Kerry part 2

[Devastatin Dave]

.

It's also an interesting detail that by what I understand of it not a few of the US ones do it to pay for their future education. (I personally rather prefer a system where the poor have fair chances of getting decent upper education without having to risk their lives in uniform, but...)

Which sort of illustrates one of the issues with straight volunteer/professional militaries, namely the inescapable underlying suspicion of "the poor fighting for the rich". I'm willing to bet the lower ends of the social and income scales are rather proportionally over-represented in the ranks, for the rather simple reason the better off have by far fewer concrete incentives to enroll (and those that do are probably dedicated enough to make it into senior positions relatively quickly if they're not terminally stupid or lazy, and are likely somewhat rare too).

Which, by what I know of US education system, would also suggest rather low average base education level in the military in question.?

Here's some numbers.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...y/cda06-09.cfm
I believe you would lose your bet. Your post reeks of the same elitism that Kerry seems to suffer from. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb Vet.

[CrossLOPER]

NO.KIDDING.

He should have known that it was going to stir up alot of People's Feathers.
Having the Republicans striking back is ok to me, you messed up a joke before election day,that your own fault..

I'm not even sure about you anymore.

[Watchman]

Here's some numbers.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...y/cda06-09.cfm
I believe you would lose your bet. Your post reeks of the same elitism that Kerry seems to suffer from. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb Vet.

I stand corrected, but now I'd like to know the reason why the ratio of recruits from the poorest categories has been dropping so much. Most of the interested ones already sign up or something ?

[Papewaio]

Surely Kerry is guilty of what he was trying to accuse Bush of?

Being woefully underprepared in reading his own speech he has got himself stuck in a political quagmire due to his own slack preparation.

If he can't even navigate himself through one of his own speeches I would hate to see him trying to make a peace deal between say the PLO and Israel. It would end with both sides signing a joint treaty to attack the US.

[Watchman]

Wouldn't that be a major improvement then ? They'd be agreeing on something, and it's not like either of them could actually reach the US...

[Goofball]

On the other hand, his explanation that he really meant to imply that Bush is an idiot for getting the country stuck in Iraq seems very believable, and Republicans (and some people in the Backroom as well) are now acting like jackasses by ignoring that and continuing to swear up and down that Kerry meant to call the troops stupid.

You can name say that we're acting like jackasses all you want, it does not take away what the man said this time, or the countless other times he has disparaged the troops. You act as though we ARE stupid for comprehending what the man said. Who's the real jackass?

Point proven (as you have been so fond of saying with respect to this discussion).

Kerry said something that gave the impression that he was calling U.S. soldiers stupid. He then retracted his statements and said what he really meant was that Bush was stupid.

Now, everybody has two logical choices:

1) They can either believe his explanation and say, "Okay, we believe that you just misspoke, but still think you're an idiot." (This is the camp that I fall into.)

or

2) They can say "Whatever. We don't believe your explanation. You are an elitest liar." (This is the camp that some conservative posters fall into, and while I disagree with them, I respect their point of view and can't really argue against it. Because believing Kerry's explanation is nothing more than a subjective judgement call, and mine is no better than theirs.)

Either one of the above arguments makes sense.

On the other hand, we have just about the entire Republican party (and some posters in the Backroom) who just keep repeating over and over again "Yeah, but, we heard him! Kerry said the troops are stupid!"

That is the grade three argument.

Quite frankly, people using that argument should be careful or they may find themselves in Iraq...

[BigTex]

I had heard earlier today that he had apologized, originally I hoped this would just settle down now. Since an apology should end the argument about what he said. But it seems like he's still trying to justify what he said. Not only justifying what he said but crying fowl about Bush using a low blow. Well here's the problem, Kerry decided to first make a joke and a low blow about Bush, he majorly screwed it up. Nuff said if you screw up a low blow expect that you'll have hell to pay. Irrelavent of what he meant, what he said was the US army is full of idiots.

Hopefully this will end this skums political aspirations. It might be a GOP's wet dream but without 2 good canidates or more then its bad for the country.

[Xiahou]

Did he actually come out and apologize or is this still in reference to the blurb someone put on his website?

[KukriKhan]

Wouldn't that be a major improvement then ? They'd be agreeing on something, and it's not like either of them could actually reach the US...

Lots of folks believed that about Mr. bin Laden a few years back, too ("Haha! The Mouse That Roared! Wingnut in the middle of nowhere declares war on the US" *change channel to impeachment hearings*)

Re: Mr. Kerry. His flubs and late apology won't likely effect next weeks elections, except that it may motivate more PO'd veterans to actually march down to the polls.

However, I'm certain that the Repub machine will have stored his flub video in the arsenal for use in '08, should he even hint about thinking about considering a maybe sorta-kinda trial balloon shot at the White House. He'll retire as Senator, write a book, speak at a few campuses, and be generally ignored.

There are many sins the american electorate will forgive a politician. Condescension is not one of them.

[Tribesman]

Wow , just wow .
Looky looky ......

On the other hand, we have just about the entire Republican party (and some posters in the Backroom) who just keep repeating over and over again "Yeah, but, we heard him! Kerry said the troops are stupid!"

That is the grade three argument.

..........and in the next post lo and behold .........

Irrelavent of what he meant, what he said was the US army is full of idiots.

Undoubtably you can find a source where he said that Tex Though it might be a bit hard as he never said anything about the US army or idiots in his speech .

[BigTex]

Did he actually come out and apologize or is this still in reference to the blurb someone put on his website?

He came out and apologized "to anyone who took offense to the joke". Not exactly a very good apology but what do you expect to extract from a vile and repulsive narcissist such as him?

[Tribesman]

Originally Posted by Tribesman


Indeed Tex , any luck with finding a source that quotes what you claimed was said ?
It shouldn't be that difficult should it , you are after all quite sure of what he said .....

he said was the US army is full of idiots.

Sooooooooo .......can I expect you to post anything to back that up ?

[Don Corleone]

Oh grow up Tribesman. We all know how the joke reads at surface level and now we all know what the speechwriter meant for him to say. Not to mention, as the reigning king of refusal to provide links, you've got some nerve demanding them from anyone.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Indeed Tex , any luck with finding a source that quotes what you claimed was said ?
It shouldn't be that difficult should it , you are after all quite sure of what he said .....

Sooooooooo .......can I expect you to post anything to back that up ?

That is exactly what he said July 28 of this year. Or are you just being ignorant again? Sheesh, can't you do a little background research?

CR
Seriously, tribesy, you're being obtuse (most probable) or have a severe lack of comprehension of how language and communication works.

[Byzantine Prince]

Bush was an idiot for being stuck in Iraq, how is this about the troops who are there because Bush sent them there? It's not like the military itself has much free will in matters of invasion. You republicans/ex-soldiers are proving your comprehension skills here.

[KukriKhan]

Bush was an idiot for being stuck in Iraq, how is this about the troops who are there because Bush sent them there? It's not like the military itself has much free will in matters of invasion. You republicans/ex-soldiers are proving your comprehension skills here.

Oh look: even the little Prince has an opinion, and managed to craft an almost grammatically perfect riposte, proving not only his comprehension skills, but his mastery of the language and political astuteness.

How cute.

Never a Republican here. But I'll take credit for the ex-soldier bit.

[Byzantine Prince]

How cute.

[Papewaio]

Its good of course that Bush never makes any speech mistakes...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Goofball - I fall into a fourth category. I think Kerry is an idiot who screwed up and he's an elitist liar. He just didn't lie at that time.

[KukriKhan]

Its good of course that Bush never makes any speech mistakes...

Yeah.

"No doubt in my mind, with your help, Dave Lamberti will be the next United States congressman."—Speaking at a campaign rally for Jeff Lamberti, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006.

just the most recently-recorded mis-spokenism. :)

[Prince of the Poodles]

Here's some numbers.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...y/cda06-09.cfm
I believe you would lose your bet. Your post reeks of the same elitism that Kerry seems to suffer from. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb Vet.

Nice.

It never ceases to amaze me how underestimated the US military is by foreigners who seem to know more about our armed forces than we do. I cant say how many times Ive heard the poor, stupid, lowest of society claims, never with any proof. I'd like to see an idiot carry out the complex tasks America's soldiers are required to perform.

Just because the rank and file in Finland are aren't too bright*, doesn't mean the US will accept that low standard. Maybe thats why our army is professional.

*going by what Watchman said...

[CrossLOPER]

Just because the rank and file in Finland are aren't too bright*, doesn't mean the US will accept that low standard.

Well, I don't mean to derail this thread but...*link*

They're not going to be as bright as they are.

EDIT: Also, apparently most people really don't want to end up in Iraq.

[Fragony]

What a lot of noise because of an inapropiate joke

[Watchman]

Nice.

It never ceases to amaze me how underestimated the US military is by foreigners who seem to know more about our armed forces than we do. I cant say how many times Ive heard the poor, stupid, lowest of society claims, never with any proof. I'd like to see an idiot carry out the complex tasks America's soldiers are required to perform.

Just because the rank and file in Finland are aren't too bright*, doesn't mean the US will accept that low standard. Maybe thats why our army is professional.

*going by what Watchman said...

Actually, I firmly believe anyone who voluntarily signs up for a war as idiotic as the On Terror one without the excuse of major economic incentives has to be pretty dim in at least some ways.

The level of intelligence of the rank and file isn't actually terribly important anyway. Soldiers aren't supposed to think too much, but to do what they're told and trained to (by officers presumably chosen from among the smarter specimen). Something to do with same the logic behind the vertical/hierarchical chain of command, I understand.

Not the material, but how you use it you know ?

[Ironside]

I stand corrected, but now I'd like to know the reason why the ratio of recruits from the poorest categories has been dropping so much. Most of the interested ones already sign up or something ?

Can have something to do with that it's war-time numbers, making patrioism a more important factor. And poor people doesn't tend to be as patriotic. It also lowers the potential as a career factor, due to the increased risk involved.

"No doubt in my mind, with your help, Dave Lamberti will be the next United States congressman."—Speaking at a campaign rally for Jeff Lamberti, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006.

It's obvious that Bush supports DDave for congress!!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, I firmly believe anyone who voluntarily signs up for a war as idiotic as the On Terror one without the excuse of major economic incentives has to be pretty dim in at least some ways.

I disagree, but this position is very consistent with your previously stated criticisms of the war on terror in general and the Iraq conflict in particular.

The level of intelligence of the rank and file isn't actually terribly important anyway. Soldiers aren't supposed to think too much, but to do what they're told and trained to (by officers presumably chosen from among the smarter specimen). Something to do with same the logic behind the vertical/hierarchical chain of command, I understand.

A rather out of date view from my way of thinking. This was true of an army of the late 1700's and through the middle of the 1800s. They wanted blokes who would hold formation despite cannon balls ripping through and fire in volley when they were told. The key was discipline, and the officers were supposed to do the thinking to move around a formation that was, essentially, "one" person in action.

This kind of thinking killed tens of thousands of my countrymen during our Civil War and millions of Europeans during the Great War.

Modern combat demands looser/non-existent formations, is often shockingly mobile, and creates intense and often ambiguous decision-making situations that have to be resolved on an ongoing basis. Adaptability and rapid-fire decision-making are not encouraged by simply sweeping up the "lumber of the land" and sticking them in a uniform.

Whatever the faults of our leadership -- and to learn what people suppose those to be you can consult nearly every other thread in the Backroom -- the US military puts an emphasis on brains too. Modern combat may not be "rocket science," but it does not reward stupidity.

I will never know if Kerry simply botched a joke, or let slip some prejudice about the armed forces. Either is possible. Kerry himself is a decorated combat veteran who can't possibly be unaware of what that means -- he's been there. On the other hand, the army we fielded in Vietnam did, for a number of reasons, field too much of the "lumber," as the conscription & deferment process was full of inequities. Since that time-frame has to be a compelling part of his life experience, his views of the military may well have been somewhat "calcified" with that framework in mind.

The only thing I can see for sure here is that Kerry's gaffe (real or blown out of proportion) has handed the GOP a chance to mobilize their core voters and possibly retain Congress. This one event may reverse all of the Foley fallout that had seemed to "ice" things for the Dems. The vote was always going to come closer, but the Dems hoped that disgusted GOP voters would stay clear of the polls. Kerry (or Rove using him) just managed to remind all of them that Kerry would have more of a role in national security if they don't vote, and that will galvanize many to come to the polls on Tuesday.

[yesdachi]

The level of intelligence of the rank and file isn't actually terribly important anyway. Soldiers aren't supposed to think too much, but to do what they're told and trained to (by officers presumably chosen from among the smarter specimen). Something to do with same the logic behind the vertical/hierarchical chain of command, I understand.

It seems to me that even the even the mundane tasks the rank and file are required to carry out are more involved and require a smarter or at least a better trained soldier than ever before. I agree that soldiers are not expected to think too much but I take that to mean that they are not to think too much about things outside their given tasks, tasks that seem to take more thinking than ever.

[IRONxMortlock]

I've never really understood why Americans of the right hate Kerry so much. Ok, I get the partisan thing but I mean the right-wing is famous for its glorification of the military and veterans etc. Using such criteria for what makes a real man, I don't understand how when they look at the following two men they end up supporting Bush.

Man 1: Used family connections to take the safe way out of the war. Even then stayed AWOL for long periods, didn't take a stand on anything and enjoyed a drunken, coke fueled free-ride through life.

Man 2: Served two tours of duty in a war zone, awarded Silver Star, Bronze Star and three purple hearts. From his experiences he realised the war was wrong and needed to be ended and took a stand on a cause he believed in.

In short, one man is a decorated war hero and the other is... well, his record shows he is kind of like Mayor Quimby's son.
This site provides a comparison of the two military records. http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

I'm not trolling here, this is a serious question;
How can a right-wing which idolises the military and its heroes despise a war hero while supporting a man who didn't step up to the plate during a time of war?

[Fragony]

I've never really understood why Americans of the right hate Kerry so much. Ok, I get the partisan thing but I mean the right-wing is famous for its glorification of the military and veterans etc. Using such criteria for what makes a real man, I don't understand how when they look at the following two men they end up supporting Bush.

Man 1: Used family connections to take the safe way out of the war. Even then stayed AWOL for long periods, didn't take a stand on anything and enjoyed a drunken, coke fueled free-ride through life.

Man 2: Served two tours of duty in a war zone, awarded Silver Star, Bronze Star and three purple hearts. From his experiences he realised the war was wrong and needed to be ended and took a stand on a cause he believed in.

In short, one man is a decorated war hero and the other is... well, his record shows he is kind of like Mayor Quimby's son.
This site provides a comparison of the two military records. http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

I'm not trolling here, this is a serious question;
How can a right-wing which idolises the military and its heroes despise a war hero while supporting a man who didn't step up to the plate during a time of war?

I don't get it, what do you have against the USA, despite being nuked a few times? Why do you care so much about what goes on there? Americans are their own best critics, and there is much more debate going on then there is here in the number one champion of free press which supposedly is the Netherlands. I saw a documentary called 'outfoxed' a few weeks ago, our statetelevision was foaming because fox always seems to have two with the fox-mind and only one who opposes, kinda funny because only lefties get a stage here, would love to have only one rightwing debater against two lefties, would be a major improvement.

[IRONxMortlock]

I don't get it, what do you have against the USA, despite being nuked a few times? Why do you care so much about what goes on there? Americans are their own best critics, and there is much more debate going on then there is here in the number one champion of free press which supposedly is the Netherlands. I saw a documentary called 'outfoxed' a few weeks ago, our statetelevision was foaming because fox always seems to have two with the fox-mind and only one who opposes, kinda funny because only lefties get a stage here, would love to have only one rightwing debater against two lefties, would be a major improvement.

Yeah, well perhaps that will happen sometime.

I have no idea what your comments have to do with anything I said. I didn't bring up anything remotely "anti-american" just asked a simple question.