Later in his speech, Powell waxed serious, saying Iraq posed a threat to the world that must be dealt with by the United Nations -- or if the world body refuses to act, by America alone.
So you're saying Bush would rather act unilaterally ? So you think Bush is glad that it's 10 nations and not 20 ? They both would rather not have to act unilaterally. It comes down to deciding what's best for your country not France or Russia.
I am sorry, but for me, it comes down to what is best for Our Troops. I am insulted, that you would think otherwise.
I never would nor mean to imply that so my apologies if you took it that way. Obviously we both agree that it's best to do what is right for our nation. I think were we differ is on what's best for our troops. Again I realize that you and I want what's best it's just a matter of how to do it. The more troops from other nations of course would lessen our chance for casualties, I agree there.
However in some ways it helps to have less countries involved. Being on some JTE's (joint training excercize) with other nations troops I can tell you that the old adage of too many cooks is very true in this case. The more nations you have the more cultures you have and the more opinions as far as mission planning and decisions in battle go. Also there is more of a problem with communication and frankly there were times I just didn't trust the other nations troops to do their part. Britain and the U.S did most of the heavy lifting in 91' and it looks like that would be the case again. There are 10 countries on board right now and looks like more this week will be on board. Bush IS adding people and asking or negotiating for their help and it looks as though they are coming along. in 91' it was about 30 nations, many small and who helped logisitcally or monetarily ie; Japan. this time, my guess would be 15 or so by the time all is said and done.
The one reason that I am frankly glad to not have as many is that some of those same nations are the ones who wanted us to stop in 91' and Bush Sr. made the mistake of listening so the coalition wouldn't be upset. It's those same nations that wanted us to stop in 91' that are waffling today so in that aspect I'm glad it will be less nations ans not a U.N run coalition. Look where it has gotten us. We probably wouldn't be having this talk if these other nations and the U.N would have let us finish the job in 91'
Of course Rob, and I agree with most of what you are saying, but the coalition put forth in WWII was a lot larger than anything we did in Desert Storm or what we will do for Iraq, so I guess I don't agree. It IS possible to do it, and make it work.
I see what you're saying too and agree in part but I think this is harder because these nations aren't under attack right now or are not the target that we are. Nations like China are thinking....what do we care if you're attacked, they aren't going to attack us. I do agree it's possible to build a larger coalition I just wonder if we want to. These other nations are acting out of there own best interest too and if we do try to get them to join there's a cost, we have to negotiate or promise things to this or that country to join. And my biggest concern which would be that they pressure us to stop again or try to nueter tactics which happens and would endanger our troops as well. It's a tough call and never an easy decision.
"Going it Alone", will only feed the "Anti-American Imperialistic" Bullshit-Propaganda of the nations that we consider our enemies. However, should we face any imminenet danger of being attacked by chem/bio weapons, well then I say HIT them.
I agree. I just wonder with these dorks if it matters what we do since they hate us anyway. Reminds me of a guy who used to post here......:0)
I believe "don't ask, don't tell" was developed in response to Clinton's idiotic attempt to mainstream gays in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell," from what I can tell, was just a cover to get Clinton out of political blunder. After the so-called policy was implemented it doesn't seem that there was any change from the policy before Clinton's grandstand announcement.
W: Well dear, I never really went. See, my daddy got me out of harms way in order to protect the skies over Alabamabla from potenitiable Veitnamcongable attacks. Then I disappeared for a year but I won't say that it was to go do some fine Panamaniable cocaine from your uncle Manuel Noreiga, that would be playing fuzzy gotcha games like we do in Washington. Let's just say that I was very brave and leave it at that. Say sweetie, why don't you go over and ask uncle Dick what it was HE did---I'm sure he has a million war stories to tell you.
I read a few posts back. I see you brought up "don't ask, don't tell"
I think it was a viable solution to a tough question. I have no problem with it and welcome anyone who wishes to serve their country regarless of their persuasion, what they do in their home doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't effect the rest of the unit.
So I am trying to tell if you want to see Bush rescind it ? He wasn't in power when it was implemented. There were conservatives who didn't want to see it happen. I disagreed with them. Perhaps he isn't bringing it up because for the most part, it works. The reason I think you saw opposistion to it is this though. And here's where it gets murky.
It's much like having women in combat. Women are just as capable of fighting as men, there's a few problems though with that that are similar to having homosexual people serve in combat roles as well. The problem is that not everyone is as open to that and with women and men nature is bound to take it's course. All of those things factor into the effectiveness of a fighting force. If someone doesn't follow an order because he/she is in love with another person or is trying to protect them instead of the objective, people will die. Plain and simple. So I have no problem with it if it doesn't effect readiness. The sad fact is that it does, how to deal with it I don't know.
I do know that some of the social experimentation Clinton did didn't work, some of it did in my opinion such as don't ask don't tell. The biggest problem is when we lowered some standards. For instance when women were introduced into combat the physical fitness standards were changed. Talking to a guy in artillery he told me how In arty' the shells and projectiles can weigh on average of 100 lbs and more. Most women couldn't lift them so you know what they did ? they had to add to the number of people in support. So instead of say 4 man crews they had to have 6-7 person crews so that they could lift it as a team.
So more resources are drained to accomplish the same job. Gear weights or how much the average soilder could carry were reduced. In some units they had to give more gear to the men to carry, thereby fatiguing them more. A soilder goes down on the battlefield somewhere. He's a 180# guy with 46 pounds worth of gear on his back. Can a woman lift or carry him to safety ? Very few can. If they can, great. I'd say a guy who couldn't do the same shouldn't be in a combat role either so it's not a matter of gender, it's a matter of ability. There are many other examples and I think it's great women want to serve their nation. But physical laws can't be changed and the problem is that there are just some jobs they shouldn't do unless they are qualified, same as men. I don't care what persuasion or gender is as long as you can do your job effectivley and standards don't have to be lowered so we can be p.c., p.c will cost lives.
The ONLY thing Saddman has of any consequence that he can use to defend his regime is a rag-tag bunch of poorly led and even more poorly supportive "soldiers", (and I use the term very-lightly) and his possible stockpile of Bio-Chem weapons.
yep - and if so dumb insane lobs a couple of germ bombs the Israeli way , the proverbial shit will hit that ever present fan. He will then rival OBL as a Islamic demi-god.
God Bless all the young men and women who are going into harms-way.
Why drag God into this Fold? The Pope has condemned US plans, and he has a direct link to God. Does your sympathy also extend to the collateral damage that is bound to happen?? Or is god only on the American side??
The cuts, which are intended to generate savings that the service will use to invest in new ships and aircraft, will leave the nation with just 292 ships by October 2004. The fleet is projected to shrink to 291 ships in 2006, then begin growing to reach 305 by 2009
So we're going to save money so we can invest in new equipment. Hmmm, New ships and aircraft how horrible. Nah let's keep dumping money into the ones that have outlived their service life.
Funny how more deployments in the previous 40 years got overlooked. Funny how naval cuts got overlooked before, of course those cuts were with NO intention of replacing the ones cut.
Suddenly cuts are a bad thing, I guess you live long enough you see everything.
BTW Bill one of those few ships being decommissioned is the "Connie" Constellation. I read an article a few weeks back. Her Skipper was being interviewed and he said as sad as he was to see her go he knew it was time, she needs a ton of work, fitting, and is one of the few diesel powered a.c.c's in our fleet. Her maintenence costs alone are what it costs to run 2 nuke carriers.
But the fact is, we need ALL the ships planes, pilots, grunts and servicemen and women that will step forward right now.
I haven't heard of any recruiting shortages in fact the contrary.
It's hard to build ships quick absolutley, we sunk to under 300 ships in 97. We also lost alot of pilots and highly skilled people not to mention canabalized perfectly good aircraft. Due to cuts. That's exactly what I was saying to you a year ago about these cuts
Bush announced today another increase for the military, the last one was the largest in 20 years and this one is 15 billion. So he's increased it in all his budgets so far.
It's always better to have more troops, no doubt. A draft isn't needed at this time and if it is people will answer the call. Recruitment offices were inundated after 9-11 on levels not seen since 41'. There are many that are ready to go back if asked. If they ask I'll go.
As for the person in the above article he was in the National Guard. You'll occasionally get called into active status when you're in the guard. Age shouldn't have anything to do with it. If he's still capable and he is or he wouldn't be still in the guard. I'm not sure where the story was in that article.I had C.O's's that were older than that. It never bothered me. I had a Col. who was more vibrant than guys half his age and I wouldn't have wanted to square off with him either. He ususally went harder and farther during P.T than half his officers. Generally age brings wisdom and I see it as an asset.
I respect Hackworth, one thing to remember right now his job is to sell books and articles. He makes some good points however.
How many times in the last year have you read an editorial or heard a politician say "The cold war is over, what do we need as big of a force for?" Well here's your answer today. However, it doesn't mean you do nothing becasue the situation isn't perfect. The N.K situation will be resolved dipomatically I think. Misssle defense doesn't have as many critics these days. It's easy to cut in peace time and hard to build back up. The CWO in the above story perhaps wouldn't be needed if we had kept some of the younger trained pilots. We didn't and it was mainly due to cuts from the mid 90's. You don't replace them overnight.
So 10 years from now and God willing we're at realitive peace and we see an article or editorial talking about cutting the military as drastically as was in the 90's we should all be a little more vocal.
Suppose that there were no African-American minority? Suppose that everyone was white, from which it would follow that everyone in the military was white. Would Mr. Rangel still call for a return to the draft? The logic of his argument would require him to do so, though the political bottom would fall out of his brief.
If everyone were white, there would still be a higher percentage of poor 18-year-olds than less-poor joining the Army, but the data would not be affected by ethnic correlations, and therefore would not attract the kind of attention Mr. Rangel seeks to attract.
e-mail received from a fellow geocacher, veteran, and friend
The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light, I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest, my daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white, Transforming the yard to a winter delight.
The sparkling lights in the tree, I believe, Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep, Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep in perfect contentment, or so it would seem. So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.
The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near, But I opened my eye when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know, Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear, and I crept to the door just to see who was near.
Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night, A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled, standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.
"What are you doing?" I asked without fear "Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve, you should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift, away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts, to the window that danced with a warm fire's light then he sighed and he said "Its really all right, I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night"
"Its my duty to stand at the front of the line, that separates you from the darkest of times.
No one had to ask or beg or implore me, I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at 'Pearl on a day in December," then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam and now it is my turn and so, here I am.
I've not seen my own son in more than a while, but my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.
Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag, the red white and blue... an American flag.
"I can live through the cold and the being alone, away from my family, my house and my home,
I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet, I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat,
I can carry the weight of killing another or lay down my life with my sisters and brothers who stand at the front against any and all, to insure for all time that this flag will not fall."
"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there something I can do, at the least, "Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you've done, For being away from your wife and your son."
Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret, "Just tell us you love us, and never forget to fight for our rights back at home while we're gone. To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead, to know you remember we fought and we bled is payment enough, and with that we will trust. That we mattered to you as you mattered to us.
WE ALL NEED TO PRAY FOR OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL EVERY NIGHT, THEY ARE IN SOME VERY VERY TIGHT PLACES
If true, it needs to be rectified. The National Guard is viewed as 'less', by many, than the 'real military men'. Everyone thrown into a war zone should receive the necessary equipment and equal respect, and have equal value placed on their life.
you wanted them to decide it was equal...so apparently you too noticed that they are being God-like in thier determining the value of one life over the other. You said they should value some more than others.
It would "marshal their skills and experience and service to America and to the world," Kerry said, enlisting them in a reserve organization of volunteers who, like military reservists, would have peacetime jobs but could be called on in times of national need to "restore roads, renovate schools, open hospitals, repair power systems, draft a constitution, build a police force.
Looks good at first glance, but do you really want unarmed, untrained civilians working in a place like Iraq right now?
Powell Aims Barbs at Saddam
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66021,00.html
Later in his speech, Powell waxed serious, saying Iraq posed a threat to the world that must be dealt with by the United Nations -- or if the world body refuses to act, by America alone.
So you're saying Bush would rather act unilaterally ?
So you think Bush is glad that it's 10 nations and not 20 ? They both would rather not have to act unilaterally. It comes down to deciding what's best for your country not France or Russia.
Ditto
Think storming the beach at Normandy was what was best for our troops?
Sometimes what's best for the general good, isn't going to be best for the single soldier.
Bill,
I never would nor mean to imply that so my apologies if you took it that way.
Obviously we both agree that it's best to do what is right for our nation. I think were we differ is on what's best for our troops. Again I realize that you and I want what's best it's just a matter of how to do it.
The more troops from other nations of course would lessen our chance for casualties, I agree there.
However in some ways it helps to have less countries involved. Being on some JTE's (joint training excercize) with other nations troops I can tell you that the old adage of too many cooks is very true in this case. The more nations you have the more cultures you have and the more opinions as far as mission planning and decisions in battle go. Also there is more of a problem with communication and frankly there were times I just didn't trust the other nations troops to do their part. Britain and the U.S did most of the heavy lifting in 91' and it looks like that would be the case again. There are 10 countries on board right now and looks like more this week will be on board. Bush IS adding people and asking or negotiating for their help and it looks as though they are coming along. in 91' it was about 30 nations, many small and who helped logisitcally or monetarily ie; Japan. this time, my guess would be 15 or so by the time all is said and done.
The one reason that I am frankly glad to not have as many is that some of those same nations are the ones who wanted us to stop in 91' and Bush Sr. made the mistake of listening so the coalition wouldn't be upset. It's those same nations that wanted us to stop in 91' that are waffling today so in that aspect I'm glad it will be less nations ans not a U.N run coalition. Look where it has gotten us. We probably wouldn't be having this talk if these other nations and the U.N would have let us finish the job in 91'
I see what you're saying too and agree in part but I think this is harder because these nations aren't under attack right now or are not the target that we are. Nations like China are thinking....what do we care if you're attacked, they aren't going to attack us. I do agree it's possible to build a larger coalition I just wonder if we want to. These other nations are acting out of there own best interest too and if we do try to get them to join there's a cost, we have to negotiate or promise things to this or that country to join. And my biggest concern which would be that they pressure us to stop again or try to nueter tactics which happens and would endanger our troops as well. It's a tough call and never an easy decision.
I agree. I just wonder with these dorks if it matters what we do since they hate us anyway. Reminds me of a guy who used to post here......:0)
TMK's no Liberal.
Of course, I've had plenty of people call me a Liberal so what the hell do I know?
Like most of us, he probably doen't care.
Was it an issue in the 2000 election? I honestly don't recall.
If it was, that was just stupid. It shouldn't be an issue.
Yeah, I'll admit it did at one time.
I don't know what mainstream Conservatives think of it though. It's always the fringe that gets heard on such issues.
I wish Rob were around this week to tell us what he thought of it.
I personally wouldn't care what your sexual preference is.
I believe "don't ask, don't tell" was developed in response to Clinton's idiotic attempt to mainstream gays in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell," from what I can tell, was just a cover to get Clinton out of political blunder. After the so-called policy was implemented it doesn't seem that there was any change from the policy before Clinton's grandstand announcement.
People aren't drummed out of the military for being gay now? I think you are mistaken.
So, fold, you are saying that the military is welcoming gays with open arms?
Okay. Yes, fold,that is what you are saying.
Sometimes I really don't think you can read, fold. There are remedial courses that could help.
Jenna Bush: What did you do in the war Daddy?
W: Well dear, I never really went. See, my daddy got me out of harms way in order to protect the skies over Alabamabla from potenitiable Veitnamcongable attacks. Then I disappeared for a year but I won't say that it was to go do some fine Panamaniable cocaine from your uncle Manuel Noreiga, that would be playing fuzzy gotcha games like we do in Washington. Let's just say that I was very brave and leave it at that. Say sweetie, why don't you go over and ask uncle Dick what it was HE did---I'm sure he has a million war stories to tell you.
Here you go billfold---maybe this will help make your posts a little more interesting and GROWN-UP.
Hey Bill, How goes it ?
I read a few posts back. I see you brought up "don't ask, don't tell"
I think it was a viable solution to a tough question. I have no problem with it and welcome anyone who wishes to serve their country regarless of their persuasion, what they do in their home doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't effect the rest of the unit.
So I am trying to tell if you want to see Bush rescind it ? He wasn't in power when it was implemented. There were conservatives who didn't want to see it happen. I disagreed with them. Perhaps he isn't bringing it up because for the most part, it works. The reason I think you saw opposistion to it is this though. And here's where it gets murky.
It's much like having women in combat. Women are just as capable of fighting as men, there's a few problems though with that that are similar to having homosexual people serve in combat roles as well. The problem is that not everyone is as open to that and with women and men nature is bound to take it's course. All of those things factor into the effectiveness of a fighting force. If someone doesn't follow an order because he/she is in love with another person or is trying to protect them instead of the objective, people will die. Plain and simple. So I have no problem with it if it doesn't effect readiness. The sad fact is that it does, how to deal with it I don't know.
I do know that some of the social experimentation Clinton did didn't work, some of it did in my opinion such as don't ask don't tell. The biggest problem is when we lowered some standards. For instance when women were introduced into combat the physical fitness standards were changed. Talking to a guy in artillery he told me how In arty' the shells and projectiles can weigh on average of 100 lbs and more. Most women couldn't lift them so you know what they did ? they had to add to the number of people in support. So instead of say 4 man crews they had to have 6-7 person crews so that they could lift it as a team.
So more resources are drained to accomplish the same job. Gear weights or how much the average soilder could carry were reduced. In some units they had to give more gear to the men to carry, thereby fatiguing them more. A soilder goes down on the battlefield somewhere. He's a 180# guy with 46 pounds worth of gear on his back. Can a woman lift or carry him to safety ? Very few can. If they can, great. I'd say a guy who couldn't do the same shouldn't be in a combat role either so it's not a matter of gender, it's a matter of ability. There are many other examples and I think it's great women want to serve their nation. But physical laws can't be changed and the problem is that there are just some jobs they shouldn't do unless they are qualified, same as men. I don't care what persuasion or gender is as long as you can do your job effectivley and standards don't have to be lowered so we can be p.c., p.c will cost lives.
Luv's been gone because of the holiday's. I think he'll be back tomorrow.
The ONLY thing Saddman has of any consequence that he can use to defend his regime is a rag-tag bunch of poorly led and even more poorly supportive "soldiers", (and I use the term very-lightly) and his possible stockpile of Bio-Chem weapons.
yep - and if so dumb insane lobs a couple of germ bombs the Israeli way , the proverbial shit will hit that ever present fan. He will then rival OBL as a Islamic demi-god.
God Bless all the young men and women who are going into harms-way.
Why drag God into this Fold? The Pope has condemned US plans, and he has a direct link to God. Does your sympathy also extend to the collateral damage that is bound to happen?? Or is god only on the American side??
He's probably thinking over your last sentence Fold.
At the end of the article you posted.
So we're going to save money so we can invest in new equipment. Hmmm, New ships and aircraft how horrible. Nah let's keep dumping money into the ones that have outlived their service life.
Funny how more deployments in the previous 40 years got overlooked. Funny how naval cuts got overlooked before, of course those cuts were with NO intention of replacing the ones cut.
Suddenly cuts are a bad thing, I guess you live long enough you see everything.
BTW Bill one of those few ships being decommissioned is the "Connie" Constellation. I read an article a few weeks back. Her Skipper was being interviewed and he said as sad as he was to see her go he knew it was time, she needs a ton of work, fitting, and is one of the few diesel powered a.c.c's in our fleet. Her maintenence costs alone are what it costs to run 2 nuke carriers.
I haven't heard of any recruiting shortages in fact the contrary.
It's hard to build ships quick absolutley, we sunk to under 300 ships in 97. We also lost alot of pilots and highly skilled people not to mention canabalized perfectly good aircraft. Due to cuts. That's exactly what I was saying to you a year ago about these cuts
Bush announced today another increase for the military, the last one was the largest in 20 years and this one is 15 billion. So he's increased it in all his budgets so far.
You could be right :)
I mean...Really man. Pretty soon they'll call ME up.
Oh no! We better surrender NOW!!!!!!!!
Bill,
It's always better to have more troops, no doubt. A draft isn't needed at this time and if it is people will answer the call. Recruitment offices were inundated after 9-11 on levels not seen since 41'. There are many that are ready to go back if asked. If they ask I'll go.
As for the person in the above article he was in the National Guard. You'll occasionally get called into active status when you're in the guard. Age shouldn't have anything to do with it. If he's still capable and he is or he wouldn't be still in the guard. I'm not sure where the story was in that article.I had C.O's's that were older than that. It never bothered me. I had a Col. who was more vibrant than guys half his age and I wouldn't have wanted to square off with him either. He ususally went harder and farther during P.T than half his officers. Generally age brings wisdom and I see it as an asset.
I respect Hackworth, one thing to remember right now his job is to sell books and articles. He makes some good points however.
How many times in the last year have you read an editorial or heard a politician say "The cold war is over, what do we need as big of a force for?" Well here's your answer today. However, it doesn't mean you do nothing becasue the situation isn't perfect. The N.K situation will be resolved dipomatically I think. Misssle defense doesn't have as many critics these days. It's easy to cut in peace time and hard to build back up. The CWO in the above story perhaps wouldn't be needed if we had kept some of the younger trained pilots. We didn't and it was mainly due to cuts from the mid 90's. You don't replace them overnight.
So 10 years from now and God willing we're at realitive peace and we see an article or editorial talking about cutting the military as drastically as was in the 90's we should all be a little more vocal.
Who's fighting the war?
Suppose that there were no African-American minority? Suppose that everyone was white, from which it would follow that everyone in the military was white. Would Mr. Rangel still call for a return to the draft? The logic of his argument would require him to do so, though the political bottom would fall out of his brief.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/wfbuckley/wfb20030409.shtml
From Jethro's link:
If everyone were white, there would still be a higher percentage of poor 18-year-olds than less-poor joining the Army, but the data would not be affected by ethnic correlations, and therefore would not attract the kind of attention Mr. Rangel seeks to attract.
also from the link:
Now if you didn't know the facts you would think it was 50% or more.
You are one sorry sack of crap, fold.
Thumper 5/17/03 11:11am
Bob, is that you?
I'd donate fold but you would once again accuse me of thumping my chest.
e-mail received from a fellow geocacher, veteran, and friend
The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
my daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.
The sparkling lights in the tree, I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep
in perfect contentment, or so it would seem.
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.
The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eye when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know,
Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
and I crept to the door just to see who was near.
Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old
perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.
"What are you doing?" I asked without fear
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
you should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts,
to the window that danced with a warm fire's light
then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night"
"Its my duty to stand at the front of the line,
that separates you from the darkest of times.
No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at 'Pearl on a day in December,"
then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam
and now it is my turn and so, here I am.
I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
but my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.
Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
the red white and blue... an American flag.
"I can live through the cold and the being alone,
away from my family, my house and my home,
I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat,
I can carry the weight of killing another
or lay down my life with my sisters and brothers
who stand at the front against any and all,
to insure for all time that this flag will not fall."
"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."
Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget
to fight for our rights back at home while we're gone.
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead,
to know you remember we fought and we bled
is payment enough, and with that we will trust.
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us.
WE ALL NEED TO PRAY FOR OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL EVERY NIGHT, THEY ARE IN SOME VERY VERY TIGHT PLACES
That was awesome Ian. Thanks for posting and Merry Christmas.
If true, it needs to be rectified. The National Guard is viewed as 'less', by many, than the 'real military men'. Everyone thrown into a war zone should receive the necessary equipment and equal respect, and have equal value placed on their life.
you sound like God or something...determining the value of a human life like that
determining the value of a human life like that
Stating that all servicemen should have equal value placed on their life is not determining the value of their life.
why just servicemen?
The topic of this board is our military, is it not?
yep.
and the military itself is in the business of determining the value of human life
and the military itself is in the business of determining the value of human life
How does that pertain to my statement?
how doesn't it?
I man, that's what you were talking about.
how the military decides the value of human life.
you wanted them to decide it was equal...so apparently you too noticed that they are being God-like in thier determining the value of one life over the other. You said they should value some more than others.
that's what you were talking about, wasn't it?
Forget it Tess. crab's brain was fried long ago. If you hang around, you'll see just how little sense he makes.
"Quit stalking me" - Torpedo-8
Who is blaming the military for what?
All I said is that equal value should be placed on the lives of our military men, period.
No excitement here, Bill-Fold.
I think it's your choice of words, combined with the accentuated words, that made me understand your point in an entirely different way.
More garbage from the Garbage Man. Don't get in a tizzy, fold, that is directed at Kerry.
It would "marshal their skills and experience and service to America and to the world," Kerry said, enlisting them in a reserve organization of volunteers who, like military reservists, would have peacetime jobs but could be called on in times of national need to "restore roads, renovate schools, open hospitals, repair power systems, draft a constitution, build a police force.
Looks good at first glance, but do you really want unarmed, untrained civilians working in a place like Iraq right now?