Re: OT: Another disloyal veteran who never served (or who was rejected, incarcerated or kicked out)


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <artyguy04@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1158275821.806874.147080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
Gosh, toopid, your little brain must just be reeling.

As someone who also never served, I'll admit that it does feel good to
have another (after Zinni, et al) high-ranking non-veteran agree with
me (and, BTW, not with you).

Perhaps all that training and experience that we never had has
something to do with it. Perhaps all of our IQs (even collectively,
even) are just not as high as yours is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14814940/

(And yes, toopid, I do realize that it's an AP story. Sorry, but TV
Guide hasn't picked it up yet.)

Oh, and dare I say it?

Moron.

Here, toopid. It's also on Fox, so it must be true.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213746,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/14/congress.tribunals/index.html

Oh, and look toopid:

"More than two dozen retired military officers and former defense
officials weighed in Wednesday in a letter to Warner, urging Congress
not to attempt to redefine violations of Common Article 3."

http://www.townhall.com/News/newsarticle.aspx?ContentGuid=8001218a-0e22-4bd9-975d-4734d4443a4d

You'll have to believe *that* one. They have links to Hugh Hewitt and
others that you frequently quote. (Oh shoot! I just noticed that
townhall.com used AP as a resource for the article. No news can be
trusted. Only you can be!) LOL!


You're a raving lunatic...first look at your subject. Zero bearing on
what is going on in congress.

Which wasn't the point.

Thats nice...reminder to everyone...ssshhhhhead reserves the
right to post under irrelevant subjet lines.

(Do you *ever* get the point? Not from what
I've seen...)

Wouldn't the statements made by GEN Powell and the other retired
officers also be outside your little box of acceptable behavior and
views for veterans?

Nope.

They're not supporting the CinC in a time of *war*!
I'd write to your congressman (not the one in jail, the other one)

You don't even know how many congressman a person has
representing them?

and
tell him how GEN Powell and the others could not have possibly served
(or at least they could not possibly have served honorably).

I think I'll just tell them I don't agree and my vote goes to those
who will support aggressive interogation.


You're elated every time somebody opposes bush,

bushie usually makes policies and decisions that are not good for the
US in the long-term. So yes, when he doesn't get his way I am indeed
very happy.

I expect you're also
elated everytime someone serving in US military is accused of war
crimes.

And as usual, you'd be totally wrong.

Let's see what a commander currently on the ground in Iraq has to say
about it:

"I am sure that you have heard of the allegations of criminal acts
being done by U.S. servicemen. It bothers me to even hear allegations
against soldiers and marines in my military."

I very much agree with that statement. Note the "my military"
statement. While it is true that it is also "our" military, it is "my"
military in a way you could not possibly understand.

Not anymore. It's no more yours than mine though
in your starship trooper world, you'd like to think otherwise.

And it helps
defeat our purpose in Iraq more than all the articles written by the
most liberal writers over the last four years.

You also have your little box of acceptable behavior and views that
'good' veterans should have. What you fail to realize is that the
military is made up of people, not mind-numbed robots. The military is,
ironically, very nearly as diverse as the population that it comes
from! Go figure.

Ever think Graham... reserve JAG is a bit conflicted in this?

Are you also elated everytime Al Qaeda has violated article 3? How
many US soldiers have been captured by the enemy and held in compliance
with article 3? The argument that if we lower our standards they will
lower theirs is laughable. Hard to get much lower than beheading.

And so you utterly miss the point, getting it exactly backwards. Nobody
is arguing that from what I've seen.

That is the argument I've see. If we lower our standard of treatment
they'll lower theirs.

"The basis for the lawyers' concerns about administration policy, which they
first articulated in private memos in 2002 and 2003 for top Defense Department
political appointees, is that weak respect for the rights of U.S.-held prisoners
eventually could undermine U.S. demands for fair treatment of captured U.S.
service personnel."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/02/AR2006080201652.html


We must maintain our higher standards, even at a higher cost, not 'sink
to their level' like you want to do. That's what GEN Powell said today.
You're apparently too dense to even get that, when several articles
were provided to you. See how it works? I go to all the effort to even
provide you with a conservative article and you still don't 'get it.'
You're a drag.

And this also neatly explains why I will not debate strategy with you.

You don't have to debate it, just prove it exists.

ScottW


.

Relevant Pages