On 9/3/14 3:51 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:31 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 2:49 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 1:32 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:02:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Unfortunately these drone strikes are not nearly as surgical as the
government would have you believe. We are creating far more
militants
than we kill.

And far less than troops on the ground. Pick your poison.

I just think the psychological effect of drones is the opposite of
what we want.
We act like there is some kind of Yamamoto out there that will
seriously degrade their capability if we kill him.
The reality is the knowledge is pretty freely disseminated among the
gangs and there is no one single leader or mechanic who is key to the
operation. We only make martyrs. When we take out a bunch of
innocents, it is just a recruiting tool. I suppose we can just kill
them all but there is over a billion of them world wide


That is correct. Having the biggest, baddest military in the world is
not relevant anymore.


Why is Russia spending whatever it can on revitalizing and expanding
it's military?

Why is China investing heavily into an expanded and modern Navy and Air
Force?



Do you know how much they'd have to be spending annually to catch up
with our level of military waste? Do you think either of them envision a
shooting war against the United States?



China is specifically investing in anti-ship systems, anti-submarine
(detection) systems plus a build schedule of new ships, including air
craft carriers. They are also developing their own version of the F-35
that reportedly may be a superior aircraft.

Russia is also investing heavily in their Navy, with a very ambitious
build schedule.

Our Navy has been reduced to that of the Carter administration. (under
300 ships). An overall scale back of personnel has begun that will put
overall military numbers at pre-WWII levels.



So? Who are we going to fight? The Russians? The Chinese? Qatar?

On 9/3/2014 4:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:51 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:31 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 2:49 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 1:32 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:02:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Unfortunately these drone strikes are not nearly as surgical as the
government would have you believe. We are creating far more
militants
than we kill.

And far less than troops on the ground. Pick your poison.

I just think the psychological effect of drones is the opposite of
what we want.
We act like there is some kind of Yamamoto out there that will
seriously degrade their capability if we kill him.
The reality is the knowledge is pretty freely disseminated among the
gangs and there is no one single leader or mechanic who is key to the
operation. We only make martyrs. When we take out a bunch of
innocents, it is just a recruiting tool. I suppose we can just kill
them all but there is over a billion of them world wide


That is correct. Having the biggest, baddest military in the world is
not relevant anymore.


Why is Russia spending whatever it can on revitalizing and expanding
it's military?

Why is China investing heavily into an expanded and modern Navy and Air
Force?



Do you know how much they'd have to be spending annually to catch up
with our level of military waste? Do you think either of them envision a
shooting war against the United States?



China is specifically investing in anti-ship systems, anti-submarine
(detection) systems plus a build schedule of new ships, including air
craft carriers. They are also developing their own version of the F-35
that reportedly may be a superior aircraft.

Russia is also investing heavily in their Navy, with a very ambitious
build schedule.

Our Navy has been reduced to that of the Carter administration. (under
300 ships). An overall scale back of personnel has begun that will put
overall military numbers at pre-WWII levels.



So? Who are we going to fight? The Russians? The Chinese? Qatar?


Harry, having "the biggest, baddest military in the world" usually
means you don't have to fight.

On 9/3/14 4:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:29 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:11 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 2:49 PM, KC wrote:
On 9/3/2014 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:29 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:

It was a response to your "Well, that might be the answer you
mustered
out old military farts want,but it sure as hell hasn't worked so
far, has it?" comment.

Yes, it has worked. Our policies may be flawed but the military
has
done
everything asked of it and more.

Off the subject, but I often reflect on my military time and
compare it
to my career as a civilian. My experiences are somewhat unique (I
think)
in the respect that I was military for the first 11 years of my
adult
life before ditching the uniform for a suit and tie in a civilian
career
that eventually included owning and running a small company
consisting of about 100 people.

Contrary to what you may think, the US military is incredibly
efficient.
The schools, equipment and methodology used to train people with no
previously acquired skills or formal education still amazes me.
Unlike
the civilian world there are no office politics, no special
privileges to
a select few. It is a true, equal opportunity employer with
"opportunity" underscored. I've said many times that I received
more in
knowledge, education and experience than I gave in return during
the 9
years of active duty and 2 years in the reserves.

Most of our failures regards the military and perceived failures are
more
likely to be followed back to some liberal arts grad, who went in to
politics. And told the military what to do do and micro managed the
military. How many of LBJ and his advisors were not liberal arts
grads?

Yeah Harry loves those liberal arts majors, like Rumsfeld (Princeton
BA PoliSci) Cheney (Univ Wyoming MA in PoliSci) Wolfowitz (Univ
Chicago BA PoliSci) GW Bush (Yale BA History) GHW Bush (Yale BA
economics)


Harry went to Yale with them and thinks he has come a lot further and
touched more lives than any of them... kind of like the way he bitches
about Steve Doocey, one of the most liked guys in TV...



The anti-intellectualism expressed here by you righties is just
frippin'
hilarious. Human intel gathering is best done by humans with liberal
arts educations. Of course, few of you even know what a liberal arts
education encompasses. Hell, most of you righties can't even follow a
thread without drifting way off course.

I was discussing our failures in human intel, *not* waving the flag for
the wonderful accomplishments of military personnel. Bilious Bill as
usual cannot follow any conversation without tripping over it. Fretwell
throws in neocons and their college majors, and, of course, the
newsgroup psychotic is off in outer space, as usual.

I'm not talking about photo interpretation, or about figuring out what
scientific data means...I'm talking about using knowledge of language,
history, personality analysis, cultural differences...the tools a field
agent uses to gather human intel. You know, the kind of stuff that
indicates where Osama might have been hiding, or what was on his mind,
or who he spoke with, or who he slept with, or what he liked to eat for
dinner, or who he trusted...the sort of info you get via human
interaction, the sort of info you do not get by waterboarding, the sort
of data you do get via effective practice of tradecraft.



this is funny as hell.


Yeah, we know you're the official military flag waver, and I've read
how boot camp was a wonderful experience for all you mustered out
oldsters. Yahoo.


Don't get your underwear in a bunch. Not everyone is cut out for
military service.

BTW ... "Boot Camp" is a very small part of a typical four year
contract, but it's one of the parts you never really forget. Bit of a
"culture shock". In later years it's fun to share experiences with
others who experienced it.

It's entirely understandable that you have no respect for the
experiences of others. You didn't do it, therefore it should have no
value for anyone. Correct?




Oh, please. I have plenty of respect for many of the experiences of
others, no matter what their field of endeavor, especially if they have
excelled at it in some significant way.

A couple of army intel officers I knew in Kansas City tried to get me to
sign up for some OCS program available at the time, but I had no
interest in doing anything to further the slaughter of SE Asians, and I
was even less interested in "the military." This was in the mid-1960s.

On 9/3/14 4:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 4:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:51 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:31 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 2:49 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 1:32 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:02:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Unfortunately these drone strikes are not nearly as surgical as
the
government would have you believe. We are creating far more
militants
than we kill.

And far less than troops on the ground. Pick your poison.

I just think the psychological effect of drones is the opposite of
what we want.
We act like there is some kind of Yamamoto out there that will
seriously degrade their capability if we kill him.
The reality is the knowledge is pretty freely disseminated among the
gangs and there is no one single leader or mechanic who is key to
the
operation. We only make martyrs. When we take out a bunch of
innocents, it is just a recruiting tool. I suppose we can just kill
them all but there is over a billion of them world wide


That is correct. Having the biggest, baddest military in the world is
not relevant anymore.


Why is Russia spending whatever it can on revitalizing and expanding
it's military?

Why is China investing heavily into an expanded and modern Navy and
Air
Force?



Do you know how much they'd have to be spending annually to catch up
with our level of military waste? Do you think either of them
envision a
shooting war against the United States?



China is specifically investing in anti-ship systems, anti-submarine
(detection) systems plus a build schedule of new ships, including air
craft carriers. They are also developing their own version of the F-35
that reportedly may be a superior aircraft.

Russia is also investing heavily in their Navy, with a very ambitious
build schedule.

Our Navy has been reduced to that of the Carter administration. (under
300 ships). An overall scale back of personnel has begun that will put
overall military numbers at pre-WWII levels.



So? Who are we going to fight? The Russians? The Chinese? Qatar?


Harry, having "the biggest, baddest military in the world" usually
means you don't have to fight.


Oh. Really? Then...why have we engaged in warmaking for many of the
decades after the end of WWII?

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:11:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The anti-intellectualism expressed here by you righties is just frippin'
hilarious. Human intel gathering is best done by humans with liberal
arts educations. Of course, few of you even know what a liberal arts
education encompasses. Hell, most of you righties can't even follow a
thread without drifting way off course.

I was discussing our failures in human intel, *not* waving the flag for
the wonderful accomplishments of military personnel. Bilious Bill as
usual cannot follow any conversation without tripping over it. Fretwell
throws in neocons and their college majors, and, of course, the
newsgroup psychotic is off in outer space, as usual.

I'm not talking about photo interpretation, or about figuring out what
scientific data means...I'm talking about using knowledge of language,
history, personality analysis, cultural differences...the tools a field
agent uses to gather human intel. You know, the kind of stuff that
indicates where Osama might have been hiding, or what was on his mind,
or who he spoke with, or who he slept with, or what he liked to eat for
dinner, or who he trusted...the sort of info you get via human
interaction, the sort of info you do not get by waterboarding, the sort
of data you do get via effective practice of tradecraft.

===

Harry, you make such a compelling argument that you are ideally suited
for such a role. You should volunteer now. Not only might you be
a possible savior of western civilization, but you could serve your
country at the same time -- better late than never. Oh, and by the
way, don't get caught. If so, heads will roll, more specifically,
your head.

On 9/3/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 4:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:29 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:11 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 2:49 PM, KC wrote:
On 9/3/2014 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:29 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:

It was a response to your "Well, that might be the answer you
mustered
out old military farts want,but it sure as hell hasn't worked so
far, has it?" comment.

Yes, it has worked. Our policies may be flawed but the military
has
done
everything asked of it and more.

Off the subject, but I often reflect on my military time and
compare it
to my career as a civilian. My experiences are somewhat unique (I
think)
in the respect that I was military for the first 11 years of my
adult
life before ditching the uniform for a suit and tie in a civilian
career
that eventually included owning and running a small company
consisting of about 100 people.

Contrary to what you may think, the US military is incredibly
efficient.
The schools, equipment and methodology used to train people
with no
previously acquired skills or formal education still amazes me.
Unlike
the civilian world there are no office politics, no special
privileges to
a select few. It is a true, equal opportunity employer with
"opportunity" underscored. I've said many times that I received
more in
knowledge, education and experience than I gave in return during
the 9
years of active duty and 2 years in the reserves.

Most of our failures regards the military and perceived failures
are
more
likely to be followed back to some liberal arts grad, who went
in to
politics. And told the military what to do do and micro managed
the
military. How many of LBJ and his advisors were not liberal arts
grads?

Yeah Harry loves those liberal arts majors, like Rumsfeld (Princeton
BA PoliSci) Cheney (Univ Wyoming MA in PoliSci) Wolfowitz (Univ
Chicago BA PoliSci) GW Bush (Yale BA History) GHW Bush (Yale BA
economics)


Harry went to Yale with them and thinks he has come a lot further and
touched more lives than any of them... kind of like the way he
bitches
about Steve Doocey, one of the most liked guys in TV...



The anti-intellectualism expressed here by you righties is just
frippin'
hilarious. Human intel gathering is best done by humans with liberal
arts educations. Of course, few of you even know what a liberal arts
education encompasses. Hell, most of you righties can't even follow a
thread without drifting way off course.

I was discussing our failures in human intel, *not* waving the flag
for
the wonderful accomplishments of military personnel. Bilious Bill as
usual cannot follow any conversation without tripping over it.
Fretwell
throws in neocons and their college majors, and, of course, the
newsgroup psychotic is off in outer space, as usual.

I'm not talking about photo interpretation, or about figuring out what
scientific data means...I'm talking about using knowledge of language,
history, personality analysis, cultural differences...the tools a
field
agent uses to gather human intel. You know, the kind of stuff that
indicates where Osama might have been hiding, or what was on his mind,
or who he spoke with, or who he slept with, or what he liked to eat
for
dinner, or who he trusted...the sort of info you get via human
interaction, the sort of info you do not get by waterboarding, the
sort
of data you do get via effective practice of tradecraft.



this is funny as hell.


Yeah, we know you're the official military flag waver, and I've read
how boot camp was a wonderful experience for all you mustered out
oldsters. Yahoo.


Don't get your underwear in a bunch. Not everyone is cut out for
military service.

BTW ... "Boot Camp" is a very small part of a typical four year
contract, but it's one of the parts you never really forget. Bit of a
"culture shock". In later years it's fun to share experiences with
others who experienced it.

It's entirely understandable that you have no respect for the
experiences of others. You didn't do it, therefore it should have no
value for anyone. Correct?




Oh, please. I have plenty of respect for many of the experiences of
others, no matter what their field of endeavor, especially if they have
excelled at it in some significant way.

A couple of army intel officers I knew in Kansas City tried to get me to
sign up for some OCS program available at the time, but I had no
interest in doing anything to further the slaughter of SE Asians, and I
was even less interested in "the military." This was in the mid-1960s.


Ergo your criticism of those who, by choice or not, answered the call
and served. Got it.

On 9/3/2014 3:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Oh, please. I have plenty of respect for many of the experiences of
others, no matter what their field of endeavor, especially if they have
excelled at it in some significant way.

How about if they excelled in an insignificant way?
You really are a moron.

On 9/3/2014 3:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:11:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The anti-intellectualism expressed here by you righties is just frippin'
hilarious. Human intel gathering is best done by humans with liberal
arts educations. Of course, few of you even know what a liberal arts
education encompasses. Hell, most of you righties can't even follow a
thread without drifting way off course.

I was discussing our failures in human intel, *not* waving the flag for
the wonderful accomplishments of military personnel. Bilious Bill as
usual cannot follow any conversation without tripping over it. Fretwell
throws in neocons and their college majors, and, of course, the
newsgroup psychotic is off in outer space, as usual.

I'm not talking about photo interpretation, or about figuring out what
scientific data means...I'm talking about using knowledge of language,
history, personality analysis, cultural differences...the tools a field
agent uses to gather human intel. You know, the kind of stuff that
indicates where Osama might have been hiding, or what was on his mind,
or who he spoke with, or who he slept with, or what he liked to eat for
dinner, or who he trusted...the sort of info you get via human
interaction, the sort of info you do not get by waterboarding, the sort
of data you do get via effective practice of tradecraft.

===

Harry, you make such a compelling argument that you are ideally suited
for such a role. You should volunteer now. Not only might you be
a possible savior of western civilization, but you could serve your
country at the same time -- better late than never. Oh, and by the
way, don't get caught. If so, heads will roll, more specifically,
your head.

how did you know his head is shaped like a bowling ball?

On 9/3/14 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 4:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:29 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:11 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 2:49 PM, KC wrote:
On 9/3/2014 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:29 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:

It was a response to your "Well, that might be the answer you
mustered
out old military farts want,but it sure as hell hasn't worked so
far, has it?" comment.

Yes, it has worked. Our policies may be flawed but the military
has
done
everything asked of it and more.

Off the subject, but I often reflect on my military time and
compare it
to my career as a civilian. My experiences are somewhat
unique (I
think)
in the respect that I was military for the first 11 years of my
adult
life before ditching the uniform for a suit and tie in a civilian
career
that eventually included owning and running a small company
consisting of about 100 people.

Contrary to what you may think, the US military is incredibly
efficient.
The schools, equipment and methodology used to train people
with no
previously acquired skills or formal education still amazes me.
Unlike
the civilian world there are no office politics, no special
privileges to
a select few. It is a true, equal opportunity employer with
"opportunity" underscored. I've said many times that I received
more in
knowledge, education and experience than I gave in return during
the 9
years of active duty and 2 years in the reserves.

Most of our failures regards the military and perceived failures
are
more
likely to be followed back to some liberal arts grad, who went
in to
politics. And told the military what to do do and micro managed
the
military. How many of LBJ and his advisors were not liberal arts
grads?

Yeah Harry loves those liberal arts majors, like Rumsfeld
(Princeton
BA PoliSci) Cheney (Univ Wyoming MA in PoliSci) Wolfowitz (Univ
Chicago BA PoliSci) GW Bush (Yale BA History) GHW Bush (Yale BA
economics)


Harry went to Yale with them and thinks he has come a lot further
and
touched more lives than any of them... kind of like the way he
bitches
about Steve Doocey, one of the most liked guys in TV...



The anti-intellectualism expressed here by you righties is just
frippin'
hilarious. Human intel gathering is best done by humans with liberal
arts educations. Of course, few of you even know what a liberal arts
education encompasses. Hell, most of you righties can't even follow a
thread without drifting way off course.

I was discussing our failures in human intel, *not* waving the flag
for
the wonderful accomplishments of military personnel. Bilious Bill as
usual cannot follow any conversation without tripping over it.
Fretwell
throws in neocons and their college majors, and, of course, the
newsgroup psychotic is off in outer space, as usual.

I'm not talking about photo interpretation, or about figuring out
what
scientific data means...I'm talking about using knowledge of
language,
history, personality analysis, cultural differences...the tools a
field
agent uses to gather human intel. You know, the kind of stuff that
indicates where Osama might have been hiding, or what was on his
mind,
or who he spoke with, or who he slept with, or what he liked to eat
for
dinner, or who he trusted...the sort of info you get via human
interaction, the sort of info you do not get by waterboarding, the
sort
of data you do get via effective practice of tradecraft.



this is funny as hell.


Yeah, we know you're the official military flag waver, and I've read
how boot camp was a wonderful experience for all you mustered out
oldsters. Yahoo.


Don't get your underwear in a bunch. Not everyone is cut out for
military service.

BTW ... "Boot Camp" is a very small part of a typical four year
contract, but it's one of the parts you never really forget. Bit of a
"culture shock". In later years it's fun to share experiences with
others who experienced it.

It's entirely understandable that you have no respect for the
experiences of others. You didn't do it, therefore it should have no
value for anyone. Correct?




Oh, please. I have plenty of respect for many of the experiences of
others, no matter what their field of endeavor, especially if they have
excelled at it in some significant way.

A couple of army intel officers I knew in Kansas City tried to get me to
sign up for some OCS program available at the time, but I had no
interest in doing anything to further the slaughter of SE Asians, and I
was even less interested in "the military." This was in the mid-1960s.


Ergo your criticism of those who, by choice or not, answered the call
and served. Got it.



My disdain for several of those here who "served" has nothing to do with
their military service.

On 9/3/2014 5:26 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 4:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:29 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:11 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 2:49 PM, KC wrote:
On 9/3/2014 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:29 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:

It was a response to your "Well, that might be the answer you
mustered
out old military farts want,but it sure as hell hasn't worked so
far, has it?" comment.

Yes, it has worked. Our policies may be flawed but the military
has
done
everything asked of it and more.

Off the subject, but I often reflect on my military time and
compare it
to my career as a civilian. My experiences are somewhat
unique (I
think)
in the respect that I was military for the first 11 years of my
adult
life before ditching the uniform for a suit and tie in a
civilian
career
that eventually included owning and running a small company
consisting of about 100 people.

Contrary to what you may think, the US military is incredibly
efficient.
The schools, equipment and methodology used to train people
with no
previously acquired skills or formal education still amazes me.
Unlike
the civilian world there are no office politics, no special
privileges to
a select few. It is a true, equal opportunity employer with
"opportunity" underscored. I've said many times that I received
more in
knowledge, education and experience than I gave in return during
the 9
years of active duty and 2 years in the reserves.

Most of our failures regards the military and perceived failures
are
more
likely to be followed back to some liberal arts grad, who went
in to
politics. And told the military what to do do and micro managed
the
military. How many of LBJ and his advisors were not liberal arts
grads?

Yeah Harry loves those liberal arts majors, like Rumsfeld
(Princeton
BA PoliSci) Cheney (Univ Wyoming MA in PoliSci) Wolfowitz (Univ
Chicago BA PoliSci) GW Bush (Yale BA History) GHW Bush (Yale BA
economics)


Harry went to Yale with them and thinks he has come a lot further
and
touched more lives than any of them... kind of like the way he
bitches
about Steve Doocey, one of the most liked guys in TV...



The anti-intellectualism expressed here by you righties is just
frippin'
hilarious. Human intel gathering is best done by humans with liberal
arts educations. Of course, few of you even know what a liberal arts
education encompasses. Hell, most of you righties can't even
follow a
thread without drifting way off course.

I was discussing our failures in human intel, *not* waving the flag
for
the wonderful accomplishments of military personnel. Bilious Bill as
usual cannot follow any conversation without tripping over it.
Fretwell
throws in neocons and their college majors, and, of course, the
newsgroup psychotic is off in outer space, as usual.

I'm not talking about photo interpretation, or about figuring out
what
scientific data means...I'm talking about using knowledge of
language,
history, personality analysis, cultural differences...the tools a
field
agent uses to gather human intel. You know, the kind of stuff that
indicates where Osama might have been hiding, or what was on his
mind,
or who he spoke with, or who he slept with, or what he liked to eat
for
dinner, or who he trusted...the sort of info you get via human
interaction, the sort of info you do not get by waterboarding, the
sort
of data you do get via effective practice of tradecraft.



this is funny as hell.


Yeah, we know you're the official military flag waver, and I've read
how boot camp was a wonderful experience for all you mustered out
oldsters. Yahoo.


Don't get your underwear in a bunch. Not everyone is cut out for
military service.

BTW ... "Boot Camp" is a very small part of a typical four year
contract, but it's one of the parts you never really forget. Bit of a
"culture shock". In later years it's fun to share experiences with
others who experienced it.

It's entirely understandable that you have no respect for the
experiences of others. You didn't do it, therefore it should have no
value for anyone. Correct?




Oh, please. I have plenty of respect for many of the experiences of
others, no matter what their field of endeavor, especially if they have
excelled at it in some significant way.

A couple of army intel officers I knew in Kansas City tried to get me to
sign up for some OCS program available at the time, but I had no
interest in doing anything to further the slaughter of SE Asians, and I
was even less interested in "the military." This was in the mid-1960s.


Ergo your criticism of those who, by choice or not, answered the call
and served. Got it.



My disdain for several of those here who "served" has nothing to do with
their military service.
Good gracious. What is it then?