NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/?source=rss
Completely disgusting. If they try to send my brother I will personally drive to DC and picket the white house. Fucking ridiculous.
On Feb. 15, Master Sgt. Jenkins and 74 other soldiers with medical conditions from the 3rd Division's 3rd Brigade were summoned to a meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon. These are the men responsible for handling each soldier's "physical profile," an Army document that lists for commanders an injured soldier's physical limitations because of medical problems -- from being unable to fire a weapon to the inability to move and dive in three-to-five-second increments to avoid enemy fire. Jenkins and other soldiers claim that the division and brigade surgeons summarily downgraded soldiers' profiles, without even a medical exam, in order to deploy them to Iraq. It is a claim division officials deny.

Absolutely despicable.

Completely disgusting.

My thoughts, as well.

And it turns out this is all to get enough warm bodies together for President Bush's "surge". He doesn't care about our soldiers so long as they die to give him a manly sounding operation.

The nice thing about this is that maybe there will finally be a market for my 'Purpler Heart' medals. :)

Heh, Divisional Officials deny it...

Heh, Divisional Officials deny it...

They couldn't find any troops to deny it, though, could they?

I’m confused isn’t America the superpower with the worlds biggest military budget?

These aren’t the actions of Klingons!

You're acting as though this is somehow unusual. It's standard military policy and has been for all of US History.

Most other nations do it as well.

You're acting as though this is somehow unusual. It's standard military policy and has been for all of US History.

Most other nations do it as well.

They're not just sending people who've mostly healed up into Iraq. Some of these soldiers are incapable of carrying gear or even body armor. One woman with a spinal injury isn't supposed to carry more than 15 poinds. and then they're sending a narcoleptic truck driver.

sounds like the Family Guy i watched last week, getting shot you no longer go home and they had two dead guys guarding the ammo dump

They're not just sending people who've mostly healed up into Iraq. Some of these soldiers are incapable of carrying gear or even body armor. One woman with a spinal injury isn't supposed to carry more than 15 poinds. and then they're sending a narcoleptic truck driver.

So he won't drive a truck anymore. And she won't have to lift anything.

And if you're sitting on the FOB and never leave it (like most clerks), you won't be wearing body armor or carrying gear.

Contrary to your image of the military, 80 to 90 percent of the military personnel are not in combat jobs, and spend their entire tour there on the FOB eating Burger King and sitting behind a desk.

So he won't drive a truck anymore. And she won't have to lift anything.

And if you're sitting on the FOB and never leave it (like most clerks), you won't be wearing body armor or carrying gear.

Contrary to your image of the military, 80 to 90 percent of the military personnel are not in combat jobs, and spend their entire tour there on the FOB eating Burger King and sitting behind a desk.

is there nothing, NOTHING this administration can do that won't have you sticking your nose so far up their ass that it comes out their mouths? Is there nothing they can do that won't make you prostrate yourself on the altar of apologetics? Is there no act so dispicable that this administration could carry out that you would not support and defend?

Have you absolutly no shame?

is there nothing, NOTHING this administration can do that won't have you sticking your nose so far up their ass that it comes out their mouths? Is there nothing they can do that won't make you prostrate yourself on the altar of apologetics? Is there no act so dispicable that this administration could carry out that you would not support and defend?

Have you absolutly no shame?

Is there nothing that you can't read without blaming Bush? Aren't you familiar with military policy for the past 200 years?

is there nothing, NOTHING this administration can do that won't have you sticking your nose so far up their ass that it comes out their mouths? Is there nothing they can do that won't make you prostrate yourself on the altar of apologetics? Is there no act so dispicable that this administration could carry out that you would not support and defend?

Have you absolutly no shame?

Of course he has no shame. He once said that killing Muslims was better than sex.

Is there nothing that you can't read without blaming Bush? Aren't you familiar with military policy for the past 200 years?

yes, I am quite familiar with the policy of "if a soldier is hurt, try to place him in a position that he can do even with his injuries"

I am NOT familiar with any policy, of any nation, ever, that says "if a soldier is hurt, fake his medical records to make it appear that his injuries are not as serious as they are so that we can place him in a position that medically he is not capable of doing".

Tell me, if they were really going to accomodate the injuries of the soldiers, as you so state, why in HELL would they alter the records to downgrade the official record of their injury?

if they were going to accomodate them, for what POSSIBLE reason would they have to make it look like their injuries were less severe. The only possible reason to fake a soldier's medical records in this mannor is if you intend to send them into positions they are not medically fit to be in.

But go ahead, wipe the shit from your nose then tell me how this has been "military policy". Or, failing that, read the god damned article. The military is not accused of "sending hurt people back" as you so idiotically seem to suggest it is. Yes, we all know that. If you are in the military you can be sent back, even with injuries, if you are put in a position where your injuries will not prevent you from doing your duty. This is ok, this is acceptable.

This however is about the military FAKING MEDICAL RECORDS. Get that? The accusation is not that "hurt people are sent back", the accusation is "the medical records of hurt people are being altered to make it look as if they are not as injured, so they can be sent into duties they are not capable of doing"

Can even you understand this difference?

yes, I am quite familiar with the policy of "if a soldier is hurt, try to place him in a position that he can do even with his injuries"

I am NOT familiar with any policy, of any nation, ever, that says "if a soldier is hurt, fake his medical records to make it appear that his injuries are not as serious as they are so that we can place him in a position that medically he is not capable of doing".

Tell me, if they were really going to accomodate the injuries of the soldiers, as you so state, why in HELL would they alter the records to downgrade the official record of their injury?

if they were going to accomodate them, for what POSSIBLE reason would they have to make it look like their injuries were less severe. The only possible reason to fake a soldier's medical records in this mannor is if you intend to send them into positions they are not medically fit to be in.

But go ahead, wipe the shit from your nose then tell me how this has been "military policy"

Where do you get "fake" from?

Downgrading your profile occurs on a regular basis, according to regulation. A medical board meets regularly, and reassesses your condition. If they feel you're fit, you go back to active duty, with certain restrictions according to your medical profile.

Where do you get "fake" from?

Downgrading your profile occurs on a regular basis, according to regulation. A medical board meets regularly, and reassesses your condition. If they feel you're fit, you go back to active duty, with certain restrictions according to your medical profile.

I dunno, maybe it is this part:

Jenkins and other soldiers claim that the division and brigade surgeons summarily downgraded soldiers' profiles, without even a medical exam

I'm curious how a medical board would reassess your condition, without ever...you know...reassessing your condition.

They magically discerned you were feeling better? Ouiji board? Divine intervention?

Go on brown noser, tell me how they could change their medical profile without actually examining them to see if their medical status has changed.

Let me guess, they looked back on past exams, and sorta figured "ehh, they're fine now?"

Educated guess?

Or maybe they were wrong the first time. That's it, the initial evaluations were wrong, and they went back and found they were wrong, and changed them.

All 74 of them.

yeah, that's the ticket.

I dunno, maybe it is this part:



I'm curious how a medical board would reassess your condition, without ever...you know...reassessing your condition.

They magically discerned you were feeling better? Ouiji board? Divine intervention?

Go on brown noser, tell me how they could change their medical profile without actually examining them to see if their medical status has changed.

Let me guess, they looked back on past exams, and sorta figured "ehh, they're fine now?"

Educated guess?

Or maybe they were wrong the first time. That's it, the initial evaluations were wrong, and they went back and found they were wrong, and changed them.

All 74 of them.

yeah, that's the ticket.


They look at your medical record, and you stand there personally before the board. That's how it works.

The board itself does not itself conduct the exams. Maybe your tinfoil hat is on too tight for you to realize that this method is longstanding, written in stone, and known to every soldier.

It's been around for ages. You're going to say that Bush wrote this policy before he was born?

Disgusting.

No, that was another poster.

He once said that killing Muslims was better than sex.

Disgusting.

They look at your medical record, and you stand there personally before the board. That's how it works.

That's absolute bullshit. No honest, competant doctor would change your medical condition based on looking at you. Are you honestly telling me that it is standard operating procedure for someone with a spinal injury to have their condition lowered because someone LOOKS at them standing in front of them?

What the hell?

It's been around for ages. You're going to say that Bush wrote this policy before he was born?

Are you telling me, with a straight face, in all honesty, that it is the policy of the US military to change the status of a patient without conducting a medical exam to ensure that his status has changed?

Yes or no, is it the policy of the military that they can downgrade a patient's status without determining medically whether that status has changed sufficiently to warrant a downgrade?

That's absolute bullshit. No honest, competant doctor would change your medical condition based on looking at you. Are you honestly telling me that it is standard operating procedure for someone with a spinal injury to have their condition lowered because someone LOOKS at them standing in front of them?

What the hell?



Are you telling me, with a straight face, in all honesty, that it is the policy of the US military to change the status of a patient without conducting a medical exam to ensure that his status has changed?

Yes or no, is it the policy of the military that they can downgrade a patient's status without determining medically whether that status has changed sufficiently to warrant a downgrade?

It's all in your medical record. They review the stuff that's been put in there - the x-rays, the doctor's reports, everything.

That's what they review. And they ask you questions.

That's how it works.

Next thing you'll be telling me that these soldiers received ZERO medical care and ZERO entries in their records... nothing to review.

They look at your medical record. Since you've been in hospital, they have a daily record of your chart. All your lab tests, etc.

They grade you this way:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/l/blpulse.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/blmedstandards.htm

It's all in your medical record. They review the stuff that's been put in there - the x-rays, the doctor's reports, everything.

That's what they review. And they ask you questions.

That's how it works.

Next thing you'll be telling me that these soldiers received ZERO medical care and ZERO entries in their records... nothing to review.

That was not a yes or a no answer.

I will repeat the question. Is it your position that it is official policy of the military to downgrade the status of a soldier without a new examination to determine whether or not his status should be changed?

Is it your position that medical staff can accurately diagnose someone's development through old xrays and "asking them questions"? And that is the policy of the military to, rather than conduct a new exam to determine if the patient has recovered, look at old results, and ask them questions?

Yes or no? Is it your position that the military of the united states determines whether someone has recovered, and to what extent they have recovered, without conducting a new medical exam?

But, I'm sure you think they pull this out of their ass, and have no system at all...

That was not a yes or a no answer.

I will repeat the question. Is it your position that it is official policy of the military to downgrade the status of a soldier without a new examination to determine whether or not his status should be changed?

They look at your medical record. Since you've been in hospital the whole time under treatment, you're getting assessed by the local doctor every day.

Every day.

The board only needs to see those records.

They look at your medical record. Since you've been in hospital, they have a daily record of your chart. All your lab tests, etc.

They grade you this way:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/l/blpulse.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/blmedstandards.htm

Read...the fucking...article.

claim that the division and brigade surgeons summarily downgraded soldiers' profiles, without even a medical exam

They are claiming that there WERE no new lab results. There WERE no new xrays. There WERE no new medical results.

They claim that their conditions were changed WITHOUT ANY MEDICAL EXAM TO INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT IT HAD CHANGED

Get it?

Someone's "charts" are generally crap for determining these things. Charts monitor respiration, heart rate, and how much medication has been disbursed. It will do shit all to see if one's broken spine has healed.

Now if you want to know if someone's broken spine is healed, you take a NEW xray. You do not, as you seem to suggest, look at old xrays of when it was still broken, and ask him how he is feeling.

They look at your medical record. Since you've been in hospital the whole time under treatment, you're getting assessed by the local doctor every day.

Every day.

The board only needs to see those records.

That's just it, and you're too thick headed to get it. THey are claiming that NO, this is exactly what was NOT done

Get it? That's what they are saying. That there was no new assessment. Nobody checked to see if they were recovering.

That's the whole damned problem.

Read...the fucking...article.

They are claiming

Claims are one thing.

I can claim that you're an idiot.

Doesn't make it true.

They need evidence - and the system even provides for them to bring that evidence to the review board.

but of course in your world, they performed exactly as procedure dictated. Also, apparently, in your world, officials deny doing things that conformed to procedure, rather than simply stating "what we did conformed to procedure".

Fascinating isn't it? It's amazing that officials deny doing something that, according to you, was perfectly fine to do.

but of course in your world, they performed exactly as procedure dictated. Also, apparently, in your world, officials deny doing things that conformed to procedure, rather than simply stating "what we did conformed to procedure".

Fascinating isn't it? It's amazing that officials deny doing something that, according to you, was perfectly fine to do.

In your world, an accusation is final proof. Fascinating, isn't it?

Claims are one thing.

I can claim that you're an idiot.

Doesn't make it true.

They need evidence - and the system even provides for them to bring that evidence to the review board.

and that is exactly what they are doing. Stop shifting arguments.

First it was "what they did was just fine according to procedure"

When you were asked if it was standard procedure to make determinations without new medical exams it was "well they run tests, and then use those tests to make a determination"

Now when pointed out that the claim is that those tests were NOT in fact run, it becomes "well there's no evidence of that".

Now if you were at all, even the slightest bit intellectually honest you would have come out and said "well yes, if their allegations are true, this is a problem, but they must still prove their allegations" then you wouldn't have sounded so much like a hack.

But no, you went immediatly into "this is procedure, they did nothing wrong!" and only when pinned down and forced to admit it THEN do you pull the old standby of "well they haven't proven it yet".

See most intellectually honest people go "if that's true that's terrible" and do NOT go "no, nothing wrong here, nope nope nope they did everything fine" and then only own up to their own partisan hackery when forced to.

Now, are you ready to admit that if these claims are true then, in fact, this was NOT done according to policy, despite your earlier instance that it was all just fine?

In your world, an accusation is final proof. Fascinating, isn't it?

gee, I wasn't aware that this thread forum a court room, this thread a trial, and me a jury member.

See, here's the problem. "I believe they are right" "I believe they are wrong" these are opinions, and we are free to have them. I can decide whether I believe them or not. I am free to do so, I can hold my opinion. I am not on a jury.

You however did not try to state your opinion, you tried to state fact. "What the doctors did was entirely acceptable under policy" is a statement of fact. And facts can be true, or false. You tried to make a statement of fact, and got called on your dishonesty.

Now you're trying to shift it back, saying "well it's just an accusation omg!" Yes it is, and they will have an opportunity to demonstrate it. I make no claims as to whether they are correct or not.

I do state that IF they are correct then this breached policy. This is a statement of fact. You tried, through your typical partisan hackery, to alter that statement, and failed miserably.

and that is exactly what they are doing. Stop shifting arguments.

First it was "what they did was just fine according to procedure"

When you were asked if it was standard procedure to make determinations without new medical exams it was "well they run tests, and then use those tests to make a determination"

Now when pointed out that the claim is that those tests were NOT in fact run, it becomes "well there's no evidence of that".

Now if you were at all, even the slightest bit intellectually honest you would have come out and said "well yes, if their allegations are true, this is a problem, but they must still prove their allegations" then you wouldn't have sounded so much like a hack.

But no, you went immediatly into "this is procedure, they did nothing wrong!" and only when pinned down and forced to admit it THEN do you pull the old standby of "well they haven't proven it yet".

See most intellectually honest people go "if that's true that's terrible" and do NOT go "no, nothing wrong here, nope nope nope they did everything fine" and then only own up to their own partisan hackery when forced to.

Now, are you ready to admit that if these claims are true then, in fact, this was NOT done according to policy, despite your earlier instance that it was all just fine?

The claims are not true. So everything up to this point is just fine.

That's intellectual honesty.

Until they provide written proof - the claims are complete bullshit.

You do know there is such a thing as malingering, right?

The claims are not true. So everything up to this point is just fine.

That's intellectual honesty.

Until they provide written proof - the claims are complete bullshit.

That's complete nonsense. Their claims are either true, or they are false. Providing evidence doesn't magically transform a false claim into a true one.

It merely provides evidence to support the fact that the claims are, in fact, true.

I note with great amusement that in the span of 20 minutes you've gone from "nothing was done wrong here" to "they're lying".

What happened exactly? Still can't admit you were wrong? I'm going to start calling you Corneliu II, the similarity is striking.

Arthais, your automatic assumption that the military did something wrong, and that Bush is to blame (see your previous posts), is intellectual dishonesty.

You have zero proof for your claims.

I have provided proof for how the system works, including links.

You have shown no evidence at all - but claim I am dishonest.

More to your idea that mere allegations with zero proof are all that are required.

Oh, and while you're at it, prove that the system was designed by Bush - go ahead, prove it's Bush's fault.

That's complete nonsense. Their claims are either true, or they are false. Providing evidence doesn't magically transform a false claim into a true one.

It merely provides evidence to support the fact that the claims are, in fact, true.

I note with great amusement that in the span of 20 minutes you've gone from "nothing was done wrong here" to "they're lying".

What happened exactly? Still can't admit you were wrong? I'm going to start calling you Corneliu II, the similarity is striking.

I'm not saying they're lying. They are the ones making the allegations - the burden of proof is on them.

Arthais, your automatic assumption that the military did something wrong, and that Bush is to blame (see your previous posts), is intellectual dishonesty.

Please show me where I said that I was sure they were honest.

I have provided proof for how the system works, including links

You have shown no evidence at all - but claim I am dishonest.

More to your idea that mere allegations with zero proof are all that are required.

Oh, and while you're at it, prove that the system was designed by Bush - go ahead, prove it's Bush's fault.

Answer me one question, really quickly. Just a yes or a no, that's all I've been asking. Just a yes or a no. This is all I'm asking from you.

If their allegations are true, would this still be consistant, and acceptable under military policy?

If they are honest in their claims, and note I"m not saying they are, I'm not saying they're not, I am asking you, IF these claims are true, would it still be acceptable and compliant with military procedure?

If they are being honest, is what was done with them still ok?

Yes, or no?

I'm not saying they're lying. They are the ones making the allegations - the burden of proof is on them.

and they will either meet that, or fail to meet that. Never claimed otherwise.

What I have asked you, multiple times, and you have refused to answer is, IF their statements are true, IF, is it acceptable?

BTW, Arthais, you're invited to a party for a friend of mine (we'll be packing the place) at the Capitol Grille (6th & Pennsylvania) on March 21st.

He's recovering from wounds to his leg, and is going back to Iraq after the party.

He wants to go back, because he's tired of listening to people like you say he's somehow useless and worthless, and that what he's chosen to do is bad and evil.

I'd be glad to give you 10 minutes to speak to the assembled soldiers.

BTW, Arthais, you're invited to a party for a friend of mine (we'll be packing the place) at the Capitol Grille (6th & Pennsylvania) on March 21st.

He's recovering from wounds to his leg, and is going back to Iraq after the party.

He wants to go back, because he's tired of listening to people like you say he's somehow useless and worthless, and that what he's chosen to do is bad and evil.

I'd be glad to give you 10 minutes to speak to the assembled soldiers.

Good for him, what is the point of this straw man?

Or is this the sound of you sucking air through the gaping holes in your "arguments" and desperate to come up with something to save face, about the accusations of me talking about how useless and worthless the soldiers are, mainly in a thread that's discussing how they should be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.

Good for him, what is the point of this straw man?

Or is this the sound of you sucking air through the gaping holes in your "arguments" and desperate to come up with something to save face, about the accusations of me talking about how useless and worthless the soldiers are, mainly in a thread that's discussing how they should be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.

Not a straw man. You didn't provide any proof for your allegations.

I provided proof for how the system works.

All without a strawman. So, that's ZERO points for you (no proof), and 1 point for me (I had proof).

And I'm even willing to back that up with a real soldier from a real military hospital with a real wound who is really going back.

You're getting desperate now.

Not a straw man. You didn't provide any proof for your allegations.

Please point the post in this thread I made allegations.

Don't worry, I'll wait here.

I provided proof for how the system works.

Yes you did, proof that would seem to indicate that IF their claims are true, that what happened to them ran counter to the rules of that system.

After all, as you yourself said, the understanding in that system is that medical tests are routinely done, something they claim did not, in fact, happen.

So in what way is your "proof for how the system works" in ANY way relevant when the fundamental accusation is that what happened was against the way the system works?

No, really, explain this. Of what relevance is proof of how the system works germain to a discussion where the allegation is that the system didn't work the way it's supposed to.

Yes, we know how it's supposed to happen, what you're not getting is that, in this instance, the claim is that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. Don't you get it? Don't you see? Are you so thick that you just don't get it?

They are claiming that the procedures you so kindly linked, those that require constant medical testing, were violated. So it's very nice that you provided links to what the proper procedure is.

The question is, the ONLY question is, was that procedure adhered to here?


-snip useless pandering-


You know what I don't see here? A "yes" or a "no". Are you unwilling to answer my questions?

I'll ask it, ONE MORE TIME. Is it your contention that if these soldiers are telling the truth, that this is still acceptable?

Is it your claim that even if the allegations are true, what happened is still consistant with military procedure and protocall?

Yes or no?

Not a straw man. You didn't provide any proof for your allegations.

I provided proof for how the system works.

All without a strawman. So, that's ZERO points for you (no proof), and 1 point for me (I had proof).

And I'm even willing to back that up with a real soldier from a real military hospital with a real wound who is really going back.

You're getting desperate now.

And for your one I know five that had to fake a suicide attempt in order to NOT go back after being wounded.

C'mon you were oh so insistant before. All I want from you is one little word.

Just a yes, or a no.

All I want to hear from you is a

"yes, it is my opinion that it is acceptable medical policy to alter ones status without any medical evaluation, and even if the allegations are true, no breech of policy was committed here. Thus I stand by my earlier statement of It's standard military policy and has been for all of US History."

or

"no, it is not my opinion that it is acceptable medical policy to alter ones status without a medical evaluation, and if the allegations are true, a breech of policy was committed here, thus I retract my statement of It's standard military policy and has been for all of US History.".

I made it easy for you here, all you gotta do is cut and paste.

Which is it? Are you standing by your assertion that it is standard military policy to change ones status without a medical exam, or do you withdraw it?

BTW, Arthais, you're invited to a party for a friend of mine (we'll be packing the place) at the Capitol Grille (6th & Pennsylvania) on March 21st.

He's recovering from wounds to his leg, and is going back to Iraq after the party.

He wants to go back, because he's tired of listening to people like you say he's somehow useless and worthless, and that what he's chosen to do is bad and evil.

I'd be glad to give you 10 minutes to speak to the assembled soldiers.

That's low even for you and totally irrelevent to the issue at hand.

He asked you a simple yes/no question. Why not break the habit of a lifetime and answer it?

this is getting old.... this administration's crimes, demands and actions are just so numerous that it's getting hard to be outraged anymore. the US no longer has a military force available to defend us .... one third are in Iraq, one third just got back and one third are training to go back - and now we learn they're sending the wounded back to the front.

The claims are not true. So everything up to this point is just fine.

That's intellectual honesty.

Until they provide written proof - the claims are complete bullshit.

You do know there is such a thing as malingering, right?

So you say that the claims, made by the soldiers involved, are not true.

So in your opinion, the soldiers are lying.

Without anything to go on but the soldier's word against the word of some of their officers, you are willing to say with conviction that the soldiers are liars.

And you thought Kerry was insulting to them.

So you say that the claims, made by the soldiers involved, are not true.

So in your opinion, the soldiers are lying.

Without anything to go on but the soldier's word against the word of some of their officers, you are willing to say with conviction that the soldiers are liars.

And you thought Kerry was insulting to them.

shhhh, Eve Online is a tireless supporter of our troops, nd he's tired of us calling the troops worthless, which is why he claims they're lying now.

Because he supports them, so much.

Or something.

shhhh, Eve Online is a tireless supporter of our troops, nd he's tired of us calling the troops worthless, which is why he claims they're lying now.

Because he supports them, so much.

Or something.

I guess we are only supposed to support the troops who are in agreement of the Iraq war. Those who don't are free to be abused I suppose. It is the only meaning I can gather from Eve Online's posts.

I guess we are only supposed to support the troops who are in agreement of the Iraq war. Those who don't are free to be abused I suppose. It is the only meaning I can gather from Eve Online's posts.


No no wait, I understand

The administration supports the war
The administration supports the troops.

If you don't support the war, you do not support the administration, and since the administration supports the troops, not supporting the administration is not supporting the troops.

Likewise supporting the war is absolute, if you do not support any aspect of the war, you do not support the war, and therefore, failing to support every single aspect of the war is thus failure to support our troops.

And supporting the troops is good. And we like people who support the troops, and we dislike people who do not.

So these troops, in criticizing this, are criticizing the war. And because they are critizing the war, they do not support our troops.

So because Eve Online supports the troops he does not support these troops because they are critical of one aspect of the war, and thus do not support the war and therefore do not support our troops.

So because Eve Online supports the troops he doesn't support the troops that don't support our troops.

http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/?source=rss
Completely disgusting. If they try to send my brother I will personally drive to DC and picket the white house. Fucking ridiculous.

I'd go, but I'm not old enough.

No no wait, I understand

The administration supports the war
The administration supports the troops.

If you don't support the war, you do not support the administration, and since the administration supports the troops, not supporting the administration is not supporting the troops.

Likewise supporting the war is absolute, if you do not support any aspect of the war, you do not support the war, and therefore, failing to support every single aspect of the war is thus failure to support our troops.

And supporting the troops is good. And we like people who support the troops, and we dislike people who do not.

So these troops, in criticizing this, are criticizing the war. And because they are critizing the war, they do not support our troops.

So because Eve Online supports the troops he does not support these troops because they are critical of one aspect of the war, and thus do not support the war and therefore do not support our troops.

So because Eve Online supports the troops he doesn't support the troops that don't support our troops.

*grabs spinning head*

I certainly agree though. Heh, if some of the troops don't support the war than they don't support the troops so... they don't support themselves!?! :eek:

I don't see why one can't wish of the safety of our soldiers but despise the fight they must involve themselves in. It isn't as if the two can't be separated. And excusing the decision to send wounded back to Iraq is something I can't understand, especially from one who so strongly supporters our soldiers.

*grabs spinning head*

I certainly agree though. Heh, if some of the troops don't support the war than they don't support the troops so... they don't support themselves!?! :eek:

No no see, if troops don't support troops those aren't troops worth supporting. So he supports the troops that support the troops, but some troops don't support the troops that are worth supporting. So because he supports the troops that should be supported, he doesn't support the troops that don't support the troops worth supporting.

So there are troops that support the troops, and we should support them. There are also troops that don't support troops, and likewise there are troops that don't support the troops supporting the troops who should be supported. Eve Online supports the troops, but only the troops that should be supported. And the troops that should be supported are the troops that support the troops (and presumably the troops that support the troops that support the troops worth supporting are also worth supporting). But these troops are not the troops supporting the troops. Therefore these troops that don't support the troops shouldn't be supported, because the only troops that should be supported are the ones that support the troops that should be supported (which are, of course, troops that support the troops, and thus should be supported).

Someone needs to show these people that a human life is worth more than th 67 cents of it's core components.

No, that was another poster.

That was certainly another forum account.

Whether it was a different person or not - you are so similar that you may as well have said it. You're an islamophobe and you've been in the military.

is there nothing, NOTHING this administration can do that won't have you sticking your nose so far up their ass that it comes out their mouths? Is there nothing they can do that won't make you prostrate yourself on the altar of apologetics? Is there no act so dispicable that this administration could carry out that you would not support and defend?

Have you absolutly no shame?

The only thing that Bush could do to disgust Eve Kimchi is to announce his conversion to Islam.

Cannon fodder is back! Nothing changes. OK, it's suicide bomber fodder these days.

Cannon fodder is back! Nothing changes. OK, it's suicide bomber fodder these days.

Suicide Bomber/IED/Sniper Fodder.

is there nothing, NOTHING this administration can do that won't have you sticking your nose so far up their ass that it comes out their mouths? Is there nothing they can do that won't make you prostrate yourself on the altar of apologetics? Is there no act so dispicable that this administration could carry out that you would not support and defend?

Have you absolutly no shame?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sycophant