Going to war leaves US soldiers' kids at risk

[Michael Tee]

<<Ahh, so you're going on record as never having referred to our military as a mass group of raping, piliaging, murdering thugs.  Never referenced them as low hanging fruit.  Which of course was the whole original point, way back on page 1 of this thread>>

Never said ALL soldiers were - - that was your big lie.  That was the lie I objected to.  That was the lie I called you on.  That was the lie you finally had to weasel out of by claiming that "all" did not mean "all."  Pathetic.

I said what I've always said - - your military are a bunch of undisciplined thugs, rapists, torturers and murderers.  Period.  Shouldn't be too hard for anyone to understand, even you.

<<Right.................................................and watch that credibility nearly reaching China at this point>>

Whose?  Yours?  Don't blame ME for that, sirs.  I just point out your lies and laugh as you try to weasel out of them.

<<Good.  About time you conceded to a little truth [by not objecting to sirs' use of the phrase "victim tactic" or "victim card" or some such nonsense to describe my objections to his lying about what I said, on the grounds that he uses words to which he assigns his own meanings so that his characterizations are basically meaningless.]  >>

THAT'S a CONCESSION?  I just insulted you by telling you that your words are absolutely meaningless, and the insult becomes, in your words, "a concession to a little truth."   Are you a total fucking moron?  (just askin')

 <<Of course, I don't expect will see any trend, given your track record>>

That's nice.

<<LOL, which is of course why you NEVER ANSWERED IT>>

Of course I answered it, but realizing that you have the brain of a six-year-old and the attention span of a gnat, I will be a nice guy and copy out the answer that I gave you, not the first time that I answered your question, but maybe the second or third time (didn't have the energy to go all the way back to the first answer):

<<First, the lie itself (courtesy sirs) :  <<No, that would be Tee, and like minds, who references how all soldiers are some form of low hanging fruit. >>

<<Naturally, sirs is called on his lie.  Told that I never said that.  Considering how many of my own uncles and cousins served, it is an absurd statement to attribute to me.>>

Is that a clear enough answer for you, sirs?  What part of "I never said that" do you have a problem with?

[sirs]

While the rest of the class also recognizes that at no time was sirs ever referring to every single breathing living soul in uniform, since the term all was rehtorical, not literal, similarly to Prince's criticisms of the FBI, but not every single breathing badged agent.

Which is why the % question was applied to help Tee out, since he apparently couldn't grasp the concept.

Which you'll also notice he STILL hasn't answered.  All for everyone to read at their leisure

[Michael Tee]

<<Which is why the % question was applied to help Tee out, since he apparently couldn't grasp the concept.

<<Which you'll also notice he STILL hasn't answered.  >> 

Another fucking lie from sirs.  What's that, No. 2,376?  Here is the answer I gave to your "% question" from further on up in the thread.  In case your latest gaffe was more due to stupidity than mendacity, I have taken the trouble to highlight my % answers.



<<I tried to tell you diplomatically of course that the question was too stupid for an answer, but if you insist on an answer, an answer is possible.   You asked me "what is my percentage?" and I assume - - because this was the subject of the post immediately preceding your question - - that the percentage in your question refers to "low-hanging fruit," which is relatively easy to answer.  I don't have the data, which would relate to number of years of finished education, IQ, family income, U.S. citizenship or similar measures of intellectual and/or socio-economic status, so my answer would only be a guess, but my best guess - - and keeping in mind, we haven't exactly defined "low-hanging fruit" with any great precision either - - I would guess that 85 to 95% of today's U.S. military would fall within commonly accepted conceptions of "low-hanging fruit."  And I would think that some of them stand a reasonably good chance of pulling themselves up out of that status by virtue of their military service, but that even more would be pulled by their military service into a cess-pool of violent psychotic behaviour, fascism, racism and militarism from which they will never be able to pull out.  These are the returned vets you read about, either from Viet Nam or Iraq, who fit into a life-style of wife and child abuse, violent alcoholism, domestic assaults and killings, gay-bashings, etc.

<<If your question referred to war crimes and crimes against humanity, I'd say 100% since they're all implicated in one way or another, even the cooks and drivers who feed and transport the actual torturers and murderers; the guards who protect them, etc.  They are all guilty, like the Nazis.  You can't participate in a criminal effort like that and NOT be guilty.  Either you are a part of the solution or you are a part of the problem.>>

Note, I am referring here to 100% of all soldiers participating in the criminal act of aggression known as the Iraq War, not "all soldiers" without qualification, which sirs had falsely attributed to me.

[BT]

Mikey,

How many currently serving US Military personnel do you know?

Of that sample how many fit your description?

[Michael Tee]

I don't know any of them, BT.  Nor do I know any former S.S. troopers. 

I form my opinions of a fighting force by their exploits and what they are said to have done. 

I would say, if a fighting force has a totally unblemished record and one bozo does something to spoil it, I would still have a favourable opinion of that force.  Two bozos, probably the same, but I would start to have some doubts.

I can't tell you at what specific point the number of reported atrocities switches over my opinion from favourable or neutral to highly unfavourable,  but I can tell you that in the case of the U.S. military in both Viet Nam and Iraq, that point was reached and passed a long way back.  There is something radically wrong with the U.S. military today and IMHO, the fish rots from the head.

[sirs]

yada, rant, blather rant....I would guess that 85 to 95% of today's U.S. military would fall within commonly accepted conceptions of "low-hanging fruit." ...rant, blather, rant, rant

WOW, FINALLY.  Why that apparently was so hard for Tee to guestimate & answer the question way back when, is beyond me.  Then again much of how Tee comes to his "dot connection" is beyond the realm of rational thought.  This entire thread being an excellent example

[BT]

I don't know any of them, BT.  Nor do I know any former S.S. troopers.

I form my opinions of a fighting force by their exploits and what they are said to have done.

I would say, if a fighting force has a totally unblemished record and one bozo does something to spoil it, I would still have a favourable opinion of that force.  Two bozos, probably the same, but I would start to have some doubts.

I can't tell you at what specific point the number of reported atrocities switches over my opinion from favourable or neutral to highly unfavourable,  but I can tell you that in the case of the U.S. military in both Viet Nam and Iraq, that point was reached and passed a long way back.  There is something radically wrong with the U.S. military today and IMHO, the fish rots from the head.

Do you are basing your opinion, not on first hand knowledge, but viewed through your own filters.

Glad we cleared that up.

Libel away.

[Michael Tee]

<<Do you are basing your opinion, not on first hand knowledge, but viewed through your own filters.>>

Cheap shot, BT.  I never claimed first-hand knowledge.  And I form my judgments on public figures and institutions from what I hear about them, same as everyone else.  Or did you think all those negative opinions about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are based on first-hand knowledge of the man and the organization?

[BT]

I  don't see it as a cheap shot.

I see it as a very accurtate accessment of your methodology.

There are at least 4 veterans in this group. Pooch, Bear, Plane and myself. I apoligise if i left someone off the list.

Which of us fit your concept of the American Military man based on your observations ?

[Michael Tee]

My apologies to each and every one of you.  Of course, I should have prefaced my remarks with the customary "Present company excepted."  A stupid oversight on my part.  You guys have been remarkably forbearing.  I was aware of Bear's and plane's service, too, so I can't even plead ignorance. 

Let me state for the record that from here on and also retroactively, any general statement I made or will make about "Southerners," "Republicans," "the U.S. military" and similar large groups should be read and understood as if beginning with the words, "Present company excepted," without which all civilized debate about contemporary issues would be impossible.

[sirs]

Note, I am referring here to 100% of all soldiers participating in the criminal act of aggression known as the Iraq War, not "all soldiers" without qualification, which sirs had falsely attributed to me.

Too bad that's been demonstrated as a lie as well, analogus to lies about Bush lies.  At least he's consistent

[Michael Tee]

<<Too bad that's been demonstrated as a lie as well, analogus to lies about Bush lies. >>

"Demonstrated" as a lie; translation = sirs won't admit the truth of it.

<< At least he's consistent>>

Of course I'm consistent.  I'm telling the truth, something you are chronically unable to do.

[Henny]

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

This is a bit late, as I just read responses to this article when the thread got sorted to the top today.

Sheesh, Sirs. I guess I can thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, but your responses are all kind of, well, paranoid. Either that or you've gotten me confused with other members.

I don't give a crap if the article is about the Iraq war, Vietnam, WWII, or any other war - past or future. I just thought the article was interesting and might be interesting to others as well.

[sirs]

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

This is a bit late, as I just read responses to this article when the thread got sorted to the top today.  Sheesh, Sirs. I guess I can thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, but your responses are all kind of, well, paranoid. Either that or you've gotten me confused with other members.

Probably the latter, though my point remains valid in that what war that the US is involved in doesn't "leave US soldiers' kids at risk"?  None that I'm aware of

[Henny]

Probably the latter, the my point remains valid in that what war that the US is involved in doesn't "leave US soldiers' kids at risk"?  None that I'm aware of

I certainly agree with you on that, however, there may well be one key difference (at least since the first Desert Storm) in that our military is now using many more reservists than ever before, and for much longer period of times.