First the bad news.

posted September 02, 1999 09:28 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I worked with a young man the other day who is in the National Guard. He is very young, and is not the least bit concerned or interested in Y2K. He told me that he was dreading the New Year turnover because his unit would be in Charleston, Ark, near Fr. Chaffee performing their duties with "live ammo", digging trenches and using razor wire. He didn't know much about they would be doing or why. I asked him if the Guard was expecting real problems, he said he really didn't know, but they seemed to be expecting something to happen. He referred to the possibility of looting and rioting by the locals. He laughed and said "those rioters better not mess with this bunch of hillbilly Guardsmen", because they sure wouldn't get away with anything! I know some of you out there are with the NG or know someone who is....what is the conventional wisdom out there? Thanks.

Now for the good news.

The Federal Government faces an ugly situation if it does not step up efforts to correct the Year 2000 programming error in its agencies' computers. . . Each agency should have a plan in place to deal with the problem. In 1999, all critical systems should be tested. If this is not done, the government has no chance of meaningful compliance. Andrew Grove, CEO of the world's largest chip maker, Intel, quoted in the Washington Post (4/24/98)

`Nobody seems willing or able to say it in simple language, so let me be the one: the federal government is not going to finish its Y2000 project. No maybes, no ifs, ands, or buts. No qualifiers, no wishy-washy statements like `unless more money is spent' or `unless things improve. ' We're not going to avert the problem by appointing a Y2000 Czar or creating a National 2000 Commission. Let me say it again, in plain English: The United States federal government will not finish its Y2000 project. '

How Washington expects to continue functioning after 1/1/2000 is a mystery to me. How American society expects to continue operating in a `business as usual' fashion, when half of the federal government agencies stop functioning, is a deeper mystery and one for which we must all begin planning.

Well I guess it depends on one's perspective.

-- Ed (ed@lizzardranch.com), September 03, 1999

Answers

Ed,

I have a friend in the guard. Actually, he was in the guard and now he works full time for them somehow...don't know the details. But he and they are definately expecting problems. From y2k, terrorists, and solar flares. He follows it very closely and has worked in the community alot to make others aware.

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), September 03, 1999.

Ed, don't you know? Its all in the "meme", you see. If you simply THINK that everything will be business-as-usual in 2000, then by-gosh/by-sum it surely WILL be. What can silly broken computer code do when people are feeling so GOOD about themselves, their prosperity, and their future.


-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 03, 1999.

Nobody seems willing or able to say it in simple language, so let me be the one: the federal government is not going to finish its Y2000 project. No maybes, no ifs, ands, or buts. No qualifiers, no wishy- washy statements like `unless more money is spent' or `unless things improve. ' We're not going to avert the problem by appointing a Y2000 Czar or creating a National 2000 Commission. Let me say it again, in plain English: The United States federal government will not finish its Y2000 project. '

Ed, Is the above your statement or Andy Groves'? When was the statement originally made?

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), September 03, 1999.

Ed, etcetera...

This is a significant error. You don't just let someone tell you that they are going to kick ass (if my gubmit tells me to) and chuckle with them. You need to take them aside and straighten them out. We are talking about human beings, here. Why is the "rioter" rioting? Are they preying on people or are they getting food and water for their family. There are some basic judgements that need to be made before firing on a human being. I think any military person who can contemplate firing on any American (or immigrant for that matter) should take his weapon home, load it, and point it at someone they love. If you like the feeling you get, you need serious help. If you don't like the feeling you get, remember that feeling whenever you point a loaded weapon at a human being.

If you can make simple moral judgements, you better lay your weapon down, right now.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 03, 1999.

I know a Guardsman and he told me that they are expecting problems. Not 'preparing just in case' but expecting them. His big concern is his family since the base doesn't have nearly enough housing to accomidate everyone.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), September 03, 1999.

Puddintame,

As I understand it, it looks like a quote from Andrew Grove in the 4/24/1998 Washington Post. Perhaps someone has time to look for a link?

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), September 03, 1999.

correction: If you can't make simple moral judgements, you should lay down your weapon, right now.

addition: this definitely includes civilians out there with firearms.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 03, 1999.

Moral judgement is beyond my pay grade. The only thing a marine feels when he kills is recoil of his weapon.

-- ground pounder (gp@thesuck.com), September 04, 1999.

Stan, I think you're wrong on this one. Any defence force, under arms and under orders, doesn't have the luxury of moral judgements. They gave that up when they joined, or it was taken from them when they were conscripted. It's really no different if the "threat" is internal or external. They do as they're told, and the buck stops at a higher level. (this does not include wanton violence, as in Kosovo or Mai Lai). If every serviceman in the Allied Forces had questioned the judgement/morality of his superiors, Brtain would not have won the war...... .

-- Porky - not in the nick (Skeptic@whatever.com), September 04, 1999.

Porky,

Tell it to the Nazi's; just reverse it....

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), September 04, 1999.

"ground pounder",

Son, in the unfortunate event that you are on active duty in the Corps, you are in sore need of the services of your unit chaplain. You'd also be well advised to seek the counsel of your company Gunnery Sergeant. If, to the good fortune of the rest of the world you are not, seek help. You need it.

Your statement is utterly incorrect and ultimately insulting to the United States Marine Corps and to those Marines who have served with honor and love of country.

You'd also better pray that two things never occur. First, you'd better hope to Hell that you never end up under my command. You will never be the same if you do. Second, you'd better pray that I never find out who you are, because you will find that an extremely unpleasant experience.

To the Rest of the Readers,

I offer you my apology on behalf of the Marine Corps for the frightening and incorrect words of whoever "ground pounder" may be. His statement is not in any way representative of the views of Marines. It is more likely motivated by the arrogance of fear; fear of what one will do when actually confronted with the reality of mortal combat and fear that one will not "measure up".

I speak with the experience of nearly forty years of service as a United States Marine. In all that time, I have known but few Marines who felt nothing of killing. Those few were well marked by their fellows and placed in positions where their peculiar qualities would harm no one save America's enemies.

Porky,

You couldn't be more wrong either. All sworn members of the American armed forces have not the luxury, but the sworn duty to make a moral judgment each and every time that they receive an order. A simple reading of the warrant or commission of any rank will reveal the words, ". . .and render obediance to appropriate orders. . .".

That servicemen of all nations and all times in history are humans and thus fallible explains much. The war crimes trials at Nuremberg explain much more about our society's values, and in particular present an exhaustive definition of the conduct America demands of members of the military; both ours and the enemy's. You have some reading to do to get up to speed.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), September 04, 1999.

Hardliner,

That was so well said. I was very much offended by ground pounders answer.

-- shellie (shellie01@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

Getting back to the original thread, more or less: I used to know someone in the National Guard in Minnesota. As of early 1999, the NG had begun collecting large numbers of horses and mules on this base he drilled at frequently. There had not previously been ANY such animals on this base that he had ever seen. Obviously the NG in Minnesota is planning on 1) Y2K interfering with their motorized transport, and 2) not simply just sitting around on the base after Y2K hit, but TAKING ACTION of some kind. Fill in the rest of the blanks yourself.

P.S. Hardliner, I have a great deal of admiration for the USMC, with reasons for this I mostly cannot list on this forum. However, you must admit that desensitization of combat troops toward bloodshed on BOTH sides is an inherent component of adequate preparation for combat. The popular books "All Quiet On The Western Front", "The Red Badge Of Courage", "On War", "The Forgotten Soldier", and even that piece about Matthew Ridgeway in Korea ("Proud Legions"?) all show this explicitly. If a soldier were to react as a philosopher would while in combat, he would be worthless. Sir, I honor your service for the nation and Constitution (notice I did not say the regime). Simply, I would caution you not to go too far rhetorically in your responses to people whom you perceive to dishonor your profession. Truth in your opponent's position that you do not recognize calls into question truths in your own position. Yours in preparation, MinnesotaSmith

P.S. It was not an accident that I asked a retired Marine career officer to check my "Firearms" article for technical accuracy.

My site: www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

Mr. Smith,

I must tell you that there simply is no such thing as, "adequate preparation for combat", and desensitization to bloodshed is no different than desensitization to anything else. The more you are exposed to something, the less sensitive to it you become. Absolutely nothing short of the genuine experience will truly prepare you for it. Even survival of prior combat is no guarantee of either future behavior or reaction. The desensitization to bloodshed that is necessary to prosecute mortal combat and remain sane is acquired during that combat; not before.

Each of the writings that you cite corraborate these truths.

Further, "ground pounder" did not dishonor the profession of arms, he merely exposed himself and embarrassed himself and the Corps in so doing.

The most valuable troops in combat are not the mindless automatons who merely follow orders, but those who possess initiative and retain the decision making capability, yet can be counted on to carry out their assigned mission. It is no accident that the most highly decorated Marines have frequently been members of small units that were forced by circumstances to make crucial decisions without benefit of orders or guidance from higher command.

According to your premise, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Patton, Hannibal and countless others all were worthless in combat. The benefit of the exercise of philosophy is not limited to the commander during combat. You appear to confuse feeling and recognition with reaction and obediance.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), September 04, 1999.

Hardliner,

Thank you for your courage and service. We need more people like you.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

"Certainly, it is a world of scarcity. But the scarcity is not confined to iron ore and arable land. The most constricting scarcities are those of character and personality."

- William R. Allen

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 05, 1999.

Hardliner, thanks. I NEARLY removed the post because it wasn't contributing, but got distracted (Mrs Driver and an ankle to wrap I think) and never got back. Guess it's just as well as you have covered the subject pretty well....

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 05, 1999.

Dennis & Hardliner, Well friends. YOU tell it to the "enemy", dead in the Gulf war. The US military did their job, WITHOUT QUESTION, WITHOUT HESITATION. They did EXACTLY as they were told. Hardliner, what happened to their "Sworn duty to obey APPROPRIATE orders"? That order was to keep the oil flowing to the good 'ol US of A no matter what the cost in lives. Appropriate? It was purely political. And they killed to obey.

And I have no problem with that. They obeyed without question, as they are trained to do. Otherwise, if every soldier, or National Guardsman sat down and thought about the morality of the order before obeying, you'd have anarchy and defeat. THAT's the point I was trying to make to Stan.

So Hardliner, whilst I respect your experience and knowledge of service life (and as a yioung man I considered the military as a career, but decided against it because I wanted to continue to think for myself), please dont give me this c---p about servicemen swearing to obey appropriate orders. The entire culture is to OBEY WITHOUT QUESTION. And it can be no other way. Especially in confrontational or battle scenarios.

PS I used the Gulf War as an example, but there are others where the US has intervened with force, to protect it's vested (read commercial) interests. Again, I don't have a major problem with that, except HYPOCRISY re this "sworn to obey appropriate orders" garbage. Porky

-- Porky - not in D block (Skeptic@whatever.com), September 05, 1999.

That should be "purely commercial" not purely political Porky

-- Porky - not in D block (Skepic@whatever.com), September 05, 1999.

"Porky",

I am more than a little convinced that my reply to you is a wasted effort, yet as I perceive some chance that you may be interested in learning something I shall send it anyway.

As it now stands, you have taken the position of accepting and confirming the principle that a soldier's duty is to obey, without question and without hesitation ("The entire culture is to OBEY WITHOUT QUESTION. And it can be no other way.." and ". . .I have no problem with that.")

You should have a problem with it Porky, as it is not only incorrect legally and morally, it is a position that would justify not only killing in combat, but anything that a military organization or even a single member of that organization is ordered to do. That position, if allowed, would create a situation where a single "bad apple" in a position of command, could do great evil and at the same time, absolve all who followed his orders of responsibility and guilt for their complicity and participation in such actions. That this is exactly what happened in the Third Reich, serves to illustrate what the results of such a culture will likely be. The facts of Hitler's Germany surely provide an excellent model of what should never be allowed to come about again. In short, your position qualifies you quite well to be defense counsel at the trial of Reich Marshal Goering or of any of the concentration camp guards from the death camps. Do you really believe that this is the only position that will allow a military to function and succeed?

You seem to have little understanding of the nature of war in general and certainly are at a disadvantage if your understanding of the "Gulf War" is as you have presented it here.

To being with, the "Gulf War" was not a war at all. It was the application of physical force upon an entity that was interfering with the economic life and process of Western Civilization. It had more the flavor of an attack by the First Marine Air Wing on the Rhode Island State Police than that of a true armed conflict. It was never a contest; it was simply an example of what happens when a weaker entity provokes a stronger one beyond the stronger one's point of restraint.

ALL wars, Porky, are economic instruments. They are a product of the quality of men that we call greed and are, to our misfortune, inherent in the nature of Man (and apes in general).

Yes, the US military did their job in the gulf, but you assume far too much and incorrectly so when you describe the performance of our servicemen as having been done without question and without hesitation. Only in the event that individual survival is dependent on the lack of hesitation is it appropriate, and in my experience, practiced. And, as it is likely that you are acquainted with at least a few of those who are combat veterans, I'd suggest that you ask them if they ever questioned their own actions, and if you're close enough to them, ask them if they haven't been questioning some of them ever since. You too, seem to confuse feeling and recognition with reaction and obedience.

"Appropriate" orders, Porky, are those which support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. If the cost of such defense is human life, so be it, it is our sworn duty and not to be shied away from simply by virtue of it's terrible nature. And make no mistake, it matters not whether the lives in question are our own or the enemy's. Human life is only as valuable or as cheap as the society in which it exists holds it. You will find, for example, a great variance in that value between the West and the East. You may tell that to the dead, not only of the enemies of America in the Gulf, but to all dead, of all wars of men.

If you witnessed the brutality and even the few fatalities of the gasoline lines in America during the '70s, you would not need much more evidence to conclude that shutting off or even reducing the flow of oil to America was an action that could result in nothing save chaos for this country. That possibility was indeed the impetus for the action in the Gulf, but should it surprise you to discover that men have been going to war over natural resources ever since the first monkey troops fought over a stand of banana trees, it is nevertheless true.

Your definition of what constitutes appropriate orders is a reflection of your own moral values, and not definitive of the meaning of the term as sworn to by the members of our military. The decision by our civilian government (and, supposedly by the population through their elected representatives, although that's another fairy tale) to defend our way of life is a valid one and that's what is required for it to be an appropriate one for our military to prosecute. That we have chosen Capitalism as our economic system and that Capitalism has no associated moral or ethical system is beyond question. We therefore are put in the position of defending it or not surviving. That my own conclusion that no man's life should be valued in "barrels of crude" likely is in sympathy with yours in no way alters the reality that we live in a world where it is.

Your beliefs that members of the military cannot or are not allowed to act through reason and that morality is the criteria for appropriateness of orders is based on ignorance of the realities of military life and does you no credit. You would be well served to remain silent on matters of which you are ignorant.

War is simply the most evil endeavor that men engage in and yet it is inherent in our nature. Survival, of the species, of the many and of the one, in that order, is the reality of our construction. That men should attempt to devise ethical systems to deal with these realities is to his credit. That he should fail to achieve perfection in that effort is simply an illustration of the nature of human existence.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), September 05, 1999.

Hardliner, I'm in a different time zone to you, and have commitments tonight so can't give your reply the considered response/rebuttal that it deserves (though one's response may well be a waste of effort, one persists, against all the odds of the recipient's enlightenment).

These threads seem to disappear rapidly. If I can't find it. I'll start a new thread with your name on it (that is, if the Thought Police allow it)

Porky

-- Porky (not in D block) (Skeptic@whatever.com), September 06, 1999.

Hardliner,

You just dont get it, do you? Youre an idealist, and your point of view reflects that. (and whilst others praise your 40 years service, I say youve never been in the real world. Youve been looked after, never had to worry about the next pay check, meal, or accommodation. Youve obeyed orders, gone where youre told, done what youre told. You can afford to be an idealist! Apart from putting your life on the line in times of conflict (and I say that without sarcasm and with respect) youve basically had a cosseted, easy life compared to civilian struggle street that most experience..)

You said, The gulf War was not a war at all...etc.  I read that para at first with disbelief, then understanding. After all, NOTHING gets in the way of the USA, most powerful nation on earth. And you have the nerve to talk about morality and obeying Appropriate orders. So tell me Hardliner, as the enemy fled across the desert, and the US pilots began their turkey shoot, laughing as they blasted unarmed, fleeing boy solders, where was the questioning of the appropriateness of the action? Why didnt they say, Hey! This aint right. Theyre beaten. They present no future danger. This is murder? Why, Hardliner?

Ill spell it out. BECAUSE THEY WERE OBEYING ORDERS, UNQUESTIONINGLY. RIGHT OR WRONG. THATS THE REAL WORLD, NOT THE IDEAL WORLD. Are you getting it yet?

It may surprise you to know that Ive interfaced with quite a few marines, off duty, offshore. 19, 20 , 21 year olds. Mostly good guys, crazy but OK. But what came through, very strongly, was the spirit of comradeship, loyalty to the corps, (and a willingness to die for it, their country and partners) and their complete OBEDIENCE to orders. Hardly another thought in their solid little heads.(maybe there are many more "Ground powders" out there than you know about) Im sure they mouthed the words about obeying appropriate orders when they signed up, but if those young guys were ordered to kill by their officer, THEYD DO IT, WITHOUT QUESTION. Just like the pilots. The real world. Get it, Hardliner?

You see Hardliner, YOUR definition of appropriate orders is a reflection of YOUR moral values. If its good for the US, or to uphold the Constitution, its OK to go to war, kill and maim. But you want it both ways. Its OK to fight totally immoral wars (immoral in the view of very, very many thoughtful non Americans) so, for example you dont have to queue in a line for gas. And the troops cant question THAT (if they did, theyd be court-martialled for cowardice). But you want them to have a sort of secondary morality - obey the big order and go to war, but other orders have to be appropriate. Not only is that attitude totally hypocritical, in the real world it doesnt work that way.

Perhaps, to prove me wrong, youd like to nominate a few actual examples where a marine has disobeyed orders, in a combat situation, because the order wasnt appropriate. And what happened to them? The marines I met were so brain washed theyd rather die than disobey orders. Not a chance of it in the wide, wide world!!!

Let me conclude by getting back to Y2K and the original topic. And realising that this BB is about 98% American, these generalisations may jar with many. To me, and many others, America represents the best - and worst that there is. We all recognise your military and economic dominance and success. But from a societal view point, America is generally a mess. Greedy, selfish and oblivious to the outside world, your country is racked by racial strife and social inequalities. (and never mind about other countries - we're talking about The Greatest Nation On Earth, right?)

If Y2K is a 6 plus, I say theres a good chance American society wont pull through, and the already fragile social fabric will fracture irredeemably. With the hatred, intolerance and divisions already in place, plus a well armed, undisciplined populace, Id say it has the potential to be a calamity.

So in a few weeks, Hardliner, we may well see whether the National Guard obey only appropriate orders. Of course, bombing the c**p out of Arabs from 6,000 feet on the other side of the world is a little easier than pulling the trigger on a fellow American from 10 feet in Brooklyn. Well see. My guess is that after 20 or 50 or 100 of their fellow National Guardsmen have been killed by the mob, they will. Or what would YOU have them do, Hardliner? Is it then"appropriate"? Or should they throw down the weapon, saying, This isnt an appropriate order.. With respect, Hardliner, you've been away from the real world for too long....

-- Porky - not inD block (Skeptic@whatever.com), September 07, 1999.

Well, "Porky",

I certainly don't "get" whatever it is that you've got and for that I am exceedingly grateful. You sir, are a mess. Fortunately for me (and everyone else), you're the one who is trapped inside that skin with yourself and you're the one who has to live with (or possibly die because of) all those erroneous conclusions, inaccurate assumptions, grossly distorted perceptions of reality and less than adequate reasoning ability. I'd wish you good luck, but that would be hypocritical as I wish you no such thing. Instead I hope that the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.

I certainly have ideals, but you've given absolutely no indication that you've even dimly seen them and if that makes me an idealist, so be it. As for your grossly inaccurate assumptions about my life and being insulated from the "horrors" of civilian life, you couldn't be more wrong.

Your bit about nothing getting in the way of the USA, was especially revealing of your ignorance and misunderstanding of world history. Yes, today the US is the top dog militarily. Yesteryear it was England, where the sun never set on the British Empire and millions of Chinese died to keep China British and before them it was the French and the Spanish and the Portuguese and the Dutch and the Romans, and on and on into the obscurity of man's past. After your first response, it was apparent that you knew nothing of war. After your latest, it is also apparent that you understand nothing of Man or his history. Your cockamamie ideas that "boy soldiers" are somehow deserving of consideration that other soldiers are not by virtue of their age is quite telling. I was a boy when I first took up arms on behalf of my country. The vast majority of all men who have borne arms of behalf of theirs throughout history were boys when they first did so. If the ones that you seem so concerned for were unarmed, it is because they abandoned their weapons. If they were fleeing, it speaks to their state of mind and ability to die for their country, and not to that of their pursuers. That you can conceive of a "beaten" enemy as no future threat further speaks to your gross lack of understanding of the ways of men and should make whatever nation may claim you, grateful that you are no part of their military.

It is further apparent that you have not only never hunted turkey, you must have never met any US pilots. Perhaps "in your time zone" the popular wisdom is that American pilots laugh when they kill. I will tell you quite honestly that it is not so. I have known more than a few men who killed with a passion, and that passion was no different than that of many warriors throughout history, but if you cannot distinguish between a man who kills with righteous purpose and one who enjoys it you had best take care when around either sort.

As you have either ignored or failed to understand my previous words, I shall make it plain enough that even a cretin of your limited intellect can understand. Whether or not any order given to a member of the American military is "appropriate" is determined by, and only by whether or not it is in support and/or defense of the Constitution of the United States of America. Such is no different than the criteria of any nation throughout history and your wish to strip America of what is no more or no less than the standard of history is simply irrelevant. Such moral value as is contained in that Constitution is more than adequate to satisfy the demands of honor, ethics and even charity and if you demur, I couldn't care less. I am an American, and I will defend my homeland and my way of life whether or not such is to the detriment of another person or nation. You accuse me of being an idealist and then expect that I accept the concept that a beaten and fleeing military is somehow entitled to grace and forgiveness. You talk like a man with a paper asshole.

Wherever you come from and whatever "murder" is defined as there, it is nevertheless a definition of man. War is an invention not of man, but of Nature else no creature save man would engage in it. For you to confuse the two is only further evidence of your lack of comprehension of the true nature of humanity.

You can't "spell" very well either. While the American servicemen and women who prosecuted the military action in the Gulf (and those who do so anywhere else) are most assuredly carrying out orders, as I've previously indicated, they are seldom if ever carried out without question. Perhaps it is necessary that you believe this to maintain your hate of American soldiers, but your belief will simply not make it so.

I am actually quite impressed with your in-depth understanding and comprehensive analysis of the character of the US Marine Corps based on your "interaction" with off duty, 19, 20, and 21 year old Marines. Unfortunately, it is a totally negative impression and such understanding as you may have is akin to believing the Coldstream Guards to be a security force for a Scottish river. Are you actually so brainless as to believe yourself capable of seeing into the minds of not only those young Marines but of their officers? You are indeed a piece of work!

"My" definition of appropriate orders is as irrelevant as yours, although I feel slightly dirtied by having anything in common with you. As clearly set out above and previously, the definition is one of relationship to the core document of our society.

That you even attempt to categorize war as, "OK", "immoral", or "totally immoral" or pretend that the views of thoughtful men (whether American or not) has any bearing on the actual nature of such is only further corroboration of your lack of understanding of war. Did you simply close your eyes to the statement that I made to the effect that war is absolutely evil? Do you really expect anyone to believe that greed is the sole province of America and that any other nation is any different? Tell me again how you are so connected to reality and that I am not.

I must admit that it would be emotionally rewarding for me to be able to perceive you as a coward, but your assumptions and conclusions about courts martial and cowardice are as wrong as most of the rest of your ideas and so I have to conclude that you don't have a clue what cowardice is all about either. Your ability to express yourself makes clear that you are not completely stupid, but you have got one helluva lot of bad data rattling around inside a skull which doesn't work as well in the reasoning department as it apparently does in the emoting department. Oh, yeah, you don't spell words in English so well either, but in the event that English is not your native tongue, that is quite understandable and you probably do a lot better than I would do in whatever language that you speak at home.

And just what sort of scenario do you imagine for Brooklyn with your fevered nerve knot? If someone is running around with a Molotov cocktail, I don't give a damn if he's an American or a Martian. He is my enemy and I will deal with him in whatever way that I must, including the taking of his life if I have no other choice. I will not spare a rapist simply by virtue of the fact that he might only be a "boy", and the list goes on. We will indeed see what happens, but if you expect scenes of American servicemen, whether National Guardsmen or Regular troops of any of the services, mowing down hordes of angry citizens whose only crime is anger, you are truly living in la-la land. Unlike Caracas, where I witnessed the machine-gunning of college students by La Guardia Nacional, our National Guard is composed of members of the community and people here rejoice to see them arrive in times of disaster. You apparently have no more understanding of America than you do of her Marines.

Now I'll tell you what, "Porky". I've lived all over the world; nearly 30 countries long enough to have a mailing address and a telephone number and the great majority of those residences were as a civilian. In only two of those places was I accepted as myself, and not hated simply because I was an American. There is a common joke in the Marine Corps to the effect that good preparation for liberty in a foreign port is to learn to say in Farsi, "Don't shoot! I'm a Canadian!" It is only half a joke. No one is more aware than I of the outrageous and unacceptable behavior of many of my countrymen when overseas. I am embarrassed by it, but I am not responsible for it. I have always made it my business to learn to say, "Please" and "Thank you", in the local language as my first priority, and to conduct myself in accordance with the dictum , "When in Rome, do as the Romans". In spite of that, I am an American and I love my country. We used to have a flag with a coiled rattlesnake on it and the legend, "Don't Tread on Me!" You or any other outsider would do well to remember that when dealing with us.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), September 07, 1999.

I've never seen such pitiful, contemptuous self-delusion on this board before. Our worse troll JBD had more sense and was less arrogant. Porky not only is a dishonor to the human race, but also he is an embarrassment to the pigs of which he borrowed the name, smart and loving animals they are.

Hardliner, pigs will fly when this guy gets a clue.

I admire all the enlisted/veteran men/women who risked their lives and died to save such sorry asses as Porky's. I know I could reason with a Marine if he were to "turn against me" from higher command, but not a with a porkhead with a gun.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 07, 1999.

"If you rob a bank or sumthin you could get a cool house like I got! Don't need no yard maintenance or pay taxes either.

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), September 07, 1999. "

-- (.@...), September 07, 1999.

WOW!!! Hardliner, did I hit your hot button!!!

I wonder what it was. Perhaps the inference that you spend too much time in the Officers Club and that you've lost touch with not only the real world, but the men that you command?

Whatever it was, when one resorts to the level of abuse that you displayed, and fails to address pertinent questions, it's obvious that there's little point in continuing this "discussion".

I apologise for my poor spelling (and relative lack of education). Family circumstances caused me to leave home at 16, and I joined the Navy. Later, as a London policeman, I helped in saving the hides of some very scared US Marines on the second floor of the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square during the anti Vietnam/anti American riots, and I carry the physical scars to this day. I was just carrying out orders. (but you still won't get it, will you Hardliner?) And by the way, those Marines were an inch from firing, also under orders, on unarmed demonstrators, had they broken through the last very thin 'blue line', and entered the Embassy building. "Appropriate", Hardliner?

And in my "time zone" during the Gulf War, I watched the footage of your pilots shooting up the unarmed 'enemy' lorries as they fled, and heard them laughing and shreiking with glee as they did so. That's in the public domain, Hardliner. Check it out.

Anyway, it's more than time zones that separate us. Respond to this if you wish. I'll read it, but move on. I wish you well.

-- Porky - not in D block (Skeptic@whatever.com), September 08, 1999.