Indeed it did. MacArthur may have been a bit zany and self absorbed, but he did want to just get the job done.

Indeed. Add in the "changes" the lunkheads just "introduced" to renege on promises to military people, because they were too busy selling their souls (and our country) to the lobbyists, and you are exactly on target.

Good for you, that is the way to be. Makes it a lot easier to get your points across too.

as a pre-engineering nerd, I took comfort in doing things
instead of making impressions on others. . took awhile,
but the "others" eventually got the idea that I didn't
care about their impressions or mine. . Rand helped! -- j
.

Agree. Good points.

Exactly, and sums up a lot of what I heard out of AS.

I didn't either, but I go over it:)

We don't give up the right to individual self defense. That's the story gov'ts have tried to convince us of in order to disarm us. It's a physical impossibility and a fool's concept for the gov't to provide or ensure our self defense at all times in all circumstances. We grant to gov't only the right to use retaliatory force on our behalf and to provide self defense of the country as a whole.

But somewhere along the line, the gov't (composed of some of our citizens) and portions of our citizens that didn't (and don't now) know the difference, decided to extend the definition of self to cover force initiated by anyone against anyone anywhere in the entire world, and the idea of only force necessary to stop/retaliate the force initiated by others', transitioned to some concept of peremptory and pre-emptive force used to protect interests, whatever the hell that means. Then came the idea that we could use force to make others comply with our demands and our view of how they should live, organize and govern themselves as some convoluted idea of self defense.

That's what comes from the failure to understand self ownership and inalienable rights that are yours and every other man's--and not understanding the philosophy and morality of Objectivism.

and our troops deserve even more praise for putting up
with those working conditions, IMHO. -- j
.

yes;;; I was not raised right -- didn't get participation trophies! -- j
.

good observation. . the korean truce began it, and
it's only gotten more political since. . a genuine travesty. -- j
.

Factor in compulsory military service (the draft) and the terms that preclude resigning or premature departure. In fact, the contract extends beyond the service commitment period, an obligation of the government to provide earnings and medical service throughout retirement. If you work to improve your personal lot under restrictive rules of engagement, do you still improve that of others? One might contend that the USA achieved its pre-eminence in the world during the 19th century, and the tide began going out circa post-WWII.

same thing in Vietnam...that was my war...had the odd occurrance to sit next to Henry Kissenger years later on an American Airlines flight from L.A. to NYC in first class (i was a pilot for American, no longer an Air Force pilot)...he freely admitted that we were in Vietnam to prove to the communists that we were willing to sacrifice American lives equal to communist willingness to sacrifice their people......Madielene Albright had the same attitude...Colin Powell did not...HillaryBeast did not care one way or the other...leadership and attitude starts at the top...time for real change...

Short, sweet, and accurate.

As practiced by our glorious political establishment since the 40's, yes. But to the average military person, there is an exact Randian "service" agreement. Military people offer their work for money, camaraderie, skills, experience and retirement, and medical services. The government agrees. Then it invariably reneges on many parts of it, and adds in a dollop of totally incompetent leadership to help along with a set of mission parameters not designed to defend the country, but support some political crap idea of theirs. They sign up for a specific set of conditions, and invariably, they are violated. The fact they do not walk out when that happens is because they are then being forced into what the politicos always wanted and engineered: your altruistic version.

Indeed, and from BOTH parties.

Indeed, John, sad that people get more upset about a criminal killed by police in self defense, than soldiers killed by their own commanders, and never ask for accountability.

And that is the root of the problem we face today. No responsibility, no ownership, just blame someone or something else. If it goes right, it is your brilliant idea, if not, then blame is on...No leadership, especially from leaders.

You are correct, everyone of the "special" classes (and a huge amount of people think they are) feel they can be as disrespectful as they want, as it is "their culture". Such "culture" does not belong in ours. It also shows the basic lack of individual responsibility that these groups have. Rarely do you see someone take the responsibility of their statements, and when pressed, will back down and get all sheepish..then they blame their parents, or teachers, or police, or someone.

This is about the total lack of honor our politicians have, and the absolute abuse of the military since WW2. The political establishment (both parties) have always been willing to toss the military option around like it is some tag line to a stump speech. Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, all had soldiers die because of incompetent leadership in the field, and at home. As said by many, force is the weapon of last resort, but when employed, EMPLOY it. People will get hurt and killed, you need to be prepared for that before you so cavalierly send in the troops. It is so disrespectful to send in troops with ROE that a 3 year old thought up. To think they can, in the middle of combat, stop and decide if that is "really a bad guy, or sort of a bad guy". The complete lack of common sense and decent, clear orders leads to some of the worst atrocities as numbskull junior officers try to make some impossible rubbish work on the field. Many atrocities have happened because some crap head order or ROE was "interpreted" to mean something else. If you authorize force, stand back and let it go, no strings attached. But make sure you really want to go that far. The fact they had to protect themselves from their own chain of command is indicative of how crappy our leadership is now.

yes;;; if we see that Russia and Cuba are installing
missiles aimed at us, on an island 90 miles from Florida,
we might take action to pre-empt their actions. -- j
.

I believe the legitimate purpose of the government includes the national defense, based on the granting by its citizens of the right to self-defense and protection of individual rights. One could argue that the right to self defense and of individual rights extends to lives and property outside the national boundaries.

well said! -- j
.

right! . and my observation is Rand's presentation of
capitalism as the serve-yourself answer to all of this
obfuscation -- in a free society, if you work to improve
your personal lot, in a moral way, you improve mine
and everyone else's in the process -- by being a
producer of objective value. . in this sense, there
is a rising tide which lifts all boats. . how did the
u.s. achieve its pre-eminence in the world? -- j
.