Posted
by David Ryan
December 14, 2003 at 12:06 p.m.
Congratulations due
Congratulations are due to the U.S. armed forces who today captured Saddam.They've gotten the short end for a good while in Iraq - escalating casualities, more coordinated attacks against them, a very dangerous job in general that many of them couldn't've imagined they'd really see. I think most of us know people who joined one of the armed services not because they wanted to go fight dusty wars and see their friends die but because it was the only realistic way for them to get on a path - as they believed - to a betterment of their lives.They go into the Army like Jessica Lynch so they can go to college and have a professional career afterwards. Or into another service because their family life is dysfuntional and appalling and they simply have to leave home to have a change at happiness. Or into the Reserves, because they'll have access to child care assistance for a newborn. I know people who have those stories to tell.And though there's nothing immediately suggestive that Saddam's capture will end violence against western targets - a car bomb outside a hotel exploded after the capture, a suicide bomber struck near a police station this very morning - and although our war in Iraq was profoundly elective and not compellingly 'necessary' at all, these Americans who went into the armed forces because they wanted a better life afterwards can take Saddam's capture as a reason to feel they've really done something very good. I'm sure they can use that feeling - as much as the Iraqi people can appreciate the knowledge that the Saddam era is over.
and 7 others
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
dex (anonymous) says…
david: are you implying that motivations you discuss are typical of most people serving in the armed services, or only of those who enlist while foolishly ignoring history and the very real possibility that they will be sent into combat?
this is perhaps one of the most disgustingly cynical blogs i have yet to read.
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Dex -
I'm surprised you could find cynicism here. I mean what I wrote: I've known many who've joined the forces, not because they wanted to fight per se. And I think they can take a real feeling of success from SH's capture. What's wrong with that?
I'm truly nonplussed that you could read negativism into some honest good wishes.
Are you geared on this blog to perceive things that don't exist?
dex (anonymous) says…
if you're talking about the motivations of most people in the armed services, then i find much cynicism. if you're talking only about the "many" that you know, then i still find it somewhat cynical that you don't address the motiviations of the many others you don't directly know who enlist for reasons beyond career advancement and free health care.
dex (anonymous) says…
and your "honest good wishes" seem to be uttered with a sneer, as you talk about our helpless soldiers who had no choice but to enlist and find themselves in a combat situation they didn't directly anticipate at the time they signed on the dotted line.
maybe i should instead say that i find your characterization of our soldiers cynical and condescending in the same way i find blacklit's characterization of the poor. i have no doubt as to both of your honest good intentions toward either group, but i think you both unfairly misrepresent the people you claim to champion.
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Jeez, dex, you're quite the mind reader.
"[S]eem to be uttered with a sneer"? If that weren't so far off base I'd think your delusion funny.
But this topic is too important for me to consider your delusions funny.
You read my blog with an interpretive screen absolutely outside of anything I wrote. That's your gig, not mine. Too bad for you.
And I'm claiming no champions - another wallopingly off-base reading-into-my-words on your part.
If you'll look at the title of the blog you can see what my intentions were: "Congratulations are due."
End of story on intentions.
You should learn to read what's written instead of seeing your own thoughts everywhere.
dex (anonymous) says…
david, i never claimed that my interpretation of your blog is the same as interpretation you meant to convey.
once again, it seems to me that you're implying that people join the armed services simply to advance their careers and to get free health care. while i'm sure this is true of some of the people who enlist, i believe these people (the people you wrote about) are in the minority, and have only themselves to blame if they find themselves unexpectedly in combat. the terms of the contract are quite clear from the beginning; the fate of our soldiers is at the hands of the representatives we elect to represent us.
you say "congratulations are due" at the top of your blog, but then you spend the rest of the space bemoaning the soldiers who enlisted for purely selfish reasons who now find themselves risking their lives in combat. this is what i find cynical and makes your "congratulations" seem hollow and backhanded.
i'm just telling you how i interpreted what you had to say, and the reasons behind my interpretation. if you want to call me delusional and belittle me for not interpreting what you wrote in the way that you meant (instead of addressing the content of my comments), that's fine. but you might also consider that even if you think you're saying what you mean (and assuming you don't simply mean what you say), not everybody will interpret what you wrote in the way that you meant since none of us are filtering what you have to say through the same screen. i don't think i'm so far off base to be considered delusional. opinionated? yes. a jerk? perhaps. but delusional? far from it.
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Sorry, dex, but there's no point responding to your 'point' because your 'point' was so far from what I wrote that you might as well have claimed I'd unfairly slammed the moon shots in this here blog.
I'd similarly have nothing to say to that claim either, since it had nothing to do with what I wrote.
I stand by what I wrote, with the best of intentions to all in the armed services. They in Iraq have got it far more rough than anyone in Lawrence, Kansas, has it. And I extend my congrats (again) to them and my best wishes.
dex (anonymous) says…
i think it would have been a better blog if you had said something about about the men and women who might, just might, actually be thinking about a better life, not just for themselves, but for their children and grandchildren. in short, i'm talking about the people who enlisted for the sole purpose of protecting the future of this country. maybe i'm being too idealistic, but i believe there are far more of these people (than the ones you mention) in the armed services who also have stories to tell.
pc (Phil Cauthon) says…
not sure where this bickering is coming from...maybe you two are just pissed that they haven't found osama, so you're taking it out on each other.
in response to the original blog: agreed. i've only known a couple folks who were west-point officer bound, and even those went in to the army to make a better life for themselves. everyone else that i've know to enlist did so as a last resort, hoping praying that this type of iraq bs wouldn't come during their 6-yr commitment. maybe "congratulations" isn't the right choice of vocabulary word -- seems to be the root of you word mavens' bickering -- but definitely a heartfelt "thank god"
dex (anonymous) says…
or maybe the root cause of the "bickering" (i prefer "discussion") is that we each have a different set of friends who enlisted for different reasons, which leads to different interpretations of what it means to serve in the armed forces. i'm apparently delusional because i consider the possibility, no, the reality, that many people also enlist in the armed services for reasons beyond simply getting a jump start on their career, and that it's cynical to imply (by omission) that these people are in the minority (at least without proof). i also believe that a heartfelt "congratulations" would be free of political sniping and cynical implications that our soldiers enlisted bacause they had no other choice.
in this blog has my ire has been directed solely at mr. ryan's opinions and political commentary, not him personally, which i was under the impression was welcome in this forum. but hey, don't listen to me, i'm the delusional one who is apparently incapable of reading only the words that the author has written without using my own judgment to interpret what he wrote based on my own experiences.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
Before I even started reading the comments I wondered about the purpose of this blog.
At first (after reading only the "Congratulations Due" header), it seemed this might be an honest "hip-hip-hooray for the troops" of sorts. But it quickly became obvious that the writer was trying his hardest to find some way, any way, to bring up this story and at the same time dis the troops and this accomplishment and everything about it. I think it might even piss him off that Saddam was captured.
Still it is before I have read any of the comments, and I am no longer wondering about the purpose of this blog.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
Additionally, it's funny that the war, in the Yellow Dog's eyes, has seemed to gained some legitimacy after the capture of Hussein was merely proven possible.
rgbombshell (anonymous) says…
hmmmmm. davidryan makes sense and I believe any serviceman would apprciate this blog including my father who served his 22 years in the military and is completley annoyed by those with no military experience themselves who try to comment on how he should feel or interpret a message that says congratulations. In other words-dex-you are entitled to your opinion all you want but don't try to speak for those who served if you have no personal idea or can even fathom what it is like to be in the service!
dex (anonymous) says…
so the motivations relayed by my friends and family who have served and are currently serving in the armed forces are bunk because i, myself, have never personally served? you should reread my comments, as i allow for many possible motivations.
again, my main complaint is not with the congratulations in the blog, but that the author omitted a large segment of our armed services in his political commentary. in fact, i do believe congratulations are in order, and as such, i believe that true congratulations should not include political commentary; there are plenty of other times for that.
i suspect that neither you, rgbombshell, nor mr. ryan, have served in the armed forces either and you casually dismiss my objections *to the political commentary* for my lack of service.
rgbombshell (anonymous) says…
well your suspicions are wrong mr. dex-4 years in the airforce with 2 in korea. either way i get your point but your pretention shines through yet again.
dex (anonymous) says…
and rgbombshell, if you apply your criticism of "don't try to speak for those who served if you have no personal idea or can even fathom what it is like to be in the service" then to remain consistent you must also apply that criticism to mr. ryan and yourself, if you have not, in fact, served.
dex (anonymous) says…
aha! oops. then you claim to speak for all the troops?
dex (anonymous) says…
and what do you mean by pretention? i belive my argument has been to *allow* for the stories and motiviations of a larger set of men and women in the armed services than the restricted and narrow set mentioned by mr. ryan.
dex (anonymous) says…
i mean, you label me as pretentious for assuming you've never served in the armed forces, yet you make the same assumption of me? the only difference is that you guessed right, and i guessed wrong?
in either case, both you and mr. ryan resort to personal attacks by calling me delusional or pretentious, without ever attacking my assumptions or arguments? what gives?
rgbombshell (anonymous) says…
hmmm-i think this has gotten out of hand-i wash my hands of it all except to add this-many do join to serve their country, but nowadays it is more the norm to meet a serviceperson that has joined for the purpose that mr. ryan has stated. either way they did their time as I have and deserve the respect of us all.
dex (anonymous) says…
fair enough, point taken. my friends and family are not exactly a statistically representative sample.
veterans including yourself and the people currently serving do indeed deserve our respect and thanks.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
I think that maybe I assume too much about David Ryan's comments...while I don't agree with the tone I do agree with the implicit message.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
although, then again, maybe the implicit message is what I don't agree with...er....nevermind.
dex (anonymous) says…
shelby, make up your damn mind! you must choose one side so that i may pick the other and argue with you!
blacklit (anonymous) says…
there are statistics to back up david ryan's perceptions.
From the Washington Post Feb 4th 2003:
A Department of Defense study two years ago of the armed services population concluded that "both active and reserve recruits are primarily from families in the middle and lower middle socioeconomic strata." It found that soldiers from wealthier families were "not well-represented among the backgrounds of new recruits."
I guess that's just a coincidence dex.
Or maybe in fact the rich just aren't as patriotic and, ahem, how did you say it dex? "the men and women who might, just might, actually be thinking about a better life, not just for themselves, but for their children and grandchildren."
I guess if you've got money your children and grandchildren will already be ok. As for the rest of the country...fuck em!
dex (anonymous) says…
your little quote doesn't actually address the motivations of the people serving. you're inferring more than what the "data" shows (it's hard to tell, because you didn't link to the data). plus, there are far more people in the middle and lower "socioeconomic strata" thingy so of course they will be better represented than the "rich" or the "wealthy" (terms you have yet to define). it's impossible to judge the meaning of your little "statistic" without more information on what was actually measured.
besides, you've missed the main points of the argument, which was about the sincereness of a "congratulations" attached to political commentary and that there are people serving in the armed services that have joined for reasons beyond career advencement and free health care. how many times to i have to say this?
none of the people i know that once served or are serving now made their decission out of necessity. i can't believe anybody is arguing against my apparently incredible claim that there actually are a lot of people who join the armed services out of a sense of patriotic duty for their country and not out of necessity. that is the crux of my argument. nothing more, nothing less.
at no point did i claim that the "rich" are more or less patriotic than the "poor" or "middle class," but thanks for playing.
blacklit (anonymous) says…
dex, you think everyone else is making outlandish claims but look at yourself.
all we're saying is that people act for selfish reasons, they join the military for self advancement. This is normal human behavior.
You talk of "patriotism" and all these bullshit grand abstractions that only exist in the minds of the deluded to justify what is otherwise simply an expression of human selfishness.
blacklit (anonymous) says…
so yes, there are some people who join the military out of a deluded sense of patriotism. Certainly. There are also soldiers who probably think that all of America's military campaigns are actually defensive. lol
When each bomb drops, they actually think, ah, another person "liberated".
But poor dex, this is the real world sweetheart, and the real world is ugly.
dex (anonymous) says…
what part of me comment makes you think that i "think everyone else is making outlandish claims"?
and all i'm saying is that *not* everybody joins the military for self advancement. did you read the portion of my comment right before "crux of my argument"? i know it's true because i've talked with several people who joined for reasons beyond self advancement.
in addition, "selfish reasons" vary from person to person, and may not imply "advencement of career" or "free stuff" like college or health care (this is what i'm assuming you mean by selfish). but selfish could also very will mean "protect the land and people of this country" that i enjoy and want to be available for future generations.
is it possible for me to hold an opinion contrary to yours without being labeled "delusional"?
dex (anonymous) says…
are you implying that if you're a patriot and enlist out of patriotism, then you're deluded? i think that opinion is incredibly cynical.
blacklit (anonymous) says…
yes, what i'm saying is that most people do it for self advancement.
I agree with you; some people join because they are deluded, they act on abstractions; ie. "patriotism" and "protecting the land and people of this country for future generations".
That is patent bullshit.
A. I refuse to believe that when we unilaterally attack a sovereign nation, it is actually in self-defense. The delusion mongers peddle this bullshit during every conflict. In the war of American agression in Vietnam, we were defending ourselves! In the war of American agression in Iraq, we are defending ourselves. hahahaha, what crazy stupid ignorant bullshit!
blacklit (anonymous) says…
I'm not saying you're not deluded because you disagree with me.
I'm claiming delusion when people believe things that defy reason and reality. That's what delusion is, no?
dex (anonymous) says…
i know you are but what am i.
blacklit (anonymous) says…
I have a tootheache..just in a lousy mood...
think i'm going to listen to "Pyramid Song" on repeat and get stoned...
if that doesn't work, I guess I can rip the motherfucker out...
dex (anonymous) says…
you beat me to the punch, and i forgot a "?" (which makes up for all the additional ?'s i used earlier)
i don't see how patriotism defies reason and reality.
anyway, i've finished working for the evening. goodnight.
blacklit (anonymous) says…
patriotism defies reason and reality because it wouldn't exist if there weren't a word for it.
blacklit (anonymous) says…
Let me be clear:
Patriotism (def. from dictionary.com : " Love of and devotion to one's country.") depends on a country. Integral to the meaning of that word is the association to "country" which itself is an abstract thing. A country is just arbitrary lines over a real world.
real people live to live; non real people live for countries.
Thus, patriotism itself is only an abstraction. If a person had never been told of patriotism or country then the person would not be patriotic.
liza (anonymous) says…
To continue the off-topic distraction to meaningful discussion: many 'things' "woulding exist if there weren't a word" for them. A short list of such might include 'love', 'hate', 'reason', 'idiocy','foolish responses'. Much of human discussion revolves around items only defined within the language-game. Still, I have no doubt that idiocy and foolish responses do exist; this board constantly re-affirms my belief.
Jason (anonymous) says…
I like that one! *points at liza*
*Jason quickly runs to the breakroom for more popcorn*
Shelby (anonymous) says…
Geometry doesn't exist either.
Jason (anonymous) says…
Neither does Shelby.
elmersleznick (anonymous) says…
Leave the writer alone and get on with your lives. The whole "war" is a big joke foisted on the troops (who have families are being paid squat to stay over there longer than anyone wants them to be there), the American public (which has been so brainwashed, hoodwinked and numbed into submission by Fox News, the White House spinmeisters and big box shopping that they have zero sense of what other cultures may think of our jingoistic rah-rah blather) and the rest of the world.
So please go back to watching cnn, espn, Fox News or whatever mindless reality TV show is on tonight. But make sure you go online and buy something from some generic American retailer like Walmart.com so you can do your patriotic part and put your hard-earned money back into the economy to make good old Dubya and the rest of the stupid white men who really run things in Washington look good. Oh yeah. Go buy an SUV and then go hunting. They'd like that, too.
dex (anonymous) says…
once again, the issues take a back seat to name calling, baseless conclusions, and demonizing generalizations. very well, i'll bite. here're my last 2 cents (until payday) divided up into cash awards:
liza wins the diplomacy award.
elmersleznick: who are you to say we're *not* getting on with our lives? you win the "instead of discussing the issues, uses emotionally charged language instead of logically connected statements, demonizatoin of successful companies that provide lots of jobs for american and foreign workers, and implying that the people who disagree with the blog author are idiots who get all their ideas from television without actually thinking for themselves" award. in short, you win the cynical award for thinking that the "american public" is too stupid to think for themselves because they're nothing but mind-slaves to their television masters (incidentally, where were you when bob dole cried "where's the outrage?"). sorry mr. ryan, it was a tough decision, but there's always the next blog.
blacklit wins the "needs to stop smoking ditch-weed" award.
jason and shelby: next you're going to say santa claus doesn't exist because he's also just a word. but you'll both be wrong! you win nothing!
the "issues" loose once again. why don't very many people here attack the substance of people's arguments (assumptions and logic) instead of resorting to name calling, baseless conclusions, and demonization?
Shelby (anonymous) says…
Dex, you're a pansy. You have sex with reindeer. Shop at the Merc or I'll key your Navigator. And keep your goddamn hardearned money OUT of the economy like smart folk.
dex (anonymous) says…
topic killer! hahahaha
Jason (anonymous) says…
Dex: it's a good thing I don't care about your filthy heathen prizes dex. quit word-murdering your children! i beg of you!!!
Jason (anonymous) says…
Oh and by the way... Santa certainly does exist. i believe!! She and her elves just stopped by my work place and got me all liquored up... damnedest thing that...
kentaro (anonymous) says…
troll warning....
From the jargon dictionary:
troll v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." 3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
Let's stay on topic, Kentaro.
dex (anonymous) says…
kentaro: TROLL!!!
wait, trolls are great on political forums. otherwise i wouldn't get all worked up and might actually have to start working. wait, i'm on vacation .... ARGH!
sort-of on topic: if self-interested soldiers really are the new norm in the armed services, do you believe that this is a result of the new incentives to enlist (GI-Bill, etc...) and the "Army of One" advertising campaign that seems to put personal glory ahead of teamwork? is making the armed services more attractive to the "me-generation" a bad thing? is the "army of one" mentality partially responsible for the media's broo-ha-ha obsession with jessica lynch?
yes, no, and yes are my opinions, and i'll leave it at that.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
yny as well.
Jason (anonymous) says…
dex & Shelby: You may want to sit down... For once in our lives I actually agree with you. yes, no, yes... Savor the flavor boys, cause I doubt it'll ever happen again.
frankdormat (Frank Dorsey) says…
I haven't read all the vitriolic comments to this blog, but I will say that I had no delusions what basic training was really about when I went. I was just in the Army Reserves, but everyone went through the same training, and any illusion that it was just about college money was squelched when we engaged in the delightful call and response, bayonet training screaming:
Drill Seargent: what's the spirit of the bayonet?!
Trainees: to kill!
ds: what makes the grass grow?
Grunts: BLOOD!!
etc.
And there were all the other ways we learned to kill people claymores (a nice little remote control mine type thing filled with jagged scrap metal, nuts, bolts), grenades, m60s, LAWs (light anti tank weapons).
I'm not saying that there should be no opposition from troops who disagree with the legitimacy of deployment, I'm just saying that the possibility of going into battle is very clear in the training I received.
blacklit (anonymous) says…
been gone a while,
been high a while,
no, not bad weed dex, and i assume if that is your only critique of my posts then it was good weed indeed.
as far as how the army advertises; they advertise like any other company does. they present virtues for you to pursue if you sacrifice part of yourself to them. these virtues may or may not have anything to do with the product (like, every time i drink some shitty beer like bud light, i don't suddenly have a 4 some with dallas cowboy cheerleaders). so yah, the army isn't going to get on tv and say: join up, you may risk your life for the political strategems of old cowardly men in suits behind fortified doors. you are their bitch, that's right. in return, you will get the cheap sense of satisfaction from bombing brown people and we'll also give you a free education and free medical care (something that the european countries do for all citizens). in short, the military allows you to be totally cared for by the government, a child with no worries. we all yearn for that sometime, no?
but that would be honest.
instead, a marine climbs an impossibly tall and steep plateau, slays a dragon with sword, and then spins around into the proud white strong attractive marine that he is (once he joins).
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Finally having had some time, I submit for perusal evidence underlying one of my claims here - that most join the military for personal economic betterment and education.
see
http://www.de
fenselink.mil/execsec/adr97/g19g21.htmland scroll down to the second table "trends in enlistment propensity common reasons for joining the military."
If anyone has evidence to support their counterclaims, by all means lets see it.
(And I was pleased to see Time magazine supporting the Yellow Dog view in naming The American Soldier person of the year...)
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
here's the link again in hopefully non-wrapped form:
http://www.defenselink.mil/e
xecsec/adr97/g19g21.html#top
quinno (Patrick Quinn) says…
I love America.
I can't thank all of you enough. This entire thread--this discussion of why people join the military, and what those people are like, and what they're thinking, and why they do what they do--is a fine demonstration of the beauties and the horrors of the First Amendment. Aside from Frank Dorsey, there does not appear to be a single person participating in this exchange who has the slightest idea what they're talking about.
Bravo Frank.
It's difficult to pick the most egregiously fatuous remark yet posted, but here's my fave of the moment: "In short, the military allows you to be totally cared for by the government, a child with no worries." This, coming from a stoner in a college town, is so offensive that it transcends offense. It's just funny, like John Ashcroft talking about the Bill of Rights or Bill Clinton talking about public morality.
I spent six years in the Navy, and not even in boot camp did I ever hear or participate in an exchange comprised so totally of bad gas. The suggestion that David's original post was some sort of backdoor smear of the armed forces is foolish and wrong. The suggestion that the military is comprised of self-aggrandizing halfwits is laughable. The thread speaks for itself; it is without logical content. You guys could probably put together a snappy conversation about Dungeons and Dragons or the Plight of the Whales, but you really ought to avoid talking about motivations and character of the people in the armed forces; so far as I can tell none of you are sufficiently well-informed to understand what fools you're making of yourselves.
But hey, it's fun to read--I think now I understand why so many people watch America's Stupidest Pets. Cheers.
dex (anonymous) says…
"backdoor smear of the armed forces" isn't quite what i meant. i was talking about taking political swipes in a piece that was supposed to be about congratulating the armed services. but as always, thanks for playing.
your comment about D&D was so totally offensive that i'm going to chuck a load of my 20-sided dice at your face if we ever meet in a dark alley. careful beause i've got a +3 slingshot and i know how to use it. and please, D&D? come on, real men play GURPS. shows what *you* know, idiot.
it's so unfortunate that you spent six years in the navy protecting the freedoms enjoyed by halfwits like us only to later visit this depraved corner of the internet and basically tell us (save frank) to shut the hell up. so please, enlighten us, as this is a discussion among fools who don't know any better. isn't enlightenment the purpose of discussion? you've added nothing but embarrasingly easy insults and a few words that sent me to my dictionary. bravo!
Shelby (anonymous) says…
While going through the collected rippings from my "Our Dumb Century" desk calendar, I found a headline that is chuckle-worthy AND topical..........jesus christ--I hope this doesn't piss of Quinno:
(Sept. 20, 1990)
"Bottom 10 Percent Of Last Year's Graduating Class Ready To Take On Saddam"
blacklit (anonymous) says…
laughing my ass off...
quinno, your ego in itself is offensive. it is absurd.
I can't barely read your posts because your ego, glares at me so apparently, i can't see beyond it.
Do you also talk with your head up your ass or is it just while you type? you infect every blog you touch with your pompous idiocy.
You complain that people are stereotyping those in the military and then you talk of "dungeons and dragons" etc.; in effect, stereotyping. if you're going to be a dumbass, at least be consistent brother...
and never in quoting and pasting and attacking did you ever actually get to the substance of what we were discussing. You just smear "stoner" and then wave about a few cheap insults "slightest idea what they're talking about" and then something about "americas stupidiest pets" (??). you never get beyond the surface.
If you had as much respect for the truth and honesty as you do for yourself, you would speak less...