I did write it and I suggest you calm down before rereading and responding
to it.
One of the things that you might notice if you did that is that I'm not
talking about general military *personnel,* I'm talking about military
*leaders.* I'm talking about people who have been in the military for 30
years, risen to some really high rank, and are qualified to appear on
national television as military experts, people who are *really* in charge
of the military. Something has to motivate those people to dedicate their
lives to gaining that position and I think that in a lot of cases, those
motivations are things that I would have a problem with.
I don't have any problem with general personnel and if you were thinking
rationally about what I wrote you probably would have seen that already.
At 01:32 PM 9/18/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>What did I not understand? Did you not write this?
>
> > Some part of me questions why someone would become a military leader in a
>time of peace,
> > as opposed to choosing some other career. Obviously there are people who
>do
> > this for good reasons, like to provide protection for the people they care
> > about, for all of us. But those people are given a bad rap by people with
> > an overactive Us. vs. Them mentality or an enjoyment of military action
> > that I simply can't understand.
>
>and this..
>
> > My ideologies (among other things) keep me from being in a military
> > leadership position and that makes me believe that people in such a
> > position must have significantly different ideologies than I do. Which
> > means that I'm basically going to disagree with them a lot.
>
>Let's not kid each other here. You don't like people who serve in the
>military. You can't understand it. Sure, you threw in the caveat about how
>some people join to serve their country. That's noble and you can accept
>those people. But what about the rest? Oh, those are the warmongering gun
>lovers that want to go and kill people right? After all maybe we should
>draft all war-gamers into military leadership positions. However
>tongue-in-cheek your comment was intended, it is an insight into how you
>view military leaders/personnel. Those are the people you don't like. I
>believe that you categorized them as those that enjoy military action. What
>do you mean by that? I engaged in a lot of military action but never once
>fired a round at a human being and I enjoyed it tremendously and I hoped
>that I would never have to go to war. I was fortunate because I didn't have
>to. How do I give the 'noble' people a bad name because I enjoyed it?
>
>Lets see, you're extremely pacifist and it is those ideologies (among other
>things) that prevent you from being in a military leadership position.
>Those that accept those positions must have different ideologies, therefore
>you will basically disagree with them a lot. Why? You're making
>assumptions about a group of people that you don't know anything about.
>That bothers me and I hope it is contrary to your feelings on the practice
>of doing that. It further reinforces my belief that you don't understand
>people that join the military. Do 'those' people hold the value of peace
>any less than you do? I'll answer that for you...No! They just realize
>that in order to ensure the peace of this nation and those around the world,
>you have to defend it against those that will do anything to end it. Flowers
>and songs wont stop tanks, bullets, or bombs.
>
>I did understand your post and it was condescending for the reasons I stated
>above. You came across very pretentious and elitist and I found it not only
>insulting to me, but to those that wear the uniform. My point, which you
>didn't get, was to point out to you the sacrifices that people make to serve
>this country and to be labeled so incorrectly and unjustly is wrong. It was
>my point to defend them. It's not all guts and glory like you think. It's
>hard. Very hard. And it effects those not just in the uniform but those
>associated with it. Parents, spouses, children, relatives, and friends (my
>mom cried when I enlisted). They all share in the sacrifice. I'm glad that
>you feel that the military leadership makes you feel good about your
>differences, but your opening comments were rude and insulting. If you
>can't see that or acknowledge it, then we'll just have to disagree.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Michael Corrigan
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jennifer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:34 AM
>Subject: Re: Military Leaders (was RE: George W. Bush)
>
>
> > Wow. Did you read my post and understand it? How about this. How about you
> > chill out and reread my post later when you're feeling rational about it,
> > ok? You'll see that many of your objections have already been covered in
>my
> > post in ways that agree with you.
> >
> > > > I'm extremely pacifist. I think that military action has a price way
> > >beyond
> > > > the casualties to our own people. We aren't used to paying that price
>but
> > > > people who do are still people and I really feel for them. Some part
>of me
> > > > questions why someone would become a military leader in a time of
>peace,
> > >as
> > > > opposed to choosing some other career. Obviously there are people who
>do
> > > > this for good reasons, like to provide protection for the people they
>care
> > > > about, for all of us. But those people are given a bad rap by people
>with
> > > > an overactive Us. vs. Them mentality or an enjoyment of military
>action
> > > > that I simply can't understand.
> > > >
> > > > My ideologies (among other things) keep me from being in a military
> > > > leadership position and that makes me believe that people in such a
> > > > position must have significantly different ideologies than I do. Which
> > > > means that I'm basically going to disagree with them a lot. There has
>been
> > > > a change in our military leadership recently in that we at least try
>to
> > > > avoid killing civilians and I like that. I like that a lot. I wish
>that
> > > > when military action were necessary, we could send everyone into a
>virtual
> > > > reality game and decide the winner there with no losses.
> > > >
> > > > I think that Colin Powell is an excellent example in this case, as a
> > > > military leader and as a person. He makes me feel like even though my
> > > > priorities are different, they aren't being ignored as they would have
> > >been
> > > > ignored by previous military leaders. That's probably not even the
>case.
> > > > I'm sure that he realizes that striking prematurely or unnecessarily
>will
> > > > create more problems for us down the road and to me that shows wisdom
>and
> > >a
> > > > genuine understanding of the situation. It makes me realize that our
> > > > military leaders aren't Them and that to our military leaders, I'm not
> > > > Them. We can all be different and still respect each other and still
>admit
> > > > that we agree on things.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we should draft all war-gamers into military leadership
>positions.
> > >;)
> > > >
> > > > At 03:55 PM 9/17/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > > > >Just curious, on what principal do you stand that causes you to want
>to
> > > > >dislike military leaders?
> > > > >
> > > > >Chris Montgomery
> > > > >Former military leader (no, I wasn't a general or admiral, just a
> > >mid-grade
> > > > >naval officer)
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 3:00 PM
> > > > >
> > > > ><snip>
> > > > > > As much as I want to dislike military leaders on principal
> > > > ></snip>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
