Explanation for Memo to Troops

Published on October 21, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Let me explain my rather harsh peek into the psychology of the troops in Iraq. It was motivated by the arrogance of Republicans on this blog site taking for granted that it is the duty of troops to support and vote for their incumbent commander in chief. Obviously these bloggers are suffering from amnesia when it was perfectly okay for the military to hate Clinton, and the military absentee votes showed this both times he ran. Even Powell during the first term was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and did not hide his contempt for Clinton. Often these fair-minded bloggers comment that the troops are overwhelmingly for Bush without acknowledging that the millitary is also overwhelmingly Republican, and as a result loyalty to the commander in chief is irrelevant. In ‘96 the military had no difficulty preferring Dole, not only that he was a Republican but, ironically a veteran of combat, which now, because of the vicious attacks on Kerry’s war record, the military does not consider him a proud veteran.

What our friendly opponents on this blog site don’t seem to realize is that as citizens, members of the military are entitled to hear the other side and vote as they sees fit and in a democracy has nothing whatever to do with disloyalty should they choose another.

For a blogger to interpret my blog as sedition is shameful. Even a loyal, honorable soldier has the right to fire or retain his commander in chief when up for election.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 2)

drmiler

on Oct 22, 2004

Reply #15 By: stevendedalus - 10/22/2004 12:06:26 PM
his *entire* chain of command and the gunner from his boat are speaking out against him?
Aye, but it doesn't mean they are speaking the truth.

And you know they're not speaking the truth, how? Were you there? No and neither was I. But their big beef isn't about what he did in country. Their beef is a lot more about what he did when he got back. Go read their web page.

Link

I mean if your going to comment you should at least be aware of the facts.

Texas Wahine

on Oct 22, 2004

drmiler:

I mean if your going to comment you should at least be aware of the facts.

Of all the bloggers on JU, it seems to me that steven is one of the most educated and well-read . . . he's not the type to spout things without having his information straight. You might disagree with the conclusions he draws from the facts, but you must admit that he knows his stuff. *Play nice*

WiseFawn

on Oct 22, 2004

drmiler - All of the ridiculous charges from the SBV has been answered,just as the ridiculous charges of sedition here, have been answered.

stevendedalus

on Oct 22, 2004

I'm grateful for WF and Texaii--they are my champion[ettes]--and make it all worthwhile!

After thirty years, the fog of war sets in and truth becomes distorted if not false. When I look back on Okinawa, I see a blur and if there were foxhole mates that fell asleep or ran away during a banzai attack, I would not belittle them because they were there and that's the final truth.

drmiler

on Oct 22, 2004

Reply #18 By: WiseFawn - 10/22/2004 12:34:24 PM
drmiler - All of the ridiculous charges from the SBV has been answered,just as the ridiculous charges of sedition here, have been answered.

Wrong answer. All the charges have NOT been answered! I'll tell you the same thing I told steve, that is go read their site. 90% of what they're bitching about is what happened *after* he got home! And the things he said and did after the war are not fiction but fact!

stevendedalus

on Oct 23, 2004

what they're bitching about is what happened *after* he got home!

However, dramatically and emotionally--a very ticked off youthful moment--his expressions before the congressional committee, he was still merely reporting from "data" given him by other Viet vets.

Lee1776

on Oct 23, 2004

Steve

Since I have answered your questions, will you answer only one of my questions?

I know you are a Marine. I say you are a Marine is because once a Marine always a Marine.

How can you support a person who IMO has publicly insulted, degraded, and mocked your service and the Marine Corp?

In the 70’s John Kerry wrote a book. On the cover of that book he mocked your service in the Pacific by having a group of hippies raise an American Flag upside down in reminiscent of your follow Marines that sacrificed their lives on Iwo Jima. Just to add insult to injury, not one of the men on that cover ever served in the Marines.

http://neophytepundit.com/archives/000122.php

I will not rant and I will not rave. I did not post this to be militias, I’m just wanting to know how you can support a man like that, after all you and your Corp did for this country..

That’s My Two Cents

drmiler

on Oct 23, 2004

Reply #21 By: stevendedalus - 10/23/2004 12:07:57 AM
what they're bitching about is what happened *after* he got home!
However, dramatically and emotionally--a very ticked off youthful moment--his expressions before the congressional committee, he was still merely reporting from "data" given him by other Viet vets.

Which does not excuse him from lying to the house senate commitee. If you or I did that we'd be in jail so fast our eyes would roll around in our head! He won't even admit he was wrong.

CraigAlan

on Oct 23, 2004

It's interesting to read this because I'm beginning to understand why certain people don't trust... oh hell, I'll just come out and say it... hate John Kerry. I can't say I personally agree with this, but I can see where this dislike would come from. Let me ask you this, though... suppose he did come out and say "I was wrong, and I'm sorry." Would that change your opinion of the man?
I'm not asking if you'd vote for him but just how you'd view him if he came out and said he was wrong.

It's nice to see that people are a lot more sociable towards stevendedalus because of his restatement. If I interfered before and ticked anyone off I apologize.

drmiler

on Oct 23, 2004

Reply #24 By: CraigAlan - 10/23/2004 1:51:11 AM
It's interesting to read this because I'm beginning to understand why certain people don't trust... oh hell, I'll just come out and say it... hate John Kerry. I can't say I personally agree with this, but I can see where this dislike would come from. Let me ask you this, though... suppose he did come out and say "I was wrong, and I'm sorry." Would that change your opinion of the man?
I'm not asking if you'd vote for him but just how you'd view him if he came out and said he was wrong.

I would have a tendancy to look at him in a different light. But I'd want him to stay as far away from my 2nd admendment rights as he could possibly get. Different light yes. Vote for? Not a chance.

Dysmas

on Oct 23, 2004

To me the simple fact that he publicly threw away his awards is reason enough for members of the armed forces to dislike and absolutly not trust him.
A ticked off youthful moment does not negate what he did and he, as was stated, still does not apologize. Im in the Army, I would never vote for kerry for many reason but his anit-war record would be enough, not to mention his shifting votes on the same type of issues. Also I will not vote for Bush, I admire him for many things but I feel he put this country at a huge disadvantage by his statements and that of his cabinet. I vote for Nader, he wont win, I still vote and thats that.

CraigAlan

on Oct 23, 2004

2nd amendment huh? Interesting. This conversation is about to get way off topic.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If I played Mr. Literal here this would mean to me 1) Militia = citizens drafted into military service; 2) keep and bear Arms = everyone has the right to own weapons.

Playing Devil's Advocate here: strictly speaking, any form of gun control is unconstitutional.

I feel a bit like I'm playing both sides of the fence here, though, so let me quickly say that while I agree that one cannot really argue with this (unless we got into a whole debate on the side about gun-related deaths and whatnot, and really what place does that have in this thread), I have other reasons why I'm voting for Kerry. You can vote Bush for whatever reason you like, though.

Lee1776

on Oct 23, 2004

I'm not asking if you'd vote for him but just how you'd view him if he came out and said he was wrong.

No change. If he would have said that soon after he made those bogus statements in order to win political office. Then maybe my opinion would have changed. But since then he has repeatedly continued to make wrong moves. Most of the time to get public attention. The man has a track record of saying anything to look like he is on both sides of an issue.

I don't know your feelings on this but; I am guessing if Bush publicly said he was sorry for Iraq and begged forgiveness (what the DNC wants) it would not change your vote either. While I’m not much Bush fan I know that Bush is Damned if he does and Damned if he don't, but at least he will stick to his principles. While Bush had been misinformed (just like Kerry and most the world Governments says they had been). Kerry knew well before his fails statements what he was doing and was making calculated risk for getting votes. Now its time for those that he stepped on up his political career to bring him down.

That's My Two Cents

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 23, 2004

If I played Mr. Literal here this would mean to me 1) Militia = citizens drafted into military service; 2) keep and bear Arms = everyone has the right to own weapons.

Let a man more learned than I on the Constitution say something about this.

Michael Badnarik on Gun Control:

If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. Allow me to point out some fallacies in the arguments frequently used by the anti-gun movement.

First, it is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a "community right", because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights.

Second, the phrase "well regulated militia" is frequently misconstrued to mean:
a. lots of government regulations; and,
b. only the National Guard is allowed to carry guns.

It is necessary to understand the definitions common in America during the time of our war for independence. "Well regulated" used to mean "well prepared". Every man was expected to have a rifle, one pound of gun powder, and sixteen balls for his weapon. He was also expected to be ready to USE that rifle within sixty seconds of the alarm being sounded. Hence the term "minute man".

It is disingenuous for anyone to promote the argument that "militia" refers only to the National Guard in light of the fact that the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, and the National Guard wasn't formed until the early 1900's. This argument is totally without merit, unless you want to imply that our founding fathers were able to predict the future.

I sincerely believe that statistical evidence supports the idea that crime increases exponentially wherever gun control is instituted as the governing policy. Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the strictest gun control policies in the United States. The cities with the highest murder rates are Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It doesn't take a PhD to be able to draw the proper conclusion from this evidence. England and Australia have recently instituted strict gun control measures, and both countries have seen the statistics on violent crime quadruple. In contrast, I am told that the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a municipal ordinance that requires homeowners to have a firearm available. Home invasions have dropped to less than 10% of their original rate, indicating to me that criminals value their lives more than they value your property.

I have no doubt that members of the anti-gun crowd would be happy to offer statistical data which appears to contradict the numbers I have just mentioned. Even if they could, their alternate statistics are not enough authority to strip me of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. My rights are non-negotiable. I don't care if someone else doesn't like it. I don't care if they toss and turn at night, anxiously worried about what I might do with my firearm. My rights are not predicated on whether or not you LIKE what I'm doing. You only have a complaint when I present a "clear and present danger", which is not the case if I have my firearm in a holster.

Repealing unconstitutional gun control laws will be one of my first priorities as President of the United States.

What will you type about Gun Control and 2nd Amendment now?
- Grim X

CraigAlan

on Oct 23, 2004

What will you type about Gun Control and 2nd Amendment now?

I'm moving this to another thread.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!