NationStates Jolt Archive

"We're in a stupid, pointless war because politicians back home can't admit that they were wrong, or are making too much money out of this."

So say US soldiers currently serving in Iraq.

Now I'm sure this is going to cause some people's brains to implode... if they don't start accusing the troops of hating the troops, that is.

Video on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7610237.stm)

if they don't start accusing the troops of hating the troops, that is.

That would explain "friendly fire" quite nicely, though.

A good Nixon goes to China moment.

When the soldiers are criticising the war you know theres a problem

"We're in a stupid, pointless war because politicians back home can't admit that they were wrong, or are making too much money out of this."

So say US soldiers currently serving in Iraq.

Now I'm sure this is going to cause some people's brains to implode... if they don't start accusing the troops of hating the troops, that is.

Video on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7610237.stm)

I dont accuse troops of hating troops, i accuse BBC of exploiting the opinions of hot,tired, clearly homesick 19 year old kids who just do what they are told and are implicitly represented as experts on foreign policy.

I dont accuse troops of hating troops, i accuse BBC of exploiting the opinions of hot,tired, clearly homesick 19 year old kids who just do what they are told and are implicitly represented as experts on foreign policy.

In which case I accuse the military leadership of being substandard and letting morale get this low.

I dont accuse troops of hating troops, i accuse BBC of exploiting the opinions of hot,tired, clearly homesick 19 year old kids who just do what they are told and are implicitly represented as experts on foreign policy.
Obviously what they're being told is upsetting them a great deal and they're unable to see the rationale behind what they're being told to do.
Which isn't a particularly good sign.

In which case I accuse the military leadership of being substandard and letting morale get this low.

Except for the fact that there has never been a war in the history of humanity where soldiers didnt bitch and complain.

Obviously what they're being told is upsetting them a great deal and they're unable to see the rationale behind what they're being told to do.
Which isn't a particularly good sign.

I dont see that as any sign whatsoever. Its not a foot soldiers job to understand the big picture. Thats what Generals are for. And even they have wide and varied opinions and limited access to information. This is why we have a CIC. One person ultimatly has access to the complete full picture and we elect him and hope his judgement is sound.

Except for the fact that there has never been a war in the history of humanity where soldiers didnt bitch and complain.

'Tis the soldier's ancient right. If the troops aren't complaining things are really, really bad.

Anyway, that sounds about standard for the troops where I'm at. There really aren't many people who want to be here.

I dont accuse troops of hating troops, i accuse BBC of exploiting the opinions of hot,tired, clearly homesick 19 year old kids who just do what they are told and are implicitly represented as experts on foreign policy.

When does just reporting something become 'exploiting' - when you don't like it?

When does just reporting something become 'exploiting' - when you don't like it?

It becomes exploiting when your using the opinions of non foreign policy experts and attempting to pass them off as such simply because "they are in the Army" so they must know what they are talking about.

It becomes exploiting when your using the opinions of non foreign policy experts and attempting to pass them off as such simply because "they are in the Army" so they must know what they are talking about.

So you are saying soldiers are morons who know nothing about the war they are fighting? Who are these foreign policy experts - sure as hell isn't Bush who showed his ignorance on foreign policy on numerous occasions?

Except for the fact that there has never been a war in the history of humanity where soldiers didnt bitch and complain.

Nah. The vikings used to love that shit.

Except for the fact that there has never been a war in the history of humanity where soldiers didnt bitch and complain.

All of which just goes to show that the owrds to that old song where indeed very right. 'War, war is stupid':D

Nah. The vikings used to love that shit.

Yeah, but when they weren't actually fighting I'm sure they did their fair share of bitching.

So you are saying soldiers are morons who know nothing about the war they are fighting?

What i said was perfectly clear, non Cabinent rank/Joint Chiefs of Staff soldiers are not foreign policy experts, they are soldiers. Its not thier job to know anything about the war its thier job to follow orders from the people that do.(Discounting the Pentagon and State Dept soldiers that actually are foreign policy experts)

It becomes exploiting when your using the opinions of non foreign policy experts and attempting to pass them off as such simply because "they are in the Army" so they must know what they are talking about.

Bwahaha you are funny. So the BBC reporting of soliders saying, 'why the fuck are we here?' is the same as expliotation of said soldiers?

What i said was perfectly clear, non Cabinent rank/Joint Chiefs of Staff soldiers are not foreign policy experts, they are soldiers. Its not thier job to know anything about the war its thier job to follow orders from the people that do.

You know I work in IT, my job is to fix people's IT problems, my job is not to know all about the war, but you know I do watch the TV and I do read the news with the net result of some knowledge gained about the war, now are you saying just because it is not my job to know, that I do not know, or even that I should not know?

Bwahaha you are funny. So the BBC reporting of soliders saying, 'why the fuck are we here?' is the same as expliotation of said soldiers?

Its exploitation because its not thier job to know why they are there. It would be like the BBC inteviewing the plumber of a house about the design and construction of the roof trusses and then reporting his opinion on the news.

You know I work in IT, my job is to fix people's IT problems, my job is not to know all about the war, but you know I do watch the TV and I do read the news with the net result of some knowledge gained about the war, now are you saying just because it is not my job to know, that I do not know, or even that I should not know?

Im saying you dont know the full story because you have limited access to information, as does everybody who doesnt have a Top Secret security clearance. You certainly have an opinion as do I. However both of our opinions are formed on nessesarily incomplete information. This is again why we have a Commander in Chief that we elect to have complete access to all of the information and make a decision.

Its exploitation because its not thier job to know why they are there. It would be like the BBC inteviewing the plumber of a house about the design and construction of the roof trusses and then reporting his opinion on the news.

No man you are sooooo wrong. Go look the word up huh.

As to your example that is wrong too, it would be like interviewing a plumber about copper vs plastic pipeing.

"We're in a stupid, pointless war because politicians back home can't admit that they were wrong, or are making too much money out of this."
Correct on both points of complaint. Still a bit of a shame to leave the Iraqi population high and dry.
So say US soldiers currently serving in Iraq.

Now I'm sure this is going to cause some people's brains to implode... if they don't start accusing the troops of hating the troops, that is.

Video on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7610237.stm)
I really wish the US commanders would stop rotating the same units into Iraq time after time after time. People are going to get fatigued and low on morale the more it goes on. I know yer 101st Airborne types are pretty good soldiers, but still, they obviously need a break.

Eh I'd also recommend not sending people to Iraq until they're over 25, so they're not as hormonal and dickish as 19-year old kids, and preferably have a decent education, but that might be beyond the capabilities of the world's best military or something.

This is again why we have a Commander in Chief that we elect to have complete access to all of the information and make a decision.
And you trust the decisions of this Commander and Chief, do you? On what basis?

Im saying you dont know the full story because you have limited access to information, as does everybody who doesnt have a Top Secret security clearance. You certainly have an opinion as do I. However both of our opinions are formed on nessesarily incomplete information. This is again why we have a Commander in Chief that we elect to have complete access to all of the information and make a decision.

Granted, but that does not show how the opinions of a soldier = exploiting that solider huh. As to opinions, we are all allowed to voice them, are soliders to be treated differantly? What is it about a soldiers opinion on a war that he is fighting in that makes it less valid than mine? I mean yes I have incomplete info, but I bet you the solider has better and more complete info than me, so really we should be taking more notice of them huh?

And you trust the decisions of this Commander and Chief, do you? On what basis?

On the basis of the "majority" of Americans agreeing to do so. Every four years. If your interested, the rule book is called the US Constitution. Its a facinating read. Highly recommend it.

Its exploitation because its not thier job to know why they are there. It would be like the BBC inteviewing the plumber of a house about the design and construction of the roof trusses and then reporting his opinion on the news.Now that's just fucking stupid. They're citizens as well, and they have a right to an opinion, just like all others. That their opinion is influenced by what they see and do is only natural, and considering that they get to witness the direct impacts of such foreign political decisions, these observations may well be more relevant than any you've made.

As to your example that is wrong too, it would be like interviewing a plumber about copper vs plastic pipeing.More like interviewing a plumber about a planned municipal waste water treatment plant. He may not know much about waste water treatment plants, but his background in plumbing will likely make that particular citizen's opinion a bit more insightful than Tommy Atkins'.

but I bet you the solider has better and more complete info than me, so really we should be taking more notice of them huh?

This is where i disagree, some soldier counting paperclips in an office or some sniper on a roof doesnt have any more clue if the Iraqi Congress will come to a quick resolution on Kurdish oil rights any more then you or I do.(Just one example of a million)

This is where i disagree, some soldier counting paperclips in an office or some sniper on a roof doesnt have any more clue if the Iraqi Congress will come to a quick resolution on Kurdish oil rights any more then you or I do.

Ohh I guess then by the same sort of reasoning that some solider sitting in his hole with his gun trained the border has no more clue about the price of bacon in Denmark than I do. Either case though neither myself nor the solider in his hole is being exploited.

Yeah, but when they weren't actually fighting I'm sure they did their fair share of bitching.

I'm pretty sure they call that "wenching."

I'm pretty sure they call that "wenching."

That too.

That too.

And it probably helped mitigate a lot of the bitching. *nod*

And it probably helped mitigate a lot of the bitching. *nod*

It would certainly mitigate a lot of the bitching here. Beer would as well.

It would certainly mitigate a lot of the bitching here. Beer would as well.Mead, you fool!

The BBC are 'exploiting' Generals now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7610405.stm

he doesn't seem to be too positive about the war either.

What makes 'experts' so special anyway? In a historical context, It doesn't seem like 'experts' in anything have been right any more often than anybody else until they've been wrong a few(dozen) times. So if the only way to be right an appreciable amount more than the average is to be wrong a lot, then the greatest foreign policy expert we have is President Bush. :p

*To the sound of neeners-neeners-neeners*

I told you so-ooo! I told you so-ooo!

The BBC are 'exploiting' Generals now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7610405.stm

he doesn't seem to be too positive about the war either.

Ahhh but he is being exploited because he is only a general, and not the commander in chief!:D

Ahhh but he is being exploited because he is only a general, and not the commander in chief!:D

Oh good Lord, i hope you arnt comparing a veteran General whos probably in his 40s or 50s or older and probably in the service for several decades vs a 19 year old kid of low rank?

I fail to see any relevant point in this thread whatsoever. I mean is there such a person that exists that actually thinks that the war has 100% universal support from all of its troops?

Oh good Lord, i hope you arnt comparing a veteran General whos probably in his 40s or 50s or older and probably in the service for several decades vs a 19 year old kid of low rank?
At first, I was going attack you point for point, but I've decided against it, because it's all just too infuriating. I'm just going to say that your attitude that the 19-year-olds who are getting themselves blown to pieces, killed, maimed, crippled for life, shouldn't even be talked to because "it's not their job to know why they and/or their best friend just got half their head and both of their legs blown off" is the most disgustingly exploitative thing I've heard a long while.

"Theirs is not to reason why / Theirs is but to do and die" -- is that your attitude? The 19-year-olds (and all the other age groups up to the late 40s) whose lives are on the line every day and night are only there to be killed as their commanders decide, and not to be spoken to or asked what they think or otherwise treated with respect and humanity, or as if they matter as people? And you don't think THAT is exploitation of them?

Everything you've said in this thread so far makes me want to vomit.

On you, actually.

On the basis of the "majority" of Americans agreeing to do so. Every four years. If your interested, the rule book is called the US Constitution. Its a facinating read. Highly recommend it.
Yeah, dude...you might want to give that another read yourself...things like 'peaceful assembly,' 'right to petition the government,'...they're not there so you can phone in your participation every four years, they're there because not only do you not have to, but you really shouldn't trust the government based on a quadrannual vote.

*To the sound of neeners-neeners-neeners*

I told you so-ooo! I told you so-ooo!

Told who what? Seriously I'm actually confused here. What on earth does the fact that a few soldiers who don't like the war prove, about anything?

Yeah, dude...you might want to give that another read yourself...things like 'peaceful assembly,' 'right to petition the government,'...they're not there so you can phone in your participation every four years, they're there because not only do you not have to, but you really shouldn't trust the government based on a quadrannual vote.

Why do you hate freedom? :(

Except for the fact that there has never been a war in the history of humanity where soldiers didnt bitch and complain.

Perhaps that says something about war.

You know, that thing about it being a bad thing.

...

Naaaah.

...blather..."Theirs is not to reason why / Theirs is but to do and die" -- is that your attitude? The 19-year-olds (and all the other age groups up to the late 40s) whose lives are on the line every day and night are only there to be killed as their commanders decide, and not to be spoken to or asked what they think or otherwise treated with respect and humanity, or as if they matter as people? And you don't think THAT is exploitation of them?...blather...


Sorry thats called joining the Military. Its not exploitive when they volunteer to be there and agree to follow the rules, and yes thats what the rules say. You become government property for the government to do what it will with. Dont vomit on me, i didnt make up the rules for the military.

Why do you hate freedom? :(

It broke my bike and stole my girlfriend...

Perhaps that says something about war.

You know, that thing about it being a bad thing.

...

Naaaah.

Because the only way something can ever be good is for it to have universal 100% approval? Because if that is the case, then we're fucked.

Why do you hate freedom? :(It probably stole his lunch money...

Or was that it's twin brother free market capitalism?

Sorry thats called joining the Military. Its not exploitive when they volunteer to be there and agree to follow the rules, and yes thats what the rules say. You become government property for the government to do what it will with. Dont vomit on me, i didnt make up the rules for the military.
That is the most shallow and discredited (by the US military itself) 19th century bullshit you could possibly have come up with. No military has thought of its soldiers that way since WW-fucking-1, and for good reason. All you are doing here is devaluing human life so that you can dismiss criticism of this war. And you are choosing to do it with language that is, to be blunt, evil and inhuman. Your ignorance about soldiers, plus your disgusting attitude towards human suffering and death, plus your attempt to act superior to your critics, combine to make your arguments utterly worthless, devoid of substance, full of nothing but venom and delusion. It is impossible for me even to pretend to have any respect for you.

So I won't vomit on you. I'll send my cat over to do it. It's hairball season, and he can keep it up for weeks. It'll be on you, your bed, your clothes, every not-immediately-visible spot on the floor you might step on in your stocking feet, etc. A world of puke patches for you to wade through would precisely express my opinion of your arguments and the "person" who posted them.

In addition to my opinion of you, I also say that the soldiers stationed in Iraq have a right to voice their opinions, and the civilian public have a right to hear those opinions -- especially as the US rightwing is constantly claiming that the soldiers want to stay there until they achieve victory. If the true opinions of the soldiers show that their commanders are telling lies to the civilians back home, I, as a voter, think that matters very, very much, thank you. And I do not think that a reporter asking soldiers what they think of what they are doing is exploitative at all -- especially compared to the exploitation of their lives and deaths that is the war itself.

Because the only way something can ever be good is for it to have universal 100% approval? Because if that is the case, then we're fucked.

No, but a near-universal disapproval for something by its participants might be a clue as to it not being good.

No, but a near-universal disapproval for something by its participants might be a clue as to it not being good.

Is there a near-universal disapproval of this war amongst the soldiers (note the OP does not prove anything like that, hence me saying it is pointless)?

Is there a near-universal disapproval of this war amongst the soldiers (note the OP does not prove anything like that, hence me saying it is pointless)?One of the core arguments of the pro-war crowd as to why we're traitors is because we don't support the troops because we don't support the war. Examples of troops not supporting the war raise questions as to the validity of such "logic."

One of the core arguments of the pro-war crowd as to why we're traitors is because we don't support the troops because we don't support the war. Examples of troops not supporting the war raise questions as to the validity of such "logic."

Well, why can't they simply argue that those specific troops are also traitors?

Well, why can't they simply argue that those specific troops are also traitors?
They do. They've coined the term "phony veterans" to detract from the hero image they generally associate with troops.

They do. They've coined the term "phony veterans" to detract from the hero image they generally associate with troops.
Yes, in itself very supportive of the troops (/sarcasm/). When the only troops they'll support are the ones that agree with them, it makes it pretty clear that "support the troops" is just a euphemism for "agree with us."

They do. They've coined the term "phony veterans" to detract from the hero image they generally associate with troops.

So then I ask again, what point does this thread serve?

So then I ask again, what point does this thread serve?
OK, once more: As a whole gaggle of people have told you already, the point of raising this topic is to show that the commanders are lying when they say things like "the troops want to stay there until their job is finished," or "our strategies are clearly working" (since the people actually executing those strategies don't see any lessening of the danger of their situation).

It is important for voters in countries that have troops over there to know that this discrepancy exists.

So then I ask again, what point does this thread serve?Some people deserve to be reminded that the troops aren't all as gung-ho as the bloggers that "support" them.

OK, once more: As a whole gaggle of people have told you already, the point of raising this topic is to show that the commanders are lying when they say things like "the troops want to stay there until their job is finished," or "our strategies are clearly working" (since the people actually executing those strategies don't see any lessening of the danger of their situation).


Only if you assume that by 'the troops', the commanders actually mean 'every single troop that has served and is currently serving', which would be a rather bizarre assumption to make.

Only if you assume that by 'the troops', the commanders actually mean 'every single troop that has served and is currently serving', which would be a rather bizarre assumption to make.No, not just the commanders. And yes, there are plenty of people that make that assumption.

Only if you assume that by 'the troops', the commanders actually mean 'every single troop that has served and is currently serving', which would be a rather bizarre assumption to make.

I suppose you'll tell me what they ACTUALLY mean by 'the troops' is 'the soldiers currently fighting, except those ones that disagree with the war.'

OK, once more: As a whole gaggle of people have told you already, the point of raising this topic is to show that the commanders are lying when they say things like "the troops want to stay there until their job is finished," or "our strategies are clearly working" (since the people actually executing those strategies don't see any lessening of the danger of their situation).

It is important for voters in countries that have troops over there to know that this discrepancy exists.
Soldiers don't execute strategy. They execute tactics. Mainly, they try to stay alive. They probably aren't the best suited ones in Iraq/Ashcanistan to comment on strategic successes.

Three or four unhappy grunts are not overwhelming evidence of widespread discontent, either. Maybe if there were a large number of desertions, we might be convinced. As far as we know, that hasn't happened.

So, this thread serves very little purpose. It does provide the anti-war crowd with another reason to pat themselves on the back, but beyond that, it is truly pointless.

Some people deserve to be reminded that the troops aren't all as gung-ho as the bloggers that "support" them.

If you don't already know this then you have a serious problem. It really is one of those 'scientists find out that water is wet' situations.

No, not just the commanders. And yes, there are plenty of people that make that assumption.

There are also people who assume that the moon really is made of cheese, but they're not particularly important.

I suppose you'll tell me what they ACTUALLY mean by 'the troops' is 'the soldiers currently fighting, except those ones that disagree with the war.'

Nothing so specific, I just think it's no different from saying that "the US gov supports the war" (which is constantly said on NSG without any offence taken), but of course not EVERYONE in the US gov supports the war.

Soldiers don't execute strategy. They execute tactics. Mainly, they try to stay alive. They probably aren't the best suited ones in Iraq/Ashcanistan to comment on strategic successes.

Three or four unhappy grunts are not overwhelming evidence of widespread discontent, either. Maybe if there were a large number of desertions, we might be convinced. As far as we know, that hasn't happened.

So, this thread serves very little purpose. It does provide the anti-war crowd with another reason to pat themselves on the back, but beyond that, it is truly pointless.

NSG posters don't execute politics. They execute opinions. Mainly, they like to listen to themselves. They probably aren't the best suited ones to comment on politics.

Three or four people unhappy with this thread is not overwhelming evidence of widespread validity, either. Maybe if there were a large number of "this thread is pointless!" alarmists, we might be convinced. As far as we know, this hasn't happened.

So, your post serves very little purpose. It does provide the pro-war crowd with another reason to pat themselves on the back, but beyond that, it is truly pointless.

Only if you assume that by 'the troops', the commanders actually mean 'every single troop that has served and is currently serving', which would be a rather bizarre assumption to make.
I see, so to you, the way to deal with public statements by people representing the government is just to ignore the words they use and assume they mean something different from whatever it is they actually said, and thus accept their statements as okay based on our interpretation, not on their actual words.

So if someone -- not a commander, a civilian politician -- claims over and over, in speech after speech and in arguments in media venues, that "the troops" want to keep fighting in Iraq, we are not supposed to think that he wants us to believe that "the troops" as a group want that, and since we're not supposed to think he means what he says, we're not supposed to call him to account for the lack of truth in his words.

I suppose then, if anyone says something I don't like, I can just decide that they really meant something I do agree with and therefore whatever they just said is okay and fine. So if my boss says, "we're downsizing and eliminating your department and letting everyone in it go," I can assume that he doesn't mean every single person who works in that department and I can just keep showing up for work and expecting to get paid.

There are also people who assume that the moon really is made of cheese, but they're not particularly important.Unfortunately, the ones that believe that supporting the soldiers means you must support the War currently hold the US presidency.

Soldiers don't execute strategy. They execute tactics. Mainly, they try to stay alive. They probably aren't the best suited ones in Iraq/Ashcanistan to comment on strategic successes.

Three or four unhappy grunts are not overwhelming evidence of widespread discontent, either. Maybe if there were a large number of desertions, we might be convinced. As far as we know, that hasn't happened.

So, this thread serves very little purpose. It does provide the anti-war crowd with another reason to pat themselves on the back, but beyond that, it is truly pointless.
Yeah, pat ourselves on the back because WE WERE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING.

Yeah, pat ourselves on the back because WE WERE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING.

*Pats Mur on the back*

I know. I was right too, and all I got was slandered as an "anti-American" by morons and banned from a chatroom.

I see, so to you, the way to deal with public statements by people representing the government is just to ignore the words they use and assume they mean something different from whatever it is they actually said, and thus accept their statements as okay based on our interpretation, not on their actual words.

So if someone -- not a commander, a civilian politician -- claims over and over, in speech after speech and in arguments in media venues, that "the troops" want to keep fighting in Iraq, we are not supposed to think that he wants us to believe that "the troops" as a group want that, and since we're not supposed to think he means what he says, we're not supposed to call him to account for the lack of truth in his words.

I suppose then, if anyone says something I don't like, I can just decide that they really meant something I do agree with and therefore whatever they just said is okay and fine. So if my boss says, "we're downsizing and eliminating your department and letting everyone in it go," I can assume that he doesn't mean every single person who works in that department and I can just keep showing up for work and expecting to get paid.

Right, this is a really absurd post and I'm getting very confused here. When someone says: "the US gov supprots the war", do you take that to mean that 'every single politician working in the government supports the war'?

Unfortunately, the ones that believe that supporting the soldiers means you must support the War currently hold the US presidency.

I very seriously doubt that Bush believes that every single soldier in the Army supports the war.

I very seriously doubt that Bush believes that every single soldier in the Army supports the war.Hard to tell, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that way. Plenty of his supporters do, though, and that's enough of a voting bloc to be more significant than the moon-cheese-theorists.

Oh good Lord, i hope you arnt comparing a veteran General whos probably in his 40s or 50s or older and probably in the service for several decades vs a 19 year old kid of low rank?

Dude, that was sarcasm.:D

Hard to tell, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that way. Plenty of his supporters do, though, and that's enough of a voting bloc to be more significant than the moon-cheese-theorists.

I would be surprised that anyone this deluded would be in anything other than the extreme minority.

I would be surprised that anyone this deluded would be in anything other than the extreme minority.Imagine the shock I had in the 2004 election, then.

Right, this is a really absurd post and I'm getting very confused here. When someone says: "the US gov supprots the war", do you take that to mean that 'every single politician working in the government supports the war'?
I take it to mean that they want to create an impression of broad agreement that does not actually exist in an attempt to overwhelm opposition by making it seem like a small minority. I attack the attempt by exposing just how fractured opinion on the war is among members and employees of the government.

Just like when they say "the troops" want to keep fighting, I take it that they are trying to create the impression that those who oppose the war on the grounds of the damage it is doing to the people fighting it are somehow thwarting the hopes and dreams of those people. I attack this attempt by showing just how many of "the troops" really, really don't agree with them.

In other words, when they say things like that, I take it as an assertion of fact, and I test it by comparing it to the source data -- like the BBC did. And if the asserted fact doesn't match up with actual facts, then I call it a lie.

Imagine the shock I had in the 2004 election, then.

What's that supposed to mean? That voting republican means you think every single soldier in the army supports the war?

I very seriously doubt that Bush believes that every single soldier in the Army supports the war.
I very seriously doubt that Bush cares whether they do or not.

I take it to mean that they want to create an impression of broad agreement

Ahh, there we are already. 'Broad agreement', not the same as universal agreement right? And how does this thread not prove it's a broad opinion, why wouldn't two or three of these soldiers fall out of the 'broad agreement'.

I attack this attempt by showing just how many of "the troops" really, really don't agree with them.


But you would need a whole lot more soldiers than presented in this thread for it to be of any significance.

Soldiers don't execute strategy. They execute tactics. Mainly, they try to stay alive. They probably aren't the best suited ones in Iraq/Ashcanistan to comment on strategic successes.


I really can't see how you can say this with a straight face.

Are you really telling us that a squad told to 'take that hill' has no idea whether they have succesfully taken the hill or not?

What's that supposed to mean? That voting republican means you think every single soldier in the army supports the war?Nah, that they're a significantly large portion of the populace and managed to convince enough others to join them.

Nah, that they're a significantly large portion of the populace and managed to convince enough others to join them.

How does the 2004 election show that a significantly large portion of the populace believe every singly soldier in the army supports the war?

Ahh, there we are already. 'Broad agreement', not the same as universal agreement right? And how does this thread not prove it's a broad opinion, why wouldn't two or three of these soldiers fall out of the 'broad agreement'.
That's true, because "universal agreement" is a strawman you brought up to avoid addressing real points in this discussion.

But you would need a whole lot more soldiers than presented in this thread for it to be of any significance.
The number of soldiers who believe the war is stupid and pointless has not been raised at all in this thread. How do you know it is statistically insignificant?

We need a good soldier's mutiny right now. Nothing quite like the whole lot of your troops going AWOL and refusing to fight to put a dampener on your imperial ambitions.

Of course, the pro war crowd would probably "support the troops" straight to the firing squad then.

How does the 2004 election show that a significantly large portion of the populace believe every singly soldier in the army supports the war?
THIS is a strawman: "believe every singly soldier in the army supports the war"

THIS is Laerod's argument: "A significantly large portion of the populace believe, or choose to believe, what their political leaders say."

How does the 2004 election show that a significantly large portion of the populace believe every singly soldier in the army supports the war?That Iraq was a failure was rather apperent by then.

That's true, because "universal agreement" is a strawman you brought up to avoid addressing real points in this discussion.


You said that the OP showed the commanders were lying when they said the "troops support the war", the only way this can be true is if by "troops support the war" they actually mean universal agreement from all the troops.


The number of soldiers who believe the war is stupid and pointless has not been raised at all in this thread.

Huh? All I'm saying is that the number is far too small to be of any importance.


How do you know it is statistically insignificant?

Because it doesn't disprove that there is a broad agreement. You're welcome to disprove this, but the OP doesn't.

You said that the OP showed the commanders were lying when they said the "troops support the war", the only way this can be true is if by "troops support the war" they actually mean universal agreement from all the troops.
Strawman + false dichotomy = worthless argument. "Universal agreement" is not the only other option.

Huh? All I'm saying is that the number is far too small to be of any importance.
Only you don't know how many there are. So... is it fun to blow smoke?

Because it doesn't disprove that there is a broad agreement. You're welcome to disprove this, but the OP doesn't.
You know that it is statistically insignificant because the number you don't have doesn't disprove the thing you can't prove exists on account of you don't have the numbers?

Would anyone like to explain to Hydesland why that argument isn't going to work for him?

Strawman + false dichotomy = worthless argument. "Universal agreement" is not the only other option.


Show me one other option other than Universal Agreement which will allow the OP to disprove it.


Only you don't know how many there are. So... is it fun to blow smoke?


I feel like you're deliberately misinterpreting my argument. I'm not saying the ACTUAL number of troops who don't support the war is insignificant, only the amount presented in the OP.


You know that it is statistically insignificant because the number you don't have

I do have it. It's right there in the OP.

That Iraq was a failure was rather apperent by then.

I'm not following.

Show me one other option other than Universal Agreement which will allow the OP to disprove it.



I feel like you're deliberately misinterpreting my argument. I'm not saying the ACTUAL number of troops who don't support the war is insignificant, only the amount presented in the OP.



I do have it. It's right there in the OP.
Sigh. Where to begin? I need to eat lunch and then work. I'll be back sometime later to explain to you exactly how you are wrong about everything and always have been.

(I knew you were going to respond that way, and I said to myself, "Why are you bothering? He's only going to miss the point, and you don't have time to sit on NSG all day today." I'll get to you later.)

(I knew you were going to respond that way, and I said to myself, "Why are you bothering? He's only going to miss the point, and you don't have time to sit on NSG all day today." I'll get to you later.)

Great, I was saying exactly the same thing to myself.

I really wish the US commanders would stop rotating the same units into Iraq time after time after time. People are going to get fatigued and low on morale the more it goes on. I know yer 101st Airborne types are pretty good soldiers, but still, they obviously need a break.

Unfortunately, due to the drawdown of the 90s, when the Bush and Clinton admins, plus congress, decided the end of the Cold War would result in greater peace, contrary to common sense, logic, and evidence, the US military doesn;t have enough forces to do so.

What makes 'experts' so special anyway? In a historical context, It doesn't seem like 'experts' in anything have been right any more often than anybody else until they've been wrong a few(dozen) times. So if the only way to be right an appreciable amount more than the average is to be wrong a lot, then the greatest foreign policy expert we have is President Bush. :p

Indeed. "Not seein the trees for the forest" is as much a problem as not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak.

To put this in a different context, sure, the president has all his advisors and experts and data on Japan. But I'm living here, boots on the ground. One of us has a highly filtered and boiled down set of data collected by others, the other has an extensive set of raw unfiltered set of data. I may not have person al access to the PM, but I have personal access to hundreds more average Satos, Tanakas, and Sukukis. Who has a better picture of what's going on in Japan?

One of the core arguments of the pro-war crowd as to why we're traitors is because we don't support the troops because we don't support the war. Examples of troops not supporting the war raise questions as to the validity of such "logic."

Indeed and exactly. Even more disgusting is this chicken-hawk/deserter' administration's continued pattern of abuse of verterans.

Calling McCain crazy.
Swift Boating Kerry
Slurs against Max Cleland.
Etc., etc. etc. ad nauseam maximus....

Some people deserve to be reminded that the troops aren't all as gung-ho as the bloggers that "support" them.

Call a chicken-hawk a chicken-hawk.

(Note: I'd have been in uniform had it not been for my serious asthma.)

I really can't see how you can say this with a straight face.

Are you really telling us that a squad told to 'take that hill' has no idea whether they have succesfully taken the hill or not?
That's tactics. Strategy is a much larger scope. Small units execute tactics. That's it. Theater commanders execute strategy.

See, I can say it and be serious because I know the difference.

Now, you do too.

So what's new, soldiers in a war zone bitching about being there, wishing they were home and saying they think what they are doing is stupid.

Grunts in every war since before the Roman Empire have done that. It doesn't prove shit.

Anyone know the old WW I Song:

The biscuits in the Army
They say are mighty fine
One rolled off the table
And broke a toe of mine

Oh how I wanna go
Gee Sergeant can I go
Oh how I wanna go home

The women in the Army
They say are mighty fine
You ask for Mary Pickford
They give you Frankenstein

Oh how I wanna go
Gee Sergeant can I go
Oh how I wanna go home

So what's new, soldiers in a war zone bitching about being there, wishing they were home and saying they think what they are doing is stupid.

Grunts in every war since before the Roman Empire have done that. It doesn't prove shit.

Anyone know the old WW I Song:

The biscuits in the Army
They say are mighty fine
One rolled off the table
And broke a toe of mine

Oh how I wanna go
Gee Sergeant can I go
Oh how I wanna go home

The women in the Army
They say are mighty fine
You ask for Mary Pickford
They give you Frankenstein

Oh how I wanna go
Gee Sergeant can I go
Oh how I wanna go home

1- It shuts up the moronic, idiotic, stupid "if you support the troops you support the war" mob.

2- It goes to show that the war was, indeed, useless. Proving me, once again, right.

2- It goes to show that the war was, indeed, useless. Proving me, once again, right.
Tell me again how three or four unhappy grunts, who may not even be in direct combat with the enemy -- notice that none of them state their jobs, are conclusive evidence of anything more than the fact that some soldiers want to be home.

Tell me again how three or four unhappy grunts, who may not even be in direct combat with the enemy -- notice that none of them state their jobs, are conclusive evidence of anything more than the fact that some soldiers want to be home.

Fair enough. It proves point 1. All the OTHER things, such as the conspicuous lack of WMDs, prove point 2.

Whoever wins the election, I bet that by this time next year the troops will be out of Iraq - Now repeat after me:
"No more land wars in Asia! No more land wars in Asia!"

I'm of two minds on this one. The War, taken from a broad perspective, was certainly stupid, and definitely damaging, and I think it's fair enough to say that. But what the military are doing at the minute, at least on paper, is peacekeeping, and in my opinion, there's nothing stupid or pointless about that (albeit problematic and ironic that it's the military that invaded that's doing the peacekeeping).

Which are the soldiers bitching about?

The thing that bugs me is how gung-ho people were about this war back in 2002, and now they don't even have the stomach to see it through to the end. I hate to tell you, but when you invade a country you have to clean up the mess you made no matter how much it hurts or how much it costs. Otherwise, it's probably going to come back and bite you quite hard at some point in the future.

Perhaps the next time the American people are all hopped up with belligerent enthusiasm they'll remember this one and reconsider.

Great, I was saying exactly the same thing to myself.

1) You entered the thread asking what the point of it was.

2) The point was explained to you as follows: The existence of troops who are opposed to the war puts the lie to the claim that "the troops" support the war.

3) It was a simple answer to a simple question, but it apparently tweaked your inner gymnast because it is at that point that you started twisting and spinning around, as follows:

-- First you claimed there weren't enough soldiers to take notice of, so it didn't put the lie to the claim that "the troops" supported the war because, according to you, it's okay to ignore the existence of things that don't fit the picture the politicians and pundits are trying to paint as long as it isn't the majority set. That was countered by pointing out that you don't know how many troops don't support the war, so your claims that there are too few to matter are meaningless.

-- You conceded that point, but even after conceding it, still tried to claim that the number of troops that do not support the war is statistically insignificant because you don't know how many there are.

-- Then you tried to claim that you never meant to refer to non-war-supporting troops in general, but only to the specific ones mentioned in the OP article, but no, you don't get to whittle away at reality until you feel you can handle it. The fact remains that you do not know how many troops do not support the war.

-- You also tried to claim that when pols and pundits say "the troops" support the war, they don't really mean all the troops support the war. That was countered by pointing out that it is bullshit. Words mean what they mean, and if a pol says "the troops" he is not identifying a subset of "the troops." Reference to "the troops" encompasses an indefinite, amorphous, potentially complete set of "the troops" unless the speaker specifies "the troops who support the war" or "the troops except for the ones who don't support the war" or "many of the troops" or "a number of the troops." But people who claim that "the troops" support the war never add those modifiers, and you don't get to add them for them. You don't get to be their spin doctor and try to salvage their statements by telling us what they meant to say. They said what they said, and they said it about "the troops," no specificity.

That brings us right back to the original point, that the existence of troops who do not support the war creates a discrepancy between what the pols and pundits say about "the troops" and what actual soldiers say about themselves, and that this discrepancy is important information for people trying to figure out how to vote and considering the war as an issue. That point was raised to you several times, and you have ignored it every time.

-- Then you whipped out your "universal agreement" strawman, with which you tried to set up a false dichotomy between "all" the troops or "none" of the troops, and with which you tried to misrepresent our criticism of the pols and pundits as being about them claiming that a specific number of "the troops" support the war. However, nobody in this thread said any such thing except you. We said (and I especially specifically said) that the claim that "the troops" support the war is deliberately misleading in order to create the appearance of overwhelming agreement so that dissent can be ignored. Now, if you choose to read that honestly, you will see that it is the exact opposite of your assertion that we have been saying that the claim means "every single troop currently active in Iraq." In reality, the claim that "the troops" support the war is deliberately vague and identifies no number for the very purpose of weaseling out of being compared to actual numbers.

The real dichotomy of the argument is NOT "all" versus "none." It is "an unspecified number that support the war and are identified with the blanket label 'the troops'" versus "specific numbers (revealed piecemeal by journalists over the course of the war) that do not support the war and are undeniably troops and therefore part of the set of 'the troops' so that when pols and pundits say 'the troops' support the war, that statement is not truthful."

-- In sum, unable to counter that straighforward answer to your simple and clear question, you have played fast and loose with numbers, made claims you could not support, committed gross acts of political spin, misrepresented your opponents' arguments, and danced around your own special strawman. But the one thing you didn't do is address the main point, which I have outlined to you -- again -- no fewer than four times in this post alone. See if you can find them in this picture. They're in there along with 15 common barnyard animals.

The thing that bugs me is how gung-ho people were about this war back in 2002, and now they don't even have the stomach to see it through to the end. I hate to tell you, but when you invade a country you have to clean up the mess you made no matter how much it hurts or how much it costs. Otherwise, it's probably going to come back and bite you quite hard at some point in the future.

Perhaps the next time the American people are all hopped up with belligerent enthusiasm they'll remember this one and reconsider.
I can't speak for everyone, but the only thing I was ever gung-ho about was my vehement opposition to this whole filthy, murderous, dishonest boondoggle. It should never have been begun in the first place, and the more chickenhawks wake up and realize their mistake now, the better, as far as I'm concerned. You say they lack "the stomach to see it through to the end"? I say they are finally waking up to reality and looking for a way to stop killing people pointlessly.

And that "see it through to the end" thing is one of the many lies about this war that really piss me off. There is no "end" to this thing. There is no end date, no end game, no exit strategy, no plan for the peace, nothing. There never was. There was never meant to be. There is no "end" to see through to, with or without a stomach. This is the new version of war without end. This is the utopia of war profiteers.

Nah. The vikings used to love that shit.

I was about to say something like that. Some troops are battle happy/trigger happy.

Fair enough. It proves point 1. All the OTHER things, such as the conspicuous lack of WMDs, prove point 2.
I think you have a low standard of proof, but then that's been the case for as long as I can remember.

Let's see how this proof goes...
IFF I support the troops then I support the war.

I assume you understand necessary and sufficient conditions... support for the troops does not mean that support for the war exists, thus the proof fails.

Now, let's try your way...
Four guys complaining about being away from home IFF support stuff...
No, maybe this,
Support for the troops IFF support for the war IFF four guys complaining...
No, not that, either.
Hell, I can't even formulate it right. It must be without any merit. Show me the proof.

I think the same confusion exists with #2.

Like I said, you have a low standard of proof...

I think you have a low standard of proof, but then that's been the case for as long as I can remember.

Let's see how this proof goes...
IFF I support the troops then I support the war.

I assume you understand necessary and sufficient conditions... support for the troops does not mean that support for the war exists, thus the proof fails.

Now, let's try your way...
Four guys complaining about being away from home IFF support stuff...
No, maybe this,
Support for the troops IFF support for the war IFF four guys complaining...
No, not that, either.
Hell, I can't even formulate it right. It must be without any merit. Show me the proof.

I think the same confusion exists with #2.

Like I said, you have a low standard of proof...

Oh, dear. You really could use some reading comprehension classes.

My point was EXACTLY that supporting the troops doesn't have as pre-requisite supporting the war.

Oh, dear. You really could use some reading comprehension classes.

My point was EXACTLY that supporting the troops doesn't have as pre-requisite supporting the war.
That I understand, but how in the world do you make four unhappy guys necessary and sufficient to prove it? If you can't do that, you must just be bluster.

That I understand, but how in the world do you make four unhappy guys necessary and sufficient to prove it? If you can't do that, you must just be bluster.

It was self-evident enough WITHOUT them, but, then, only an idiot would assume that ONLY these four guys, as opposed to a decent part of the troops, combat and non-combat, are against it.

Do you assume thus? If so, I will start using smaller words.

Been to iraq and going back soon, and glad to be doing so. You only heard about the bad in the war, we've done great things over there. And for there f&%$ing pussys that probally never seen action need to get a life you joined the military what do you think there dam job is.

Sgt.
2/20th sfg

Been to iraq and going back soon, and glad to be doing so. You only heard about the bad in the war, we've done great things over there. And for there f&%$ing pussys that probally never seen action need to get a life you joined the military what do you think there dam job is.

Sgt.
2/20th sfg



Probably supply clerks.

Been to iraq and going back soon, and glad to be doing so. You only heard about the bad in the war, we've done great things over there. And for there f&%$ing pussys that probally never seen action need to get a life you joined the military what do you think there dam job is.

Sgt.
2/20th sfg

Oh, sure. How dare they mouth their opinion on a war that's widely credited to have generated WAY more terrorism than it could ever hope to curb?

Everyone's a soldier, an astronaut and a physicist on the Internet, kiddo.

You knows its funny you send a man to basic and he thinks he's john wayne, same man see a dead body for the first time in war and he knows it could be him, he wants his momma. If cant handle being off the tit dont go to war with the big boys who want to do there job for there country. Just stay home little boys

You knows its funny you send a man to basic and he thinks he's john wayne, same man see a dead body for the first time in war and he knows it could be him, he wants his momma. If cant handle being off the tit dont go to war with the big boys who want to do there job for there country. Just stay home little boys

Cocky talk, considering a good deal of the troops in IRAQ are from STATE NATIONAL GUARD DIVISIONS. They didn't sign up looking for their own G.I. Joe moment in a foreign country. Your Dear Leader ended up sending them there through lethal hindsight and hubris.

oh, sure. How dare they mouth their opinion on a war that's widely credited to have generated way more terrorism than it could ever hope to curb?

Everyone's a soldier, an astronaut and a physicist on the internet, kiddo.

terrorism where you fuck nut i haven't seen one terrorist attack on us soil since 9/11, go back to watching the cartoon network and leave the real world ideas and actions to the those who can handle them.

cocky talk, considering a good deal of the troops in iraq are from state national guard divisions. They didn't sign up looking for their own g.i. Joe moment in a foreign country. Your dear leader ended up sending them there through lethal hindsight and hubris.

no shit dump ass look up the 2/20th special forces group on the internet its a guard unit

I dont accuse troops of hating troops, i accuse BBC of exploiting the opinions of hot,tired, clearly homesick 19 year old kids who just do what they are told and are implicitly represented as experts on foreign policy.

Lol but this is how democracy works. It isn't an exploitation of the system, it IS the system. Since people have the choice to watch/not watch a particular news channel, to function in democracy essentially means you drop out all technical information so as to make it more understandable to the mass. Try putting up real statistical information on the news, and watch it's views plummet as people flock into another channel where they offer names and personal stories.

Of course this give the news network the flexibility to choose what view they want to present, since they can easily find 1 soldier who thinks the war is necessary, or even 1 that think he/she is really helping the civilians in Iraq.

terrorism where you fuck nut i haven't seen one terrorist attack on us soil since 9/11, go back to watching the cartoon network and leave the real world ideas and actions to the those who can handle them.

no shit dump ass look up the 2/20th special forces group on the internet its a guard unit

Yeah, if even a small part of the forces in the Middle East have manners like you little wonder the native population resents our presence over there.

:rolleyes:

And how is sending State National Guard units to a slow grindstone in an insurgent quagmire supposed to keep the CONUS safe? The only reason there hasn't been any attacks in the mainland is because Bin Ladin and his kind don't need to. Thanks to Dear Leader the most brilliant commander in chief in the nation's history, our troops are being ground into a demoralized powder while terrorist recruitment and propaganda are at an all time high. And of course if they ever do get around to hitting the States again, guess what? Most of the National Guards are over at Iraq, getting killed or crippled.

terrorism where you fuck nut i haven't seen one terrorist attack on us soil since 9/11, go back to watching the cartoon network and leave the real world ideas and actions to the those who can handle them.

I'm not going to be called a "fuck nut" by the guy that essentially would buy the rock that "keeps away tigers". Besides even CIA admits terrorist recruitment went way up with the war. Not to mention terrorist attacks in England and Spain. Shows how much you know.

You will address your betters, starting by me, in a decent manner, kid, or not at all.

i'm not going to be called a "fuck nut" by the guy that essentially would buy the rock that "keeps away tigers". Besides even cia admits terrorist recruitment went way up with the war. Not to mention terrorist attacks in england and spain. Shows how much you know.

You will address your betters, starting by me, in a decent manner, kid, or not at all.

just how old do you have to be to call you kid. Cause i 12yrs in the military pretty much sums up what and who i call a fuck nut

this seems appropriate right about...... now.



http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/d3/Internettoughkid.jpg

just how old do you have to be to call you kid. Cause i 12yrs in the military pretty much sums up what and who i call a fuck nut

1- I will call you a kid all I like, kid. If that's what you meant in the un-bolded garbled disarray of words you're trying to pass off as a sentence.

2- I doubt people get into the military without the ability to write a grammatical sentence (both of your "sentences" qualify, but the bolded one is more charming an example).

3- If you are not worthy of the privilege of talking to me, at least act like you are and I will accept to lower myself and maybe teach you one or two things about reality.

Sorry thats called joining the Military. Its not exploitive when they volunteer to be there and agree to follow the rules, and yes thats what the rules say. You become government property for the government to do what it will with. Dont vomit on me, i didnt make up the rules for the military.

Join the army! Uncle Sam needs it's slaves and penal battalions!

just how old do you have to be to call you kid. Cause i 12yrs in the military pretty much sums up what and who i call a fuck nut

Apparently being in the "military" doesn't teach one how to spell or use proper grammar either.

It becomes exploiting when your using the opinions of non foreign policy experts and attempting to pass them off as such simply because "they are in the Army" so they must know what they are talking about.
They're simply trying to bring democratic institutions and freedom to the army!

What, you don't like them being brought in? You must be against democracy!

*Adds Intestinal fluids to the Axis of Evil(tm) list*

terrorism where you fuck nut i haven't seen one terrorist attack on us soil since 9/11, go back to watching the cartoon network and leave the real world ideas and actions to the those who can handle them.
Well, of course you haven't seen an attack on US soil. You've been in Iraq, according to you. The horizon would get in the way.

That "there have been no attacks since 9/11 because of the war" buillshit is bullshit, plain and simple. Guess what else hasn't happened since the war started? I haven't won the lottery!!! It must be because of the war. Wow, hey, I haven't had a yeast infection since the war started, either. Actually, I've never had a yeast infection, but the point is I haven't had one SINCE THE WAR STARTED!! Wow, causality, huh?

Hey, let's think of other things that haven't happened since the US attacked Iraq. It's fun!

i haven't seen one terrorist attack on us soil since 9/11, go back to watching the cartoon network and leave the real world ideas and actions to the those who can handle them.

Then turn on a TV or read a newspaper.

2001: Anthrax attacks
2002: Luke Helder's pipe bombings, LAX El Al attack, Beltway Sniper attacks
2006: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar at Chapel Hill, Omeed Aziz Popal's SUV rampage

Apparently being in the "military" doesn't teach one how to spell or use proper grammar either.

Or how to read a newspaper.

It's interesting to see individual reactions from soldiers about the war, but there's nothing in this video that hasn't been said in every Iraq documentary made since the invasion. Nobody *wants* to be there. One soldier called the war "stupid" and "pointless," (no, they didn't all chant it in unison like the thread title suggests :tongue:), the general mood isn't too chipper, and the local population doesn't much like any of them. I feel especially bad for the newlywed soldier. Still, the soldiers' opinions of the war aren't any different than they were when the PBS: Frontline series did interviews last year (and in '06 and '05, etc.).

Have prospects improved or worsened in Iraq? The major media outlets seem to think things are looking up in Iraq and down in Afghanistan. I'm dubious for a number of reasons, but the fact that Iraq is hot, sticky, lonely and stressful for soldiers isn't exactly illuminating.

Cocky talk, considering a good deal of the troops in IRAQ are from STATE NATIONAL GUARD DIVISIONS. They didn't sign up looking for their own G.I. Joe moment in a foreign country.

Actually, if you've joined the Guard since 2003 it's been a fair assumption you'd be deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. Guard recruiters have been quite up front with that fact. In fact, most Guard units know several months to a year before they're going to deploy, so many young troops enlist knowing to a certainty that they'll be deploying.

Apparently being in the "military" doesn't teach one how to spell or use proper grammar either.

Screw "proper", I'd settle for "comprehensible"!

Actually, if you've joined the Guard since 2003 it's been a fair assumption you'd be deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. Guard recruiters have been quite up front with that fact. In fact, most Guard units know several months to a year before they're going to deploy, so many young troops enlist knowing to a certainty that they'll be deploying.
I'm enlisting in the Army next year after I turn eighteen, but I'm not going into the National Guard, I'm joining as an active duty member. Do you know if regular Army units know at a certain time before they are going? I know for sure that I'll be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan with my combat-oriented MOS, but I would like to know.

Imbrinium,

Look, you can be whatever you want to be, okay? You say you're serving in Iraq. Well, maybe you are and maybe you're not, but I don't really care either way. If you want to believe all the bullshit reasons that our civilian pols dish out for why we're fighting over there, go ahead, you have that right. You have the right to believe any BS you like and take yourself to hell in whatever handbasket you choose -- just like the rest of us.

But please, do not walk into an ongoing conversation in which you should be able to see what kind of people you're talking to and just start spouting your propaganda and cursing out anyone who disagrees with it, and expect to get a friendly response, okay? If you have the right to believe it, we have the right to denounce it, and if you expect us to respect your right, then you really should respect ours.

I know there are soldiers who honestly believe they are doing good in Iraq, but I am telling you, looking at it from the outside, they are tragically mistaken. There is nothing good in Iraq as a whole, and the farther out from Iraq you get, the worse the big picture gets. Maybe once in a while a street gets cleaned up or a section of a city goes a whole week with no shootings, but that is not progress after all this time, and it sure as hell is not the reason for the war, and it sure as fucking hell isn't the main effect of the war.

So, please, adjust your tone and learn something about the people here and what we have to say, and THEN attack us. Attacking us when you have no idea what you're talking about does not help you.

I'm enlisting in the Army next year after I turn eighteen. But I'm not going into the National Guard, I'm joining as an active duty member. Do you know if regular Army units know at a certain time before they are going?
I know for sure that I'll be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan with my combat-oriented MOS, but I would like to know.

I'm sure they've a fair idea as they plan these things some time in advance (although keep in mind that nothing is ever certain in the military) but I left active duty in 2004 so I couldn't say.

Of course, things can happen fairly quickly at times. I was in 3d ACR in 2003, we received our deployment orders in February and arrived in-country in April.

What MOS are you going in to?

Attacking us when you have no idea what you're talking about (...)

...or how to talk about it...

I'm sure they've a fair idea as they plan these things some time in advance (although keep in mind that nothing is ever certain in the military) but I left active duty in 2004 so I couldn't say.
Okay, thanks.
Of course, things can happen fairly quickly at times. I was in 3d ACR in 2003, we received our deployment orders in February and arrived in-country in April
That's fast? Wow.
What MOS are you going in to?
19k, M1 Abrams Crewman.

19k, M1 Abrams Crewman.

Be prepared to be on a Stryker Gun System or to have your unit become a RSTA Cavalry squadron and be reclassed as a 19D. The Army seems to be moving away from heavy mech into lighter formations. My current unit was an armored battalion until 2006 when they reflagged to Cavalry, which of course doesn't bother me because I've been a 19D since 2000. I'd launch into the standard scout shit talking about tankers but I do it every day so I'm rather tired of it.

Be prepared to be on a Stryker Gun System or to have your unit become a RSTA Cavalry squadron and be reclassed as a 19D. The Army seems to be moving away from heavy mech into lighter formations. My current unit was an armored battalion until 2006 when they reflagged to Cavalry, which of course doesn't bother me because I've been a 19D since 2000. I'd launch into the standard scout shit talking about tankers but I do it every day so I'm rather tired of it.
Okay. Though, I've been considering becoming a Combat Engineer, but I don't really feel interested in it. And LOL about the scout>tanker thing. :p
And if you're wondering, I scored an eighty(80) on the ASVAB. I've been told that's moderately high by the recruiter. Is it really?

Okay. Though, I've been considering becoming a Combat Engineer, but I don't really feel interested in it. And LOL about the scout>tanker thing. :p
And if you're wondering, I scored an eighty(80) on the ASVAB. I've been told that's moderately high by the recruiter. Is it really?

Yeah, that's relatively high. One needs a score of 25 or something ludicrous like that to be an 11B. I'm fairly certain that with an 80 you can do whatever it is you want.

Of course, don't let me talk you out of being a tanker. It may be my duty to belittle them at every turn but it's really not a bad MOS. Personally, I'd really like to play around with the Stryker Gun System.

Yeah, that's relatively high. One needs a score of 25 or something ludicrous like that to be an 11B. I'm fairly certain that with an 80 you can do whatever it is you want.
My uncle is a retired E-8 (Army). He calls them ''Elevenbangbangs!''.
Of course, don't let me talk you out of being a tanker. It may be my duty to belittle them at every turn but it's really not a bad MOS. Personally, I'd really like to play around with the Stryker Gun System.
I like anything that makes other things blow up. Wait, that's typical of all seventeen year old males. ...Whatever. And feel free to talk shit about them. Once I join, I'm sure I'll talk shit right back. :p

That's tactics. Strategy is a much larger scope. Small units execute tactics. That's it. Theater commanders execute strategy.

See, I can say it and be serious because I know the difference.

Now, you do too.

So when a squad is ordered to take a hill as part of the commanders stratergy, what you are saying is that it is not actualy part of his stratergy at all? And should instead be thought of as tatics?

I think your just playing around with words and definitions here.

Let me rephrase my question for you.

Are you saying that when a sqaud takes the hill they have been orderd to take that not a single one of them everyday soldiers has any understanding at all of the tatical, or strateigical advantage they have just won?

It was self-evident enough WITHOUT them, but, then, only an idiot would assume that ONLY these four guys, as opposed to a decent part of the troops, combat and non-combat, are against it.

Do you assume thus? If so, I will start using smaller words.
Very little is self-evident in a serious argument. Certainly nothing we've discussed. I did a proper proof for you, but you refuse to connect your assertion with the evidence that you produce. My guess is that you're over your head, here.

Maybe you need to stick with what your good at -- finding some inconsistencies in a couple posts and hammering that home. As I recall, it's your reason to live.

As far as your NEW assertion about the proportion of troops that are against the war -- you definitely need to prove that one. I don't recall any of the guys that were interviewing claiming that "everyone" shared the same view. And there's no bye for you by claiming self-evident here, either. We don't make assumptions -- we prove assertions.

If you want to use smaller words, that's fine, but stick to the point and comply.

So when a squad is ordered to take a hill as part of the commanders stratergy, what you are saying is that it is not actualy part of his stratergy at all? And should instead be thought of as tatics?

I think your just playing around with words and definitions here.

Let me rephrase my question for you.

Are you saying that when a sqaud takes the hill they have been orderd to take that not a single one of them everyday soldiers has any understanding at all of the tatical, or strateigical advantage they have just won?
I think you misunderstand the nature of warfare. A small unit that has orders to accomplish a mission does not have the long view of how that mission fits into the overall strategy of the campaign/war. You need to separate the terms strategic and tactical and apply them to the proper elements. Strategic is best applied to the general staff and tactical probably applies to every unit below that.

That's why generals make the charts with the big sweeping arrows and lieutentants and sergeants make diagrams in the dirt with stones and sticks.

If you're gonna talk the talk, use the right words.

Now, back to your question... rephrased...
Does a small unit know what value their target has in the strategic plan? Not necessarily. Do they know if they have succeeded in their mission? Most likely, but there are probably instances where that might even be unclear. If they were used as a diversion or delaying tactic, then failure to accomplish their objective might still be strategic success.

For me, it was a little easier to judge tactical success. Bombs on target and on time is a far easier measure to judge by. But I still didn't know what strategic significance my targets had. I just was assigned something based on a frag from the air tasking order. When your in ones and twos, you just go out and do what you're told to do.

I think you misunderstand the nature of warfare. A small unit that has orders to accomplish a mission does not have the long view of how that mission fits into the overall strategy of the campaign/war. You need to separate the terms strategic and tactical and apply them to the proper elements. Strategic is best applied to the general staff and tactical probably applies to every unit below that.

That's why generals make the charts with the big sweeping arrows and lieutentants and sergeants make diagrams in the dirt with stones and sticks.

If you're gonna talk the talk, use the right words.

Now, back to your question... rephrased...
Does a small unit know what value their target has in the strategic plan? Not necessarily. Do they know if they have succeeded in their mission? Most likely, but there are probably instances where that might even be unclear. If they were used as a diversion or delaying tactic, then failure to accomplish their objective might still be strategic success.

For me, it was a little easier to judge tactical success. Bombs on target and on time is a far easier measure to judge by. But I still didn't know what strategic significance my targets had. I just was assigned something based on a frag from the air tasking order. When your in ones and twos, you just go out and do what you're told to do.

You are correct I know nowt about war, warfare, or things attached to it.

However the point that I am addressing is in answer to this from you:

'They probably aren't the best suited ones in Iraq/Ashcanistan to comment on strategic successes.'

When I asked are you really telling us that the squad sent to 'take that hill' has no idea whether or not they have successfuly taken it, it was directed to this part of your statement.

I would say that they are in fact the best suited to ask if the hill has been taken or not, wouldn't you?

You are correct I know nowt about war, warfare, or things attached to it.

However the point that I am addressing is in answer to this from you:

1)'They probably aren't the best suited ones in Iraq/Ashcanistan to comment on strategic successes.'

When I asked are you really telling us that the squad sent to 'take that hill' has no idea whether or not they have successfuly taken it, it was directed to this part of your statement.

2)I would say that they are in fact the best suited to ask if the hill has been taken or not, wouldn't you?
Statement 1) and statement 2) are both correct. Neither statement contradicts the veracity of the other. All the discussion in the previous posts apply...

Does that confuse the issue further?

I may not be a bricklayer but I can tell you that wall just ain't straight.

1) You entered the thread asking what the point of it was.

2) The point was explained to you as follows: The existence of troops who are opposed to the war puts the lie to the claim that "the troops" support the war.


Which I responded by saying only if by 'troops support', you mean 'universal agreement by every single troop in the army'.


-- First you claimed there weren't enough soldiers to take notice of, so it didn't put the lie to the claim that "the troops" supported the war because, according to you, it's okay to ignore the existence of things that don't fit the picture the politicians and pundits are trying to paint as long as it isn't the majority set.

And you claim I twist and spin things. :rolleyes: That wasn't my first claim, my first claim was that the only way the op could disprove the claim that the troops support the war is if, as I said above , by 'troops support', you mean 'universal agreement by every single troop in the army'. Very very simple. You then stated that it represents a 'broad agreement', which is different from universal, and which I stated that a few angry soldiers could fall outside of, thus the OP proves nothing.


That was countered by pointing out that you don't know how many troops don't support the war, so your claims that there are too few to matter are meaningless.


Except this was merely a counter to one huge strawman based on a fundamental misinterpretation of my argument. I was always, and always have been referring to the soldiers presented in the OP.


-- You conceded that point, but even after conceding it, still tried to claim that the number of troops that do not support the war is statistically insignificant because you don't know how many there are.


No, I said the number of troops in the OP are not statistically significant to disprove the claim (very obviously, since the whole point of the discussion is whether the OP has any significant point), and yes I do know how many there are, watch the video and count.


-- Then you tried to claim that you never meant to refer to non-war-supporting troops in general, but only to the specific ones mentioned in the OP article

I didn't 'try to claim', this is, and always has been my claim. You were the one very strangely interpreting my argument into me somehow claiming that the overall amount of troops not supporting the war is insignificant.


, but no, you don't get to whittle away at reality until you feel you can handle it. The fact remains that you do not know how many troops do not support the war.


That fact is irrelevant however, since we're not discussing overall support, only the significance of the OP's material.


-- You also tried to claim that when pols and pundits say "the troops" support the war, they don't really mean all the troops support the war.

I didn't set that out as an absolute, I said the ONLY way for the OP to have significance is for 'troops' to mean every single troop who has served and will serve is in support. I said that was a bizzare assumption, nothing more.


That was countered by pointing out that it is bullshit.

Haha. You didn't even counter it, you accepted that it means a 'broad agreement', unless you and I have a different meaning of broad agreement.


Words mean what they mean

Funny how you act as if all words have some objective universal essence behind them, words are equivocal, get used to it.


, and if a pol says "the troops" he is not identifying a subset of "the troops." Reference to "the troops" encompasses an indefinite, amorphous, potentially complete set of "the troops" unless the speaker specifies "the troops who support the war" or "the troops except for the ones who don't support the war" or "many of the troops" or "a number of the troops." But people who claim that "the troops" support the war never add those modifiers, and you don't get to add them for them. You don't get to be their spin doctor and try to salvage their statements by telling us what they meant to say. They said what they said, and they said it about "the troops," no specificity.


It's called a generalisation. It's very obvious that anyone who says that is generalising, none of these people are Gods who can read the mind of every single soldier. It's no different from when people say "the Iraqis don't want us here" or "the Ethiopian people are suffering". If you really believe that these people are pretending to be mind readers to the public, fine, you've disproved a point a 2 year old could disprove. It will be quite inconsequential however, since no one with common sense will believe that every single troop that has ever served in Iraq is supportive.


That brings us right back to the original point, that the existence of troops who do not support the war creates a discrepancy between what the pols and pundits say about "the troops" and what actual soldiers say about themselves, and that this discrepancy is important information for people trying to figure out how to vote and considering the war as an issue. That point was raised to you several times, and you have ignored it every time.


I never 'ignored it', I said it's only valid if you use a bizzarre assumption. But what gives you the right to state exactly what someone means when they say something? There is no correct, universal and objective meaning to every word, you're not in a position to assert exactly what someone means when they use that word, so you cannot say as an absolute (which you love to do by the way, you use more absolutes than the fucking pope) that THESE PEOPLE ARE LYING zomg.


-- Then you whipped out your "universal agreement" strawman, with which you tried to set up a false dichotomy between "all" the troops or "none" of the troops

What the fuck? If you really believe this then you have deeply misinterpreted my argument.

and with which you tried to misrepresent our criticism of the pols and pundits as being about them claiming that a specific number of "the troops" support the war.

Not a specific number, ALL of the troops, which you have said countless times.


We said (and I especially specifically said) that the claim that "the troops" support the war is deliberately misleading in order to create the appearance of overwhelming agreement

FFS, overwhelming agreement or EVERY SINGLE TROOP supporting it? Stop changing your mind about what it means, it's either the first or the second. If it's merely 'overwhelming agreement' then the OP does not disprove that (unless by overwhelming, you actually mean ALL or universal or whatever).

Now, if you choose to read that honestly, you will see that it is the exact opposite of your assertion that we have been saying that the claim means "every single troop currently active in Iraq."

But you've said that countless times.


In reality, the claim that "the troops" support the war is deliberately vague and identifies no number for the very purpose of weaseling out of being compared to actual numbers.


It's a generalisation as I said, not too specific as you say (all of a sudden), but in order to make this generalisation you would need a very large majority support for it to be justified, in which the OP does not disprove.


The real dichotomy of the argument is NOT "all" versus "none."

Never, ever said it was. It's always been about "all" vs "an unspecific generalisation" for me as well, where I'm claiming that troops clearly means the latter, and which you now apparently agree with.


-- In sum, unable to counter that straighforward answer to your simple and clear question, you have played fast and loose with numbers, made claims you could not support, committed gross acts of political spin, misrepresented your opponents' arguments, and danced around your own special strawman. But the one thing you didn't do is address the main point, which I have outlined to you -- again -- no fewer than four times in this post alone. See if you can find them in this picture. They're in there along with 15 common barnyard animals.

And I have never, in my life, on my whole time on being on NSG, seen so many strawmen. So many spins, so many misinterpretations bordering on deliberate lies to make it easier for you. I clearly addressed your issue right from the fucking beginning, that discrepancy is only valid if your assumption about what troops mean is true.

So when a squad is ordered to take a hill as part of the commanders stratergy, what you are saying is that it is not actualy part of his stratergy at all? And should instead be thought of as tatics?

I think your just playing around with words and definitions here.

Let me rephrase my question for you.

Are you saying that when a sqaud takes the hill they have been orderd to take that not a single one of them everyday soldiers has any understanding at all of the tatical, or strateigical advantage they have just won?
Of course not. They're not real people. They're just pieces the generals move around on a board. Who cares what they think? What makes you think they even can think?

Of course not. They're not real people. They're just pieces the generals move around on a board. Who cares what they think? What makes you think they even can think?

You dont understand the military, its not a soldiers job to think unless its thinking about how to follow thier orders. Period.

Which I responded by saying only if by 'troops support', you mean 'universal agreement by every single troop in the army'.
And as I told you, that's a false dichotomy. Just repeating it isn't going to change that.

And you claim I twist and spin things. :rolleyes: That wasn't my first claim, my first claim was that the only way the op could disprove the claim that the troops support the war is if, as I said above , by 'troops support', you mean 'universal agreement by every single troop in the army'. Very very simple. You then stated that it represents a 'broad agreement', which is different from universal, and which I stated that a few angry soldiers could fall outside of, thus the OP proves nothing.
A) I did not try to arrange your ludicrous arguments in chronological order.

B) See above -- repeating a fallacy won't magically make it a valid argument.

C) Kindly quote anyone but you introducing the concept of "universal agreement." I did not change my argument because I never said what you claimed I did. "Universal agreement" is your strawman, you burn it.

Except this was merely a counter to one huge strawman based on a fundamental misinterpretation of my argument. I was always, and always have been referring to the soldiers presented in the OP.
So you say. I have already explained why I don't believe you. Just like your other fallacies, repeating this over and over is not going to change anything.

No, I said the number of troops in the OP are not statistically significant to disprove the claim (very obviously, since the whole point of the discussion is whether the OP has any significant point), and yes I do know how many there are, watch the video and count.
Already addressed in the post you're [non]responding to. You're real good at ignoring things.

I didn't 'try to claim', this is, and always has been my claim. You were the one very strangely interpreting my argument into me somehow claiming that the overall amount of troops not supporting the war is insignificant.
Yeah, because that's what you said.

That fact is irrelevant however, since we're not discussing overall support, only the significance of the OP's material.
No, that's what YOU'RE discussing. The rest of the thread are discussing the war in general.

I didn't set that out as an absolute, I said the ONLY way for the OP to have significance is for 'troops' to mean every single troop who has served and will serve is in support. I said that was a bizzare assumption, nothing more.
It's the "only way" but it's not "absolute."

Right there is the fundamental ridiculousness of your entire argument, in a nutshell.

Haha. You didn't even counter it, you accepted that it means a 'broad agreement', unless you and I have a different meaning of broad agreement.



Funny how you act as if all words have some objective universal essence behind them, words are equivocal, get used to it.
Bullshit.

Equivocate that word, why don't you?

It's called a generalisation. It's very obvious that anyone who says that is generalising, none of these people are Gods who can read the mind of every single soldier. It's no different from when people say "the Iraqis don't want us here" or "the Ethiopian people are suffering". If you really believe that these people are pretending to be mind readers to the public, fine, you've disproved a point a 2 year old could disprove. It will be quite inconsequential however, since no one with common sense will believe that every single troop that has ever served in Iraq is supportive.
Generalizations are fallacies.

And when generalizations are pushed forward in spite of specific facts that contradict them, they become lies.

I never 'ignored it', I said it's only valid if you use a bizzarre assumption. But what gives you the right to state exactly what someone means when they say something? There is no correct, universal and objective meaning to every word, you're not in a position to assert exactly what someone means when they use that word, so you cannot say as an absolute (which you love to do by the way, you use more absolutes than the fucking pope) that THESE PEOPLE ARE LYING zomg.
You know, whatever. I say you ignored specific points raised. I told you what those points are, and you're ignoring them again while claiming that you're not ignoring them.

The history of the conversation is in the thread. At this point, I leave it to other readers to make up their own minds whether you addressed this discussion honestly or not.

What the fuck? If you really believe this then you have deeply misinterpreted my argument.
So you say.

Not a specific number, ALL of the troops, which you have said countless times.
All is a specific number, since in reality, there is a specific number of troops in total.

FFS, overwhelming agreement or EVERY SINGLE TROOP supporting it? Stop changing your mind about what it means, it's either the first or the second. If it's merely 'overwhelming agreement' then the OP does not disprove that (unless by overwhelming, you actually mean ALL or universal or whatever).
More misrepresentations. I'm not changing my mind. I'm talking about how you twisted the terms around. Talking about you, not me.


But you've said that countless times.
<just snip the rest of this claptrap because you've also said it countless times>
Your argument consists of nothing but fallacies, spin, and misrepresentations.

At this point, is there really anything more either of us can say to the other? No, there isn't.

I rest my case. My argument and its support are in the thread (on record, in other words). Let other readers judge it and your arguments on their own merits.

You dont understand the military, its not a soldiers job to think unless its thinking about how to follow thier orders. Period.
Yeah, you already made your opinion clear, Dr. Evil. As far as I'm concerned, you're not worth talking to.

You dont understand the military, its not a soldiers job to think unless its thinking about how to follow thier orders. Period.

And you don't understand humanity. No matter what a soldiers job is or isn't, I belive they do think, as is evidanced by the OP.

Yeah, you already made your opinion clear, Dr. Evil. As far as I'm concerned, you're not worth talking to.

LOL yes because i was the one responsible for making the rules of the military.

And you don't understand humanity. No matter what a soldiers job is or isn't, I belive they do think, as is evidanced by the OP.

Next time you need surgery, are you going to ask the opinion of the Surgeon or of the janitor mopping the operating room?

You dont understand the military, its not a soldiers job to think unless its thinking about how to follow thier orders. Period.

I don't know what military you're talking about. Aside from being obligated to assess the legality and legitimacy of those orders, soldiers (I'm talking about the US specifically here, but I'm sure the UK is similar) are required to make major decisions in the absence of orders from higher. A concept that is strongly promoted in the US Army right now is that of the Strategic Corporal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Corporal) or Three Block War.

another informative link about the "strategic corporal" concept (http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/august_2005/7_05_1.html)

I don't know what military you're talking about. Aside from being obligated to assess the legality and legitimacy of those orders, soldiers (I'm talking about the US specifically here, but I'm sure the UK is similar) are required to make major decisions in the absence of orders from higher. A concept that is strongly promoted in the US Army right now is that of the Strategic Corporal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Corporal) or Three Block War.


While this may be true, it doesnt really touch on the validity of the arguement that US non high officer rank troops dont have any better idea of the overall military and political position of Iraq then anyone else does.

While this may be true, it doesnt really touch on the validity of the arguement that US non high officer rank troops dont have any better idea of the overall military and political position of Iraq then anyone else does.

Nor was it intended to. What I was addressing was your assertion that soldiers are meant to be unthinking automatons who shouldn't know anything aside from their orders.

However, it should be noted that soldiers should be well aware of the strategic situation in their area of responsibility, for the strategic corporal idea to actually work. While they may not know everything going on in every corner of Iraq they should be fairly well acquainted with how things are going in their area.

And as I told you, that's a false dichotomy. Just repeating it isn't going to change that.


Is it? I asked you earlier on what other options there are that allow the OP to disprove such a claim, you haven't done anything of the sort to show any other possible options.


A) I did not try to arrange your ludicrous arguments in chronological order.

B) See above -- repeating a fallacy won't magically make it a valid argument.

C) Kindly quote anyone but you introducing the concept of "universal agreement." I did not change my argument because I never said what you claimed I did. "Universal agreement" is your strawman, you burn it.


I said that it's bizzarre to assume that when people say 'troops support', they mean universal agreement. You attempted to refute this, calling it bullshit and claiming that I'm just ignoring what the word 'really means'. If you DON'T think it means universal agreement, then you wouldn't have done this, and instead would have agreed with me.


So you say. I have already explained why I don't believe you.

Nope. No you haven't.


Yeah, because that's what you said.


Where?


No, that's what YOU'RE discussing. The rest of the thread are discussing the war in general.


Great, I'm discussing what point the OP serves, other discussions about 'overall support' are irrelevant to this, if you wish to discuss that, discuss it with someone else.


It's the "only way" but it's not "absolute."

Right there is the fundamental ridiculousness of your entire argument, in a nutshell.


And there in a nutshell is another misinterpretation, I said that what I interpret the people to mean when they say "troops" is not absolute. This does not mean that I don't think the fact that it could only mean universal agreement if the OP is to prove anything ISN'T absolute.


Bullshit.

Equivocate that word, why don't you?


What?


Generalizations are fallacies.

And when generalizations are pushed forward in spite of specific facts that contradict them, they become lies.


You can't contradict a generalisation with a few, what they would probably call, exceptions.

Next time you need surgery, are you going to ask the opinion of the Surgeon or of the janitor mopping the operating room?

Well the surgeon will tell you that all his patients do really well and the janitor will tell you the operating theatre is really clean. Those opinions are probably slightly biased. However both of them will have opinions as to how the hospital is run and how it affects what they do - I would listen to those.

Next time you need surgery, are you going to ask the opinion of the Surgeon or of the janitor mopping the operating room?

You see this makes no sense at all. Not in the context of my last post to you, not in the context of your point.

I mean unless of course you are equating soldiers at war with janitors mopping out the operating theatre? Even so what has this got to do with people thinking, and being able to think(yes even though it may not be their job to do so)

Well the surgeon will tell you that all his patients do really well and the janitor will tell you the operating theatre is really clean. Those opinions are probably slightly biased. However both of them will have opinions as to how the hospital is run and how it affects what they do - I would listen to those.

Really. When was the last time you went to the hospital and even gave the janitor a second look let alone stop and talk to him and get his opinion on if mopping 3x in the afternoon and 2x at night is better or worse then vice versa for your care? I am however certain you had many questions for your doctor concerning your care. Why is this do you think?

LOL yes because i was the one responsible for making the rules of the military.
My cat can vomit in your underwear, too, if you'd like.

Is it? I asked you earlier on what other options there are that allow the OP to disprove such a claim, you haven't done anything of the sort to show any other possible options.



I said that it's bizzarre to assume that when people say 'troops support', they mean universal agreement. You attempted to refute this, calling it bullshit and claiming that I'm just ignoring what the word 'really means'. If you DON'T think it means universal agreement, then you wouldn't have done this, and instead would have agreed with me.



Nope. No you haven't.



Where?



Great, I'm discussing what point the OP serves, other discussions about 'overall support' are irrelevant to this, if you wish to discuss that, discuss it with someone else.



And there in a nutshell is another misinterpretation, I said that what I interpret the people to mean when they say "troops" is not absolute. This does not mean that I don't think the fact that it could only mean universal agreement if the OP is to prove anything ISN'T absolute.



What?



You can't contradict a generalisation with a few, what they would probably call, exceptions.
As I said before:
<snip>
Your argument consists of nothing but fallacies, spin, and misrepresentations.

At this point, is there really anything more either of us can say to the other? No, there isn't.

I rest my case. My argument and its support are in the thread (on record, in other words). Let other readers judge it and your arguments on their own merits.

You see this makes no sense at all. Not in the context of my last post to you, not in the context of your point.

I mean unless of course you are equating soldiers at war with janitors mopping out the operating theatre? Even so what has this got to do with people thinking, and being able to think(yes even though it may not be their job to do so)

Look. Everyone thinks. Idiots think, Nobel Laureates think. The real question is what thinking do we give the most consideration to? Do you give more consideration to the thinking of a 19 year old hot homesick tired low rank inexperienced kids or men who in this case we will generically call Generals who are experienced, older, have access to far more complete information on "the big picture" and whos job it is to specifically analyze and judge this overall big picture?

Really. When was the last time you went to the hospital and even gave the janitor a second look let alone stop and talk to him and get his opinion on if mopping 3x in the afternoon and 2x at night is better or worse then vice versa for your care? I am however certain you had many questions for your doctor concerning your care. Why is this do you think?
Well, apparently unlike you, I am aware that the janitor is a human being with eyes and ears attached to a brain. I am also aware that, since he is low on the workplace totem pole, he is likely often ignored by those placed above him, but I also know that in his work, he is in a perfect position to observe certain specific details of how the hospital operates.

So I might ask the doctor about the treatment for my specific condition, but I might just as well ask the janitor what kinds of soaps and disinfectants the hospital uses, how often the bio-hazard garbage is taken out, how often the floors get mopped and toilets cleaned, etc.

His answers may not tell me anything about my medical care, but they most certainly could be relevant to my decision of whether I want to be treated in that particular hospital or not.

The doctor knows things the janitor doesn't, and the janitor knows things the doctor doesn't.

EDIT: The janitor might even know things about the doctor that the doctor isn't aware he knows. Only a fool ignores the janitor.

Look. Everyone thinks. Idiots think, <snip>
But apparently you don't, or else you woudn't have hit "submit" on such an obvious and tempting target.

Ok, so since Muravyets has decided to 'rest her case' and allow others to judge the debate, I ask my original question for other people in this thread, what point does the OP prove?

But apparently you don't, or else you woudn't have hit "submit" on such an obvious and tempting target.

Way to address my point. Try it, even though its harder to do then lame juvenile shots are.

EDIT: The janitor might even know things about the doctor that the doctor isn't aware he knows. Only a fool ignores the janitor.

I think youve been watching too many episodes of Scrubs. In the real world most of the janitors are uneducated low paid temp workers that dont give a shit about anything.

Stupid and pointless, yes. But its stupidity and pointlessness is not the main reason to oppose it...it's immorality and injustice is.

I think youve been watching too many episodes of Scrubs. In the real world most of the janitors are uneducated low paid temp workers that dont give a shit about anything.

They maybe but that does not invalidate their opinions.

Way to address my point. Try it, even though its harder to do then lame juvenile shots are.
You didn't make a point. And I was making a joke.

I think youve been watching too many episodes of Scrubs. In the real world most of the janitors are uneducated low paid temp workers that dont give a shit about anything.
Just like, in the real world, you're a bigoted snob who misses out on tons of information because you have no respect for the source of it, and thus you go through life fucking up endlessly but acting superior about it?

(Note: I am using the rhetorical "you" to signify the type of person who holds the views you present here. For an example of the fuck-ups of these kinds of people, see the Iraq war.)

Ok, so since Muravyets has decided to 'rest her case' and allow others to judge the debate, I ask my original question for other people in this thread, what point does the OP prove?

That wasn't your original question, you first claimed 'what purpose does this thread serve.' As if threads have to 'serve a purpose' other than internet discussion! I guess you've since then realized how silly that was so now you're trying to ask what the point is. I don't understand how you can ask this when you've been given more than enough answers, unless you're deliberately ignoring them.

The fact that you fail to see, sympathize or agree with the point doesn't mean the thread is pointless.

I think youve been watching too many episodes of Scrubs. In the real world most of the janitors are uneducated low paid temp workers that dont give a shit about anything.

Man it seems like you are wracking up a whole slew of wrongess huh.

In reality many janitors are indeed low paid full time or agency workers who work because they give a great deal of shit about their welfare and food for their familes.

That wasn't your original question, you first claimed 'what purpose does this thread serve.' As if threads have to 'serve a purpose' other than internet discussion! I guess you've since then realized how silly that was so now you're trying to ask what the point is.

Hilarious! Yes, I realised how silly it was of me to ask what the purpose of the thread is, so I now instead ask what the point of it is? Because that's so different right?


I don't understand how you can ask this when you've been given more than enough answers, unless you're deliberately ignoring them.

The fact that you fail to see, sympathize or agree with the point doesn't mean the thread is pointless.

If its point WAS the ones presented by Muryavyets, then it fails at proving those points. I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps his point is different and one that the material presented actually supports, hence me asking again.

Hilarious! Yes, I realised how silly it was of me to ask what the purpose of the thread is, so I now instead ask what the point of it is? Because that's so different right?



If its point WAS the ones presented by Muryavyets, then it fails at proving those points. I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps his point is different and one that the material presented actually supports, hence me asking again.
How many different words starting with 'p' are you going to use? You came in asking what the point was. At the top of this page you asked what the OP proves, and now you say you're saying that you gave up asking the purpose and just want to know the point, though in the next paragraph you again talk about proving things. Do youeven know what you're talking about?

The point was to express an opinion based on a fact.

The purpose was to discuss it.

Proof never entered into any of it, since no one (except some pols and pundits who are not in the thread) is denying that some troops do not support the war.

You came in asking what the point was. At the top of this page you asked what the OP proves,

I asked both what the point was and what the OP's material proves with my two original posts. But they are essentially the same thing, the only way you could fail to see this is if you muddle everything up with pointless semantic pedantry like you're doing now.


and now you say you're saying that you gave up asking the purpose

More lies as usual. Never said anything about 'giving up', and I tend to view 'purpose' and 'point' as the same thing.


The point was to express an opinion based on a fact.

No that was the purpose, the opinion is the point being presented, I want to know what it is, and how the OP's material proves that.


The purpose was to discuss it.


That was another purpose, or intended consequence yes.


Proof never entered into any of it, since no one (except some pols and pundits who are not in the thread) is denying that some troops do not support the war.

If you present an opinion with a source, then I presume that source is supposed to back up or prove the opinion in some way. However, the OP didn't even present an opinion, he merely presented a quote with the source and claimed it will cause peoples brain to implode.

I asked both what the point was and what the OP's material proves with my two original posts. But they are essentially the same thing, the only way you could fail to see this is if you muddle everything up with pointless semantic pedantry like you're doing now.



More lies as usual. Never said anything about 'giving up', and I tend to view 'purpose' and 'point' as the same thing.


No that was the purpose, the opinion is the point being presented, I want to know what it is, and how the OP's material proves that.



That was another purpose, or intended consequence yes.



If you present an opinion with a source, then I presume that source is supposed to back up or prove the opinion in some way. However, the OP didn't even present an opinion, he merely presented a quote with the source and claimed it will cause peoples brain to implode.
I see, so you deliberately used three different words interchangeably...um...why? So you could create confusion and then mock others for it? Or just so that, no matter how anyone responds to you, you can claim they missed your point?

I see, so you deliberately used three different words interchangeably...um...why? So you could create confusion and then mock others for it?

If it's that easy to confuse you then maybe the mockery is warranted. However mockery is rarely warranted, and I wasn't mocking anyone.

Anyway, rather than risk another shitstorm for not using exactly the same words as I used originally, I'll merely ctrl + v:

I fail to see any relevant point in this thread whatsoever. I mean is there such a person that exists that actually thinks that the war has 100% universal support from all of its troops?

If it's that easy to confuse you then maybe the mockery is warranted. However mockery is rarely warranted, and I wasn't mocking anyone.

Anyway, rather than risk another shitstorm for not using exactly the same words as I used originally, I'll merely ctrl + v:

I fail to see any relevant point in this thread whatsoever. I mean is there such a person that exists that actually thinks that the war has 100% universal support from all of its troops?
Yes, and his name is John Q. Strawman. Just reiterating for the record.

What these interviews show is that the people on the ground, the US troops, don't think this intervention has helped Iraq. This is not a good attitude for rebuilding.

These kind of news articles find their only meaning in the way that some people react to them.

So would the thread have a "relevant point" if the war had 50.1% support from all of its troops? How about 70%?

EDIT: Not good with numbers, meant to put 49.9% there :/.. but now that I think about it, the percentage really doesn't make a difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
This guy sums up my feelings on the matter.

What these interviews show is that the people on the ground, the US troops, don't think this intervention has helped Iraq.

No, that particular OP doesn't show that. It shows that 4 soldiers don't.

These kind of news articles find their only meaning in the way that some people react to them.

So would the thread have a "relevant point" if the war had 50.1% support from all of its troops? How about 70%?


If it actually showed any sort of percentage at all, then it would have a relevant point as we would actually be able to use that source to identify how much support from the troops the war actually has.

If it actually showed any sort of percentage at all, then it would have a relevant point as we would actually be able to use that source to identify how much support from the troops the war actually has.

So, only relevant point that this thread could possibly have is to identify how much support from the troops the war actually has?

May I ask you, why would you presume that the point of the OP is to identify how much support from the troops the war actually has, when the OP doesn't show any sort of percentage at all?

So, only relevant point that this thread could possibly have is to identify how much support from the troops the war actually has?


No, I didn't say it was the only possible relevant point, hence me asking what the point actually is.

If the point was: "the soldiers do not support the war", the source material does not prove that.

If the point was: "the war was a bad idea", the source material does not prove that.

etc...

The problem I have is this, I cannot think of one point that the OP's source proves, so I'm asking what it's supposed to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
This guy sums up my feelings on the matter.

That guy is a moronic idiot who wastes oxygen by existing and should die a slow and painful death.

So, only relevant point that this thread could possibly have is to identify how much support from the troops the war actually has?

May I ask you, why would you presume that the point of the OP is to identify how much support from the troops the war actually has, when the OP doesn't show any sort of percentage at all?

Maybe the OP had nothing of significance at all to point out. Maybe the OP was merely trolling for a inflammatory response... Do ya think that maybe that was the intent when he said, "Now I'm sure this is going to cause some people's brains to implode..."

Maybe the OP had nothing of significance at all to point out. Maybe the OP was merely trolling for a inflammatory response... Do ya think that maybe that was the intent when he said, "Now I'm sure this is going to cause some people's brains to implode..."

Yep. Solidiers dont support the war and even they say its stupid and pointless.


The soldier is probably trolling too eh?

Yep. Solidiers dont support the war and even they say its stupid and pointless.


The soldier is probably trolling too eh?
I think we've been around that block a couple times already. Four out of many is insignificant. But it makes a good anti-war magazine piece and a good start to a thread that has no point.

I couldn't speak to the soldiers' motives for allowing scum like that BBC reporter to interview them.

I couldn't speak to the soldiers' motives for allowing scum like that BBC reporter to interview them.

So reporters that tell stories that disagree with your narrow world view are scum?


Glad to hear.

I think we've been around that block a couple times already. Four out of many is insignificant. But it makes a good anti-war magazine piece and a good start to a thread that has no point.

I couldn't speak to the soldiers' motives for allowing scum like that BBC reporter to interview them.

Oh, yeah, how dare the journalist interview four people who know the war was a mistake? He probably HATES AMERICA, like I got accused of, and like 70% of the American population now would, by that piece of shit Republicans call logic.

So reporters that tell stories that disagree with your narrow world view are scum?


Glad to hear.
No problem. Glad to oblige.

Oh, yeah, how dare the journalist interview four people who know the war was a mistake? He probably HATES AMERICA, like I got accused of, and like 70% of the American population now would, by that piece of shit Republicans call logic.
But you do hate America. Or at least a large number of Americans... Not for the war in Iraq, necessarily, but you have made that statement before.

but you do hate america. Or at least a large number of americans... Not for the war in iraq, necessarily, but you have made that statement before.

Then show me the posts right now or we're taking this to moderation! NOW!

I got too much of this shit when I first opposed that useless bloodshed by morons that couldn't argue for it otherwise. I am NOT taking this sitting down! SHOW ME THE POSTS!

That guy is a moronic idiot who wastes oxygen by existing and should die a slow and painful death.

Do you really think a man with differing political opinions to yourself deserves that?

Then show me right now or we're taking this to moderation! NOW!
Oh, for Pete's sake. Have you forgotten our discussions about the 1964 coup that Brazil brought upon itself? The one that you have somehow blamed on Republicans in particular and Americans in general?

I'm not going to waste my time finding them.

Do you really think a man with differing political opinions to yourself deserves that?

No, I think a man who whores out his service to attack a candidate in defense of an useless bloodshed, after being PART in said useless bloodshed, does.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Have you forgotten our discussions about the 1964 coup that Brazil brought upon itself? The one that you have somehow blamed on Republicans in particular and Americans in general?

I'm not going to waste my time finding them.

I did no such thing. And if you had any means to prove it, you would.

As for "brought upon itself": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_coup_d%27etat_of_1964#Operation_Brother_Sam

No, I think a man who whores out his service to attack a candidate in defense of....

Why are the soldiers in the OP any different? Except that they in opposing rather than offending?

Why are the soldiers in the OP any different? Except that they in opposing rather than offending?

Oh, are they claiming McCain "doesn't understand the principle" of not raping defenseless countries, then?

Ah.. but I'm not the one who has been arguing over the intentions of someone else for the past, what 3 pages..

Looking at your post counts I'm fairly certain that both of you could understand the OP perfectly well. But you have asked so I will try to the best of my skill and knowledge make the point of the OP clear to you. Now I can't talk on the OP's behalf, this is only my take on it.

"We're in a stupid, pointless war because politicians back home can't admit that they were wrong, or are making too much money out of this."

This part is a direct quote from one of the soldiers on the video.

So say US soldiers currently serving in Iraq.

Here the OP clarifies the source for the aforementioned quote.

Now I'm sure this is going to cause some people's brains to implode... if they don't start accusing the troops of hating the troops, that is.

The OP seems to imply here that the troops hating the troops would somehow be impossible or atleast unlikely. The term "hating the troops" seems to refer to the illogical, but popular, argument that if one is against the war one must hate the troops. The video then goes to show troops that are against the war. Thus the video is supposed to be showing that people can actually be against the war, and at the same time, not hate the troops. The OP seems to also imply that people who believe otherwise have some sort of brain malfunction that might cause them to implode.

Video on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7610237.stm)

This is the link to the video and article refered in the OP before.

Oh, are they claiming McCain "doesn't understand the principle" of not raping defenseless countries, then?

Which circles back to my original point, you think someone deserves a slow and painful death because they hold different principles to you.

I did no such thing. And if you had any means to prove it, you would.

As for "brought upon itself": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_coup_d%27etat_of_1964#Operation_Brother_Sam
You feel pretty confident there, don't you, pal?

Unless you're running around with two personalities, you most certainly do remember despising American conservatives for the faint support that they gave to the '64 coup.

You feel pretty confident there, don't you, pal?

Unless you're running around with two personalities, you most certainly do remember despising American conservatives for the faint support that they gave to the '64 coup.

Oh, so now despising the people that supported a coup in my country equals hating their entire nationality?

You were flamebaiting, admit it.

Which circles back to my original point, you think someone deserves a slow and painful death because they hold different principles to you.

*Sigh* If I say I put that part in for the style, will you get off my back?

Not that supporting that useless bloodshed is ethical.

Oh, so now despising the people that supported a coup in my country equals hating their entire nationality?

You were flamebaiting, admit it.
It's not just the ones 50 years back. You certainly have jumped on the Obama bandwagon only to oppose Republicans -- whom you still blame for the coup that Brazil brought upon itself back in 1964.

And in current numbers Republicans make up a large number of Americans, so while hating the entire nationality is probably too big of a task for you, hating just about half of us seems to be manageable.

And by the way, these are your words in response to a statement about Republicans ...
Sel Appa:"You just suffer from the delusional disorder known as Republicans Are Evil Syndrome (RAES)"
Heikoku: "Hard not to perceive as evil the group that attacked a country over false claims and made veiled threats of doing the same to at least three others."

The OP seems to imply here that the troops hating the troops would somehow be impossible or atleast unlikely. The term "hating the troops" seems to refer to the illogical, but popular, argument that if one is against the war one must hate the troops. The video then goes to show troops that are against the war. Thus the video is supposed to be showing that people can actually be against the war, and at the same time, not hate the troops. The OP seems to also imply that people who believe otherwise have some sort of brain malfunction that might cause them to implode.


Just for the sake of further clarification before I comment: are you saying that the OP is suggesting it's possible to be against the war but not hate the troops because these particular troops are against the war and since they are troops themselves they can't (or are unlikely to) hate the troops?

*Sigh* If I say I put that part in for the style, will you get off my back?


If that's true, but is it?

It's not just the ones 50 years back. You certainly have jumped on the Obama bandwagon only to oppose Republicans -- whom you still blame for the coup that Brazil brought upon itself back in 1964.

And in current numbers Republicans make up a large number of Americans, so while hating the entire nationality is probably too big of a task for you, hating just about half of us seems to be manageable.

Again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_coup_d%27etat_of_1964#Operation_Brother_Sam

And I don't hate most Republicans. My best friend is one. He and most Republicans are just misguided. I favor Obama because he opposes the Iraq War. No more, and no less.

Just for the sake of further clarification before I comment: are you saying that the OP is suggesting it's possible to be against the war but not hate the troops because these particular troops are against the war and since they are troops themselves they can't (or are unlikely to) hate the troops?

I'm not quite sure if the OP claims that this is the only reason for this said possibility. Other than that, yes.

If that's true, but is it?

Yes. Now get off my back.

We all say things we regret from time to time.
Some of us do things we regret from time to time.
A danger in posts is that if one says things they don't mean (like hyperbolic curses) they may be "taken down and used against you".
A quick "sorry" and "I was only rattling your chain" doesn't hurt anyone.

We all say things we regret from time to time.
Some of us do things we regret from time to time.
A danger in posts is that if one says things they don't mean (like hyperbolic curses) they may be "taken down and used against you".
A quick "sorry" and "I was only rattling your chain" doesn't hurt anyone.

The ones against Henry Kissinger, though, I mean them. Every single word.

Again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_coup_d%27etat_of_1964#Operation_Brother_Sam

And I don't hate most Republicans. My best friend is one. He and most Republicans are just misguided. I favor Obama because he opposes the Iraq War. No more, and no less.
No, you just regard them as evil. See my edits above...

As far as 1964, If Goulart hadn't gone out of his way to piss off the military, the coup wouldn't have happened. You elected him, he screwed the military, they responded. Simple as that. Your fault.

Other than that, yes.

Well I don't class that as a relevant point (as I said right from the beginning) since it's so obviously, intuitively and with any common sense the case that it's possible to be against the war but not hate the troops. I don't think anyone on NSG who's not some crazy wacko troll actually argues this either. So it seems like in that case the OP is just arguing against one big strawman.

Well, most likely the OP found the BBC video interesting and wanted to share it with fellow NSG posters, having a bit of fun at the crazy wacko trolls at the same time. Alternatively this thread could have turned to a discussion about the existing phenomenon called Iraq fatique. But you decided to derail the thread with something rather unrelevant. Not that the OP was worth of any praise, but turning the thread to an argument about wheter there is any point, that is personally relevant to you, in it. That seems rather.. well egoistical.

Well, most likely the OP found the BBC video interesting and wanted to share it with fellow NSG posters, having a bit of fun at the crazy wacko trolls at the same time. Alternatively this thread could have turned to a discussion about the existing phenomenon called Iraq fatique.
But you decided to derail the thread with something rather unrelevant.

The thread had already derailed thanks to Intestinal fluids comment and all the "lol told you so comments" acting as if these soldiers testimonies presented any authoritative point about whether the war was a mistake or not (hence my comment). Of course the OP's "now I'm sure this is going to cause some people's brains to implode" didn't help ensure that the thread would remain a civil discussion either.


Not that the OP was worth of any praise, but turning the thread to an argument about wheter there is any point, that is personally relevant to you, in it. That seems rather.. well egoistical.

Not personally relevant to me, it was about it not being relevant to anyone on NSG, which is a fair issue to address. Plus Muryavyets was the one who just HAD to respond with some superfluously large response that would take a few pages to properly dissect.

Fair enough, it's not like I'm that diligent on remaining on topic anyways :)

Not personally relevant to me, it was about it not being relevant to anyone on NSG, which is a fair issue to address. Plus Muryavyets was the one who just HAD to respond with some superfluously large response that would take a few pages to properly dissect.
As others have pointed out to you, you don't get to decide that a topic is not "relevant to anyone on NSG", so no, that's not a fair issue to address. It's just attitude-copping disguised as debate. Whether a topic is relevant or not to anyone will be shown by how quickly it fades from the first page of the forum. As for you, if you don't think the topic is relevant, there's no law forcing you to read it.

Likewise for my posts. It takes two to tango, H, and if you don't enjoy my posts, you are under no obligation to keep arguing with me. Keep that in mind next time I start to bore you.

It was about it not being relevant to anyone on NSG, which is a fair issue to address.

It's relevant to me. I'm on NSG. There, end of discussion, you're wrong, let's move on.

Hilarious! Yes, I realised how silly it was of me to ask what the purpose of the thread is, so I now instead ask what the point of it is? Because that's so different right?

Yes, "point" is not the same as "purpose." The "purpose of a thread" is not the same as the "point in a post." Do I need to explain exactly in what ways they are different, or will that point go over your head the same way the point that purpose of posting is not the same as content posted did?

If its point WAS the ones presented by Muryavyets, then it fails at proving those points.

I don't see that even that is the case.

I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps his point is different and one that the material presented actually supports, hence me asking again.

Perhaps the fact that when asked for a 'point,' you dismiss it, ignore it, and then claim to have somehow proven it wrong, and then you pat yourself on the back (along with Myrm) for the supposed purposelessness of your opponents postings - perhaps that is the reason only people who like to argue with brick walls are responding to you.

As others have pointed out to you, you don't get to decide that a topic is not "relevant to anyone on NSG"


Hence me asking if there really is anyone on NSG who believes things as stupid as the supposed idea this the thread was trying to disprove.


Likewise for my posts. It takes two to tango, H, and if you don't enjoy my posts, you are under no obligation to keep arguing with me. Keep that in mind next time I start to bore you.

What, and let you have the last word? :)

It's relevant to me. I'm on NSG. There, end of discussion, you're wrong, let's move on.

Yeah, that's very easy to say isn't it.

Hence me asking if there really is anyone on NSG who believes things as stupid as the supposed idea this the thread was trying to disprove.
You're finally giving up any pretense at not trolling, I see.


What, and let you have the last word? :)
Yeah. :tongue:

Yeah, that's very easy to say isn't it.

Yeah it is, and yeah I said it. So, unless you're in the business of questioning what I do and don't find personally relevant, we can conclude that it is at least relevant to one person on NSG, that person being me, and move on from this absurd argument.

Yes, "point" is not the same as "purpose." The "purpose of a thread" is not the same as the "point in a post." Do I need to explain exactly in what ways they are different, or will that point go over your head the same way the point that purpose of posting is not the same as content posted did?


For Christs sake, when I ask what purpose this this thread serves, I'm asking what point the OP is trying to have discussed. I don't care if you don't think they mean the same thing, they do to me and that's all that matters in this case.


Perhaps the fact that when asked for a 'point,' you dismiss it, ignore it, and then claim to have somehow proven it wrong, and then you pat yourself on the back (along with Myrm) for the supposed purposelessness of your opponents postings - perhaps that is the reason only people who like to argue with brick walls are responding to you.

What point did I ignore and dismiss?

No, you just regard them as evil. See my edits above...

As far as 1964, If Goulart hadn't gone out of his way to piss off the military, the coup wouldn't have happened. You elected him, he screwed the military, they responded. Simple as that. Your fault.

As far as 9/11, If the US leaders hadn't gone out of their way to piss off Al Qaeda, the attack wouldn't have happened. You elected them, they pissed off Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda responded. Simple as that. Your fault.

See, I can also blame the victim with falsehoods. Now get out of my lawn, KID.

As far as 9/11, If the US leaders hadn't gone out of their way to piss off Al Qaeda, the attack wouldn't have happened. You elected them, they pissed off Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda responded. Simple as that. Your fault.

See, I can also blame the victim with falsehoods. Now get out of my lawn, KID.

Why do you even bother arguing with Myrm?

And by the way, these are your words in response to a statement about Republicans ...
Sel Appa:"You just suffer from the delusional disorder known as Republicans Are Evil Syndrome (RAES)"
Heikoku: "Hard not to perceive as evil the group that attacked a country over false claims and made veiled threats of doing the same to at least three others."

Even assuming I said ALL Republicans (I didn't, I was clearly talking about the leadership they foolishly elected), you seem to be assuming that thinking someone evil = hating them. Cute, but wrong.

Why do you even bother arguing with Myrm?

In this thread or in general?

Yeah it is, and yeah I said it. So, unless you're in the business of questioning what I do and don't find personally relevant, we can conclude that it is at least relevant to one person on NSG, that person being me, and move on from this absurd argument.

What relevant point did it present to you, may I ask?

What relevant point did it present to you, may I ask?

You can ask all you want. But I don't need to justify my reason to you.

And I'll just head your argument from silence fallacy off at the pass and say that just because I don't desire to present my reasoning to you does not indicate I don't have one.

In this thread or in general?

Ever. Its a waste, I know it and Im sure you know it. In typical conservative manner, no matter how many facts you throw at him, he will just close his eyes, plug his ears, ignore contradicting evidence, and just keep spouting Hannity and O'riely talking points.


Youre better off debating a rock or even Bush.

You can ask all you want. But I don't need to justify my reason to you.

And I'll just head your argument from silence fallacy off at the pass and say that just because I don't desire to present my reasoning to you does not indicate I don't have one.

Suit yourself.

Ever. Its a waste, I know it and Im sure you know it. It typical conservative manner, no matter how many facts you throw at him, he will just close his eyes, plug his ears, ignore contradicting evidence, and just keep spouting Hannity and O'riely talking points.


Youre better off debating a rock or even Bush.

I can't debate Bush. I can't STAND the Texan accent. :p

I can't debate Bush. I can't STAND the Texan accent. :p

Either way man, Im just trying to keep your blood pressure low.

Either way man, Im just trying to keep your blood pressure low.

Chuckles. Thanks.

In typical conservative manner, no matter how many facts you throw at him, he will just close his eyes, plug his ears, ignore contradicting evidence, and just keep spouting Hannity and O'riely talking points.
I'm conservative, and I don't do that. If you have a view that I don't agree with, then you just have that view. It's obvious, to me, that your opinion should be more important to you than mine will.
Having said this, I firmly support the statement that Bush is being used as a scapegoat by American citizens to keep from actually doing anything about the problems. It doesn't matter what name and face the president has, he or she will be blamed for the problems of this country simply by being the most visible and recognizable face in the country.

Damn it Gauntleted Fist. You're being reasonable. I expected that with a title like "Gauntleted Fist" it was going to be a redneck militarist tirade, so that I could say "What is that gauntleted fist wrapped around?".
Now all I can say is that you have a velvet glove over the gauntleted fist.

Damn it Gauntleted Fist. You're being reasonable. I expected that with a title like "Gauntleted Fist" it was going to be a redneck militarist tirade, so that I could say "What is that gauntleted fist wrapped around?".I try to be reasonable when discussing my political beliefs with others. It makes things much easier. I'm not going to say anything about being a redneck, because I actually am called a redneck on a daily basis. I guess that's a disadvantage of anonymity. I'm not so sure about being militaristic, but I do happen to be joining United States Army come next February. :p
Now all I can say is that you have a velvet glove over the gauntleted fist. Never heard that used to describe myself, but I just might use that from now on.

Hopefuly, if and when you join up the world situation will have changed. In the meantime (and in the future) I hope you never see any violence (unlikely as that scenario may be!)

Hopefuly, if and when you join up the world situation will have changed. In the meantime (and in the future) I hope you never see any violence (unlikely as that scenario may be!)Thanks, though I do know that I will be going to Afghanistan or Iraq if I join next year, which I'm definitely planing on doing. All I have to do is sign on the dotted line, and I'm gone. :p

Here Gauntleted:
Put your earphones on and keep your box of tissues handy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttVPN3LX-yw

Hopefuly, if and when you join up the world situation will have changed. In the meantime (and in the future) I hope you never see any violence (unlikely as that scenario may be!)

It's a bit likelier than you think. In the part of Iraq my unit operates in no one has been killed or injured by enemy actions in well over a year. There have been only a tiny handful of serious incidents, only resulting in minor property damage.

Of course there are reasons for this. The Californian Infantry we replaced weren't exactly what you'd call "neighborly" to the Iraqis. They ran right into the middle of rush hour, demanding through strong displays of force of arms that the Iraqis stop and let them pass by. They would fly through the Iraqi Police checkpoints at dangerous speeds, flipping off the Iraqis and sometimes dumping water, Gatorade or Rip-Its (cheap, nasty energy drinks) on them if they were feeling malicious enough. Definitely not winning the hearts and minds.

My unit of Michigan Cavalry, on the other hand, has taken a different approach. Our schedule ensures that we're not on the roads during times of peak Iraqi traffic. When we run into Iraqi traffic we use rather calmer measures (spotlights, sirens, police lights) to get them to comply with our wishes, which work just as well in normal instances. Rather than speeding through and harassing the IPs or IAs we'll slow down and give them food, water, Gatorade and ice. If possible we stay and chat as long as circumstances (and the language barrier) will allow.

As a result we've been attacked less in 6 months than they were during their first week. The Iraqi Police will open their checkpoints for us, allowing us to speed through and sometimes will get in their trucks to halt civilian traffic for us.

All of that is very positive change. So positive, in fact, that many (if not most, I don't ask soldiers their opinions unsolicited) of my fellow Wolverine Guardsmen question the necessity of us being here, that the Iraqi Police could do it as well, or at least a private security contractor.

It's a bit likelier than you think. In the part of Iraq my unit operates in no one has been killed or injured by enemy actions in well over a year. There have been only a tiny handful of serious incidents, only resulting in minor property damage.

Of course there are reasons for this. The Californian Infantry we replaced weren't exactly what you'd call "neighborly" to the Iraqis. They ran right into the middle of rush hour, demanding through strong displays of force of arms that the Iraqis stop and let them pass by. They would fly through the Iraqi Police checkpoints at dangerous speeds, flipping off the Iraqis and sometimes dumping water, Gatorade or Rip-Its (cheap, nasty energy drinks) on them if they were feeling malicious enough. Definitely not winning the hearts and minds.

My unit of Michigan Cavalry, on the other hand, has taken a different approach. Our schedule ensures that we're not on the roads during times of peak Iraqi traffic. When we run into Iraqi traffic we use rather calmer measures (spotlights, sirens, police lights) to get them to comply with our wishes, which work just as well in normal instances. Rather than speeding through and harassing the IPs or IAs we'll slow down and give them food, water, Gatorade and ice. If possible we stay and chat as long as circumstances (and the language barrier) will allow.

As a result we've been attacked less in 6 months than they were during their first week. The Iraqi Police will open their checkpoints for us, allowing us to speed through and sometimes will get in their trucks to halt civilian traffic for us.

All of that is very positive change. So positive, in fact, that many (if not most, I don't ask soldiers their opinions unsolicited) of my fellow Wolverine Guardsmen question the necessity of us being here, that the Iraqi Police could do it as well, or at least a private security contractor.Thanks for the information. I'm still not going to hope that things will change enough in six or seven months to allow me to stay out of going, because I've heard a lot about Afghanistan ''getting hotter'' during the recent months. I asked on of the guys at the local MEPS station what that meant, and he explained it to me. So, while that does make the prospect of joining a little better, I'm not going to set myself up for disappointment. :p