[Originally published on the Inland Anti-Empire web site.]

I think Rae Noel is pretty brave.

The 73-year-old resident of Twentynine Palms organized an anti-war protest in the heart of her very military-centered hometown. And for doing so, she lost her volunter position with the local chamber of commerce. Twentynine Palms is home to thousands of U.S. Marines and their family.

It takes courage to oppose Bush's unnecessary war, if you live in Riverside or Lake Elsinore. It takes even more courage to do so in Twentynine Palms.

While most in the city oppose her pro-peace views, Rae is supported by people like Joseph Matoush, a Gulf War veteran and retired chaplain who is a local minister in Twentynine Palms.

The peace protest on Saturday was opposed by pro-war counter-demonstrators on the other corner, the SB Sun reports. Despite the fact that protesters repeatedly have affirmed their respect and affirmation for the soldiers while opposing the policy, so many American hawks just don't get it:

But Brian Biggs, 31, who stood across the street with his wife, Dena, 30, holding signs reading "Support U.S.A. Not Terrorism' and "Disarm Saddam for Peace,' said, "I don't want to see these people spitting in the face of these men like they did my father in Vietnam.'

It fits in with the doctrine of pre-emptive war, I suppose -- pre-emptively taken offense for something which hasn't been done yet. But the anti-war protesters aren't out there spitting on people. They're not protesting the soldiers, only the unjust and unnecessary war to which they'll be deployed. What's wrong with these people? Is it just that the arguments against war can't be addressed on their own merits, so they have to invent fictional insults?

Were soldiers spit on when returning from Gulf War I? If so, I haven't heard of it -- let me know if you've more information. Wait, hold on, I do remember one case of spitting on Gulf War veterans -- the U.S. government has covered up facts about Gulf War Syndrome for years, including the negative health effects of depleted uranium and other dangers to which they exposed our loyal troops. Oh well.

Meanwhile, the chamber of commerce seems to be inventing fictional misdeeds. Rae Noel had been a volunteer with the chamber since 1991 -- back around the time of the last war, in fact -- but this week she was canned. Why? Apparently she was abusing the photocopier, to create anti-war leaflets. Thing is, though: She's got the receipts from Kinko's to prove those charges wrong. No matter, though -- she's not welcome in the very gung-ho chamber which, no doubt, views any criticism of policies as an attack on the troops.

Update: The Los Angeles Times reports that Joseph Matoush found a flyer on the front door of his church telling him to "leave America".

They are not warriors, they are what Marine Gen. Smedley Butler came to realize after 30 years: a glorified collection agency for the wealthy. Until these young folks start using their noodles, they are just attack poodles for the rich and famous.

error

Return of the 'Chicken Hawks'

"Chicken hawk" is interesting as an insult because it is such a pure example of reactionary thinking or, rather, the substitution of reaction for thinking.

By Michael Kelly

Wednesday, October 30, 2002; Page A23


The general trump-it-all insult that the antiwar crowd aims at the pro-war crowd these days is a neat little portmanteau term that manages to impute, at once, cowardice, ignorance, selfishness, bloodlust (as long as the blood spills from others' veins) and hypocrisy: "chicken hawk."

The generally accepted definition of the term, which dates at least to 1988, describes "chicken hawks" as public persons, generally male, who advocate war but who declined a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime.

"Chicken hawk" is interesting as an insult because it is such a pure example of reactionary thinking or, rather, the substitution of reaction for thinking. It is the sort of thing you say when you need to stop the argument in its tracks because you simply can't bear to address its realities. Other obvious examples of the type might include "my country right or wrong" and "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

As these suggest, the power of the reactionary argument-stopper is in inverse correlation with any underlying truth. Nothing could seem more immediately unanswerable than "my country right or wrong." Of course: It is your country, and it remains your country no matter what, and at first blush this seems the morally admirable position. But nothing could be more disastrous, or less morally supportable, than the philosophy this tautology represents: "My country right or wrong," wrote G.K. Chesterton, is on a moral par with "my mother drunk or sober." This is an idea that ends you up with Napoleon's France, Hitler's Germany and Mao's China.

So it is with "chicken hawk." Its power lies in the simplicity that comes with being completely wrong. The central implication here is that only men who have professionally endured war have the moral standing and the experiential authority to advocate war. That is, in this country at least, a radical and ahistorical view. The Founders, who knew quite well the dangers of a military class supreme, were clear in their conviction that the judgment of professional warmakers must be subordinated to the command of ignorant amateurs -- civilian leaders who were in turn subordinated to the command of civilian voters. Such has given us the leadership in war of such notable "chicken hawks" as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Further, the inescapable logic of "chicken hawk"-calling is that only military men have standing to pronounce in any way on war -- to advocate it or to advocate against it. The decision not to go to war involves exactly the same issues of experiential and moral authority as does the decision to go to war. If a past of soldiering is required for one, it is required for the other. Chicken doves have no more standing than "chicken hawks." We must leave all the decisions to the generals and the veterans.

I am myself not technically a "chicken hawk," as I was, thank God, a few years too young to serve during the Vietnam War and too old and too untrained to be of any military use during the next significant war, the Persian Gulf War of 1991. But I suppose I fit the spirit if not the letter of the slur. I am certainly now a hawk, and during the Vietnam years I was certainly a dove. What changed me was in fact experience of war -- but not as a soldier.

I covered the Gulf War as a reporter, and it was this experience, later compounded by what I saw reporting in Bosnia, that convinced me of the moral imperative, sometimes, for war.

In liberated Kuwait City, one vast crime scene, I toured the morgue one day and inspected torture and murder victims left behind by the departing Iraqis. "The corpse in drawer 3 . . . belonged to a young man," I later wrote. "When he was alive, he had been beaten from the soles of the feet to the crown of the head, and every inch of his skin was covered with purple-and-black bruises. . . . The man in drawer 12 had been burned to death with some flammable liquid. . . . Corpses 18 and 19 . . . belonged to the brothers Abbas . . . the eyeballs of the elder of the Abbas brothers had been removed. The sockets were bloody holes."

That was the beginning of the making of me as at least an honorary "chicken hawk." After that, I never again could stand the arguments of those who sat in the luxury of safety -- "advocating nonresistance behind the guns of the American Fleet," as George Orwell wrote of World War II pacifists -- and held that the moral course was, in crimes against humanity as in crimes on the street corner: Better not to get involved, dear.


© 2002 The Washington Post Company

...

Don't bother trying to point out how invalid and ignorant the label 'Chickenhawk'. The Left has already made it's t-shirts and bumper stickers, so the name stays. And if you call them on it, they'll use the F-word.

Either you agree that ChickenHawk is a valid term...or obviously you are a Saddam Hussein supporter...


...obviously...

The opponents of the Bush administration's possible military action against Iraq make the following arguments: "He's simply trying to finish the job his father started"; "No blood for oil"; "Iraq poses no imminent threat"; "Wars kill innocent women and children"; "Allow the United Nations inspections to proceed"; "Containment works"; "Avoid unilateralism, and proceed only with the United Nation's approval"; and the all-encompassing "No smoking gun exists demonstrating that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction."

But Bill Clinton, four years ago, took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments now advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. . . . Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. . . . Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves."

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed, the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military."

What a difference an administration makes.

GodDAMN...can't your guys PUT DOWN THE FUCKIN SCRIPT FOR ONCE...news flash asswipe...MOST OF THE POSTERS ON THIS BOARD DIDN'T SUPPORT CLINTON EITHER!!!

Wake up and smell the fuckin' coffee, genius!

The central question is: "Why didn't you dorks get out and protest against Clinton when he was singing from the same song book?"

Well, if your fuckin' DickHeadinChief woulda pulled his dick outta your mouth and got the job done in a coupla days like Clinton did, then there would not be enough time to mount opposition...that is why you didn't hear anything, you fucking idiot, it was over too fast.

Actually, the central question is: Why are you such a fuckin' douchebag?

I don't know about that potty-mouthed reactionary KPC, but I was definitely out protesting clintion on trade issues and on the whole yugoslav war thing.
All the while I was doing national security related work.
As said earlier, when will you all put down the script and realize the majority hear are not clinton loving barbara streisand fans.

The war on Iraq will not be helping national security

You went to such work constructing your little minute, when you could have simplified your post by getting to the point. Two, maybe three sentences is your analysis, am I correct?

Clinton v Bush and the publics approval/disapproval for each Administration's Iraqi foreign policy.

Your allegation is that people showed Clinton support and have not supported Bush? I know the comparison's between C.& B and public like/dislike seem simple to you, but it is the construction of your argument that is simple. I am actually trying to understand your point, but I don't think your anywhere near developing it.

source: whitehouse.org

Rightwingers are to fuckin' lazy to mount a protest or demonstration. Also, they don't need to. They just sit back on their fat asses and cheerlead for corporate America, the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, and the entire National Security apparatus. Real tough guys! They never have to breathe pepper spray or take a crack on the head for what they stand for, they just mock those who do.

What was it Orwell said: Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks the whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns somersaults when there is no whip.

Good description of the trolls that swing through here to "debate".

Navy Seal. right. Gotcha.

http://www.hackworth.com/sw09062002a.html

Knew it was you.

From Hackworth's site, when draft dodgers (SImple's heros) run the military: "As we gear up for the up coming event the word has been put out by high levels in the chain of command to "not talk to any reporters like Hackworth". Evidently there was quite a few high ranking members of DOD and CENTCOM community that were very embarrassed about the news of their fuck ups in Afghanistan getting out to the public. There is now a witch-hunt to try and stop guys from giving out evidence of commander incompetence. I would have thought a better method than CYA would be to learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat those mistakes. Of course when there is a 75-80% turnover in officers and senior enlisted within your unit between wars it is pretty hard to ever learn anything. Also when these inexperienced officers are primarily concerned with their own advancement at any cost and refuse to even listen to their experienced worker bee NCO's you cannot expect them to be very squared away. I guess their idea of squared away is to punch that ticket and move on up the food chain regardless of the mess they leave behind."

By the way, glad the handle bugs you.

Why do you think there is such a high turnover in officers and senior NCO's, NS? Could it be that the government doesn't pay them well, treats them poorly, traps them in no-win situations, and members of the public shit on them all the time?

But you wouldn't know that, NS, now would you?

Hack is one of my heroes, and he knows a lot about what occured in Afghanistan. The operation was running well with SOCOM in charge, but when the regular army types came in, mistakes were made. The only problem with Hack is that he thinks of what would be good for the Military first, America second. He and other warriors who suffered through the Democrat Debacle (Vietnam War), are not keen on putting soldiers into a situation where there is no exit strategy. He is opposed to 'messy' conflicts which could tie our forces down for long term occupation duty. Problem is, the choice is sometimes between doing something unpleasant, or doing nothing at all to stop something worse.

Your handle doesn't bug me. The Left is full of those who don't mind taking honorifics they could not possibly earn. I guess it comes from not wanting to post under the name "Bed wetting Leftist".

Any bets that Saddam takes the chemical weapons that he says he doesn't have and destroys them all by launching them at his neighbors? These are just the 'simple' scuds, not the missles that Blix wants him to destroy which have a much farther range. Also possible causes of 'gulf war' disease.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/envs/scud_irfna.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/theater/r-11.htm

"The only problem with Hack is that he thinks of what would be good for the Military first, America second."

You are arrogant and deserve to get your ass kicked, repeatedly, for disparaging a hero like Hack. But then, you love Chickenhawk draft dodgers. Sorry, I forgot.

First of all, Junior, don't bother threatening me. I don't pretend to be a combat soldier, I am a combat soldier. I didn't disparage Col. Hackworth, I merely stated the truth. Hack is against the war with Iraq because he beleives it would be messy and involve us in a long occupation. He is concerned with the soldier on the ground first, because they are the ones to bleed and die. The problem is that we are caught between Scylla and Charybdis. This is just the opening act of a prolonged conflict with militant Islam and the despotisms of the world.

Pvt. Fido: "I don't pretend to be a combat soldier, I am a combat soldier. "


Oh, and we are all SOOOOoooo impressed...combat soldier my ass...you're a weekend reservist who saves his combat for the keyboard...

...gee, you must have mighty wrists and fingers...is that from typing or jerking off?

KPC - How old were you when you first realized that you know everything? 15? 16?

How old are you now KPC? 15? 16? 17? 18?

Why don't you just save yourself some keystrokes and copy/paste the following into your future posts:

"I'm a complete ass and a major Jerk"

You went and insulted Bush Admirer's love.
I can feel his pain through the bitter words.
Time heals all wounds. ( in the distance somewhere
in Texas, a fat bald naval reservist is sobbing)
Does anybody care?

And time wounds all heels, Sheepdog. Wait. Did you hear that, Sheepdog? That clicking, just as you opened the webpage! No, you're not imagining it. It WAS different. More of a click-whir-click! Not the usual extended click-click sound. Oh my God, you've been bugged!!! RUN MAN!! RUN!

Of all the Senior NCOs that I saw get out short of retirement almost never was it a matter of money. It was because they got tired of being intelligent men who were good at their Profession but had simply gotten tired of the attitudes of Cake Eater's like Simpleton.
The reality is that a Senior Non Com, who is expert at what he does, is relegated to second class status behind some insufferable puppy with Butterbars on his Collar. Many of the best simply get tired of having to pretend respect to some incompetent buffoon who started on 3rd base and thought he had earned his way there.
My hat is off to Hack. I don't always agree with him but he is a REAL Soldier.

The issue IS money. During the Clinton years the military pay schedule stagnated. But what was worse was the lack of funds for live fire and field training exercises. Tanks and helicopters were in the motor pool and the hangar a lot more than when they were out in the field. The lack of realistic training led to stagnation and frustration in the NCO corps. It's hard to motivate soldiers when all they get is hip pocket training.

The low point came when we tried to deploy a single squadron of Apaches to Albania in support of the Kosovo operation. A couple of birds crashed, and the rest couldn't fly - because the pilots were inexperienced with the NODS apparatus and because of the deplorable state of PMCS on the vehicles.

The relationship between officers and NCO's is as it ever was. Good NCO's accept it and drive on. If you can't hack it, you better pack it.

I advanced through the ranks being promoted at first eligibility for every stripe. I knew my job and was good at what I did.
I saw good kids come in get disillusioned and bail out.
I saw good NCOs hang in for another enlistment or two and finally get fed up. I remember one good E-6 who was offered 7 and said "No Thanks". I also remember a lot of second-raters who stayed in because they knew they were going nowhere on the outside.
Your viewpoint is speaking from the vantage point of always having the NCOs working for you on guard as to what they say. The "I'm getting out because of the pay" line is a way of saying I am tired of your condescension you supercillious Son of a Bitch.
It does not hurt to have better pay. I never turned down a bump for either time in grade or promotion. However, I did not get out because of money. I got out because I was tired of being a second class citizen who caught hell for not living down to the stereotypes carried by all too many Officers.
In conclusion. You are full of shit.

I'm not the one spouting conspiracy theories and arrogating to myself an understanding of the Constitution superior to anyone else - that would be you, you silly child.

I've been an NCO for almost 14 years. All that time in combat arms. I don't need washed-up has beens with tin-foil antennas chanelling Josef Stalin to tell me anything. I've spent more time in the field than you did in BDU's. You are a REMF, I can smell it.

You are a coward, and what is more, a not-too-bright one at that. But keep talking, twinkie. You are nothing if not amusing. Wait. That makes you nothing.

It also does not help to be using equipment that was bought because the General's Son in Law works for the Company or because he wants to work there when he retires.
Too many Weapons Systems are political boondoggles like the deadly Osprey. The Apache is an airframe mechanics nightmare. It is overly complex, unreliable, and a hangar queen.
Without going into specifics that would be indiscreet to mention - I rememeber a piece of equipment to which I was privy to the field trials of. It looked really pretty, had all kinds of neat lights and "stuff" and we had other equipment that did the same job just as effectively but wasn't as "purty". We joked among ourselves that the Zero's would probably buy it because of the "bells and whistles" and that it looked neat. I thought about putting my re-enlistment bonus into the company. I sure regret that one. They did buy it and the stock went from 2 7/8 to 13 1/8 at it's peak. Damn!

You mean guy Diogenes, you stepped on his ego
and now we have to read more of his tantrums.
Combat indeed.
I hope if he does lead any Joes into a fire fight
he'll show more prudent tactics than he has so far.
No retreat even if it costs the lives of everyone
under his orders. There is bravery and then there is
stupidity.

Pvt. Fido is an egotistical idiot...fuck him and the calvary horse he rode in on....14 years of someone telling him where to shit and sleep and I'm supposed to be impressed...

...my dog can do that...

...wait...he IS my dog!

Now mind you now this is just a story and I know nothing about it first hand mind you, but did you know that sometimes excessively gung-ho glory hounds have accidents?
And it seems to have a long pedigree. My Dad - A Scout-Sniper/Recon during "The Big One W W Two" mentioned once that they went through 3 Lieutenants before they got a keeper.
I wonder what happened to them?

So, you're saying you're the son of a murdering coward? I never would have guessed. Although, it's probably the only way I could see anyone of your lineage shooting anyone - in the back.

The airman's wet dream of fragging the bad lieutenants. It must have been a bitch shining and fueling those planes so the college boys could fly them and get all the chicks. But son, that shouldn't make you want to kill them.

You're more messed up than I thought.

I said he talked about it happening. He also specifically said he did not take part. He did not approve. But it did happen.
Further I think the 3 Purple Hearts, Legion of Merit, Two Bronze Stars WITH V's, and a raft of lesser decorations speak more to what he was about. Most of the time he was on detached duty behind lines running naked with his squad and away from the Platoon to which he was theoretically attached.
And even had he been involved I have no use for so-called leaders who will expend the lives of their men for their own advancement and glory. If they have accidents well, self defense comes in many forms.

You obviously have no clue as to what a Marine Scout/Sniper was or what they did. One shot, one kill.

My knowledge of aircraft is purely from a distance and from having friends who did work on them. Actually pilots are not that bad. From what I hear they generally treat their support crews decently. Of course turbines are delicate things and they can require an awful lot of maintenance and if a part "breaks" that you don't have on hand that pilot don't fly, and boy do they hate that.

The Simple one uses low blows as part of its toolbag.
Some jerk called my dad an asshole for fighting the facsists
in WWII & Koria and I just concidered the source.
He got a 201 file covered with purple harts, clusters,
and citations that needed another page to hold them.
This kind of individual never fired a shot in anger, you can bet your life.

I guess I should not have let it affect me but I still look up to my Dad. What he did was not an easy job - he would not even talk about it much except when he was really loaded. But I picked up pieces from him and stuff my Uncles told me about what he did. There were men who did more than he did, but there weren't a lot of them.

If you two girls are through playing kissy-face, can we get back to my kicking your asses?

Diogenes, you BRAGGED that your dad, a combat soldier, was in a unit that MURDERED three American military officers. You DID NOT say that your father didn't participate. If you don't beleive me, look at your post:

"Now mind you now this is just a story and I know nothing about it first hand mind you, but did you know that sometimes excessively gung-ho glory hounds have accidents?
And it seems to have a long pedigree. My Dad - A Scout-Sniper/Recon during "The Big One W W Two" mentioned once that they went through 3 Lieutenants before they got a keeper.
I wonder what happened to them?"

Furthermore, your father, whether he particpated or not, is an accessory after the fact for failing to report the murdering scumbags who did the deeds. So he is either a killer or a coward. Take your pick.

The question is, what was your point in posting this story in the first place? Are you suggesting that our soldiers should similarly execute their officers?

I, and others, have been excoriated by you and your fellow travellers for questioning your patriotism. You have repeatedly accused us of stupidity, and claimed we haven't grasped that people of good will could be against the coming conflict. Now you trot out tales of 'fraggings' after accusing the President of 'treason'.

Yep, you sound like a person of good will who is just opposed to the war on ideological grounds.

Again, the apple never falls far from the tree.

So be it. Since I know you to be a low blow artist the shock value works once and only once. Given that the closest you have probably ever been to a real Combat Zone was a John Wayne movie the shock value works even less.
Taken at a philosophical level - if you are in a real Combat Unit which is already taking serious casualties just from doing your job and then all of a sudden you get some clown who is more interested in Medals and Promotions, disregards the welfare of his men, well what do you expect from a group of Battle Hardened Combat Soldiers. Tea and Crumpets? Thank you's for the opportunity to die for your next ribbon? They want to accomplish their objective and live to tell about it. Their JOB is not winning medals for some asshole. There is enough of that if you just do your job well.
That does not mean I approve of the practice, but I can see the moral gray area - who is the bigger enemy? The opposition or the glory hound more interested in selfish personal interests? It is an interesting question.
With your attitude I think I would wear a flak jacket and keep a couple of the more popular guys in your Platoon next to you all the time IF you ever go into a real Combat Zone.

Take care of your men and they WILL take care of you. If you as a leader exhibit good leadership and do not demand unnecessary risks your men will come to trust your judgement. Good Officers and Non Coms EARN the respect of their men. If you earn their respect they will do for you things that glory hound asshole we were speaking of, in theory, could never get from his men. They'll even die for you.

As a vietnam vet of color, I think you are way out of line. Your comments are hurtful and disrespectful. If it wasn't for me and others like me, you would be speaking chinese right now, you racist.

The crowds are staggering in scope.
. Where are the police
barricades?
It just isn’t the same without police, pepper spray and some
solid drubbing to bring out the festive camaraderie.
irrelevant perhaps with the press coverage.
Good work. Good going.
Sheepdog is so popular.

The Poisoned Battlefield
By Craig Harrington MAJ, USA (Ret./prior service)
Soldiers For The Truth
3-2-3

Where To Get Gear That Works
 
I had a sit down meal last nite with a smart young soldier from a unit that is in close proximity to my location. I am not talking about a National Guard or Reserve unit, but historically one of the most famous fighting units in the Army. I asked him about how the personal gear was coming along since I last made my own foray to the Middle East about 12 years ago.
 
1. MK IV 5.56. The ACOG scope that comes with the MK IV has some issues: fogs up in poor weather, short battery life and glare makes it often impossible to see a target at range. Soldiers are spending their own money, in some cases, to buy the Leupold MK IV CQT, which is a much superior scope in all cases to the ACOG for between $600.00 - $800.00.
 
http://www.bearbasin.com/catalog.htm#tact_scopes
< FONT SIZE=+1>http://www.leupold.com/corporate/press_releases/New_Mark4_CQT_Specs.pdf< /FONT>
http://www.leupold.com/corporate/press_releases/New_Mark4_CQT.pdf
http://www.leupold.com/products/Info_Mark4_CQT.htm
 
2. Desert Boots. The word from Afghanistan is that the boots rip out the sides and just plain don't hold up.
 
3. NBC - Nuclear, Biological, Chemical gear.
- Sanators: 50% operational rate with "parts on order." This is the little cannister gizmo that you use to decon your equipment.
- NBC protective suit (JSLIST):
a. The suits have not been completely issued. 1 set per soldier, although 2 suits per soldier are supposed to be issued. It has been found out that when you open up the package containing the suit (not supposed to open it until you need it) that what was packaged as a jacket might actually be pants. The soldiers know this and are notably concerned. Surprise when you open the packages and you have two pair of pants and no jacket w/hood.
b. The carry bags to carry the packaged suits have not been issued to all soldiers.
c. There are not enough pro masks.
 
4. New "Flak" jackets:
a. Not enough of the new flak jackets.
b. Not enough armor plate inserts for the jackets that have been issued.
c. Incompatible with old rucksack & frame
 
5. Rucksack.
a. New synthetic moly rucksack frame breaks easily.
Seems to me that if you "don't" need to walk to the objective, "don't" have to shoot anybody, "don't" get shot at along the way, "don't" need to carry anything and you and you "don't" encounter any NBC hazards this should be a "cake walk."
Craig Harrington
 
MAJ, USA (Ret./prior service)
http://www.sftt.org/pb02272003a.html

Are the new suits effective enough to move
hung with a typical combat load in urban
settings?
I knew the old rubber biscuits were like hell
to qualify in, let alone work.
Nevermind that shit; I was just wondering out
loud.
Christ you guys, fucking shit.

I remember when the A.L.I.C.E. Came out and it was pointed out that after all the money spent developing it that you could buy a better, more functional Pack, off the shelf at any good Back Packing Shop.

George Carlin was right: "Military Intelligence" is a contradiction in terms - at least when it comes to procuring usable equipment. Developed and ordered by Supply-Types who never use it and don't care as long as it came from the "lowest bidder". Is this any way to run an Army?

Reminds me when the colt co. came out with
this new light rifle the m16 1A
Great little gun. IT WAS CUTE AND EXPENSIVE.
Felt like a spring operated squirrel gun.
Replaced the m14 which was probably the best
battle rifle ever made.
It was fun to clean under hostile fire after
a few clips when it jammed. And lord did it
ever jam. Just when you had Sgt. Simple's
head riding on the bead.
Later they put that cute little forward assist
to maybe jack one or two more rounds forward if
and when it did. They later screwed up the flash
suppressor, turning it into that bird cage.
Hell that was the only thing that worked.

Hey, Sheepdog - bro - that is way out of line. I know you're frustrated, but chill.

Equipment failures are good for the GNP.
More business, in the form of reorders,extra orders, new orders and juicy new contracts.
yum
Oops, wrong forum.

Yo Dog I'll tell what's wrong with the 14 too Goddamn heavy - and if you are someone with small hands - like me for example it is hard to get comfortable with it with contorting into a position even a hooker would consider undignified. Now a mini-14 is more my size.

The 16, as you are probably aware, was developed for bush fighting in close quarters.

The Army never seems to figure out that it might be wise to train people in the use of an open country weapon like the M-14 AND a close quarters weapon the M-16.

You got a point about size and weight.
I'm not exactly small and can carry but
the weight could have been chopped with
composit. The round couldn't be argued with
even through brush, and It killed. Out to
line of sight, believe me. You could clean the business part of the receiver when it jammed. The one I have
cooked off 200 rounds of reload without failure.
The major problem with the rifle was warp of the
wooden bed and stock in that humidity. I love my guns.

My Dad for example swore up and down that there was never a better Rifle than the 1903 Springfield. Who's to argue with the Marine Corps representative in the NRA finals (he lost to the Army guy by .04 points - he was broken hearted to the day of his death - he choked on the final round and put one round outside the bullseye otherwise he wins. Never did get over it.

Yes the larger round of the 14 is definitely a killer. And more range. But I make a funny pretzel. Composite stock would help but I would need a custom to allow my little paws to get a proper grip and good stability when standing. I'm fine prone but any other position and I have trouble. Maybe lift more weights.

Think they'd let me smoke Cigars in the Gym?

I grew up with the mini 14 my Dad had but what I preffered was his AR-180. So armalite gets my vote. Very Light. Very Simple. Very effective.

I like the mini 14
scaled down with ruger's superior
materials from a real rifle with
a real round. Don't hunt large game
with one.
I also like my SKS for its simplicity
and reliability and the heaver, more stable
round. Nice brush weapon, dirt and snow not
withstanding. Dependable.
I love also the '06 because it is a mouser.

'03, damnit.

Now if you guys will drop ship me a Mini-14 all will be well.

While you're at it I need a good snake gun - Remington 870 maybe?

I would suggest a mosberg roadblocker
This box fed 10 gauge works well on snakes
even the swarms of black mombas which try to ambush me
when ever I go for the mail box.
The slugs work well but I've found the wirebead buckshot
has a nice scything effect.

Why is it that somebody who disagrees with a Liberal is automatically, a right wing, bubba, war mongering fanatic.

The sixties are over and all the burned out hippies and wannabe, bongo bangers are not going to bring it back.

And if you believe that insulting the intelligence of someone you disagree with makes your arguments appear more sound - you are sadly lacking the basic understanding of free speech and democracy.

I, like most Americans are NOT PRO WAR, but we are -in favor of an active and aggressive defense - which includes preemptive strikes against those who aid, harbor and supply terrorists, especially when they have been warned repeatedly to desist.

So if you don't get it, you never will - probably not even when the terrorists stuff a nuke into the hold of an oil tanker and detonate it in New York harbor.

To any human being, just to Simple Simon.
You one of its crew?

Hmmm, curious post:

"Why is it that somebody who disagrees with a Liberal is automatically, a right wing, bubba, war mongering fanatic."

Why is it that somebody who disagrees with a Republican is a burned out hippy wannabe banging bongos and pining for the sixties?


"And if you believe that insulting the intelligence of someone you disagree with makes your arguments appear more sound - you are sadly lacking the basic understanding of free speech and democracy."

How does someone tossing insults (which I have done occaisionally) show someone doesn't understand free speech and democracy? How are they linked...seems like a logic gap there somewhere

"I, like most Americans are NOT PRO WAR, but we are -in favor of an active and aggressive defense - which includes preemptive strikes against those who aid, harbor and supply terrorists, especially when they have been warned repeatedly to desist. "

Translation - Pro War! Besides, will we attack Florida and Jeb Bush for harboring that known terrorist, Orlando Bosch? I think not...

"So if you don't get it, you never will - probably not even when the terrorists stuff a nuke into the hold of an oil tanker and detonate it in New York harbor."

If you don't get it, you never will...not even when your chickens come home to roost....