Jane Fonda: "U.S. Troops are Killing Machines."

Dear Jane,

I realize that this is going to come as a surprise to you and the rest of the barking moonbats, but the U.S. military has two (2) primary duties:

1)Breaking things; and
2)Killing people.

You might even say that these two things are the raison d’être for the military.

As such, it behooves our military folks to become fairly good in the fine art of breaking things and killing people.

Now, if your therapist is telling you any different, I seriously suggest that you find yourself a new therapist.

LawDog
 
Should'nt she have moved to France by now and stop
pretending to be an American.

And lets insist that she take most of the hollywood crowd with her.


Now let me dig out that old James Stewart movie once more.
 
OK, I'm reading 'On Killing' as I type. According to Col. Grossman, during WWII, approximately 15-20 % of active duty soldiers would fire their weapons with intent to kill. The rest were primarily busying themselves to "rescue wounded comrades, get ammunition, or run messages." By the Korean War, the rate was 55% firers, and by Vietnam, 90-95 %. He bases these claims on the research of US Army Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall. Marshall was an Army historian during WWII, and later became the official US historian of the European theater of operations. His research consisted of his interviews, and other interviews conducted by his team of historians, with "thousands" of soldiers from a broad spectrum of units, and from both theaters of operation.

Marshall did the same type of research during the Korean conflict.

As for the 50,000 rounds per KIA in Vietnam, this number takes into account all weapons fired, not just individuals shooting at individuals. Suppressive fire, hellicopter miniguns and door gunners, all of it.
 
For having been provided with the best that life has to offer, Jane certainly has an ignorant streak in her a mile wide. She did marry Ted Turner.
 
Jane ){P(&)(^(YPY(*()&^)(%$%(*&TV *O&TYP{)(&)Y(*&^T(&^T (P*Y(U)Y&*O*Y){*YB{) U{)&U ){ *_{}(&)OUIH*^F&OH*OU)*^)*%_HOI"*(_}PJNIUGBO*^FOIH)(*U){*YH)*(Y:barf: P(GT(P&RY ){*I_}*}N *FO&^FG {H*G^*FOIOHUJ(*Y{*YH{)UJ Fonda!!

Sorry when I hear that name I loose the ability to be rational...
 
Twycross and jcoii have it right, without quibbling on exact percentages.

IIRC this factor has been discussed for modern warfare going all the way back to the Revolution. Troops would go into battle and load charge on top of charge into their muskets but not fire them. Even as fatalistic as Civil War troops were reputed to be there was record of thousands of them dropping their guns and fleeing. One has only to read "The Red Badge of Courage" to understand the psychology of it.

In his memoirs Grant discussed several thousand men who had fled the first day of the battle of Shiloh and hid on the river bluffs. He thought about having officers round them up and drive them back into the battle but decided even the threat of being shot in the back of the head wouldn't have made them return.

Then there is the story of Sgt Alvin York in WW-I. One single dedicated marksman was able to turn the tide of an entire battle and capture over a hundred seasoned troops by willpower alone. These troops were frozen in fear and unable to fire back.

Yes, training methods have improved, but the purpose of this is to keep our kids from becoming cannon fodder.
 
I recall reading a book a long while ago about the quality of military training in armies around the world. This was in the early 80's and the claim was that the absolute best trained soldiers were the ...Israelis, followed by those of the Soviet Union and then our troops. The Soviet model trained kids in their mid-teens with physical conditioning, lectures and small arms training. When they were old enough, they entered an obligitory (4 year?) service period. The Israelis were simply motivated by circumstances to be extremely good at what they do. Today's volunteer U.S. Army has shown itself to be well trained, disciplined and very capable. The U.S. has relied on technology to be a force multiplier so that a single solider has more capability that our enemies. (The Israelis have adopted this technique to a great extent too.)

The major purpose of our military is to project force around the world when and where it is needed. That force, to be effective, needs to be able to -- as many people pointed out -- precisely break things and kill people (who need killing).

Despite propagandists using our nitwit media to decry civilian casualties, I thank God that we have developed the sophisticated, laser-guided, GPS enabled and other "smart" weapons available today. My father's office, between about 1943 and 1945 was in the nose of a B-17 dropping bombs. He described first hand the effects of carpet bombing of a city as well as the results of "precsion daylight bombing". He toured these areas after the war and says the photos and films hardly touch the feeling of devastation. So I thank God we have these weapons that will spare civilians the wholesale destruction of their towns and cities.

In a sense, Fonda is right - they are killing machines. Precision soldiers trained to minimize civilian damage.
 
Troops would go into battle and load charge on top of charge into their muskets but not fire them.
Click to expand...
Yep. After the battle of Gettysburg 27,574 discarded guns were found on the battlefield. Almost 90% were loaded. Half of those were loaded multiple times, the winner being one loaded 23 times.
 
The first rule of war is there is no rules,

the 50K rounds of ammo for one KIA also included, artillery, training, mad minute rounds, AAA. The figure I read and I can not find the location now was it like 1500 rounds in combat for regular army to get a body count.
 
The first rule of war is there is no rules
Click to expand...
Uh, No. There are actually a whole lot of rules of war. It is just that certain warring parties have regularly broken them and get away with it, and certain parties have rigidly upheld them and get falsly accused of breaking them anyway.
 
Jane Fonda Sucks. She's appaled that our servicemembers were doing their jobs???

That's a shock-usually these types have such an amazing grasp of the way things work...
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the timeline go something like this:

-Jane undergoes a transformation and becomes Hanoi Jane (Something to do with going to a country we were fighting, sitting in an anti-aircraft battery, and giving aid and comfort to our enemy.)

-25 to 30 years later when everyone but the Viet Nam Vets forgot that she even existed, she apollogized for her actions (I don't think the Viet Nam Vets will ever forget her).

-A new war starts and she's back at square one. Must be the old bat can't get to Iraq or Afghanistan to meet with the enemy.

Anyone else see a pattern here?
 
Look guys, when Iwas in the service and going through basic trainning I was taught that "I was a killing machine" a machine that could easily best at least 10 advisaries, easily. I was taught ways to kill with my hands, feet, sticks, knives as well as guns and granades and how to run like hell if I had too (a good run was better than a bad stand). Many of you were taught the same, probaly at the same place, so can'td we get to something better than some ole 40 year old pacifist crap? I don;t think JF's influence is worth wasting time with.
Why can't we get to something meaningful like why are the bush and cheney kids not in Iraq??? they are the right age.
 
we have changed our training to make it easier and a reflexive action to kill.
Click to expand...
You say that like it is a bad thing... The more enemies our soldiers kill, the less of our soldiers get killed. Good deal - after all, war is a contact sport.

As for Jane Fonda, Demosocialist bottom-feeding maggot extrordinaire, the best part of her ran down the inside of her mamma's leg. That's the nicest thing I can say about her.

May she slide irretrivably into obscurity and poverty while running the cash register at a 7-11 all the days of her life...:D :D :D
 
There are two very good reasons that POTUS and VPOTUSs kids aren't serving:
1)Because everyone knows that Dick's daughter is out of the closet, thanks to Edwards; thus don't ask, don't tell is violated.
2)Would you realy want to give two drunken party girls guns? While we are at it, how about Mary-Kate and Ashley? Or mabey paris and her dog?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top