balance in the Gulf (that was the
goal of the intervention. Nobody cared about the asses of the Koweiti Ben
Ladens
as they could very well have help themselves). We caused more problems than
we solved in that area.
Other reasons too, but one is more than enough.
>I feel
> sorry for approximately half of Japanese who voted on Sunday.
I don't. They don't complain much about what their politicians do. They have
what they have chosen.
> > Just to think the generation that took the Vietnam war in their teeth
find it
> > normal that their children sign as military to pay for their studies !
>
> Why not, if that is what the US military is for some reason, willing to
offer.
You told me stories that would make stones cry about people "forced by life"
to join army to get a social security or pay their studies, and later
discovered the price was to go to war.
I don't buy it. All those people, or their parents, know US army does wars,
and sometimes horrible ones. They should have done something : saved more
for the kids' studies or ask their country to spend more money on
education, health insurance, and less on military, etc. The French have
decided university education and healthcare were given to everybody without
having to go to war and that was financed by taxes and reduction of military
budget (as the army mostly hires people already educated). The American
think their system is better ? You think it too ?. OK, if you accept the
consequences of your choice. Don't cry the "poor" people have to go to war.
> What disgusting recruitment methods? Joining the military for education,
> employment, and self improvement are perfectly acceptable.
You don't know what you want.
CC
Eric Takabayashi
Perhaps serving in Iwakuni, Akitsu, Etajima, or on one of the Hawaiian military bases
offer greater opportunities for more civilian aspects of life.
Eric Takabayashi
> "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
>
> >> It is
> > > obvious they know and everybody knows.
> >
> > It is not, and they do not.
>
> It is obvious for Europeans that the army is an army and not an
> administration like the ministery of education.
They don't act like it. America should not have attacked Iraq, but Iraq sure as
hell needs help rebuilding now.
> > You fail to realize that the US is different from this, and the military's
> own
> > findings prove it. Your first reaction is to dismiss the US soldiers as
> > mentally retarded. How kind of you.
>
> Wait a minute, I've never said anything about US soldiers in general. Most
> of those I've met in really life were perfectly aware of their military
> condition and what they had signed for.
Then people you know sure are different from those in Iraq interviewed by the
Pentagon's own newspaper who don't know what they are doing, and don't want to
do so again given the choice to reenlist. Did you ever realize this? Where are
these US soldiers you know? Are they in Osaka, or fighting?
> Those that signed "without knowing" and took seriously the crap
> communication on the webpage you indicated are dumbies.
What did you say about not generalizing?
> You say a survey showed they were very numerous in Irak....Dumbies or
> hypocrites, you decide.
No, you who claim not to generalize, please decide.
> Ask Mike or Bryan or others if they didn't know the
> conditions and would have said in a survey they didn't know they had a
> chance to be sent away from their family and participate to a war.
They had a "chance". Soldiers in the Middle East are living a certainty, right
now. There is no "chance".
> > You and I were able to turn down offers of military service because we
> >have better.
>
> Not at all. I measure 1 m 58. The minimum is 1 m 60 for women.
Then what's all the crap about you being so qualified? Irrelevant.
> Suppose I found the way to grow up of 2 cm, they wouldn't have let me pilote
> because I wear contact lenses.
This is not the point. We have choices other than the military, such as living
comfortably doing other work, unlike those who see the military as a great
opportunity, who are in the Middle East now.
> > Now see if you understand this: the US government and media are putting
> quite a
> > different face on US military actions, than what we are getting abroad.
>
> That's not true. I have spent months in the US and didn't notice a real
> difference with most other countries.
Then you are ignorant.
The Japanese news has quite capably demonstrated the way the US government
produced propaganda with the full cooperation of major US media, with actual
video footage, and other media in Japan from foreign sources have revealed the
same. The way Fox News became more popular than CNN by being seen as more
patriotic, was most remarkable.
> We hear the same speeches of Bush everywhere.
Yes, even many people hostile to America can hear Bush speeches, because it is
what their media may use as fuel.
And did you hear the Iraqi side, or hear of the Iraqi casualties, the way
Middle Eastern, Eastern or European and Japanese covered them? Did you see the
dead women and children when the wrong targets were hit, and mistakes made on
the ground like we can in Japan? Did you see the crying families cradling dead
babies and bloodied bodies? Were the American news crews you saw on the
receiving end like many Japanese and foreign reporters I saw, to see the result
of the war in Iraq? Ask yourself if there was any other benefit to the Pentagon
embedding news crews with American soldiers in Iraq, on the American side of
the war, and subject to their bidding. The Pentagon does not want American
media showing coffins or American prisoners of war. The Pentagon has not even
released an Iraqi casualty figure, military or civilian.
> The Americans have the same internet as you and me. They are
> free to be "critical" about what their leaders and mass media say.
And yet the US propaganda was so effective, with Bush enjoying over 90% support
after September 11, 2001, and the war had maybe over 80% support, while the
rest of the world including the British, great allies whose government stood
with the Americans, openly opposed it.
How do you account for this? Would you perhaps like to make a generalization
about the intelligence of the American public?
> > there is even more which does not, according to people actually at the
> > front, who are not appearing in the media,
>
> That's not a scoop.
Then the Americans don't really know.
> > > the veterans with the Gulf Syndrome,
> > The US denies such a thing exists. Other doctors do not,
>
> Precisely. And that "doubt" was widely discussed in the US media too, as
> biased as they can be.
It was necessary for the US NOT to accept the existence of Gulf War Syndrome.
During this Gulf War and last, I have seen how the media are the tool of the
government, with what was not reported as significant as what was, as well as
any twist put on it.
> > We were wrong to help Kuwait when they couldn't help themselves? Why?
>
> Because we failed to restablish a peaceful balance in the Gulf (that was the
> goal of the intervention.
It was? I thought the official goal was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Foreign
efforts at making adjustments in the region are a great reason for the trouble
that exists today.
> Nobody cared about the asses of the Koweiti Ben Ladens
Bin Laden was fighting Russians in Afghanistan. Even the US supported him at
the time.
> as they could very well have help themselves). We caused more problems than
> we solved in that area.
Oh, you said that. But keeping Kuwait free was not a mistake. Peacefully
supporting minorities in Israel who would like their own land where they can
enjoy full rights is not a mistake either.
Bush declaring he wants democracy in the region is a big, stupid mistake, for
him at least. Bush does NOT want the people of the Middle East voting against
what the US wants to do.
> Other reasons too, but one is more than enough.
>
> >I feel sorry for approximately half of Japanese who voted on Sunday.
>
> I don't. They don't complain much about what their politicians do.
The hell they don't. Ask more Japanese about their politicians. Ask them about
issues such as education, taxes, unemployment, the economy, insurance and
pensions. Ask them about public spending and corruption. Ask them about
loosening visa requirements for Asian travelers, which has been proposed.
I cannot for the life of me, find people who are willing to admit they support
the LDP, though I do know people who are against the SDP and JCP, simply
because they were soft on North Korea or used to publicly support them. I know
an LDP politician, and even he is critical of his party.
> They have what they have chosen.
What about half of the half of eligible voters who actually voted, have chosen,
like when Clinton was elected, though Clinton won wide public approval and
reelection later. A quarter of Japanese voters, do not make a ruling majority.
> You told me stories that would make stones cry about people "forced by life"
> to join army to get a social security or pay their studies, and later
> discovered the price was to go to war.
Yes, I feel sorry for them.
> I don't buy it.
Because you don't live it, similar to the way many people who live comfortably
are openly derisive of the underprivileged and minorities who do not succeed,
as if they had secured all they have with their own hands. Do you need to worry
how your studies will be paid for, who will pay your medical expenses, who will
support you if you cannot secure work, or who will take care of you in your old
age? Americans need to worry a bit more than Japanese or Europeans, and the
underprivileged need to worry a bit more than those who live more comfortably.
> All those people, or their parents, know US army does wars,
> and sometimes horrible ones.
Yep.
> They should have done something : saved more for the kids' studies
You are talking about people with enough money for their kids' studies. There
are even university educated, employed people who own houses, who do not. I
chose to go to the 500 USD a semester public university I did. But I would not
have been able to go to a 10,000 USD a year university at the time, or one of
the 30,000+ USD universities which exist today.
I know people including Japanese, who work instead of study, even some who did
not go to high school because they or their families need the money. Perhaps
you know some, too. It is not their own fault.
> or ask their country to spend more money on education, health insurance, and
> less on military, etc.
Voters have demonstrated their ignorance and ability to be swayed by simple
lies such as "no more taxes" or claims Iraqi oil will pay for the recovery. I
am still waiting for the weapons of mass destruction, though they are
irrelevant to me as a reason for attacking Iraq. For some reason, military
action including full scale war (even Grenada and Panama proved successful) is
a great way to distract Americans from domestic problems.
> The French have decided university education and healthcare were given to
> everybody without having to go to war
How did France achieve this freedom? Do you have a short memory, too?
> and that was financed by taxes
Americans don't like taxes. Entire elections can be lost over issues as simple
as increases and cuts in taxes. Ignorant people evidently think services will
pay for themselves.
> and reduction of military budget
Preparing for war is a great and easy way to increase the military strength and
budget. Ask a Republican president. Threats of reducing employment and hurting
the local economy near a redundant military installation is another way of
maintaining military spending.
What the US could undeniably have cut was their nuclear capability.
> (as the army mostly hires people already educated). The American
> think their system is better ?
They do.
> You think it too ?.
Some things are. We will live to see the weakness of the European welfare
system as surely as we can and will see weaknesses in the American social
system.
> OK, if you accept the consequences of your choice.
I accept the consequences of my choice on my own life. Not the choice of a
majority of stupid voters on my life, or how the majority affect the
underprivileged.
> Don't cry the "poor" people have to go to war.
Why, when I am not the one who sent them there?
You can witness on this very group how little support I get for proposing the
US military get out of Asia, stay at home, or for aiding the underprivileged of
Japan, the US and the world by giving them food, money, education, or toppling
a foreign communist regime, before asking why "I" am not capable of doing
something on the national level such as educating the American public, changing
Bush's mind or changing military recruitment tactics.
> > What disgusting recruitment methods? Joining the military for education,
> > employment, and self improvement are perfectly acceptable.
>
> You don't know what you want.
I want opportunities and aid for people so we don't have underprivileged
people, and so any underprivileged people remaining, can't make excuses any
more.
Opportunities they don't need to fight or die for.
Bryce
Well then, they are all stupid if they played those odds. What the hell were
they thinking? Kinda tells me we might have stupid people in the army!
Bryce
No, because I made the educated decision not to. And I made the educated
decision to be happy with the situation as well based on research and facts;
not because I couldn't do anything else in life and thus decided to join the
army.
Bryce
Bryce
I agree with you there. Why the hell are they getting money in the first
place? It wasn't the government's fault. Why aren't other "victims" of
terrorism getting money? Why just the WTC ones?
cc
"Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> Then people you know sure are different from those in Iraq interviewed by
the
> Pentagon's own newspaper
You wouldn't want me to change my opinion after hearing a quote from the
Pentagon's propaganda rag ? Be coherent.
> > Those that signed "without knowing" and took seriously the crap
> > communication on the webpage you indicated are dumbies.
>
> What did you say about not generalizing?
That's not a generalization but a definition. I say the same for the people
that signed for JET or whatever without checking information and come later
to cry : "I didn't know".
> Then what's all the crap about you being so qualified? Irrelevant.
I've told you I was qualified to be a soldier ?
Anyway I have never considered joining the army, because of my personal
belief : armies are institutions that do wars (which are archaic) , and
"freeze" an established order (that I'd like to see evolve.).
>such as living
> comfortably doing other work,
That seems to be your priority.
I could have made choices to live much more comfortably (materially,
professionnally,
socially, sentimentally, etc), with more money and more people wipping the
seat before I put my ass on it. I'd have needed a greater resistance to
boredom and unsincere situations.
>unlike those who see the military as a great
> opportunity, who are in the Middle East now.
If they believe it's the good way to make the world progress, or if they are
just ambitious and it's the price to pay to make a career, they are right to
go there. I respect people that make choice different than mine. What I
don't like are those that make a choice and complain about it.
> The Japanese news has quite capably demonstrated the way the US government
> produced propaganda
Oh what a discovery ! Japanese TV are so smart. You had not noticed yourself
?
Same thing can be said about Japanese, French or Spanish
media/government/dominant social class. You say that in English "la pensee
unique", unique thinking ? You'd listen to the media for a while, they
repeat the same thing so many times that at the end, you'd finished to be
convinced (if you were not able to switch off the TV and count how many
times Bassorah has been conquered that week and how the whale meat could be
safe with only x% of polluant while on another day foreign beed was
dangerous with half of that....).
That's the same for most countries, but I have not followed the news of
everywhere. Certain places are much much much worse as the politic situation
and linguistic isolation make it difficult for people to diversify sources
of informations. Americans are free to read what they want and have access
to English speaking media from all over the world. What prevents any
American to follow the BBC or Canadian news for instance ?
> And did you hear the Iraqi side, or hear of the Iraqi casualties,
.....
>.The Pentagon has not even
> released an Iraqi casualty figure, military or civilian.
I know -from American media- that Iraq is occupied now and the journalists,
media, or any person setting the foot in Iraq ( be them American, Iraqi,
others) have to follow instructions of US army, that limits where/when they
can go, what they can learn and what they can tell to the outside
world....Historians will tell us what were are missing, maybe.
>the way
> Middle Eastern, Eastern or European and Japanese covered them?
None of these media shows or says more than the American ones. They vary the
comments and quantity of negative/positive images/information , but they
show of both, even if it's to say it's the other side's propaganda. I have
seen most images from Middle Eastern media on US TV websites.
> the war had maybe over 80% support,
>while the
> rest of the world including the British, great allies whose government
stood
>ith the Americans, openly opposed it.
> How do you account for this?
No, I don't think Bush and his communicators are doing an intelligent
propaganda.
Americans know as much as I, but many made their own opinion differently
from mine. That's not possible ?
> It was necessary for the US NOT to accept the existence of Gulf War
Syndrome.
For the US or for the career of a few politicians and high-level militaries
?
> > or ask their country to spend more money on education, health
insurance, and
> > less on military, etc.
>
> Voters have demonstrated their ignorance
....
>Would you perhaps like to make a generalization about the intelligence of
the American
>public?
No thanks, you're doing it yourself.
>. For some reason, military
> action is
> a great way to distract Americans from domestic problems.
....
> Preparing for war is a great and easy way to increase the military
strength and
> budget.
etc, you realise the same things could have been said about Saddam
Hussein's regime a few years ago, or Hitler's Germany.
> You can witness on this very group how little support I get for proposing
....
Each time you "propose" something, a few line later you explain you don't
accept the consequence or price to pay for it.
> before asking why "I" am not capable of doing
> something on the national level such as educating the American public,
changing
> Bush's mind or changing military recruitment tactics.
Yeah, why not "you" ?
> > > What disgusting recruitment methods? Joining the military for
education,
> > > employment, and self improvement are perfectly acceptable.
That's acceptable or you want to change it ? If people are really educated
and "self-improved" by the army, they won't be taught to doubt or contest
the "official speeches".
CC
MatthewOutland
MatthewOutland
True. I am routinely amazed at how much facts your informed arguments have, Eric.
MatthewOutland
they're stupid.
I take it back, eric, you aren't the only retard here. Just the
biggest one.
Bryce
"MatthewOutland" <matthewo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52210046.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > No, when it all comes down to it, they didn't have all the facts.
>
>
> True. I am routinely amazed at how much facts your informed arguments
have, Eric.
It's more like spin.
Bryce
"MatthewOutland" <matthewo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52210046.03111...@posting.google.com...
They are joining the military because they have nothing better to do, or
they lack knowledge, or they just wanna kill. Doesn't make 'em good or bad.
To each their own. But once they are in... there shouldn't be any bitching
about going to war.
Bryce
"MatthewOutland" <matthewo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52210046.03111...@posting.google.com...
it's a one way argument from his side... spinning. and oh so spinning.
Rafael Caetano
> >but I give up on this.
>
> As you are such an expert, perhaps you can explain to
> me exactly what it means to join the army.
Why, I've never claimed to be an expert. I was only saying that if you
join the army you are supposed to know that you might go to war.
Common sense, no? I think Mike Cash agrees. But Eric insists that
young people join the army because "it is a good opportunity, they
don't know the consequences, etc", and so they are to be pitied when
they finally face the consequences.
> I'm especially interested in what valid reasons for
> joining the army would be.
I have no idea whatsoever. I never considered joining the army myself.
But it's not hard to see that certains reasons aren't valid.
Rafael Caetano
Brett Robson
Don't tell everyone. Next you be talking about the party pack food and shooting
parachute flares.
My soldiers learnt quickly that I would trade nearly anything for the jam filled
shortbread biscuits (cookies).
Ryan Ginstrom
> So why begrudge people on the front who are voicing their misgivings now,
keeping in
> mind they are doing their duty as they had agreed to do? Was there a
clause saying
> they couldn't complain or decide not to reenlist before their service was
up? Did
> their families sign any agreement that they couldn't be worried about
their loved
> ones actually going off to war?
Griping is a right of every soldier, and a skill that most take pride in and
carry out with great skill. I would expect morale to be low with a job like
those guys have, and having been in both active duty and the national guard,
I can bet that those weekend warriors are hating life about now.
However, bitching and moaning when the cameras are rolling is another
matter. From what little footage I've seen, it appears that most of the
soldiers think they are participating in some kind of reality TV show.
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Rafael Caetano
(...)
> Ask a recruiter what they have to offer. I know. They
> wanted me to be all I could be, aim high, be one of the
> few, the proud, or enjoy "job opportunities, skill training,
> money for college and travel in today's high-tech Navy". War
> in the Mideast or against the former Soviet Union on
> the nuclear battlefield during my time, was never,
> ever mentioned.
If they don't mention it, it seems a bit dishonest. But unless you
were living under a rock, you would know that such wars weren't
unlikely.
> > [snip]
> > > For many, such as some members of minorities, military
> > > service is the BEST opportunity for training and jobs.
> >
> > Sure, but you could say the same of some mafia jobs.
>
> The US military is not the mafia.
(sigh) I didn't say that. I was pointing out the irrelevance of the
"bet opportunity" argument.
> > The Iraqi war is unjust, for instance.
> > Apparently we disagree on this premise,
>
> It is clear we do not disagree about Iraq.
>
> If the US military is not going to be a real global
> police force, doing such as freeing North Korea to save
> tens of millions of oppressed people and millions of
> starving peasants, they should stay at home where they
> are safer and appreciated.
Yes. So we agree. :-)
> If such as Europeans, Japanese or Iraqis want
> to bitch about the presence or actions of the US military,
> they can take care of their own damned selves and never
> again ask for aid of any kind. How quickly they forget.
Agreed.
(...)
> > Even so, I would feel sorry if he died while working. Why?
> > Because his job is to save lives.
>
> Note firefighters can quit if they regret their decision,
> and I do not believe firefighters would be treated like
> criminals for going AWOL.
One more reason for not joining the army.
> > Do you believe that the wars (or conflicts, call it what
> > you like) that US has fought were all in the defense of
> > the American citizens?
>
> No. Why do you think I would believe so?
OK, just asking. Because you said "(...) The soldiers have sacrificed
their freedom and ordinary lives, even when not at war, because they
may have to defend the lives and freedoms of people like you[Bryce]."
Rafael Caetano
Eric Takabayashi
> > So who are you claiming is joining the army for the possibility of going
> > off to war? Evidently not the people surveyed by the Stars and Stripes.
>
> Well then, they are all stupid if they played those odds. What the hell were
> they thinking? Kinda tells me we might have stupid people in the army!
The term I prefer is, "people who need to consider military offers of
employment attractive", which is unrelated to intelligence.
Eric Takabayashi
> > Are you serving in a war zone?
>
> No, because I made the educated decision not to. And I made the educated
> decision to be happy with the situation as well based on research and facts;
> not because I couldn't do anything else in life and thus decided to join the
> army.
There are people not as "educated" as you in the military. There are also
people who take any manner of other kinds of risks, or even those which will
almost certainly result in death.
I don't characterize them as stupid or mentally retarded.
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric is missing the point that they made their own decisions.
You're missing the point they aren't stupid, and there are
people who don't have as many choices in life as you, to live in
relative comfort and safety.
Eric Takabayashi
> Griping is a right of every soldier,
Thank God someone can understand this.
> and a skill that most take pride in and
> carry out with great skill. I would expect morale to be low with a job like
> those guys have, and having been in both active duty and the national guard,
> I can bet that those weekend warriors are hating life about now.
>
> However, bitching and moaning when the cameras are rolling is another
> matter.
The Stars and Stripes reported on some survey specifically designed to gauge
morale and desire to reenlist, while on the front. It is the Pentagon who
should not be complaining about what they were sure to hear.
There are also serious safety matters making the news like how soldiers do not
have enough flak jackets, thus must share them among a platoon, are using
Vietnam era flak jackets, or are having their mothers buy some and send them
from home; or how helicopters are flying without necessary gear to defend
themselves against attacks just like the ones shooting them down.
Note that these people are not the ones telling reporters they want to go home
to their families or sit out the next war.
I haven't seen "bitching" for the international news cameras. Doing so would be
stupid.
Enlisting is not stupid.
> From what little footage I've seen, it appears that most of the
> soldiers think they are participating in some kind of reality TV show.
Yes, because they didn't really know.
I loved one full page newspaper account of how some soldiers living in one of
Saddam's abandoned palaces suddenly realized that deer were roaming the
grounds.
They killed at least one, and had an old fashioned barbecue. After word spread,
they did it again, IIRC, for some high ranking US officer.
Declan Murphy
> Ryan Ginstrom wrote:
>
>>Griping is a right of every soldier,
>
> Thank God someone can understand this.
Every soldier includes more than the rank and file, as Paul Krugman has
alluded to. Read (through to) the last paragraph.
http://www.iht.com/articles/117243.html
--
"Beyond the Euphrates began for us the land of mirage and danger, the
sands where one helplessly sank, and the roads which ended in nothing.
The slightest reversal would have resulted in a jolt to our prestige
giving rise to all kinds of catastrophe; the problem was not only to
conquer but to conquer again and again, perpetually; our forces would be
drained off in the attempt." - Emperor Hadrian AD 117-138
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi <eta...@yahoo.co.jp>:
> (...)
> > Ask a recruiter what they have to offer. I know. They
> > wanted me to be all I could be, aim high, be one of the
> > few, the proud, or enjoy "job opportunities, skill training,
> > money for college and travel in today's high-tech Navy". War
> > in the Mideast or against the former Soviet Union on
> > the nuclear battlefield during my time, was never,
> > ever mentioned.
>
> If they don't mention it, it seems a bit dishonest. But unless you
> were living under a rock, you would know that such wars weren't
> unlikely.
Again:
We are not talking about "chance", "likelihood" or "unlikelihood", as if
it were about getting pregnant, getting cancer from smoking, or getting
into a car accident with the seat belt unfastened.
For the soldiers who have been to the front, are on the front or will be
sent to the front, it is a CERTAINTY. They have the right to be upset or
have second thoughts or regrets.
> > Note firefighters can quit if they regret their decision,
> > and I do not believe firefighters would be treated like
> > criminals for going AWOL.
>
> One more reason for not joining the army.
My two bread winner homeowner family (not I) had money for my schooling
and other kinds of training. The Japanese government sponsored me into
Japan, even paying for the plane ticket. I found my next job and home
while still on the tax-free, secure government payroll. In Japan, I
finally started saving money for myself, and I now have the most
comfortable working conditions and best job I have ever had. I can sit
on my ass to think about and look into becoming a cook, self sufficient
farmer, English "teacher", factory worker, landlord, writer, translator,
breeder of exotic pets, starting my own business, or any other dream I
have.
I see now is not a good time to operate a Subway sandwich shop.
Other people are not as fortunate. They don't have parents working (or
have no parents, supportive or otherwise), they don't have a good
education, and they don't live in the comfort I do, to make as
"educated", "well informed" decisions about their lives, while the
military offers them nearly everything they could ever want. Food.
Clothing. Shelter. Friends. Self esteem. Health coverage and life
insurance. Even actual opportunities for the future.
Wow.
My father and maybe half the men on my father's side of the family
served in uniform, including one family where all four of the adult men
were Marines. As a high school student, I wanted to join the military,
and after a trying period in my first semester of university (when I
also got arrested), it was my mother who talked me out of applying to
the Marines which I had been looking into for some time. I'd even bought
books about the experience. I still believe military service would have
done me good, and it would have been a good time to do so.
> > > Do you believe that the wars (or conflicts, call it what
> > > you like) that US has fought were all in the defense of
> > > the American citizens?
> >
> > No. Why do you think I would believe so?
>
> OK, just asking. Because you said "(...) The soldiers have sacrificed
> their freedom and ordinary lives, even when not at war, because they
> may have to defend the lives and freedoms of people like you[Bryce]."
Yes, because they may one day have to defend me personally, and thank
God for them being around. Hostilities with North Korea could suck for
people like me in Japan, though Middle Eastern do not endanger me.
Eric Takabayashi
> "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
>
> > Then people you know sure are different from those in Iraq interviewed by
> the
> > Pentagon's own newspaper
>
> You wouldn't want me to change my opinion after hearing a quote from the
> Pentagon's propaganda rag ? Be coherent.
Why would the Pentagon be stupid enough to print "propaganda" that a high
proportion of soldiers in Iraq report low morale and they don't want to
reenlist?
> > > Those that signed "without knowing" and took seriously the crap
> > > communication on the webpage you indicated are dumbies.
> >
> > What did you say about not generalizing?
>
> That's not a generalization but a definition. I say the same for the people
> that signed for JET or whatever without checking information and come later
> to cry : "I didn't know".
Considering every employment situation on the JET Program is different, and
many had never been to Japan or held down regular jobs before, how can you
criticize them for not knowing? At the interview, I was asked if my family
members were healthy. According to the best of the DOCTORS' knowledge, they
were. How was I to know that my father, and grandmother whom I called "mama"
would BOTH die within a one year period? How was I to know that at least one
school had not properly defined my duties for over two years before telling me
during my last year, they had wanted something completely different, all the
while allowing me to be independent and telling me I was doing fine?
There are things that cannot be properly understood until they actually happen.
Like going to war. I know what I see can't match what they are living through.
> > Then what's all the crap about you being so qualified? Irrelevant.
>
> I've told you I was qualified to be a soldier ?
> Anyway I have never considered joining the army, because of my personal
> belief : armies are institutions that do wars (which are archaic) ,
So don't join the French Army. But who will defend France next time, if they
come under foreign attack, if not an "army"? Santa Claus? Jesus?
> and "freeze" an established order (that I'd like to see evolve.).
>
> > such as living comfortably doing other work,
>
> That seems to be your priority.
With enough money to live comfortably, the single most important thing to me is
time. Not higher status. Not more money.
> I could have made choices to live much more comfortably (materially,
> professionnally,
> socially, sentimentally, etc), with more money and more people wipping the
> seat before I put my ass on it. I'd have needed a greater resistance to
> boredom and unsincere situations.
>
> > unlike those who see the military as a great
> > opportunity, who are in the Middle East now.
>
> If they believe it's the good way to make the world progress, or if they are
> just ambitious and it's the price to pay to make a career, they are right to
> go there. I respect people that make choice different than mine. What I
> don't like are those that make a choice and complain about it.
Why, when they do not see the future?
> > The Japanese news has quite capably demonstrated the way the US government
> > produced propaganda
>
> Oh what a discovery ! Japanese TV are so smart.
No, they are propaganda producing mouthpieces for their own government
interests.
> You had not noticed yourself?
*I* know the US media produces pro US propaganda, and told you so. It was YOU
claiming last night, what you saw in the US over the period of months was NOT
different from what you saw elsewhere.
Are you changing your mind?
> Same thing can be said about Japanese,
Yes, I post about Japanese media propaganda.
> French or Spanish
> media/government/dominant social class. You say that in English "la pensee
> unique", unique thinking ? You'd listen to the media for a while, they
> repeat the same thing so many times that at the end, you'd finished to be
> convinced (if you were not able to switch off the TV and count how many
> times Bassorah has been conquered that week and how the whale meat could be
> safe with only x% of polluant while on another day foreign beed was
> dangerous with half of that....).
> That's the same for most countries, but I have not followed the news of
> everywhere. Certain places are much much much worse as the politic situation
> and linguistic isolation make it difficult for people to diversify sources
> of informations. Americans are free to read what they want and have access
> to English speaking media from all over the world. What prevents any
> American to follow the BBC or Canadian news for instance ?
Lack of interest. The reason given for Fox finally overcoming giant CNN as the
primary TV news source, was their patriotic take on war coverage, with animated
eagles and billowing Stars and Stripes in abundance, and almost complete loss
of journalistic impartiality. Americans watched what they wanted to watch, and
believed what they wanted to believe. Even the White House publicly admits no
links between Iraq and the WTC attacks, yet 70% of Americans believe Iraq was
involved.
The mere existence of information, or freedom to it, does not mean people will
ever be informed or understand the truth. In Japan, I have encountered the
worst cases of "I don't believe it, because I haven't seen it" (while never
having looked into the issue themselves, and disbelieving the sources I present
them with), I have ever seen. They miss the point when I ask them if they
watched the A-bombings or interviewed all the survivors to confirm the number
of dead.
> > And did you hear the Iraqi side, or hear of the Iraqi casualties,
> .....
> >.The Pentagon has not even
> > released an Iraqi casualty figure, military or civilian.
>
> I know -from American media- that Iraq is occupied now and the journalists,
> media, or any person setting the foot in Iraq ( be them American, Iraqi,
> others) have to follow instructions of US army, that limits where/when they
> can go, what they can learn and what they can tell to the outside
> world....Historians will tell us what were are missing, maybe.
So you DO understand that the US media is not giving people what independent
and foreign journalists are getting? So you DO understand that what US media is
showing people in America literally every single day, is NOT what we are
getting here, which will take some effort on the American's part and would more
importantly, require them to question their belief in their government or
media?
> > the way Middle Eastern, Eastern or European and Japanese covered them?
>
> None of these media shows or says more than the American ones.
Now you are being ignorant again, despite what you just admitted twice above.
> They vary the
> comments and quantity of negative/positive images/information , but they
> show of both, even if it's to say it's the other side's propaganda. I have
> seen most images from Middle Eastern media on US TV websites.
How many images of dead and bloodied civilians did you see in the US media? How
many accounts of being on the receiving end of the American offensive did you
get? The Pentagon practice of embedding US journalists with US military units
all but eliminated that. It is you above who acknowledge how much the US is
controlling the media.
> > the war had maybe over 80% support, while the rest of the world including
> the British, great allies whose government stood with the Americans, openly
> opposed it.
> > How do you account for this?
>
> No, I don't think Bush and his communicators are doing an intelligent
> propaganda.
I did not say they were intelligent. People should be able to decide for
themselves that the US make unconfirmed claims, if not telling outright lies.
And doing such as proclaiming to an international audience, with jittery
Muslims watching, that he hopes for democracy in the Middle East is one of the
most unwise things he can do.
Bush tells the terrorists to "bring it on". Bush proclaims that the US is not
pulling out of Iraq.
He is pretty certain to get his wish at this rate.
> Americans know as much as I,
No, they do not.
> but many made their own opinion differently from mine. That's not possible ?
It is certainly possible when they are ignorant or fed propaganda.
> > It was necessary for the US NOT to accept the existence of Gulf War
> Syndrome.
>
> For the US or for the career of a few politicians and high-level militaries?
It was necessary for the American public not to believe in the existence of
Gulf War Syndrome, for the benefit of those who would have been held
responsible or had to pay for the mess.
> > > or ask their country to spend more money on education, health
> insurance, and less on military, etc.
> >
> > Voters have demonstrated their ignorance
> ....
> >Would you perhaps like to make a generalization about the intelligence of
> the American
> >public?
>
> No thanks, you're doing it yourself.
Ignorance does not refer to lack of intelligence.
Now how would you like to characterize American voters? For some reason, you
are sure trying to avoid taking a stand now. Previously, you were so sure about
who was mentally retarded, and who was so qualified and well informed.
> > For some reason, military action is
> > a great way to distract Americans from domestic problems.
> ....
> > Preparing for war is a great and easy way to increase the military
> strength and
> > budget.
>
> etc, you realise the same things could have been said about Saddam
> Hussein's regime a few years ago, or Hitler's Germany.
Yes. Some of my country's numerous problems, which I am willing to acknowledge,
unlike those who preach only the alleged superiority of their own countries,
such as how well informed and educated their militaries are, or how well the
government takes care of its citizens without conducting wars.
> > You can witness on this very group how little support I get for proposing
> ....
>
> Each time you "propose" something, a few line later you explain you don't
> accept the consequence or price to pay for it.
What are you talking about?
The only way to bring up the underprivileged, is to make sacrifices such as
paying our own money for it on taxes to directly benefit them only. I am
willing. I even pay taxes with no direct benefits to myself, such as national
pension for the current elderly. It is people with more money to spare, who
complain about paying taxes.
I would also be living in the dreaded EricWorld under the exact same conditions
as everyone else, even if it meant me being killed as one of the criminals.
> > before asking why "I" am not capable of doing
> > something on the national level such as educating the American public,
> changing
> > Bush's mind or changing military recruitment tactics.
>
> Yeah, why not "you" ?
Because people I encounter in the real world, care even less than people I
encounter online. For example, people deny that homeless people exist in
Fukuyama, when I could show you where they have set up camp and spend their
days. If they acknowledge the existence of homeless, then the UNIVERSAL claim
is that they live so by choice, or are explicitly "lazy", and thus not worthy
of aid, much less jobs.
People are unwilling to acknowledge even a local, physically demonstrable
situation. They deny the information before their eyes such as any number of
news stories and television features on mainstream, prime time television, on
the lives and needs of the homeless featuring live homeless people, much less
be willing to do anything about it or allow anything to be done about it, such
as have a homeless shelter built in the community.
Yet you believe I can educate the American public or change Bush's mind, when
it is YOU claiming they know everything that you do, have the same availability
of information we do, and they are free to make up their own minds?
Just how do you believe I can do so?
> > > > What disgusting recruitment methods? Joining the military for
> education,
> > > > employment, and self improvement are perfectly acceptable.
>
> That's acceptable or you want to change it ?
People's ignorance is what needs changing, and people need a greater choice of
opportunities other than joining the military out of need, not the fact that
the military can make some very attractive offers. Military recruiters should
be up front from the beginning and in their promotional literature about all
service in the military entails.
> If people are really educated and "self-improved" by the army, they won't be
> taught to doubt or contest the "official speeches".
Indoctrination is part of the training and experience. They can't be acting
like self-centered individuals on the battlefield.
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Ryan Ginstrom wrote:
> >
> >>Griping is a right of every soldier,
> >
> > Thank God someone can understand this.
>
> Every soldier includes more than the rank and file,
Indeed. There have been other former military officers and leaders who are
openly critical of the administration or its policies. One is even an
opposition party candidate for President.
The recently retired Army Chief of Staff is from where I grew up.
I hear there were reasons he retired.
I am sorry to hear it.
> as Paul Krugman has
> alluded to. Read (through to) the last paragraph.
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/117243.html
And guess what, people?
The people didn't really know before they were into it, because they
weren't told, were misled, or outright lied to.
"Please" don't call them stupid, idiots, mentally retarded or whining
bitches who haven't been working.
Bryce
that is a matter of opinion. your opinion.
Bryce
You may characterize them as you wish. I will do the same.
Bryce
To join the army, and then bitch about a war? What can you not call stupid
about that?
Jean-Marc Desperrier
>
> It is obvious for Europeans that the army is an army and not an
> administration like the ministery of education.
I did hear a number of women who joined french army see their job just
similar to any other administration job.
cc
"Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> Bryce wrote:
What do you know about what "choices in life" all those people (militaries,
Bryce, anyone you say that to) have/had ?
CC
cc
"Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> So don't join the French Army. But who will defend France next time, if
they
> come under foreign attack, if not an "army"? Santa Claus? Jesus?
Common sense I hope !
I'm not impressed by the way French Army has defended the country since at
least Napoleon, that's even the contrary in fact. I'm really sorry for all
those that died in 1914-18...but they are victims of a total mess, no
defendors, they didn't defend my country. From where I stand, that was a
civil war with my great-grand-fathers fighting each other.
You don't want me to list all the other conflicts.
And, I wouldn't not defend France. I don't see the point. Nations are
enveloppes. If what they contain is rotten, let them collapse. I'm glad to
see France is slowly disappearing as a
nation (it's becoming a cultural and linguistic community, enough for me)
to allow the creation of the European living space. For the same reason,
"defending France" against other nations in the dozens of European wars I
see that was often negative. (if not always, but I want to keep the illusion
it was the positive when it was defending "democracy" against "dictature")
Now I go further, "defending Koweit" is the last of my concern and I could
not see that as anything but a means to restore enough peace in the area.
Because peace is necessary for people to go further the "nation mentality".
I'm optimistic. I believe in historic progress. And the concept of "nation"
that was the progress in 19th century, and already getting archaic and
causing conflicts in 20th century, and now that's getting anachronic and
causing situations I don't have a word for like in Israelopalestine or in
Irakokurdistan.
> Why, when they do not see the future?
Nobody sees the future, everybody takes decisions. Not everybody tries to
report (a posteriori ) the choice they made on other's reponsability. I
don't complain responsible people. I don't complain in fact. And I hate
being complained no matter what happens.
> *I* know the US media produces pro US propaganda, and told you so. It was
YOU
> claiming last night, what you saw in the US over the period of months was
NOT
> different from what you saw elsewhere.
>
> Are you changing your mind?
Not at all. Elsewhere too, media produces propaganda in a similar way. Have
you seen what they've done in England last week ? They've tried to block the
publication of foreign media on their territory, not that of national media
as those ones seem to obey the official orders not to write about the
subject. It's about a no-story nobody cares about, but that shows how the
government can and does interferes. So if that happens even in London, you
can be sure there is no country of completely free and objective media on
the planet.
>. Americans watched what they wanted to watch, and
> believed what they wanted to believe.
At least we agree on that.
> > > the way Middle Eastern, Eastern or European and Japanese covered them?
> >
> > None of these media shows or says more than the American ones.
>
> Now you are being ignorant again, despite what you just admitted twice
above.
I can be idiot but not ignorant. During the active part of the war, I've
followed more or less the news on Japanese, English, French and
occasionnally others like Spanish media. I could compare. For every country,
the mass media present a narrow point of view -not the same everywhere or
for each media, but you could always find more documented articles that
presented the same data base in each language.
Everybody that has been in highschool knows the TV news are a biased digest,
and you need a little personal effort to go to see the factual information,
anytime a news topic interests you. And they do...But, do you think most
people are really interested in Iraq ? I'm sure there are people that are
able to cross check data from everywhere about a thing they care about (ex :
the whales and dolphins) and never trust one word US media says on that
subject, but when it's Iraq, they put the news 2 minutes and say "Oh, enough
for me !".
> How many images of dead and bloodied civilians did you see in the US
media?
A few, enough to deduce there are others and worse ones. I don't need
images, even worse, I don't believe in images as they can't be objective
(I've never managed to take a non subjective photo so far, do you know the
trick to achieve that ?).
> > Americans know as much as I,
>
> No, they do not.
You find yourself superior ?
> > but many made their own opinion differently from mine. That's not
possible ?
>
> It is certainly possible when they are ignorant or fed propaganda.
There is no possibility they are right and we are wrong ?
I think there is no "right" opinion about politics, history will give
answers but not even clear ones.
> Now how would you like to characterize American voters?
American.
I don't see them as a uniform mass.
The most qualified and informed people about politics, international
relations and history are American, that's their books and articles I (and
the rest of the world) read to get elements of reflections. The guy in the
street can be as ignorant, indifferent and manipulated as anywhere else.
The difference (I compare with the French if you don't mind) is more...how
to say, many people have principles, ethic, values they refuse to doubt
about, and that influences their choices. And many people see your country
is very heteroclite and want/need to see projects involving everybody. (the
French, like the Japanese don't see themselves as heteroclite like that).
I mean even if their knowledge and intelligence tells them a certain project
(like invading Iraq) is a mistake, many people can decide to support it
because they want to believe in it. They hope a miracle, or that's just for
the pleasure of having Americans of all classese/groups doing something
together.
You don't think ?
> unlike those who preach only the alleged superiority of their own
countries,
That'd be who ? I said anything about "superiority" ? My only point was the
US had possible alternatives to their war-driven society, that was just an
example. (I was amazed to hear all your arguments about Americans not liking
taxes, etc. I know that. But everything is about choices and their cost)
> such as how well informed and educated their militaries are, or how well
the
> government takes care of its citizens without conducting wars.
That'd be where ? In my country, the government are a bunch of useless guys
that do nothing and we've been lacking of real leaders for decades(go to any
cafe and ask if that's not wrong) but citizens manage to have the system
take care of themselves and avoid wars and misery to themselves. I'm not
sure they have -globally- more ambition than security and comfort. Maybe
that's just temporary.
> Yet you believe I can educate the American public or change Bush's mind,
....
> Just how do you believe I can do so?
You can try.Maybe, if you are talented, you'll influence a few persons.
Better than nothing. If others also do that are their level, the sum of
efforts can mean a change of mentality deeper and longer-lasting than a
short span media campaign of the Pentagone.
> Indoctrination is part of the training and experience.
I disagree.
>They can't be acting
> like self-centered individuals on the battlefield.
Yeah, they need self-sacrifice, but they also need to keep the capacity to
be critical of what they are doing. Just to know at what point they have to
stop obeying orders and become a victim/a traitor/ a desertor/whatever that
takes to avoid finishing as an ordinary obeying monster (like all those
Japanese soldiers in Nanking).
In other case, how do you want to reduce/avoid what you've called
"inhuman behaviors" ?
CC
cc
"Jean-Marc Desperrier" <jmd...@alussinan.org> wrote in message
Normal, it is the case, as the big majority of them are administrative staff
that won't be sent to war playing the Jessica Lynches on TV.
There are women that join as soldiers or officers. But that's not Israel or
the US, they are really few in France, I was told by 2 friends that they
were both the token female in their unit. One of my 2 friends left after the
first period, when she was considered volunteer doing her military service,
they proposed her only administrative carreers and put her on a waiting
liste for "feminine" military jobs (probably she's still waiting for their
phone call). Well, that was 10 years ago. Maybe since the end of the
compulsory service that has become more opened. I have no idea.
CC
Rafael Caetano
> > > wanted me to be all I could be, aim high, be one of the
> > > few, the proud, or enjoy "job opportunities, skill
> > > training, money for college and travel in today's
> > > high-tech Navy". War
> > > in the Mideast or against the former Soviet Union on
> > > the nuclear battlefield during my time, was never,
> > > ever mentioned.
> >
> > If they don't mention it, it seems a bit dishonest. But unless you
> > were living under a rock, you would know that such wars weren't
> > unlikely.
>
> Again:
>
> We are not talking about "chance", "likelihood" or
> "unlikelihood", as if it were about getting pregnant,
> getting cancer from smoking, or getting
> into a car accident with the seat belt unfastened.
Sorry, Eric, I can't guess what's in your mind. I have to rely on what
you write. Please read the paragraph that you wrote yourself. You
talked about recruiting; so I assumed we were talking about
likelihood. Or do you mean that when they recruit people they already
have a war schedule defined? Like, "to be sent to the Venezuela war in
2010"?
Rafael Caetano
Eric Takabayashi
No, it is your remarkable opinion that 40 or 50% of soldiers in Iraq are "all
stupid", or that people with poor prospects that need military service for
employment and education are "stupid".
Eric Takabayashi
I will characterize them as factually not "stupid" or "mentally retarded".
> I will do the same.
Which is in error.
Eric Takabayashi
The fact that war is basically bad. Even a Rambo should not like war.
It was the rainy season in Japan. We know what this is CERTAIN to mean, such
as periods of miserable rain. You never complained, or even had negative
thoughts about it?
Winter is coming. We know what this is CERTAIN to mean, such as periods of
cold in regions of Honshu and above. You will never complain or have negative
thoughts about it?
You accept the possible outcome of each and every one of your conscious
choices, such as eating meat, using motor transport, or living and working
among smokers, and will take it without bitching?
Eric Takabayashi
That we don't have the same choices available to us. Some people can live in
relative comfort and safely easily. Others can't, and likely never will.
Eric Takabayashi
> "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
>
> > So don't join the French Army. But who will defend France next time, if
> they
> > come under foreign attack, if not an "army"? Santa Claus? Jesus?
>
> Common sense I hope !
France's common sense will not protect them any better than it protected them
through the early 20th century. Forces bent on evil will appear to victimize
others no matter how much sense you have.
Insert cheap anti US comment here.
> I'm not impressed by the way French Army has defended the country since at
> least Napoleon, that's even the contrary in fact. I'm really sorry for all
> those that died in 1914-18...but they are victims of a total mess, no
> defendors, they didn't defend my country. From where I stand, that was a
> civil war with my great-grand-fathers fighting each other.
> You don't want me to list all the other conflicts.
>
> And, I wouldn't not defend France. I don't see the point. Nations are
> enveloppes. If what they contain is rotten, let them collapse.
We are not talking about France collapsing under its own baggage, I am talking
about France being the future victim of military aggression. Who but an army
(or other armed force) will help France then?
> I'm glad to see France is slowly disappearing as a
> nation (it's becoming a cultural and linguistic community, enough for me)
While I do not care much about national boundaries, I'm one of those foreigners
who believes that French culture and language should be preserved. And it would
be nice if French people did it themselves.
> to allow the creation of the European living space. For the same reason,
> "defending France" against other nations in the dozens of European wars I
> see that was often negative.
What was negative was aggression and war itself, not defending France against
outside attack, or promoting freedom for themselves.
> (if not always, but I want to keep the illusion
> it was the positive when it was defending "democracy" against "dictature")
> Now I go further, "defending Koweit" is the last of my concern and I could
> not see that as anything but a means to restore enough peace in the area.
> Because peace is necessary for people to go further the "nation mentality".
>
> I'm optimistic. I believe in historic progress. And the concept of "nation"
> that was the progress in 19th century, and already getting archaic and
> causing conflicts in 20th century, and now that's getting anachronic and
> causing situations I don't have a word for like in Israelopalestine or in
> Irakokurdistan.
And what of nations and regions who have not advanced to the level that you
would like. You can think that way about France or Europe, but what about
developing or unstable regions? What about them? Should they be administered by
"foreign" forces, perhaps against their wills, to allow them to merge with the
rest of the world in peace and stability?
> > Why, when they do not see the future?
>
> Nobody sees the future, everybody takes decisions. Not everybody tries to
> report (a posteriori ) the choice they made on other's reponsability. I
> don't complain responsible people. I don't complain in fact. And I hate
> being complained no matter what happens.
>
> > *I* know the US media produces pro US propaganda, and told you so. It was
> YOU
> > claiming last night, what you saw in the US over the period of months was
> NOT
> > different from what you saw elsewhere.
> >
> > Are you changing your mind?
>
> Not at all. Elsewhere too, media produces propaganda in a similar way. Have
> you seen what they've done in England last week ? They've tried to block the
> publication of foreign media on their territory, not that of national media
> as those ones seem to obey the official orders not to write about the
> subject. It's about a no-story nobody cares about, but that shows how the
> government can and does interferes. So if that happens even in London, you
> can be sure there is no country of completely free and objective media on
> the planet.
Then why did you claim that what you saw in the US (pro US propaganda) over a
period of months was not different from what other people see (not as much
propaganda, balanced news, or anti US propaganda)?
> >. Americans watched what they wanted to watch, and
> > believed what they wanted to believe.
>
> At least we agree on that.
>
> > > > the way Middle Eastern, Eastern or European and Japanese covered them?
> > >
> > > None of these media shows or says more than the American ones.
> >
> > Now you are being ignorant again, despite what you just admitted twice
> above.
>
> I can be idiot but not ignorant.
No, I don't believe you are an idiot. It is highly possible that you do not
have all the information, however.
> During the active part of the war, I've
> followed more or less the news on Japanese, English, French and
> occasionnally others like Spanish media. I could compare. For every country,
> the mass media present a narrow point of view -not the same everywhere or
> for each media, but you could always find more documented articles that
> presented the same data base in each language.
>
> Everybody that has been in highschool knows the TV news are a biased digest,
> and you need a little personal effort to go to see the factual information,
> anytime a news topic interests you. And they do...But, do you think most
> people are really interested in Iraq ? I'm sure there are people that are
> able to cross check data from everywhere about a thing they care about (ex :
> the whales and dolphins) and never trust one word US media says on that
> subject, but when it's Iraq, they put the news 2 minutes and say "Oh, enough
> for me !".
>
> > How many images of dead and bloodied civilians did you see in the US
> media?
>
> A few, enough to deduce there are others and worse ones.
That's people like you and me. Now how about the red blooded American patriots
who simply don't like to hear or believe negative things about their government
or nation, or those who do not have as much information?
> I don't need
> images, even worse, I don't believe in images as they can't be objective
> (I've never managed to take a non subjective photo so far, do you know the
> trick to achieve that ?).
Why can't factual images be objective, as opposed to how they are presented or
interpreted?
> > > Americans know as much as I,
> >
> > No, they do not.
>
> You find yourself superior ?
No, but I do get to see what many Americans do not. Balance in coverage on the
war in Iraq is what is superior in Japan.
> > > but many made their own opinion differently from mine. That's not
> possible ?
> >
> > It is certainly possible when they are ignorant or fed propaganda.
>
> There is no possibility they are right and we are wrong ?
You mean that it is good to unilaterally invade Iraq without verifiable
justification and lack a clear plan (or perhaps even the will) to rebuild?
> I think there is no "right" opinion about politics, history will give
> answers but not even clear ones.
Really? Even about the Nazis and WWII? No "right" opinions?
Do you actually entertain the possibility that much of the world would have
been better under Nazi rule, or without Allied intervention?
> > Now how would you like to characterize American voters?
>
> American.
> I don't see them as a uniform mass.
You can see them as groups according to how they vote, such as, there were and
are people who support the Bush Administration, no matter what misgivings they
may have about them and their actions, even if it means military action abroad
for the foreseeable future.
> The most qualified and informed people about politics, international
> relations and history are American, that's their books and articles I (and
> the rest of the world) read to get elements of reflections. The guy in the
> street can be as ignorant, indifferent and manipulated as anywhere else.
> The difference (I compare with the French if you don't mind) is more...how
> to say, many people have principles, ethic, values they refuse to doubt
> about, and that influences their choices. And many people see your country
> is very heteroclite and want/need to see projects involving everybody. (the
> French, like the Japanese don't see themselves as heteroclite like that).
> I mean even if their knowledge and intelligence tells them a certain project
> (like invading Iraq) is a mistake, many people can decide to support it
> because they want to believe in it. They hope a miracle, or that's just for
> the pleasure of having Americans of all classese/groups doing something
> together.
> You don't think ?
>
> > unlike those who preach only the alleged superiority of their own
> countries,
>
> That'd be who ?
The people who do so. I know many. The kind of people who for example, will
never admit to anything bad about Japan, or believe theirs is the best country
in the world.
[Note: I am not so about my own country.]
> I said anything about "superiority" ? My only point was the
> US had possible alternatives to their war-driven society, that was just an
> example. (I was amazed to hear all your arguments about Americans not liking
> taxes, etc. I know that. But everything is about choices and their cost)
>
> > such as how well informed and educated their militaries are, or how well
> the
> > government takes care of its citizens without conducting wars.
>
> That'd be where ?
Places you were referring to.
> In my country, the government are a bunch of useless guys
> that do nothing and we've been lacking of real leaders for decades(go to any
> cafe and ask if that's not wrong) but citizens manage to have the system
> take care of themselves and avoid wars and misery to themselves.
How if not the government or leaders?
> I'm not sure they have -globally- more ambition than security and comfort.
> Maybe
> that's just temporary.
Coming decades will see how the European social system will support itself. And
it will be unfortunate if it fails. I like watching the European systems.
> > Yet you believe I can educate the American public or change Bush's mind,
> ....
> > Just how do you believe I can do so?
>
> You can try.Maybe, if you are talented, you'll influence a few persons.
Not if they have the freedom to listen to what they want to listen to, to
interpret what they see, and to make their own decisions.
> Better than nothing.
I do try to influence people. Have been doing so the entire time I have been in
Japan.
On the JET Program, my school had many problems which were readily apparent.
The blame for such as what came to be called "classroom breakdown" was laid at
the feet of the Ministry of Education. Individual teachers, administrators, the
teacher's union fighting for years can't beat the Japanese government. What did
I accomplish in three to improve the situation of the school? Nothing important
that I could see. Some kids became more comfortable being around foreigners.
Whoopie.
In the real world I have resources that can be seen. A camp of homeless people
living under the train tracks next to the city bicycle parking area, within one
block of the station and shopping areas is about as in your face as you can be.
But people still deny the existence of homeless. Those who acknowledge them,
immediately interpret it to mean they are doing so by choice, or are lazy, and
they make the decision to think nothing, do nothing, or worse, spread
negativity about them or actually bar intervention to improve the situation.
Luckily, most homeless seem able to feed themselves (in this camp, they
actually cook over a burner, sitting in a circle), and they have some futons. I
wish they relieved themselves somewhere other than on the ground, polluting
their own living space and damaging their own image.
> If others also do that are their level, the sum of
> efforts can mean a change of mentality deeper and longer-lasting than a
> short span media campaign of the Pentagone.
>
> > Indoctrination is part of the training and experience.
>
> I disagree.
How does an army function without chaos otherwise?
> >They can't be acting like self-centered individuals on the battlefield.
>
> Yeah, they need self-sacrifice, but they also need to keep the capacity to
> be critical of what they are doing. Just to know at what point they have to
> stop obeying orders and become a victim/a traitor/ a desertor/whatever that
> takes to avoid finishing as an ordinary obeying monster (like all those
> Japanese soldiers in Nanking).
You are talking about what are now recognized as illegal orders, and meant to
be disobeyed, though some slip through. I meant in general. They act as they
were trained to act, and do what they are told.
And perhaps you've seen or read some accounts of US pilots who went on strikes
in Iraqi territory. The ones I read about did not dwell on the possibility that
theirs was the one which was causing civilian casualties.
Eric Takabayashi
> "Jean-Marc Desperrier" <jmd...@alussinan.org> wrote in message
>
> > cc wrote:
> > >
> > > It is obvious for Europeans that the army is an army and not an
> > > administration like the ministery of education.
> >
> > I did hear a number of women who joined french army see their job just
> > similar to any other administration job.
>
> Normal, it is the case, as the big majority of them are administrative staff
> that won't be sent to war playing the Jessica Lynches on TV.
Same for the US. For many soldiers, working in the military is just like a
civilian job.
But many are in Iraq. And because of the current instability, even the US news
reports that those who would normally be noncombatants, such as cooks, had to
be trained to fight.
They didn't really know such would happen.
Bryce
No. People that join the army, and then bitch when there is a war, are
stupid. Get it straight buddy! So, if 40-50% of the people in the army are
bitching that there is a war, then it would follow, that yes, 40-50% of the
people in the army are stupid.
Just fill in the blanks. It's not that hard.
Bryce
I will characterize them as factually "stupid" and/or "mentally retarded" if
they are bitching that there is a war and they are bitching because they are
in a war.