Sorry, no sale. All you did was rattle off conflicting opinions... most
of which have been proven wrong. Instead of chastising you for this, I
commend your persistence. I stand by my remarks. I never said a hippie
could not be educated.
I will say though that you made the concept of the Jimmy Carter army
easier to understand, but no more acceptable, which, among other things,
helps to explain why the Iranians held so many Americans captive until
Pres Reagan came into power. Then they were released, because they knew
the new president would not mess around with them. THEY understood the
concept of strength!
Larry Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Arnold [mailto:bill At wjarnold DOT com]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 7:15 PM
To: 'ProFox Email List'
Subject: RE: [OT] New homeland security monitoring...
> Maybe you could point out the spin. It's probably your head
> as sometimes the truth can be overwhelming. <g>
Okay, Larry, see below
> Larry Miller
>
>
> > The military is trained to kill people and break things. If
> > they are function as military they are being misused in many
> > of the missions you would send them on. Try the Peace Corps
> > if you want to send bearded hippies representing America
> > around the world.
>
> That spins like a top - zoom!
Spin factor: the majority of the military are used for supporting roles,
not hand to hand combat. That includes the entire Air Force, most of the
Navy and better than 1/2 the Army. Logistics and support roles are
identical whether the mission is to kill or feed people.
That's spin # 1.
Spin 2 is the Peace Corps is not a bunch of bearded hippies at all. If
they have beards, it's more because (a) they are melding into local
custom, or (b) they don't have running water, but it's not because they
are "bearded hippies". By using the term "bearded hippies", the obvious
implication is that they are much less than the highly
intelligent/educated/well meaning people that they really are. Try
signing up for the Peace Corp without some serious education/talent to
see for yourself.
That's 2
> > These may be valuable services at times, but not for a soldier.
> >
> > Respect them for what they are... not for the pawns you would
> > have them to be.
>
> And more spin!
Spin # 3 ... I want to use the military as pawns? Excuse me, but today
that's exactly what they are being used as. Let me qualify that further:
"dispensable pawns", because after all the show and tell about the
wonderful treatment they receive after losing parts of their bodies or
their minds, they get to spend the rest of their lives suffering in
various ways, not the least of which is that many will be haunted for a
long time to come.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-28-cover-iraq-injuries_x
.htm
Nobody (in the media, that is, where many people get their points of
view) wants to step up and acknowledge that the soldiers put on the
ground over there have been trained (indoctrinated) to do the worst
possible thing: kill other people. Does anyone really think they go
through all that training, then sent to do the actual deed - are then
they are supposed to come home, re-integrate with society and forget it
all and if it never happened?
What I'm saying is that instead of being used as dispensable pawns - and
spend the rest of their lives suffering in some way for having been USED
like that - they could be used to make the world safer and more peaceful
by addressing the EXTREME harshness and adversity that exists in many
places of the world. Do you have any idea at all of how well received
food and medicine would be in Africa? And please don't give me the
media-prepared response about the terrible warlords that would stop it,
because another big piece of media-garbage is the fact that "terror" and
"terrible warlords" cannot exist without public support, and if you go
in there with food and medicine, you're going to have public support,
and that will send the warlords into oblivion where they belong.
That's 3.
> > BTW a whole lot more people sign up for the
> > military than PC. What does that tell us... and please...
> > don't give us the underfunded program crap.
Here's # 4.
The Peace Corp is highly selective. You can join the Army if you can see
straight, but you can't join the Peace Corps without significant
credentials. The theory is that they don't want to send unqualified
people who will only become another part of the problem they are
addressing.
Also, as seems to go over your head again and again, many young people
join the military as a step in their progression towards adulthood, like
a rite of passage. After Vietnam and before this debacle, many people
did go into the military for purposes other than killing people, such as
to further their careers, do something with their lives, travel, get
education benefits, meet people, etc.
Number 5 - I never said or hinted or knew anything about "underfunded".
As far as I know, if you're qualified, the Peace Corp will take you.
It's not a matter of funding, but rather a matter of being qualified.
Now, maybe I'm wrong, and they do have funding problem, but you
certainly didn't hear it from me.
-----
I count 5 spins in one short post. Count 'em yourself.
Bill
> And another!
>
>
> Sorry, but if you're trying to "reset" me back to square 1
> with my head spinning, I wouldn't do that.
>
>
> Bill
©2005 Larry Miller |
|
