US military improvements?

Well, meet somebody that was 44 years old, and an E-3. Me.

And while I was in, they raised the maximum age for joining the Army to 41.

When I first went in (with my good conduct medals, 3 service stripes, and multiple ribbons) I used to joke that I was the oldest PFC in the Army that had not been Court Martialed.

I even served with 2 guys older then me, a 49 year old Corporal and a 60 year old Sergeant. Both like me had done their time in Active Duty, then came back when they "heard the bugle call". The Sergeant was secure, he had already retired as a Chief Warrant Officer 4, so he was getting a good retirement no matter what. But the Corporal (like me) got pushed out when they changed the retention point, because with our prior service, there was no way we could stay in.

Heck, when I was in the Marines, I made Corporal in just over 2 years. And in the mid-1980's, that was flying. In order to stay in the Army, I would have been a Sergeant (Promotable), which means a lot of politicing and brown-nosing in my last unit (something I was never very good at). To even be eligable to be promoted to Sergeant, I had to do my own promotion packet and take it to the First Sergeant myself, because I did not get along with my Platoon Sergeant. And I passed that board, but was still stuck because I did not run fast enough for the new First Sergeant.

But I still passed him every time we went on a ruck march, with or without pack.

 

The Navy is a bit different, because in that branch, what most consider a "Staff NCO" (E-6) is an E-7 (Chief Petty Officer) in the Navy. So legally, you can still do 20 years and retire to this day in the Navy as a "Senior NCO), while you can't in any other service.

It is just how they break down the ranks. I knew a lot of Navy that were pissed because Marine Staff Sergeants could go to their club, yet a Navy Petty Officer First Class had to go to the NCO Club on a Marine base.

And yea, a lot of branches (as in job specialty) have some crazy promotion points. For Computers, E-1 through E-5 is about normal, then it goes sharply down, because so many just get out and go to the civilian world for more money. So it is hard to keep them in.

Then you get the opposite, like Armorers in the Marines. To rise above Staff Sergeant in that specialty, you are literally waiting for somebody to retire or die, because there are so few positions open. I remember congratulating one Staff Sergeant when I was in Okinawa when he got tapped for Gunny, only to be told it was because a buddy of his he went through boot camp and Armorer School with had a heart attack and died 3 months before. There were so few positions that literally everybody in that field knew everybody else.

Then you have other fields, like one guy I went through NCO school with. His job was "HAWK Missile Repair", and there were so few of them that he could not make Sergeant no matter what. The MOS was literally closed for promotion, so he would have been "Mister A.J. Squared Away Marine), and he still never would have made Sergeant.

However, a 40 year old SGM is a very VERY rare thing. That means they have an average of 20-22 years in the military, when most are making E-7 or E-8. And even if they are an E-9 (SGM/CSM), they are normally so Junior they are getting experience in an Operations SGM or some other position first.

Most CSMs I have seen are much closer to my age, mid to late 40's. Because very few Battalion Commanders (or higher) want a CSM who is that young, unless they got some serious awards behind them. A 40 year old CSM with a Bronze Star (with V) or Silver Star I could see. Just a 40 year old with the usual awards for being in 20 or so years and doing good as a Recruiter, they would more then likely find themselves serving in the S-3 shop untill they get a lot more experience first.

And sorry to burst your bubble, but I always came in before everybody but 1 person in my entire Battery when it came to a ruck march, even at 47. That one exception was a 30 year old Lieutenant (who was a Staff Sergeant in Infantry). And even he admitted that while he slowed down to stay even with me the first 1-2 miles of the hike, I was pushing him to stay even with me the last 3 miles of an 8 mile hike.

I do not know how much (if any) experience you have with the Infantry, but many of the skills you learn there you never really loose. I routinely walked kids half my age (who thought they were "bad assed") into the dirt, even in my upper 40's. And I often was the one "pushing" the younger kids to keep working, even after 18 hours on the job, because I knew how to push out that extra bit if strength, while the "kids" were all burned out.

And with my experience, many times we would be given a task, and the kids would want to rush off and brute force it. Many times I would grab them, hold them back and explain a better and easier way to accomplish the same thing. I can't tell you how many times they looked at me in amazement, and I would just smile and say "That is the advantage of being older, I got more experience to fall back on".

When I got out about 6 months ago, I had a lot of kids who I had served with come up and thank me for all I had taught them while I was in. I am proud that my nickname was "Grandpa", because I gave a lot of advice to the younger kids, and kept a lot of them out of trouble. And I saw a lot of them pass me in rank, simply because they could run faster then I could. But of those that passed me, none of them attended WLC (The Army version of NCO School) as a "Distinguished Honor Graduate"), which is something I was able to do.

 

Congratulations, Mushroom. If what you say is true, you are remarkable.

George Blanda played professional football, as a quarterback and a(mostly) a kicker into his fifties. That ain't the way to bet.

Policy is about the "...way to bet."

Most 40 year olds trying to do a heavy march and wind up injured. For every one with your story, I'd bet there are ten who got hurt and wound up with early separation.

More sedentary specialties are conducive to service by older individuals. During the runup to the Saddam-stomp, there were a couple of old Vietnam-era helo drivers still doing that well into their fifties. But even there, "Augustus and Woodrow" (as they called themselves after characters in a Larry McMurtrie book) were remarkable in getting combat stick time. Most guys are grounded by time they get to their late 40s.

If you look, most cargo plane and tanker flight deck crew are fairly old reservists.

There is a lot of variability in career paths in various niches. I knew a 36 year old E-6 with a civil engineering degree and a P.E. license that couldn't make Chief because no Chief billets were open in the Seabees. At the same time I played golf with the last Chief of the Boat on the USS Bowfin. I did the arithmetic and asked him: "You were a 20 year old Chief?" His answer: "That's war." I had an uncle who was a Pearl Harbor survivor (he was on duty on a DMS during the attack) and as the Navy ramped up the huge Navy to defeat Japan they raided his ship's goat locker and he went from E-3 to Chief Water Tender within six weeks, never leaving the ship. George Armstrong Custer was a twenty-three year old Brigadier.

There's just a lot of variability in what the Armed Forces do and that generates a lot of career path variability.

 

This isn't wartime though. I think we need to move towards a smaller more professional force that encourages retention. Many of the commonwealth countries have very small but long tenured forces.

In the British Army soldiers tend to stick around longer and get promoted more slowly. They remain privates (E1-E2) for about 3 years before being promoted to Lance Corporal (E-3). At around 6-8 years TIS they get promoted to Corporal (E-4) where they remain untill around 12 years TIS after which they get promoted to Sergeant (E-6). From there, Colour Sergeant/Staff Sergeant (E-7), Warrant Officer 2 (E-8 ), and Warrant Officer 1 (E-9) follow after 16+ years TIS. These are all rough estimates from the British Army's website. In the U.S. military you're often kicked out if you don't reach E-5 by 8 years or E-6 by 12.

British Army
In terms of Infantry, this means that your average fireteam leader has 3-6 years of experience (21-26 Y/O), a squad leader has 6-8 years of experience (24-28 Y/O), and a platoon sergeant has 12-16 years of experience (30-36 Y/O).

U.S. Marine Corps
A fireteam leader will usually have 2-3 years of experience (20-23 Y/O), a squad leader will have 3-5 years of experience (21-25 Y/O), and a platoon sergeant will have 7-10 years of experience (25-30 Y/O).

This is the type of slower promotion and higher retention rates that I'm looking for. I hope that with the drawdown the military can really improve it's recruiting requirements and attrite more people from basic training. In order to have this smaller more professional force they'll have to really improve the standard of living among lower enlisted personnel who are often treated with disdain by career SNCOs and Officers.

My view is purely Infantry based but I imagine, with a little tweaking, it could be used for other services.

 

With proper nutrition and excercise it's not that difficult to stay extremely fit well into your late 30s and early 40s. Take a look at Special Forces Units for example. A good chunk of SF units are filled by guys in their early to late 30s. These guys are infantrymen in every sense of the word with the most extreme physical demands in the military. These guys are able to stay in peak condition for so long because A) they take care of themselves and B) they spend their entire adult lives conditoning themselves to the rigor of military life. I don't expect a 35 year old office worker who sits in a cubicle and whos only excercise consists of a couple pick up basketball games every week to be able to walk into basic training. But someone that's been in the system for over a decade will be in much better mental and physical shape.

I distinctly remember my old Battalion Commander running a perfect 300 PFT at 44 years old and having no trouble keeping up with the 19-25 year old crowd. He was able to do this because he'd spent 20+ years in Infantry units and was conditioned to the rigors.

 

That's a somewhat bogus analogy. The primary cause of early separation and discharge is personality disorders, followed by drug/alcohol abuse. Older service personnel have the advantage of emotional maturity. For an officer, a DWI/DUI conviction or an Article 15 can be...and typically is...career ending. The immature and imprudent officers are weeded out quickly. We can talk about age making one more injury prone, therefore more likely to be un-deployable, but we'd be negating the bigger issues that training, basically teen-agers, incurs more frequently...early separation due to immaturity and poor decisions.

By encouraging retention, the services could avoid some of the problems high turnover reaps...mainly cutting through the chaff of immaturity every new crop of recruits brings as baggage.

Answering the question on improving the U.S. Armed Forces, I did place on emphasis on PROFESSIONALISM, viewing military service as a calling and not just an occupation and/or cash for college. While physical fitness is tantamount to creating a professional military, emotional maturity among the troops is also vital.

 

Yes, it is true. And no, not really remarkable. I knew a lot of guys that joined or rejoined in their late 30's and 40's.

One thing that a lot of us have learned is willpower. Look up the joke about the young bull and the old bull who see a heard of cows and you might see what I mean there.

Really? Most? Oh, I would absolutely love to see some reference to that fact, I really really would. Got a reference to validate that claim?

Well, my job was hardly "sedentary". I was doing "infantry games", training 18-22 year old kids how to do grunt things when I was not running a PATRIOT missile crew. And trust me, doing emplacement and roadmarch in 110 degree heat is no picnic. That is about an hour of non-stop climbing and moving all over the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed thing. Or running 400 meters of cable from one station to another.

I am not sure what you think the military is like, but I guess it is wrong.

As IB said, that was during wartime. And there is something else very important you have to consider about those promotions.

They were not real.

One thing that was common in earlier wars where the ranks had to swell very fast was the "Reserve" and "Brevet" promotions (sometimes also called "Frocking"). And during WWII and earlier wars, we saw a lot of that. Privates being made First Sergeant. Corporals becoming Lieutenant. Seamen suddenly becoming a Gun Chief.

But these were not real and permanent promotions. Once the war winded down, they realized that they were generally only brevet (and removed once the conflict was over), or Reserve promotions, and if they wanted to stay on Active Duty after the war was over, they had to turn them back in.

For example, look at George Custer. Entered as a Second Lieutenant out of West Point, and a few months later was a Brevet Captain. But after his Commanding General was relieved, he found himself being reduced to First Lieutenant, since he was far to Junior to be placed in command of a Company. The next year again found himself promoted to Captain, then Brigader General just prior to Gettysburg. Then afterwards he was promoted to Major General of Volunteers.

When the war was over, he was then mustered out of the volunteers, and returned to Active Duty, in the rank of Captain.

This was typical back then. Somebody is given a temporary rank, and holds it during the conflict. Then when it is over and the Reserves and Volunteers are mustered out and the military shrinks again, they end up generally 1-3 ranks over where they were prior to that. And normally if they did well they are looked at more seriously for future promotions since they had already proven they can handle greater responsibility.

Yea, your buddy might have made Chief during the war. Odds are he probably would have ended up after the end of the war as a PO1 if he decided to stay in and the Navy shrank to it's pre-war size again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brevet_(military)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frocking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_commission#Types_of_Battlefield_Promotion

So while you have some facts there, you are missing a lot of the actual context they were in. Yes, people during war get promoted fast. But at the same time when the war is over most go down just as fast simply because there are to many individuals of that rank, or they are in a position to senior for somebody of their experience. Or they were simply enlisted "for the duration", so when the conflict was over they took off the Uniform, without ever being reduced (because most of them were valid, as Reserve ranks).

 

I've never been affiliated with the U.S. Navy, but I heard this from a Naval Junior Officer...

"As soon as you learn 90% of your job, it's time to move on. That's the Navy way."

I can't help but think this effects efficiency to some extent, but who am I to question the monolithic institutions of our Armed Services...
it is afterall, their way or the highway. More often than, most take the highway and are attrited out of the ranks before achieving the "sanctuary"
of at or near 20 years.

Anyway, to Mushroom and Ignorance is Bliss, always enjoy reading your posts, experiences and articulation of this argument...you're doing a better job at it than I am...

*bows out of the conversation*

 

Thanks. Although you should have realized long ago that I really do not "argue". To me things are best served with facts, evidence, and an even and as neutral stance as possible. And for me also my experience in this going back to 1983, in 2 services on 3 continents. I have seen the changes happen, and they have long disturbed me.

At my first duty station, the mess hall had only 2 civilians. One generally ran the administrative part, the other ran the kitchen. But this was more to provide continuity then anything else, since cooks and mess officers came and went. These 2 worked there for years, and provided the stability to keep things running the same year after year. Go into a mess hall now, and there are 4 or 5 civilians working there for everybody in the military. And in some cases, they are all civilians except for 1 or 2 military personnel.

I have seen the civilians take more and more control of jobs on posts that were formerly our responsibility. Even the barracks we live in are "owned" by civilians now. It used to be if 2 roommates had troubles, the Company Gunny or First Sergeant would order one or both of them to move to other rooms (normally with a completion time of 1-2 hours). Now, it is out of their hands and they are refered to the civilians that make the assignments, which takes 2 weeks or more (if they can even do it at all).

I had to clear with them earlier this year when I checked out of Fort Bliss. I had never had a room in the barracks, yet still had to wait for them to "clear" me, which took over a week since the person who's job that is never seemed to be in the office. And we have had people living in the TV room for 3-4 days until they could get around to assigning them a room (where before the Top simply had the supply guy come in and assign them a room, taking an entire 15 minutes).

Heck, civilians even control the base housing now. It used to be if you lived in base housing, you simply did not get the off-base allowance. Now, you are still paid that money, and until the allotment starts you have to write them a check. Then the allotment goes directly to them. And if you move out, it takes 2-3 months for that allotment to stop, and they take forever in returning that money to you.

 

You really have no clue, do you?

 

Ousting the islamofascist enemy in the White House.

 

I did hear of an American military improvement. It seems that they are going to try and get an army that can win wars instead of losing them.

 

The armed forcesin wars, but politicians lose them.

 

Granny says, "Dat's right Obama - what about dat?...

Veterans' wait time for benefits is 'too long,' VA official concedes
March 13th, 2013 - Questioned about a growing backlog of veterans' claims, a top Veteran Affairs official conceded Wednesday that veterans wait "too long" to receive benefits.

 

Rep. Jeff Miller throws down the gauntlet...

Congressman calls on top VA official to resign over benefits backlog
March 20, 2013 WASHINGTON — Lawmakers frustrated over worsening waits by veterans for overdue benefits claims have begun targeting Veterans Affairs workers and leaders, saying someone needs to be held accountable.

 

Disband it, or at least minimize its size and cut its massive spending to only be used in matters of self defense, or true matters of "security". Military action only leads to more problems than solutions. Militaries are used as tools for achieving nationalistic self-interest and corporate gain, acting based on power above international law, human rights, and human life. The most pertinent example of corrupt nationalism elevated above the good of humanity. No individual nation can be trusted to operate a military based upon "liberty and justice for all". No nation should be permitted to direct a military of the size of the United States Armed Forces.

 

So what size of military would you permit instead and who would enforce it?

Who decides what these true matters of security are and what would you want to cut the US military size and capabilities to?

You can't answer the first question I pose.

I will be shocked if you have a reasonable answer for my second question.

 

As for the U.S., I suggest we reduce it to a size in which it doesn't envelop the entire world, allow for global hegemony, and cause entropy to every region it touches, as it is favorable to our national interests as well as the much more significant interests of humanity. What is unfavorable to human interests is opposed by the people, leading to opposition to a government that seeks to build an empire.

First of all, obviously we cannot hope for this dream to become a reality in this current age, I speek of it merely as a goal. In an ideal world, a strengthened United Nations global cooperative system would operate a minimized global armed forces, kept in check by civic activism, global democratic initiative, and the people's voice, using it only as a means to protect human rights, freedom, and the best interests of humanity. In a more current world, as government officials cannot be hoped to possess the will to cooperate and act based on the will of the people, it must be by the people's force that such an organization is strengthened, allowing for democratic voice between nations and the operation of a system of order for the keeping in check of national military size and stature.

 

A strengthened UN? Really now. And tell me, who is it that is to provide these troops for the UN?

Because here is a hint: The US is the supplier for the vast majority of UN operations when actual combat was required. Korea, Gulf War, Somalia, Lebanon (I and II), Haiti, former Yugoslavia, the list just goes on and on. Lots of nations have been willing to provide "Peace Keepers" after a conflict has ended, but not so many have been willing or able to provide the large numbers required to actually put an end to the conflict once it starts.

And the nation that has stepped up and provided the most troops has been... the United States military.

And as far as the UN goes, I do not trust it to be able to manage to put an end to a cat-fight in a brothel. Where once they were able to take quick and decisive action to authorize force to end a conflict (quick and decisive for a political body), today it is a paralyzed mess that can't decide if it wants to do anything. Former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Darfur, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Palestinian Authority, the list simply goes on and on where in the past 30 or so years the UN has become an impotent joke. And you want to turn our and everybody else's security over to this organization?

They can't even decide what "Genocide" is.

 

Notice how I used the words, "ideal world", "dream", "goal", and, "future"; I meant to make clear that I speak of this as a hopeful goal. The UN is not a fair democratic body in its present state. It gives the most voice to the most powerful, causing actions to be swayed heavily in their interests; the interests of the few. It does not look out for humanity. It leads to indecision due to jaded self-interest based motivations. The world's security should be turned over to an organization that looks out for the world's best interest. Ideally, a democratic United Nations system would be operated based on international law and standardization of policy, allowing for clear plans of action to be taken upon various situations. I speak of an entity that is operated by true democracy and allows for equal and balanced voice between all nations globally, lacking a centralized authority in order to lessen the likelihood of corruption and injustice. Obviously we cannot hope for this dream to become a reality in this current age, and it cannot be achieved by authoritarian means as the people must favor it in order to prevent retaliation. It is a goal that must be achieved through civic activism. I speek of it merely as a goal to be achieved over time with support from the force and will of the people through the diffusion of ideas throughout the masses of the world.

For the present world in the U.S., hopefully politicians with some kind of intelligence and future-oriented outlook will arise and see that there is need for change. Perhaps they just might see reason and cut our massive spending on useless projects, eliminate obsolete programs, cease waging greed-based wars for the wealthy, avoid engaging in and aiding acts of aggression, and remove forces from problem-breeding occupations such as Afghanistan. Maybe someday those in power will realize the cost building an empire has to the United States economy and the great cost it has for the good of humanity.

 

Uhhh, yea. Right. That is why Sudan has been able to keep the Darfur issue tied up in the UN for over a decade now. Because it is "Powerful". And like the situation in Yugoslavia when it exploded into civil war. Because Serbia was so "Powerful". And what is going on now in Syria.

Actually, the problem in the UN is the exact opposite from what I can see. The UN passes silly and pointless "Resolutions", one after another after another. Because it is so deadlocked between multiple factions that they are unable to actually accomplish anything. Just look at the situation around the 1990, and how many countries in the UN thought it was "just fine" for Iraq to absorb Kuwait. And afterwards with all of the "No-Fly Zones" and incidents in that zone afterwards where the UN only passed even more worthless resolutions.

It is fine to say in a "perfect world". However, I live in the Real World, not some Utopian Fantasyland, where the waving of a magic wand makes all conflicts end and guns turn into flowers.

And yea, Empire. Nice fantasy, to bad it is so far from reality it is not even funny. Personally, I believe the entire mess in Afghanistan actually dates back to 1989, and once again on the shoulders of the UN, in addition to the United States and the Soviet Union. When the Soviets left, that was the perfect opportunity for the UN and other organizations and countries to help them put their shattered country back together again. What we got instead was a 10 year long civil war, destruction of priceless cultural monuments, and the exportation of terror around the world.

Good job there.

 

Shock of all shocks you can't answer my first question. Other than say the UN and unelected body which you think will "speak for the people", spend their money in right way and not let some countries off with crimes. Also do you want to take away national militaries?

I thought your answer to my second question was going to have nothing to do with military reqirements, but just things you think and I was right. You sound like a Attlee support in the UK, who says we want the rest of the people of the world not to be effected by the British anymore, so we just leave. The British did this in British Indian and caused 2 million to be killed, all so the UK could setup the NHS and welfare state, they put it across as colonialism is bad and we need to stop it right away, not caring about the people who lived in the empire. The truth is people like you and others only care about yourselves and more money being spent on you. I have heard many people like you say defence spending should be cut, but they never say what should be cut. They say the R&D budget should be cut, I say which program? They also say we can't cut troop numbers and train to save money, yet those are the most costly things.

 

I didn't realize I needed a step by step detailed plan of action for a mere expression. Not in the world's current status, I don't, only a reduction in excessive and dangerous size.

I'm sorry, pulling the oppressive British rule out of India resulted in the death of 2 million Indians? I fail to see the negative in ending British imperialism and the humiliation it caused in India, and the negative in establishing a welfare state, a "concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens." Please explain. I'm having some trouble interpreting your writing, people like me only care about having more money spent on me? I care about putting money into useful causes that are helpful to humanity rather than in acts of aggression and hegemonist actions. There are plenty of programs and ventures that the nation can do without. Military spending is off the charts, accounting for half of the U.S. deficit. There are plenty of actions that can be taken to reduce spending, for example, ceasing the R&D of the militarization of space, cutting spending for the drone program, cutting spending for the stealth program, cutting the nuclear program, cutting spending for missile defense, as well as the cutting of the massive number of troops, minimizing the production of unneeded vehicles that serve only as shows of force, the removal of troops in Afghanistan, and the stopping of participating in illegal, expensive, and useless wars. The $87 billion supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan is fairly straightforward: $32.3 billion for operations and maintenance, $18.5 billion for personnel, $1.9 billion for equipment, $5 billion for security, $15 billion for infrastructure, and so on.

 

OK, now this I admit has me absolutely rolling. Here, let me read this again, it is so funny.

Oh my goodness, this is actually funnier then the last Jim Carey movie!

OK, now how about some reality. The DoD is actually not all that big, and does not spend that much money.

How little? Well, if you cut the entire DoD budget to $0, we would still be in a deficit spending situation.

How much? Well Medicare and Medicaid alone are over $200 billion per year more then the DoD budget. Does that give you any idea?

Strange, but the DoD is actually the only major department of the entire US Government that is actually able to take a budget decrease, where as pretty much every other department has an annual increase. And of the entire DoD budget, over 2/3 goes to things like payroll, medical and other dependent care, training, and just keeping their equipment working. The purchasing of new "toys" is actually a very small part of the budget, and amortized over long periods of time. When you hear about some new item (be it a ship, a plane or a missile) costing "Umpteen million dollars", the DoD did not just whip out a checkbook and write a check. That is an average total cost, spread out normally over decades.

And you know one thing that always amazes me, is how much the "Far-Left Liberals" always scream about "Missile Defense". Every Democrat we have had in office for the last 20 years now has screamed about it while on the campaign trail, and promised to cut-kill missile defense.

Then once they actually get into office, that suddenly changes. They start to realize that there actually are bad people who want to hurt us, and invariably tend to actually increase the amount spent on it. And frankly, I honestly have absolutely no idea why anybody would be opposed to a defensive system. Seems that having a good defense is always preferable to having to go offensive, especially if you are a wild-eyed peacenick.

From reading your post, you actually seem to be one of those that actually enjoys seeing bodybags. Almost everything you listed as needing to be cut would result in more service members being on welfare (and yes, an E-3/4 with 2 kids makes so little that they qualify for at least some form of welfare in most states). And you like them operating 30+ year old equipment, and having vehicles that are deathtraps in the event of an IED, and the like.

In fact, most estimates place just the stimulus package of the current president alone at over $2.4 trillion. That is roughly equal to the entire military budget since President Obama took office. So kindly explain how the DoD is responsible for "over half of the deficit". And kindly provide a reputable source to verify that claim.

God, how I hate when people just make stuff up like this. Do you really think that we would just accept your claims and not question them?

 

But come on now William Walker (what a hateful war-like name if I ever saw one), the UN is all about peace and love and international brotherhood!

I mean, we all saw how effective they were in former Yugoslavia, did we not? And when they put their foot down, we saw exactly how quickly Iraq started to toe the line and become a friendly peace-loving nation.

And of course the UN is full of nobody but good people. They would never do anything like bribery, or do anything corrupt or immoral. They are all serious public servants who work and live in horrible conditions for the benefit of their own people, and the rest of the people of the world!

And yes, my eyes are brown.