Comments
“The strength of our Army comes from our diversity.”
No, the diversity of the Army is incidental to its strength; the merit (obtained via IQ testing, inter alia) of the Army is its strength. The U.S. armed forces takes the cream of the black crop, and average to slightly above-average whites.
The lesson the U.S. Army can teach us vis-a-vis diversity: it’ll work only under authoritarianism. I don’t think they really want us learning this lesson.
Google “Steve Sailer” IQ test Army for details.
P.S., the other lesson we might learn is analogous to that of the caste system; whites are overrepresented, and blacks underrepresented, in combat and elite units (same holds for casualty rolls); blacks are overrepresented, and whites are underrepresented, in support units.
Posted by Svigor at 6:29 PM on December 4
“I started getting a sense, that because of everything going on, because of the war, because of how stretched we were, that it caused a perception that we were done, that we had licked this already, that people weren’t paying (diversity) the attention that is due. So we need to do something to energize folks and change the focus of folks on diversity.”
This rings false; one thing you never have to “remind” a soldier of is combat effectiveness. If diversity really was linked directly to combat effectiveness, there’d be no “reminding” anyone of diversity.
Posted by Svigor at 6:31 PM on December 4
So General Casey wants affirmative action in the armed forces? Of course this means deserving whites are going to have to pay the penalty. But at least Casey will increase diversity in the Army……I wonder if Casey, who is white, realizes he could increase diversity even more if he were to step down and allow an “oficer of color” to assume his role?…..Nah. Im sure he would rather that whites other than himself, pay the price for his desire for diversity.
Posted by Mike Harrigan at 6:34 PM on December 4
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Posted by fjack at 6:38 PM on December 4
Yeah, tell that to the citizens of the late great roman empire. What a bunch of bovine scatology.
Posted by not a dummy at 6:40 PM on December 4
“I will tell you that I firmly believe the strength of our Army comes from our diversity,” Gen. Casey said
Mark Clark and Orval Faubus would have begged to disagree.
The example of how U.S. Soldiers of different nationalities work together “has really helped the Iraqi Army retain it’s role as the only non-sectarian organization in that whole country,”
I’m sure us AmReners can come up with lots of anecdotal evidence that “different nationalities” really aren’t working together that well in the Armed Forces.
Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 6:57 PM on December 4
The Army is not supposed to be in the diversity business. They are supposed to be in the kickin ass business.
Why not create a department for developing meaner, tougher, and stronger soldiers?
“Soldiers” like the one pictured above do not belong in the military. They simply enlist and know that they will never be in harms way, instead they will be fast tracked to meaningless positions like the one listed above. More big goverment waste.
Posted by Jeremy Douglas at 7:05 PM on December 4
[“I will tell you that I firmly believe the strength of our Army comes from our diversity,” Gen. Casey said, adding that the example of the U.S. Army has helped the Iraqi army bring together Sunni and Shiite Moslems to work with Kurds and other nationalities as a team.]
RK: If diversity is working so well, why does he need a diversity task force? He’s noticing cracks, of course, plus he sees the weakness of it all, and he’s acting to try to quell any disruptions before they occur. What option does he have to try to keep it all together except by putting a happy face on it?
I’d like to see something this “general” Pickney wrote and listen to her speak. I’m betting ten to one she has absolutely no business being in the armed forces, let alone being appointed as a general officer. More affirmative action at work to try to keep the restless natives from rioting.
History has shown us that multiracial armies are the LEAST effective and the MOST disruptive, and the one we have now I fully expect will break along lines of race and ethnicity the first time the civilian tribes look like they’re starting to part company.
We’re living atop a volcano that’s getting ready to erupt.
Posted by Robert Kelly at 7:08 PM on December 4
“Diversity is strength”? Most of us who received an old-fashioned, “culturally literate” education were taught that “Unity is strength.” In fact, we were taught that a bloody civil war was fought on our soil to preserve our union when several states wanted to go their own diverse ways.
Other than impertinent, hectoring, moralistic platitudes, I have never read a coherent and pragmatic real-world exposition why diversity is a “strength” rather than a source of intractable social and political problems. “Diversity is strength” is every bit as Orwellian and deceitful a formula as “War is Peace” and “Freedom is Slavery.”
Posted by Zorba_the_Geek at 7:15 PM on December 4
Do any of you ever ponder how a diverse, feminized American military might stack up one day against an all male, Chinese military?
Posted by Belle at 7:17 PM on December 4
“I will tell you that I firmly believe the strength of our Army comes from our diversity,” Gen. Casey said…”
Again, why haven’t we won a major war since the military was integrated in 1948?
It angers me to no end that young, white, rural American males are dying in combat on behalf of an organization and nation that will barely even acknowledge their existence.
General Pinckney, if you had any integrity you would resign your star and voluntarily accept demotion to captain or major to be more in line with your true ability and importance.
Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 7:26 PM on December 4
If they want more “diversity” all they have to do is stop giving new recruits IQ tests.
Posted by Robert at 7:30 PM on December 4
Washington, Sherman, Lee, Pershing, Eisenhower, Patton, MacArthur…Pinckney?
Posted by at 7:34 PM on December 4
The Romans allowed the Huns to join their army but when the opportunity arose the Huns sacked the eternal city.
Posted by Tim at 7:52 PM on December 4
It’s real easy for Gen. Casey to tout diversity now that he has that fourth star and is near the end of his career.
It’s also real easy for today’s american generals to get lazy and appoint an affirmative action brigadier general when facing an enemy that has no Rommel nor Yamamoto.
Posted by D.B. Cooper at 7:53 PM on December 4
“The chief of staff recalled from his time in Iraq how he was often asked by Iraqi leaders, ‘how do you have a squad like that … with people from all races and genders operating so well together?’”
Looking at the very few medals that female has, I am guessing she just another quota.That woman also left out the fact that Whites are taking a dispraportionate amount of casualties in Iraq and there have been a number of mutinies.
Either way, I hope the upper Army leadership is as Black as possible. One day they will know what a true White Warrior is.
You should never let your White children join anything except the Army National Guard.
Posted by at 8:10 PM on December 4
It figures she is not only black but female…here we go again….more whining and accusations…..ect ect ect!
Posted by lydia at 8:33 PM on December 4
“I will tell you that I firmly believe the strength of our Army comes from our diversity,”
Riiiggght. I can’t speak for the Army but I used to serve in the Navy and the more technical the job, the Whiter the division. The only way real diversity is going to work is by lowering already basic standards and placing even more black figureheads in jobs throughout different departments. You know, my racial awakening was in the Navy. There’s an unspoken rule at a command that they can only have so many percentages of minorities receiving nonjudicial punishment for committing offenses. Anything going over this percentage is handled by the department in a quiet way. If they did prosecute over a certain percentage, it would automatically trigger an investigation and probably hurt the Commanding Officer’s chance for promotion. The system’s a joke.
Posted by at 8:37 PM on December 4
If diversity is so important to the USA, explain why so many American corporations are relocating to places overseas where there isn’t any Diversity? Diversity is an American’s excuse for failure.
Posted by The Soviet Republic Of New Jersey at 8:40 PM on December 4
“Gen. Casey appointed Brig. Gen. Belinda Pinckney, commander of the Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command to head up the task force.”
I knew before I scrolled down that this woman would be Black. Talk about a “created” command position for a diversity General.
Posted by pgh at 8:40 PM on December 4
The military has been forced to adapt to the fact that there are lots of non-Whites in the service, and they have developed methods to deal with “diversity”. For example, by not allowing Blacks to become too numerous in any unit. The difference in the behavior of Blacks who are only a tenth of a company, and Blacks who make up a third, is remarkable. As a tenth, they behave themselves, as a third, Blacks will destroy the unit. So, the military has a secret quota system to keep, say, the 4th Infantry Division from becoming the assignment of choice for Blacks. “Sorry son, the 4th is at full strength, what about the 25th? They’re in Hawaii you know”. And of course, behind every management technique lies the military justice system, which exists not to secure justice but to enforce discipline.
But what if they had an all-White military? Every good officer’s dream. They have learned to manage most military tasks with a certain number of non-Whites, but when it really has to be done right, they get White guys. Elite units, Green Berets and so on, are almost all White. Submarine duty, where one idiot can quickly kill everyone on board, is the same. General Casey knows this, but you don’t get to be Chief of Staff by ignoring politics. All that really matters is, will the combat arms remain White?
Posted by Schoolteacher at 9:00 PM on December 4
This is pretty funny since I was under the misguided belief that the military’s job was to recruit the most able amongst us and deploy such forces as to the betterment of our country. I am a US military vet and I think this whole thing is ridiculous.
Posted by stringtheory at 10:03 PM on December 4
“If diversity is working so well, why does he need a diversity task force?”
That’s always the pertinent question. Why does something as desirable as “diversity” is supposed to be always depend upon coercion of one kind or another? That “diversity” does not occur, ever, as a result of free choices or free association tells you all you need to know about it.
Posted by Cassiodorus at 11:10 PM on December 4
Great experience. However some observations from WWI and WWII. Ethnic minorities in general are behaving less well because they dont share same goals as majority. Romanians and Italians didn’t care so much for Hitlers goals as Germans. Nice when you are capturing new territtories, goods and women but to participate in hard winter ćapaign is less nice. Same is true about Soviet side. Motivation of minorities was always lesser than russians motivation. Of course there were all kind of hardline (ethnic minority) communists but we are speaking about average conscript. Stalins solution was to create “national” units. At least they are easier to command (for language problems) and there is some collective social control. Also for Russians were allowed certain religious (Orthodox) things that were not allowed before the war.
Posted by R (Estonian from former Soviet Union) at 5:07 AM on December 5
If racial diversity is today’s Army’s strength then how on earth did we ever win the wars we have won when our Army was pretty much exclusively white? Today’s Army is the new Job Corps offering employment to minorities who would otherwise be unemployable…
Posted by at 7:53 AM on December 5
Hannibal, Napoleon, Robert E. Lee, Tamerlane….all failures for lack of diversity. Who knew!?
Posted by Emporer Valens at 8:23 AM on December 5
The example of how U.S. Soldiers of different nationalities work together “has really helped the Iraqi Army retain it’s role as the only non-sectarian organization in that whole country,” Gen. Casey said, “so if you’re looking for the impact of the strength, the diversity of an organization, look no further than that.”
Where to start with this pig ignorant general? First different “nationalities”? OK, I know the army is taking in a few mex and latin mercenaries (excluding anchor babies) but when did the United States army become an organization devoted to the advancement people from other nations?
Second, “the Iraqi Army retain[s] it’s role as the only non-sectarian organization in that whole country”? Is this man insane? The Iraqi army is rife with “sectarian” (the PC word for “tibal”) conflict in Iraq, with “soldiers” learning their trade from the Americans by day and killing their rival tribesmen or moslem messiahs by night or the weekend.
White parents! Keep your children out of the US military. They will be used as cannon fodder for politically correct generals and low IQ affirmative action black and mex officers.
Posted by Deporter at 8:25 AM on December 5
The diversity of the Army works only when you overlook the theft of government property, sex with trainees and gang infiltration. I was in the service and it doesn’t work.
What works is that you train blacks to act like whites during the business day and no exception to that behavior standard will be accepted.
Posted by Vidar at 8:44 AM on December 5
I am a Vietnam Veteran and I can tell you from first hand experience that diversity does not contribute to the strength of our military. This is just more PC claptrap from the general who almost lost the counter-insurgency in Iraq. Now he is going to tell the troops that the must be “more diverse”.
What makes this idiot think that someone who functions marginally in civilian life will do any better in the military. A person who is unreliable, dishonest and lazy in civilian life will be unreliable, dishonest and lazy in the military.
If you doubt what I am saying just take a close look at the composition of the elite military units like the rangers, special forces, marine recon and navy seals. They are alsmost all white.
Posted by tacitus at 12:03 PM on December 5
Don’t I seem to recall the ONLY fragging this past war was done by a black muslim against his officers, in the supposedly elite 101st Airborne division just hours before the war kicked off? Yes, by all means, let’s recruit with emphasis on diversity. Let’s balkanize our military. Let’s emphasize the “diversity” and forget all about emphasizing unit cohesiveness; let’s encourage the races and religions to first view themselves that way, instead of viewing themselves as on united combat team. Let’s make sure we get more women in, who will freeze when the bullets start flying, resulting in her capture and the deaths of the men around her. Let’s get more black muslims in, and forget their essentially racist and anti-Christian identity, as well as their greater identity with the enemy than with their homeland. Should go well.
Posted by Bill at 12:30 PM on December 5
If the existence of a Brig. Gen. Belinda Pinckney represents how low the military has fallen, and it does, it’s no wonder they can’t pacify a weak and backward country like Iraq after years of trying…
Posted by at 1:35 PM on December 5
HANNIBAL definitely failed in Italian campaign, because Carthagenian soldiers were lost, and substituted with Gaul and Italian mercenaries. Look to Wikipedia. Napoleon’s Russian Winter Campaign 1812 had similar problems. I know that Northern wing had several Germans who did not fight well and were imprisoned by Russians. Same about Italians and other Napoleons “allies” from all over Europe. REAL high image had (in russian memoires)Napoleons “Old Guard” and “Young Guard”. I dont know all reasons of failure of General Lee. Timur did not lose, and died as ruler.
Posted by R to Emporer Valens at 2:40 PM on December 5
The first few times I heard “strength through diversity” type phrases & mandates they were referring to varied skill-sets within an organization and had absolutely nothing to with race or gender.
Posted by Dylan at 3:04 PM on December 5
I thought the first and foremost point of the military was defense; not embracing the diversity God. I would feel much safer if it was the training and proficiency of our military units being the focus rather than trying to match a color wheel. Cohesiveness is difficult amongst difference races, ethinic groups - the entire globe is a blatant example - and that is just a tad counterproductive to military operations.
By the way, it’s clear that Stanford U still hasn’t added grammar, spelling or typing classes to their esteemed school of higher learning.
Posted by Shawn (the female) at 3:21 PM on December 5
“Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. has announced the creation of a Diversity Task Force, headed by a general officer, to review the Army’s diversity policies, practices and progress.”
Gen. Casey has obviously been ordered to initiate this Punch n’ Judy show to obey the political motives of others. The origin of the idea can probably be traced back to the Congressional Black Caucus, and was probably granted by the Bush administration to get votes for something on Bush’s legislative agenda.
All concerned probably realize it will result in nothing, save a few more minority make-work positions, in another phony command structure stuck onto an organization chart - and the destruction of maybe a thousand more perfectly good trees.
Our misgovernment marches on.
Posted by Gary at 3:27 PM on December 5
Nice going, General Casey…..you’ve just built a chicken house and appointed a hateful ole fox to guard it!
Ask those soldiers who were fragged by a grenade tossed by an American black muslim how they feel about diversity? Better yet, ask their surviving family members.
John from Arkansas
Posted by at 3:56 PM on December 5
I was under the distinct impression that the purpose of having an army was to wind land battles, if and when they occur, rather than having a mammothly-expensive taxpayer-funded laboratory for social experimentation.
Evidently, I was wrong. What countries should I think about moving to?
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 4:10 PM on December 5
Let’s see how many black Army helicopter pilots, Delta Force troops, and surgeons this new program produces.
Posted by Xenophon at 4:16 PM on December 5
The military is the last pillar of our society which has not been completely eroded by the infection of Diversity.
Once the Diversification of the military is complete, the ability of America, especially White America, to make any type of revolutionary change will cease to exist.
“Culture does not change because we desire to change it. Culture changes when the organization is transformed….” -Frances Hesselbein
Frances Hesselbein and her fellow travelers know the pillar of the military stands in the way of creating a complete Diversified society, they have destroyed institution, after American institution, to create a theoretical Utopian idea.
Frances Hesselbein is a profiteer selling the snake oil of diversity, a false theory, that has been swallowed euphorically by American elites who without understanding the consequences or long term effects, have embraced this quasi-theory, and in so doing have embraced their, and the countries demise.
The Age of Diversity is over, We know diversity has failed, look to the Diversified neighborhoods and cities… This is advancement? This is the future?
Regardless of their intentions, Mrs. Hesselbein and any others who preach or profit from Diversity, have engaged in 40 plus years of ethnic cleansing, allowed the rapes and murders of thousands upon thousands of American Civilians, and will not stop until
complete Diversification of America has been completed. Diversification completion means the European-Americans still left in America, will have no power.
Diversity is simply a tool to make the country safe for a few chosen groups, redistribute White wealth and power…. And even the might of the US military, will not be able to stop it’s eroding power.
Posted by mhb at 4:36 PM on December 5
Fact of the Day: Almost all of the US Army’s elite fighting groups, Delta, SF and Rangers are White. I spent two tours with 2/75th in the mid-80’s. There were only 3 blacks in the entire battalion. One was a cook, one O-2 and one E-5 who quit after Grenada. There were a few hispanics and several Samoans. Total non-whites might have been 5%.
Posted by at 4:57 PM on December 5
I thought the war was to make them forget about ‘diversity’?
Posted by at 5:17 PM on December 5
Does anyone really believe the Iraqi leaders remarked how well the diverse groups worked together?
Think about it, the leaders (plural) remarked ‘often’ how well things were going. And of course the leaders were unnamed.
Posted by Dennis at 5:23 PM on December 5
” …when did the United States army become an organization devoted to the advancement people from other nations?”
I have on my desk a letter from Illinois’ other useless senator, Dick Durbin, explaining his support for the “Dream Act” (I had written him to oppose it). One of the most outlandish of many ridiculous claims was that granting amnesty to illegals would be a fine way to help the military reach its enlistment quotas. That is, we ought to grant amnesty to third-world primitives so that Washington can continue its futile, stupid exercises in “spreading democracy.” I’m still searching for the right language for a measured response to Dustbin’s idiotic letter.
Posted by Cassiodorus at 5:28 PM on December 5
Exactly why do you need a diversity task force for an Army that’s about 61.5% White, 23.2% black and 10.3% hispanic? The White proportion is below the population average and blacks are double their representation. Could it be that Whites are concentrated in more technical areas than their nonwhite counterparts? So do you sacrifice the quality for quantity?
http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep98/html/2-race_ethnicity.html
Posted by at 6:47 PM on December 5
“In fact, we were taught that a bloody civil war was fought on our soil to preserve our union when several states wanted to go their own diverse ways”
Well, Zorba, in hindsight it’s easy to see who really won THAT war, isn’t it?
Posted by at 9:07 PM on December 5
I had more medals than that as an E-4 PLUS a Expert Infantry and a Combat Infantry Badge. I guess she has the biggest badge of all- an affirmative action skin-color badge.
Posted by at 10:36 PM on December 5
Of course diversity is strength-just ask a Yugoslavian-
if you can find such a creature Truly no one question is a
better gage of a person’s general knowledge and experience. Of
course diversity does equal strength for the few-after all
someone’s credit is someone else’s debit. Diversity does give
or them strength over us so that is a partial vindication of
an otherwise comepletely false, misleading, and outright vin-
dictive point of view.
Posted by Lacocoon at 1:04 AM on December 6
Some background on this: the Congressional Black Caucus has been putting pressure on the military lately to “justify” why “only” x percentage of senior officers are black, while a larger percentage are in the enlisted ranks. Of course, this has a lot to do with non-racial factors. Blacks are more likely to join for socioeconomic reasons. They are less likely to seek a military career, or seek out combat positions that facilitate promotion. But this won’t stop the CBC from demanding that more black officers be created from thin air. I bet they’ll get it.
Posted by Hawnky at 8:19 AM on December 6
Washington Post
Thursday, October 7, 2004
“At a time when the nation’s minority population is fast-growing, the government under President Bush is implementing new guidelines that could scale back a decades-old effort to diversify a federal workforce that is largely white and male.
Under the new guidelines, known as Management Directive 715 and handed down by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the word “underrepresented” is no longer used to describe women and minorities, who in fact still are, the EEOC’s own numbers show.”
——————————————————-
How this will play out with “diversity” under new rules,I do not know. But… the mere setting up of a diversity section means that there will be all sorts of scrutiny of various military aspects through the lens of black, hispanic, lesbian, bi-gendered etc. I can not, for some reason, see this General lady leading the troops during the Battle of the Bulge or the invasion of Normandy. She does not remind me of Patton!
Posted by at 11:29 AM on December 6
Posted above:
“Once the Diversification of the military is complete, the ability of America, especially White America, to make any type of revolutionary change will cease to exist.”
Actually, I believe the opposite. Once the military is completely in the hands of the incompetent that would make a revolutionary change much easier. Ninety-nine percent of the whites in the military our on our side (traditional white America). They are not allowed to say so and have to do the bidding of their craven politician masters but if the —— hits the fan they will join the fight on our side.
Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 3:11 PM on December 6
“If the existence of a Brig. Gen. Belinda Pinckney represents how low the military has fallen, and it does…”
I was the mail clerk at an Army battalion HQ and having been caught up on my work one day was reading a book when a black major, a graduate of Prairie View A&M, walked in and instructed me to put my “novel” aside. It would be interesting to know Gen. Pinckney’s Army GT score, roughly the equivalent of IQ, and whether or not she becomes uneasy when more intelligent white subordinates read books.
Guess what? During a search I discovered that the Pinckneys are twofers, BOGO, as her sister is also a general:
Pinckney, commanding general for the Army’s Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command, is also making the most of her opportunities - she and her sister are the first two African-American women to become general officers in the Army.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=3132
Posted by at 4:39 PM on December 6
This Brig. Gen. Pinckney looks more like a refugee from “The View”, or one of those BET network programs, than a general.
I’d rather prefer a scowling General George Smith Patton, anytime!
Posted by Soprano Fan at 7:27 PM on December 6
“Of course, this has a lot to do with non-racial factors. Blacks are more likely to join for socioeconomic reasons. They are less likely to seek a military career, or seek out combat positions that facilitate promotion. But this won’t stop the CBC from demanding that more black officers be created from thin air. I bet they’ll get it.”
Posted by Hawnky at 8:19 AM on December 6
RK: The military has dumbed down the testing for blacks about all they can, and still the vast majority of them can’t score high enough for OCS. The ones given commissions, because of certain affirmative action accreditation at universities, are proving to be disasters.
This is the same situation as many of the police and fire departments around the country are facing. Blacks want blacks in positions they’re not qualified for, and it’s slowly creating third world police and fire forces in certain areas. Both departments will soon be unsustainable and much trouble will be the result of it.
But for the military it could mean embarassing defeats if it gets out of hand when the US faces a strong adversary that is well-armed. (And it will eventually.)
This politically correct Army we have right now is enough of a recipe for disaster without weakening it further.
Believe me, we no longer have Patton or Rommel types in the ranks. The Casey types are by far the norm, and reading the above will tell all you need to know about his intellect.
Posted by Robert Kelly at 10:17 PM on December 6
I read in the book “The Affirmative Action Hoax” (page 268) that the commanding officer of then General Colin Powell said that if actual combat actions started, Powell would have been replaced. The only reason Powell had been promoted to general was that the Secretary of the Army refused to promote any colonels to general unless blacks were added to the list.
Posted by at 10:41 PM on December 7
“Fact of the Day: Almost all of the US Army’s elite fighting groups, Delta, SF and Rangers are White. I spent two tours with 2/75th in the mid-80’s. There were only 3 blacks in the entire battalion. One was a cook, one O-2 and one E-5 who quit after Grenada. There were a few hispanics and several Samoans. Total non-whites might have been 5%.
Posted by at 4:57 PM on December 5”
It’s not just in the elite units, or at least so I’m told. A sargeant in the 82nd airborne told me that most of the line combat soldiers in that division were white - the balance being mexicans, and very few blacks.
I was surprised that the army has a “Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command”. Where are they based? Camp Disney?
I honor those who serve in the military, and many of them are indeed brave men. However, I get the impression that for many in uniform, the military is just a gravy-train, not unlike the federal civil service. Incidentally, civil servants often talk about how long they have “served” in the government, which I find simply laughable. As if having a well-paying, recession proof job with few if any requirements for success was in some way “serving”.
Posted by CSinAL at 2:36 PM on December 8
“Actually, I believe the opposite. Once the military is completely in the hands of the incompetent that would make a revolutionary change much easier. Ninety-nine percent of the whites in the military our on our side (traditional white America). They are not allowed to say so and have to do the bidding of their craven politician masters but if the —— hits the fan they will join the fight on our side. “
This is why I support non Whites in leadership positions in the active duty military. Their own stupidity would ruin any combat effectiveness the Army could have, and show any Whites who embrace egalitarianism that the White Natiionalists are right.
Posted by at 3:58 PM on December 8
I honor those who serve in the military, and many of them are indeed brave men. However, I get the impression that for many in uniform, the military is just a gravy-train, not unlike the federal civil service. Incidentally, civil servants often talk about how long they have “served” in the government, which I find simply laughable. As if having a well-paying, recession proof job with few if any requirements for success was in some way “serving”.
Posted by CSinAL at 2:36 PM on December 8
A gov’t job is like a prison sentence X “time served” and then freedom. Escape from the pointlessness and stupidity is what people are referring to.
Posted by at 4:47 PM on December 9
“The strength of our Army comes from our diversity.”
We sure learned that in Vietnam didn’t we? And our marvelously diverse soldiers and dependents raping and marauding their way around Japan, Korea, Europe and the Phillipines sure endeared our military to our allies didn’t they?
And what about the diverse military dependents who went to nearby public schools in America and turned those rural and suburban schools into ghetto schools.
Posted by at 5:14 PM on December 14
