Like father, like son

[Major Carrales]

"To Each His Own".   No?

My reasons for being in CAP are probably different than most people's.   Likewise for my break in membership and my time in Patron status.   Current/Ex-Military or not, everyone has different likes, dislikes, priorities, and beliefs.   Why is this so hard to understand?

It is the missions that take precedence over the reasons for joining.

Why is this so hard to understand?

If I had to venture an opinion I would say it was likely that people are blinded by their own choices and motivations to value anyone else's.  A strange situation where "if you are not with my reason, you must be against my reasons.

As for Radioman015, he has already fessed up to having misspoke.  We should respect that and let it rest.

[JayT]

Perhaps the term "warrior" is a misnomer.  In this day and age, almost all wars will be won from the air.  Anytime we get on the ground and start dragging our butts around, we are in a no-win situation.  Ground forces are used to sustain the area after it has been taken.  We don't have the military depth to fight or win a sustained ground war and it is not our intention.  Yes, it takes someone rugged to go one to one with a raghead or someone else, but one to one is not the way to win out and out war.  If we want truly to win we will utilize the Air Force and Naval Aviation to annihilate our opponents.  If we want to drag it out and give their populace the time to change regimes, we will send in ground forces and waste American lives diplomatically.  The art of war is to win and let the other son of a bit-h die for his country.  Air power makes this possible, surgical and quick.   Also, I am not downplaying the role of Army Aviation as I were one, but, for the mostest and the fastest, the bigger the bang the better.  Today and tomorrows wars will be won by technicians and perhaps they are the true "warriors".  As usual, JMHO 

If I may ask, how did you come to that concusions?

[Gunner C]

Perhaps the term "warrior" is a misnomer.  In this day and age, almost all wars will be won from the air.  Anytime we get on the ground and start dragging our butts around, we are in a no-win situation.  Ground forces are used to sustain the area after it has been taken.  We don't have the military depth to fight or win a sustained ground war and it is not our intention.  Yes, it takes someone rugged to go one to one with a raghead or someone else, but one to one is not the way to win out and out war.  If we want truly to win we will utilize the Air Force and Naval Aviation to annihilate our opponents.  If we want to drag it out and give their populace the time to change regimes, we will send in ground forces and waste American lives diplomatically.  The art of war is to win and let the other son of a bit-h die for his country.  Air power makes this possible, surgical and quick.   Also, I am not downplaying the role of Army Aviation as I were one, but, for the mostest and the fastest, the bigger the bang the better.  Today and tomorrows wars will be won by technicians and perhaps they are the true "warriors".  As usual, JMHO 

If I may ask, how did you come to that concusions?

Man, I did all that crap for 20 years and all they had to do was send a few F-4s, A-10s, B-52s, F-15s, F-16s, or F-117s?  Man, did I get screwed!  What were they doing, trying to save money while I was getting shot at in some foreign pest-hole? Or could it be that wars can't be won without the guy on the ground holding and controlling the ground with air power supporting in the air?  Heck, I could have saved my 30-40 percentage points of disability.