I wonder why...
 

Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.

And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

Eisboch
Well, well, well. Nothing like going for the "easy" answers that don't
touch upon the problems of endless deployments, the lies that took them
into war, the fear of reporting they are suffering from emotional
problems, the lack of treatment available for alcohol or drug abuse.

Typical right-wing hide your head in the sand bull****.

But that is a leadership issue, not a rank and file issue. So attack the
leaders, not the people who would defend us. Attack the Obama's, congress
and senate for keeping it going. They should either step it up to win or
pull out. These half assed political wars just get good soldiers killed for
nothing.



You must have missed the three million posts of mine that "attacked" the
criminal Bush-Cheney regime. Obama inherited 1000 dumptruck of **** from
the criminal Bush-Cheney regime, and it is going to take some time for
him to empty most of them.

For a Canadian, you sure seem overly interested in U.S. politics. Why is
that?

I wonder why...
 

HK wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:31:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

I'm not demeaning their sense of duty, but, as I have said before, we
are asking too much of too few. Five and six combat tours, just ain't
a healthy stress level on our young men and women. Wars should be a
national endeavor, not left to the few.


The draft should be reinstated, with no exemptions but for the
physically or seriously mentally challenged. That alone would put a
chill on political warmongering, because the parents of the future
draftees would want a tad more proof than the Bush Admin provided before
they sent their kids off to die for the Republican Party.

I think they should reinstate the draft too. But this time don't let
sissies like Krause fall through the cracks. I don't know how Krause's
mommy got him out of it because there isn't anything I can see that
would legitimately get him off. She probably paid off some government
official to keep her precious boy out of harm's way.

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:40:09 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:31:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

I'm not demeaning their sense of duty, but, as I have said before, we are
asking too much of too few. Five and six combat tours, just ain't a
healthy stress level on our young men and women. Wars should be a
national endeavor, not left to the few.

Thunder my friend, I cannot express to you how much I appreciate that
comment.

You are spot on.

If we're gonna do it, let's do it and get it over with.

If not, get the hell out and leave their sandbox for them to play in.

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:21:54 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:45:59 -0400, HK wrote:

The draft should be reinstated, with no exemptions but for the
physically or seriously mentally challenged. That alone would put a
chill on political warmongering, because the parents of the future
draftees would want a tad more proof than the Bush Admin provided before
they sent their kids off to die for the Republican Party.


I agree we should have the draft but I am not deluded that it would
keep old men from sending young men off to war.

As for the original post, I suspect this has more to do with the fact
that they actually do have treatment for alcoholism these days. The
military was a collection of functioning alcoholics (using the current
definition) in the 60s when I was there. There wasn't much else to do
off duty but drink in Norfolk.
You were either on duty, on Gramby street or sleeping it off in your
rack. That assumed you weren't drinking government subsidized beer in
the EM club.

Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic

I wonder why...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:45:59 -0400, HK wrote:

The draft should be reinstated, with no exemptions but for the
physically or seriously mentally challenged. That alone would put a
chill on political warmongering, because the parents of the future
draftees would want a tad more proof than the Bush Admin provided before
they sent their kids off to die for the Republican Party.


I agree we should have the draft but I am not deluded that it would
keep old men from sending young men off to war.

As for the original post, I suspect this has more to do with the fact
that they actually do have treatment for alcoholism these days. The
military was a collection of functioning alcoholics (using the current
definition) in the 60s when I was there. There wasn't much else to do
off duty but drink in Norfolk.
You were either on duty, on Gramby street or sleeping it off in your
rack. That assumed you weren't drinking government subsidized beer in
the EM club.

Beer wasn't so much as subsidised, it was tax free.

I wonder why...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic

Yabut we drank twice as much of the swill.

Eisboch

I wonder why...
 

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:01:49 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

Yabut we drank twice as much of the swill.

Well, that explains a lot. :)

Ommmmmmmmmmm........

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:04:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:26:29 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic

That was true in Bainbridge NTC, but not in Norfolk.
We gut the same cans of beer you got in town.

As Eisboch said, you just drank more, so it didn't matter anyway.
I always did my drinking downtown, but in the states I didn't get
hammered too often.
Only EM club I went to was either Little Creek or Oceana.
Can't remember. And only once, since I smashed my car up on the way
back to D&S Piers. Couldn't go any more when I got out of jail.
No car.

When I was at the AOQ in Gitmo 1968 (IBM trip) they had a beer machine
right in the building. (25 cents a can)

Gitmo was a hellhole to me. Barred window busses to get to the club,
and not a broad anywhere. Enough to make you give up drinking right
there.

--Vic

I wonder why...
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:04:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:26:29 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic
That was true in Bainbridge NTC, but not in Norfolk.
We gut the same cans of beer you got in town.

As Eisboch said, you just drank more, so it didn't matter anyway.
I always did my drinking downtown, but in the states I didn't get
hammered too often.
Only EM club I went to was either Little Creek or Oceana.
Can't remember. And only once, since I smashed my car up on the way
back to D&S Piers. Couldn't go any more when I got out of jail.
No car.

When I was at the AOQ in Gitmo 1968 (IBM trip) they had a beer machine
right in the building. (25 cents a can)

Gitmo was a hellhole to me. Barred window busses to get to the club,
and not a broad anywhere. Enough to make you give up drinking right
there.

--Vic
Busses? I guess you never got to ride the cattle cars to the club next
to the air strip??