Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Really? That's the best you've got? To criticize use of an obvious throwaway adjective? Maybe focus on his point, which you're avoiding. Or don't. But don't offer junk like this.

So what's his point?

No one does. He's somewhat ironically saying, "If I have to pick a side..." You know that. You're just pretending to have a tin ear here.

And my point is, that's a stupid point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Fortunate Son" isn't as resonant today as it was 40 years ago for no good reason. The poor fight our wars, even more than in the past. Yes, there are officers and some rich or middle class kids in the mix. But generally, the military of today draws from people who don't have better options.

the last time we had this discussion (i mean the board, don't recall if you were here at that moment) I posted stats that showed the US military looks a whole like the population, both racially and economically. In fact over 60% (I want to say 70%) of the enlistees had at least some college coursework completed. it strikes me as the opposite of "no option."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Really? That's the best you've got? To criticize use of an obvious throwaway adjective? Maybe focus on his point, which you're avoiding. Or don't. But don't offer junk like this.



No one does. He's somewhat ironically saying, "If I have to pick a side..." You know that. You're just pretending to have a tin ear here.

I don't know what the hell people are talking about here. This is a guy who wrote a self-aggrandizing book full of various exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies (he lost a defamation and unjust enrichment suit) that undermines ongoing missions and is going to be used as a propaganda tool for ISIS for years to come. But it made him rich. He brags about murdering dozens of people on his return to the US, stories that likely aren't true but that still suggest he came back to the states a major danger to the rest of us. His story is mostly a case study in why we need better mental health and social services in the military (a sad situation, where real cuts have been experienced in services to active service personnel, including deployed personnel in order to keep funding to other combat medical services and to VAs back home).

I don't know what he actually did or didn't do over there, or how well he did it, and neither does anyone else, because his stories lack credibility. I do know that his expressed hatred and vitriol is going to be cited by our opponents for years to come for how Americans view Iraqis and Middle Eastern peoples in general.

You want a military hero? My cousin's team rebuilt a power station in Afghanistan three times as part of Civ-Ops there. He and his people worked lightly armed in dangerous situations to build friends and trust in-country. While they were at it, the nearby areas that worked with them also got schools and other public buildings and they help engineering roads - all in situations where they had to expose themselves regularly to do the job effectively. Afghans who helped him were in constant danger, but it was critical that the program be cooperative, and that they be stubborn and rebuild the thing no matter how many times it was destroyed. He speaks very fondly of the Afghans he worked with. And idiots like this undermine efforts like his.

You need to pick a side? I pick sanity.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the ;last time we had this discussion (i mean the board, don't recall if you wer ehere at that moment) I posted stats that showed the US military looks a whole like the population, both racially and economically. In fact over 60% (I want to say 70%) of the enlistees had at least some college coursework completed. it strikes me as the opposite of "no option."

Yes, there has actually been a big switch since the Vietnam days, when it was more true. As the military becomes more and more high tech, we need more and more people joining who have top educational credentials. The well-educated also have more career paths in the military and are welcome to stay longer; the less-well educated we need to do a couple tours and join the reserves.

We also need skills like Arabic speakers, so we need to recruit heavily among immigrants, who are disproportionately represented.

It is true that the well-educated military population comes disproportionately from middle-class and lower-middle class homes for whom ROTC scholarships are a much bigger deal that for those out of the ritzy 'burbs. The wealthy elite still don't fight much. But the rest of the population does.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what's not up for debate is that shit would be superior, in terms of logic and coherence, to the essential fables of any organized religion.

I disagree, but if I'm wrong, it still must to be noted: A shit argument about a shit subject is only consistent.

Boy, Atticus is going to be eating a lot of alphabet soup if you and he stick with this subject.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Wonk's only off in them being cannon fodder. Most of the fighting today is done by computer.

If you read a bit on the battle of Fallujah, you'll see we still use people as cannon fodder on occasion, but certainly not on the scale we once did. And lots of times we use locals for the cannon fodder roles instead of our own troops.

If we end up in ground battles with ISIS, watch out. Their tactics rely very heavily on cannon fodder.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So what's his point?



And my point is, that's a stupid point.

Not really. Your default reaction is to almost always criticize US policy, or any militarism.

He's saying, see both sides of the coin, instead of pretending to do so.

It's telling your (and my) knee jerk reaction is to be skeptical of those who think brutishly, who react with force immediately. It's intellectually offensive, particularly to liberals. But we need the brutes who see in black and white sometimes. We both know that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the last time we had this discussion (i mean the board, don't recall if you were here at that moment) I posted stats that showed the US military looks a whole like the population, both racially and economically. In fact over 60% (I want to say 70%) of the enlistees had at least some college coursework completed. it strikes me as the opposite of "no option."

"Some course work"? Really?

Shall I dig, or should you not just concede?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Some course work"? Really?

Shall I dig, or should you not just concede?

dude someone who can enroll at school has the option or, well, enrolling at school.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know it's important for you to read Daily Kos and frame your world from it, but shit like this is so offensive that I just can't keep reading your posts if you do not stop.

I both honor and grieve for their sacrifice. I am offended by those people who use "loyalty to our boys" as a way of deflecting the fact that they are someplace they shouldn't be, sent there by men whose children won't know the stink of war, and then brought home to inadequate care and resources.

I don't frame my world from anything but my own conscience and the facts I see. But, if you don't want to read my posts, I won't hold it against you.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Fortunate Son" isn't as resonant today as it was 40 years ago for no good reason. The poor fight our wars, even more than in the past. Yes, there are officers and some rich or middle class kids in the mix. But generally, the military of today draws from people who don't have better options.

Every once in awhile, I see stats that suggest otherwise.

And there may actually be a lot of worse options.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I spend a lot of time lately hanging around with a guy who recently did several tours in Afghanistan. I'm pretty comfortable saying that we want our soldiers to be good, not amoral killing machines. Not only because of the principle, but not least because successful counterinsurgency tactics depend on soldiers who aren't. In theory, we were in Iraq to restore democracy, not for body counts. I agree that anyone in Kyle's role would be dealing with heavy shit. But that doesn't mean that Kyle dealt with it well, or was a good person (not that you disagree).

I think a lot of people in this country are happy to stick to a simple narrative in which every US soldier is a patriotic warrior, unconflicted and heroic, and everyone else is an enemy combatant. It sure is easier to live in that moral universe than in the one we're actually in.

I agree with you that a lot of people want to have a simple narrative. I'm looking past that, past the movie (that I haven't seen) and at the more fundamental question, of why we should be surprised at what people become when we train them to be killers.

I understand you know vets who are different and more shaded than Kyle supposedly was. So do I. But I do wonder whether the particular job of a sniper is such as to make that much more difficult.

I'm not really arguing with you, just wrestling with this myself. A few years ago I bought a book by a general, called "On Killing" that I think discussed some of these issues. I'll look at it and tell you if I can recommend.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right, "I believe I did right, but every human has doubts" is good. "I'm infallible and they are dogs" is not.

I haven't walked a mile in a sniper's shoes (particularly one in a war zone like Iraq, where the enemy wasn't in uniform or easy to distinguish from everyone else; contrast WWII.) So, I'm not prepared to say he is "not good." I have great difficulty imagining what it would be like to sit on a rooftop for days waiting to kill someone, who you are told is an enemy and a killer and a terrorist, etc. Could you do that, effectively, and live with doubt? Maybe doubt would come later -- Kyle didn't get much chance at that -- but then?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Your default reaction is to almost always criticize US policy, or any militarism.

Any militarism is almost always worthy of criticism.

It's intellectually offensive, particularly to liberals. But we need the brutes who see in black and white sometimes. We both know that.

I really don't think we do.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't know what the hell people are talking about here. This is a guy who wrote a self-aggrandizing book full of various exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies (he lost a defamation and unjust enrichment suit) that undermines ongoing missions and is going to be used as a propaganda tool for ISIS for years to come. But it made him rich. He brags about murdering dozens of people on his return to the US, stories that likely aren't true but that still suggest he came back to the states a major danger to the rest of us. His story is mostly a case study in why we need better mental health and social services in the military (a sad situation, where real cuts have been experienced in services to active service personnel, including deployed personnel in order to keep funding to other combat medical services and to VAs back home).

I don't know what he actually did or didn't do over there, or how well he did it, and neither does anyone else, because his stories lack credibility. I do know that his expressed hatred and vitriol is going to be cited by our opponents for years to come for how Americans view Iraqis and Middle Eastern peoples in general.

You want a military hero? My cousin's team rebuilt a power station in Afghanistan three times as part of Civ-Ops there. He and his people worked lightly armed in dangerous situations to build friends and trust in-country. While they were at it, the nearby areas that worked with them also got schools and other public buildings and they help engineering roads - all in situations where they had to expose themselves regularly to do the job effectively. Afghans who helped him were in constant danger, but it was critical that the program be cooperative, and that they be stubborn and rebuild the thing no matter how many times it was destroyed. He speaks very fondly of the Afghans he worked with. And idiots like this undermine efforts like his.

You need to pick a side? I pick sanity.

Good post.

Do you blame him, or the pool of shit he was swimming in? Or both?