Take the insults elsewhere, ES.
Yep, I have four rows of awards for not soiling my pants.
What ignorant rubbish.
Printable View
Those piles of ribbons weren't worn by Ike because a) they didn't exist at the time, and b) the uniform regs were somewhat different.
Now, it's nearly a requirement to wear every award you've been given. Then, they were for the most part optional.
Go ahead, show up for a greens inspection not wearing an award your CSM knows you have.
Also, Ike, for all his prowess as an organizer, wasn't a particular standout until his skills came to the fore during the planning to take back Europe. He was largely a political General.
Patton, on the other hand....
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...r/ffcfe803.jpg
Yeah, he had a lot of awards for not soiling his pants as well.
Respect is a "goes around, comes around" thing.
People who do not think being the President of the United States - elected by a majority - deserves respect should not be surprised by disrepect.
If you think it is okay to disrepect the position of those you don't like it gives permission for others to express disrepect as well.
And this from the woman who is so concerned about the troops she spend Sunday morning reading obits. :rolleyes:
Because you have an issue with someone it's okay to disrespect millions upon millions of servicemembers?
Here's a buck.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/mat...olor216x91.GIF
Go buy yourself a clue.
Forgot to give the link on Petraeus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus
And to think he might not have been alive if this soldier's gun had found
a better target.
Chuck Norris would have taught the recruit how to use his rifle, then instructed said recruit on the care of his weapon, policed the used brass from the area, driven himself to the hospital after stopping to change his uniform and have a beer with boys.
Then he would have operated on himself....
I can barely get out of bed in the morning and he's doing pushups two days after being shot?
---------------
About DP breaking his pelvis?
CN would have pushed the Earth out of orbit when he hit.:eek::o;)
Bravery, Courage, & Dignity seem to have lost their meaning in other places of the world but in mine it is alive & well. The other day Christopher Opat came home in a coffin. The streets of his home town were lined with over 2000 people coming together to pay him honor. Our governor ordered our countrys flag to be flown at half mast that day. The representative sent by the military was in tears because he had never seen so many people turn out for a military funeral before. I heard a song played in memory of Christopher on our local country western station where at noon before the news the Star Spangled Banner is still played. Bravery, Courage, & Dignity are still alive in my part of the world. THANK GOD!:)
I saw a story with the lead line of "Rush gets star on walk of fame" so
I worked up a rant and clicked on the story........... It was about the band
Rush, not the big fat moron.:D A perfectly good rant gone to waste.:D
Would you like to be nominated?
From Wikpedia -
Quote:
Each year, an average of 200 nominations are submitted to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Walk of Fame Selection Committee. Anyone, including fans, can nominate anyone active in the field of entertainment, as long as the nominee or his or her management is in agreement with the nomination. (A letter of agreement from the nominated celebrity or representative must accompany the application.) Nominees must have a minimum of 5 years' experience in the category for which they are nominated. Posthumous nominees must be deceased at least 5 years. At a meeting each June, the Committee selects approximately 20 celebrities to receive stars on the Walk of Fame during the following year. One posthumous award is given each year as well. The nominations of those not selected are "rolled over" to the following year for reconsideration; those not selected two years in a row are dropped, and must be renominated to receive further consideration. Living recipients must agree to personally attend a presentation ceremony within five years of selection. A relative of deceased recipients must attend posthumous presentations. Presentation ceremonies are open to the public.
A fee (currently USD $25,000), payable at time of selection, is collected to pay for the creation and installation of the star, as well as general maintenance of the Walk of Fame. The fee is usually paid by the nominating organization, which may be a fan club, or a film studio, record company, broadcaster, or other sponsor involved with the honoree's current or ongoing project. The Starz cable network, for example, paid for Dennis Hopper's star as part of the promotion for its series Crash. It was unveiled in March 2010, shortly before his death.
Traditionally, the identities of members of the Selection Committee have not been made public in order to minimize conflicts of interest, and to prevent lobbying of committee members by celebrities and their representatives (which was a significant problem during selection of the original 1550 recipients in the late 1950s). However, in 1999, to answer growing charges of "back room politics" in the selection process, the Chamber disclosed the members' names: They were Johnny Grant, who chaired the Committee and represented the television category; Earl Lestz, president of Paramount Studio Group (motion pictures); Stan Spero, retired manager with broadcast stations KMPC and KABC (radio); Kate Nelson, owner of the Palace Theatre (live performance); and Mary Lou Dudas, vice president of A&M Records (recording industry).
After that disclosure, however, the veil of secrecy was restored; subsequently, the Chamber would say only that Lestz (who received his own star in 2004) became the Committee's chairman after Grant died in 2008, and that "each of the five categories is represented by someone with expertise in that field."
As of June 2010, Lestz had apparently been replaced as chairman by John Pavlik, former Director of Communications for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. While no public announcement was made to that effect, he was identified as chairman in the Chamber's press release announcing the 2011 star recipients.
Interesting Washingto Post article I read the other day. Something to
think about.
Endless war, a recipe for four-star arrogance
By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Long wars are antithetical to democracy. Protracted conflict introduces toxins that inexorably corrode the values of popular government. Not least among those values is a code of military conduct that honors the principle of civilian control while keeping the officer corps free from the taint of politics. Events of the past week -- notably the Rolling Stone profile that led to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's dismissal -- hint at the toll that nearly a decade of continuous conflict has exacted on the U.S. armed forces. The fate of any one general qualifies as small beer: Wearing four stars does not signify indispensability. But indications that the military's professional ethic is eroding, evident in the disrespect for senior civilians expressed by McChrystal and his inner circle, should set off alarms.
Earlier generations of American leaders, military as well as civilian, instinctively understood the danger posed by long wars. "A democracy cannot fight a Seven Years War," Gen. George C. Marshall once remarked. The people who provided the lifeblood of the citizen army raised to wage World War II had plenty of determination but limited patience. They wanted victory won and normalcy restored.
The wisdom of Marshall's axiom soon became clear. In Vietnam, Lyndon B. Johnson plunged the United States into what became its Seven Years War. The citizen army that was sent to Southeast Asia fought valiantly for a time and then fell to pieces. As the conflict dragged on, Americans in large numbers turned against the war -- and also against the troops who fought it.
After Vietnam, the United States abandoned its citizen army tradition, oblivious to the consequences. In its place, it opted for what the Founders once called a "standing army" -- a force consisting of long-serving career professionals.
For a time, the creation of this so-called all-volunteer force, only tenuously linked to American society, appeared to be a master stroke. Washington got superbly trained soldiers and Republicans and Democrats took turns putting them to work. The result, once the Cold War ended, was greater willingness to intervene abroad. As Americans followed news reports of U.S. troops going into action everywhere from the Persian Gulf to the Balkans, from the Caribbean to the Horn of Africa, they found little to complain about: The costs appeared negligible. Their role was simply to cheer.
This happy arrangement now shows signs of unraveling, a victim of what the Pentagon has all too appropriately been calling its Long War.
The Long War is not America's war. It belongs exclusively to "the troops," lashed to a treadmill that finds soldiers and Marines either serving in a combat zone or preparing to deploy.
To be an American soldier today is to serve a people who find nothing amiss in the prospect of armed conflict without end. Once begun, wars continue, persisting regardless of whether they receive public support. President Obama's insistence to the contrary notwithstanding, this nation is not even remotely "at" war. In explaining his decision to change commanders without changing course in Afghanistan, the president offered this rhetorical flourish: "Americans don't flinch in the face of difficult truths." In fact, when it comes to war, the American people avert their eyes from difficult truths. Largely unaffected by events in Afghanistan and Iraq and preoccupied with problems much closer to home, they have demonstrated a fine ability to tune out war. Soldiers (and their families) are left holding the bag.
Throughout history, circumstances such as these have bred praetorianism, warriors becoming enamored with their moral superiority and impatient with the failings of those they are charged to defend. The smug disdain for high-ranking civilians casually expressed by McChrystal and his chief lieutenants -- along with the conviction that "Team America," as these officers style themselves, was bravely holding out against a sea of stupidity and corruption -- suggests that the officer corps of the United States is not immune to this affliction.
To imagine that replacing McChrystal with Gen. David H. Petraeus will fix the problem is wishful thinking. To put it mildly, Petraeus is no simple soldier. He is a highly skilled political operator, whose name appears on Republican wish lists as a potential presidential candidate in 2012. Far more significant, the views cultivated within Team America are shared elsewhere.
The day the McChrystal story broke, an active-duty soldier who has served multiple combat tours offered me his perspective on the unfolding spectacle. The dismissive attitude expressed by Team America, he wrote, "has really become a pandemic in the Army." Among his peers, a belief that "it is OK to condescend to civilian leaders" has become common, ranking officers permitting or even endorsing "a culture of contempt" for those not in uniform. Once the previously forbidden becomes acceptable, it soon becomes the norm.
"Pretty soon you have an entire organization believing that their leader is the 'Savior' and that everyone else is stupid and incompetent, or not committed to victory." In this soldier's view, things are likely to get worse before they get better. "Senior officers who condone this kind of behavior and allow this to continue and fester," he concluded, "create generation after generation of officers like themselves -- but they're generally so arrogant that they think everyone needs to be just like them anyway."
By itself, Team America poses no threat to the constitutional order. Gen. McChrystal is not Gen. MacArthur. When presenting himself at the White House on Wednesday, McChrystal arrived not as a man on horseback but as a supplicant, hat (and resignation) in hand. Still, even with his departure, it would be a mistake to consider the matter closed.
During Vietnam, the United States military cracked from the bottom up. The damage took decades to repair. In the seemingly endless wars of the post-Sept. 11 era, a military that has demonstrated remarkable durability now shows signs of coming undone at the top. The officer corps is losing its bearings.
Americans might do well to contemplate a famous warning issued by another frustrated commander from a much earlier age.
"We had been told, on leaving our native soil," wrote the centurion Marcus Flavius to a cousin back in Rome, "that we were going to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many of our citizens [and to aid] populations in need of our assistance and our civilization." For such a cause, he and his comrades had willingly offered to "shed our quota of blood, to sacrifice our youth and our hopes." Yet the news from the homeland was disconcerting: The capital was seemingly rife with factions, treachery and petty politics. "Make haste," Marcus Flavius continued, "and tell me that our fellow citizens understand us, support us and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the empire."
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware of the anger of the legions!"
Stanley McChrystal is no Marcus Flavius, lacking the Roman's eloquence, among other things. Yet in ending his military career on such an ignominious note, he has, however clumsily, issued a warning that deserves our attention.
The responsibility facing the American people is clear. They need to reclaim ownership of their army. They need to give their soldiers respite, by insisting that Washington abandon its de facto policy of perpetual war. Or, alternatively, the United States should become a nation truly "at" war, with all that implies in terms of civic obligation, fiscal policies and domestic priorities. Should the people choose neither course -- and thereby subject their troops to continuing abuse -- the damage to the army and to American democracy will be severe.
Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His book "Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War" will be published in August. He will be online at 11 a.m. on Monday, June 28, to chat. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
That read is a big eye opener. My thought is someday this country will fall like the Roman Empire. What about the United Nations? That is not mentioned in there. Aren't there war rules our military & every other country that belongs to the United Nations have to follow? Isn't that what happened in Viet Nam? It has been a long time but was the United Nations put together to promote world peace? Just some questions I need answered. Jump in someone that knows world history.:confused:
I read that in the Post. Excellent article.
Indeed. We are 50-51 B.C. in a nutshell. The end of the Roman Republic. The begining of the Roman Dictatorship.
Do not take my word for it. Research it yourself. Look at the fiscal policy. Look at the foreign policy.
Like I have said before... Nothing is new. Nothing is 'progressive'. History repeats itself because we allow ourselves to become utterly ignorant of it.
Or, you can just post a link and cheer.
Again.... History repeats itself. The Leauge of Nations was a utter failure. Why? The UN is nothing but worse. WHY?Quote:
What about the United Nations? That is not mentioned in there. Aren't there war rules our military & every other country that belongs to the United Nations have to follow? Isn't that what happened in Viet Nam? It has been a long time but was the United Nations put together to promote world peace? Just some questions I need answered. Jump in someone that knows world history.:confused:
Rules and laws only apply to the law abiding. Its the same forthe world as it is for the US. Make all the worthless laws you want. If we are unwilling to enforce them, whats their worth?
Like I say all the time... Failure/unlawfulness MUST equal consequence. But no, we make excuses and coddle. Look at the situation in Iran. "Ok, we will give you chance # 1,284,405. But the NEXT time....."
:rolleyes:
Don't take my word for it. Do your own research.
As for the 'excellent' article.....
Who was it that said.... "Fight to WIN or go home."
I would dare any of you to ask my father about why we 'lost' in Vietnam. Either America has the guts to WIN or we don't. The losers of the world will always bitch about how the winners, won. 999,999 out of 1,000,000 our troops do the right thing. Yet, they still lose. WHY?
Because of politicians who are cowards and because of the self-righteous, history ignorant cowards who support them.
Before any of you lecture me... Be prepared to tell me why it was OK for me to bury a friend for nothing... When he could have lived, if only he was allowed to do what soldiers are trained to do.
The word 'coward', pretty much sums it up. "Do the right thing, even when its not popular."
The Viet Nam War was lost because of the politicans back home here. You either let the military fight like they need to (& there will be civilian causalities) there always is. Kill or be killed! The Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan. There is a message right there. :mad: We should send these stupid politicans over to fight & follow their stupid laws & rules along with a bunch of lawyers too. :mad:
Grace, yes I had never thought about the differences that a standing
army presents.
All I know is "this ain't your daddy's war" anymore & today's conflicts
are not "all out war" with uniformed foreign troops. The COIN thing requires
a different skill set than older "tradional" wars.
COIN (or 'asymmetrical warfare' as it is also known) does indeed require additional skill sets. There will always be the need to fight and win kinetic engagements.
Further, our military, after a learning curve, now has the skills to win in asymmetrical environments. Its still a shame that we deploy them, only to not let them win.
The common factor in US failures in modern asymmetrical conflict is the lack of political will to let our best men and women do what they are trained to do. Once the decision is made to send them, don't tie their hands because your poll numbers might take a hit. Because more than anything else, America loves a winner. A fine example was the engagement at Tora Bora. We had, supposedly, OBL surrounded. But our politicians (in this case, the hated GWB) wanted to look like a 'team' player and wait for (unreliable at best) Afghan forces to get to the battlefield. In battle, when you have the enemy on the ropes, you stomp on him.
What about the safety of your men/women? I have nephew that trains higher ups on survival skills & has been to Iraq. I guess some of the higher ups are so above him & everyone else he FLUNKS them & they have to take the training course over again. Can you imagine having to serve under someone that has your safety in his hands & he/she is so arrogant they care about only what looks good to & for them. :eek:
What Next? Maybe our troops will have to start loading their own shells. Load Shell, Shoot, Load Shell, Shoot, Load Shell, Shoot. Bulls Eye-Dead Terrorist.
"Unemployment compensation is a job creating mechanism."
http://www.breitbart.tv/pelosi-unemp...o-create-jobs/
Any of you lefties got a defence for this typically brain dead Pelosi comment?
PUH-LEASE explain to me how unemployment compensation CREATES Private sector jobs?
Having finally had time to read the complete Rolling Stone interview of McC...this guy has been practicing hubris, arrogance, frat boy immaturity, and downright disgusting behavior since at least his term at West Point.
The question is...does the system create the behavior* or the behavior* create the system?
*Self-edited
Did I mention I messed my pants earlier?:confused::o;)
And how is that behavior accepted and promoted? I see it often in business as well. Someone who is very smart and capable but an incredible jerk and bully. The longer they get away with it the more pronounced the behavior becomes until finally they bump up against the person who will finally say...enough.
And then there is Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee -
Guess he forgot (conveniently) that is was George W. Bush who started the war in Afghanistan.Quote:
Well, if he's (referring to President Obama) such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Quote:
RNC's Steele backtracks after Afghan war remarks
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 2, 2010; 5:58 PM
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele is trying to quell controversy over his comments that the war in Afghanistan was of "Obama's choosing" and his suggestion that it may not be winnable, remarks that put him at odds with much of his party.
On Friday, after a video surfaced of Steele's remarks at a Connecticut fundraiser the night before, some conservatives fumed and Democrats pounced.
A spokesman for Steele quickly issued a statement clarifying that the chairman supports the troops, and Steele himself soon followed up by saying that "for the sake of the security of the free world, our country must give our troops the support necessary to win this war."
Steele's tenure at the helm of the RNC has been marked by controversies, including over his criticism of -- and subsequent apology to -- Rush Limbaugh and the committee's spending money at a bondage-themed nightclub in California to entertain donors.
But his war remarks were a rare instance in which Steele articulated views on a key policy issue that differed from the party line. Most Republican members of Congress strongly supported President George W. Bush's decision to start the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and have backed funding and troop increases there, even as many Democrats have cast doubt on the war policy.
On the video, Steele is seen saying of Obama: "It was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."
In a piece on his magazine's Web site, William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, wrote: "There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they're certainly entitled to make their case. But one of them shouldn't be the chairman of the Republican party."
"The war in Afghanistan was not 'a war of Obama's choosing,' " he added. "It has been prosecuted by the United States under Presidents Bush and Obama. Republicans have consistently supported the effort."
Democrats gleefully circulated both video of Steele's remarks and the criticism from Kristol.
"Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and his words have consequences," said Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic National Committee spokesman.
Erick Erickson, who runs the influential conservative blog Red State said: "Michael Steele must resign. He has lost all moral authority to lead the GOP."
Former South Carolina GOP chair Katon Dawson, who finished second to Steele in the race for the chairman's post early last year, said Steele should now be ousted, CNN reported. Dawson is a frequent critic of Steele but has not until now called for him to resign.
"The RNC should do the responsible thing and show Steele the door," Dawson told CNN. "Enough is enough."
No prominent conservative lawmaker or member of the RNC has called for Steele's resignation. The former Maryland lieutenant governor is one of the most prominent African- Americans in the GOP, and Republicans have seen major electoral success since he became chairman.