Kerry supposedly said the soldier in Iraq is ?????.
His statement said nothing about our troops in Iraq or anywhere else. what he implied was a long way from "if you don't study you'll end up in the military" But lets face it - our all volunteer army just had to reduce its pre-qualification requirements so it could meet it quotas for new enlistments.
And one more thing.
It isn't college educated kids who are on the front lines in Iraq, it is our high school graduates by and large, many of whom chose the military to hopefully get the government to pay for their college education.
Jim :)

Welcome aboard.

:good:

Yes, you're right, Jimmie, and those high-school kids hoping to get the gov't to pay for their college ed. tend to be from the lower class and/or of an ethnic minority. I don't favor a draft, but it does bother me that, similarly to Viet Nam, rich white kids can buy their way out of Iraq. In Viet Nam, you could get a college deferment (so going to college was the ticket). In Iraq, if you have enough money, you can go to college on your own dime, and you don't need to enlist to get the army to pay for your education.

The bottom line is that none of these kids should have to die in Iraq, whether white, black, poor or wealthy. We need to find a way to get out.

Welcome aboard, Jimmie.

Discussion of the demographic and/or educational makeup of the armed forces is one thing - you are correct, we have had to lower standards, just as we did during VN.

It bothers me, though, to even mention it in the same paragraph as Kerry's faux pas. Different context, different subject entirely. Kerry did not mean even to refer to the troops.

As to the point about the makeup of the armed forces, here are the people killed in October. Look at the faces, click through to read the obituaries. Read about their families, how many of them signed up right after 9/11. Sure there is ethnic diversity. Sure many of the lower ranks are high school grads. Plenty are National Guard, who had civilian lives, civilian jobs, many with college degrees before the invasion of Iraq. And whatever the statistics, they have no meaning whatsoever. These faces represent 115 tragedies, 115 families with permanent holes.

The fundamental reason we need to lower standards is that this sham of a "war" has made it clear that there is nothing heroic about joining the military any more. Just as in VN, when it is clear that signing up is volunteering to be a sitting duck - to "ride on into the valley of death" to no real purpose, volunteerism drops off.



October Fatalities

Obviously, just a few examples do not prove, nor disprove anything as to trends.

But still, here are a few:

Colonel Kruger

CWO Priestner

Lt. Col. Finken

These three all died this month. The number of fatalities incurred from roadside bombs or sniper attacks is absolutely appalling. People who are there to do a job, flying a copter to rescue people (including Iraqis), or driving from one point to another, discussing training Iraqis to take control, die from assassinations or accidents(?).

This is a turkey-shoot! The Iraqi "government" is 100% responsible, in my opinion, for these assassinations. They are allowing their citizens to take potshots at our people, to set up booby traps to blow them up, and refusing to do anything about it. They even vetoed our effort to address it in Sadr City the other day. Bush's own words should be turned against him. "You are either with us or against us". The Iraqi "government is against us - make no mistake. We have two morally defensible positions:

1) leave immediately. our people are being targeted by the very government we are trying to prop up. They are "against us". We need to get every last one of our people out of harms way.

2) Declare war on Iraq, pull out all the stops, and subdue them. Put in a military government like we did in Japan after WWII. That would require resuming "shock and awe". It would require completely destroying the country, hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. We would be doing "ethnic cleansing" - killing anyone who dared disagree with our dominance of the country. This is a horrific idea, but if there is any justification whatsoever for our being there, then that is the way we should do it. As it is now, we are like the ancient Maya throwing young people into the volcano to appease the gods. Of course, the only rationalization for our being there is oil. If that is, in fact, crucial to our survival as a nation, then we might as well admit we are no better than Attila the Hu, Alexander the Great, Hitler, Mussolini, or Hirohito, and go ahead and use our military might to achieve world domination. This is what the neocons have been up to anyway; they just don't admit it publicly.

Of course, I do not support option #2.

At this point, it doesn't matter what Kerry has said, he is finished. The GOP would never let this die, just like "I voted for the war, before I voted against it."

I saw Tim Russert trying to nail John McCain on his attack on Kerry over this stupid misstatement he made. Russert kept asking him if he honestly believed that Kerry, of all people, meant to insult the troops. McCain wouldn't answer the question. He just said that Kerry should've apologized, and he did, so we should move on.

Sleazy answer, IMO. McCain was wrong for attacking Kerry for this. He knew damned well that Kerry wasn't insulting the troops. Shame on him.

I lost my respect for the arizona senator years ago when it came clear to all how he went right back to bush after running him in the ground during primaries back in 2000 the first time around for the current holder of oval office. shame on the traitor.

Yeah, I agree with you about that, Earthman. <_<

earthmother

I saw the same interview with Russert and got the same impression. He did everything but beg not to answer the question. What a joke this man, McCain who many years ago I respected for some odd reason, has become.

It appears that many have lost respect for McCain. I used to think he was fairly moderate, and I think he is generally at least rational, but as soon as he starts campaigning, he seems to become more right-wing. It seems to me that he's very different in his interviews now than he was even a year ago--his responses are more measured, and he's not as up-front about things. I guess that's what happens when you suddenly have something to lose.

I worry that Gore could end up the same way if he runs. He would be thrown back into worrying about how his answers would be interpreted. I hope, if he does run, that he continues to feel himself freed of the shackles that have bound him in the past.

In my opinion this whole 'much ado about nothing' has done, and will do, far more damage to Senator McCain than Senator Kerry :o :P