Informed about the Iraq War?

[PsyOps]

I do also. I think there have been plenty of waivers for people with some mild criminal activity in their background; give 'em a chance to go straight. I suspect that the ones who cause the problems for the normal citizen-soldiers serving nowadays are the ones who were convicted of violent crimes, not the pot smokers or litterbugs.

I don’t know the standards for this but I would be willing to bet the Army and Marines does not allow convicts of violent crimes in. I know the AF doesn’t.

Yeah, too bad the lack of fresh bodies ready to gear up meant that the volunteers (who are over there out of patriotism & duty) got screwed: stop-loss was enacted and tours were extended. Heck, the troops might have thought their tours would get shorter if they put stock in all the yellow magnet ribbons; sadly no, just lip-service, I'm afraid.

Actually tours are now being shortened. And as I provided before, every branch is meeting or exceeding their recruiting goals which means there are plenty of “fresh bodies” that knew exactly what they were getting into. No one is putting a gun to these brave peoples’ heads to join.

Leave the fiscal out of it, I'm for risk equity. Pretty easy to beat the drum over here and parrot the dissent-stifling propaganda, in other words be a full-fledged cheerleader for the war, if you [not "you"] know that there is no way you could end up as one of the statistics 'cause there's no way your [not "your"] tender ass will end up in harm's way. I suggest that if all Americans felt some of the sacrifice, not just those serving and their families, there might be fewer people yakking about "How great it is to be bringing democracy to Iraq -- now WTF is up with $4 a gallon gas?"
If there were a draft, there would be a larger pool to choose from: everyone draft-age not just the ones who volunteer to sign up. A larger pool means the recruiting & induction people could be more selective and not have to lower the standards just to make their numbers. I suggest that would mean fewer criminals in the military.

Well, I’m for volunteerism. It seems to be working just fine. Once again, no one is forcing these folks to join. They don’t need our drum-beating. Your purpose for the draft is not the purpose it was meant for anyway. A draft is to provide numbers not some sort of “risk equity” just so you can feel better about the sharing of bloodshed. A draft, under your conditions, results in nothing more than fiscal and class servitude.

“red-blooded drum-beaters” refers to the ones who cheer on further warfare, encouraging other people to go join the fun and ultimately causing some of them (but not the rbdb) to end up as casualties.
Interesting that you would accept allowing active duty service people who were against the war to just come home. I'm sure there are a lot of them over there who wish they could take you up on that.

I knew your meaning. I turned the term over on you. I threw it back at you as a means to show that there are red-blooded drum-beaters on both sides of this argument. And, as much as it bugs the crap out of me that able-minded folks join to get all the benefits of the military (free education, etc…) then suddenly realize it’s not for them when we break out into war, I’d just assume they get out and get out of the way. As I mentioned before, I don’t want to be stuck next some disgruntled dissenter on the battlefield. I’m not sure where these folks are getting the perception that the military serves any other function than preparing for and fighting wars.

 

[wildsage]

I don’t know the standards for this but I would be willing to bet the Army and Marines does not allow convicts of violent crimes in. I know the AF doesn’t.

Ooooh, you would lose that one (right about the AF, though): Army, Marines enlisting more felons - Military - MSNBC.com
WASHINGTON - ...the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions ...some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.
Data released by a congressional committee shows the number of soldiers admitted to the Army with felony records jumped from 249 in 2006 to 511 in 2007. And the number of Marines with felonies rose from 208 to 350...
The bulk of the crimes involved were burglaries, other thefts, and drug offenses, but nine involved sex crimes and six involved manslaughter or vehicular homicide convictions. Several dozen Army and Marine recruits had aggravated assault or robbery convictions, including incidents involving weapons.
According to the data released Monday, a bit more than half of the Army's 511 convictions in 2007 were for various types of thefts, ranging from burglaries to bad checks and stolen cars. Another 130 were for drug offenses.
The remainder, however, included two in 2007 for manslaughter, compared to one in 2006; five for sexual crimes (which can include rape, incest or sexual assaults) compared to two in 2006; and three for negligent or vehicular homicide, compared to two in 2006. Two received waivers for terrorist threats including bomb threats in 2007, compared to one in 2006.
At least 235 of the Marine Corps' 350 waivers were for various types of thefts in 2007, and another 63 were for assaults or robberies that may also have included use of a weapon. The remainder included one for manslaughter in 2007, compared to none in 2006; four for sex crimes, compared to one in 2006; and five for terror threats, including bomb threats, compared to two in 2006.

Actually tours are now being shortened. And as I provided before, every branch is meeting or exceeding their recruiting goals which means there are plenty of “fresh bodies” that knew exactly what they were getting into. No one is putting a gun to these brave peoples’ heads to join.

Yes, that is "now" and I am glad to hear that. I would be surprised if you told me that when the tours were extended from 12 to 18 months, you didn't sympathize with the victims unless you just get enjoyment from others' misery.
Of course, to meet these goals they lowered the academic (when more high-tech equipment needs more smarter people) & moral standards and raised bonuses. Draft would have been cheaper & more effective.

Well, I’m for volunteerism. It seems to be working just fine. Once again, no one is forcing these folks to join. They don’t need our drum-beating. Your purpose for the draft is not the purpose it was meant for anyway. A draft is to provide numbers not some sort of “risk equity” just so you can feel better about the sharing of bloodshed. A draft, under your conditions, results in nothing more than fiscal and class servitude.

Servitude? I don't understand how you get that. Is that what we had in Vietnam? My conditions? I believe my description was "everyone of draft age."
Yeah, it would be nice if those who professed support for the war were the ones who went to fight it. But the loudest warmongers who sit back here beating that proverbial drum are likely not involved with any of the sacrifice, unless you count giving up golf. Oh, and whining about filling their SUVs at $4 a gallon.
The draft serves to unite the citizenry and grow a stronger national purpose. If you [not "you"] love this country, help serve it; get a feeling of pride that you did something besides shoot off your mouth. Lip-service is cheap; it's easy to claim patriotism if it requires nothing more than two Cheetohs-stained index fingers and an internet connection.

I knew your meaning. I turned the term over on you. I threw it back at you as a means to show that there are red-blooded drum-beaters on both sides of this argument. And, as much as it bugs the crap out of me that able-minded folks join to get all the benefits of the military (free education, etc…) then suddenly realize it’s not for them when we break out into war, I’d just assume they get out and get out of the way. As I mentioned before, I don’t want to be stuck next some disgruntled dissenter on the battlefield. I’m not sure where these folks are getting the perception that the military serves any other function than preparing for and fighting wars.

I knew you knew but I think the opposite of drum-beater would be olive branch-waver or maybe guitar-strummer. The ones who joined the Guard (and Reserves to a lesser extent) were justified to believe that any active service thrown their way would likely be in the nature of a helping out in a disaster (oh, right, this DID turn into a disaster). Granted, no guarantee but it's always been played up with the "hometown" theme. So big deal, these "able-minded folks" played the lottery: the situation changed, they got dragged into full-combat active-duty, they went; are you getting enjoyment out of that?

 

[wildsage]

First of all you never saw the word trash from me. You are full of provocative language. But you insinuated that our military are nothing but a bunch of poor, desperate, bumpkins that have nowhere else to go. You know as well I do that’s what the “trailer park” term was meant to convey. This characterization is just blatantly wrong.

Dude, you're full of something, too, and it ain't language. Admit that it is your hyperbole creating the straw-man argument of "our military are nothing but a bunch of poor, desperate, bumpkins that have nowhere else to go." My words were

the 19 year old trying to escape from the trailer park.

Assume what you wish from that but it is your prejudice that's showing. You didn't use the word "trash" but you wrote

I served 20 years and didn’t come from a trailer park and no one I ever knew in the military did and the statistics don’t support this.

like there's something wrong with that.
The only ones I dissed are the incompetent leaders and the chickenhawks who think it's okay for others to carry the burden while they sit back here clucking.
Do you think that no one joins up because they see a better job-opportunity? A way to get skills & education that will help them go farther in life? You think that everybody in the military were just bored with sitting around spending their inheritances? Or that as much as they loved their interesting and demanding careers they had a hankering to travel to distant foreign lands and meet exotic people then kill them? Or that they just wanted their familes to share in the national sacrifice by getting by without them? Puh-lease!

 

[wildsage]

Army, Marines enlisting more felons - Military - MSNBC.com

but at least they still keep the homosexuals out.

 

[PsyOps]

Dude, you're full of something, too, and it ain't language. Admit that it is your hyperbole creating the straw-man argument of "our military are nothing but a bunch of poor, desperate, bumpkins that have nowhere else to go."

Interesting game of semantics your playing here. Are you telling you see a difference between:

My interpretation:

our military are nothing but a bunch of poor, desperate, bumpkins that have nowhere else to go

of what you wrote:

the 19 year old trying to escape from the trailer park.

????????????

We are certainly having some language barrier problems here.

Assume what you wish from that but it is your prejudice that's showing.

There is no prejudice here. I at least recognize the reality of what our military is made up of. You have reduced your perception of them to “trailer park” residents. It’s your poor choice of words that’s all too revealing.

The only ones I dissed are the incompetent leaders and the chickenhawks who think it's okay for others to carry the burden while they sit back here clucking.

You would have saved us both a lot of if you had just limited your rhetoric to that rather than bring your provocative verbiage, regarding our troops, into it.

Do you think that no one joins up because they see a better job-opportunity? A way to get skills & education that will help them go farther in life? You think that everybody in the military were just bored with sitting around spending their inheritances? Or that as much as they loved their interesting and demanding careers they had a hankering to travel to distant foreign lands and meet exotic people then kill them? Or that they just wanted their familes to share in the national sacrifice by getting by without them? Puh-lease!

People join for a host of reasons. I haven't limited this discussion down to a poor class of people that are nothing more than desperate. I will tell you when I first joined I did it for the education benefits, training and travel. But I also knew full-well that I was there to fight wars. And if we broke out in war I would have to take up a weapon and do just that. I had no misgivings about what I was getting into. And sure enough 5 years into my service we went to war. Then we went to war again. Then again. Not once did I question what I was there for. So you’re not telling me anything I don’t know. In today’s climate if someone is joining to escape their poverty, or feel they have no other way out, not realizing we are at war, then you’re going to have to explain that one to me. There is no big joker on Pennsylvania Avenue deceptively enticing these poor unsuspecting kids to fight his big fight. I think you need to get past your anger at Bush and see some of these realities.

Bush lied, he alone deceived everyone about WMD, he fooled thousands to join his jolly cause so BushCo can scarf up all the amenities. Bush is just loading his pockets with Iraq oil money on the backs of those poor unsuspecting enlistees. In fact he was so devious that he was able to fool everyone by planning and executing 911 to start this war all so he could line his pockets. Puh-lease! I mean the whole BDS has gotten so ridiculous that it has caused folks to not see straight.

I admit Bush screwed up on a lot of things – heck I even left the GOP (in part) because of it – but much of it has gone way over the top. It just gets a little old after a while.

 

[PsyOps]

but at least they still keep the homosexuals out.

WHERE THE HECK DID THAT COME FROM????????????

 

[wildsage]

WHERE THE HECK DID THAT COME FROM????????????

Army regs; there is a list of violent crimes that people can get waivers for, but if someone admits to being a homosexual getting a waiver is not an option.

 

[PsyOps]

Army regs; there is a list of violent crimes that people can get waivers for, but if someone admits to being a homosexual getting a waiver is not an option.

On the surface it bothers me that felons (especially violent ones) are getting in, but it does not appear to be causing a problem. So what's your real worry here?

The homosexual issue is a different discussion altogether.

 

[wildsage]

Interesting game of semantics your playing here. Are you telling you see a difference between:
"our military are nothing but a bunch of poor, desperate, bumpkins that have nowhere else to go"
My interpretationf what you wrote:????????????
"the 19 year old trying to escape from the trailer park."
We are certainly having some language barrier problems here.

No, you have a comprehension problem.
are nothing but a bunch blanket statement inclusive of all in the subject group
nowhere else to go rock bottom with no alternatives
bumpkins unsophisticated yokels, or maybe short spars projecting from the deck of a ship
versus
the a singular occurrence, in this case used as a hypothetical example
Hey, there's someone in the Life in So MD forum who needs help with his resume & communication skills.

There is no prejudice here. I at least recognize the reality of what our military is made up of.

Obviously you don't if your exact words were

I served 20 years and didn’t come from a trailer park and no one I ever knew in the military did and the statistics don’t support this.

So, you don't read your own posts, either?

You would have saved us both a lot of if you had just limited your rhetoric to that rather than bring your provocative verbiage, regarding our troops, into it.

Again with the provocative -- you are just looking to manufacture some outrage.

People join for a host of reasons. I haven't limited this discussion down to a poor class of people that are nothing more than desperate. I will tell you when I first joined I did it for the education benefits, training and travel. But I also knew full-well that I was there to fight wars.

What was the clue? You went active-duty?
Please don't be obtuse. My point was that the National Guard has a history of being a homeland force for disaster recovery, public safety & security; they were called up in WWII but even bodycount-hungry Johnson & Nixon didn't send them overseas. Anyone joining that organization had a precedent for thinking that the chance of going to Iraq or Afghanistan was mighty slim -- and that aspect must weigh a lot on someone's decision whether to join up and which branch to join. Then the rules actually changed for the Guard: policy used to be 1 year active, no more than 6 months overseas on a 6 year hitch. Because Bush had problems manning up for his unpopular war, it was increased to 18 months and then 24 months. But screwing the Guard suckers was less unpopular than reinstituting the draft, so too bad for them.
I hope that you are enjoying their misery. Serves 'em right, huh?

In today’s climate...

TODAY? I'm not talking about today; I'm talking about the ones who were in before September 2001 and before 2003 who got stuck when the rules changed. My god, did you get struck on the head?

There is no big joker on Pennsylvania Avenue deceptively enticing these poor unsuspecting kids to fight his big fight.

Oh, so you think there is no deception either in the beallyoucanbe ads or in the recruiter promises?
Do you think the (false) idea that Saddam was involved with the September 11 tragedy contributed to the number of people joining up in order to go over there? You think that the majority of Americans who believed that got the idea from their own careful individual study of the information? Or is it possible that willful obfuscation by Administration officials and other neoconservatives promoted that concept because it advanced their agenda? If this damn war is so effin' popular why aren't the services turning away all but the very cream of the crop?

 

[PsyOps]

No, you have a comprehension problem.
are nothing but a bunch blanket statement inclusive of all in the subject group
nowhere else to go rock bottom with no alternatives
bumpkins unsophisticated yokels, or maybe short spars projecting from the deck of a ship
versus
the a singular occurrence, in this case used as a hypothetical example
Hey, there's someone in the Life in So MD forum who needs help with his resume & communication skills.

Is that what your argument is reduced to? Claiming I have a comprehension problem? And I suppose I can get as condescending as you…

So, you don't read your own posts, either?

Now you are showing your problem with comprehending what I am trying to say. You extrapolate one sentence from the dozens I have posted and repeat it over and over hoping your point will ring true. Doesn’t work that way. So I will clarify… 20 years showed me that the military is made up of all types. Rich, poor. Black white, Asian, women, liberals, conservatives, etc… There is no class demise going on as your blanket statement asserts. I am quite sure some came from trailer parks but I never met one. NOT A ONE. And I’ve met thousands from every branch. That’s not the point. The point is (and I know you get this) people are not joining the military to escape poverty or any other sort of demise. The vast majority are educated, intelligent, highly capable people that know exactly what they are doing when they sign. Does that clarify things for you? Or do I have to go slower?

TODAY? I'm not talking about today; I'm talking about the ones who were in before September 2001 and before 2003 who got stuck when the rules changed. My god, did you get struck on the head?

Oh, so those that joined before 911 didn’t REALLY join thinking we would have to go to war so they were deceived? What rules changed? YOU ARE JOINING A WAR MACHINE! What part of that don’t you get? It’s becoming apparent to me that it’s YOU that doesn’t get the purpose of the military so, therefore, no one else must get it either.

Oh, so you think there is no deception either in the beallyoucanbe ads or in the recruiter promises?
Do you think the (false) idea that Saddam was involved with the September 11 tragedy contributed to the number of people joining up in order to go over there? You think that the majority of Americans who believed that got the idea from their own careful individual study of the information? Or is it possible that willful obfuscation by Administration officials and other neoconservatives promoted that concept because it advanced their agenda? If this damn war is so effin' popular why aren't the services turning away all but the very cream of the crop?

Well, it seems this didn’t entice you to come back. I guess the rest are nothing more than a stupid bunch, incapable of thinking for themselves…….. except you of course. You really don’t see how demoralizing you sound do you?

 

[wildsage]

On the surface it bothers me that felons (especially violent ones) are getting in, but it does not appear to be causing a problem. So what's your real worry here?

Only bothers you on the surface, huh? In your gut you feel it's okay? Would it feel okay if you had a daughter serving over there?
Sex-assault cases from Iraq often stall - The Denver Post
"investigators compiled evidence to prosecute a Fort Stewart, Ga., sergeant on claims he sexually assaulted three subordinate battalion members...
"evidence was gathered to prosecute a military police officer on one of two rape allegations...
"Those cases are among three dozen closed investigations involving alleged assaults on troops by other military personnel released to The Post under the Freedom of Information Act. The Army records offer the clearest picture yet into the military's handling of sexual assault reports during the Iraq war...
"Many of the Army cases - 25 others are still sealed awaiting disciplinary action - confirm trends among reports from female GIs who said they were attacked by fellow soldiers during the Afghanistan and Iraq military operations...
"three Fort Bragg, N.C., soldiers with the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion were accused of assaulting an Iraqi woman held in the Abu Ghraib prison. Although no details were provided, the report notes that the enlisted men were each fined at least $500 and demoted in rank.
"Another case involving an assault on an Iraqi citizen led to a six-year prison sentence for a 4th Infantry Division soldier. He was found guilty by court-martial of repeatedly molesting an Iraqi boy in Kirkuk.
"Such convictions were rare, even for those believed to have committed multiple offenses. Several soldiers who avoided prosecution faced more than one sex-assault allegation or were suspected of assaulting more than one victim."
Rapists in the ranks - Los Angeles Times
"Numbers reported by the Department of Defense show a sickening pattern. In 2006, 2,947 sexual assaults were reported -- 73% more than in 2004. The DOD's newest report, released this month, indicates that 2,688 reports were made in 2007, but a recent shift from calendar-year reporting to fiscal-year reporting makes comparisons with data from previous years much more difficult."

We can't really know how many of those violent cases are perpetrated by soldiers who benefited from the increasing number of criminal waivers granted, since the Army doesn't follow-up on that aspect. Somehow this one came to light, though:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/u...8165f951&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
"On the last day of January 2005...the [now] former Army private accused of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and murdering her family, sat in a Texas jail on alcohol-possession charges, an unemployed 19-year-old high school dropout who had just racked up his third misdemeanor conviction."
ABC News: Lawyers: Try Soldier in Military Court
"[He] had been honorably discharged from the military with psychiatric problems when allegations surfaced of U.S. military involvement in the March 12, 2006 slayings."

The homosexual issue is a different discussion altogether.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf
The military services separated 9,488 members pursuant to the homosexual conduct policy statute from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003, some of whom were in critical occupations or had important foreign language skills. Seven hundred fifty-seven (about 8 percent) of these separated servicemembers held critical occupations (“voice interceptor,” “data processing technician,” or “interpreter/translator”), as defined by the services. About 59 percent of the members with critical occupations who were separated for homosexual conduct were separated during their first 2.5 years of service, which is about 1.5 years before the expiration of the initial service contract of most enlistees. Such contracts are typically for 4 years. Also, 322 members (about 3 percent) had some skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, and Korean.

 

[wildsage]

Is that what your argument is reduced to? Claiming I have a comprehension problem? And I suppose I can get as condescending as you…

Dude, when you keep misinterpreting my plain English that's the only explanation I can come up with.

Now you are showing your problem with comprehending what I am trying to say. You extrapolate one sentence from the dozens I have posted and repeat it over and over hoping your point will ring true.

When you backpedal and try to shovel your BS attitude (re trailer dwellers) onto me, I point you back to your straw-man statement.

Doesn’t work that way. So I will clarify… 20 years showed me that the military is made up of all types. Rich, poor. Black white, Asian, women, liberals, conservatives, etc…

I never asserted differently; you however took great offense that I suggested an enlistee might be poor and trying for a better opportunity.

There is no class demise going on as your blanket statement asserts.

Again, show me where I made that statement; I only showed you the Army's own information that they are reducing required education & lawfulness for acceptable candidates when you denied such a thing was happening.

I am quite sure some came from trailer parks but I never met one. NOT A ONE. And I’ve met thousands from every branch.

Statistically, that's pretty effin' unlikely; it might be more accurate to say that you knew of no one who lived in a trailer park. Or maybe you were always at the elevated echelons and didn't mix with other than country-clubbers.

That’s not the point. The point is (and I know you get this) people are not joining the military to escape poverty or any other sort of demise.

Can you assert that no one -- NO ONE -- enters the military to escape poverty? And what other demise? Getting a job when you [not "you"] have a criminal record?

The vast majority are educated, intelligent, highly capable people

Again, I never claimed otherwise.

that know exactly what they are doing when they sign. Does that clarify things for you? Or do I have to go slower?

My god, you really must be senile. How many 17 to 19 year-olds have you ever met "who know exactly what they are doing"? You never met anyone in 20 years who complained that they missed something because they listened to the recruiter rather than read the fine print? Yeah, you'd better slow down before something pops.

Oh, so those that joined before 911 didn’t REALLY join thinking we would have to go to war so they were deceived?

You're going to dispute the perception and historical precedent of hometown service in the Guard? One weekend a month, two weeks a year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, at the time of the Vietnam War, President Johnson made it clear that the National Guard's role was to defend the country and not to be involved in overseas adventures. At the time this meant that those who joined the force could be fairly sure of not seeing action in the war.
The National Guard remains less well equipped and trained than front line combat units. This is a typical situation in the "self defense" forces of many countries. These forces expected to act as a second line of defense, primarily motivated by the fact that they are defending their own homes and families.
The commitment to Iraq has meant that many National Guards feel the terms in which they understood their recruitment have been breached. The slogan has now become known in a changed form, "One weekend a month my ass", as a comment on the perceived mistreatment of the National Guard reservists.

What rules changed?

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prior to the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, the National Guard's general policy regarding mobilization was that Guardsmen would be required to serve no more than one year cumulative on active duty (with no more than six months overseas) for each five years of regular drill. Due to strains placed on active duty units following the attacks, the possible mobilization time was increased to 18 months (with no more than one year overseas). Additional strains placed on military units as a result of the invasion of Iraq further increased the amount of time a Guardsman could be mobilized to 24 months. Current Department of Defense policy is that no Guardsman will be involuntarily activated for more than 24 months (cumulative) in one six year enlistment period.

Well, it seems this didn’t entice you to come back. [???] I guess the rest are nothing more than a stupid bunch, incapable of thinking for themselves…

Yet again, you make exaggerated broadly inclusive statements disparaging the whole military community when I didn't. So your next post will put that one on me, too, right?

You really don’t see how demoralizing you sound do you?

I did not make the situation but I'm not going to pretend that it's rosy so that you can sleep better at night. If you ask me if that dress makes your ass look fat, I'll tell you the truth.
If I make an assertion, I back it up. Show me to be wrong and I'll admit it. Wish you'd do the same.

 

[PsyOps]

Only bothers you on the surface, huh? In your gut you feel it's okay? Would it feel okay if you had a daughter serving over there?

It seems you've made it your life's task to weed out all the bad in this war from all the good things that have happened. Your anger and bitterness wont let you see beyond that.

YES, I would be okay with my daughter (and I have one) serving over there. She is 21 and perfectly capable of making her own decisions. Once again, something you don't think anyone but yourself is capable of doing.

When you backpedal and try to shovel your BS attitude (re trailer dwellers) onto me, I point you back to your straw-man statement.

…that's pretty effin' unlikely… Or maybe you were always at the elevated echelons and didn't mix with other than country-clubbers.

My god, you really must be senile.

You exemplify what I have learned to be the hostile far left. Unable to hold a civil debate.

We’re done. It’s been … err…. Fun.

 

[wildsage]

I sincerely hope she makes it back whole & healthy and before too much longer.

 

[PsyOps]

I sincerely hope she makes it back whole & healthy and before too much longer.

I have a daughter, but she is not in the military. If she were to join and have to fight in this war, it would be difficult as a parent, but I would respect her wishes and salute her for it.

I apologize I wasn't clearer on that and appreciate your well wishes.