Did anyone tell her a Tiara didn't come with the job?  LOL LOL Ok I crack myself up!

Hey good to see ya Mike!  I have been playing nice, I promise.

QUOTE: I just find the idea that a military man can't be an intellectual or must be some sort of emotionally stunted killing machine, unift for office, offensive on so many levels.

Let's not put words in people's mouths, now... I didn't say soldiers can't be intelligent, but most are taught to fight rather than think when facing a challenge.  My "picking up a book not rifle" statement is meant more as a state of mind than a level of intelligence.  Professors or other great thinkers usually seek fair and diplomatic means of solving problems, rather than beating up those who cause the problem.  How many countless dozens of other countries solve their problems diplomatically, when America (usually under Republican control) seeks the military solution?

I didn't read that Greg thought military guys were stupid at ALL, he was saying they are trained to fight, which they are. They are Military, they fight our wars and they are well trained at killing others.

The following is from a speech by Dwight D Eisenhower on the eve of him leaving office. Smart man, Greg is saying the same thing, just not as beauitfully, sorry Greg the speech was a damn fine speech.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. "

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Please go to the link and read the entire speech here is another pearl of wisdom.

"Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow"

Amen! I bet Dwight is rolling in his grave to know his party is gutting the ideals of his beloved country. Now I know why his granddaughter spoke at the DNC.

Edited to add: OMG I just realized my posts are at 1111 my favorite time of the day is 11:11 , we are at a balance digital time!!!!!!

How many countless dozens of other countries solve their problems diplomatically, when America (usually under Republican control) seeks the military solution?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Democratic Presidents have used military force more often than Republican ones. They were usually right in doing so too.

But you see, your generalization is totally off the mark. Soldiers are not taught to fight rather than think when facing a challenge. A soldier's training consists heavily of learning and developing strategies for facing challenges in more efficient ways.  A soldier who doesn't "think" (as you describe it) is not considered an asset to the modern army, but a liability.

There is currently a controversy within the american military over the lowering of intelligence and mental aptitude standards because of recruitment preoblems. They have been working for decades on raising those standards, since soldiers on the low end of the "acceptable" scale take more time to train, are less efficient and capable of adapting to new situations and are more likely to make potentially costly or fatal mistakes.

And in democracies, it is not the military that chooses to go to war. It is the politicians. It is the politicians who choose whether to employ military or diplomatic solutions. The Bush administration is not exactly known for being made up of military men or listening to military advisors or the generals on the ground. How "military men being taught to fight rather than think" , if true, would have any bearing on the current situation is beyond me. Unless you want to blame the whole fiasco on Powell. Remind me, were there any other high ranking Bush administration officals with a noteworthy military background? Anyone?

Rumsfeld was a Navy pilot.

Ridge and Principi served in Vietnam. Gates was in the Air Force.

John, Basic training isn't for breaking down the solider so that they can start building and molding them to how they want them to be?, are you saying the military does not train to kill, news to me that they do "be remorseful lessons" .

You are attacking Greg for a statement that is true but worded harshly. I asked a friend who is career military why these guys in the military could go to Iraq and kill people that did NOTHING to us. His answer was, "we are not trained to think, we are trained to follow orders."  This is NO different then what Greg said.

Did you read what I posted that Eisenhower said? If not read the speech.  

Edited to add: Greg never said soliders were stupid, the army would have Chaos if all their soliders were independent thinkers.