Dan, are you sure you're an American? This rigorously impartial analysis wouldn't look out of place coming from one of the BBC's Washington correspondents*.

Perhaps, for the health of the political process, only expats living at least as far away as Central America should be allowed to comment on it...!


_{* That's a good thing.}

Doc,

Yup, sure am, native born and bred as well. Not only that, but I got me a real purty birth certificate authenticated by a raised seal (not one of them their trained ones) and stamped by them smart folks in Washington, D.C. to prove it.

BBC? That's another question.

Thanks, Doc.

Dan

Thanks Dan, I'm really pleased that my viewpoints were rather static before all the PC hit the streets. And I point this out with the added caveat that my viewpoints, opinions etc... were static and not in a bad way.

At least I have the comforting thought of being taught how to think and not what to think. For that I am thankful towards my father who was career military and had the family out and about on both seaboards and in various countries overseas. It helped round out my temperance and perspective on who I am and where I came from. Momma used to quote the scriptures when she said... "look to the rock from which you were cleft (child) and to quarry from which you were dug." My heritage deemed that I should. My upbringing insisted that I dig deeper than that.

This just in:

BAGHDAD (AFP) - More than 1,200 US troops serving in Iraq signed up for extended service in the military to mark America's national day on Friday.

At least 1,215 troops re-enlisted for periods ranging from two to six years at the ceremony held at the spacious Al-Faw palace of executed dictator Saddam Hussein near Baghdad airport.

General David Petraeus, the head of US-led coalition forces in Iraq, said he was "proud of their decision to re-enlist and help the people of Iraq win their most important battle ... freedom."

The US military has regularly re-enlisted service members in Iraq but Friday's swearing-in was one of the largest, the military said.

"I wonder for whom they will vote."

In my book, they just did.

On the Iraq issue, who has a more cogent voice than the troops?

Clavos, the Iraq issue is a political one, so the voices of the troops are not massively relevant... That's why they are soldiers, not politicians.

Christopher is, of course, absolutely correct.

I mean, you know, just being there and all and well, you know, maybe being in harm's way sometimes, they probably know a lot less about what's actually working than the politicians. The surge (or is it "serge?" I had a really cool suit made of that once) probably isn't effective anyway, and they know that in Washington. I mean, you know, they all get briefed once in a while and are sort of in harm's way too when they travel back and forth to attend those dull and pesky briefings and have to make speeches so the folks back home will know where they stand (or sit).

The grunts should just do whatever they are paid to do, quit the dumb symbolism, and stay off the grass while they do it.

Dan

First and foremost, they are citizens, thus their voices are as relevant as anyone else's, especially those of politicians, who are the least relevant (or cogent) voices in the land.

Secondly, the troops know and understand the essence and state of the conflict far better and more intimately than any other citizen, including the politicians.

Had we listened to our troops in Vietnam, the results would have been much more favorable to the US than they were.

@#7:

Bravo!

Just because the United States soldier is in the streets of Baghdad does not make him an authority on the essence or state of the conflict, no more than living in Washington D.C. necessarily makes you an authority on U.S. Policy, or being on the streets as a police officer necessarily makes you knowledgeable on the nature and causes of gang violence.

It is nothing short of a fallacy to think so, and I fail to see where we can make the connection of, "He's in street in the middle of a foreign city potentially getting shot at," to "he must intimately understand and grasp the nature and essence of the conflict at hand, [far better than those who have continuous global information feeds, the information resources of the most advanced agencies on the globe, etc..]

Granted, you didn't say what was in brackets. But I filled in the necessary implication.

I know we're all going to pounce here and go for the good ol' appeal to patriotism, but heed this: Getting shot at does not make you an expert in the war. Getting shot at does not let you know what's happening other than there's someone out there that presumably wants you dead, which is likely why you were sent there in the first place. And finally, getting shot at likely arises nothing more in your cerebrum than "how the hell do I get away from these bullets or make the guy shooting them stop?"

I know we're apt to equate, "getting shot at," and "in harm's way," to "understanding the situation on the ground," but look at it through their eyes: What would your thoughts be if you were getting shot at? Would they be attempts to understand the machinations of command and bureaucracy around you in the context of this multinational, multiethnic, and multireligious-sectarian clash in this strange land, as well as trying to unravel the decidedly un-publicized grand strategy of your superiors (assuming there is any)?

Or would it be to follow your orders, put in a day's work, not get shot at again (presumably by shooting the other guy), then go to bed and repeat until you and Uncle Sam agree that you're going home?

Maybe I'm strange, but for me, it'd be the latter.

I can't honestly understand where people come up with the idea that, since the soldier is on the ground, he must be an expert in what's going on all around him.

Robert. Getting shot at for months when you go into a neighborhood and then going to that same neighborhood and finding the formerly terrified civilians walking the streets, hanging out in cafes and not being shot at - and you're being clapped on the back and offered coffee instead of being shot at yourself. Well, that might give you a hint that things are changing.

That kind of story has been coming out of Iraq for months from soldiers and Iraqis and other people on the ground, and getting virtually no coverage in the US media.

Dave

Yes.

It would tell that soldier, "things are changing."

I'm not debating that. I'm not debating that a soldier CAN see, or at least estimate, a general trend like that, nor can any intelligent individual.

But it's HARDLY being an expert on the nature and essence of the conflict, and certainly says nothing about the war itself other than that the neighborhood which that soldier patrolled is now somewhat more friendly to him.

That single neighborhood. Of many in that city, of many cities in that region, of many cities and settlements in that country. Rather superficial for him to be intimate with the "nature and essence" of the conflict, perhaps?

We have all these sources. Soldiers on the ground, military commanders, reporters in the field, Iraqi bloggers, experts on the region and we can draw on them all to form our conclusions on how things stand there. That's the wonder of the information age.

I also think you're underestimating how in touch our soldiers are. They have internet and satellite TV access and they can put their experiences together with what they hear through the grapevine, on the net and in the media and put their personal observations in context as well as anyone can.

Dave

Dan,

This is really weak: "...he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida."

NOT a combat position. Hell, I could do that. So could you or anyone else. That doesn't make us heroes, worthy of elevation to the Whitehouse.

...?

I'm not sure we're on the same page here. I'm not arguing..

a) That we don't have these sources open to the decision makers of the U.S. Government and Military.

b) That we can't use these sources.

c) That the troops are not "in touch," and are in communications blackout.

Nor have I ever contended any of this. I merely said that the ability to notice a difference in the atmosphere of a small section of the country (a neighborhood, specifically) does not mean the person who noticed it is automatically in touch with the "essence and state" of the conflict as a whole, or even really in his sector.

It only means, by this example, that he can notice that people are being nice to him, and that the situation there, by that experience (which really is just anecdotal and doesn't mean anything conclusively) is improving. It doesn't mean he can actually tell you what precisely is going on in the conflict, that he can tell you the essence, purpose or state of the conflict, it just means that, in his experience of that small neighborhood, a cafe owner offered him a coffee.

Following this line of reasoning, I could describe myself as being in touch with Franco-American relations because I went into a bookstore and the cute French girl winked at me instead of cursing my country's Imperialist policies to my face.

Yes, the American soldier is hooked up to the web and to a vast communications network, where he can lovingly write back to his family about the cafe experience (and, depending on your individual conspiracy theory, may or may not unintentionally notify the NSA of the same.)

But it's a microscopic, incredibly subjective piece of information based on a single soldier's chance anecdote.

I'm not arguing that the soldier's word is worthless. But we need to recognize that it's not the all-valuable barometer of the situation and the golden word that we all make it out to be.

Biffle,

I didn't say that command of a stateside training squadron was a combat position. Senator McCain's valor in combat and honor as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton for five years are well documented, so I touched on them only briefly. My minor point about the training squadron was that General Clark was wrong in claiming that Senator McCain had had no command experience.

As to whether you or I could transform an undistinguished air squadron into a meritorious one, I'm pretty sure I couldn't. All I had was four years in the Army as a JAG Corps captain, most of it in Korea in the early 1970s. I wouldn't know where to begin. Hell, I probably couldn't even march a dozen hungry boy scouts to the mess hall without half of them getting lost or wandering off somewhere in pursuit of unlawful carnal knowledge. As to whether you could, that's your call.

Oh, and Dave: on another thread, as I recall, you indicated that Senator McCain served some fifteen years post captivity in the Airforce. Actually, he was a Naval aviator. Air Force officers wear blue Class A uniforms; Navy officers wear white Class A uniforms. Army officers wear green. It's easy to tell them apart.(:>)

As to whether soldiers on the ground can "put their personal observations in context as well as anyone can," the chances are they can do a tad better than members of the chairborne brigade in Washington, who generally have no recent personal observations in Iraq to put into context and who would prefer to make speeches than to listen to those who do.

Dan

Dan,

Yeah, and the Marines just had their Afghanistan time involuntarily increased.

"More than 1,200 US troops serving in Iraq signed up for extended service in the military to mark America's national day on Friday."

Biffle,

Never having been, or even having aspired to be, a Marine, I probably am not qualified to say it, but what the Hell:

Semper Fi!

They go where they are sent, and do the best they can with what little the Navy lets them have when they get there. See the war in the Pacific back during WWII.

I'll bet they don't write home complaining to their mommies or even Cindy what's her name.

Dan

PS I thought Afghanistan was supposed to be a righteous war, what with the attack on the Twin Towers and all, the one the U.S. should have pursued with greater diligence.

I'm a fan of Robert Maxwell. It's nice to have some common sense and thoughtfulness in the politics section.

Any chance you want to sign up and write some articles for the site, Robert? We sure could use some thoughtful writers round here to balance out all the dogmatists.

"But it's a microscopic, incredibly subjective piece of information based on a single soldier's chance anecdote."

Subjective, yes, but as both Dave and Dan pointed out, it's far from being "based on a single soldier's chance anecdote." We have had hundreds, if not thousands, of reports from soldiers of all ranks, right up to and including field and flag grade officers reporting similar observations, and, of course the in-theater re-enlistment of more than twelve hundred troops is quite indicative of at least those twelve hundred's confidence in the conduct of the conflict; they are, after all, voting with their lives.

Clavos, let's break down your statement.

"We have had hundreds, if not thousands, of reports from soldiers of all ranks, right up to and including field and flag grade officers reporting similar observations"....

Your point being? My point was not that the soldier was necessarily wrong, nor was he absent-minded, unobservant, naive or any other adjective - either positive or negative! - in experiencing this. Nor was it my point that, "This is only one soldier experiencing this, and thus it should be discounted."

Rather, my contention was that the soldier experiencing this does not, by this experience, become privy to the nature, essence and state of the conflict.

"...the in-theater re-enlistment of more than twelve hundred troops is quite indicative of at least those twelve hundred's confidence in the conduct of the conflict; they are, after all, voting with their lives."

I fail to see your point in this. The soldiers have confidence in the conflict.. and? Confidence does not equal a knowledge of the conflict at hand, nor does it equal (or even imply, necessarily!) a grasp of the essence and state of the conflict proper.

All it means is that, to these twelve-hundred soldiers, things seem to be going well. Which is a valid observation on the part of the soldier, and not necessarily wrong. But remember that this conception on part of the soldiers is based on their individual experience, which is by the fact itself biased towards the individuals themselves.

Questions:

What parts of the service were these soldiers from?

Where were they stationed?

How heavy was the fighting in those regions?

Were the reenlistments in groups, or were they individuals from units here and there?

We need to remember something here: being able to say, "I think things are going ok," does not, by any stretch of the imagination, by necessity imply that this individual has the requisite understanding of the complete scope, essence and state of the conflict to make a decision equal to those who do, namely those in the Pentagon and Foggybottom, who ultimately make their reports to the politicians whom (apologies to non-Americans, just making a quick broad statement) you have both elected and say are deficient in their understanding and grasp of the conflict viz-a-viz the soldiers who see a very minor piece of the picture from street-level.

Does this make any sense to you?

And no, having access to the internet does not give you the same information Foggybottom and the Pentagon has.

I would like to note that by "a single soldier's chance anecdote," I was not suggesting that this was a single, non-repeating incident, but merely referring only to this individual soldier made separate from the others for the purpose of writing.

Robert,

Foggybottom

Sorry, the Devil made me emphasize the word. She makes me do that sort of thing every now and then.

Dan

Should be a space between the two, my mistake. :P

Laugh all you want, leave it to the good 'ol USA to place it's State Department in a place named Foggy Bottom..

Christopher Rose,

Sorry, I just saw your post. I've thought about it, and when I have some piece I like, I'll probably submit it somewhere, if I figure out how. :P

I am going to say something that may offend, however, I need help understanding this....

How does getting caught by the enemy make YOU a hero? I can understand you being a victim but how do you become an expert on military tactics and maneuvers simply because you were a prisoner of war. I am certain that there is something that I am missing. I would be debt to the person who can clear things up for me.

Robert,

I take your point(s), but still think that those who actually are conducting the war, especially those in command positions, are far better qualified to measure it than are the politicians.

It was the politicians, after all, who either sorely erred in involving US in the war, or worse, did so for reasons not in the public interest.

As a veteran of the war in Vietnam, I get a strong feeling of deja vu when I hear people place their trust, as they did during Vietnam, in the politicians, over the judgment of the commanders (and their troops) in the field.

In Vietnam you had draftees. Different animal.

In this war, you have individuals that signed up to be brainwashed into submission and agreement with whatever is requested of them. Also we know the distortion that war causes on reality (or ones ability to reason clearly). I don't think the soldiers of this war are the BEST to decide on the validity of this war.

Understand that the build up for this war has been since BushI. The attitudes toward Middle Easterners and the UN have been promoted for quite some time in the military. Most of these kids have a skewed idea of the political landscape.

Clavos,

I sympathize with your distress.

Might I point out that it was Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz, civilian politicians with limited or no military experience, who brutishly overrode Gen. Eric Shinseki's expert opinion on Iraq Invasion?

Many military experts, such as Gen. Sanchez, have demurred on the Iraqi Invasion and been assiduously ignored and even defamed by civilian politicians in the Bush administration.

I am NOT reassured by Gen. Petraeus, who has a reputation for sucking up to his superiors, civilian or military.

It seems to me that the expert opinions of military men have consistently been disregarded by the Bush civilian political administration.

Who do you trust?

Zedd, as usual, you're talking through your hat.

"In Vietnam you had draftees. Different animal."

Only 25% of the total of those who served incountry were draftees (about 35% of Army troops were); this compares to 66% draftees in WW II.

"In this war, you have individuals that signed up to be brainwashed into submission and agreement with whatever is requested of them."

That describes the purpose and training of all soldiers since time immemorial; there's no place for questioning or debate on a battlefield. The first thing they do to you in basic is remove all vestiges of individuality.

"Also we know the distortion that war causes on reality (or ones ability to reason clearly)."

So, because I fought in Vietnam, my take on "reality" is distorted and I'm unable to "reason clearly?" That would be news to the companies who paid me good money to run various operations and projects for them during my first career. My current clients would probably be surprised to hear that, too.

"I don't think the soldiers of this war are the BEST to decide on the validity of this war."

They are as qualified as any soldiers from any other US war.

"Who do you trust?"

By now, bliff, you've read enough of my rants to know I trust no one, not without verification, and least of all the clowns in Washington, including whichever of the two clowns we elect in November.

Zedd,

In comment #26, you ask "How does getting caught by the enemy make YOU a hero?" This is like asking "How does riding in a bus make various participants in the early civil rights movement heroes?" Neither did, and neither does; conduct as a POW and conduct on the bus can do so.

Unfortunately, the Vietnamese who captured Senator McCain when his attack aircraft crashed were not members in good standing of the Geneva Convention and did not abide by it. McCain firmly held to an important code of conduct, and did so honorably, for a long time and with heroism.

Withstanding grossly inhumane torture for five years, McCain refused to provide support to the enemy by engaging in photo ops with enemy sympathizers knowing that his torture would get worse because of those refusals. After quite a lot of treatment which would make what is now referred to as "torture" in Gitmo seem like a day at the beach, he did sign one "confession" that the U.S. was behaving badly. He deeply regretted having done so, viewed it as dishonorable, and refused to sign more; for that refusal he was badly beaten and otherwise maltreated. In my opinion, that contributes to Senator McCain's status as a hero.

In addition, McCain was offered early release by his captors because his father was an admiral, in order (a) to gain his captors some support with their sympathizers for an humane act and (b) to demoralize McCain's comrades in arms by showing that he was willing to accept better treatment than they got because of the high rank of his father. A link to a supporting reference is provided in the article. Refusing to accept repatriation knowing that it would help the enemy, knowing that he would be tortured more severely because of it, and knowing that he could put this to an end by going home shows a strength of character which few of us have.

Dan

General Clark seems to have joined that long line of advisers abandoned by Senator Obama, who "said Monday it was "very clear" Clark's "remarks don't reflect my beliefs."

Now taking a break from the presidential campaign, Senator Clark has decided to "move on" and "devote his time to the business affairs which pay the bills."

Oh well. So what else is new?

Dan

Hot damn tamale Charley... How stupid do some of you think service personnel really are? How chicken shit do you all think fighter pilots really are? How qualified are any of you making those statements? Why does top leadership in the military balk at a draft? What level of expertise does our military need to conduct operations? How sophisticated is the technology being employed? Who maintains and deploys the technology, both hardware and software?

I am now wondering who is living in the vacuum; some of you respondents to this article or the highly trained and motivated military personnel?

Why are there 1200+ re-enlistments in Iraq? I'll get you some inside information. The personnel serving our country enjoy one of the BEST entry level benefit packages out there. No taxes while serving in a combat zone, along with healthy re-enlistment bonuses paid in lump sums and NOT Taxed. Gee, sounds like a rational group of upwardly mobile and motivated personnel to me.

There are a number of catch phrases, which must not be passed over. These readily come to mind (1) Education level, (2) Educational opportunities, (3) Level of commitment, (4) Quality of force. Recruits come from all walks of life. In this country they are screened physically, medically, and have background checks performed. Sure there are small percentage of washouts. Hopefully if those individuals washout due to a predisposed condition (alcoholic dependency, for one) it usually comes to the surface within 180 days. If it is within 180 days the separation process is much less intensive and the taxpayers are not saddled long term support of the predisposition.

The folks are not always super-patriots; they are often looking to get out of small town America, or big city America and get a change and a fresh start where there were no opportunities prior to their commitment. They sign contracts, are trained, learn life skills, learn technical skills, learn, advance in rank/pay and tow-the-line. Uncle Sam ensures that the people employed earn their money, at least in the Military, and for most part in the civil service. However, there are those who can and do work the system. They don't last long in the military, but may exist for years, or careers in the civil service... but I digress and those feigners are really outliers in the big picture....

Off handed remarks such as I am reading above, only show a complete lack of understanding of the subject, and are frustrating to read because they are steeped in untruth. Here's a couple of sources you should read/view.

For a dated look at technology, but a book every press reporter should read before asking unintelligible questions at front line press conferences is "Hope Is Not a Method"... great book, which demonstrates the difference technology has made during a slice of time fully 10 years before the war in Iraq was waged. With a little imagination, one can visualize the rate of technological increase since that was written. Next, try viewing the PBS special Carrier, fully 10 years old at this point in time, it shows what good training can accomplish. Tom Wolf's "The Right Stuff" for an inside look at what test pilots, or Navy carrier pilots must go through for acceptance into the job. The astronaut section is interesting but the test pilots and the X-15 program really was pushing the envelope on a daily basis; Mostly military pilots were involved in the actual flights, any civilian pilots were ALL military at one point in their respective flying lives.

1200+ Iraq military personnel do send a message, just like a spike in handgun sales prior to an election year does. Politicians look at numbers, some look only look at numbers, and polls. There are a number of stats that are always analyzed... where the "it doesn't matter" point came from I have no idea. But it is a remark made in ignorance. If you don't think stats are important... read "War of Numbers" by Sam Adams (and for the Alumni out there, I'm not talking beer here).

And for those of you who really believe that a college education (which a high percentage of military have or are working diligently to complete) is all that is needed to run a war, or a country, think again. Hands on experience is a notable and probably a necessary qualification. Don't believe it? Read or view the Robert McNamara piece on the debacle he caused by taking the Vietnam War and trying to run it. He had absolutely no business taking the reigns and should be rotting in jail for the ineptitude he personally displayed and the lives lost as a result.

And for the individual who stated that McCain ONLY ran a training command... you need to understand how difficult, intensive, and dangerous military training can be. Flying fighters for training is as real as trainers can make it. Stuff a bunch of classroom in there, along with fitness along with the required safeties for working around ordnance and high speed heavy equipment and you basically are in a training rich environment that demands total commitment and the utmost in situational awareness. It is definitely not a 3 day total management course with Starbucks and fruit/donut trays... its months of arduous duty with a level of intensiveness most of you, if not all, will never experience. Hence you cannot fathom the reality...and by reading the armchair discussions, never will.

I recognize and fully sympathize with the ideas that a civilian control of the military is, by the nature of the fact that, through this system, those in control of it often have little insight into its operation, thereby inefficient and sometimes badly run.

Not only could it be called inefficient at best, but as open to all of the pandering, corruption, and ulterior motivations of elective politics as the remainder of the workings of government.

However, we must recognize that civilian control of the military is one of the most important tenets of our system, and for all of it's flaws, no doubt one of its most important safeguards. The matter stands that Congress, the President, and others at the highest echelons of the civilian system, are superior in command, not to mention those whom we elect to make just the sort of decisions that we now wish to turn over to the military.

Were I in Bush's position as of now, and seeking advise on military conduct, I would certainly interview the head military advisers and make my decisions accordingly; remember, however, that the positions of these individuals are just that: advisers. It remains my prerogative as Commander and Chief of the United States, Head of the Executive Branch, to override or ignore these reports and advisories as I see fit, as stated in Article Two, Section Two of the United States Constitution.

I should also like to note that, as no doubt more efficient a military-controlled war would be in comparison to those directed by politicians, that this does not in and of itself secure a smoothly-run war - MacArthur on the Yalu, Nivelle's command in the Aisne Campaign, and others, where a desire for personal success and/or an ignorance of actual conditions lead to disastrous situations (the PLA intervention and the French mutiny, respectively).

To put it short, contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, wars run by military personnel that weren't heavily politicized (e.g., Eisenhower was a heavily politicized and savvy commander) have generally not gone so well, usually because those very military-minded generals tend to ignore the larger picture when it comes to the conflict.

Robert,

I think we are in basic agreement. The military has a civilian Commander in Chief. It also has a strong tradition of eschewing civilian politics, and both are damn good things. That does not mean that the views of low and high ranking military personnel should be treated as unimportant and ignored, as I think you agree.

Just as the civilians in charge of the military can screw up, so can their subordinate military commanders -- sometimes royally. You cite MacArthur on the Yalu. That is an excellent example. He performed quite well in the Pacific during WWII, and his Inchon invasion was a spectacular success. He managed it despite the strong opposition of various denizens of the Puzzle Palace, whom he had outranked as a five star general. He was able to resist the whimpering of those "young pups," and undertook a very risky invasion which might well have turned sour. Then, having a bunch of toadies with whom he had long surrounded himself -- the Bataan Gang -- he ignored all suggestions that the Chinese were massing in force. It is said that MacArthur's G2 filtered all intelligence so that MacArthur would receive only that consistent with his (MacArthur's) own views. That was and is a bad thing for anyone in any sort of a managerial position to do. The retreat from the Yalu became an entirely predictable disaster. The main reason why Truman relieved MacArthur, however, was that he perceived MacArthur as having forgot their respective roles in the hierarchy. Truman did so with reluctance, because of a legitimate concern that if relieved, MacArthur might well run for President and win.

You refer to "the sort of decisions that we now wish to turn over to the military." I don't know what those decisions might be. There was excessive micromanagement in Vietnam, without which the results might well have been different. It is, in my view, appropriate for our elected officials and the civilians appointed under them to make policy. A general who is unwilling to do his best to implement the policy so made should resign his position. It is not the proper function of the civilian masters to dictate tactics, for example to direct that Company A, 37th Battalion attack Hill 37 at dawn. Nor, generally, is it appropriate for them to dictate strategy, except with rather a broad brush.

All of this diverges somewhat from the thread, except to suggest that Senator McCain's military experience and the sense of honor and duty he displayed during that service would be useful in a president.

Dan

Maxwell makes good points. The reason we have civilian control is to restrict the possibility of military coup (like, say, Musharaf taking over Pakistan). It was NOT to put a powerful and obedient military under the thumb of an ambitious politician with a yen to invade foreign countries, as seems to have happened in this administration.

Whether it's LBJ/McNamara or GWB/Rumsfeld there seems to be a distressing tendency of civilian politicians to find toady generals to back their play and to get rid of anyone who raises a contrary voice, such as Shinseki and a string of high-level officers who've come out recently against the Iraq Occupation.

Didn't we put an end to the automatic bestowal of honor on former soldiers when we savaged John Kerry 4 years ago?

Biffle,

I submit that the key word in your comment #38 is "automatic."

Senator Kerry's military service is an interesting topic, and if you wish to compare and contrast his military service with that of Senator McCain, have at it.

Dan

Ah yes, Bliffle, but you see Kerry, as do all military personnel who later turn out to be Democrats, served dishonorably.

Not only that, but all Democrats who have not served in the military are also dishonorable.

I thought everybody knew that...

"Ah yes, Bliffle, but you see Kerry, as do all military personnel who later turn out to be Democrats, served dishonorably."

Fortunately, there aren't many of them.

"Not only that, but all Democrats who have not served in the military are also dishonorable."

As are all republicans (bush, cheney, rove et alia) - ask any left winger.

I think that's more of a case of 'right back atcha', Clav.

I won't repeat the tiresome stuck-record arguments of REMF/MCH (what's become of him, BTW?), but it is a point that some of those who hold military service to be an essential (or at least desirable) part of a politician's resumé don't hold Georgie Boy and certain members of his administration to the same standard.

Still, what we saw with "Reporting for Duty" Kerry in 2004 was another instance of the Left following the Right's paradigm - which bugs the hell out of me. If you're going to offer an alternative political philosophy, then stick with it. Don't say "Oh, we're really not all that bad, red and scary because we think military service is a principal criterion for honorableness too".

Lets stick to the issues "Black Skin President Makes: YES IT DOES! For too long the black man has been denied access to the office of president...It is now our time WE ARE OWED IT...no matter how hard the Clintons and the right wing Demoocrats tried to destroy Obama he prevailed..

Just as colleges and business have been forced to let us in so shall the highest office in the land. We cannot be judged and measured the same as the white candidates... Obama deserves this office to make up for the years of the white mans oppression.

Vote for Obama because he is NOT white and dont vote for McCain because he IS!

Jamal

Jamal

OK JOM, whatever...

Fair enow, Doc.

Re REMF: I dunno thought you would have some inside info; was even going to ask you on the edlist.

The Edlist? The Edlist? Is that like Skull and Bones? Are there secret rituals? Funny hats? A peculiar sort of handshake? No, don't tell. That would spoil all the fun guessing what there might be. My guess is that . . . but I'll save it.

Dan

Oops...

Doc, why did you bring up Kerry? He's a man who shouldn't even be MENTIONED in the presence of Military Veterans.
Like Bush Jr., wearing a uniform for a little while doesn't get you a pass-or shouldn't. Sure, he got some medals- the standard 'officer's package' given out like candy, plus three "Purple hearts" that for some reason didn't leave him with so much as a scar, but got him out of there some fifteen months before his peers or subordinates could leave-including peers who actually suffered REAL wounds.

After which, he spent a couple of years running his now-embraced-peers through the mud, calling them "War Criminals" and generally disgracing himself and his service.

After it became fashionable to be a Vet again (the Eighties), he told lies about his service-what are colloquially called "War Stories" like his "Christmas in Cambodia" story. You guys were so desperate to have your own "war hero" guy that you didn't account for people REMEMBERING what kind of guy he was, and the error was compounded with a campaign that basically said, "Vote for me, I'm Not George Bush", which had traction only within your party-Kerry didn't have a damn plan, and when confronted on what he would do differently wrt the "War on Terror" he couldn't and didn't give a coherent answer other than "Same thing, only better".

Considering that only two men who served under him stood up for him, while every man who served under him and was still alive had nothing nice to say, well, doc, that displays the actuality of his "Leadership" as a military man- Soldiers who serve under GOOD officers usually respect and defend those officers even after the fact. Sometimes even defending Mediocre officers-but everyone hates a BAD officer.

As the article implies, a DD214 doesn't qualify you as a leader.

Cannonship,

Damn!

In the first place, Doc didn't bring up Kerry, Biffle did, see Comment #38.

In the second place, I was looking forward to the compare-contrast analysis I had suggested Biffle make, see Comment #39. Now you done gone and spoiled the fun we could have had.

Dan

I contend that because Kerry exited the 'Nam early, lives were probably saved. Which is a good thing. Kerry tried to leverage is Vietnam experience and due to his behavior under fire, it backfired. He wasn't savaged, the truth came out. He probably should have left well enough alone. Gore tried the same thing, when it was revealed that he was a remington raider, the pictures came out, showing Al bent directly over his M16, which was probably loaded, adjusting the sling. Which as anyone familiar with weapons knows, demonstrated a complete lack of familiarity with weapons handling. Had the M16 discharged Al Gore would have taken a few round or two in the chest.

But boast we must... except the personnel who were in harms way rarely boast about it. The might be inwardly reflecting, but bragging rights. I've not witnessed much of that.

One thing I have noticed over the years is that people who were really in the thick of battle, don't really share the tales of war. I noticed when all my uncles used to gather at family reunions, they talked a little bit, but never made boastful remarks. It was hard for them, WWII was very taxing for those in battle, or sunk on convoy duty, or marched to POW camps. My uncle H was a POW under the Japanese, he NEVER talked about it. But he carried on, worked hard and raised a family. My Cousins who were in Vietnam, never talk about it. Some were in the Iron Triangle and had some significant engagements. A few friends in from Iraq talk a little, with such phrases as "I still jear the gunfire" and other stress related streams of conscience.

Stress related disorders seem to shut people down a bit, and very little comes out in later conversations.

Please excuse my lack of using a word processor on that last posting... but I have to take a bit of a rest before the BBQ gets fired up and the bourbon comes out.

BTW.... as expressed in #43, presidential candidates are never "owed" or "deserve" anything. It comes with the territory and is explained under the caveat of "public service."

Public being an all inclusive category.

Condor: It's true, combat veterans tend to be tight-lipped about their experiences. If they talk about it at all, it'll usually be in very general terms - our own Clavos being an example.

My father-in-law was a Navy medic in 'Nam. More than 40 years on, he still struggles with PTSD and rarely says anything about what he did and saw there. Occasionally, when he's at a very low ebb, he'll mention some specific small incident, but not in a way that gives us any sort of context.

And then there was Senator Kerry -- saluting not in uniform, uncovered and not bearing a sidearm -- and "Reporting for Election -- I mean for Duty!"

Ah well. He isn't in this election.

Dan

Clav,

As usual you missed the point of the post. Like my daughters when they got to the 7th grade you dodge substance by arguing tiny points and being overly literal. In my household we call that being a 7th grader. Perhaps you got stuck at 12 1/2 yrs old? Bless you pequeñito.

No one said that the world view of those who have been in battle remains the same through their entire life. You missed that didn't you. You should know that in battle one is in a certain mindset. Heck even at summer camp, one thinks and acts a certain way because of being in that bubble. Ones views are shaped by their environment. Being in intense battle does not give you the entire scope of the international political landscape. Comprende?

Without getting into minutia, I was making a distinction between the war that you mentioned and this one. If 30% of the people in Iraq were there by force and not as volunteers, the sentiments of the soldiers WOULD be different. Those that are there who may have reservations about this war right now are less likely to express them because they know that they CHOSE the military and everyone there with them will be more apt to feel the same way. However having a third of the population there that doesn't feel a "duty" to the cause, even the volunteers would be more apt to declare their disillusionment.

Hope that helps.

Dan,

Thank for expounding. Right! Those that rode the bus were just passengers. The one person who said "no" was the hero.

I forgot about how he declined early release, and was forced to do a propaganda video for the enemy. Thanks for the reminder. However, still don't see how that makes him the go to guy for military matters ad infinitum. It's been over 35yrs. He seems to bring it up quite a bit. I'm sure it was an experience that stays with him, a long 6 years. However, I am still missing why he should be President or Senator because of it.

Zedd,

Actually, as noted in the article, Senator McCain was forced to sign a written "confession," which he considered to have been a dishonorable violation of a code of conduct to which he, his father, and most other career military people had long subscribed. He declined to sign others, and was tortured for it. He was also tortured for refusing to participate in photo ops with visiting war protesters.

As also noted in the article, these things alone reveal something important about his character; they don't, in isolation, reveal much about his strategic prowess. As to whether he "seems to bring it up quite a bit," I really don't know. We don't have satellite TV service, and probably would not watch much of it if we did. Based, however, on what I have read, the principal characters raising it are beating a straw horse. General Clark's comments fall into this category, and the press emphasis on those comments seems to do so as well. As noted elsewhere on the thread, real military heroes, like other real heroes, don't make much noise about it.

However, that wasn't the main point. The main point concerning Senator McCain was that he was a "maverick" while at the Naval Academy and later while on active duty, and that he did not expect promotion to high rank because he was considered a maverick. His decision to retire with the rank of captain (silver eagle, just like a full colonel in the other services) and to decline promotion to rear admiral, lower half, despite the glitter of two stars, speaks well of him and of his maverick disposition. He remained a maverick in the Senate. The establishment, military and other, does not love mavericks, unless they can be brought to heel and thereby cease to be mavericks.

Senator McCain seems to be trying, with some difficulty, not to be brought to heel by a "conservative" (note the quotation marks) element within the Republican Party, and I rather hope he succeeds in resisting -- just as he did while on active duty in the Navy. If he does succeed, perhaps he is the best hope for "change we can really believe in."

Dan

Zedd,

McCain is in politics. Did he bring up the POW as a prereq or did that come from some other quadrant?

He understands the Military, that much can be assumed as he retired from it. His career was varied. He was a fighter jock, so he has moxy. But whether or not that qualifies him is in debate. In a Congress that has less and less military experience it comes up quite a bit. Which is a paradox. One not only has to distance themselves from military backgrounds, and then during a campaign, they bust it all out and parade the very thing that has been kept under wraps. I don't recall McCain hiding behind anything. What you see is what you get.

How can a Commander in Chief relate? They say they do, but do they? The Clinton's in statement and deed made overt indications that they didn't particularly care for the military. Was that mere pandering to the left? When the military was "needed" they were called in by that administration.

I don't really care if the Commander in Chief has prior service or not. Why? Because they have an administration to work with the departments and agencies. Hopefully those placed in civilian leadership positions will have been carefully selected for their skillsets in relation to the departments they will lead. That has rarely been the case, as history shows. The whole toady issue is unnerving, apple polishers abound in the upper echelons of government and much of the selection process seems to object to too much horsepower in high places.

In a perfect world the Bergers and Rummy's would go away and only confident, qualified persons would be selected and seated at the positions of responsibility.

Will it happen? It would be a refreshing testament to Obama if he gets it right.

Condor,

"It would be a refreshing testament to Obama if he gets it right." Or, perhaps, to Senator McCain if he gets it right. The Fat Lady (pardon my non PC choice of phrase) ain't sung yet.

Dan

"I was making a distinction between the war that you mentioned and this one. If 30% of the people in Iraq were there by force and not as volunteers, the sentiments of the soldiers WOULD be different."

The only "sentiment," as you put it, anyone in a war has is universal and timeless, whether the it's the Peloponnesian War or Iraq: get the job done while trying to stay alive. Under those circumstances draftees are indistinguishable from anyone else.

You really have no idea of what you are pontificating about, Zedd. None.

Doc, My apologies-I was still just waking up when I went through the posts this morning, and a bit blurry.

Zedd: It wasn't McCain that brought up his POW experiences first, it's a press corps that treats it like his only defining moment, and probably a professional PR machine that thinks it's a good contrasting trait compared to the last two Vietnam vets who ran for the white house. (Gore, and Kerry).
Face it, the Boomers are still the biggest demographic, and in terms of political power, they're still the most important and powerful demographic. Add in that the American Left can't resist constantly comparing the current (war? Police Action?) Conflict to THAT one (up to and including trying to organize sixties style protests, retreading Sixties and Seventies era Rhetoric, and lionizing deserters and other BF'er scum), McCain's experience as a Vet becomes rather more relevant taken in the tone of today's political climate than it would have been, oh...in 1996, when we did NOT have rehashed antiwar rhetoric and sixties radicals trying to reanimate the "movement" to screw up another generation. (hell, we had a Dem. Congresscritter trying to revive the Draft in '05 to invent another cassus belli to protest...)

Clavos,

Not sure if I am pontificating. Just saying that I don't think that the troops of this war are the BEST equipped at making decisions about the validity or "winability" of this war.

I am not saying that this war is different or that these soldiers are trained any differently. I'm guessing you know that and are just arguing for the sake of it.

You being in Vietnam doesn't make you understand all military situations either, as much as I admire your efforts in that war. If military experience were the criterion for having valid opinions on all things military, we wouldn't have diverse views from former vets. A guy who served next to you in war may very well have a different view from you on this very topic.

I agree that those who would never, ever serve or send their children to the battle field should not be so willing to send people to war.

Having a spouse who was a marine I know that many of his fellow devil dogs were waaaaaay off when it came to political matters. They were so brain washed and had no real clue as to how our government operates. They had no idea just how much we (they) were actually protecting the interests of the wealthy and NOT protecting "freedom". It was rather sad and embarrassing to behold all of the revelry over manufactured ideals. They were so sincere.

Connonshop,

You cant be that naive. This is not about Liberals or Conservatives. This is about a single man who wants the coolest job in the world.

This guy is pulling out all of the stops. He is putting EVERYTHING out there that will buy him votes. Some people get all woozy about military experience so he is using it. Plain and simple.

I haven't heard the press core discussing his military service that much. I have however heard him bring it up on a regular basis over the past 10yrs.

Condor,

If you have any influence could you please get McCain and his coterie to stop talking about Vietnam.

"One thing I have noticed over the years is that people who were really in the thick of battle, don't really share the tales of war"

Dan,

I've REALLY liked McCain for a long time. For all of the reasons that you've noted and more. I appreciate practical solutions and don't understand ideologues. I've stated before that I am disappointed at just how much conceding that he has done in order to get to this point in the race. I am disappointed at his fawning over the Christian right among others. He is now Baptist (eye roll). I am disappointed at his position on the war. It is lacking clarity and completion which smacks of political play. Its as if he is saying just enough to make the foggy headed (image drunk) types in his party happy.

Influence? Hah! Every candidate I have listened to in the past has never made it through the media sanctification (which is a subject unto itself).

I go for those candidates that understand (in thought and deed) the preamble of our Constitution.

"It would be a refreshing testament to Obama if he gets it right." Or, perhaps, to Senator McCain if he gets it right." - Dan Miller

Thanks Dan for adding the other half of the equation. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the press report that McCain has made statements to the effect that he considered himself the underdog? If, (IF) McCain is indeed making those types of statements, outloud, in public, or even to the bathroom mirror, then internally he is digesting the notion and subconsciencly adopting that mindset. Note the (IF). Will a surrendering or defeatist mindset will prevail over the outward man.

The more I think about this election, the more I believe that it is not a contest for the Chief Executive position, but for the Supreme Court appointments which are coming due. W's appointments kept the 2nd amendment intact, by 1 vote. For that I thank him. What does the future hold in store? That is the concern I have.

Condor,

We share the same concern about appointments to the Supreme Court. How does Madam Justice Clinton strike you? Or Mr. Chief Justice and Madam Justice Clinton? Or vice-versa?

We talk about Senator McCain's age,and it does worry me; but I assume (haven't bothered to do the math) that if he were somehow appointed to the Court, it would lower the average age. Yet those guys get to remain in office, no matter what, until they go to that happy lawyerland in the sky.

And, yes, Senator McCain has claimed underdog status; so, as I seem to recall, did Senator Obama not too long ago. Both were correct. A lot can happen between now and the general election. If things heat up in Iran, as they well may, there can quite a lot of change to believe in.

Dan

Sounds like you're cheering for war. Let's see, got to bomb Irans nuke facilities, but got to do it soon before they get those Russian air defense missiles and before those wobbly Obama folk can get into office. When? Next month?

Sounds like you're cheering for war.

Nope.

Dan

One can cheer for war, one can hide their heads in the sand, or one can remain prepared and vigilant. With war being deeply ingrained in the human species, what would you do? What is a natural reaction? Fight? Flight? Succumb? Why limit the discussion to just war, why not add violent crime in there for good measure. Someone breaks down your door with the intent on robbing you and leaving no witnesses. What then? Die?

Is it natures way to want to just die? That doesn't say much towards the theory that a species adapts and overcomes or withers away. Adapting and overcoming includes defensive behaviours, or offensive behaviours depending on the level of threat. Why does a surviving species react with violence? I'm guessing that it has something to do with survival of the species, procreation and all of that.

Is war natural? It might be. Does that make it good. I would guess not. But... if one group desires to overwhelm another and the other can defend themselves then, and only then, is war countermanded. It takes energy and will to do that. Nationally, do we (the U.S.) have the will? Individually does Bliffle have the will? I know I do, I must, it's ingrained. Just as I will defend my family and life.

Property is insurable if a crime is committed. If in war your property is taken from you, you just loose it.

Is that what you are referring to Bliffle, just give up life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if war broke out?

How can one wish for war or hope for war? It almost seems unavoidable given that humanity is part of the equation. Humanity being a species, who like other species (according to theory) share many traits. I contend that war is an innate behaviour.

I think Bastiate's "The Law" explains the condition in a way that is easy to fathom and, why law is required to counteract the naturally occuring needs to steal and war. It comes from the human need to take the easy way out. Labor is painful, just steal it, then you save yourself a bit of pain. War has a much the same motivation, unless of course you are defending your right to survive and procreate, then labor is necessary.

Condor,

All good and valid points, I think. I was trying to respond to what I considered an inane suggestion, as briefly and in as equally inane a way, as I could.

No one in his right mind "cheers" for war. Nor does anyone in his right mind "cheer" for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or measles epidemics. Those things happen, and lots of bad stuff results. Every time.

History seems to demonstrate, over and over again, that the best way to prevent war is to be ready for it and to take those steps which can prevent it or at least keep it from causing more harm than necessary. Preparation obviously entails having some pretty solid and detailed contingency plans, and I hope that they are either ready or far along in preparation.

Has the point of war been reached or nearly so with Iran? I don't know. It does seem as though the train is accelerating in that direction and that it may be impossible to halt it. If there is to be a war, it seems best to fight it when, where and how we chose, rather than to leave those matters within the sole discretion of Iran.

Dan

Comment 4. You guys read a lot into a press release that is short on details. No doubt there are many that believe in the mission, but considering there's not a single quote from any of the enlistees and there's no mention of what incentives there are for enlisting as opposed to being re-upped under the stop-loss measures, any thoughts on who they are all voting for is just projection on your parts.

Zedd: You're right about it not being about Liberals or Conservatives-based on McCain's record in the Senate, I think only a handfull of Democrats are more Liberal, (I swear I think the only reason he's not the Democratic candidate, is that ya gotta be a Republican to win in Arizona) and he's certainly drunk deep of the Global Warming Kool-Aid.

"...This is about a single man who wants the coolest job in the world.

This guy is pulling out all of the stops. He is putting EVERYTHING out there that will buy him votes..." Is TRUE about BOTH candidates-or anyone else who's ever run for the office. Sure, McCain probably used his POW experience (and the fame it generated) to win elections in the past-just like whatsizname, the guy who played "Gofer" on the Love Boat used HIS to win higher office, or Reagan used HIS non-politics fame to win the California Governorship or the Presidency, or Obama writing some nice bestselling books before announcing his candidacy.

the difference between, say, McCain and Kerry, though-(and it IS a difference) is that McCain actually accomplished things in the Senate (McCain-Feingold, a law I despise, but it was written and it passed), and he's got a platform. Referencing back in time for a moment, if Kerry'd had a Platform, and a record of doing things other than telling PX-Ranger stories and calling his subordinates war-criminals or worse, he would've had 2004 in the bag-he was running against a president that had record lows in approval ratings during a war that was being protested daily.

Obama's got the same problem Kerry had, but from a different source- and he's also crippled by having no record of...well... ANYTHING accomplished beyond getting Elected, and writing a nice, puffy, autobiography filled with the right buzzwords and phrases (and likely ghostwritten by an uncredited pro.) ALL Barak Obama has going for him on a national level, is a beautiful speaking voice and a stack of questionable friends he's proven all-too willing to throw under the bus to save his own skin.

That latter trait is generally viewed as a "Downside", Zedd.

In short, we can look at McCain's work in the Senate, we can look at his time in the Military, and do both honestly, and have some idea what we'd get with Johnny in the White House. Obama?? Not-so-much, and looking honestly, the few things we CAN look at to evaluate him as an Executive, as a Friend, and as a man says he's probably NOT the man one should trust with the silver suitcase full of launch codes, and probably NOT the sort of guy that can make an enemy negotiate in good faith either through charm, or fear. Given the U.S. has enemies that it does, 'Charm' would have to be some SERIOUS mojo, as in 'supernatural', where the "fear" factor probably applies more to the FRIENDS of the U.S. where Obama's concerned, than its enemies.

On the Domestic front, Barak Obama has ZERO he can point at and say "I fixed this, I wrote a law and got it passed to address that, I made The Other Thing happen". The Projects in Chicago are still the Projects, Illinois hasn't improved thanks to Obama's term in their Legislative level. Obama in the Senate only voted ONCE, and has neither sponsored, nor co=sponsored a single bill that's been passed. All he's done, is get into the office, have a couple books written, and run for the Presidency...

oh, and he's a handsome young man of the right racial background to make American Libs swoon-which is enough to beat Hillary "baggagegirl" Clinton, but may not be enough to beat an opponent who's actually got some substance and DOESN'T have eight years of repeated scandals to overcome.

Condor would do better to put better words into his own mouth rather than trying to put poor words into others mouths.

"History seems to demonstrate, over and over again, that the best way to prevent war is to be ready for it and to take those steps which can prevent it or at least keep it from causing more harm than necessary. Preparation obviously entails having some pretty solid and detailed contingency plans, and I hope that they are either ready or far along in preparation". - Dan Miller

Dan, your comment is exactly what the article was referring to. Planning. Readiness planning is necessary for all contingencies... down to escaping your household during a fire. Readiness planning also falls in line with situational awareness.

I read a paper on profiling a while back, which tied in both readiness planning and situational awareness, I wish I could pinpoint the source. Good reading.

I might add the book I am currently reading entitled "War of Numbers" by Sam Adams with an intro by Col. David Hackworth. The value added here is that without good, truthful intel the planning stage is skewed. The book tells the tale of Vietnam and Westmoreland's dumbing down the stats on NVA/VC troop strength. The order of battle was off because General Westmoreland demonstrated a shrinking number of NVA/VC by striking off all support personnel from villages etc... Which were indeed parts of the total order of battle (OD). Yet when body counts were concerned the numbers were added back in (i.e. they counted all casualties). Looked good on paper, right? Right... until Tet in '68, then the truth raised its ugly head. Front line officers and troops didn't understand where the numbers of insurgents were coming from. And many troops lost their lives due to insufficient levels of preparedness.

Sam Adams is an intel hero... he was banging on doors all over DC, which ultimately led to Westmoreland filing a defamation lawsuit after a documentary was aired on CBS in the early '80's (it aired during a Steve Martin special and received very little attention).. The lawsuit was dropped when it was learned that documentation existed proving that the Westmoreland staff at MACV, under orders were told to cook the books.

Great book, which drove home the value of good intel, good planning, and correct situational awareness. These three underpinnings of readiness/plans are essential for viable and conditional responses to crisis.

Didn't Hussein suffer from years of overstating his power base? The Iraqi government under Hussein boasted on their abilities and their weapon systems that brought a cascade of force barreling down upon them. Was Hussein's spokesman during the initial battle lying... or grossly misinformed? No one could believe the audacity of the ad hoc press conferences being held as troops closed in on Baghdad. In my opinion, even top officials of Hussein administration were duped. Amazing!

"Dan, your comment is exactly what the article was referring to."

Might have something to do with Dan having written the article...

I was referring to #67 and the link to the Jerusalem Post article entitled -- Security and Defense: Not leaving the nuclear threat up in the air. Written by YAAKOV KATZ...

With a quote from #71... I think I made the right connection.

Perhaps I should have made that clear.

"any thoughts on who they are all voting for is just projection on your parts" - From #72 El B

If they are voting absentee in Florida, perhaps those sacks of mail will once again become misplaced or "lost"....

Actually, the announcement over the PA system sounded like "free beer;" they all got there and signed up for it. Boy, were they surprised when the found out what had actually happened.

Dan

They get beer in Iraq? Bahrain perhaps. Friends tell me they drink non-alcoholic beer (yeeeech). When I was on ships tooling around the Caroline islands and the Marshall's it was not unheard of to put a batch of pruno under the main diesels for curin' and around the first port-o-call it was broken out on the industrial pier along with the guitars. Dylan was sung terribly and the pruno was just as bad.

They actually have pretty good beer in Iraq. Amstel used to be the favoured drop, and was brewed in Baghdad, but I think there's a local drop called I think Ferida.

I know in Egypt they have a beer called Stella, but I promise, it doesn't look or taste like the Stella Artois that you can get in the states. It always came in a colored bottle, green or brown, and I found out why the first time I poured it in a mug. I honestly think I now know where those companies that used to advertise in the backs of comic books went...they now add sea monkeys to Egyptian beer! And they got pissed when I complained about the shit that was literally swimming in my beer!

And Condor, it's good to know that the fine art of making blige wine is still alive and well! It ain't teh best tasting stuff in teh world, but damn, it's got a kick!