Man, I've been seriously trying to update this diary for the past few days, but work, Rogue Reviews, and other errands have kept me from doing any serious updates. It sucks too because I wanted to respond earlier to comments left by Katress, Kyna, and Doug  about my blasting of Clinton and what I see as bull-shit on the part of the military. I want to take this one step at a time, and answer them separately:

I can see that you'd like to blame all of America's problems on Bill Clinton... but let me be the first to tell you that it takes longer than 8 years to show any positive outcomes of one's term in office and I am really sick and tired of this fucking blame game people like to play. Think you can handle being president? I'd love to see you try.

First off, as much as I know that Clinton started, he's not to blame for everything that's gone bad. Clinton had no real legacy besides overseeing an economy that was booming when he entered office (started during the Reagan Administration and continued during Bush 41's admin) and a military that was truly able to fight a war on two fronts (Europe and Pacific), based on a Cold War worst-case scenario. Anyways, here was my reply:

Greetings, 

Well, it's been a while since anyone disagreed with my sentiments. I welcome your opinion, and love the debate. First off, I don't blame a lot of the world's troubles on Clinton, although the most recent military-related issues did start in the Clinton Administration. During Clinton's South African trip, he and his entourage needed so many planes that it took an entire flight wing off the 'ready line'. Clinton also started the social engineering programs that you see in the military (co-ed basic training, don't ask don't tell, etc). If Bush 43 does something hard, like grant blanket amnesty to illegal Mexican immigrants, I'll slam him for it to. Also, if yuo want an inside look of how the Marine Corps, which is a standard for gauging how the military likes a commander-in-chief. Every time you see footage of George W. Bush exiting a helicopter, or something guarded by Marines, you will always see the Marine turn to face the president's back, a symbolic gesture of "watching a comrade's back". You'll never see them doing that to Clinton. That, and when the congress, under the guidance of social workers, wanted to put co-ed boot camp in the Corps, the top 40 (that's right, forty) USMC generals, all present at the hearing, stood and vowed to instantly resign their commissions if the panel voted to approve the measure. These weren't ticket punchers either. These people were commanders and captains during WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, Generals who've fought on the front lines and watched their friends die. Leaders who know what it takes to make sure men are properly trained to take on an enemy that only knows how to kill. Don't take my word for it. If you want to verify what I'm telling you, go to www.sftt.org each week, and read the DefenseWatch column that's put out weekly. Don't always believe what the press says (Operation Anaconda was a flop, not a success. Think about it. 400 enemy and not one U.S. Soldier gets hurt? Come on. It's a lie.). 

Read that, and you'll get to read the stuff that the major media won't tell you. I salute you for your honesty, and hope that you reflect on what I've said. 

Rogue Marine

My personal philosophy is that if you forget that it's the grunts that make and sell the products, along with fighting the wars that our leaders start, then you're doomed to failure, because a General's not the one who's down in the trenches ducking sniper fire and mortar shells. I also believe that all people should keep an eye on the people that represent them in Washington. I'm registered Republican, but if a Democrat makes the best case on an issue, and after I've independently verified the facts, then I'll vote for him. I don't vote strictly on the party  n fact, if Bush 43 signs into law a bill that grants blanket amnesty to illegal Mexican immigrants, and he was facing election this year, I might not vote for him. I think giving blanket amnesty to illegals, no matter what the reason, is rewarding bad behavior and only encourages others to do the same. Also, did anyone else notice that she didn't refute the facts that I laid out? Thought I'd mention that.

Doug replied to my outrage that we have to rely on Norway now to help patrol our airspace. Here's what he said:

Isn't it about time some other militaries are helping us out? How many wars have we paid for that weren't our own? How many skies have we helped patrol for others? Or shores? And doesn't terrorism affect the world, not just the United States? The defense budget was cut because we had an extraordinarily high defense budget during the Cold War. The Cold War is over, so we don't need the defenses we once did. Are you really naive enough to think that our military, combined with the UN military, is not adequate enough to defend the United States?

First off, the United Nations' attitude towards the United States, despite the fact that we host their offices and tolerate the diplomats that are there, even those from countries that are openly hostile to the U.S., is horrible. To put it simply, most of the U.N. doesn't like us because we're not an nation that follows a foreign policy of appeasement, which gave rise to the Soviet and Nazi regimes. The U.N. also wants the ability to take U.S. citizens to their own courts for breaking doing actions that are legal ehre in the U.S., but not according to the U.N.'s rules. The U.N. now wants to slap a tax on U.S. citizens. Some of you are okay with that, but I'm not. Why? I didn't vote to create the U.N. Why should I pay taxes to a Government entity that I have pledged no allegiance to. And Don't flame me with messages about how you don't want to pay taxes to the U.S. Government. The U.S. government performs services that directly affect our lives, but the U.N. doesn't. They mainly give it all to 3rd world countries run by dictators and we'll never see that money again.

I think it's wonderful that another nation is willing to help us defend our skies, but I would only support it in a time of an out-and-out war, such as if we were fighting the Soviets in direct military actions. That's different. But having to rely on pilots and aircraft from foreign nations in a time of limited military activity is rather bad. Makes me wonder what would happen if we were fighting a shooting war.

Now, he does have a point that the defense budget was high because of the Cold War, and that was for a perfectly legitimate reason, but just because the Soviets are gone doesn't mean that another nation wouldn't launch an invasion against us if they could (read: China). Even if we didn't ahve any nations that are against us, we still need to maintain a military, because soldiers are more than just bullet sponges. They are people who defend our borders and patrol our skies. They are the people who are willing to die so that we can open debate, and a free society. These people deserve the best in weapons and armor. They deserve better than a 20 year old rifle (M-16, M-60), 18 year old vehicles (106th L.A.V. recon element), and on and on and on. They deserve to have the right kind of training that makes them effective soldiers, not reborn soft-core hippie grunts. Wars aren't scheduled in advance with both sides, and the initiative is always on the side of the attacker. Our intelligence apparatuses must be vigilant for foreign threats, but no one's omnipotent.

Will try to write more later. I still welcome all your comments on this.

Time is short and time is cheap. We shall speak again.