Thread: GOD, COUNTRY, DUTY AND HONOR

Originally Posted by 59caddy

i will not be able to give you specifics since most are classified. but in order to get a top secret clearance for communications tech you could not be a foreign national or have ties to any nation or group of people having any type of extreme views. these were the rules in 1977-1981, things may or may not have changed since then. this was again only for military members holding high security clearances, not the regular troops and sailors or other members. also most officers held some type of clearance depending on their duty.
the whole intent of the thread to glean thoughts about a terrible tragedy to people, not only here but around the world. the only way to ever think of learning and understanding one another is through conversation and by personal experience and through the help of others.

You do realize that our current government administration views conservatives as having extreme views don't you?

Originally Posted by 59caddy

i will not be able to give you specifics since most are classified. but in order to get a top secret clearance for communications tech you could not be a foreign national or have ties to any nation or group of people having any type of extreme views. these were the rules in 1977-1981, things may or may not have changed since then. this was again only for military members holding high security clearances, not the regular troops and sailors or other members. also most officers held some type of clearance depending on their duty.

Your original post was explicitly centered around religion, and later on you said the policy you were quoting was a 'fact', yet the statement above does not mention religion at all. So can you please answer this question:

Was any religion a reason for automatic denial in 1977-1981 of this level of security clearance, if yes, which religions?

Let me demonstrate how your proposed logic works: seems like this may have been an act of terrorism, so the department of homeland security is fully responsible for failing to stop it, because that's their job. The head of DHS is methodist woman of italian descent. Therefore no methodists, women or people of italian descent should be ever put in charge of counterterrorism, there is plenty of other ways they can still serve if they wish to. And since this guy could have been stopped earlier, clearly whites, semites, males, roman catollics, jews, and former governors should serve their country in some other way just not as head of DHS. And while at it, may be it's time to establish the religious disqualifications for president of the US, as well.
That's exactly the logic you're proposing, just applied to other, even more important things.

May be psychiatrists should not be allowed to serve in the army too, it seems to me quite plausible that dealing with other people's mental issues was what made him go nutz.

The Bible verse of the day is Matthew 5:29 - those are the word of Jesus.

Originally Posted by gugi

Y

The Bible verse of the day is Matthew 5:29 - those are the word of Jesus.

And your point is...?

Originally Posted by JMS

And your point is...?

why? everybody can make the point for me, it's a simple verse, that I don't mean to offend anybody. let's see other people's thought on how it is relevant to the subject at hand.

as far as you go, we all know you chopped off your pinkie, what i find interesting is that you never came clean about the sin that you committed with it. i'm not saying that you're a sinner, just saying that many people wonder about these things and somebody sometimes has to say it out loud...

Originally Posted by gugi

Your original post was explicitly centered around religion, and later on you said the policy you were quoting was a 'fact', yet the statement above does not mention religion at all. So can you please answer this question:

Was any religion a reason for automatic denial in 1977-1981 of this level of security clearance, if yes, which religions?

Let me demonstrate how your proposed logic works: seems like this may have been an act of terrorism, so the department of homeland security is fully responsible for failing to stop it, because that's their job. The head of DHS is methodist woman of italian descent. Therefore no methodists, women or people of italian descent should be ever put in charge of counterterrorism, there is plenty of other ways they can still serve if they wish to. And since this guy could have been stopped earlier, clearly whites, semites, males, roman catollics, jews, and former governors should serve their country in some other way just not as head of DHS. And while at it, may be it's time to establish the religious disqualifications for president of the US, as well.
That's exactly the logic you're proposing, just applied to other, even more important things.

May be psychiatrists should not be allowed to serve in the army too, it seems to me quite plausible that dealing with other people's mental issues was what made him go nutz.

The Bible verse of the day is Matthew 5:29 - those are the word of Jesus.

i cannot give specific sects or religion that were disqualified. that would be a breech of security measures and like i said do not know if they are still in place.
i completely agree with you that this was in my thoughts a terrorist act by someone unstable and who should have been reported much earlier to avoid this very tragedy.
one thing i think that may have prevented reporting this wacko was the very idea of "it might offend someone/him/group of people" IF so that is where the problems is. if it saves one life of our military men and women and civilians here and abroad, then report it now and worry later about offending somebody later. this insanity about offending a person or group has got to cease. life itself is offensive in lots of ways. we all world wide need to be safe and secure and wackos of any breed/color/religion/sect need to be stopped for the good of all.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

one thing i think that may have prevented reporting this wacko was the very idea of "it might offend someone/him/group of people" IF so that is where the problems is. if it saves one life of our military men and women and civilians here and abroad, then report it now and worry later about offending somebody later. this insanity about offending a person or group has got to cease. life itself is offensive in lots of ways. we all world wide need to be safe and secure and wackos of any breed/color/religion/sect need to be stopped for the good of all.

So it all starts with an innocent IF and ends with a pretty strong statement - is that statement based on that speculation? If so proper logic would dictate that you provide equally strong support that your speculation is valid as the conclusion you derive from it.

And what IF it was the incompetence of his supervisors, or the lack of policies for said reporting to happen. I can speculate a lot, but as far as I understand there are a lot more competent people on the matter than me, with a lot more access to relevant information about the case. I think I'd rather them do their job as they are far more likely to come to correct conclusions than armchair experts and sensation seeking journalists.

On this note what if I find stupid people very offensive, where do I report them?

May be psychiatrists should not be allowed to serve in the army too, it seems to me quite plausible that dealing with other people's mental issues was what made him go nutz.

The Bible verse of the day is Matthew 5:29 - those are the word of Jesus.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your statement about psychiatrists being in the Military. All these soldiers today with mental illness is why our military has not won a War since WWII. Should a soldier need a psychiatrists, a private practice psychiatrist should be consulted and the soldier discharged. The military is no place for people of weak mental capability. Soldiers should be trained to kill, because that is how you defend your country or win wars. You must kill the enemy. It is a cold blooded fact.
In my opinion people entering the military should be tested harder than they are. From what my late grandfather told me, the training in the WWII and Korean era was much more intense and the people training soldiers did not care of their confidence or self esteem. His DI (what he called his drill instructor) would and did hit soldiers and do everything possible to make people quit. HE even claimed that he told Marines he would shoot them in the field should they ever retreated. Now, I do not endorse this, but it would certainly be a motivation.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was not even a diagnosis by the DSM-IV (what shrinks use to bill your insurance and make a diagnosis based on criteria) until AFTER Vietnam. So to our brave men at Normandy, you would not qualify. Soldiers who get mental disorders by in large were not mentally capable of handling the things they encountered to begin with. Point in fact being that most Special Forces groups do not cry mental illness after they have left the military because they are more intensely tested in order to make those groups.
As to the Bible verse, it is out of context. However, by concept of that section where it is taken on Adultery, if people lived by that lesson, there would be less divorce, crime, and greed. Tthat would make the world a better place.

Matthew 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Originally Posted by treydampier

our military has not won a War since WWII.

What happened to the war in 1990-1991?

Originally Posted by treydampier

Soldiers should be trained to kill, because that is how you defend your country or win wars. You must kill the enemy. It is a cold blooded fact.
In my opinion people entering the military should be tested harder than they are.

Actually you would be wrong, soldiers are trained much better and they are much better at killing. Since you mention WWII, do you know what the army found about the 'kill rate' in that war? There is very interesting evidence with respect to killing in wars. For example in the US civil war do you know the percentage of of weapons taken from dead soldiers which were loaded, but not fired? Take a wild guess before looking it up, see how close you come to the number, even now that I've biased you.

Originally Posted by treydampier

Now, I do not endorse this, but it would certainly be a motivation.

Well, if you don't endorse something it means you think it's a bad idea, why not instead tell us something that you think is actually a good idea.
What if I make the following statement - I don't endorse banning everybody I disagree with from the forum, but it will be really effective for ending all bickering?

Originally Posted by treydampier

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was not even a diagnosis by the DSM-IV (what shrinks use to bill your insurance and make a diagnosis based on criteria) until AFTER Vietnam. So to our brave men at Normandy, you would not qualify. Soldiers who get mental disorders by in large were not mentally capable of handling the things they encountered to begin with.

Very interesting, few questions on this since you have medical training
(1) If today is the first day when disease A (swine flu, HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc.) becomes a diagnosis, you are saying that only those contracting the disease after today are eligible to be diagnosed with it. Doesn't make much sense to me, may be you meant to say something else.
(2) Do you think the brave men at Normandy should qualify? You were claiming they were trained really well, so they were completely ready to deal with the stress there.
(3) Do you consider PTSD a real disease/condition (I'm not familiar with the terminology sincce it is not my field). You seem to be somewhat dismissive about it, and you have more knowledge on the subject than I do.

Originally Posted by treydampier

As to the Bible verse, it is out of context. However, by concept of that section where it is taken on Adultery, if people lived by that lesson, there would be less divorce, crime, and greed. Tthat would make the world a better place.

Very good, the context is indeed widely available. So how exactly do you think the problem of adultery should be solved? I mean we have that verse in its context and we have the current rates of divorce, crime, and greed. Clearly people don't live by that verse, how do you propose this be rectified. I think it's pretty clear that Jesus proposes the intervention happen at the 'looking lustfully' point. My question to you is, have you ever looked lustfully at a woman (or a man, or both....) and if yes what part of your body you have removed, if you haven't do you know any people who have and have you counseled them on the subject of removing body parts. I hope you do want the world to be a better place and it seems that you consider yourself a Christian.