From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Military Planning and the Media (was Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle)
Keywords: totally clueless
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:08:52 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <d4anazg.tcox@netcom.com> tcox@netcom.com (Thomas Cox) writes:
>>>Personally, I think it's REALLY dangerous when the military
>>>gets too carried away thinking "They don't need to know we're invading
>>>(name the country)"...because that isn't a military decision to make!
>
>>>If the government is thinking about invading Grenada/Panama/Cambodia,
>>>etc, I think that the people should have something to say about it.
>
>(meta-x begin-hyperbole-mode)
>
>You, sir, are totally clueless.  You have no concept of how the government
>works, how the armed forces work, or the manner in which the government
>controls the armed forces.
>
>For you to attempt to post any opinion, when you are so heinously
>deficient in basic data, is sheerest folly on your part, IMO.
>
>(meta-x end-hyperbole-mode)

Sigh.  Look here, dickless, this here is Usenet.  There's no test that
you take before posting here, so people post here with varying degrees
of certainty regarding the sensibility of their arguments; they also
come in with a variety of different opinions regarding what makes sense
and what doesn't make sense.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that I'll post here when I feel that I have
something to say and not when my opinions coincide with yours.  How you
choose to respond to that is your choice.  However, be forewarned that
while I prefer reasoned discussions (and am quite capable of admitting
that I'm wrong, if that is the case), I'd also be quite happy to fry
your fucking face off, if you resort to insults.  It's your choice....

>>Grenada and Panama were *sneak attacks*.  How do you reconcile telling
>>the media we were planning it? Do you see how that just might get
>>some Americans killed that wouldn't have been if they had had the element
>>of suprise on their side?
>
>For the benefit of those of you not up to speed on this, let me offer
>some of the more basic info apparently lacking:
>
>1. The purpose of the armed forces is to execute the commands of the gov't.
>
>2. The government is (in theory) controlled by "the people".

However, it DOES seem to have gotten a tad out of hand, over the past
dozen years or so.  There's the War on Drugs idiocy, for one thing.
And the absurd number of military actions we've taken part in.  Personally,
I tend to favor the theory that our "representatives" need their leashes
yanked, quite badly.

>3. If the government orders the armed forces to, say, invade Grenada, then it
>   is absolutely necessary for the armed forces to follow that command
>   to the best of their ability.
>
>   For the armed forces to "notify the people" prior to a surprise military
>   move, when surprise is important to success, is literally treason.
>   Read the U.S. Constitution, and you'll see the definition of treason.
>
>4. If "the people" don't like what the armed forces are doing, then they
>   should look to their government, for the government issued the orders.
>
>Now I *do* understand your feeling -- yes, "the people" should have something
>to say about, say, the invasion of Grenada.  But "the people" elected the
>Congress, who approved the invasion, and elected the head of the Executive
>branch, which ordered the invasion.  What more control do you want?  Should
>the foot soldiers refuse orders, and say "I'm not going to invade Grenada
>until I see the NBC/Times poll results that prove it's a popular move"?
>
>And if not, then what, exactly, *do* you want?

What I want is to elect somebody more interested in real diplomacy
than in military actions.  Personally, I don't feel that it's necessary
to spank every third world country that doesn't jump through hoops on
command.

I also think maybe it's time we placed more restraints on the Executive
Branch's war powers.

Despite what you might think, I'm NOT a pacifist.  After college, I was
seriously considering Marine Corps officers' programs but, given the
fact that Reagan had just taken office, I decided to wait and see what
the role of the military would be.  Good thing I did, as Reagan and Bush
have IMO used the military to do some shameful things...

Just my two cents.

   don
Newsgroups: alt.news-media