NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/hsv/general/3716

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 6.0 KB | 120 lines

Newsgroups: hsv.general
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!s-o-l.mads.deep-13.gizmo.com!maxwell
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  In Distress
References:  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Gizmonics Institute Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:06:56 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 106
X-Posted-From: fnalc.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

[e-mail] (Gary Braswell) writes:

First off, let me apologize for my ad hominem attack.  I'll try to be a little
more erudite this time. I must confess that your material has aroused  a
somewhat emotional response in me...

[Describes leadership by example philosophy]

> This concept of leadership is what I have been brain-washed into believing
> in.  It is not that I have been brain-washed into believing that killing
> people is fun, and that America has the right to go in and slaughter countless
> numbers of Iraqi troops.  To be perfectly honest, I opposed the Persian Gulf
> War, because I believe it was motivated by the greed in the oil industry.
> However, had I been called upon to do a job, I would lay any political
> objections aside and perform my job like a professional, as I have been
> trained.  I can honestly say that I would have done the same thing during
> Vietnam, when the risk to life and limb was much greater.  Being a Christian,
> the loss of my life does not represent a very horrible thing to me.

Ok. I feel a little better.  This is what triggered my vitriol gland-- most of
the people bashing Clinton over his military non-record whom *I've* met, also
expressed deep wishes to join up/Re-up so they could kill some sand niggers
(their term, *not* mine!) during the battle for Kuwait. unfair, mea culpa.

> Now let's transpose this to Clinton.  This man, in a selfish act that is so
> stereotypical of his generation, chose to do whatever was necessary to avoid
> having to serve his country when his country, under leadership that was elected
> by the public, had determined that his services were needed.  I can live with
> that, if all he were going to be was a lawyer or a businessman, but the
> thought of having this dirtbag coming to me and asking to be my boss is
> completely repulsive.

This is where we part company. I don't think that the country should have a
conscript military, which is exactly what we had in the 'Nam daze. It gives you
an inferior troop and it makes it too easy for the politicos to wage war
unwisely. If we have to force our people to fight, we probably shouldn't be
fighting.

Conscripts make shitty soldiers. As a leader of men, you should know this.
Would you *really* like to go into battle with a man-- or worse yet a platoon--
made up of *conscripts*?

Remember that there was *not* a national consensus on the virtue of our
intervention in Indo-China. If there were a consensus, there would have
eventually been issued a formal Declaration of War.

I'm also opposed to the Draft because I *don't* think the government should be
able to just say:"OK-- time for you to die, bud-- no you don't get a say in
it..."   If I'm gonna die for my country, I godDAMNED well want a say in it.

> To take it one step further, I think it is the lack of discipline and the
> lack of training in military leadership that will be the cause Clinton to make
> one of the biggest mistakes that will ever be made with respect to the
> military, and that is allowing homosexuals to "serve" in the armed forces.

I don't have a problem w/ gay people in the military.  They're already there,
have been since day zero. I heard an apocryphal story about Ike and the WAC's.
Seems that Ike heard there were *lesbians* in the WACs and assigned his senior
female staffer (I guess this was while he was active duty Army) to root them
out. He changed his mind two minutes later when his staffer tendered her
resignation because she was herself gay.  I don't have a problem with them.
As far as other soldiers being afraid of being propositioned by their gay
counterparts-- sounds like a *leadership* problem to me.

> The fact that it is such a big mistake is not so much because of the
> dispicable acts they perform in private, but because of the overall attitude
> that gays take about life.  As a result of their lifestyle and their

Please explain what overall attitude you're talking about. Seems to me that gay
people-- even more than het's-- have a vested interest in preserving a free,
pluralistic democratic society.

> association with their peers they are the most selfish individuals in this
> country, and individuals like that CANNOT be trained to perform selfless
> sacrifices for their country.  Self-Discipline is an alien word to their way of
> life.

Substantiate your bald assertion or retract it. Seems to me that the gays in
the military are exhibiting exemplary self discipline in the very act of
concealing their sexual preferrence.

> If you disagree with everything I have said, fine.  Flame me on the net.
> I only read the news about once every 2 weeks anyway, so you can call me
> whatever you like.  The bottom line is: unless you've served in the military,
> you cannot adequately judge anyone who has decided to do so, and you haven't
> got the expertise to determine what is best for the armed services.  In that
> respect, Clinton's election is a catastrophe.

As you said in the beginning of your posting, you've been brainwahsed.

There is one inconsistency in your position that I'd like you to clarify. You
feel that people should serve in the military when drafted.  You also feel that
gays should be excluded from the military. I deduce that you therefore feel
that gays should be exempted from exposing themselves to hazards of military
service. Your positions seem to me to be mutually exclusive.

Of  course, as long as gays are forbidden to serve in the military, draftees
have an easy out.

> 2LT Gary J. Braswell, Armor, AL-ARNG

I just hope you never become a JAG, Chaplain, or an MP.

max monningh
[e-mail]
[e-mail]