Post by fred on Oct 3, 2012 9:16:35 GMT -6
Oh, boy! Here we go!
I'll put up a couple of thoughts, then run like a thief in the night...
First of all, Wild... thank you for the extremely kind words.
Second... I do believe, Wild, you are incorrect about patriotism and what "professional" soldiers fight for. The soldiers in today's American army are no less dedicated than those I served with. I do reject, however, the term "professional." This army we have today is no more professional than it was back in 1967. You still have men who enlist; you still have men who serve their tour and get out; you still have men who stay... for whatever reason, and that reason is no different today than it was 40 years ago. Is the training better? Yep! Are the men? Nope! Sort of like athletes. I always get a kick out of how people say their generation produces the best of this, the best of that... ever! Baseball for example... the best fielder, the fastest runner, the hardest thrower, the best hitter.... Ever see Ty Cobb's baseball glove? Or the ball Babe Ruth hit when he struck 29 home-runs in 1919... in the dead-ball era? If memory serves me correctly, that was more than any other team.
Those who think otherwise are kidding themselves and are entirely too caught up in the "me, me" syndrome... simply because they are the people of "today." What will they be saying in 30 years when they are 75 or 80 or 85? I have heard generation after generation pat itself on the back.
Sorry, but Chuck and I have gone round-about with this before... he thinks women in the military are the equal of men, and touts all these gals he knows who are superior. I'm not a buyer.
While I agree with virtually everything DC last posted, I do take issue with the bombing of Hanoi. I diplomat I referred to-- again, if memory has not failed-- was talking about the government of Hanoi departing the city because if the bombing continued, the city could no longer function; could no longer supply proper services, etc. Neither bombing nor air power wins wars; that objective can only be accomplished through the proper coordination of various military arms... and if I am not mistaken, that idiotic debate is still reverberating around the military. Quite frankly, to me, the most important arm of the military today revolves around men like "Montrose" and what he did. George Patton's day has been put on hold... at least until China invades Siberia.
There... that's my stick in the hornet's nest. I am backing out before I get stung.
I heard Custer escaped with Frank Finckle... (?).
By the way, I have printed out various comments written by all of you... sorry, DC, but your file is the largest... Billy's is second. You guys really put up some damn fine stuff. It is a pleasure to "know" you all, and it is a pleasure to have spoken to several of you.
Best wishes,
Fred.
PS-- Ian... my version is the New York Phil with Lenny-Baby conducting. Always liked Bernstein.
FCW
I'll put up a couple of thoughts, then run like a thief in the night...
First of all, Wild... thank you for the extremely kind words.
Second... I do believe, Wild, you are incorrect about patriotism and what "professional" soldiers fight for. The soldiers in today's American army are no less dedicated than those I served with. I do reject, however, the term "professional." This army we have today is no more professional than it was back in 1967. You still have men who enlist; you still have men who serve their tour and get out; you still have men who stay... for whatever reason, and that reason is no different today than it was 40 years ago. Is the training better? Yep! Are the men? Nope! Sort of like athletes. I always get a kick out of how people say their generation produces the best of this, the best of that... ever! Baseball for example... the best fielder, the fastest runner, the hardest thrower, the best hitter.... Ever see Ty Cobb's baseball glove? Or the ball Babe Ruth hit when he struck 29 home-runs in 1919... in the dead-ball era? If memory serves me correctly, that was more than any other team.
Those who think otherwise are kidding themselves and are entirely too caught up in the "me, me" syndrome... simply because they are the people of "today." What will they be saying in 30 years when they are 75 or 80 or 85? I have heard generation after generation pat itself on the back.
Sorry, but Chuck and I have gone round-about with this before... he thinks women in the military are the equal of men, and touts all these gals he knows who are superior. I'm not a buyer.
While I agree with virtually everything DC last posted, I do take issue with the bombing of Hanoi. I diplomat I referred to-- again, if memory has not failed-- was talking about the government of Hanoi departing the city because if the bombing continued, the city could no longer function; could no longer supply proper services, etc. Neither bombing nor air power wins wars; that objective can only be accomplished through the proper coordination of various military arms... and if I am not mistaken, that idiotic debate is still reverberating around the military. Quite frankly, to me, the most important arm of the military today revolves around men like "Montrose" and what he did. George Patton's day has been put on hold... at least until China invades Siberia.
There... that's my stick in the hornet's nest. I am backing out before I get stung.
I heard Custer escaped with Frank Finckle... (?).
By the way, I have printed out various comments written by all of you... sorry, DC, but your file is the largest... Billy's is second. You guys really put up some damn fine stuff. It is a pleasure to "know" you all, and it is a pleasure to have spoken to several of you.
Best wishes,
Fred.
PS-- Ian... my version is the New York Phil with Lenny-Baby conducting. Always liked Bernstein.
FCW