Kambucta's right...

[Weirddave]

Also, JonScribe offered an alternative when you asked for one, suggesting containment as a reasonable strategy. Just because you don’t believe it will work does not make it an invalid answer to your question, which was “What realistic alternatives are you proposing?” When you ask a question like this, then surely it’s obvious that the person responding has a right to determine what he or she feels constitutes “realistic.” You may not agree with JonScribe, but it doesn’t mean he didn’t answer your question.

If you read back, you will see that I posed specific questions as to what 'containment" meant. I did not reject it out of hand, simply dismissed it as an option until those questions were answered. I am still waiting.

“Why shouldn’t we bomb the crap out of someone?” doesn’t seem like a very good starting point when discussing geopolitics.

Nice rhetoric, but all you have is a jingle. If someone in the administration has proposed “Just bombing the crap out of them” as a solution to the Iraqi mess, I’m unaware of it. It’s a straw man.

There is no evidence of Iraq posing an imminent threat, no evidence of containment not working. Powell is asking us to go to war–risking the lives of 100,000 Iraqis in the first weeks, hundreds or thousands of U.S. and other troops, and political and economic chaos–because he thinks MAYBE in the future Iraq might rebuild its weapons systems and MIGHT decide to deploy weapons or MIGHT give those weapons to someone else who MIGHT use them against someone we like or give them to someone else who we don’t like, and other such speculation. Nothing that Powell said should alter the position that we should reject a war on spec.

Frankly, this is bullshit. SH has used WMD. has funded terrorists, has attacked his neighbors, has tried to acquire nuclear weapons, has slaughtered hundreds of thousands… Claiming that this is all about “might” and “may” is ludicrous. There is no maybe, there is decades of history, all supporting a specific pattern of behavior. Contending that SH MIGHT NOT do these things is a far more tenuous proposition in my mind.

[Weirddave]

*Originally posted by UnuMondo *
**Airman, you seriously overestimate people who work in military intelligence. I served in the Navy (Cryptologic Technician Interpretive, i.e. a Chinese linguist). Naval Security Group is affiliated with NSA, so I learned that most of its members are incompetent about anything in current affairs. They’re too unintellectual and afraid of other cultures to learn anything about current affairs, and even if they were motivated to learn, they couldn’t get a big picture because of compartmentalisation. Never assume that because a person works in an interesting branch of the military they’re smart on any topic (most of military linguists are in the military because they can’t succeed in getting a job in translation or interpretation outside).

UnuMondo **

Nice broad brush, fairly insulting too. I particularly liked the “They don’t agree with me, so they’re all too incompetent to get a ‘real job’” tactic.

[Tee]

That’s an interesting thought. I might decide I’m a Japanese linguist, but an extremely bad one. No one in their right mind would hire me, so I might have to join the armed forces to realize my career goal.

I dunno…there’s a couple of big pieces missing there.

[Eva_Luna]

*Originally posted by Weirddave *
** (re: ending sanctions)

See, this is exactly what we can’t do. Doing so would end the effectiveness of sanctions forever, the regimes so targeted could hold out waiting for sanctions to be lifted when they became unpopular. SH would certainly use the lifting of sanctions as a justification of his policies and it would strengthen his position, not weaken it.

**

The difference is that I feel that the sanctions were a stupid idea to begin with, and have accomplished next to nothing except create death and misery for innocent civilians. Who cares how he justifies his policies? Who cares if he tries to spin lifting sanctions as a way to say, “nyah, we were right all along”? Isn’t there a more effective way to counter such an argument than famine and death? Is there any evidence to prove that Iraqis who have a clue, and are not in the circle of power, support Saddam Hussein in any way, with or without sanctions? If sanctions were never popular in Iraq, how could they “become unpopular”?

**
A lot of mistakes were made in '91, not removing SH at the time being foremost amongst them. Unfortunately, in reguards to the Kurds, it’s a no win situation: Turkey won’t stand for a Kurdish nation on it’s borders and the iraqi people wouldn’t accept a Kurdish run government. I don’t know what to do about the Kurds. Personally, if they’d have it, I’d give them Kansas.

**

I wasn’t talking about a Kurdish nation, merely an absence of genocide, basic rights to promote their language and culture, and perhaps a certain level of regional autonomy. Come to think of it, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have the Turks follow that model, either (not that they’re likely to anytime soon).

The issue of ethnic/religious minorities is IMO one of the largest barriers to peace in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, if not the largest, so the U.S. had better get its butt in gear and figure out a way to deal with it. Of course, if the U.S. military and security/intelligence organizations keep doing boneheaded things like hiring intelligence analysts who can’t read the languages of the countries they’re responsible for analyzing, or firing linguists because they’re gay, I don’t see that changing anytime soon, either.

**

Popular literature to the contrary, a team of CIA hit men is not a realistic option. Kill SH and his sons, who are by all accounts worse than he is, take over. There is no Northern Alliance in Iraq, no undeground opposition front that could sweep to power in a popular revolution. SH has been too effective in killing any and all who opose him, and many whom did not but who simply didn’t support him fervently enough at one given moment.

**

We had a chance with the Kurds in ‘91, but that chance may be gone forever because we screwed it up. I find it hard to believe that there is zero dissent within Iraq, but why would any dissenting voices trust either in the U.S.’ ability, or its willingness for that matter, to help them after the Kurdish example?

**

Your arguement is based on the fact that you see a war coming and feel for the lives that will be lost. I understand that and agree. I think it should be done quickly and gotten over with, with minimum loss of life on both sides. You want to do something else. The problem is that nobody has suggested a "something else’ that has any posibility of working. **

I think my “something else” has at least as much of a chance of effecting lasting positive change in Iraq as war does, and at much less cost in terms of death and devastation. Obviously, you disagree.

More ideas, anyone?

(Oh, and FWIW I’m a former government linguist, although not in the intelligence arena. I left out of frustration with the stupidity of DOJ bureaucracy and the majority of other government employees who wanted to do as little work as possible, and went to grad schoool. But I did manage to get a job in the private sector afterward.)

[tomndebb]

what he did was turn the question around. I made three points for the war, 2 of which completely agreed with and one which he partially disputed

Actually, I did not just reverse the question. I pointed out that your first two points were irrelevant as reasons to insist on war, now. Point #1 would be much more legitimately leveled against Korea, where Bush is tap-dancing around in the diplomatic arena. Point #2 would be better lodged against several of our allies (not least Saudi Arabia from which the organizers and most fo the troops of al Qaeda spring in reaction to the suppressive regime that we are propping up). And for Point #3, I still have seen no evidence to indicate that Hussein would initiate an attack against the U.S. (or Israel), since that would bring immediate doom upon his head. He is a survivor and he could not survive that action.

[greco_loco]

Just saw this thread, and wanted to make a quick point: UnoMondo, I heartily agree. For Bluesman or Airman to take (or be given) the moral or intellectual high ground on the basis of their employment affiliations is, plainly put, bullshit. I was an airman, a 1N3 (cryptologic linquist, arabic-language), and most likely hold a clearance the same or higher than both of them; I have worked at Ft. Meade, Ft Gordon, and many deployed sites, some of which I may never be able to talk about. I spent 6 years doing my job, then came to the ME to teach others how to; in addition, I provided the briefings for SF and SO teams coming into the region. I have been active in SIGINT, HUMINT, and IMINT, and for those that know, that is an unusual combination. I have a degree in ME Studies, and I have lived in the region for the past 7 years full-time.

Does any of this make me an expert? Hell no. I can honestly say I have access to the same intel as most of the administration; but I don’t need to talk about it in the message boards to make my point. This war is a bad idea on several levels, without having to trot out classified reasons for it; even among the intel community there are differences of opinion, most of which has to do with things that aren’t in any way, shape, or form, classified. For example: the administration has made a piss-poor argument to the UN and the global community; they have alienated countries that should be standing beside us; they have focused on practically non-existent reasons for going to war, while the good reasons get left behind; and they have no cohesive plan for what happens after the troops accomplish their goal of removing Saddam from power. I guess claiming that you know why we should go to war, but you can’t tell anyone, is a great way to attempt a debate when you really have no supporting facts.

Oh, and Bluesman, since we both know this war is going to go ahead, regardless of what anyone does against it (I am currently sitting in the middle of this “effort”, and there is no way I can see that we can turn back now), I have a little wager for you: I bet, once it is all said and done, that there won’t be found any “huge” caches of WMD, any real progress towards a nuclear program (besides even more papers that talk about one), or any links between al-Qaieda and Saddam. You think you know so much, fine; put up. You don’t have to say a word until it’s all in the clear.

Thanks -

Greco

[Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas]

*Originally posted by Tee *
**That’s an interesting thought. I might decide I’m a Japanese linguist, but an extremely bad one. No one in their right mind would hire me, so I might have to join the armed forces to realize my career goal.

I dunno…there’s a couple of big pieces missing there. **

Most military linguists join the military to attend Defense Language Institute and get a fantastic education in whatever language is available at the time they arrive. Those who are good leave after their first four-six years, going to much more lucrative jobs in the private sector. Because the private sector is so much better than the military (pay is five times as much, you don’t have to work 12 hours a day for months on end, you can live where you want), the people who can take the opportunity usually do. This leaves only the incompetent to make a career out of the military, as they can’t get a better job elsewhere. Yes, there are military linguists who stay in for other reasons, but they are a tiny minority.

UnuMondo

[Lucretia]

*Originally posted by UnuMondo *
**Most military linguists join the military to attend Defense Language Institute and get a fantastic education in whatever language is available at the time they arrive. Those who are good leave after their first four-six years, going to much more lucrative jobs in the private sector. Because the private sector is so much better than the military (pay is five times as much, you don’t have to work 12 hours a day for months on end, you can live where you want), the people who can take the opportunity usually do. This leaves only the incompetent to make a career out of the military, as they can’t get a better job elsewhere. Yes, there are military linguists who stay in for other reasons, but they are a tiny minority.

UnuMondo **

I really, really tried to let this go, but I can’t. UnoMondo, you are spouting bullshit.

First, you aren’t privy to the reasons most linquists join the military. I joined to serve my country, and Bluesman did the same. So did many, many people I know. You may have joined strictly for the language education, others you know may have, but you have no basis for saying most do.

Second, the people that I worked with, and that Bluesman works with every day are some of the most talented, professional people it’s ever been my pleasure to know. I’ve known several people who had very lucrative positions offered to them in the private sector, who turned them down to continue serving in the military. And no, they weren’t a “tiny minority” of all those who chose to stay in.

Obviously, your experience in the intelligence community was different, and I can’t help but wonder if your arrogant, condescending attitude was part of that.

[Toaster52]

hansel

*"Fuck, are you ever missing the point.

You, the hawks, the Bush administration, et al, have a credibility problem with a lot of people for a variety of reasons. Rather than addressing that, you go and pout with your secret knowledge, after reassuring each other that “they” don’t know anything.

And you wonder why you don’t get more respect?"*
And just what IS that credibility problem? My guess (read: my opinion) would be that this administration isn’t doing things your way, therefore they are wrong, nay evil.

White Lightning

“We are misled, deceived, left in the dark, and lied to.”

So you agree that Sadaam is misleading us, deceiving us, leaving us in the dark, lying to us?
Oh, yeah, I forgot…only the Evil Bushies ™ do that…
Red Fury

"Powell’s speech has been descredited from here to Timbuktu. Starting with the blatant plagiarism of a 12 year old student’s thesis presented as “latest British intel” to Blix’s questioning of the aerial shots as “evidence of anything.”

Cite? Truly…I’m not even being cynical. I had not heard anything about this and would like to know.

mhendo

“Given that Bush’s overpowering desire to bomb Iraq…”
You know, I’ve had it with this shit. Give me some sort of concrete evidence that President Bush WANTS to bomb Iraq. DON’T tell me that, well ,gee whiz, he’s obviously evil and wants to get back at them for trying to kill his Daddy…DON’T tell me that, well, gee whiz, he has these ties to oil companies, see, and so he’s just obviously paying back his oil cronies…DON’T tell me that, well, gee whiz, he doesn’t want peace because he’s obviously intent on bombing Iraq, which proves he WANTS war, so he obviously WANTS to bomb IRAQ…

All your comments about President Bush WANTING to bomb Iraq seem (to me, at least) to spring from this line of logic:

1. Bush is a bad man
2. therefore he can’t be trusted
3. so he obviously WANTS to go to war.
   So PROVE IT…and prove it to the same sort of exacting detail that you are requiring from Airman Doors. Provide sources, names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mails, dates, locations…back them up with notarized statements, pictures, tape recordings, e-mail logs from White House computers, …
   Jesus FUCKING Christ…you want, nay, REQUIRE that your opponents provide you with everything short of a fucking DNA sample, while you proceed with innuendos and generalizations. And then when your opponents try to give you evidence to support their position, you claim that the evidence isn’t good enough.

FUCK YOU.

I guess you won’t be satisfied unless Sadaam comes on TV to say, straight out, that he has nuclear bombs/chemical weapons/biological agents here, here and here and I’m going to be using them against these targets on these dates…
Again, FUCK YOU.

[mhendo]

Toaster

Show me where i said Bush is evil. Show me where i even mentioned oil companies. Or Bush’s father, for that matter.

My words “overpowering desire” may have smacked of hyperbole, but surely you concede that Bush wants to go to war with Iraq? You can moan and complain all you like about how my words imply that he’s evil, etc., etc., ad nauseaum, yaaaaaawn. But the fact is, he’s been pushing for war for months now, even in the face of strong global opposition.

I don’t assert that he WANTS to go to war because he enjoys the idea of killing people. I don’t say that he WANTS to go to war because he’s evil. I even concede that it is actually possible that he WANTS to go to war in order to do what he thinks is best for world peace. But the fact is that, whatever his motivations, good or bad, right now he WANTS to go to war with Iraq.

Of course, you might counter by saying that we NEED to go to war with Iraq; that it is not a matter of WANT but of NEED. But plenty of people worldwide do not believe that we NEED to go to war with Iraq, and i am one of them. Too often, people use the word NEED to justify getting what they WANT.

And, given that what anyone REALLY wants can only ever be known by that person, how can you say with any certainty that Bush does not want war? Are you privy to the inner workings of his mind? No. All you (and i) have to go on is his public statements. I know it might be hard for you to believe that anyone, especially a politician, might not say exactly what they mean, but it really does happen sometimes, you know.

And anyway, my tendency to hyperbole was certainly no greater than yours, such as when you claim that i demand, “nay, REQUIRE that your opponents provide you with everything short of a fucking DNA sample.” In terms of evidence, i never in this thread made a general call for people to cite chapter and verse in support of every opinion. I addressed the specific issue raised by the OP and by Airman Doors: their assertions that they had facts to which we were not privy, and that these facts supported war with Iraq. All i did was suggest that it’s all rather too convenient, in a forum devoted to debate, for someone to say that they have all the facts but that they can’t tell you what they are.

And i’ve just been back through the four pages of this thread. looking at all my posts and at those of the people i have been arguing with. I have disagreeed with people, and i have countered some of their evidence on certain issues with some of my own. And, on other matters, i have expressed my opinion. That’s what debate is all about. I have never simply said their evidence isn’t good enough, EXCEPT in the case of Bluesman and Airman, who furnished no evidence AT ALL.

On reflection, it seems to me that the most coherent and indisputable part of your whole post was the sig-line.

[Toaster52]

mhendo
…"but surely you concede that Bush wants to go to war with Iraq? "

Actually, no I DON’T…I think all he really WANTS is to have Sadaam Hussein abide by…REALLY abide by…the terms of his surrender. What he WANTS is to be assured, on behalf of the American public, that Sadaam HAS destroyed all his WMD’s, so that we can go our own way in peace. What he WANTS is to have Sadaam resign as leader of Iraq so that the Iraqi population has a chance to work their way out of the Stone Age that Sadaam has put them in.

“Show me where i said Bush is evil. Show me where i even mentioned oil companies. Or Bush’s father, for that matter.”

I used my own form of hyperbole. I was sort of jumbling in the arguments I have seen on this board over the last several months as a generalization. Sorry if I offended you.

“Are you privy to the inner workings of his mind? No.”

And neither are you, of course. But since I’M not trying to accuse President Bush of needlessly and heedlessly wanting to wage war, it is incumbent on you (and those who make the same claim) to prove the positive, rather than me to prove the negative.

In other words, if you want to claim that (quote): "But the fact is that, whatever his motivations, good or bad, right now he WANTS to go to war with Iraq. ", then it is up to YOU to back up that claim.

And I was just getting irritated that the more that people like Airman Doors would try to support President Bush, the more people would attack their arguments, asking for more and more detail, while relying on emotional attacks as their support. Personally, I also fault Airman Doors for opening that door (snicker). Here, he made the claim of knowledge of info; he should have been ready also to back that claim up.
So speaking of backing up claims…again:

“But the fact is that, whatever his motivations, good or bad, right now he WANTS to go to war with Iraq.”

Fact, huh?

PROVE IT…or at least substantiate your claim. Or you have proved my assertion.

I’m off to my second job; I’ll check back in tomorrow.

[mhendo]

*Originally posted by Toaster52 *
mhendo
I used my own form of hyperbole. I was sort of jumbling in the arguments I have seen on this board over the last several months as a generalization. Sorry if I offended you.

You are? Really? Well, given that in your first contribution to this thread you said to me:

Fuck you

and

Again, fuck you

you’ll forgive me if i don’t fall all over myself in gratitude. Most people at least make a few attempts at reasoned debate before descending to abuse, even here in the Pit.

Regarding Bush, i concede that no-one except him (and this includes me) can definitively know what he wants. But we can judge his words and actions, which at the moment seem totally focused on convincing the rest of the world to support him in a war on Iraq.

All i have to add to this issue is the following, which is more carefully worded and represents my take on Bush’s position:

Given the considerable opposition to America’s position on this issue at the UN and in other countries across the world; and given that i believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that going to war may well cause more problems (in Iraq, in the Middle East, and globally) than it will solve; and given that i do not believe that the Administration has made a particularly convincing case regarding Iraq’s threat to world security or its connections with al Qaeda; and given that i also believe the Administration has been emphasizing the Iraq issue while making little effort to address domestic social and economic issues that desperately need attention; given all these things (and probably others that i’ve forgotten right now), i am extremely sceptical of the Administration’s motives for pushing so hard for war, whether this push is motivated by a perceived WANT or a perceived NEED on the part of Bush and his advisers. I concede that i cannot know what is in their mind; all i can do is draw conclusions based on my reading of the information that i have. And that’s all any of us can do.

Actually, i think you’ve made a mountain out of a molehill with this whole issue of “WANT.” Whenever i read a post in which someone presumes to know what is in the mind of another human being (as i did with Bush), i tend to mentally insert the words “i think” or “i believe” in there, because i am well aware that such knowledge is very difficult to verify and usually constitutes little more than an opinion. And i do this whether the person is on my side of the debate or not. If someone else on this thread said that “Bush wants to go to war” i would nod in agreement, as that is pretty much how i feel. But i would also be well aware that what this statement actually means is “Based on my reading of the evidence regarding the necessity of war, my assessment of the Bush’s other political moves, and my own prejudices and predispositions, i believe that Bush wants to go to war.” We all use grammatical shortcuts and ellipses. Someitmes is confuses people, but for the most part it works fine.

And none of this is the same as the issue i had with Bluesman and Airman Doors (and it’s the former’s OP that i have most trouble with). You conceded that it was rather silly to start an argument by saying, essentially, “I have the facts but i can’t tell you what they are.” I never questioned their right to support the President, and i don’t ask for any evidence from them to back up their support for the President. If they said “I know absolutely nothing about any of this, but i support going to war and i support the President,” then i might think they were being silly but i wouldn’t ask them for evidence to back up their support. But when they say (esp. Bluesman) that their support for the President is based on a bunch of facts that they have but can’t share, and that:

if you’re against this operation proceeding, you don’t have all the facts, and that invalidates your opinion.

Well, when they say this then i get annoyed. Some opinions might be more informed than others, but everyone has a right to have one.

[mhendo]

In an earlier post, i made comments regarding what i see as US hypocrisy regarding its attutde to countries that violate UN Security Council resolutions. I said, in part:

**i always love it when people push Saddam’s violation of UN resolutions as a reason to invade. When reminded of the fact that the two countries who have violated the most such resolutions are, in order:

1. Israel

2. Turkey

they quickly turn the focus of their argument in another direction.**

Well, US friendliness towards Israel is not in question, i don’t think, and today President Bush made it clear what American thinks of the other country that thumbs its nose at the UN on a regular basis:

The president expressed confidence that the United States would come up with an acceptable aid package for Turkey, a close US ally in the region who will play a vital role if there is military action against Baghdad.

Bush said Turkey has “no better friend than the American government” and that Washington and Ankara were still working out details of an aid package.

The US military plans to use bases in Turkey both for aircraft and for ground forces in the event of an attack on Turkey’s neighbour to the south.

(link here)

[jshore]

Boy…this thread is one hell of a read. Well, now that I’ve made it through it, I’ll throw in a point that hasn’t explicitly been made before:

Given that the people who control the release of the classified information are those who want us to go to war, I find it hard to believe that if we only knew what they knew we would feel differently. While I understand that not all classified knowledge can be made public, I find it extremely unlikely that we are in a situation where that info that does get released doesn’t make the case for them whereas that which they decide not to release does! It just defies simple logic.

And, I must say that when the people who do know the information, like Colin Powell, are willing to tell me that the taped message from Bin Laden provides significant evidence of an Iraq - al Quaeda connection when I can read the transcript for myself and see otherwise, then how the hell do they expect me to believe them on the basis of information that they don’t release to me?!? [I must say that Powell was the one person in this Administration that I used to have some reasonable respect for but it is becoming harder to maintain that.]

[mhendo]

jshore, that was concise and very well put. You summed up a lot of my feelings.

It’s not that i don’t believe that these people have information that i don’t. Nor do i deny that they probably need to keep some of it secret. It’s simply that we can’t be expected to blindly accept a particular position based on an argument that never gets articulated. I think a quick peek back at US history should be enough to convince most people that the government has misled its citizens before while claiming that it was acting in their “best interests.”

And i agree with you on Powell, too. Either i was wrong about him in the first place, or he has just succumbed to pressure from within the Administration. It seems that Rumsfeld has won the little battle that the two seemed to have going over foreign policy issues. And let’s not forget that, whatever his position, Powell is a career soldier also, and has spent his life taking orders from his Commander-in-Chief. It’s a bit much to expect that he can start bucking that trend now.

[Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas]

*Originally posted by Lucretia *
**I really, really tried to let this go, but I can’t. UnoMondo, you are spouting bullshit.

First, you aren’t privy to the reasons most linquists join the military. I joined to serve my country, and Bluesman did the same. So did many, many people I know. You may have joined strictly for the language education, others you know may have, but you have no basis for saying most do. **

Up yours [[Lucretia]]. Back when I was at DLI and heard from the freshly arrived people why they joined, the overwhelming reason was to get language training and get the hell out. Three out of the five people who arrived with me from boot camp even managed to get out of the military right after they went through DLI, meaning great language training for free. In my year and a half there, I only met one person who joined to “serve his country”, and he was under the impression that being a military linguist would help him “blow shit up”. I think he got a psych discharge. Anyway, maybe its just a Navy thing, but I’ve never seen gung-ho people like yourself. The nature of the job, listening to conversations we have no right to and generally raping individuals’ privacy, quickly wore through any feeling of pride for people I knew, save one.

UnuMondo

[Toaster52]

mhendo, well said. A very nice explanation of your opinions on this matter.

[Estilicon]

Gobear my country was hit twice by terrorist attack, in 1992 and 1994. We also send troops to the last gulf war so I think I can join this discussion (if you consider that is not enough you can delete this post).

I agree with Airman USAF we should go to war.In fact I have so much smoking gun evidence in my room that my mother suspected I was smoking Pot. I wasn’t but I couldn’t tell her that because I took an oath and I will face a thousand deaths (or two weeks punishment) before revealing that evidence. However I hope this is enough for you:

http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html All answers are here

I swear: I asked the ball if Saddam has nukes and he told me No, to test it then I asked if I was getting laid tonight. It answered Most certainly. Finally I asked: Are Bluesman, Airman Usaf and Gobear full of shit? Do you know what it anwered:

You needed to ask that after reading 9 pages full of their posts, of course they are you fucking moron

[Estilicon]

Again

[Lucretia]

*Originally posted by UnuMondo *
**Up yours [[Lucretia]]. Back when I was at DLI and heard from the freshly arrived people why they joined, the overwhelming reason was to get language training and get the hell out. Three out of the five people who arrived with me from boot camp even managed to get out of the military right after they went through DLI, meaning great language training for free. In my year and a half there, I only met one person who joined to “serve his country”, and he was under the impression that being a military linguist would help him “blow shit up”. I think he got a psych discharge. Anyway, maybe its just a Navy thing, but I’ve never seen gung-ho people like yourself. The nature of the job, listening to conversations we have no right to and generally raping individuals’ privacy, quickly wore through any feeling of pride for people I knew, save one.

UnuMondo **

I seriously doubt you polled every single new arrival at DLI as to their motivations for joining the military. “Three out of five managed to get out”? Funny, all the people I knew who got out after a year and a half were thrown out.

As with any other group, people tend to associate with the sorts of people that have the same attitude as they do, so I’m really not surprised that all the people you knew had the same crappy attitude.

The fact is there are plenty of talented, motivated military people in the intelligence community. The fact that you never knew any of them speaks more to you than it does to the job.