Globalists Lose a Titan

[fj1200]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/henry-kissinger-former-secretary-of-state-who-shaped-decades-of-us-policy-dies-at-100/ar-AA1kKV8u

No information on his future, only rumors...

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/marvelcinematicuniverse/images/0/05/Arnim_Zola3.png/revision/latest?cb=20141127022354

[Kathianne]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/henry-kissinger-former-secretary-of-state-who-shaped-decades-of-us-policy-dies-at-100/ar-AA1kKV8u

No information on his future, only rumors...

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/marvelcinematicuniverse/images/0/05/Arnim_Zola3.png/revision/latest?cb=20141127022354

Without doubt he influenced many of those that influenced my thinking and still does. Realpolitik is real, the US just isn't good at playing it anymore.

[Gunny]

Giving the Devil his due, can't deny his influence in politics. Had a great "good cop/Bad cop" routine with Nixon regarding Vietnam.

Never liked him.

[Kathianne]

Giving the Devil his due, can't deny his influence in politics. Had a great "good cop/Bad cop" routine with Nixon regarding Vietnam.

Never liked him.

I don't need to like someone to recognize brilliance. He wasn't highly moral, I grant you that, but was very realistic on what could be accomplished with carrots, sticks, and bribes when necessary.

[revelarts]

Quick Appearance

A few quotes from Henry Kissinger, Sith Lord

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAM5d7hXIAAZ4M4?format=jpg&name=small



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAM4zJ-XYAAFQZ-?format=jpg&name=small
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12307033/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAM5kuvXAAAWmwU?format=jpg&name=900x900


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAM5xfyWUAAigxD?format=jpg&name=900x900

[revelarts]

A few more

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GANHW9yXQAArBkp?format=jpg&name=900x900


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAMEZbQW0AAdSPs?format=jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GANG4koXsAA6utd?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GANHgzSWoAAhIzB?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GANGOFFXYAEo8Lm?format=jpg&name=small


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GANHAviWoAAQ0tl?format=jpg&name=900x900

[fj1200]

He was extremely effective in depopulating the third world wasn't he?

Quotes: tied for last in effective debating with youtube.

[revelarts]

He was extremely effective in depopulating the third world wasn't he?

Hitler, Mao and Stalin weren't completely effective or successful either, that doesn't mean they didn't get anything done.
Or that they didn't mean it
or didn't have help doing it
or people still on board with the same goals today.


Seems you're more concerned about my quoting him than the guy that said those things.
The guy that had 10s of thousands slaughtered in southeast Asia, south America and elsewhere including thousands of U.S. military.

The guy was a war criminal and metaphorical SITH LORD.
Mentor to the current head of the WEF.


That doesn't mean that everything he said was "pure evil" .
Even the devil doesn't lie ALL the time, he mixes some truth in often.
Or maybe the broken clock analogy is better.

Here's one Kissinger quote that people maybe should have listened too back in 2014 etc...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAJ2NMOXkAAdk8s?format=jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAJ2QDQXEAEiOde?format=jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAJ2Z-RXoAAKCmp?format=jpg&name=small



Quotes: tied for last in effective debating with youtube.

Sadly Yes, rhetorical BS, emotional appeals, patriotic fear-mongering and comforting spins on people's status quo beliefs, do tend to be more effective debating technics than video showing & explaining reality. Or real quotes from people in positions of power showing their goals and motives.
People often don't like to hear or see things that might have them rethink major aspects of reality or certain issues.

[Kathianne]

I can agree with this article, in the sense that his advice did lead to US domination post WWII. I also agree that he wasn't a 'war criminal,' though he certainly advocated walking right up to the line with the worst of the worst:

https://ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com/p/remembering-henry-kissinger?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=888959&post_id=139303982&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=5ky3s&utm_medium=email


Remembering Henry Kissinger

PAUL MIRENGOFF
NOV 30, 2023
I suppose every living writer who ever met Henry Kissinger will today be sharing memories of the encounter. I’ll share mine. Readers might find them amusing.


In 2008, I think, Power Line named Norman Podhoretz’s book World War IV, The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, our “book of the year.” We then sponsored a dinner in Norman’s honor. Henry Kissinger agreed to attend.


Kissinger gave a brief speech praising Norman. All I remember about the speech was this impish line: “I’ve been attacked by Norman from the left; I’ve been attacked by Norman from the right.”


The line reflects America’s relationship with Kissinger. The left hated him. Many on the right didn’t like him, and certainly didn’t trust the man.


The dinner included a panel in which I participated that discussed whether the U.S. should bomb Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions. I felt odd opining about such important matters with Kissinger in the audience.


Kissinger looked mildly amused by the idea of bombing Iran and by the panel.


Afterwards, he told me he would be reading Power Line tomorrow. The next morning I wrote a soccer post. If I remember correctly, it was about the plane clash of 1958 in Munich that killed some of Manchester United’s biggest stars.


I knew Kissinger was a big soccer fan and would remember that tragic crash. And I figured that if Kissinger actually did read Power Line (I doubted he would), he’d enjoy this post more than any other entry I could write.


After the dinner, I had drinks with my two fellow Power Liners and a few friends of the blog. One of the friends launched a rather harsh attack on Kissinger. . .from the right.


I remember thinking that if we had just spent an evening with Prince Metternich, this guy would now be picking apart the Congress of Vienna. For my part, I was happy just to have encountered and talked briefly with such a consequential man.


Granted, there was plenty to pick at when it came to Kissinger. There almost always is with great figures in history.


In my view, though, Kissinger got most of the big stuff right. I agree with Erick Erickson, who writes:


Kissinger advised every American president going back to John F. Kennedy — a quarter of the presidents. Barack Obama, a progressive mentored by a communist, disdained Kissinger in large part because Kissinger helped build a post-world war order that put the United States on top. To progressives like Obama and those now championing Palestinian terrorists as victims of colonization, a world dominated by the United States is an oppressed world where some are oppressors and some are oppressed. [NOTE: As if on cue, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s disaster of a foreign policy adviser, ripped Kissinger in this pathetic self-righteous piece from today’s New York Times. A good title for the piece would be “Pygmy attacks giant.”]


Kissinger, in the chaotic world ushered in after World War II, sought to assert American interests on the world stage. He made deals with dictators and helped overthrow regimes that backed the Soviets. Kissinger helped reinvigorate the Monroe Doctrine during an era of Soviet expansion and negotiated an American relationship with China to counter the Soviets.


Kissinger is vilified by the left not because he committed war crimes, as they claim, but because he successfully advanced American interests against communists and structured a world wherein the United States could put the Soviet Union on the ash heap of history.


Rest in peace.

[SassyLady]

He was a horrible person who only wanted to further his new world order ideology.

[fj1200]

Hitler, Mao and Stalin weren't completely effective or successful either, that doesn't mean they didn't get anything done.
Or that they didn't mean it
or didn't have help doing it
or people still on board with the same goals today.


Seems you're more concerned about my quoting him than the guy that said those things.
The guy that had 10s of thousands slaughtered in southeast Asia, south America and elsewhere including thousands of U.S. military.

The guy was a war criminal and metaphorical SITH LORD.
Mentor to the current head of the WEF.


That doesn't mean that everything he said was "pure evil" .
Even the devil doesn't lie ALL the time, he mixes some truth in often.
Or maybe the broken clock analogy is better.

Here's one Kissinger quote that people maybe should have listened too back in 2014 etc...



Sadly Yes, rhetorical BS, emotional appeals, patriotic fear-mongering and comforting spins on people's status quo beliefs, do tend to be more effective debating technics than video showing & explaining reality. Or real quotes from people in positions of power showing their goals and motives.
People often don't like to hear or see things that might have them rethink major aspects of reality or certain issues.

The problem being that you see quotes as the end-all be-all to discussion of a topic. And IMO the quotes have the same weight as some of the videos you post.


He was a horrible person who only wanted to further his new world order ideology.

Yeah, because quotes.

[fj1200]

I can agree with this article, in the sense that his advice did lead to US domination post WWII. I also agree that he wasn't a 'war criminal,' though he certainly advocated walking right up to the line with the worst of the worst:

Yeah, I think it's folly to attempt to sum up decades of history and personal involvement and lay it at the feet of any one man/thing/event/etc. It's the lazy way out.

[SassyLady]

The problem being that you see quotes as the end-all be-all to discussion of a topic. And IMO the quotes have the same weight as some of the videos you post.



Yeah, because quotes.

What an ass you are to assume I know nothing about Kissinger other than the quotes in this thread.

[fj1200]

What an ass you are to assume I know nothing about Kissinger other than the quotes in this thread.

I didn't assume anything. Check your inference. :poke:

[Gunny]

I don't need to like someone to recognize brilliance. He wasn't highly moral, I grant you that, but was very realistic on what could be accomplished with carrots, sticks, and bribes when necessary.

Yes, that exactly. Was not my intent to drop a nickel in the meme machine:rolleyes:


Yeah, I think it's folly to attempt to sum up decades of history and personal involvement and lay it at the feet of any one man/thing/event/etc. It's the lazy way out.

Folly is the usual, Monday morning quarterbacking by those who weren't even in diapers yet. Was a very different time and the World was a very different place 50 years ago. Judging "then"/how it was by today's standards -- never mind the myopia -- is wrong ethically and factually.

He was a man of his time and dealt with what he had to according to what we had at the time. Three channels on the tube if you turned the tinfoil on the rabbit ears the right way and East and West with a constant finger on the nuke button.

Rather than bury the man for the decisions we think now were wrong based on today's "lofty":rolleyes: standards, we should learn from what we did wrong so as to not repeat the same mistakes.

If you ask me, we are in a worse position world-wide now than we were then because rather than learn from our mistakes we prefer to place blame for them as the be all end all.

[SassyLady]

I didn't assume anything. Check your inference. :poke:

This is a stupid response.

[fj1200]

This is a stupid response.

You made an incorrect statement. :shrug:

[SassyLady]

You made an incorrect statement. :shrug:

Says who?

[fj1200]

Says who?

Me. You said I assumed. I didn't assume. Merry Christmas. :)

[SassyLady]

Me. You said I assumed. I didn't assume. Merry Christmas. :)

If you didn't assume what did you base your statement on?

[fj1200]

If you didn't assume what did you base your statement on?

It was commentary and it really wasn't directed at you.

[revelarts]

I don't need to like someone to recognize brilliance. He wasn't highly moral, I grant you that, but was very realistic on what could be accomplished with carrots, sticks, and bribes when necessary.


Couldn't the same be said about Trump (except the brilliance part).

And i have to say, just as a general point about many republicans/conservatives.
I'm struck by people's selective concern about morals when immorality or the immoral serves ends they agree with.
So called Pragmatism or "real poltick" trump morals... "in the real world"
And personal moral/religious views can NOT be applied on how public policy or foreign policy is considered.

But somehow when folks don't agree with certain political goals, suddenly morals are a high priority and MUST be taken into HIGH account.


Just an observation.

[SassyLady]

It was commentary and it really wasn't directed at you.

And yet you quoted my post.

[Kathianne]

Couldn't the same be said about Trump (except the brilliance part).

And i have to say, just as a general point about many republicans/conservatives.
I'm struck by people's selective concern about morals when immorality or the immoral serves ends they agree with.
So called Pragmatism or "real poltick" trump morals... "in the real world"
And personal moral/religious views can NOT be applied on how public policy or foreign policy is considered.

But somehow when folks don't agree with certain political goals, suddenly morals are a high priority and MUST be taken into HIGH account.


Just an observation.
Kissinger wasn't running for President. He wasn't a topic of conversation in grammar or even most high school classes.

BTW, what do you assume my views on most political topics are and how they measured up to what Trump did in office? I also don't have a problem discussing things with folks that don't agree with me, nor do I think they are idiots because they don't.

[RoccoR]

RE: Globalists Lose a Titan (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79138-Globalists-Lose-a-Titan&p=1021528#post1021528)
SUBTOPIC: The Man
※→ fj1200, et al,

Dr Kissinger (a Harvard man) became a legend and a giant in his own lifetime.



Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state who shaped decades of U.S. policy, dies at 100 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/henry-kissinger-former-secretary-of-state-who-shaped-decades-of-us-policy-dies-at-100/ar-AA1kKV8u)


(COMMENT)

Yes, the loss of his knowledge, skills, and abilities were felt almost immediately when he left government service. His molding of geopolitical policy was well beyond the understanding by the follow-on State Department careerists. By the turn into the 21st Century, it became apparent that America lost its edge in both the realm of diplomacy and the political savvy that men and women like Kissinger brought to the table.

Where once the State Department was the preeminent government agency in America, it became an agency of dull pencils trying to claw their way up the ladder to become a Minister-Councilor to the President, as opposed to making America the undisputed leader of the free-world that it was in Dr Kissinger's time.

Yes, he will be missed.

Respectfully,
R

[fj1200]

And yet you quoted my post.

It's kinda like when you're asked a question in a debate and only use it as a reason to say what you want to say. :)

[fj1200]

RE: Globalists Lose a Titan (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79138-Globalists-Lose-a-Titan&p=1021528#post1021528)
SUBTOPIC: The Man
※→ fj1200, et al,

Dr Kissinger (a Harvard man) became a legend and a giant in his own lifetime.


(COMMENT)

Yes, the loss of his knowledge, skills, and abilities were felt almost immediately when he left government service. His molding of geopolitical policy was well beyond the understanding by the follow-on State Department careerists. By the turn into the 21st Century, it became apparent that America lost its edge in both the realm of diplomacy and the political savvy that men and women like Kissinger brought to the table.

Where once the State Department was the preeminent government agency in America, it became an agency of dull pencils trying to claw their way up the ladder to become a Minister-Councilor to the President, as opposed to making America the undisputed leader of the free-world that it was in Dr Kissinger's time.

Yes, he will be missed.

Respectfully,
R

I would suggest that the quality of SecState inhabitants has been declining since James Baker. And two, you're post reminded me of the Netflix show The Diplomat.

[Gunny]

RE: Globalists Lose a Titan (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79138-Globalists-Lose-a-Titan&p=1021528#post1021528)
SUBTOPIC: The Man
※→ fj1200, et al,

Dr Kissinger (a Harvard man) became a legend and a giant in his own lifetime.


(COMMENT)

Yes, the loss of his knowledge, skills, and abilities were felt almost immediately when he left government service. His molding of geopolitical policy was well beyond the understanding by the follow-on State Department careerists. By the turn into the 21st Century, it became apparent that America lost its edge in both the realm of diplomacy and the political savvy that men and women like Kissinger brought to the table.

Where once the State Department was the preeminent government agency in America, it became an agency of dull pencils trying to claw their way up the ladder to become a Minister-Councilor to the President, as opposed to making America the undisputed leader of the free-world that it was in Dr Kissinger's time.

Yes, he will be missed.

Respectfully,
R

Would you not think that Kissinger was as good as he was because he was allowed to be by Nixon? I always say them as a "perfect" team, agree or disagree with their goals.

That's not taking away from him individually as he still had to bring his skills to the table.

[RoccoR]

RE: Globalists Lose a Titan (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79138-Globalists-Lose-a-Titan&p=1021528#post1021528)
SUBTOPIC: The Man (2)
※→ fj1200, Gunny, et al,


I would suggest that the quality of SecState inhabitants has been declining since James Baker. And two, your post reminded me of the Netflix show The Diplomat.
(COMMENT)

Unfortunately, I did not see the program "The Diplomat." But I did look at a couple of very short clips (just now). From what little I saw, it was a good story line. But the character types portrayed were exaggerated as far as there intellectual capacity.

I have to agreee, the Secretary of State (SECSTATE) James Baker was very knowledgeable; but is nowhere near the dynamic capacity of Dr Kissinger. Secretary Baker became SECSTATE the year I retired (Army Counterintelligence Agent Team Chief)(1989). I did not become a contractor for the State Department (DoS) until the Iraq Conflict. And from 2003 - 2011 I served as a very minor functionary with experience in Baghdad, Kabul, and Sanaa. For the most part, I learned to keep my mouth shut. Neither the military personnel or the foreign service officers (FSOs) liked contractors. But like the cleaning crew and maintenance personnel, many of which were contractors, we were invisible. And to like a visitor at the zoo, I was able to observe the various inhabitants in their natural environment. So my opinion is quite limited. However, I have to agree - I was unimpressed by the caliber of Senior FSOs (FS-1s and OC's and above). I did notice quite a few mid-level FSOs that showed some promise.

Having said all that, I concur with your assessment.


Would you not think that Kissinger was as good as he was because he was allowed to be by Nixon? I always say them as a "perfect" team, agree or disagree with their goals.

That's not taking away from him individually as he still had to bring his skills to the table.
(COMMENT)

I have to agree, through the lens and perspective from the lower ranks in the Army, that Dr Kissinger and President Nixon did appear to work well together. But to be honest, I am not so sure that I understood the dynamics of that relationship.

Most Respectfully to All,
R

[revelarts]

Kissinger wasn't running for President. He wasn't a topic of conversation in grammar or even most high school classes.

BTW, what do you assume my views on most political topics are and how they measured up to what Trump did in office? I also don't have a problem discussing things with folks that don't agree with me, nor do I think they are idiots because they don't.

Goebbels wasn't running for president either but we don't give his immorality and actions a pass because of his brilliance in propaganda.


As far as Trump goes I'm not trying to assume your views. I've read your post, I'm not trying to read into them anything.

And I think we're on similar pages regarding not having a problem talking to folks that don't agree.
And not thinking folks are idiots if they don't. (less than Objective yes, idiots no)
However like most people, It's easier for me to see where other people are very inconsistent in their views than it is to see the same type of problems in myself.

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAtNP46WAAECh6e?format=jpg&name=small

[fj1200]

(COMMENT)

Unfortunately, I did not see the program "The Diplomat." But I did look at a couple of very short clips (just now). From what little I saw, it was a good story line. But the character types portrayed were exaggerated as far as there intellectual capacity.

I think that's true with almost anything coming out of Hollywood these days. What I was referring to was how they portrayed the interconnectedness of international relations and the various players, individually and governmental. Maybe I just want to think that there are some smart people who are talented at their jobs rather than ideological hacks.

[Gunny]

Goebbels wasn't running for president either but we don't give his immorality and actions a pass because of his brilliance in propaganda.


As far as Trump goes I'm not trying to assume your views. I've read your post, I'm not trying to read into them anything.

And I think we're on similar pages regarding not having a problem talking to folks that don't agree.
And not thinking folks are idiots if they don't. (less than Objective yes, idiots no)
However like most people, It's easier for me to see where other people are very inconsistent in their views than it is to see the same type of problems in myself.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAtNP46WAAECh6e?format=jpg&name=small

Neither do we post nonsensical trash and lies to support anti-American sentiment. Did Pol Pot pay your from the grave to post that pic which is from HIS actions, not Kissinger's. I've read that convoluted BS trying to pin Pol Pot's killing fields on Kissinger. Here are some facts for you:

The obvious: Pol Pot committed the crime in your pic. No one else.

Cambodia should have and did not secure its own borders with Vietnam and Laos. Whose responsibility is that?

Ho Chi Minh chose to run his supply train through Cambodia because people like you exist. He had free rein to supply his army and attack as he pleased and retreat to and from Cambodia at the expense of American and S Vietnamese lives. Just like with Hamas, those lives don't matter, right? Just the enemy's:rolleyes:

On the side of fact, let's start blaming those two reasons for the US finally bombing the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia and I bet you there isn't one damned American servicemember (except the ones tha tthink like you) that any kind of issue with taking that close-proximity heat off their asses.

It's sound military strategy, whether or not it suits your political. Fight the enemy where is.

[revelarts]

Cambodia should have and did not secure its own borders with Vietnam and Laos. Whose responsibility is that?

So why did they Bomb Cambodia in secret for 5 years if he's not a war criminal? was it "legal"? no.
If it was so necessary for the victory we never got why bomb villages with women and children?
Why were we in Viet-Nam Again exactly?
Did we we win that war after all of the freedom fighting?



Ho Chi Minh chose to run his supply train through Cambodia because people like you exist.
So Kissinger has ZERO responsibility. Orders "shoot anything that flies or moves". Destabilized the whole country setting up the country for Khmer Rouge take over.
But somehow I'm, "people like" me, are the ones really responsible.
BS.



He had free rein to supply his army and attack as he pleased and retreat to and from Cambodia at the expense of American and S Vietnamese lives. Just like with Hamas, those lives don't matter, right? Just the enemy's:rolleyes:
On the side of fact, let's start blaming those two reasons for the US finally bombing the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia and I bet you there isn't one damned American service member (except the ones that think like you) that any kind of issue with taking that close-proximity heat off their asses.
It's sound military strategy, whether or not it suits your political. Fight the enemy where is.
Maybe Americans servicemen should never have been there?
But OK, LBJ got us there on false pretenses, so, Since we were there, i'm no military strategist but it seems to me If you know stuff is coming across the boarder in the country you DO have military control over and are authorized to be in.
Then it seems to me you like you'd block/shoot/bomb/burn them AT or ON YOUR OWN SIDE of the boarder. Make it not worth the trouble to get across.
Rather than start a secret war with the neighboring country bombing everything that moves destabilizing a country so that the leaders are that show up are worst and more commie than the one's there before.

Or Maybe Kissinger shouldn't have helped Nixon with the October Surprise in 1968 that killed the peace agreement and cease fire that LBJ was working on that extended the war for years.
No need to protect U.S. servicemen by bombing Cambodia starting in 1969 if the war's closing out in 1968.
So it's Unlikely you get Pol Pot Khmer Rouge or the pile of people's bones pictured.
Kissinger worked AGAINST the 68 peace talks for political reasons, Illegally helping a political candidate against the U.S. govt.
And he did not give a sh1t about the servicemen you mentioned.

But you say that people like me are the ones that made it all necessary? hell no. not even close.

[RoccoR]

RE: Globalists Lose a Titan (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79138-Globalists-Lose-a-Titan&p=1021528#post1021528)
SUBTOPIC: The Man
※→ Gunny, et al,


Giving the Devil his due, can't deny his influence in politics. Had a great "good cop/Bad cop" routine with Nixon regarding Vietnam.

Never liked him.
(COMMENT)

There is no question about it (Dr Kissinger), in most cases, (metaphorically speaking) the general population either loved him or hated him. After returning from Vietnam, most of my friends despised him and spoke contemptibly of him. And as I assess my feelings of that time, now a half-century ago, I can count myself among that group. But then, I was rather uneducated and naive back then. And even today, ; I recognize I have a huge gap in understanding the scandals that profess to run the nation from inside the Beltway. Most of my friends were 18 or 19-year-old draftees (I was one of the few RAs and volunteered for Vietnam). Now, having completed the requirements for my doctorate, over time, my views have gradually changed.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Gunny]

RE: Globalists Lose a Titan (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79138-Globalists-Lose-a-Titan&p=1021528#post1021528)
SUBTOPIC: The Man
※→ Gunny, et al,


(COMMENT)

There is no question about it (Dr Kissinger), in most cases, (metaphorically speaking) the general population either loved him or hated him. After returning from Vietnam, most of my friends despised him and spoke contemptibly of him. And as I assess my feelings of that time, now a half-century ago, I can count myself among that group. But then, I was rather uneducated and naive back then. And even today, ; I recognize I have a huge gap in understanding the scandals that profess to run the nation from inside the Beltway. Most of my friends were 18 or 19-year-old draftees (I was one of the few RAs and volunteered for Vietnam). Now, having completed the requirements for my doctorate, over time, my views have gradually changed.

Most Respectfully,
R

I could not have stated that as a general statement better. I spent the first 41 years of my life in the government machine, as a dependent then a Marine. I considered my tour inside the Beltway as a tour in the Twilight Zone, for lack of better comparison. What I thought I knew when I was on the line, was not exactly how it worked in Arlington.

From if you aren't technically and tactically perfect and can't hump ammo for the crew served weapons you suck to fat asses in high water, unsat uniforms wandering aimlessly through the corridors of that maze they call the Pentagon was a bit much. Not to mention the completely unqualified, just flat stupid people in unnecessary positions to make decisions that affected everyone. I'm sure you can tell I can go on and on :)

Then, I went right back to the Fleet and deployment. That was harsh. Knowing that all the BS you're doing on the ground/ship means absolutely nothing to some egghead polishing a chair with is/her ass in DC. And trying to work yourself up pretending it matters and you give a damn.

I DO appreciate your silence a lot of times. I more often than not find myself engaged with "experts" who have never been there and no idea what they're talking about. But they saw it on the internet:rolleyes: No appreciation for the fact there is a real World out there beyond the next town over and it isn't living in some fantasy that cares one bit what they think.