PDA

View Full Version : Fort Lewis



jimtanker
2004-12-22, 06:41
Hi all,
New guy here. Love the site Rock.
Anyone on here currently at Fort Lewis or the area? Anyone moving here anytime soon?

SGT Rock
2004-12-22, 10:53
Thanks for the comments. :D

Iceman
2004-12-24, 11:55
Jimtanker, I am nearby in Lacey. You are not alone out here on the left coast!

jimtanker
2004-12-24, 23:26
Iceman, you going out any of the weekends coming up? Ive never been winter camping, except in the army of course. I was thinking about doing an overnighter in the Capitol forest next weekend.

Iceman
2004-12-28, 02:09
We are waiting for snow. We have been sledding in with snow shoes around St. Helens for a couple of years now and need atleast two feet of snow, preferrable compacted by rain, then snow, then rain ect.... for better snow blocks......Last year at this time we had been out once for a day trip, but no snow this year yet. My kids love the snowshoeing! If you are going to Capitol Forest, you may want to access via highway 12/Oakville side, to avoid all the motocross dudes on the north side of the forest. Deer, bear, cougar and a couple of elk down there as well. Enjoy! (Take a pistol) You gotta see how many cougar tracks we find snowshoing in around St Helens in the snow. Later.

PoetPatriot
2006-02-27, 10:59
Freedom Bridge
by Roger W Hancock

Looming over I-5, Exit 122 to…
Fort Lewis; trainer of brave.
Various demonstrations,
Past years have shown, love or hate.
Never more numbers collect, hurray,
Love of liberty, soldiers shown.
Pride of sacrifice on each face,
Through gates of liberty’s fort.
Every vehicle must pass or turn,
Witness cheers, thanks of love.
Pre-empted now by sheer numbers,
Holding bridge from soldier haters.
“Job well done!” rally express,
Battle fought for homeland pride.
Purpose set, to show our care,
Boost moral in liberty’s air.
Yellow ribbons stream support,
Tied on rails remain all night.
Local symbol of Freedom’s love,
For men, women of liberty stand.
Civility’s battlefield; bridge 122,
Now we call… Freedom Bridge.

(c) 2-23-06 Roger W Hancock, www.PoetPatriot.com

Poems of patriotism, veterans, faith, love life and more at www.PoetPatriot.com.

blackdog
2006-02-27, 17:31
I have one serious question for you, Roger: Are you more patriot than poet or more poet than patriot?


Why am i asking?

Should I, the swedish artist techie hiker wannabe, be a patriot? Of course i should be. For me it's an easy choice. For you americans it's much harder now. Your president admitted that he lied to put the sons and daughters of your country in the line of fire. Should you choose to support the soldiers or the president?

Iceman
2006-02-27, 23:38
Both. (Our president has not lied to us.) You know deep down that this country is leading the fight, for good reason. Many find it easy to sit idle elsewhere, look away. Our efforts are not free from misleadings, miscalculations, mistakes and incredible sacrifice. Understand that they do not deny the main reason for our involvement outside of our border.

PoetPatriot, I have stood on the bridge. Many have, many more will. Thank you.

Seeker
2006-02-28, 11:32
maybe i'm mistaken, but i believe bush acted on what he thought was valid information at the time... as a former intel guy, i know how fuzzy things can be... but once you say 'oops', it's too late...

american history is full of similar 'deceptions'... it wasn't known until the 1970s, i think, that president roosevelt and the war department knew the japanese were planning an attack on pearl harbor. however, any defensive measures taken would have betrayed the fact that we'd broken the japenese navel code ("purple?"). had we shown our hand then, the codes would have been changed and we'd not have been able to 'spy' on other messages... my dad thinks it unforgiveable... i look at the lives that were saved... britain and the us did the same thing with germany's submarine codes and the wehrmacht's "ultra" code... yes, these are cases of 'failing to act on intelligence', vs 'acting on false intelligence'... but i look at the similarity... intelligence is a tool... and fallible...

on another note, i look at president bush as the most decent man to occupy the white house since ronald reagan... he's almost a normal person... i'm sure you've all seen the email making its rounds about how well he treats the secret service agents guarding him, vs how the clinton gang treated them... bush makes sure they're looked after, and they compete for the honor of protecting his family... in both cases, they will always 'do their job' of bullet-catching... but none of those lowly 'agents' will ever be in a position to help a president politically or financially... a man's character can be judged by how he treats people who can do absolutely nothing for him... that tells me a lot...

the war on fundamentalist islam is necessary... if we did not lead it, who would? would denmark be able to protect itself from al-qaeda and others for the "heinous crime" of allowing a free newspaper to publish a few cartoons? where do you draw the line? we drew a line on totalitarian regimes when hussein repeatedly violated the no-fly zone... we drew the line on terrorism when 9-11 occurred... they became connected when fundementalist terrorists found haven in iraq... syria STILL harbors known terrorists and a few very old nazis... someone has to stand up for what's right... and if that makes us unpopular, so be it... and having said that, yes, i think we've made a few mistakes along the way... it's been a challenge turning the biggest sword it the world into a scalpel, but we are trying... and succeeding...

when was the last time a poor mexican tried to emigrate to scandanavia... or the middle east... or europe... or africa... or china...

"my country-may she always be right, but my country, right or wrong..." (some patriot whose name escapes me.)

/s/ Seeker. former military officer 1984-95, somalia/haiti veteran, son of immigrants, historian, patriot, father of daughters, hiker.

john pickett
2006-02-28, 13:53
"on another note, i look at president bush as the most decent man to occupy the white house since ronald reagan... he's almost a normal person... i'm sure you've all seen the email making its rounds about how well he treats the secret service agents guarding him, vs how the clinton gang treated them... bush makes sure they're looked after, and they compete for the honor of protecting his family... in both cases, they will always 'do their job' of bullet-catching... but none of those lowly 'agents' will ever be in a position to help a president politically or financially... a man's character can be judged by how he treats people who can do absolutely nothing for him... that tells me a lot..."

Amen to that, Seeker.
I remember reports that one of the previous (very previous) Presidents used U.S. Marines in dress uniform for waiters at White House functions.
Inexcusable!
John Pickett, former Navy corpsman proud to serve with the Marines.

jimtanker
2006-02-28, 21:16
I would almost have Gore. At least you would know going in that he's a POS.

Seeker
2006-02-28, 22:38
i worked for the army under a great man (reagan) and one p.o.s. (clinton... that stands for pretty outstanding statesman, right? :biggrin: ), and i'd rather work for the great ones...

anyway, somehow we got hijacked from Fort Lewis... never been there... flew over it on the way to Fort Richardson (?) last year... (fairbanks, ak, in any case...) Mt St Helens and Mt Rainier were really cool from the air... be even cooler to hike them...

blackdog
2006-03-04, 20:02
Well, i guess i got an answer to my question.

If the guy with the biggest guns steps up and wants to protect me, i always suspect there's something fishy. You probably would too, if the word "patriot" was left out of the topic.

But there's an added twist to things too. The United States first supported the old iraqi leaders and even sold them "dual use" equipment. Why would america do such a thing, you ask? Because Iraq was considered a lesser threat than Iran at that time. So your government gave more power to the enemy of their enemy. In doing so they dragged the american people into the conflict. Talking about which side that does the lesser crime is not that constructive now. It's simply a matter of doing the aftermath.

I'll admire and support those who defend their country, but it's so hard to find anything good to say about leaders that try to shove their secret agendas into our throats just to "protect" us. Who protects us from them?

Bush?

jimtanker
2006-03-04, 21:27
I agree with you 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000% Blackdog.

john pickett
2006-03-05, 19:21
"The United States first supported the old iraqi leaders and even sold them "dual use" equipment. Why would america do such a thing, you ask? Because Iraq was considered a lesser threat than Iran at that time."

Blackdog,
I beleive the events you refer to occured around 20 or 25 years ago. Later, Saddam Hussein showed his true colors. He, unfortunately, was left in power in 1991 (excuse me if my dates are shaky) and proceeded to thumb his nose at the world for more than a decade. When President George W. Bush organised and lead the coalition forces into Iraq, he was simply carrying out the express and stated intentions of the United Nations.
Regards,
John Pickett

Seeker
2006-03-05, 21:50
i still think it's funny how we were able to electronically 'shut down' some of the aircraft he'd bought from us, and the french, before the first gulf war... saved us a little trouble...

Take-a-knee
2006-03-07, 00:30
The US is doing the heavy-lifting in the Middle East because our economic system demands it. When we went off of the gold standard completely in 73 we cut a deal with the "devil" and got OPEC to agree to price crude in dollars. Going to war over oil is little different than going to "war" with neighboorhood thugs that want to steal my truck. The end is the same, I'm poorer as a result. The Life,Liberty, Property thing for all you non-Lockeans. As to Bush and WMD, there will never be any WMD located in Iraq because the Iraqis, with Russian help, hauled it all to Syria while the UN stalled us. Yes, unlike his predecessor, Dubya is a decent human-being... but he spends waaaay too much money.

Seeker
2006-03-07, 02:15
it's gonna be interesting reading in about 50 years, what they find in syria eventually, from all over the world... wanted nazis, wanted terrorists, wanted WMD items, wanted ba'athists... etc... hey. wait a minute... isn't the ruling party in syria also called the ba'ath party? oh, they're a DIFFERENT ba'ath party... sure, ok... that makes it ok... i got it now...

this "war on terrorism" thing, when we finally win it, will bring the arab world kicking and screaming into the 21st century... they've been wondering what happened to their status as one of the world's great cultures (it was back in the 1200s, if you're wondering). it's all about tolerance. when a nation becomes intolerant, it stops growing. that's what fundamentalism is... intolerence... it doesn't work, be it christian or islamic... democracy works. it's inefficient, but in the end, it works... and eventually, as the tinder of iraq and afghanistan catches fire, it will catch on in places like saudi arabia, syria, and china... look what happened in the former USSR... i went to patrol the iron curtain in 1986. i never would have predicted that the month before i left three years later would see a fallen east germany, and a fallen soviet union shortly thereafter... change can happen quickly...

on a side note, next time you've got a map out, take a look at the middle east and the muslim world around it... every single country there, from morocco to pakistan, from the former soviet 'stans' to somalia, now has a US ally on its borders somewhere, or is hosting a US force of some sort... or, it IS a US ally... scary time to be syria/iran/yemen... notice how the saudis are suddenly cracking down on fundamentalist terrorists? notice how the terrorists are starting to find fewer hiding places and are having to attack saudi targets in protest (the recent oil refinary attack attempt)? this sort of thing is getting the average arab just a wee bit miffed at the fundamentalists... i have a feeling the state dep't is saying, via the back door, 'don't make us come clean up your house for you... our troops mean well, but they're sort of clumsy sometimes, and some things might get broken...' i have a feeling that puts a bit of pressure on a gov't too... just my humble opinion... fun to see what happens...

in the meantime, don't sell you oil stocks... the powers that be will ensure they remain profitable...

blackdog
2006-03-07, 05:15
When President George W. Bush organised and lead the coalition forces into Iraq, he was simply carrying out the express and stated intentions of the United Nations.
The stated intentions of the UN at the time was to allow the inspectors lead by Hans Blix more time to investigate. USA had no UN mandate to start the war at the time.

blackdog
2006-03-07, 05:32
it's all about tolerance. when a nation becomes intolerant, it stops growing. that's what fundamentalism is... intolerence... it doesn't work, be it christian or islamic...
Correct. But the american way of dealing with the islamic parts of the world isn't exactly tolerant. Does that make the United States of America a fundamentalist country?

Seeker
2006-03-07, 11:11
Correct. But the american way of dealing with the islamic parts of the world isn't exactly tolerant. Does that make the United States of America a fundamentalist country?

when we change our military rations to comply with islamic dietary code (no more pork entrees), when we refrain from obliterating a mosque from which we are receiving enemy fire, when legally, we could, when we forbid our troops from even entering mosques without the direct permission of a general officer, and when we require female soldiers and airmen to not drive, not do PT 'publicly', and to wear long sleeves when everyone else is in shorts and ti-shirts, i'd say that's being highly tolerant. too tolerant in fact. but we do it... i think the rules have been relaxed on female attire and 'proper' work roles now, but during the 1st gulf war, a female air force pilot refused to wear a shoulder scarf/covering and there was a big to-do about it... she won her case... thankfully. McSally, i think her last name was...

personally, i think we should have left the human intelligence network we'd spent billions of dollars building up during the cold war alone. clinton and the us congress essentially dismantled it in the early-mid 90s, leaving us only imagery and signals intel. they're useless without humint. and with it, you can do precision assassination (yes, i'm an advocate) without a lot of collateral damage and bad PR... no blown up babies, women, and mosques that way... is it 'nice'? no. but neither are people who fly planes into skyscrapers... they drew first blood... and i don't want to hear about israel... we supplied anyone and everyone, good and bad, in the middle east... maybe that was the problem... but there is no justification for 9-11... if we're so bad, why do they allow our oil experts, without whom the oil trade would shut down, to live and work in their holy land? ever wonder how much alcohol gets produced in those homemade stills in expatriot housing? ever wonder why the housing units come equipped with the facilities to make it? surely the saudis don't know what's going on!? you bet they do... they're as pragmatic as the rest of us...

it's not us. it's islamic fundementalism... you've not seen a fundamentalist christian church group hijack a plane and fly it into the royal palace in saudi arabia, or the dome of the rock mosque in jerusalem, or the kabaa in mecca, have you? haven't seen a female christian blow up herself running a roadblock in syria? you see missionaries going to foreign lands, preaching. gently... not forcefully... they lead by example...

bird dog
2006-03-07, 12:03
Amen Seeker. I came back just in time. I am as you know a red blooded, American born patriot and veteran. Why is it that people want to blame everyone but the terrorists who are responsible? As a country, we have catered to everyone who cries foul and became a victim ourselves. The Danish cartoons that were published portraying Mohammed with a bomb on his head were recently printed in a private local paper here. EVERYONE from the community talked about how insensitive that was and the cartoons should not have been published. Who cares. When is the last time millions of christians rioted about cartoons that portrayed Jesus in a negative light? (Open any Sunday cartoon section and you will most likely find one). We as a country have bent over backwards to avoid offending others to the point we offend most of our own. When will it stop? We are America...if they do not like our ways and our customs then they can find residence elsewhere.

(Im sure that will cause me to be blocked by many)

BD

jimtanker
2006-03-07, 12:09
Not blocked by me though.

Im going to be in North Carolina in 2 more days. That will be my home to stay for at least 3 more years. If I like it, I just may retire there. Who knows?

blackdog
2006-03-07, 15:31
OK, Seeker... Leading by example...

The US, led by a christian, invades a foreign state (violating international law) instead of waiting for the official investigations, threatens the international humanitarian organisation (UN) in the process (as well as most free countries around the globe including sweden, my home) because there are imaginary "weapons of mass destruction" (supposedly built from stuff that US companies have sold to Iraq earlier), starts killing their former allies (now "terrorists") as well as civilians, even though there's no connection whatsoever to the actual terrorists that bombed the twin WTC towers causing american leaders to start the invasion.

I grok that. But are you really serious about following in those footsteps? I mean, if Denmark mocks our leaders... do we really have to attack Finland because of it? I sort of like Finland... Yes, i'm joking, but there's a serious side to it too.


Bird dog...

You are America... but if we do not like your ways and customs then there's no place we can find residence where we would be safe from american influence. Not even on the other side of the Earth. We are free men as long as we don't cross your path. You're not defending our ways of life, that's the sad fact, you're defending yours.

The problem you'll be facing is that the US uses more than 20% of the oil in the world. There's not enough of it in your own country, so you must get it somewhere else. Your addiction will lead you into conflicts. It's inevitable.

I'm not going to question your values, but i will ask you to respect our values even though they are swedish/finnish/european/whatever.

...even if we cross your path some day.

dropkick
2006-03-07, 18:47
Blackdog,
I'm not going to get in to a big diatribe with you about the U.S. and Iraq, or the U.S. relations with the U.N. and the rest of the world.
I'm just going to say that based on what you've written you are forming your views on slanted, incorrect, and incomplete information.

You did use "grok" correctly as it came from Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land quote: "it (grok) means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as color means to a blind man."

Seeker
2006-03-07, 20:29
blackdog,

i see your point on a few issues... not on others (isn't a discussion always that way?)

no, iraq had nothing to do with 9-11... i didn't mean to infer that... i was sort of lumping all arabs, afghans, and islamic fundamentalists together for simplicity regarding the 'cultural sensitivity' thing. and believe me, i understand the term 'ugly american'... but i don't think that as the major enforcer of the no-fly zone (negotiated by one of our own generals after the first gulf war) we need to ask anyone's permission to retaliate when that zone is repeatedly, flagrently, and nose-thumbingly violated by a low life scum like sadaam hussein... i'd have accepted virtually any reason at all to pound him into the ground like a nail... WMD was simply the one our president chose... unfortunately for him, they "disappeared"... where did they go? we may never know in our lifetimes... but did they ever exist? ask the Kurds what they think...

do we have to go around sticking up for everyone? no... but we tried that (NOT getting involved) once or twice... seems like it was in the 1900s/1910s, and then again in the 1920s and 30s... something about a small country's neutrality being violated by a european power that none of the other europeans could control, so they screamed like children and we went in and cleaned it up... damned if we do, damned if we don't... i'd rather call the shots if i'm screwed either way... makes it no less miserable, but a lot more tolerable...

jimtanker
2006-03-07, 21:38
I dont personally care if we had a good reason or not for going to war. I think that, being the biggest kid on the block we can and should do what we want, when we want, wherever we want. But with that power, we need big responsibility. Being the guy that has and will again be the guy on the ground getting shot at, I can tall you that when you go to war you need to be at war. Kill all the bastards and then leave. Let the UN come in and play their stupid games and mess everything up like they always do. I dont believe in pussyfooting around and playing games building democracies with people who have no idea what one is and could care less.

And I couldnt care less about them.

blackdog
2006-03-08, 08:38
I'm just going to say that based on what you've written you are forming your views on slanted, incorrect, and incomplete information.
Information is always incomplete in war times. In fact, the first casualty of a war is the truth, deliberately so. The claim that i'm using slanted and/or incorrect info has to be backed up by proof or at least an opposing fact/theory, or i might simply state that you are victim of the same flaw. ...right? I'm trying my very best to get the facts right, but it's not an easy thing to do in the midst of war propaganda spread by various governments on both sides of the conflict. All help in getting to the whole truth is appreciated.


You did use "grok" correctly as it came from Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land quote: "it (grok) means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as color means to a blind man."
I am struggling to become a science fiction / future fantasy author and did read my fair share of Asimov, Heinlein, Tiptree and Vance (among others) in my youth... :) My favourite setting is a futuristic "back-to-nature-with-hi-tech" world with wearable computers and augmented reality stuff thrown in. I find lots of ideas and inspiration in this forum, by the way.

"Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed — to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science — and it means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as color means to a blind man."

fieldcraftsman
2006-03-09, 12:24
Fort Lewis, WA: I knew guys in the Canadian Army who used to go for exercises down there. They loved it -- sounds like quite a base.

I believe that there's a Special Forces battalion down there -- also wasn't at least one cav battalion there?

Don't want to get too much into politics on here, but I will say that I'm glad that we've got the US, who's willing to put its $ where its mouth is. A lot of my countrymen (both native country, Canada, and adopted country, UK) think that you can make the world a nice place with talk, talk, goodwill and maybe a few poor saps in the blue don't shoot me berets. Sad thing, the world just doesn't work that way...sometimes you need guys who shoot straight, as the saying goes!

Seeker
2006-03-09, 17:49
"good people are able to sleep soundly at night, because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

i think george orwell said that, though i may be wrong... more a tribute to anyone's armed forces and police, but applies to any just nation whose assets protect the less fortunate, even if not citizens of that nation. we may be compared to the roman empire, but rome never cared for its conquered population the way the US cares for the civilians in whatever war zone it happens to be in. and you never saw rome rebuild carthage the way the US rebuilt Germany and Japan... i think it's the height of irony that the daimler benz company (which produced german tanks during WW2) now owns chrysler corp, which makes our own M-1 Abrams, or at least some of the early versions. by roman standards, we should have added the following "states" to our current 50, but didn't... cuba, mexico (or parts thereof), the phillipines, puerto rico, nicaragua, tunesia, algeria, morocco, libya, kuwait, italy, and parts of germany... rome would have made them provinces... we defeated them all militarily, won them after beating spain, or threw an occupier out of them... we let each one of them go its own way...yet some of these nations (notably the barbary pirates) continue to plague us years later.

i thus maintain that we are not an aggressor nation... we simply stand up for the poor, women, children, and anyone who doesn't want someone else standing on their neck... call me an idealist, but the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are good things, to be shared... we are still the world's biggest immigration destination... why come here if we suck? like i said in an earlier post, democracy is going to win (it has to, or we'll be full). it just needs a boost at times. and, to quote jefferson, 'the tree of libery occassionally needs to be watered with blood' or something to that effect... all that is necessary for the triumph of evil (fundementalism) is that good men do nothing...

on another note, there was a woman on al-jazeera the other day... she was debating a cleric, who immediately branded her a heretic... very intellectual move on his part... she brought up some interesting points... one was to point out that even after the holocaust, you didn't see jews travelling to germany and setting off suicide bombs in german churches to get revenge... just a difference in mindsets... sure, there are nuts of all types... early israeli guerrillas who bombed a hotel, killing british soldiers... that weird 'christian' guy who keeps disrupting soldiers funerals because in his mind soldiers are evildoers (he believes soldiers deserve to die because he thinks the army's "don't ask/don't tell" policy is evil)... islamic fundamentalists who blow up mosques or statues of buddha... and so on... but her point was that the West has always shown restraint and reason. fundamentalist islamic militants have reacted with violence... always violence... it was pretty funny to see the shades of color this cleric was turning, being dressed down by a woman on worldwide TV... here's the link...
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null