Yes, I have a problem with it. I would have a problem with Microsoft recruiting kids with a Six Flags “adventure” to be programmers, I would have a problem with Washington Mutual recruiting kids with a Six Flags “adventure” to be investment bankers, I would have a problem with Blue Cross recruiting kids with a Six Flags “adventure” to be claims adjusters.
It is not the proper time or place.
More like 30,000, with over 4,000 dead. That’s not so good, considering that it’s been five years since major military operations were completed in Iraq. (Just using that as an example of the endless bullshit from the CinC.)
I’m sticking by “cannon fodder”. That’s how they’re being used. Those deaths were in vain, and even giving GWB the firing squad he deserves wouldn’t change that. US soldiers and Marines are worthy people; I wish their civilian leadership were equally worthy.
I’m not shocked or outraged that the Army is recruiting children at amusement parks; it just seems undignified. If the President possessed any moral courage, he would have called for a draft years ago.
You do understand how it works, don’t you? The president can call for whatever he wants. The Congress has the power to start a draft, not the president. Never gonna happen.
You’re out of line with this comment.
Do not repeat this behavior.
[ /Moderating ]
It’s a damn shame what those recruiters are putting into these kids’ heads. Why, the other day, I saw a commercial for a breakfast cereal. And they tried to make you think it tastes good! They didn’t even mention how bad it was for your health! Those bastards. But I guess they’ve gotta try something to attract that next generation of cereal fodder.
BTW, Diogenes, cannon fodder is insulting to me, a soldier. What more proof do you need? You can’t just throw out a word (or phrase) and claim it means whatever you’re thinking. Words don’t work like that. It’s exactly like saying “You mother’s a whore.” and then going “What? To me, whore means that she likes to do SuDoKus. I don’t get why you’re offended.” It’s a bad word. If you didn’t mean offense, then you shouldn’t have used offensive words. Just take it as a lesson and move on. Sheesh.
Your histrionics are not winning the cause here.
They are cannon fodder. Food for cannon. Simple concept.
Are they no talent conscripts sent to draw attention? No certainly not. I’m sure the US military is one of the best trained on Earth.
Not every soldier dies a hero. Some are killed because their CIC decided to waste them on something stupid. I certainly think that fits the spirit of cannon fodder if not the dictionary definition.
You’re absolutely right. Words mean what they mean. Whether you choose to take offense at that common meaning is a different matter altogether. Here, the common connotation of cannon fodder is exactly as Diogenes suggests. The criticism is of the Bush administration and the Iraq war. That criticism appears to be what you are offended at. You, and the others engaged in hysterical over-reaction here, are crying as if you think Dio believes the use of troops as cannon fodder to be a desirable thing. He does not. He is quite opposed to the calloused abuse of the men and women of the military.
C’mon man, you’re from the Burgh. Nut up.
Okay, but neither can you.
According to the dictionary , according to WordNet, according to Wikipedia*, according to whoever this guy is with the scary website, according to every book I’ve ever read, the OP and **Diogenes **are using “cannon fodder” in its *commonly *accepted meaning. The fact that you and some others in the military have chosen to give it an additionally nuanced meaning which you find insulting is not his problem.
Now me, when I inadvertently insult someone, I’m likely to say, “whoops! Miscommunication here - I’ve been taught the term means xyz, that’s what all the resources say it means, and that’s what I meant by it, and I stand by that usage. Sorry.” Which - minus the whoops and the sorry - is what **Diogenes **is doing.
*which comes closest to saying what y’all are saying, with: “The term may also be used (somewhat pejoratively) to differentiate infantry from other forces (such as artillery, air force or the navy).” But, frankly, “somewhat pejoratively” is awfully weak. They have much stronger things to say about the word "nigger ", so I think the comparison is way off.
Just to clarify what I wrote above a little bit:
In the present Iraq War, started proactively by the Bush administration, no real goal exists, and no reasonable expectations for any sort of worthwhile outcome remains. From the standpoint of American interests, we have curtailed the effort to kill the people who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and we have essentially removed the primary opposition to the country we are now told is the big threat to us in the Middle East.
The American lives that continue to be lost in Iraq are wasted lives, misspent on a debacle. This is true despite the fact that a great deal of money is spent in training and preparing them. They are provided with expensive equipment, though apparently not always all of the equipment that they need.
They are sent to die for no real point. That is the definition of cannon fodder. The idea that it means something about how good or worthwhile our soldiers are is utterly wrong, and is in fact an attempt to manufacture some sort of politically correct defense of the criticism directed at the Bush administration. The fact that they are well-equipped, good soldiers could only increase the degree to which they are wasted in Iraq, but in my opinion those losses add nothing to the fact that their lives are being lost in vain.
If you are a supporter of the Bush administration, you may disagree with this assessment. That’s fine. But stop attempting to re-define words so that you can cry and moan about offenses to the troops. Wrapping yourself in the flag is losing its ability to keep people from seeing the travesty around you.
Nice anecdote. I just asked my buddy, who got back from Iraq about 6 months ago, if he thought he was used as cannon fodder. He said absolutely yes, and stated that while in Iraq he and the people around him referred to themselves as “bullet sponges.”
Shall we call the anecdotes a wash, then, and admit that people are way overreacting to DtC here, and refusing to listen to his very plausible explanations of his intent?
I’m not the one who thinks you’re cannon fodder, your CIC is, and it’s not insulting to say so.
Just to address this further: First, I’m not the one who “threw the word out there,” the OP did and I just agreed with his use of it, which in context was about the Adminstration’s contempt for soldiers and lack of remorse about unnecessary casualties. The term has not been used by the OP, by me or by anyone else in this thread as a comment on the personal character or ability of the troops. The training film refrain that “American soldiers are not cannon fodder” is neither here nor there and constututes an attempt to manufacture offense rather than to read what was actually said. Your analogy to “whore” is ridiculous. You are the one trying to narrow the definition in a disingenuous way to find offense. A more accurate analogy would be if you told me, “your mother is a nice lady,” and I said “A Lady is a prostitute. You just called my mother a WHORE!”
Actually, even that’s a generous anaology since all anyone has been talking about is the Bush Administration’s perception and treatment of the military, not an actual judgement on the character or ability or value of the troops (which I value more than your President does). The Civilian leadership in Washington clearly views the lives of military personel as expendable. We know that because they keep expending them.
Well, since it looks like the hijack continues with or without me I might as well respond:
It is impossible to convince the faithful. But you are right…nothing, including histrionics, is going to fight ignorance in those who don’t want it to be fought.
It is a simple concept all right…and one that is equally obviously lost on you and others in this thread. Instead of attempting to assert your concept by fiat, why not show some instances where US troops are being used as cannon fodder…food for the cannons? Can you name some specific instances of it? Can you show how US troops, poorly trained and equipped, are deliberately thrown en masse into battle to soak off casualties? How US troops are considered cheap, throw away troops used in near suicide attacks a la the Napoleonic Wars(where the term was coined IIRC), or WWI?
Then they would be the exact opposite of cannon fodder. You see, cannon fodder troops were the dregs of the military. They were the ones thrown in at the fore front of battle to soak off casualties so that the GOOD troops would be able to press home the attack. You didn’t throw in your best trained, best equipped troops into certain death…you brought out the cannon fodder troops instead so they could soak up the enemies fire and give your good troops a chance to win.
:rolleyes: Gee…really? What a revelation…
Well, that’s because your definition of what ‘cannon fodder’ is as flawed as DtC and others in this thread. During WWII US troops were killed in stupid training exercises leading up to D-Day…a LOT of them. The landings themselves were forced entry landings that cost us a lot of casualties. However, those troops weren’t cannon fodder, regardless of how they were used. They were the best trained and equipped force we could field at the time.
Cannon fodder = low cost, low worth troops that are deliberately used to soak up enemy fire. They are the charging suicide troops who’s only worth to the military is to tire out the enemy so that better troops can be deployed to better advantage. However, when France sent in the Imperial Guard during Waterloo, those troops weren’t considered cannon fodder despite the fact that they WERE charging the guns head on.
Bush et al doesn’t consider US troops cannon fodder. US troops aren’t USED as cannon fodder. US troops have, afaict, not been used as cannon fodder since (perhaps) the Civil War…and even then I think it was more stupidity and short sightedness than anything else.
However, I’m open to be convinced. Show me some examples of US troops being used as cannon fodder in Iraq/Afghanistan. Don’t hand wave about ‘well, the fact that they are there proves it’ (to paraphrase)…because that don’t cut it. Lets see some tactical examples of US troops used as cannon fodder…and, as you say, lets drop the histrionics.
-XT
That’s easy. Iraq. Almost 5000 lives thrown in the garbage. Tens of thousands maimed. Not one casualty justified. These are personel who are not being asked to defend their country but who are being used to pick up roadside bombs and get in the way of a civil war only for the personal gain of their civilian leaders. Bush is basically loaning the military to corporate interests because he and his cronies see those people and resources as nothing more than their own personal toys to be used, spent and discarded as they see fit.
I can’t blame the Army-they need to make military life look exciting. Given that most people in the military do not see combat, how could the Army appeal to adolescent males, if they showed the life of a supply clerk? Or an army mess sargeant?
No, no and no. It was brought up in the OP, when he called these potential teenage recruits the next generation of cannon fodder. Bush isn’t going to be president when that “generation” is in the military.
xtisme, you suggest that others are arguing by fiat, whereas in actuality almost everyone else has pointed to something to support their argument. You’ve been given several cites, as well as anecdotes, to illustrate what the denotation and connotation of “cannon fodder” is. By constrast, you’ve done nothing but assert that your idiosyncratic definition is the correct one, regardless of the references and arugments presented by others.
Do you have anything to put up? Anything to suggest you have a clue as to what you are talking about?
After re-reading what you just wrote, are you arguing for specific examples where cannons are being used by the various combatants in Iraq? Is the concrete definition of “cannon” fodder what is hanging you up? Because I for one will concede that there are no cannons being used in opposition to US forces in Iraq.
He said the Government was trying to “attract its next generation of cannon fodder.” The fact that Bush is going to leave office soon is not particularly relevant since he and his interests have already made it clear that they expect the Iraq occupation to drag on for decades – even for 100 years if McCain gets his way.
So, all we’ve been talking about is Bush, but the fact that Bush won’t be president is irrelevant. Got it. It’s all about Bush, except that it has nothing to do with Bush.
It’s not relevant given the fact that he’s already set things up to continue after he leaves office. The interests he works for will still be getting what they want, and he’s at least trying to keep the occupation going indefinitely. He doesn’t have to remain in office in order to want “the next generation” to continue the occupation.