 cptenaud says: There are some soldiers that are adamantly against an activist foreign policy. They are individuals that would share the philosophy in this regard with Patrick Buchanan. Foreign policy is an area that falls completely within the purview of the Executive Branch. It would be completely inappropriate for a soldier to "campaign" for one of the candidates because that candidate is less interventionist or more interventionist. No we get to the "elephant in the living room." I am a senior Officer in the United States Army who has attended the senior service colleges. I have served in a multitude of command, instructor and staff positions over two decades. In November 2008, I am going to vote for Barack Obama. I am not voting for him because he is "going to get us out of Iraq." I recognize that is the prerogative of the Executive Branch. I am voting for Barack Obama because he is the best possible candidate to "reset and re-equip" the United States Army which has been so damaged that its ability to protect the people of the United States has been severely compromised. Regardless what Admiral Mullen says, when a soldier remains silent when his/her professional training as a soldier says otherwise, they are committing the gravest damage when they remain silent. If Candidate A decided that we would attack Iran, with a single Infantry Company... I know a little of where you're comin' from, Cpt. but How about not sendin' them at all...that would be my choice! The Empire cannot hold center, let alone so many fronts in the s0-called war on terror. How do ya combat a tactic? Especially Guerrilla wars, like Afghanistan. We never seem to learn...Is the Pentagon so blind? Yes, it is, 'cuz there's too much money involved. Not to mention immense hubris. If something substantial does not change in basic thinking and approach to foreign policy, the Pentagon will destroy this country and soon. Also, it's the traing. The US army is one of the bt traimed for war. It is the worse trained for peace. More time is spent, not on beating the enemy, but in keeping the peace. No force could stand up to the US. Like with the British Empire, it was guerilla tactics that beat them, everywhere. It started right next door in beaten-to-shit Ireland and was copied notable in India and Israel. The Brits relearned in Northern Ireland. They became the best at keeping the peace. The US refused to learn from the Brits. The US having Bolton as an ambassador in the UN is on par with the US winning the peace. The US army doesn't do peace, just war. The natives will die to the last man or women to gain ... |
View the Top Clips from June 30, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
