Huck Mucus
08-25-2004, 11:55 AM
I just address this to some. You know who you are.
When I was in, the "ten percent" were ****birds, slackers, sandbaggers and unprofessional types who didn't carry their share of the load.
However, in the recent two years, I've heard some people, who claim to be Real Deal, BTDT types, apply the term to anyone who holds a different political opinion than theirs, even if the man is a highly competent warrior who served with honor and distinguished himself in his profession.
These same types also spout off alot about two unwritten warrior codes: 1. In the heat of battle it's ALL about the guy next to you; and 2. A real warrior NEVER second-guesses the actions of another man under fire UNLESS he personally witnessed those actions.
So, I ask some rhetorical questions:
1. Prior to the heat of battle, what is it all about (i.e. man's motivation)? "Freedom? (for/from who/what?); defeating "evil"?; "national security"?; "imperialism"?; "economic security";? "our way of life"?; etc.?
2. When in the heat of battle, can one man protect 500,000 in-country or only the ones next to him?
3. Are all vets who went home when the system let them do so (refusing to re-up and stay by the guys they served with), somehow running out on those guys? Somehow violating the code?
3. After the heat of battle, what is it all about?
4. Can the answer to #3 be found in the answer to #2, or must a man just fall back on the answers to #1, shut his mouth and carry on supporting #1 regardless? Can the code and the answers to #1 conflict?
5. What is the most effective way for a man to stand by his men after the heat of battle? Especially if he goes home? Should he revert from the code back to simple support for the answers to #1? If so, what is the man's obligation? Is it only to the men he served with, or, after the heat of battle can it be extended to all warriors?
We all know who wrote the code. Warriors did. Who wrote the answers to #1 at any given time in any given war? Were they warriors and did they know the code? If so, did the code play any part in their decision to write up some answers to #1? What was the nature of the answers to #1 that got the warriors to go in the first place? Was that nature "Truth"?
If the Swift Boat Liars for Bush are violating "the second warrior code" about personal witness, and if Kerry hauled the "first warrior code" home with him, and then some, could it be argued that that, under this recent definition of "the ten percent" the Swift Boat Liars are part of the ten percent?
While I don't agree with this new definition of "ten percent," I think that if it were to apply it most definately applies to the Swift Boat Liars for Bush. I wonder why the "BTDT," "Real Deals" that stretched this term to include political minorities don't call them on it. After all, if you don't stand for your principles, what kind of man are you? Oh, yeah, the kind that has a political disagreement. I guess the warrior code falls victim to politics. Where is the honor in that?
Personally, I like the idea of "the five percent." One man once inferred that I was part of "the five percent." I had not heard that before so I asked him what it was. He explained it in a way that cast me as a political minority, NOT a ****bird minority like the ten percent are. I liked that. Talk about the few, the proud, the elite (even if it is intellectual). I would be proud to be called one of the five percent. Or "a five percenter." While I don't consider myself in the same league with Kerry, Butler, Hackworth, Zini and the others, I would consider myself proud to be tossed in the same bag or the same fighting hole with them.
And, since the Swift Boat Liars for Bush have violated the warrior code, even IF their service was honorable, they have dishonored it so yeah, they are part of the "ten percent."
Thinking out loud rant, Semper Fi.
When I was in, the "ten percent" were ****birds, slackers, sandbaggers and unprofessional types who didn't carry their share of the load.
However, in the recent two years, I've heard some people, who claim to be Real Deal, BTDT types, apply the term to anyone who holds a different political opinion than theirs, even if the man is a highly competent warrior who served with honor and distinguished himself in his profession.
These same types also spout off alot about two unwritten warrior codes: 1. In the heat of battle it's ALL about the guy next to you; and 2. A real warrior NEVER second-guesses the actions of another man under fire UNLESS he personally witnessed those actions.
So, I ask some rhetorical questions:
1. Prior to the heat of battle, what is it all about (i.e. man's motivation)? "Freedom? (for/from who/what?); defeating "evil"?; "national security"?; "imperialism"?; "economic security";? "our way of life"?; etc.?
2. When in the heat of battle, can one man protect 500,000 in-country or only the ones next to him?
3. Are all vets who went home when the system let them do so (refusing to re-up and stay by the guys they served with), somehow running out on those guys? Somehow violating the code?
3. After the heat of battle, what is it all about?
4. Can the answer to #3 be found in the answer to #2, or must a man just fall back on the answers to #1, shut his mouth and carry on supporting #1 regardless? Can the code and the answers to #1 conflict?
5. What is the most effective way for a man to stand by his men after the heat of battle? Especially if he goes home? Should he revert from the code back to simple support for the answers to #1? If so, what is the man's obligation? Is it only to the men he served with, or, after the heat of battle can it be extended to all warriors?
We all know who wrote the code. Warriors did. Who wrote the answers to #1 at any given time in any given war? Were they warriors and did they know the code? If so, did the code play any part in their decision to write up some answers to #1? What was the nature of the answers to #1 that got the warriors to go in the first place? Was that nature "Truth"?
If the Swift Boat Liars for Bush are violating "the second warrior code" about personal witness, and if Kerry hauled the "first warrior code" home with him, and then some, could it be argued that that, under this recent definition of "the ten percent" the Swift Boat Liars are part of the ten percent?
While I don't agree with this new definition of "ten percent," I think that if it were to apply it most definately applies to the Swift Boat Liars for Bush. I wonder why the "BTDT," "Real Deals" that stretched this term to include political minorities don't call them on it. After all, if you don't stand for your principles, what kind of man are you? Oh, yeah, the kind that has a political disagreement. I guess the warrior code falls victim to politics. Where is the honor in that?
Personally, I like the idea of "the five percent." One man once inferred that I was part of "the five percent." I had not heard that before so I asked him what it was. He explained it in a way that cast me as a political minority, NOT a ****bird minority like the ten percent are. I liked that. Talk about the few, the proud, the elite (even if it is intellectual). I would be proud to be called one of the five percent. Or "a five percenter." While I don't consider myself in the same league with Kerry, Butler, Hackworth, Zini and the others, I would consider myself proud to be tossed in the same bag or the same fighting hole with them.
And, since the Swift Boat Liars for Bush have violated the warrior code, even IF their service was honorable, they have dishonored it so yeah, they are part of the "ten percent."
Thinking out loud rant, Semper Fi.