Everyone is correct
Apr 11, 2014 04:21:38 #
Iggy Rat
Loc: Lost in America
lpnmajor wrote:
There are far more "heroes" than there are citations issued. I have counted more SEALS than were ever trained. I DETEST such fakery! In fact, I have sent one clown to prison for wearing medals he was not entitled to, it is illegal you know. I know for a fact that the REAL heroes, never made it home alive, and those that did come back, don't talk about it much. When I hear a boast - I know it's bullshit.
I hear you! I was a radar tech. Upon discharge, it seems that everyone who ever served was on "the teams". Seals, Rangers, Recon, Green Berets. Everybody. Funny, because when I was in I knew a lot of supply clerks, and mechanics. Quite a few cooks. They get out, they were all Special Forces. Frauds. If you're going to run your mouth about the time you spent in the Marines, you'd better not do it to a REAL Jarhead.
Apr 11, 2014 04:41:46 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
Iggy Rat wrote:
I hear you! I was a radar tech. Upon discharge, it seems that everyone who ever served was on "the teams". Seals, Rangers, Recon, Green Berets. Everybody. Funny, because when I was in I knew a lot of supply clerks, and mechanics. Quite a few cooks. They get out, they were all Special Forces. Frauds. If you're going to run your mouth about the time you spent in the Marines, you'd better not do it to a REAL Jarhead.
Yep, Some people live more dangerously after they muster out, than they did while they served. All those who serve deserve some respect, no matter what role they played, but taking on unearned honors is a crime. People who do that tarnish the honor of those who served, but did not see combat. They are no less heroes for that, in my book, for without the rear guard, none of us could have gone, done the mission and come back.
Apr 11, 2014 04:49:06 #
Alicia
Loc: NYC
lpnmajor wrote:
Yep, Some people live more dangerously after they muster out, than they did while they served. All those who serve deserve some respect, no matter what role they played, but taking on unearned honors is a crime. People who do that tarnish the honor of those who served, but did not see combat. They are no less heroes for that, in my book, for without the rear guard, none of us could have gone, done the mission and come back.
******************
Fine post. Good for you!
:D :D :D :D :D
Apr 11, 2014 08:16:06 #
Yes, I do,,, and I intend to try to pursue it with HF,,,, despite his claims, there is NO record of his claim... he also claims I did the same, but I have not,,,, I have been very hard on him, because of this, but there isn't a single "There I was" story from me,,, when asked I have mentioned my service, and in his case, threw mine up against his, when he attempts to call me... but then, I never claimed a "Silver Star" for gallantry in combat... and that is the difference.
I am not going to be shamed, or forced to adhere to what the left thinks I should and shouldn't talk about either, HF was miserable in his service and voices it,, I was very happy with mine, and will voice that also.
Call it boasting if you want, but I volunteered and went, I refuse to have someone spew all the crap about the military without adding the other side,, expecially with such an outlandish claim, that is provable,,, a Silver Star,, in February 1969 for saving his platoon commander from a grenade!!
I am not going to be shamed, or forced to adhere to what the left thinks I should and shouldn't talk about either, HF was miserable in his service and voices it,, I was very happy with mine, and will voice that also.
Call it boasting if you want, but I volunteered and went, I refuse to have someone spew all the crap about the military without adding the other side,, expecially with such an outlandish claim, that is provable,,, a Silver Star,, in February 1969 for saving his platoon commander from a grenade!!
lpnmajor wrote:
There are far more "heroes" than there are citations issued. I have counted more SEALS than were ever trained. I DETEST such fakery! In fact, I have sent one clown to prison for wearing medals he was not entitled to, it is illegal you know. I know for a fact that the REAL heroes, never made it home alive, and those that did come back, don't talk about it much. When I hear a boast - I know it's bullshit.
Apr 11, 2014 09:22:18 #
Iggy Rat
Loc: Lost in America
Ve'hoe wrote:
Yes, I do,,, and I intend to try to pursue it with... (show quote)
To those who did: Thanks for serving.
To those who didn't: The military is only one way to serve. Find another. If you love America, serve.
Apr 11, 2014 10:08:55 #
Floyd Brown
Loc: Milwaukee WI
[quote=Hungry Freaks]Libertarian is closer to anarchist thought than liberalism. But anarchy throughout the past few centuries has meant different things to different people.
I think the word anarchy means "without rulers" in Latin or Greek. Government, especially the use of government force is the anathema of the anarchist.
Most anarchists believe that, left to our own devices, humankind will self-govern, form small, autonomous communities among individuals who will live by consensus of the group without forcing anyone to comply with an individual's or any part of the group's will.
Some anarchists claim that hunter-gatherer society was essentially anarchist. In the North American and in Australia, aboriginal tribes often were leaderless in the modern sense of the word. without the use of force in induce any standard of conformity to the tribal norm. Among the American Indians there was a great deal of violence in the form of ritualized warfare between different tribes, but the anarchists, with some degree of validity, claim that in tribal affairs, the consensus of the group usually prevailed. A chief was often an old a wise warrior who commanded during ritualized warfare, but had little real authority in the governance of tribal matters.
Here in New Jersey, there is the legend of Chief Cohanzick, of the Lenni Lenape people. there's even a statue to honor him in Greenwich, Cumberland County, NJ.
Except there never was a Chief Cohanzick. Early European settlers came upon the Cohanzick branch of the Lenni Lenape and in a misunderstanding, kept asking who was chief. The idea of 'chief" being foreign to them, they kept pointing to other men until some poor sap took the bull by the horns and said "OK, I'm Chief Cohanzick." At least that's the way the legend is told by the remaining Lenni-Lenape in the area.
And that's why some anarchists claim hunter-gatherers like the Lenni Lenape were a shinning example of a leaderless society.
In the 1960s, so-called "Hippies" formed communes along the anarchist model without any leader and without the use of force to induce conformity. The diggers in San Francisco modeled themselves on the Diggers of 16th and 17th Century England to bring food and other social services to the waves of leaderless young people who converged on the city in 1967 and 1968.
Most of the communes of the 60s failed eventually, but some managed to survive until rather recently. The Farm in southeastern Tennessee was governed by consensus with communal ownership of all land (although Stephen Gaskin was undoubtedly the spiritual leader of the commune) until the 1990s. I've heard that the Farm is no longer a commune and that the breakup was rather dramatic because teh consensus to split was unanimous.
It gets complicated as there are many forms of anarchist thought. Some claimed communism was an example of self-rule while other anarchists thought the use of force to purge "alienation" among the masses was antithetical to true anarchy.
While anarchy is usually identified with the left, it is the Libertarians who most closely follow true anarchist thought in the US today. Central government is unnecessary because people will govern themselves in smaller units (states?) without imposing their will on anybody without consent.
It's an interesting concept with many favorable ideals, but in today's reality of micro-division of labor, it makes it hard for any one community of people to be completely independent of a larger group. Consensus gets messy the larger the group. And there is the problem of what to do with those so alienated due to centuries of rigid rule usually enforced with a heavy hand. Or those so used to doing as they are told that making hard decisions is virtually impossible.[/quote
Put me down as a like on this post.
I think the word anarchy means "without rulers" in Latin or Greek. Government, especially the use of government force is the anathema of the anarchist.
Most anarchists believe that, left to our own devices, humankind will self-govern, form small, autonomous communities among individuals who will live by consensus of the group without forcing anyone to comply with an individual's or any part of the group's will.
Some anarchists claim that hunter-gatherer society was essentially anarchist. In the North American and in Australia, aboriginal tribes often were leaderless in the modern sense of the word. without the use of force in induce any standard of conformity to the tribal norm. Among the American Indians there was a great deal of violence in the form of ritualized warfare between different tribes, but the anarchists, with some degree of validity, claim that in tribal affairs, the consensus of the group usually prevailed. A chief was often an old a wise warrior who commanded during ritualized warfare, but had little real authority in the governance of tribal matters.
Here in New Jersey, there is the legend of Chief Cohanzick, of the Lenni Lenape people. there's even a statue to honor him in Greenwich, Cumberland County, NJ.
Except there never was a Chief Cohanzick. Early European settlers came upon the Cohanzick branch of the Lenni Lenape and in a misunderstanding, kept asking who was chief. The idea of 'chief" being foreign to them, they kept pointing to other men until some poor sap took the bull by the horns and said "OK, I'm Chief Cohanzick." At least that's the way the legend is told by the remaining Lenni-Lenape in the area.
And that's why some anarchists claim hunter-gatherers like the Lenni Lenape were a shinning example of a leaderless society.
In the 1960s, so-called "Hippies" formed communes along the anarchist model without any leader and without the use of force to induce conformity. The diggers in San Francisco modeled themselves on the Diggers of 16th and 17th Century England to bring food and other social services to the waves of leaderless young people who converged on the city in 1967 and 1968.
Most of the communes of the 60s failed eventually, but some managed to survive until rather recently. The Farm in southeastern Tennessee was governed by consensus with communal ownership of all land (although Stephen Gaskin was undoubtedly the spiritual leader of the commune) until the 1990s. I've heard that the Farm is no longer a commune and that the breakup was rather dramatic because teh consensus to split was unanimous.
It gets complicated as there are many forms of anarchist thought. Some claimed communism was an example of self-rule while other anarchists thought the use of force to purge "alienation" among the masses was antithetical to true anarchy.
While anarchy is usually identified with the left, it is the Libertarians who most closely follow true anarchist thought in the US today. Central government is unnecessary because people will govern themselves in smaller units (states?) without imposing their will on anybody without consent.
It's an interesting concept with many favorable ideals, but in today's reality of micro-division of labor, it makes it hard for any one community of people to be completely independent of a larger group. Consensus gets messy the larger the group. And there is the problem of what to do with those so alienated due to centuries of rigid rule usually enforced with a heavy hand. Or those so used to doing as they are told that making hard decisions is virtually impossible.[/quote
Put me down as a like on this post.
Apr 11, 2014 10:20:51 #
Floyd Brown
Loc: Milwaukee WI
lpnmajor wrote:
Yep, Some people live more dangerously after they muster out, than they did while they served. All those who serve deserve some respect, no matter what role they played, but taking on unearned honors is a crime. People who do that tarnish the honor of those who served, but did not see combat. They are no less heroes for that, in my book, for without the rear guard, none of us could have gone, done the mission and come back.
Not sure about the numbers but I seem to recall that during Vietnam that only 1 in 9 was in combat the rest we support.
Apr 11, 2014 11:25:51 #
[quote=Floyd Brown][quote=Hungry Freaks]Libertarian is closer to anarchist thought than liberalism. But anarchy throughout the past few centuries has meant different things to different people.
I think the word anarchy means "without rulers" in Latin or Greek. Government, especially the use of government force is the anathema of the anarchist.
Most anarchists believe that, left to our own devices, humankind will self-govern, form small, autonomous communities among individuals who will live by consensus of the group without forcing anyone to comply with an individual's or any part of the group's will.
Some anarchists claim that hunter-gatherer society was essentially anarchist. In the North American and in Australia, aboriginal tribes often were leaderless in the modern sense of the word. without the use of force in induce any standard of conformity to the tribal norm. Among the American Indians there was a great deal of violence in the form of ritualized warfare between different tribes, but the anarchists, with some degree of validity, claim that in tribal affairs, the consensus of the group usually prevailed. A chief was often an old a wise warrior who commanded during ritualized warfare, but had little real authority in the governance of tribal matters.
Here in New Jersey, there is the legend of Chief Cohanzick, of the Lenni Lenape people. there's even a statue to honor him in Greenwich, Cumberland County, NJ.
Except there never was a Chief Cohanzick. Early European settlers came upon the Cohanzick branch of the Lenni Lenape and in a misunderstanding, kept asking who was chief. The idea of 'chief" being foreign to them, they kept pointing to other men until some poor sap took the bull by the horns and said "OK, I'm Chief Cohanzick." At least that's the way the legend is told by the remaining Lenni-Lenape in the area.
And that's why some anarchists claim hunter-gatherers like the Lenni Lenape were a shinning example of a leaderless society.
In the 1960s, so-called "Hippies" formed communes along the anarchist model without any leader and without the use of force to induce conformity. The diggers in San Francisco modeled themselves on the Diggers of 16th and 17th Century England to bring food and other social services to the waves of leaderless young people who converged on the city in 1967 and 1968.
Most of the communes of the 60s failed eventually, but some managed to survive until rather recently. The Farm in southeastern Tennessee was governed by consensus with communal ownership of all land (although Stephen Gaskin was undoubtedly the spiritual leader of the commune) until the 1990s. I've heard that the Farm is no longer a commune and that the breakup was rather dramatic because teh consensus to split was unanimous.
It gets complicated as there are many forms of anarchist thought. Some claimed communism was an example of self-rule while other anarchists thought the use of force to purge "alienation" among the masses was antithetical to true anarchy.
While anarchy is usually identified with the left, it is the Libertarians who most closely follow true anarchist thought in the US today. Central government is unnecessary because people will govern themselves in smaller units (states?) without imposing their will on anybody without consent.
It's an interesting concept with many favorable ideals, but in today's reality of micro-division of labor, it makes it hard for any one community of people to be completely independent of a larger group. Consensus gets messy the larger the group. And there is the problem of what to do with those so alienated due to centuries of rigid rule usually enforced with a heavy hand. Or those so used to doing as they are told that making hard decisions is virtually impossible.[/quote
Put me down as a like on this post.[/quote]
Have you ever read " Lord of the Flys"?
I think the word anarchy means "without rulers" in Latin or Greek. Government, especially the use of government force is the anathema of the anarchist.
Most anarchists believe that, left to our own devices, humankind will self-govern, form small, autonomous communities among individuals who will live by consensus of the group without forcing anyone to comply with an individual's or any part of the group's will.
Some anarchists claim that hunter-gatherer society was essentially anarchist. In the North American and in Australia, aboriginal tribes often were leaderless in the modern sense of the word. without the use of force in induce any standard of conformity to the tribal norm. Among the American Indians there was a great deal of violence in the form of ritualized warfare between different tribes, but the anarchists, with some degree of validity, claim that in tribal affairs, the consensus of the group usually prevailed. A chief was often an old a wise warrior who commanded during ritualized warfare, but had little real authority in the governance of tribal matters.
Here in New Jersey, there is the legend of Chief Cohanzick, of the Lenni Lenape people. there's even a statue to honor him in Greenwich, Cumberland County, NJ.
Except there never was a Chief Cohanzick. Early European settlers came upon the Cohanzick branch of the Lenni Lenape and in a misunderstanding, kept asking who was chief. The idea of 'chief" being foreign to them, they kept pointing to other men until some poor sap took the bull by the horns and said "OK, I'm Chief Cohanzick." At least that's the way the legend is told by the remaining Lenni-Lenape in the area.
And that's why some anarchists claim hunter-gatherers like the Lenni Lenape were a shinning example of a leaderless society.
In the 1960s, so-called "Hippies" formed communes along the anarchist model without any leader and without the use of force to induce conformity. The diggers in San Francisco modeled themselves on the Diggers of 16th and 17th Century England to bring food and other social services to the waves of leaderless young people who converged on the city in 1967 and 1968.
Most of the communes of the 60s failed eventually, but some managed to survive until rather recently. The Farm in southeastern Tennessee was governed by consensus with communal ownership of all land (although Stephen Gaskin was undoubtedly the spiritual leader of the commune) until the 1990s. I've heard that the Farm is no longer a commune and that the breakup was rather dramatic because teh consensus to split was unanimous.
It gets complicated as there are many forms of anarchist thought. Some claimed communism was an example of self-rule while other anarchists thought the use of force to purge "alienation" among the masses was antithetical to true anarchy.
While anarchy is usually identified with the left, it is the Libertarians who most closely follow true anarchist thought in the US today. Central government is unnecessary because people will govern themselves in smaller units (states?) without imposing their will on anybody without consent.
It's an interesting concept with many favorable ideals, but in today's reality of micro-division of labor, it makes it hard for any one community of people to be completely independent of a larger group. Consensus gets messy the larger the group. And there is the problem of what to do with those so alienated due to centuries of rigid rule usually enforced with a heavy hand. Or those so used to doing as they are told that making hard decisions is virtually impossible.[/quote
Put me down as a like on this post.[/quote]
Have you ever read " Lord of the Flys"?
Apr 11, 2014 11:52:41 #
You're getting to be quite the bore with this. Believe what you want, "pursue it" all you want.
After all, you claim to be a medical doctor come colonel that military trained to fly helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, yet you think the silver star is second only to the CMH. Right.
You also have little integrity by adding claims I never made to my posts-what they used to call a 'credibility gap" back in the old days.
You are truly your own worse enemy. Keep it up. You're posts reveal more and more about yourself.
After all, you claim to be a medical doctor come colonel that military trained to fly helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, yet you think the silver star is second only to the CMH. Right.
You also have little integrity by adding claims I never made to my posts-what they used to call a 'credibility gap" back in the old days.
You are truly your own worse enemy. Keep it up. You're posts reveal more and more about yourself.
Ve'hoe wrote:
Yes, I do,,, and I intend to try to pursue it with... (show quote)
Apr 11, 2014 12:04:36 #
Hungry Freaks wrote:
You're getting to be quite the bore with this. Bel... (show quote)
I was with 1/9 in 65 and 6 (also 2/9,3/9 and many others as a Forward Observer) and I don't know what all the accusations are about but there is one way to prove it, one way or the other. Simply scan in the citation for a silver star with the name blanked out but the particulars there and post it to this topic. It'll give the dates and units and reasons.
Apr 11, 2014 12:50:37 #
lpnmajor wrote:
Yep, Some people live more dangerously after they muster out, than they did while they served. All those who serve deserve some respect, no matter what role they played, but taking on unearned honors is a crime. People who do that tarnish the honor of those who served, but did not see combat. They are no less heroes for that, in my book, for without the rear guard, none of us could have gone, done the mission and come back.
Well stated. :thumbup:
Apr 11, 2014 17:21:01 #
Floyd Brown
Loc: Milwaukee WI
Armageddun wrote:
Have you ever read " Lord of the Flys"?
Not read. Saw the movie.
For my part it proves that might is not the best way to make things right.
It also shows that power can corrupt.
Apr 12, 2014 01:44:02 #
Armageddun wrote:
Have you ever read " Lord of the Flys"?
Yes, I've read it many years ago and never took it to be an example of anarchist society.
I've always thought it was more a comment on the natural state of human kind as expressed through what happens to children when left to their own devices.
Instead of forming an civil society, they revert to age-old instincts and set up an hierarchal society that more resembles fascism than anarchist society.
I think I remember the movie too-the two pilots finding the boys as the boy's society begins to implode. "Well what have we here" I think are the last words of the movie, or words to that effect.
A great book and a great film version.
I like the idea of an anarchist/Libertarian society. But I do have reserves about our ability to follow such paths due to what Marx called 'alienation" or what we call "extremist" tendencies among people smothered too long by a central government. Perhaps extremist isn't the right word. Antisocial perhaps?
Apr 12, 2014 02:06:48 #
autocthon wrote:
I was with 1/9 in 65 and 6 (also 2/9,3/9 and many others as a Forward Observer) and I don't know what all the accusations are about but there is one way to prove it, one way or the other. Simply scan in the citation for a silver star with the name blanked out but the particulars there and post it to this topic. It'll give the dates and units and reasons.
***************************************
I really don't think anything I do except bow to this guy will do. And I'm not likely to bow. I've said it before-I really don't care what he thinks.
Next I'll be sending a urine sample to prove I'm not a drunk or a drug addict has he has claimed. Some of his postings are truly alarming for someone who claims to be a medical doctor.
Besides, I take a rather perverse pleasure in pushing this somewhat disturbed person closer to the edge. he may be close.
Funny thing is that I never questioned his service. He and a few others claimed I didn't "think like someone who served" or, in other words, I don't have a rabidly right wing viewpoint.
But as he started with this entire name-called thing he made statements like "I'm a man of action-a real combat guy" and "I've killed people" did I begin to suspect that something was amiss with his rather spectacular claims.
He claims to have been a "ground solider" who went to medical school after serving, building a successful medical practice before going back into the service to be a helicopter and fixed-wiing aircraft pilot. And, according to which timeline he's posted, most, or all of this, has happened since 9-12-2001. Rather farfetched. And a full bird who thinks a Sliver Star is second to a CMH? Right.
So let him swim his own own soup. Let him "investigate" all he wants. He just reveals more about himself than he does about me. This is someone who has posted "I've been married three times and each one has been prettier than the last." A shallow, misogynist jerk.
PS: I never use the term "Walking Dead" to describe the 1/9-I didn't like it back than and I don't like it now. And I've never claimed to be a hero by saving the lives of my platoon or company commander. I just happened to have been near an officer when survival instinct kicked in. This guy is constantly twisting things. The truth is not in him.
Apr 12, 2014 09:21:58 #
Hungry Freaks wrote:
*************************************** br br I r... (show quote)
Got to admit, if what you say is true it sounds highly implausible, but the one thing that all my mis-begotten years has taught me is to never call anyone a liar without proof. Crow casserole really sucks. Someone DID bring up one of my pet peeves, however, that everyone in Nam was a combat troop, now that it's over. I remember walking into a hardback that served as an enlisted club in my muddy, torn utilities and getting stared at like I was from Mars. Up until then I had almost forgotten that ice existed.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.