D. C. Bear said:
Forest Bueller III said:
FLBear5630 said:
Forest Bueller III said:
muddybrazos said:
As a citizen of the Lowcountry here in SC I have a message for Lady G. You can jump your queer ass off the Ravenel bridge. Its really easy for a childless homesexual to volunteer others kids to die for your continued paychecks.
This dude Graham is insane.
He is the definition of a punk ass.
Volunteer your own ass into harm's way Lindsay.
I agree he is dangerous. He did put his ass in harms way for 33 years. So as crazy as he is, that is one area he walked the walk.
He has never been in a combat zone. Ever.
He is volunteering others children to be in a combat zone when he himself never has been.
Should only people who have been in combat themselves, be eligible to vote on other people going into combat?
I would say no. Let's take Venezuela for example. That is their experience. The flew in and were part of that team. Went like butter. They may be willing to say yes because their experience is that it is a non-issue. It is up to the military to do it right, if they do it is clean.
Say a JAG Officer from the Gulf War or Iraq. Technically, not a combat arms position. But, they go in and clean up the mess that was left in Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi. Technically, they are in a combat zone, but it is after the war. (Kuwait after was still dangerous. Anytime you are someplace an M1 tracks your vehicle up a serpentine path, you are in a dangerous place) They see the years of work after to clean up, pre-position equipment, fight the fires, clean up the environmental disaster and other items of misery. Long after the combat troops that fought are home, they are still there. They would definitely think twice about voting yes. Iraq, Afghanistan, View Nam, all of them are the same mess. War is more than just the horrors of killing. It is a **** hole on multiple levels that you will never forget.
So, I have no issue with non-combat arms voting on it. The blue cord guys are there for part of the hell, not all of it.