So the Cold War is over?

[Ibanez]

We don't need a huge standing military.

An Army of only about 520k (already shrunk from about 570k) for a country of about 320 million isn't a huge standing Army. Heck, that's 16 hundreths of 1% of the population.

Actually, there are about 480,000 active duty, combat soldiers (according the US Army website.) The biggest part of any military is its support system. Odienero stated recently that the Army needs about 80,000 people to run the admin side of the branch.

[Ibanez]

Well Golly Jee!

With OIF done and OEF almost complete, there's not a reason to have a large standing army. That is unless there's a clear and present danger of being invaded. We do NOT need to be policing the world. The world should police itself. Our allies expect way too much from us. Let England, France, Germany, etc... waste their money and children for a few decades. They've been great support and followers. But that's it. They've followed.

I agree on the one hand, but on the other hand I think peace through strength is preferable to Peace through weakness, which appears to Clucks's view. You can't withdraw into a shell of the 50 states with a weak military and not have negative consequences for the US and its interests.

How about peace via diplomacy?

[BDKJMU]

An Army of only about 520k (already shrunk from about 570k) for a country of about 320 million isn't a huge standing Army. Heck, that's 16 hundreths of 1% of the population.

Actually, there are about 480,000 active duty, combat soldiers (according the US Army website.) The biggest part of any military is its support system. Odienero stated recently that the Army needs about 80,000 people to run the admin side of the branch.

I came across 522k in several news releases..

"Defense Secretary Says More Cuts To Come For The Army

The US Defense Secretary under pressure from the Obama administration wants to cut from the current 522,000 Army soldiers to a little less than 450,000....."
http://www.usmilitary.com/30956/defense ... -the-army/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

I agree on the one hand, but on the other hand I think peace through strength is preferable to Peace through weakness, which appears to Clucks's view. You can't withdraw into a shell of the 50 states with a weak military and not have negative consequences for the US and its interests.

How about peace via diplomacy?

Peace through diplomacy while backed up by a big stick...

[BDKJMU]

Wrong. Article out yesterday:

"Military’s top general offers grim outlook on nation’s defense

WASHINGTON — The nation’s top military commander painted a dark picture Tuesday of future U.S. defense capabilities clouded by shrinking Pentagon budgets and adversaries’ technological advances that he said would erode American battlefield superiority.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided his sobering views as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated evaluation of U.S. military strength issued every four years.

Dempsey predicted that it would become increasingly difficult to balance the competing demands of protecting allies abroad, securing Americans at home and deterring future wars.

“The smaller and less capable military outlined in the QDR makes meeting these obligations more difficult,” he said. “Most of our platforms and equipment will be older, and our advantages in some domains will have eroded. Our loss of depth across the force could reduce our ability to intimidate opponents from escalating conflicts.”

Dempsey added: “Moreover, many of our most capable allies will lose key capabilities. The situation will be exacerbated given our current readiness concerns, which will worsen over the next three or four years.”

Dempsey’s perspective was more pessimistic than that of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

“As we move off the longest continuous war footing in our nation’s history, this QDR explains how we will adapt, reshape and rebalance our military for the challenges and opportunities of the future,” Hagel said in a statement.

Dempsey issued his warnings as President Barack Obama sent Congress a 2015 budget for the entire government on Tuesday that provides the Pentagon just over $600 billion.

That’s $13 billion less than current funding, but $26 billion more than provided in a budget deal that Congress approved in December by large bipartisan majorities.

Dempsey lashed out at Congress for slashing defense funding over the last three years while preventing the Pentagon from shuttering unneeded military bases, retiring outdated weapons systems and taking other steps to save money.

“I urge Congress - again - to move quickly to implement difficult decisions and to remove limitations on our ability to make hard choices within the Department of Defense,” he said. “The changes required for institutional reform are unpleasant and unpopular, but we need our elected leaders to work with us to reduce excess infrastructure, slow the growth of military pay and compensation, and retire equipment that we do not need.”

The response from Congress was quick.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, a California Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the quadrennial review was driven by politics, was “budget-driven” and does not provide enough insight into Pentagon needs beyond the current spending restraints.

“Unfortunately, the product . . . is of little value to decision-makers,” McKeon said in a statement.

Calling the review “shortsighted,” McKeon said it “allows the president to duck the consequences of the deep defense cuts he has advocated and leaves us all wondering what the true future costs of those cuts will be.”

McKeon said he will introduce legislation requiring the Pentagon “to rewrite and resubmit a compliant report.”

A congressional demand that the Pentagon redo the quadrennial review, which is 88 pages long this time, would be unprecedented. Even if such a bill were to pass the Republican-controlled House, it almost certainly would be defeated in the Democratic-majority Senate.

Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican, accused Obama of slashing defense funding in his proposed budget while seeking new spending in other areas.

“We see a budget which drives us further into debt, takes more money out of the pockets of the American people, decreases our military readiness and does nothing to ensure that critical entitlements will be sustainable for the next generation,” Scott said.

The back and forth among the Pentagon, Obama and Congress extends a blame game over defense funding reductions that most outside analysts say are inevitable.

The budget cuts follow a decade-long spending binge triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, as Pentagon funding reached record highs to pay for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and broader anti-terror initiatives.

Hagel’s criticism of the defense spending reductions over the last three years was more muted than that of Dempsey.

“These continued fiscal constraints cannot be ignored,” the defense secretary said. “It would be dishonest and irresponsible to present a QDR articulating a strategy disconnected from the reality of resource constraints. A strategy must have the resources for its implementation.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/04/2 ... -grim.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, maybe we shouldn't be doing all of those things.

We don't need a bloated military to play world's cop. If that is what you want, then please, please STOP **** BITCHING EVER, EVER AGAIN ABOUT TAXES.

Start campaigning for a 90% tax rate for those making over a million again so we can pay for all this ****, or STFU.

No Mr Hyperbole. Because any "savings" from military reductions will just be rolled into more social welfare spending.

If the military size is going to be cut by 15% or whatever it is, then so should the # of people on welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized day care, subsidized health care, etc, etc, etc.....

[BlueHen86]

They said the same thing about Viet Nam.

Heck they said the same thing after WWI, you know, The War to End All Wars...

That's not what we are discussing here. Nobody is claiming that we will never fight in another war. A better analogy would be if after WWI somebody claimed that the days of horses and mounted cavalry are over.

Saddam Hussein had lots of infantry and tanks, and it was quickly taken out by a smaller but better equipped force.

[BDKJMU]

Heck they said the same thing after WWI, you know, The War to End All Wars...

That's not what we are discussing here. Nobody is claiming that we will never fight in another war. A better analogy would be if after WWI somebody claimed that the days of horses and mounted cavalry are over.

Saddam Hussein had lots of infantry and tanks, and it was quickly taken out by a smaller but better equipped force.

Gulf War I according to wiki we still had close to 700k military personnel over there in 91'. Total Coalition was over 950k. Iraq had about 650k. Couldn't mount anything close to that now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gulf War II Sadam didn't have nearly as many troops or tanks...

[UNI88]

Well Golly Jee!

With OIF done and OEF almost complete, there's not a reason to have a large standing army. That is unless there's a clear and present danger of being invaded. We do NOT need to be policing the world. The world should police itself. Our allies expect way too much from us. Let England, France, Germany, etc... waste their money and children for a few decades. They've been great support and followers. But that's it. They've followed.

I agree on the one hand, but on the other hand I think peace through strength is preferable to pece through weakness, which appears to Clucks's view. You can't withdraw into a shell of the 50 states with a weak military and not have negative consequences for the US and its interests.

I think you could cut back on military spending and still have a strong enough military to promote peace. The question is - how much can you cut? That question should be debated and there should be no sacred cows (i.e. Congress needs to let the military close unnecessary bases).

I also think there is value in keeping the sea lanes and other avenues of commerce open. This might benefit corporations and the rich more but there is value for every taxpayer. Defending the sea lanes doesn't require us however to defend Ukraine or to jump into Syria.

[YoUDeeMan]

We don't need a huge standing military.

An Army of only about 520k (already shrunk from about 570k) for a country of about 320 million isn't a huge standing Army. Heck, that's 16 hundreths of 1% of the population.

Stop. The. Nonsense.

What country can attack us, or any of our allies, with an army anywhere near that size? And don't our allies have armies to defend themselves, or do they think it is not necessary to defend themselves from the enemy we see but they don't?

And you conveniently forgot to include all the hundreds of thousands of employees of our defense department contractors. They are on the taxpayers tab also.

We have two large oceans on each side of us...as if we aren't going to be able to stop any invasion of our homeland. Oddly enough though, we have a border with Mexico and another with Canada that we are not defending with any of our military. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...wonder why?

And yet you somehow are worried about some unnamed foreign power suddenly deciding to project several hundred thousand troops into some area somewhere around the world...an area which you have decided is worth defending with OUR men (and women, and transgendered), instead of with a shitload of missiles/bombs and whatever troops the locals will supply.

China didn't like their casualties when they invaded Vietnam. Russia didn't like their casualties when they invaded Afghanistan. Who the hell is going to invade anyone these days? Please don't give me Russia/Ukraine...we wouldn't be able to, and had no business doing anything anyway, elect to stop them with a 4 million man army, so the size of our army really doesn't matter then, does it?

China will eventually, within centuries, try to take back Taiwan. So what? Supply Taiwan with nukes and a shitload of mines, bombs, missiles, and other expensive stuff (COD only, no loans or gifts from the US taxpayer)....it's what we do best anyway...and let them (and Japan, and South Korea) make the call as to how to defend themselves with such equipment. Iran? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Let Israel turn the whole area into glass.

What's left? Cuba? Nicaragua? Angola? A resurgent Germany?

Let's roll back our military footprint and focus on rebuilding our infrastructure.

Better schools, revitalize dilapidated downtown areas (but don't dare put a Wegman's or Trader Joe's in there or you will here it from the dark side of the force), and make America a shining place again. Or, we could continue scaring people into believing that we need people on that wall...a LOT of people. Let's prepare to fight imagined evils out there instead of improving things in here.

Cripes, you are the creepy neighbor who spends all his money on guns and a bomb shelter and enclosing himself in a prison and fearing his neighbors while your roof is leaking and your kids are growing up stupid.

[BDKJMU]

You know what, we need to BOOST military spending. We need a million man active army....













I just want to see another crazy Cluck rant...

[YoUDeeMan]

I agree on the one hand, but on the other hand I think peace through strength is preferable to pece through weakness, which appears to Clucks's view. You can't withdraw into a shell of the 50 states with a weak military and not have negative consequences for the US and its interests.

You have to be kidding me.

How's that working for Switzerland? Hong Kong? The Saudis' are supposedly in the middle of the map of the biggest, baddest threat of our time...how are they doing? How's UAE doing? Qatar?

Wait, those are small countries. Let's try Canada. How are the doing? Are the vast hordes of bad guys waiting at their gates? Population, you say? How about India...surely India, a large country with a huge population and a growing industrial base, sees the looming dangers we see. I mean, India has the evil China, the eviler Pakistan, and a whole host of other evil to evilest dangers around...right on their borders!!!! And, they have a billion plus people to support their military spending. They surely must have a military 10 times the size of ours, right? Nope...1.13 million troops, most of them spent rounding up rapists nad protecting the downtrodden in their country. Wait, that isn't happening either. Anyway, how is that relatively small force possible with all of those dangers within walking distance? And how much are they spending...$600B?

We don't need a large standing army...what have we accomplished lately with one?

[AZGrizFan]

They said the same thing about Viet Nam.

How'd we do in that war?

Did we win? Did our tanks, planes, helicopters, napalm, kill ratio, and Bob Hope bring us our desired results? You think an Abrams would change the outcome of that war? How about a few drones?

How are we doing in Afghanistan, BTW? Do we have any mountain goat tanks in development (that would be cool )?

I wasn't arguing about the success or failure of the war. I was commenting on your assertion that we're "fighting the last full scale war ever."

[YoUDeeMan]

BTW, did anyone know that "eviler" was a word? That just doesn't sound right.

[AZGrizFan]

You spend a lot of time in the military to be such a learned man about all things military?

How much pro/college football have you played lately?

I stand by my comment...anyone with any brains would NOT willingly go to Afghanistan to fight a war we have no business fighting. You disparage bankers that do bad things to customers...because they work for big, EVIL banks, yet, you give a pass to our soldiers who die over in Afghanistan for the sole purpose of propping up a corrupt clown so that we can make money building and selling weapons and cell phones.

C'mon, Z!

If the enemy were at the gates, I'd join the fight. But we're not fighting an enemy that is threatening to invade and destroy the United States of God Damned America...we're fighting a bunch of fvcking goat herders, most of whom have never read a newspaper or given a crap about America. We're fighting in large swaths of areas that don't have electricity. How the heck are they any threat to us?

Yet, we have people volunteering to go over there to get shot (and shoot back) because...wait for it...IT IS THEIR JOB.

Hey kid, sign up to protect America from goat herders who don't even have a car or an airplane with which to transport themselves over here. They're a real threat to 'Merica, and you'll be protecting your mother and sister from those savages. Oh, they might have guns...yeah, we, well not we, but our friends in the CIA, might have supplied them with some of those...and they might shoot you if you run up in their business, but we are going to send you over there to guard some corrupt leader that we've given hundreds of millions of dollars to so that he'll kinda' do what we say. You? You'll get full meals (unless you're out on patrol, in which case we have these really cool things that look like and taste like airplane food - and of course we overpaid for them, but those defense contractors are really nice guys and need to live well), and a low salary to protect this despotic leader and his merry band of crooks. BTW, the women wear veils, and aren't allowed to drive, vote, or look at a man under penalty of death, but just ignore that stuff because we're fighting for American values, not their values. Stay focused, and if you start to think, go see your superior officer and he'll set you straight. We've got a job to do...don't ask why, just do it! And we'll even train you how to not to think about that.

BTW, we'll toss in a free flag on your coffin if you die. A nice one...and we can fold that thing up neatly...you'll think you are in one of those fancy restaurants with those swam tablecloths. We're that good.

Sign here, hero.

______________________________

Listen. I agree with 90% of your Cindy Shehanisms....what I DON'T agree with is the assertion that grunts are just robotic, brainwashed idiots who are only in the military because they had no other lot in life. Guess we should tell Pat Tillman's family that THAT is how he's viewed...

And personally, I'd just as soon KEEP the fighting on the other side of the pond, if you please. Pretty funny how goat herders without guns or planes managed to take down the two tallest buildings in the U.S., kill 2800 citizens in the span of about 45 minutes and send another plane into the Pentagon. Pretty good shit from 8,000 miles away in a mud hut with no running water.

[YoUDeeMan]

Listen. I agree with 90% of your Cindy Shehanisms....what I DON'T agree with is the assertion that grunts are just robotic, brainwashed idiots who are only in the military because they had no other lot in life. Guess we should tell Pat Tillman's family that THAT is how he's viewed...

And personally, I'd just as soon KEEP the fighting on the other side of the pond, if you please. Pretty funny how goat herders without guns or planes managed to take down the two tallest buildings in the U.S., kill 2800 citizens in the span of about 45 minutes and send another plane into the Pentagon. Pretty good shit from 8,000 miles away in a mud hut with no running water.

Pat Tillman died for someone else's profit. That is a shame, but it is a fact. He wasn't over the getting revenge for our fallen...he was over there as part of a distraction. Brave, but stupid.

If Tillman saw the money going to Karzi and his posse, and had access to the clownish policies we've followed, I bet he'd want his life back.

As to your goat herder point, we had half a million men looking for a place to get laid in bases here and around the world, and not one of them was stationed anywhere effectively to stop an assault of that kind (even though infiltration through air and sea are the only ways to attack our country).

So, what do we do? We still don't have our military in place to stop infiltration along our borders and in our airports.

Instead, we have hired some people even lower on the mental totem pole (you seriously have to check out the security people at PHL...must have gotten half of them from shelters) to join our newly minted (and expensive...please don't miss that gem) Homeland Security force. That name makes you wonder if our regular Armed Forces should be renamed Otherlands Security Force.

In the meantime, we are closely monitoring people who fly back and forth from designated Muslim terrorist areas and somehow let them blow up bombs the Boston Marathon. Holy crap...we knew who they were and had suspicions, but we're too busy manning the remnants of the Berlin wall and avoiding any possible profiling to stop any of the real threats.

We don't need a larger army...we need a smarter army. And we certainly need some smarter leaders who don't kowtow to business interests instead of to America's safety.

[dbackjon]

Well Golly Jee!

With OIF done and OEF almost complete, there's not a reason to have a large standing army. That is unless there's a clear and present danger of being invaded. We do NOT need to be policing the world. The world should police itself. Our allies expect way too much from us. Let England, France, Germany, etc... waste their money and children for a few decades. They've been great support and followers. But that's it. They've followed.

I agree on the one hand, but on the other hand I think peace through strength is preferable to pece through weakness, which appears to Clucks's view. You can't withdraw into a shell of the 50 states with a weak military and not have negative consequences for the US and its interests.

We are plenty strong even with a 400K army.

[Grizalltheway]

I agree on the one hand, but on the other hand I think peace through strength is preferable to pece through weakness, which appears to Clucks's view. You can't withdraw into a shell of the 50 states with a weak military and not have negative consequences for the US and its interests.

We are plenty strong even with a 400K army.

This. As long as we keep our massive technological advantage, we'll be fine.

[dbackjon]

I agree on the one hand, but on the other hand I think peace through strength is preferable to pece through weakness, which appears to Clucks's view. You can't withdraw into a shell of the 50 states with a weak military and not have negative consequences for the US and its interests.

I think you could cut back on military spending and still have a strong enough military to promote peace. The question is - how much can you cut? That question should be debated and there should be no sacred cows (i.e. Congress needs to let the military close unnecessary bases).

I also think there is value in keeping the sea lanes and other avenues of commerce open. This might benefit corporations and the rich more but there is value for every taxpayer. Defending the sea lanes doesn't require us however to defend Ukraine or to jump into Syria.

Yes - I have no problem with a world-wide navy used to defend shipping lanes. Our navy in the Black Sea - nope - let Britain, Germany, etc handle that.

[93henfan]

I agree on the one hand, but on the other hand I think peace through strength is preferable to Peace through weakness, which appears to Clucks's view. You can't withdraw into a shell of the 50 states with a weak military and not have negative consequences for the US and its interests.

How about peace via diplomacy?

See Europe 1935-1945.

[AZGrizFan]

Listen. I agree with 90% of your Cindy Shehanisms....what I DON'T agree with is the assertion that grunts are just robotic, brainwashed idiots who are only in the military because they had no other lot in life. Guess we should tell Pat Tillman's family that THAT is how he's viewed...

And personally, I'd just as soon KEEP the fighting on the other side of the pond, if you please. Pretty funny how goat herders without guns or planes managed to take down the two tallest buildings in the U.S., kill 2800 citizens in the span of about 45 minutes and send another plane into the Pentagon. Pretty good shit from 8,000 miles away in a mud hut with no running water.

Pat Tillman died for someone else's profit. That is a shame, but it is a fact. He wasn't over the getting revenge for our fallen...he was over there as part of a distraction. Brave, but stupid.

If Tillman saw the money going to Karzi and his posse, and had access to the clownish policies we've followed, I bet he'd want his life back.

As to your goat herder point, we had half a million men looking for a place to get laid in bases here and around the world, and not one of them was stationed anywhere effectively to stop an assault of that kind (even though infiltration through air and sea are the only ways to attack our country).

So, what do we do? We still don't have our military in place to stop infiltration along our borders and in our airports.

Instead, we have hired some people even lower on the mental totem pole (you seriously have to check out the security people at PHL...must have gotten half of them from shelters) to join our newly minted (and expensive...please don't miss that gem) Homeland Security force. That name makes you wonder if our regular Armed Forces should be renamed Otherlands Security Force.

In the meantime, we are closely monitoring people who fly back and forth from designated Muslim terrorist areas and somehow let them blow up bombs the Boston Marathon. Holy crap...we knew who they were and had suspicions, but we're too busy manning the remnants of the Berlin wall and avoiding any possible profiling to stop any of the real threats.

We don't need a larger army...we need a smarter army. And we certainly need some smarter leaders who don't kowtow to business interests instead of to America's safety.

Your argument is like a shape-shifter. First you state that they don't have the MEANS, then when that's disproven, you change it to "well, we weren't in the right places anyway!"....I must admit, though, it's interesting to see someone so passionate about this.

Oh, and your comparison of military men (and your knowledge thereof) to college football is null and void. Despite my bloviating about the do's and don'ts of college football X's and O's, I'm not sitting here claiming all college football players are of one mind or another....YOU made that assumption about our soldiers and sailors.

[YoUDeeMan]

Your argument is like a shape-shifter. First you state that they don't have the MEANS, then when that's disproven, you change it to "well, we weren't in the right places anyway!"....I must admit, though, it's interesting to see someone so passionate about this.

Oh, and your comparison of military men (and your knowledge thereof) to college football is null and void. Despite my bloviating about the do's and don'ts of college football X's and O's, I'm not sitting here claiming all college football players are of one mind or another....YOU made that assumption about our soldiers and sailors.

First of all, there WAS a means. Now that we know that playbook, there should NOT be that means anymore. And you seem to have forgotten the official story about why those hijackers came over here in the first place.

Secondly, there is a growing body of people that believe college football players ARE stupid for playing for relative pennies while the men behind the curtain make millions. Lawsuits continue to come in from all angles and it appears that players will be paid. We will look back at the naiveté of the players, pro and college, in the past who went to battle and got hurt and died early for pennies on the dollar and for someone else's glory.

[kalm]

Listen. I agree with 90% of your Cindy Shehanisms....what I DON'T agree with is the assertion that grunts are just robotic, brainwashed idiots who are only in the military because they had no other lot in life. Guess we should tell Pat Tillman's family that THAT is how he's viewed...

And personally, I'd just as soon KEEP the fighting on the other side of the pond, if you please. Pretty funny how goat herders without guns or planes managed to take down the two tallest buildings in the U.S., kill 2800 citizens in the span of about 45 minutes and send another plane into the Pentagon. Pretty good shit from 8,000 miles away in a mud hut with no running water.

Pat Tillman died for someone else's profit. That is a shame, but it is a fact. He wasn't over the getting revenge for our fallen...he was over there as part of a distraction. Brave, but stupid.

If Tillman saw the money going to Karzi and his posse, and had access to the clownish policies we've followed, I bet he'd want his life back.

As to your goat herder point, we had half a million men looking for a place to get laid in bases here and around the world, and not one of them was stationed anywhere effectively to stop an assault of that kind (even though infiltration through air and sea are the only ways to attack our country).

So, what do we do? We still don't have our military in place to stop infiltration along our borders and in our airports.

Instead, we have hired some people even lower on the mental totem pole (you seriously have to check out the security people at PHL...must have gotten half of them from shelters) to join our newly minted (and expensive...please don't miss that gem) Homeland Security force. That name makes you wonder if our regular Armed Forces should be renamed Otherlands Security Force.

In the meantime, we are closely monitoring people who fly back and forth from designated Muslim terrorist areas and somehow let them blow up bombs the Boston Marathon. Holy crap...we knew who they were and had suspicions, but we're too busy manning the remnants of the Berlin wall and avoiding any possible profiling to stop any of the real threats.

We don't need a larger army...we need a smarter army. And we certainly need some smarter leaders who don't kowtow to business interests instead of to America's safety.

Tillman had begun a private correspondence with Chomsky prior to his death and was apparently reconsidering our actions. He was very smart and a total outlier in this argument.

[93henfan]

We have apparently established that everyone who has served in the military since August 1945 and all college football players of all time are dolts, brainwashed, and working for the man.

None had any sense of duty, honor, or enjoyment of their endeavors and nothing about what they did was noble.

There very existence was trivial and meaningless.

This thread is smugtastic.

[Ibanez]

How about peace via diplomacy?

See Europe 1935-1945.

I think you mean Munich 1938. That wasn't nations, diplomatically, resolving a problem. That was nations just letting a mad man have what he wants. There's a difference between appeasement and diplomacy.

[kalm]

We have apparently established that everyone who has served in the military since August 1945 and all college football players of all time are dolts, brainwashed, and working for the man.

None had any sense of duty, honor, or enjoyment of their endeavors and nothing about what they did was noble.

There very existence was trivial and meaningless.

This thread is smugtastic.

Except Pat Tillman...and my friend Troy who is also pretty cool.