|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
You're changing the "rules of the debate" again to suit your own purpose and hoping no one notices.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I'm more open to hearing from soldiers after they're back and...Once they're back they can see things more objectively. Then if they say they believe in what they did, and the war itself, I hold it with more credence.
In response, I posted the CSM article. This article interviewed soldiers who had, in fact, "finish[ed] their tour" and were back home. These soldiers, rather than "say all the bad shit they went through," complained that the coverage of the war was too negative and that the "bad shit" was outweighed by the positive aspects of the mission.
Faced with evidence that contradicted your argument, you did not "hold it with more credence."
Instead, you first accused the Christian Science Monitor of being an unreliable source. (Basically, you accused the newspaper of lying) However, others (myself, WBAM and Theo), then demonstrated that it was a reliable, and Pulitizer prize winning, newspaper.
Faced with that, you first made a few lame, bigoted, jokes about the Christian Science religion.
In addition, you restated your original premise to avoid admitting your original theory was wrong. Instead of claiming that soldiers home from Iraq would attack the war and President Bush, you now claim that you meant that soldiers who were home AND completely discharged from the military would do so.
Furthermore, your premise ignores one simple fact: even if the soldiers did not want to insult the President or the Army, there is nothing "forcing" them to speak so positively about the war effort. If anything, all they would have to do is refuse these interviews. Therefore, the fact they agreed to the interviews tends to show they are genuine in their views and support of the war effort.
As such, by claiming the soldiers are actively misstating their views of the war to the press, once again you have called the soldiers liars.
So, let's recap: the administration is lying, the Christian Science Monitor is lying, even the soldiers are lying.
Why not just trot out the "vast right wing conspiracy" theory and be done with it?
you edited my quote to cut out the "and, preferably no longer in the army." Not finished their tour but were still on inactive duty.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
The fact you said " preferably out the army" means you were conceding that this was not a variable you considered crucial to your theory.
Furthermore, there is more evidence to rebut your theory that the soldier's are lying:
USAToday and the the Wall St. Journal are reporting that soldiers are re-enlisting at greater rates than targeted and are optimistic about chances for success in Iraq.
If, as you claimed, the soliders are lying about their feelings because they are still on active duty, then they would not re-enlist. They would stay home, attack the war and attack the president. The fact that they are re-enlisting would, conversely, tend to indicate they are telling the truth about their optimism for Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
The fact you said "preferably out the army" means you were conceding that this was not a variable you considered crucial to your theory.
Furthermore, there is more evidence to rebut your theory that the soldier's are lying:
USAToday and the the Wall St. Journal are reporting that soldiers are re-enlisting at greater rates than targeted and are optimistic about chances for success in Iraq.
If, as you claimed, the soliders are lying about their feelings because they are still on active duty, then they would not re-enlist. They would stay home, attack the war and attack the president. The fact that they are re-enlisting would, conversely, tend to indicate they are telling the truth about their optimism for Iraq.
As I've said earlier, soldiers are people and people have varying opinions. Some soldiers are in the military for careers and see it as a job regardless of politics, others are forced into it, others believe in it, and others become disillusioned.
It really proves nothing either way, same as how it proves nothing to have a soldier who hates the war to "prove" my point.
Remember that Axis and Allied soldiers both felt the same way and just followed their orders.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
You're backtracking again.
You started out telling us how the soldiers who spoke positively about the war and defended the president had no choice. You STRONGLY insinuated they were lying and that, as soon as they got home, they would change their stories to attack Bush/the war. You said you wanted to hear what they said when they got home, indicating that you considered those opinions relevant.
Now, you're admitting they were telling the truth, but claiming their opinions are irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
You're backtracking again.
You started out telling us how the soldiers who spoke positively about the war and defended the president had no choice.
no i said that it would be career suicide to speak out against the war and the president.
Quote:
You STRONGLY insinuated they were lying and that, as soon as they got home, they would change their stories to attack Bush/the war.
no, for the reasons above i said it was suspect and i'd prefer to hear from them after they're no longer in the service.
Quote:
You said you wanted to hear what they said when they got home, indicating that you considered those opinions relevant.
i really don't care what their opinions are for the most part because they are just people with their own opinions, not expert genius historian rocket scientists.
Quote:
Now, you're admitting they were telling the truth, but claiming their opinions are irrelevant.
do you even know how to read? or did you sell that ability for your Fox News subscription.
And on Fonzie's birthday 
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
G-man and r3x: It doesn't really matter what soldiers on the ground think. They are not policy makers and have a view of a limited area of the conflict. Can't see the forest for the trees?
G-man: Those huge bonuses for extending enlistment wouldn't have anything to do with that, would they? This is, after-all, a mercenary army.
r3x: Asking a subordinate to criticize a superior is rude anyway you put it. Bush is the Commander in Chief. Publicly criticizing him would be a violation of their oath.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
do you even know how to read? or did you sell that ability for your Fox News subscription.
I think the record of your own words amply demonstrates my point, and belies your denials.
Furthermore, the fact you are disingenuosly attacking, and even misstating, my sources is additional evidence of the failure of your position.
You are now falling back on your "attack the source" ploy by making a "Fox News" joke. However,even if one accepts the flawed premise that Fox is inaccurate, the record will demonstrate that I did not use Fox as the source. The articles were from such sources as USAToday, the Wall St. Journal and Christian Science Monitor.
And, most damning to your position, your own posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I think it's funny you're actually arguing this point, but...
Quote:
casselmm47 said:
Hh?
Hh is not a word.
Quote:
casselmm47 said:
Sure, they can demote you, but that takes an appreciable effort on the part of the command, and you really have to do something stupid to warrant the demotion.
Not really. I've known fellow sailors who went up for things like refusing to take medical shots that could possibly have dire effects to forgetting to turn a valve during a potentially dangerous procedure.
Quote:
casselmm47 said:
Especially if you've achieved a high enough rank, where it takes an act of Cngress (or just short of same) to authorize a pay/rank cut.
Congress? Perhaps, if you ram a ship or plane into foreign soil. Otherwise, Congress does not care. Congress doesn't have time to worry about 99.9% of the cases for demotion in the military.
Also, who gets involved is very different between enlisted and commissioned personnel.
Quote:
casselmm47 said:
The same applies to taking away the pay. Even for privates, it takes a blatant enough act on the part of the grunt to get slammed for the funds. Sending you to Alaska? Hey... it counts as OCONUS service. Not friggin' likely.
What's your point. I said that things worse than being fired can happen to someone in the military. All you've done is support that statement.
Quote:
casselmm47 said:
And scrubbing decks and peeling onions... are you talking about the US military or a fuckin' pirate crew? Welcome to the 21st century.  
I'm talking about the U.S. Military. More specifically, the USS George Washington CVN-73 where I served for four of my six years in the Navy. Maybe you had an easy command where no one got punished, but the 73 averaged about 3 or 4 Captain's Masts a week. Ask around, I ain't the only one who knows the military isn't exactly afraid to hand out its own brand of justice.
Welcome to the real world, lol :P
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
The Navy can be pretty tough. I've an uncle that retired as a Captain. I recall the Navy geting really pissed when he wrecked a perfectly good fighter-bomber!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
I worked with this ex-Navy guy who said that the Navy has a high number of gay folks.
Apparently that's where gay people go when they want to be all that they can be.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
It worked for the Village People.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648 |
What it comes down to is, you have to be a real fuck-up or shit-stirrer to get into a reprimand issue.
Quote:
refusing to take medical shots that could possibly have dire effects to forgetting to turn a valve during a potentially dangerous procedure
Refusing to take shots = refusing an order. 'Possibly' is the arguement for disobeying?  The valve thing? Sounds more 'life and death' in that situation. Not following procedure and SOP.
Quote:
Congress doesn't have time to worry about 99.9% of the cases for demotion in the military.
Also, who gets involved is very different between enlisted and commissioned personnel.
If it involves an officer, you can bet it's gonna start getting political. And since Congress has to approve some of these promotions (especially when you're talking senior enlisted and officers), you can bet they'll want to know what's going on if there a demotion on the horizon.
As for the junior enlisted... I'd guess that most of the incidents where these folks are getting demoted, pay cut, etc, they're cases of failure to adjust to military rules and regs, insubordination, negligence of duty and a whole bunch of other 'young-dumb-full-of-cum' hijinks. Don't bitch when you spill some shit on you in the process of stirring it.
Quote:
I said that things worse than being fired can happen to someone in the military
Such as? This is more 'justifiable things that'll happen to you if you're an idiot or fuckup'. Unless people who screw up shouldn't be punished....? Maybe the military should start 'time out' for malcontents.
Then again, the 'stress card' military might not be made of the sturdier stock it used to. Poor them. Kids who can't take the stress of Basic Training who just need somone to talk to when their Drill gets in their face. The recent PC 'candyassing' of our military.
As for the link of other 'poor, undeserving folks' who met a different brand of military justice, this sounds like the same bunch of losers that would get fired from a civilian job for laziness, not showing up, etc. Where they probably mentioning the 'final straw' that gets them booted from the military, I'm sure they're leaving out a whole bunch of other 'details' that led up to the decision.
I teach part of the TAP program every week at Fort Drum nowadays on how to go to an interview. Based on how some seperating service members answer some of the practice questions (things an employer might ask you), I'm suprised how some lunkheads ever made it through a promotion board. Of course, I get to see some of the infantry types that come through Fort Drum. I've heard all the 'poor me' stories abot their OTH discharges, and don't have sympathy for any of them.
Similarly, there's also prisons full of innocent people. Just ask 'em!
I especially liked the one who was tossed because he got busted for using steroids. Poor him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
casselmm47 said:
What it comes down to is, you have to be a real fuck-up or shit-stirrer to get into a reprimand issue.
Which only supports my initial point, which, if my quote function serves, was:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
In the military, a soldier, sailor, or whatever is under contract for a fixed number of years. That means he or she can't quit until his or her end of enlistment or commission. And THAT MEANS that until that time, the military can do whatever the heck they feel like with you, including demote you, take away half your pay for the rest of your time in, make you scrub the decks and peel the onions...forever, or send you to Alaska (winter coat not provided).
As far as the rest of your post goes, you say someone in the military has to do something very fucked up to incur the military's wrath. Okay, great. I wouldn't agree, but I don't see how that matters because even in saying that, you support my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648 |
Except you make it sound like they can and will do it even if you're an upstanding member of the service. Do some commanders get a 'God Complex' and come down harsher than other commanders for the same infractions? Probably. There's enough anecdotal evidence to back that up. But that's not a systemic breakdown as it is individual cases of faulty discretion in exerting authority. I've seen a few First Sergeants relived of their duties for such, even provided testimony to an Article 16 procedure when one of my former 1SGs stepped over the line. Quote:
the military can do whatever the heck they feel like with you
Even here, they are bound by the policy, rules and regulations. If they want to demote someone, they need a damn good reason...not on a 'whim'.
Stoploss for example. No one person is likely to be 'singled out' to stay in the service. If it happens, it'll be by MOS/rating/etc. And it'll be justified by a significant shortage in a certain job specialty.
IRR. When you sign up, you are essentially signing up for an extended 8 year gig. For example, if you got out after 4 years in 2000 and got called back up in 2002 to go play in the sand, that was part of the contract yor origianlly signed back in '96.
Quote:
you say someone in the military has to do something very fucked up to incur the military's wrath. Okay, great. I wouldn't agree
Again, prisons are just full of innocent people.
I'm really sure every disgruntled grunt with a blog is gonna come right out and admit how much of a cock-up they are, but instead will color and distort the 'facts' of their dismissal from the service to sound as sympathetic as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
However,even if one accepts the flawed premise that Fox is inaccurate
Why is this a flawed premise?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
However,even if one accepts the flawed premise that Fox is inaccurate
Why is this a flawed premise?
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
yeah..they are the right side of the normal media left side..hence, it's all bullshit you have to decipher to get any real truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797 Likes: 40 |
Anyone else notice that they've been less biased lately, or is it just me? (talking about regular network FOX not cable FOX)
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
However,even if one accepts the flawed premise that Fox is inaccurate
Why is this a flawed premise?
Is this "truth"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
My point is simply that you can't assume that, in any given story, Fox is inaccurate simply because you don't like the politics of the owner.
I am not going to concede that Fox is or was inaccuate simply because Ray likes to insult it. Hence, my off hand comment as part of a larger post.
However, in the case at hand, as noted above, the source wasn't even Fox news.
Furthermore, the link you just posted to "Is this Accurate" is to a story that doesn't even mention Fox.
So why are you trying to derail a thread about the troops in Iraq to discuss Fox News?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
I think the inverse is also true, i.e. that no news source can be assumed to be true becuase of the politics of the owner. That's all I was saying.
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
by definition if its prearranged, then its staged.
It was completely fucking staged. The Associated Press is reporting that Debby Smith, the woman who President Obama hugged during yesterday's town hall meeting and promised to help after she described her difficulties getting treatment for a tumor, "is a volunteer for Organizing for America, Obama's political operation within the Democratic National Committee" who "obtained her ticket through the White House."
|
|
|
|
|
