Going to war leaves US soldiers' kids at risk

[Amianthus]

I pointed that out ,and also the location of the break was never address.

Last time I checked, MAC flights* are available to take military personnel nearly anywhere they want to go.

* (They're called AMC flights now...)

[hnumpah]

The title appears to present such a scenario.

How, oh wise one? It mentions war, but doesn't mention any one war specifically. Just happens the study was completed recently, during the current hostilities, but I don't see where anyone said the findings apply only to this war. Nothing 'accusatory' there at all, in fact.

Though I can see why you get defensive about your buddy Bush's administration every time you think you see something negative that might apply to him. I mean, damn, you have so much to be defensive about.

[sirs]

The title appears to present such a scenario.

How, oh wise one?

asked and answered already.  One can deduce such by the trend of posts casted by the poster, and the title associated with it.  Granted, this isn't as blatant as some of Lanya "Republicans want women to die of cancer" op-eds, but given the consistent criticisms Miss Henny has about having gone into Iraq, her displeasure of the war & Bush, and now a piece that references how war is bad, and can actually "Leave U.S. soldiers' kids at risk", it doesn't require a some old wise sage to deduce the connection.  Again, I'm referencing the title + who posted the piece.  Simple as that.  Individually they can be looked at as completely seperate entities.  I simply combined the two, but in all honesty, Miss Henny may have wanted to reference this to "all wars", and not have this be some stealth criticism of this specific current war & administration.  But I'll let her answer that one, if she wishes

Though I can see why you get defensive about your buddy Bush's administration every time you think you see something negative that might apply to him. I mean, damn, you have so much to be defensive about.

yet again someone who blatantly disregards every criticism I've had towards Bush, which grows every frellin day, and insists he must be "my buddy" (The Brass-phenomenon) since I dare support the war against militant Islam, while he doesn't.  Sad

[hnumpah]

I'm not disregarding anything, just saying that you constantly seem to see criticism of your pal Bush even when none is present. There was a study; it said that the absence of a parent due to long deployment in wartime can put the kids at risk. No particular war was mentioned; certainly no specific mention was made of anyone who may have misled his nation into a war that has become more and more a quagmire each day. Yet you feel the need to immediately jump to the defense of Bush. You have apparently determined, in your twisted little mind, that the poster cannot perhaps simply be a parent who is concerned about the conclusions the study has drawn. No, indeed, you seem to see the fact that the article was posted as some sort of sideways slap at Bush, and feel the need to jump to his defense.

Now I ask you, who has the obsession?

[sirs]

I'm not disregarding anything, just saying that you constantly seem to see criticism of your pal Bush even when none is present. ....Now I ask you, who has the obsession?

Asked and answered already.  No obsesssion, outside of your apparent obsession with my non-obsession, and continued ignoring of my own frequent criticisms aimed at my apparent "pal", Bush

[Universe Prince]

One can deduce such by the trend of posts casted by the poster, and the title associated with it.

So, you're reading into the title a meaning that isn't explicitly stated because you think the poster meant it anyway.

[sirs]

One can deduce such by the trend of posts casted by the poster, and the title associated with it.

So, you're reading into the title a meaning that isn't explicitly stated because you think the poster meant it anyway.

Only Miss Henny knows the reason why she posted it.  Was it a complaint/concern about war in general or was it a complaint/concern about this war under this president.  I've simply posted a reasonable deduction, which is by no means conclusive in the least, since that would require an ability to read minds.  Which only Tee can apparently perform

[Amianthus]

So, you're reading into the title a meaning that isn't explicitly stated because you think the poster meant it anyway.

Of course, in my opinion, this study and others like it are just a waste of money. The results are like "duh-huh". Of course if one parent is taken out of a family for extended periods of time the children are going to suffer some emotional damage.

Did you see the release of another study the other day? Researchers found out that most people have sex because it feels good. Did they really expect any other result?

[Universe Prince]

Of course, in my opinion, this study and others like it are just a waste of money. The results are like "duh-huh".

Oh I agree completely. As my father might say, this is one of those studies they could have saved a lot of money on because they could have simply asked me and I would have told them.

Did you see the release of another study the other day? Researchers found out that most people have sex because it feels good. Did they really expect any other result?

I must have missed that one. But maybe they did the study to find out if all those pleas for white folks to go breed so America isn't overrun by Mexicans and Middle Eastern Muslims were motivating people to have sex.

[sirs]

So, you're reading into the title a meaning that isn't explicitly stated because you think the poster meant it anyway.

Of course, in my opinion, this study and others like it are just a waste of money. The results are like "duh-huh". Of course if one parent is taken out of a family for extended periods of time the children are going to suffer some emotional damage.

PRECISELY.  So, why the posting of it, at this time?  A reminder of the "well, duh", in case we had forgotten?  Or was there something a tad more to be inferred? 

[Michael Tee]

sirs:  <<No, that would be Tee, and like minds, who references how all soldiers are some form of low hanging fruit. >>

Never said it.  You could search these archives right down to the first post and you won't find a single post from me to that effect.  In fact quite a few of my own family have served in the Canadian and U.S. forces and I'm very proud of all of them. 

But don't let a mere FACT stand in the way of your usual lies and bullshit.

[The_Professor]

Actually, MT, you said that the Marines were the Neanderthals of the US military.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, MT, you said that the Marines were the Neanderthals of the US military.>>

I like the sound of it, Professor, but I don't recall actually saying it.  But even if I did, that's a far cry from saying that "ALL" soldiers are a form of low-hanging fruit.  I'm actually very proud of all my uncles and cousins who served.

[sirs]

<<Actually, MT, you said that the Marines were the Neanderthals of the US military.>>

I like the sound of it, Professor, but I don't recall actually saying it.  But even if I did, that's a far cry from saying that "ALL" soldiers are a form of low-hanging fruit. 

Ahhh, back to the "well even if I did...." tactic.  So what is your %?  87?, 90?, 98??  I'm not sure you're going to manage to shuffle out of aiming all of your asanine accusations of how terrible & evil our military is, then hide behind "Well, I never said "all".  Since that is the point I was making earlier.  I think Prince & Bt just had a similiar arguement regarding the FBI.  and *hint*, I don't think Prince at any time was damning "every single agent" of the FBI

[Amianthus]

Never said it.  You could search these archives right down to the first post and you won't find a single post from me to that effect.

Because you said it in one of the previous incarnations of this forum. About the time BT's son was enlisting.