A couple of days ago, I had a little fun with the new Army recruiting slogan — “Army Strong.” I just couldn’t see how they could make it work.
A couple of days ago, I had a little fun with the new Army recruiting slogan — “Army Strong.” I just couldn’t see how they could make it work.
I am not a great fan of Army brass, but the folks with their boots on the mud and the sand have a slogan that they deserve and actually brings tears to some of their their otherwise gritty eyes.
God bless our Army men and women.
And our sailors.
Airmen.
Coast Guard.
Marines.
Let’s reward those who volunteer for the armed services with a pledge that we will not send them off to any more unjust wars.
We can all agree on that, right?
No, Lee, not really. There are few things that annoy me more than people dragging out the “it’s for the soldiers” meme when the soldiers themselves would prefer that those people quit bitching, get the hell out of the way, and let them do their job.
It’s annoying because we do not believe you. Too many in the anti-war crowd have dragged that old saw out one minute, only to go back to the whole baby-killer, ‘we support troops who shoot their officers’ crap with the next minute. We’ve heard it enough that anyone blathering pity for the soldiers is automatically suspect.
The soldiers do not want your pity, Lee. If you don’t believe in their mission, fine, but don’t presume to oppose it in their name.
Your definition, Lee? Or the rest of the country?
“Your definition, Lee? Or the rest of the country?”
If you actually pay attention to the pulse of the country, you will find that your support of the war is in the minority. And rightfully so.
Hey Jay Tea – since you are pimping the Army so often – have you ever served in the military? Do you plan on serving?
How about a definition we all agree on Vagabond?
Tim, that’s goes for your comment as well. I’m not offering pity, Tim – I’m suggesting a pledge that we won’t send our men and women into battle without exploring all other avenues first.
The doctrine of shoot first and ask questions later hasn’t worked, and we owe the men and women who agree to defend our country a promise that if they up and serve their country, we won’t spend their efforts without first exploring all reasonable approaches to the problem.
Don’t you agree?
(and I mean non-Xbox service)
Lee, if you are talking about Iraq, surely you remember all the resolutions from the UN that were ignored.
I am surprised YouTube hasn’t yanked that video yet.
At least the UN is competant enough to keep WMDs out of the hands of crazed dictators like Saddam. We can’t even manage that in this country.
jp and Lee,
I posted that video. I have been in for just shy of 22 years. I served in SFOR in 1997 in Bosnia and CJTF-180 and CJTF-76 in Afghanistan in 2004-2005.
The “chickenhawk” and the “let’s not send soldiers to any war I don’t like” stuff is really weak. And, yes, we would prefer you stay the $%#& out of our way and let us finish.
The only finish (as Baker suggests) is to leave. You can’t win an occupation. You can only leave, or in the parlance of our times, “redeploy.” Is that what you mean by finishing?
Holy Shit! That will bring them in. Note the number of women in the spot and minorities, recruiting targets I guess. My only question is where the hell are they going to play a 2:30 spot? It needs that long to get the story over, how this ad translates into a 30 sec spot I think is going to be a real problem. I’ll bet it cost a HUGE pile to build this ad. They will probably break out 5 spots from it, but the full ad needs lots of exposure before they can break’em up.
Lee, your revised suggestion is meaningless — much like saying, “How ’bout we all agree not to step out in front of trains? Don’t you agree?”
It’s also disingenuous in the same manner as your whole “it’s for the troops” meme.
You do not support the war; you do not think it is just, or right, or whatever the hell you want to call it. Or, perhaps, you just really, really don’t like Bush (can’t say I blame you, half the time) Again, that is fine.
BUT. This whole thing, for you, isn’t about the troops – it’s domestic politics, plain and simple, cloaked in very reasonable, feel-good sorts of suggestions. Whether or not we went into this war without exhausting our “other options”, as you put them, is a domestic political question that is up for debate. You are dragging the troops into it to score political points, and it pisses them off and cheapens their sacrifices.
So does the whole “you can’t support the war unless you served” bullshit that jp2 is spouting, while were at it. And yes, I served, but no doubt he’ll find another way to write off my opinion. It’s a toss up between “you can’t see the big picture” and “you were brainwashed”.
We, all of us, sent our troops over there to Kill People and Break Things, ostensibly to eventually make things better than they were. We barely got done breaking it before you people started bitching, wanting them to come home without finishing the job. You are not helping, and now you’re doing it in their name. Do you see why this makes them angry?
One more note. Anyone else hear the Lord of the Rings in the music background? I expected to see Frodo coming over the hill any minute. REALLY good stuff
What he means by finishing has been repeated so many times it is hard to imagine someone doesn’t know what it means.
It means staying until the Iraqi’s can defend themselves. It means remaining until the weak are strong enough to defend against the enemy. It means that when they are able to stand up, we will stand down.
That time is fast approaching. It does not mean the country will be empty of violence, or that all the bad guys will have been defeated. It means that the Iraqi government, it’s military and it’s police force will be able to stand alone once the United States is no longer there to prop it up.
We have accomplished something amazing in Iraq in a very short time. We will have a friend in the Iraqi’s for years to come because of our steadfastness there.
May God bless George W. Bush.
Jp2, that is incorrect. You can “win” an occupation. We’ve won several over the years. Germany, Japan, Korea, former Yugoslavian states, pretty much anywhere american troops have “occupied”, they’ve won for the last hundred years. The exception to this is Vietnam, which we all know wasn’t lost by the soldiers, but by congress, and namby pamby protesters. What’s really funny is that you fellas keep trying to put words in soldier’s mouths. I put on my uniform damn near every day, and I say we should be in Iraq. I say we do the job, and we keep pushing the light of democracy out into the dark where it can do some good, rather than huddling around a candle trying to hold in that last little vestige of light. I want to know what you and Lee think is unjust about the Iraq war. Just tell me. I’ll bet that nine out of ten points you come up with, I can refute.
Why didn’t you just link us to any White House press conference or speech over the last 3 years? Would have saved you some typing Baggi.
So Chad – it’s at worst 10% unjust? Is there a curve? What gets an F?
Hello,
I thought this string was about the ad? The trolls have drunk too much coffee. Try yoga, maybe it will help and a veggie lunch. No more Red Bull for you childern.
you people have gotten completely off-topic. this should be about how that hat that jay’s gnawing on tastes and if he wimped out and used a condiment.
jp isn’t going to be convinced, save your time folks.
Finish the job is exactly as Baggi said – when we have left a country capable of standing on its own (ie. Germnay in 1949, etc.). I realize there will never be a point that will be accepted as success by those with an interest in failure.
You may have noticed that provincial security is slowly but steadily being turned over to the Iraqi government. What you see is the process as it shall continue.
” I realize there will never be a point that will be accepted as success by those with an interest in failure.”
“A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.”
http://www.nysun.com/article/41371?page_no=1
I agree! No more!
The ad is for recruiting VOLUNTEERS. It shows what the Army can offer those whon CHOOSE to enlist. I would nnot insult anyone by suggesting that he or she doesn’t know that he or she may be sent to fight, you know, with real bullets.
We are NOT occupying Iraq. We are supporting a democratically-elected government who WANTS us to support its army against the terrorists who would overthrow it.
I disagreed with the mission in Kosovo because I couldn’t understand our interest (beyond humanitarian) in the area. We’re still there, by by way. However, I have always deeply respected the men and women who do what needs to be done.
JT,
Now THAT is an awesome ad.
Major John,
Thank you for your service to our country. It humbles me that we have honorable men and women who sacrifice so much to defend our nation. You all have my full support and prayers no matter what your mission.
Lee and jp2,
Neither of you are are worth even one drop of sweat of the lowliest grunt in the Army. I have never seen either of you say anything in support of our troops that wasn’t exactly as Tim in PA described. And now thanks to MY freedom of speech, I can say quite clearly: !@#$ OFF!
Hear! hear! to Tim in PA.
To “pucker puss” (lee lee) and jp2 (jackass punk 2 times over)-2 words-GET LOST.
I hope this ad works..the fighting 3rd down at Ft. Carson (CO)had their tour extended..they will now get back next month..instead of a year off..they will re-deploy in in 7 months..When our Commander-in-Chief..when he talks about the war on terror in Iraq, when will he ask our nation’s youth to enlist and do their part? Our current President, unlike Clinton, is a vet and so has the credibility to do it.
..simply put we do not currently have enough people in the Armed Forces to allow proper rotations into battle zones.
This is not fair to our troops and especially their families.
This highlights why President Bush need to go on Prime Time and ask those 42 and younger to enlist..It is the DUTY of patriotic Americans to do so..(my service connected disability and age prevent me..but I have done my part)
“The Army is also struggling to meet its recruiting goals. For example, “After failing to meet its recruitment target for 2005, the Army raised the maximum age for enlistment from 35 to 40 in January — only to find it necessary to raise it to 42 in June.” Also, the Army has been forced to lower its standards for basic training. “Through the first six months of 2006, only 7.6 percent of new recruits failed basic training, down from 18.1 percent in May 2005.””
I like to look at this way, we won the war with Iraq… now we are fighting the war with Iran and Syria in Iraq. I think we are doing a wonderful job by historical standards. I just think to many have a TV/Video Game standard on war these days and can’t bring themselves to open a book and learn. Eat what the MSM feeds ya and you’ll be a mushroom…
I just cut and pasted from the original site that I saw, with a couple edits, so just sue me….
_______________________________________
Lonevoice said…
OOH FREAKIN’ RAH!!!!!!!!!
God, I’m turning 50 soon, and I’d give almost anything to be green and 17 and have all of it ahead of me again. Airborne, Air assault, Ranger school.
To be young again….
Getting old sucks. Watching those guys jump out of the back of that sh*thook…the 130’s, hell, even out the side door of a 141. Being with your buddy,no your BROTHER,(and now SISTERS, what with all the support troops being so close)
there’s nothing to replace that.
That commercial is really cool, and a good way to start the day, although it’s bittersweet.
Off to my G*Damn office now…
I just watched it without sound (I’m at work) and even then, it’s powerful.
Looking forward to seeing it tonight with audio.
Lee, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I see. The Republicans want the concepts of honor and duty to extend to our servicemen and women, but refuse to step up to the plate and make a plede to not endanger their lives needlessly, and not without pledging to explore other avenues first. Where is their honer and sense of duty to the Americans on the front lines?
It’s over, Republicans. The days of “detente with a gun” are gone. Reagan pulled it off — he was a bad-ass cowboy, and even us Americans were afraid of what Reagan might do next – no question that his style of diplomacy worked back during the cold war days. Back then, it was exactly what was needed.
We are no longer in cold war, and the Republican’ts need to wake up and join the 21st century. Today our enemies blend in. They don’t wear uniforms and carry guns, they wear veils and carry backpacks. It’s a whole new ballagame.
Tanks aren’t the answer. More billions spent on stealthy helicopters will not stop a suitcase nuke from killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans. It’s a new world, and the old Republicans can’t keep up.
Internationally, the world powers have put a lid on Georgie’s cowboy antics. Now we need to engage in a dialog among oursleves, here at home, and pledge to never again throw away American lives in an unjust and needless war.
Democrats are ready to make that pledge to our fighting men and women…
Republicans are not.
Excellent.
I never liked the ‘army of one’ because to me it went against the team concept so vital to the military. This emphasizes the individual and colective nature of the modern US army very well.
Its certainly better than my idea for a recruiting slogan.
“We kill people and break things for a living…interested? Apply within.”
Lee,
Your problem (among MANY MANY problems) is that you see Iraq as needless, while those of us who understand the enemy we face see it as ESSENTIAL.
Your are right that we are not in a cold war. This is very much a hot war. Diplomacy does not and will never work with the enemy we face in Iraq. The only thing that will work is to make them DEAD before they can come to the US.
But that’s all you lefties ever want to do is talk talk talk. You cannot reason with these fanatics.
But you won’t accept that. I don’t even know why I bother talking to you.
The Sheik is another Republican who refuses to make the pledge.
I’m not saying we never go to war, I’m saying we pledge to not go to war needlessly. Republicans refuse to make that pledge to the armed men and women in the service of our country.
Lee,
Your pledge has a basic malfunction when applied here. There is a underlying idea of that pledge that you and most of the rest of us disagree on…it’s moot.
Alot of us dont see Iraq as needless.
Despite that disconnect, I don’t think anyone wants our men and women to die without reason. “Redeploying”, would pretty much accomplish that retroactively though.
A slight ammendment. I said:
“I don’t think anyone wants our men and women to die without reason.”
I hope it goes without saying that that no one wants to see our men and women die at all…but especially without reason.
lee & jp2…i served..have you? i remember the crap we had to put up with during carters reign…thats something i,m not willing to let happen to these men and women today…god bless maj john!
Actually Lee, how about we agree to never let libs like you have any power in this country? That way I will have a Commander in Chief I respect and would be willing to give my life for. I love how leftists try to proclaim their “love” for us in the military by condemning the very values for which we fight. Makes me physically ill. There are definitely some things a platoon of Marines would like to tell you Lee…
Oh, I see how it goes now, jp2 and Lee. Anybody who supports the war cannot do so unless (s)he has personally served in the military, but you two jackasses can argue with soldiers who have actually served in the current conflict and be right.
Asshats, the both of you.
What I’d like to see Democrats pledge is to never use the military in a half-*assed manner. Either something rates a military response or it doesn’t.
Commit, or don’t.
Carter’s military response to the Iran hostage crisis is an excellent example. He decided to use the military, but the cause did not (it turned out) actually warrant military action, because when those helicopters went down and those men died, that was the end of it.
The military is designed to kill people and break things. If a cause doesn’t warrant killing or DYING then it is not, appropriately, an issue for the military at all.
The humanitarian action in Somalia was a mistake. Bush seems to have felt it wasn’t his place to make a military committment there, (lame duck?) so we got this “holding action” until Clinton could take over. And when Americans died, Clinton pulled us out. Not dying is *of course* the goal, but any action that “is not worth a single American life” should not EVER include military deployment.
Do it, or DON’T.
Our involvement in the Balkan war ticked me off for just that reason. If it was right or not, it was clear that Clinton couldn’t get support for the action until he promised that US troops would not be at risk. So was born the “risk free” military opperation. It was easier to convince people that we should be involved, drop bombs and kill people, if a promise could be made that no Americans would die. (Our role later expanded, like frogs in slowly heating water.)
Our soldiers should not be put needlessly at risk, but half-*ssed at risk is even worse because half-*ssed means that the soldiers themselves are not going to be allowed to do their jobs, they’re being put at risk for something that isn’t considered that important, and any sacrifice made will be for nothing.
The men who died in Mogadishu didn’t die doing something important, they just died. For nothing. Because the reason they were there *obviously* wasn’t important enough to even risk their lives. Proof… the mission was abandoned when our soldiers died. The *need* in Mogadishu never changed, only our view of that need was revealed.
Starving people aren’t worth one American life.
This is why soldiers, generally, tend to like Bush and to like Rumsfeld, even if they don’t agree with decisions. There’s a feeling that at the very *least* Bush believes, and Rumsfeld believes, that the mission is vitally important. That, right or wrong, leadership believes in the necessity for the war and that there is a resolve to win that means that sacrifices made won’t be for nothing.
I believe that Iraq is profoundly necessary, but I understand that we can’t test to see the results of other choices, we can’t take a time machine back or look into parallel dimentions, and because of that we can *never* be sure. A promise to never enjoin a “needless” war is impossible.
Was WW2 necessary? Who the hell knows?
All I really want or hope for is a promise that when a decision is made that leadership is faithful to the troops and in the pursuit of victory.
The Army ad is fabulous.
Yes, it’s long. I expect that the shorter clips will be pairings such as “strong to get over, strong to get over yourself” or “strong to do good now, strong to do well later” or “nothing on this green earth is stronger than the US Army because nothing on this green earth is stronger than the US Army soldier.”
Umm…Sy…the military agrees with you!
“- 63 percent of all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe the Army and Marine Corps are overextended at this time. 67 percent of Army and Marine veterans believe their forces are overextended.”
A majority of soldiers think we are half-assing it in Iraq and Afghanistan. I look forward to you voting differently in 2006 and 2008. Principles are important to have.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061004/ts_alt_afp/usiraqafghanistanconflictveterans_061004203857
Synova,
That was an excellent post, I hadn’t thought of military commitment in quite that fashion (or maybe I have felt that way, but not consciously).
Thanks for putting those thoughts to words.
“Lee, Your pledge has a basic malfunction when applied here. There is a underlying idea of that pledge that you and most of the rest of us disagree on…it’s moot. Alot of us dont see Iraq as needless. “
My pledge never mentioned Iraq, Heralder.
It’s very simple and straightforward- no reason to assume that it means Iraq, and then use that as an excuse to not agree. It’s in english….
Amazing – The Republicans will not assure their fellow Americans that they will not die in a needless and unjust war. Why is that so hard for Republicans to honor?
You don’t have to mention Iraq, Lee, because we all know that you believe there is no question what-so-ever that the Iraq was is “unjust.”
Suggesting that a pledge to avoid unjust wars ought to be made by anyone is seen as a rhetorical trick and deserving of just about that much serious attention.
Are you suggesting that there are some significant number of people somewhere who think war is just dandy and should be undertaken at any excuse?
jp2, overextended is what it means and I think that few people would disagree. Maybe this new Army ad will get more people to volunteer. Hopefully the congress will authorize and fund a larger Army. The legacy of Clinton’s downsizing of the military will still be in effect, however, because it takes many years to produce an NCO.
even a Jarhead like me can say “Hoo Ah” to that! Splendid and inspiring.
And as for Lee with his: “I’m saying we pledge to not go to war needlessly.” Works for me. No more useless excursions into Bosnia, or bombing of aspirin factories…ok?
Nobody who served in the military EVER wants to go to war “needlessly”. But your BS definition that is is “needless” when the “pulse of the country” says so is, well, BS.
The Left feels the Iraqis DESERVED Saddam, and that playing Groundhog Day in the Middle East was a long-term strategy. Wrong on both counts.
The fact that is hard, and the fact that the IslamoMorons we’re fighting KNOW it is the main battlefront trumps the LameStreamMedia created “pulse of the country”. Period.
Lee,
I feel you’re being a bit duplicitous here.
In, the first post you said:
Given your stated view on Iraq, and the fact you mentioned any more unjust wars, I think there was a very good reason to assume you meant Iraq.
Otherwise, I can’t see any reason why Republicans wouldn’t agree with your pledge.
Blackfive has the video linked, also. Truly awesome!!
Just a brief comment – I can no longer read comments here. It has become a fever swamp of BDS-infected loons.