" 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."

Greg came right out and said that military training had effects on military men that rendered them unfit (in his eyes) to be president. Ask your military friend if that's something he agrees with. If that is a reasonable interpretation of what he said to you.

And the ""we are not trained to think, we are trained to follow orders."  quote has a specific meaning: ""we are not trained to think about our orders, we are trained to follow them."  which is a distinction that needs to be made. Thought, planning and moral judgement does enter into it when it comes to how one follows the order. And the officers, of whatever rank, who give the orders have to "think", don't they? Unless you think orders just spontaneously happen.

In the field, the independent verification of intelligence required to question orders in a meaningful way would be either time consuming or impossible. Not following orders can get you or someone else killed. Of course every soldier still has the right and obligation to question or refuse to comply with illegal orders, but the grey areas are pretty space-consuming.

The "breaking down" that you refer to is a method of creating a sense of loyalty within the unit and between the soldiers and their immediate superiors in the chain of command. It is a way of establishing who the alpha male (sargeant) is.  Any completely male environment is going to have a conflict to establish an alpha male, the military system needs that "alpha male" system to follow the chain of command. It's not a brainwashing process, but a male bonding process.

So you think Greg is a military hating bastard?

NO way, shape or form. do I believe that is who Greg is.

I will give you this, I think Greg misworded the "without remorse" Greg do you think a solider is heartless?  (I think the answer will be no.)

But in the military you also have to steel yourself to do things that goes against your natural instinct of "thou shall not kill."

No, basic training is NOT for breaking down the soldier so that they can start building and molding them to how they want them to be.  By shaving off everyone's hair (for the men) and requiring everyone to dress identically, military training levels the playing field by making everyone effectively equal in appearance, and then you are taught how to work together.  The bulk of my Air Force basic military training school was focused on classroom training that taught everyone the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is the foundation of U.S. military law.  Other classes addressed military history, the history of the U.S. Air Force, leadership skills, general health and safety, interpersonal communications, personal hygiene, first aid (including trauma care), and nuclear/biological/chemical disaster preparedness.  Classroom training took up the largest bulk of the day, five days a week, and was supplemented with physical training (PT) twice a day which consisted of general general calisthenics and running, and the physical conditioning was supplemented with marching drills.

During my six weeks of basic training, we spent one day on confidence course (what most people think of as an "obstacle course") applying individual and team-oriented physical skills, and one afternoon was spent on the firing range learning how to handle, fire, clean, and strip M-16 rifles (we all had an opportunity to qualify for our Marksman ribbons at this time).  As part of our firearms training we were also taught the difference between "cover" and "concealment" if you're ever under fire.

Through the firearms training, the N/B/C training (nuclear/biological/chemical awareness), and the first aid training we were taught about various ways that we could be killed, and later in technical training I learned of other ways that I could manage to get myself killed in the course of doing my job, which was avionics maintenance including radar systems, navigation systems, communication systems (ways of getting killed or injured include ejector seats, high-frequency radiation exposure from radars and radios, electrocution, and improper safety precautions around "hot" aircraft, ejector seats, charged hydraulic systems, and jet exhausts)

I didn't know much about Eisenhower until I read that speech, I was blown away by it, I learned as much as I could about him after I read it, very sharp guy.

Apparently you still don't, as he's talking about the rise of the military industrial complex and the need to guard against it becoming economically and politically powerful enough to endanger the democratic process (as in other countries, where the military and military leaders truly 'call the shots"). It has nothing do with whether former military men are fit politicians or political leaders and nothing to do with this discussion.  But then I'm not surprised as your observations, statements and arguments tend to at best be superficial.

NO way, shape or form. do I believe that is who Greg is. "

I think he said that the military makes men unfit for the presidency. A statement that those of us who have served (though I never served in any combat related capacity) find highly inaccurate and uninformed.  I have detailed what I feel is wrong with his assumptions.

As for "So you think Greg is a military hating bastard?". That kind of rhetorical trick is beneath you, Jodi. Should I say he isn't and defend him, or affirm it and  have to defend myself for calling him names? 

I think his own words clearly demonstrate his position.  

It's about letting those that profit from military actions making decisions about the course of our country,Halliburton/Cheney prime example.

But then I'm not surprised as your observations, statements and arguments tend to at best be superficial.

Are you serious Joel, a man that has posts that are about as deep as a puddle, and uses guys like Chris Rock to support his argument. LOL

Edited to add My post is in response to Joels not Knuts

Sure, but that's not what Greg was talking about (nor what the ensuing discussion was about). You posted that link saying that Greg was "saying the same thing" but it's making a totally different point.

Are you serious Joel, a man that has posts that are about as deep as a puddle, and uses guys like Chris Rock to support his argument. LOL

Well, obviously, I disagree...but certainly fair for you to say in response to my remark about you.

As for "So you think Greg is a military hating bastard?". That kind of rhetorical trick is beneath you, Jodi. Should I say he isn't and defend him, or affirm it and  have to defend myself for calling him names? 

Knut I thought your posts and John's were very thoughtful and informative and instead on jumping on Greg, ask him to clarify what he was saying. The responses to Gregs statements painted him in that light. And sometimes on these boards the responses get balled into the original statement.

Joel I don't mean to say something bad about you, my first response to your statement was "Kiss my ass Joel" I value what you bring to the table, even though we don't agree about much, I was wrong to say you are about as deep as a puddle.  I am sorry for that.