Do We See A Pattern Here ? Combat Records from Rense

[Claverhouse]

I've posted this at a more fundamentalist site to annoy the natives, but it's worth noticing:

Dear old Rense has an interesting piece on combat records:

Rense.com
Do We See A Pattern Here?
10-20-4


Democrats

Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Chuck Robb: Vietnam
Howell Heflin: Silver Star
George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.


Republicans

Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon! Kyl: did not serve
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S.
Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
John M. McHugh: did not serve.
JC Watts: did not serve.
Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
John Engler: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.


Pundits & Preachers

Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
John Wayne: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
Ralph Reed: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.
Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)


I'm glad to say I've never heard of most of these guys; however I'm vaguely discerning the pattern referred to.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[booyalab]

Let's have a little logic lesson here:
Chapter 1: NEGATIVE INSTANCES

the reason that 'pattern' is so compelling is that you're only showing the evidence that backs the assertion. In other words, I'm sure there are just as many democrats (as republicans in the list) who didn't serve, and I'm sure there are just as many republicans (as democrats in the list) that did.

btw I know of at least one republican in there that doesn't support the war.

[Hunter]

Holy crap...why are they warmongers? Because they don't know the hell that war is.

[crule81]

Holy crap...why are they warmongers? Because they don't know the hell that war is.

If that is so, then why do a large majority current military personel, including those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan vote Republican?

[Claverhouse]

Let's have a little logic lesson here:
Chapter 1: NEGATIVE INSTANCES

the reason that 'pattern' is so compelling is that you're only showing the evidence that backs the assertion. In other words, I'm sure there are just as many democrats (as republicans in the list) who didn't serve, and I'm sure there are just as many republicans (as democrats in the list) that did.

btw I know of at least one republican in there that doesn't support the war.

You are falling into the trap of over-analysing: these particular republicans are the ones cabinets are made of, and the commentators are those most vociferous in calling for blood to endue the dear old flag.

To refute it you would have to show a list of equally prominent republicans in the administration who have some combat experience, as opposed to 'republicans'. Your 'being sure' doesn't cut it.

And I'm not showing it: since I've never heard of most of those outside Bush's funny little cabal, obviously someone else drew it up.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

Holy crap...why are they warmongers? Because they don't know the hell that war is.

If that is so, then why do a large majority current military personel, including those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan vote Republican?

Because they're idiots ?




:rofl:


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[booyalab]

Let's have a little logic lesson here:
Chapter 1: NEGATIVE INSTANCES

the reason that 'pattern' is so compelling is that you're only showing the evidence that backs the assertion. In other words, I'm sure there are just as many democrats (as republicans in the list) who didn't serve, and I'm sure there are just as many republicans (as democrats in the list) that did.

btw I know of at least one republican in there that doesn't support the war.

You are falling into the trap of over-analysing: these particular republicians are the ones cabinets are made of, and the commentators are those most vociferous in calling for blood to endue the dear old flag.

To refute it you would have to show a list of equally prominent republicans in the administration who have some combat experience, as opposed to 'republicans'. Your 'being sure' doesn't cut it.

And I'm not showing it: since I've never heard of most of those outside Bush's funny little cabal, obviously someone else drew it up.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Yes I'd have to produce the list. But my point is that you're making this connection WITHOUT considering the other side. The burden of proof is not on me. Besides, how does personal involvement in a war make you an authority on determining when a war is right or wrong to fight?

[booyalab]

BTW, even if you give me a reason for why fighting in a war makes you an authority on the rightness of all subsequent wars, you'll have to explain why not all vets are consistent in their opinions of said wars. If you can't, I can. It's called subjectivity.

[Claverhouse]

Yes I'd have to produce the list. But my point is that you're making this connection WITHOUT considering the other side. The burden of proof is not on me. Besides, how does personal involvement in a war make you an authority on determining when a war is right or wrong to fight?

I, or the chap who wrote the list, do not have to consider the other side. To presuppose that all indictments must be balanced by favourable arguments by the DA on behalf of the wretched felon quivering in the dock is to misunderstand the nature of prosecution. Why should I find the proof for the defence ?

Personal involvement in fighting certainly doesn't make you 'an authority', but it does give perspective before you ask others to undertake your aggression for you.

As to why different veterans have differing views: because they are different people with differing beliefs. It doesn't mean any are right.
However in the present case, where there was an agenda for a war pushed by Shrub and his peculiar advisors, with ever-changing reasons for aggression, I would suggest that those ex-military who suggested caution might have been worth listening to, rather than a group of ex-trotskyist punks who desired global hegemony.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[nobarcode]

I like Rense.com.

[booyalab]

Yes I'd have to produce the list. But my point is that you're making this connection WITHOUT considering the other side. The burden of proof is not on me. Besides, how does personal involvement in a war make you an authority on determining when a war is right or wrong to fight?

I, or the chap who wrote the list, do not have to consider the other side. To presuppose that all indictments must be balanced by favourable arguments by the DA on behalf of the wretched felon quivering in the dock is to misunderstand the nature of prosecution. Why should I find the proof for the defence ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

You're not even close to being able to prosecute anyone. First you have to prove there's a pattern. Then you have to prove the pattern means something. Neither of which you did. (a pattern can't be contrived by only showing that which validates your claim)

[booyalab]

Personal involvement in fighting certainly doesn't make you 'an authority', but it does give perspective before you ask others to undertake your aggression for you.

As to why different veterans have differing views: because they are different people with differing beliefs. It doesn't mean any are right.
However in the present case, where there was an agenda for a war pushed by Shrub and his peculiar advisors, with ever-changing reasons for aggression, I would suggest that those ex-military who suggested caution might have been worth listening to, rather than a group of ex-trotskyist punks who desired global hegemony.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

Now you seem to be denying the impact you claim the pattern has on any of this. This isn't about whether the war was right or wrong. This is about whether someone's military experience should be relevant to any later policies. Obviously it's subjective, I already said that.

[Claverhouse]

You're not even close to being able to prosecute anyone. First you have to prove there's a pattern. Then you have to prove the pattern means something. Neither of which you did.

A pattern which shows, and which so far you haven't invalidated, that a large number of the group who chose war had evaded their own service in the past; whilst at the same time a number of the opposition party had in fact served as requested by their country. It may be elusive to you, but that's scarcely my fault.


(a pattern can't be contrived by only showing that which validates your claim)

Really ? What makes you think that ? In order to refute the pattern you could theoretically expand the bases until it comprised a list of every republican and democratic voter in the USA, which would then show a fairer distribution of military service. By then however you would lose sight of the trees for the wood, since this is only concerned with the gang who initiated the present war. And are still dumbly searching for WMDs that didn't exist.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

Personal involvement in fighting certainly doesn't make you 'an authority', but it does give perspective before you ask others to undertake your aggression for you.

As to why different veterans have differing views: because they are different people with differing beliefs. It doesn't mean any are right.
However in the present case, where there was an agenda for a war pushed by Shrub and his peculiar advisors, with ever-changing reasons for aggression, I would suggest that those ex-military who suggested caution might have been worth listening to, rather than a group of ex-trotskyist punks who desired global hegemony.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

Now you seem to be denying the impact you claim the pattern has on any of this. This isn't about whether the war was right or wrong. This is about whether someone's military experience should be relevant to any later policies. Obviously it's subjective, I already said that.

You seem to miss the point, that the most fervent warmongers ( I am not a pacifist myself, and adore the old German Heer to the point of distraction: but there are limits to war's virtues ) in this case had evaded military service back when it involved their own wretched lives.

You might wonder why. And why they should be militant with others' lives when they are in power.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[crule81]

[( I am not a pacifist myself, and adore the old German Heer to the point of distraction:

So I'm not the only one who finds Prussian militarism interesting? The Kaiserreich especially is the most interesting and peculiar state.

[jimkopelli]

ooh! ooh! Quasi-relevant Heinlein plug time!
Anyone read the novel (note words "read novel", not "seen movie") Starship Troopers? In addition to having the best literary description of power armor I've found anywhere, it also has a very interesting political system involving wars. Whenever the politicians decide they need something shot at or bombed, they have to put it to a vote. The people who do the voting, however, are the military. Then the politicos have to deal with the outcome. If the majority of the military feels that the cause is not worth losing men over, then they have the power not to support it.

[Claverhouse]

[( I am not a pacifist myself, and adore the old German Heer to the point of distraction:

So I'm not the only one who finds Prussian militarism interesting? The Kaiserreich especially is the most interesting and peculiar state.

Bruder !

The second best site on the internet ( The The Jacobite Heritage (http://www.jacobite.ca/index.htm) is the best )

The Prussian Military Machine (http://home.comcast.net/~jcviser/index.htm/index.htm)


Claverhouse :ph34r:


The links page is excellent too.

[crule81]

Interesting sites. If you want a good overview of Prussian/Imperial German Army, check out "The Politics of the Prussian Army," by Gordon Craig. I have a very old edition, but it should still be in print.

Given the sad state of the Saxe-Coburg und Gotha's, a Stuart restoration might be a good idea!

[Groty]

I like Rense.com.


Wow! I wanna be a Freemason, if they really are the keepers of the secrets!

http://www.rense.com/general30/straight.htm

[nobarcode]

I like Rense.com.


Wow! I wanna be a Freemason, if they really are the keepers of the secrets!

http://www.rense.com/general30/straight.htm
.....because it's thought provoking. "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves". B)

[Groty]

I like Rense.com.


Wow! I wanna be a Freemason, if they really are the keepers of the secrets!

http://www.rense.com/general30/straight.htm
.....because it's thought provoking. "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves". B)

Yupper! I'll be analyzing the stuff on there for days. Never been there before, glad it was brought up here. My INTJ friend and I will have a good time with it.

[Nighthawk]

Holy crap...why are they warmongers? Because they don't know the hell that war is.

If that is so, then why do a large majority current military personel, including those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan vote Republican?

Because they're idiots ?

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Thank you very much. As a veteran of 13 years in the military, who has voted for a Republican or two, its nice to finally know what I am. An idiot. Very enlightening. Actually, the idiot count in the military is roughly representative of what we have in the civilian populace. Idiots, average people, and brilliance all in one organization.

I have a different explanation for why the military tends to vote block Republican. The military is a conservative organization that thrives on loyalty. The leaders teach the organization's values to the younger members through hype and motivational activities ... much like any sports team, political party, or "team building" organization. Republican dogma supports the conservative view of the military, so the military aligns itself with the Republicans. Do the Republicans actually do what is best for the military? Not always. Would a Democratic candidate serve the interests of the military better? In some cases, yes. The military's alignment is based upon conservative dogma, not the actions of the Republican leaders.

Block alignment is based upon emotion and a tribal sense of cooperation. Since Guardians are, by nature, traditional and cooperative people, it stands to reason that they will cooperate with each other en masse when voting. That's about half the population. The military is a Guardian run organization with Guardian values. Guardians trust people in power and are susceptible to slogans and catch phrases. Is it any wonder that they vote in line with conservative dogma? Very few personality types are immune to going against the will of the tribe. I consider myself fortunate, as an INTP, to be one of those.

I grew up in a predominantly Hispanic, lower class region of Texas. The county would vote en masse for ANY candidate who ran on the Democratic ticket. Republicans often did not even bother running. Did the Democrats serve the interests of that area better than the Republicans? Not in all cases ... but the Democratic dogma was aligned with the values of the Hispanic community. Parents taught their children from an early age that the Democrats were the party of the oppressed minorities, and that fostered the block alignment. The Democrats reinforced this at every opportunity with their rhetoric. Yet, I know a lot of Hispanics who are not idiots.

For what its worth, I am against the war in Iraq too, but probably for reasons different from most people. I believe it was a operation conceived on impulse and poorly thought out. Very little thought seems to have been given to "we won the war, now what?" It is wasting the lives of American soldiers with unclear goals, and one of the things very near and dear to my heart is American soldiers. A "clear and definable objective" is one of the basic principles of war, and I don't believe we have that here. "Bringing democracy to Iraq" is much too vague to qualify as a military objective. I also share your belief that most the people making the decisions to go to war have never even served, much less fought in a war. They expect others to do what they are unwilling or incapable of doing themselves.

I am slightly to the left of center in my political beliefs, although not a member of either party. I try to vote for the best candidate, irrespective of his or her party. Very difficult to do nowadays, because there is so much obfuscation of what they really stand for. Actions alone will tell, and by then it is often too late. I believe that many people in the USA will vote for Bush, not because they want him in office, but because they do not want the unknown quantity Kerry represents in office. "The devil you know" concept. I believe it will be a close one, as we are a very divided nation and emotions are running high.

I have a question for you Claverhouse ... and please take this with the respect with which it is intended. Why are you, as an Englishman, so interested in the internal politics of the USA? I have noticed that many of my non-American online acquaintances are fascinated, even aligned with, our internal politics. I do not see the same interest of Americans in the politics of other countries. Are other nationalities so interested in the USA because we, as a nation, have a tendency to meddle in the affairs of other countries?

Nighthawk: Captain, Army 1979-1992, Desert Storm, Bronze Star and 3 campaign ribbons

[Claverhouse]

I have a question for you Claverhouse ... and please take this with the respect with which it is intended. Why are you, as an Englishman, so interested in the internal politics of the USA? I have noticed that many of my non-American online acquaintances are fascinated, even aligned with, our internal politics. I do not see the same interest of Americans in the politics of other countries. Are other nationalities so interested in the USA because we, as a nation, have a tendency to meddle in the affairs of other countries?


Eeek. My own beliefs have been aired here before, so it would be unfair to repeat them. Suffice that I don't believe in any kind of democracy. American Liberal Capitalism is as alien as Soviet Statist Communism mainly because they are both Enlightenment outcomes of a belief in the people.

However there are two reasons why we over here take an interest

1/ It is our duty to understand everything that we can about the whole world ( before boredom takes over in each category we currently survey ).

2/ America is the present paramount power, and every big decision, whether silly or inspired, must affect the world. France was the paramount power in the 18th century; Britain, 19th; Germany, roughly from the later 19th to 1945, even when defeated and weak because that was where the action was. After, until the mid 70s, Soviet Russia was co-equal with the USA: it would have been impossible for people living then to ignore the beliefs, codes, decisions ( & general madness ) of the Soviet leaders from Stalin to Brehznev.

I can't say that I have an interest, or any particular favourites, in the US political spectrum. ( On some things I'd agree with Noah Chomsky; on others with Pat Buchanan ). As early as the late 1940s, a British author called Gorer wrote an excellent book called 'The Americans' ( spoilt only by his reliance on that almost excessively silly old girl Margaret Mead in his anthropological method ) which made the striking point that while it's almost a religious divide amongst Americans, to non-Americans your two parties seem well-nigh identical. I'm afraid they still do... *

I'm not against war: I'm against silly wars. And it should only be the very last resort. The Anglos have been recklessly and insanely punitively aggressive for the last century...


And the rest of the world isn't anti-American so much as anti-the smug fervour of God loves the American Way Bush. **


:D


Claverhouse :ph34r:


* Gore Vidal thinks, or pretends to think, they are just two aspects of the one ruling party.

** Bet Shrub gets in though ! :rofl:

[Nighthawk]

Suffice that I don't believe in any kind of democracy. American Liberal Capitalism is as alien as Soviet Statist Communism mainly because they are both Enlightenment outcomes of a belief in the people.

However there are two reasons why we over here take an interest

1/ It is our duty to understand everything that we can about the whole world ( before boredom takes over in each category we currently survey ).

2/ America is the present paramount power, and every big decision, whether silly or inspired, must affect the world. France was the paramount power in the 18th century; Britain, 19th; Germany, roughly from the later 19th to 1945, even when defeated and weak because that was where the action was. After, until the mid 70s, Soviet Russia was co-equal with the USA: it would have been impossible for people living then to ignore the beliefs, codes, decisions ( & general madness ) of the Soviet leaders from Stalin to Brehznev.



Thanks for your comments. I appreciate you sharing your insight. Your rationale makes perfect sense to me. I've thought our political parties to be the same for quite some time. They talk differently, but what they do in office is quite similar. Funnel money to big business in exchange for kickbacks. That is the central theme.

I read somewhere that a democracy can survive only until its citizens figure out that they can vote themselves entitlement gifts from its treasury.

[SheepDog]

Not only are the two parties the same, the so-called "voting issues" are really just distractions to keep people arguing instead of finding out the truth about what our government is really doing.

It's quite clever. It divides the population, obfuscates the truth, and preserves the existing system all at the same time.

[songbird36]

Why aren't either of them proposing any action in Darfur?

Presumably because there's nothing at stake for the US..

[Nighthawk]

Why aren't either of them proposing any action in Darfur?

Presumably because there's nothing at stake for the US..

Yes indeed. Why not? ... given all the rhetoric about liberating people from oppressors and bringing democracy to other nations. As you alluded, there probably aren't any resources there that will bring cash to U.S. industry ... nor is it a key location to control a certain geographical region. If you live in a non-profitable backwater, nobody cares if you're being oppressed.

I've always found it ironic when I hear people saying that we can never let anything like Nazi genocide happen again. It seems to be happening up to this very day. The actions in Dafur sure look like genocide to me. Hypocrisy, if you ask me. The fact that our government applies military force does not bother me as much as them hiding behind the facade of righteousness as an excuse to do so. Just come out and admit that "we want the oil" or "we want to control the region." Its not like we will inspire additional hatred by doing that. Either help all oppressed people, or just admit we are in it for ourselves.

[MacGuffin]

Hey, the U.S. was the one of the first (maybe THE first) nation to say that genocide was occuring in Dafur. Maybe the U.N. can stop it?

Yeah, right.

[songbird36]

Yeah back in September was it?- Colin Powell made the amazing intuitive leap to call it genocide (clever guy that he is).

Didn't he also say something like "but this finding does not dictate any new action on the part of this country or the UN"?

NATO ordered troops into Bosnia THREE MONTHS after the Serbs started massacring Muslims there.

I guess this will be like Rwanda- the international community will start wringing its hands after the whole thing is over and the bodies are being counted.

[Melody]

:(

[Claverhouse]

What they want, the people being massacred, is for a freak geological occurence of oil being discovered fairly near: the outraged consciences of both the US & the UN would send a task-force to sort out the bad guys pdq.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ & the ever useless UN was ever and ever will be merely the frozen aspect of the victorious, sinister and insane Allies of WWII; initiated by the US ( guilt-ridden at how they had messed up the useless League of Nations ), but further crippled by all the dear little countries having equal voices with the big guys: why would anyone think that such a pedigree would lead to any meaningful action being taken on any point ? A vast Committee of Idiots ].

[Biff_Loman]

The fact that our government applies military force does not bother me as much as them hiding behind the facade of righteousness as an excuse to do so. Just come out and admit that "we want the oil" or "we want to control the region." Its not like we will inspire additional hatred by doing that. Either help all oppressed people, or just admit we are in it for ourselves.

I am incredibly encouraged not only to hear this from an American, but a military man!

My impression of your nation, based on the media and anecdotal evidence, is that it is divided between 1) those who know why wars are fought and oppose them, and 2) those brainwashed into believing war is fought for the greater good, or some such.

Obviously, not everyone thinks this way, but I believe you are the first American I have ever heard express this sentiment. I've been waiting for this for a while.

I almost think the federal government would do themselves a favour by admitting their real intentions, then daring anyone to stop them. Sure, there might be protests, etc., but will that actually stop wars from being fought? As long as taxes keep getting paid and soldiers keep doing their duty, the wars will proceed per usual. Eventually, the protesters will run out of energy, and everyone else will realize that they actually do NOT care whether their government kills poor people overseas to promote its interests - at least, not enough to change their habits.

Once the apathy truly sets in, the gov't has carte blanche from then on.