Hello Kripa!…

“You compare the 9/11 generation to WWII generation and then talk about length of deployment….WWII soldiers spent YEARS in theater to earn the points to come home. You only earned points based on how many times you got shot at, not how many months you were there…..”
True. Though I am talking rotation, time in theater vs. time not in theater.

The point I am making is that we need more citizens to participate in the war effort. Pres Bush has extended the tours of duty in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months. This would not be necessary if we had more troops to draw from.

One very good way, among others, to the Support the Troops is to allow them more time at home with their families. To do this requires more people enlisting.

Support the Troops. Enlist!

Not just a Bumper Sticker, something a president should ask of the citizens.

All that said and Dean Barnett still owes you and yours an apology (I see no reason to think that he was not honest in his opinion so I do not see any relevance in any “apology” that he might conceivably make.).

BTW, if John Kerry the Second wanted to praise those serving today, and had not wanted to malign RVN troops and basically a whole generation, he should have praised those serving today by saying that they are more “special” than those serving yesteryear, as so MANY fewer serve today.

I would also be interested to know why he has apparently never served in any branch of the armed forces. He is 40, I believe, and the U.S. Army’s new max enlistment age is 42. He obviously believes in the Bush plan in Iraq, so what is he waiting for?

And, trust me, officers follow orders just like we enlisted do (from higher ranking officers and the President). Officers issue direct orders. I as an NCO, I issue lawful orders in support of the mission stated in the direct order.”

I did not word my comment #25 as well as I might have as it may seem to imply that enlisted men do not take an oath to the constitution and they of course do, per my comment #28.

Enlisted men take an oath to the President (and to the constitution).

Officers take an oath to the Constitution, but NOT to the President.

There is a reason for that. It was not left out of the officers oath by accident.

I’m going to assume (I know, I know) that Barnett didn’t mean to malign the volunteers of Viet Nam, however, he does owe you guys an apology. I’m from Barnett’s generation, the so-called “Baby Busters” and our memories of Viet Nam are from our childhood and unfortunately the anti war people DOMINATED any air time there was. There was no blogosphere to counter them.

Please don’t start throwing around enlistment numbers. You cherry picked the last 2 months and of course only choose the Army. The Army is ahead for the year and all other branches have been way ahead for the last 2 months.

The size of the Army was bigger during Nam because of the cold war, I served in Desert Shield/Storm and our Army was way bigger then too. It is smaller now because we have downsized it dramatically every year since the end of the cold war. The downsizing started under George H.W. Bush and continued through Bill Clinton.

As I said, I’m making an assumption here, but Barnett was maligning the hippies, not the vets. When you complain of him painting with too broad a brush, you yourself are guilty of said painting. (cherry picking enlistment numbers and comparing the size of the military)

All that said and Dean Barnett still owes you and yours an apology.

zyzzyg

You compare the 9/11 generation to WWII generation and then talk about length of deployment….WWII soldiers spent YEARS in theater to earn the points to come home. You only earned points based on how many times you got shot at, not how many months you were there…..

And, trust me, officers follow orders just like we enlisted do (from higher ranking officers and the President). Officers issue direct orders. I as an NCO, I issue lawful orders in support of the mission stated in the direct order.

Support the Troops. Enlist!

Actually, numbers are set by congress.

And, yes, I support myself. I enlisted almost 19 years ago.

As for WWII the citizenry were enlisting in droves. There were 14 year olds pretending to be older so that they might serve. The threat then was far more recognizable. It was intuitive.

Immediately following 9/11 the intuition was immediate and the citizenry recognized their responsibilities. No one had to be told, just like no one had to be told during WWII.

In the years since 9/11 the intuition has be lost and recognition has become less so. Our troop’s tours have been extended from 12 months to fifteen months. Why? Because the citizenry is not participating. The more who serve the less time each individual troop has to spend in the fight.

Many hands make light work.

Support the Troops. Enlist!

Irish Rose, I do not want to “beat a dead horse” here too much, but you are in the position of a lawyer who is trying (And you did about as well as anyone could considering what you had to work with in Dean Barnett’s screed. I will give you credit.) to argue the strongest part (but still weak) of a weak case.

1) Dean Barnett – “The 9/11 Generation Better than the Boomers.” [The VERY title of his screed!]

2)Dean Barnett – “In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn’t answer the phone [Totally self explanatory and then some.].”

3) Dean Barnett – “Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boomers–those, at any rate, who came to be emblematic [Pertaining to, containing, or consisting in, an emblem; symbolic; TYPICALLY REPRESENTATIVE] of their generation–took the opposite path from their parents during World War II.”

4) Dean Barnett – “Sadly, the excesses of Woodstock became the face [Barnett thinks that they were the face, I think that they were the a$$. Profound difference of opinion I would say] of the Boomers’ response to their moment of challenge.”

5)Dean Barnett – “Fortunately, the present generation [Good generation.] appears more reminiscent of their grandparents [Good generation.] than their parents [Bad worthless RVN generation.].”

6) Dean Barnett – “It is surely a measure of how far we’ve come as a society from the dark days of the 1960s [Bad worthless RVN generation.] that things like military service and duty and sacrifice are now celebrated.”

7) Dean Barnett – “Just because Washington and Hollywood haven’t noticed this generational shift doesn’t mean it hasn’t occurred. It has, and it’s seismic [The only thing that is seismic here is Dean Barnett's shear number of blood libels and his ASTOUNDING separation from reality].”

I think that I will call Dean Barnett, John Kerry II.

OK, I feel better now. I’ll shut up.

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Matt Sanchez

I think that they would fire on the invaders.

Enlisted men take an oath to the President.

Officers take an oath to the Constitution.

There is a reason for that.