Talk:Psychotic Waltz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal, an attempt to improve articles related to heavy metal music. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.

Roboyce wrote: [Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw When you root for the commander-in chief to fail, you are rooting for the people under him (THE TROOPS) to fail as well. When you root for the troops to fail, you are rooting against your country. When you root against your country, you should be dragged behind the woodshed and shot in the forehead. ]

Actually, when you commit thousands of troops to an ill-conceived, poorly executed, and never ending ground campaign you should be dragged behind the woodshed and shot in the forehead...because you set the troops up to fail. That certainly seems to me to be more of crime against the country than criticizing the president. At this point, no criticism or adulation of the president is going to change the situation on the ground in Iraq.

As a soldier, I am tired of seeing people like you use the soldiers as a political tool. To be against the war, to criticize the policy, strategy, and execution of this war is just as patriotic as any other voice. I think that most of the people who are starting to realize what a mess this war has become do so because they DO support the troops and they don't want them to continue to struggle through this conflict, which lacks realistic goals, adequate resources, and coherent strategy. Supporting the troops has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with supporting the war. That false correlation is something that has been invented by the administration as a means to paint anyone who speaks out against their actions as unpatriotic...much like the Red Scare. As a professional fighting force, the US military will do its best to achieve its aims no matter what public opinion at home may be. That is the essence of a volunteer, professional millitary. Supporting the troops means NOT blaming us for or associating us with the actions of the government as we saw during Vietnam. It means showing respect for the job we do...it has nothing to do with supporting the elected leaders of this country.

Personally, I am more satisfied when someone walks up to me and shakes my hand and says something like, "thank you for serving, even though I have mixed emotions about the war," because that tells me they are at least thinking and paying attention. They are considering the sacrifice we are paying to conduct this campaign. I get upset when someone walks up to me and starts thanking me for getting back at the bad guys of 9/11 or starts telling me how much better it is that we are fighting "them" over there rather than here because I know it's not true. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and 90% of the insurgents are Iraqis (Sunni AND Shia)...not Al-Qaeda. These people are just blindly listening to the adminstration, not weighing the price we are paying. To me, this is not supporting soldiers...it is ignorance at the expense of the young men and women who wear the uniform. I take "stay the course" as in insult because it basically says "let's continue in this failed policy and strategy for another ten years....what's another 2,000 dead soldiers?" Wake up.

CJLaw Wrote: [Quote: Originally Posted by roboyce Actually, when you commit thousands of troops to an ill-conceived, poorly executed, and never ending ground campaign you should be dragged behind the woodshed and shot in the forehead...because you set the troops up to fail. That certainly seems to me to be more of crime against the country than criticizing the president. At this point, no criticism or adulation of the president is going to change the situation on the ground in Iraq.]

Ill-conceived? Poorly executed? You SAID that you were there and still you make this comment? During the Iraq invasion, out military went farther, faster, and with less casulaties than any other American combat operation. Before the war, liberals predicted heavy resistance. They were wrong. During the war, when supply lines slowed down, liberals said the ground effort would be dragged to a halt. They were wrong. Liberals predicted a long drawn out urban combat mission with house to house fighting that would take numerous casulties. They were wrong. Since the war ended, liberals like neglect have been praying for civil war. Well, a government was formed, an election held, and a draft constitution written. So, again they were wrong. Isn't it funny that the group of people who have been wrong at every step of this process is now professing that the leaders of the operation are somehow flawed?

Now if you want to criticize the fact that the Syrian and Iranian borders were left open, allowing thousands of islamofascists to enter, join with the Baathists, and form an insurgency, then fine . . . that criticism is warranted. But, what does that criticism do? Does it constructively help solve the problems on the ground now? Nope. Does it form a comprehensive new plan to end the insurgency and get our troops home? Nope. Does it in any way add to conversation about how to best WIN? Nope. So what does it do? It is a means to the political end of bashing a President for the fact that he won re-election despite all the utter vitrol spewed his way from the left. It's payback for being so popular, that despite his doing numerous things "wrong" in the eyes of liberals, he whooped up on their most "electable" candidate. That's it.

[Quote: Originally Posted by roboyce As a soldier, I am tired of seeing people like you use the soldiers as a political tool. ]

Whose doing that?

[Quote: Originally Posted by roboyce To be against the war, to criticize the policy, strategy, and execution of this war is just as patriotic as any other voice. ]

Really? Is saying that the mission these soldiers are in the middle of completing is worthless, illegal, (insert liberal slight here), patriotic? The military is the only profession were someone can get away with bashing one's job in one sentence and then in another exclaim their support for you. If you were a physician in the Hospital X ER, and I was to say that the Emergency department was unorganized, the methods utilized to treat patients was irresponsible, and the job function you were performing was worthless . . . .would I be supporting you?

My point is that when troops are in harm's way, it is wholly unpatriotic to degrade the mission they believe in and are fighting with all their heart to complete, to bash the commander they serve, and predict at every step of the process how they are going to fail. Neglect said earlier in this thread and numerous other times in different threads how he is rooting for the President to fail. Like it or not, the President is the embodiment of the United States, especially the military that he commands. For him to fail, the people under his command have to fail also. To hope and pray that the troops fail in order to further one's own political ideology is absolutley UNamerican. It is laughable and utterly selfish for someone to say, I support the troops BUT I hope they fail, so that I can say that I was right.

[Quote: Originally Posted by roboyce I think that most of the people who are starting to realize what a mess this war has become do so because they DO support the troops and they don't want them to continue to struggle through this conflict, which lacks realistic goals, adequate resources, and coherent strategy. ]

People are starting to sour on the war effort because they are surrounded by negative news on a daily basis. Yes, there is always bad news during a war. But the liberal press has gone to extent of ignoring ANY positive developments in Iraq, so as to drum up negative opinion to (again) further their own political agenda. Is it just a coincidence that an overwhelming majority of soldiers who come back from the Gulf have positive attitudes about the war, their President, and the prospects for the future? The people who are LIVING the war, support it. But then again as many liberals on this board have said numerous times, the military are just brainwashed automotans who can't be trusted to form educated opinions.

[Quote: Originally Posted by roboyce much like the Red Scare. ]

Wasn't the Red Scare, well founded? Wait don't let facts get in the way of your propaganda.

[Quote:Originally Posted by roboyce 90% of the insurgents are Iraqis (Sunni AND Shia)...not Al-Qaeda. ]

That is just blatantly false and not supported by the facts. Keep on with the propaganda.

BTW, don't pull a Cindy Sheehan on me and try to shout me down with what you believe to be a superior moral authority. For the record, I am a veteran as well, so you can stop the finger waving right now. Personally, I have reviewed your posts and don't believe for one second that you are the person you have portrayed yourself to be.

Roboyce wrote: [Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Ill-conceived? Poorly executed? You SAID that you were there and still you make this comment? During the Iraq invasion, out military went farther, faster, and with less casulaties than any other American combat operation. Before the war, liberals predicted heavy resistance. They were wrong. During the war, when supply lines slowed down, liberals said the ground effort would be dragged to a halt. They were wrong. Liberals predicted a long drawn out urban combat mission with house to house fighting that would take numerous casulties. They were wrong. Since the war ended, liberals like neglect have been praying for civil war. Well, a government was formed, an election held, and a draft constitution written. So, again they were wrong. Isn't it funny that the group of people who have been wrong at every step of this process is now professing that the leaders of the operation are somehow flawed?]

And I suppose in your mind, the war ended when Bush landed on the aircraft carrrier too...yes, the war was absolutely ill-concieved. Why was it that we even went to war? If I remember correctly it was for WMDs. Were there any? No. So did we rush to military force on false pretenses? Yes. I would call that ill-concieved. Yes, the INITIAL assault was historic in terms of the amount of ground covered and the number of troops used. However, a war does not end after the initial attack (just ask the Japanese). There was inadequate planning for security operations in the aftermath of the initial invasion, which in my opinion, allowed the insurgency to grow beyond the point which we could control. Men like Eric Shinseki, the former Chief of Staff of the Army told Congress that it would take "hundreds of thousands" of troops to successfully maintain the peace. He was right. We are woefully short of troops in Iraq. Unfortunately, the American public will not tolerate sending an additional 250,000 troops, which we desperately need if we are to really bring internal security to the country. My unit of 600 soldiers was responsible for a population base of nearly 1,000,000 Iraqis. All we could do was move from hot spot to hot spot trying to put out brush fires before they became serious. We are seeing the Marines encounter the same thing in the Western parts of the country. There are not enough troops to occupy and hold ground in order to bring stability and the soldiers are paying the price.

Do you honestly belive that things are going as planned? If this is the plan, I'd hate to see what would happen if the plan fell apart because we're not doing so hot now are we? Sure, we've pushed through some obstacles to get to the point we are now at, but in order to do so, we have needlessly sacrificied the lives of many soldiers. So yes, I absolutely believe this war is poorly executed. Having spent a year there only convinces me more so. There is no strategy. The military is always one step behind. We mass on places like Fallujah only to allow the insurgents to flee like rats to other places like Ramadi or Tal Afar. Then we leave Fallujah to go clean out Ramadi and the insurgents just go back there. That is not an effective campaign.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Now if you want to criticize the fact that the Syrian and Iranian borders were left open, allowing thousands of islamofascists to enter, join with the Baathists, and form an insurgency, then fine . . . that criticism is warranted. But, what does that criticism do? Does it constructively help solve the problems on the ground now? Nope. Does it form a comprehensive new plan to end the insurgency and get our troops home? Nope. Does it in any way add to conversation about how to best WIN? Nope. So what does it do? It is a means to the political end of bashing a President for the fact that he won re-election despite all the utter vitrol spewed his way from the left. It's payback for being so popular, that despite his doing numerous things "wrong" in the eyes of liberals, he whooped up on their most "electable" candidate. That's it. ]

I'll address your "thousands of islamofascists" later. Does criticism help? Yes. I would think that an intelligent person would understand this. Critical thinking is key to developing a new strategy to better fight the war in Iraq. To ignore what is going poorly is only to make the same mistakes again. I guess in your mind we should all just agree with whatever the DOD decides to do and move on with our lives while thousands of soldiers risk their lives. Do people use this for political advantages...sure. But if you reread my post, I didn't mention the word conservative or liberal once. You are the one trying to paint this whole issue in terms of politics.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Whose doing that?. ]

Uh, you. You asset that to be against the President is to be against the troops. This is a false arguement. One could very well be for bringing the troops home immediately...an outcome that would be counter to the President's goals and yet still in support of the troops, as it brings them out of harm's way and safely back to their families.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Really? Is saying that the mission these soldiers are in the middle of completing is worthless, illegal, (insert liberal slight here), patriotic? The military is the only profession were someone can get away with bashing one's job in one sentence and then in another exclaim their support for you. If you were a physician in the Hospital X ER, and I was to say that the Emergency department was unorganized, the methods utilized to treat patients was irresponsible, and the job function you were performing was worthless . . . .would I be supporting you?. ]

Let me frame this within the context of your own example. If the ER is so unorganized and methods used are irresponsible, would you not feel it's your duty to the patients and your own sense of honor to bring that fact to the attention of those empowered to make changes? You make it sound like you think it's better to just keep on working in the terrible conditions.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw My point is that when troops are in harm's way, it is wholly unpatriotic to degrade the mission they believe in and are fighting with all their heart to complete, to bash the commander they serve, and predict at every step of the process how they are going to fail. Neglect said earlier in this thread and numerous other times in different threads how he is rooting for the President to fail. Like it or not, the President is the embodiment of the United States, especially the military that he commands. For him to fail, the people under his command have to fail also. To hope and pray that the troops fail in order to further one's own political ideology is absolutley UNamerican. It is laughable and utterly selfish for someone to say, I support the troops BUT I hope they fail, so that I can say that I was right.? ]

No...the United States Military serves the people of the United States, not the policy of one man. If they disagree with the way in which they are being used, they have every right criticize in protest. As for the correlation with which you attempt to draw between the president and the troops, you are once again mistaken. While I understand what you are trying to say, I would point out again that one could wish for the immediate withdraw of US forces, thereby bringing the troops home safely, while still causing the failure of the President's policies.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw People are starting to sour on the war effort because they are surrounded by negative news on a daily basis. Yes, there is always bad news during a war. But the liberal press has gone to extent of ignoring ANY positive developments in Iraq, so as to drum up negative opinion to (again) further their own political agenda. Is it just a coincidence that an overwhelming majority of soldiers who come back from the Gulf have positive attitudes about the war, their President, and the prospects for the future? The people who are LIVING the war, support it. But then again as many liberals on this board have said numerous times, the military are just brainwashed automotans who can't be trusted to form educated opinions.. ]

No, people are starting to sour on the war because everyone has forgotten why are there in the first place. The reasoning has become vague and skewed by the lack of WMDs, the increasing violence against us by the very people we set about to help, the misleading statements by the people in power (the insurgency is in its last throes - Cheney), and the rising death toll.

As for returning soldiers, yes, a majority of them support the war. It would be mighty hard to leave your family behind and go fight a war if you didn't believe in it...even if it means rationalization. However, if you were to take the number of those who supported the war prior to deploying and compare that number when they return, you would see a significant drop in support. I saw this within my own unit. Everyone goes over there hoping to "help" the Iraqis free themselves from the insurgents and build their own democracy, even I felt this way. Yet, a year in combat, being betrayed by the very people you set out to help, will wear out even the most optimistic attitudes

Roboyce Wrote: [Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Wasn't the Red Scare, well founded? Wait don't let facts get in the way of your propaganda...]

Yeah, all those filmakers and scientists really could have kicked out ass. Good thing we blacklisted them.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw That is just blatantly false and not supported by the facts. Keep on with the propaganda....]

Allow me a few references that I just pulled up from a 5 minute Google Search. I’m sure some of the more scholarly posters (Hernandez/Nutmeg) can whip up some better references.:

1. Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are Iraqi (Phil Sands,'Good and honest' Iraqis fighting US forces 9/6/2005, 06:25 (UAE))

2. In an analysis of over 1,000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, U.S. Ground Commander General George Casey found only 15 non-Iraqis (Pepe Escobar, The Sunni-Shia power play)

3. U.S. military estimates cited by security analysts put the number of active jihadists at about 1,000, or less than 10 percent of the number of fighters in a mostly Iraqi-dominated insurgency. (Susan B. Glasser, Washington Post, Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page A01)

4. Elsewhere in Iraq, U.S. military commanders say foreigners have an even smaller role in the insurgency. In Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey has said foreigners account for just 1 percent or so of guerrillas. Of 8,000 guerrilla suspects jailed across Iraq, only 127 hold foreign passports, the U.S. military said. In the south, no one has suggested that foreigners pack the ranks of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army. The group, which has fought U.S. and allied troops across southern Iraq, is made up of Shiite Muslim radicals, many of whom hail from the slums of Baghdad. In March, Dempsey called the idea that foreign fighters were flooding Iraq "a misconception." (Jim Crane, AP, May 3 2004)

5. Washington, 21 Sept. (AKI) - A new report suggests that at least 90 percent of insurgents in Iraq are Iraqi. The study from the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) states that even though "no one knows the number of active and part-time insurgents, paid agents and sympathisers," they estimate there to be around 30,000 insurgents in Iraq, of whom some 3,000 are foreign fighters.

So yeah, I was off, it's probably more like 95% are Iraqis...of course, don't let my facts get in the way of your propaganda.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw BTW, don't pull a Cindy Sheehan on me and try to shout me down with what you believe to be a superior moral authority. For the record, I am a veteran as well, so you can stop the finger waving right now. Personally, I have reviewed your posts and don't believe for one second that you are the person you have portrayed yourself to be. ]

Karl Rove...is that you? Go ahead and try to discredit what I've done and where I've been. In fact, "Bring it on." Do you want me to scan in my DD214? I'm not afraid. Allow me to reiterate, I was a 1st CAV Scout Platoon Leader in Baghdad from March 2004-March 2005. I served in the Rusafa District of Baghdad just east of the Tigris River and west of Sadr City across from the Green Zone, which is zones 12, 15, 17, 20, 22, and 50. I took part in over 300 combat operations, including numerous raids on high value targets and sniper operations...I earned my CIB and two Bronze Stars. What else you want?

Now, what was that you were saying about being a veteran? Have you ever been to Iraq?

I just find it funny that I, as a soldier, am one of the people that you seek to glorify and revere for being out there "hunting down the evil enemy." Yet, when I turn around and point out your mistakes and misinformation, you attempt to discredit and smear me. Nice touch. So much for respecting soldiers huh?

CJLaw Wrote: [Quote: Originally Posted by roboyce Karl Rove...is that you? Go ahead and try to discredit what I've done and where I've been. In fact, "Bring it on." ]

OK.

[Quote: Originally Posted by roboyce Allow me to reiterate, I was a 1st CAV Scout Platoon Leader in Baghdad from March 2004-March 2005.I served in the Rusafa District of Baghdad just east of the Tigris River and west of Sadr City across from the Green Zone, which is zones 12, 15, 17, 20, 22, and 50. I took part in over 300 combat operations, including numerous raids on high value targets and sniper operations...I earned my CIB and two Bronze Stars. What else you want? ]

It's the inconsistencies that are gonna hang you. First of all, you said above that you were a 1st Cav Scout Platoon Leader. However, in your posting history, you make numerous references to being an "infantryman". In fact, you said that you earned a CIB (Combat Infantry Badge). Now, that sounds all official except for the fact that being a Cav Scout has nothing to do with being in the infantry. In fact, to earn a CIB you have to be a qualified 11B, serving in an INFANTRY UNIT that is engaged in ground combat. My point? The only units that have Cav Scout platoons are Cavalry units (obviously) and Armor units. Neither qualifies as an "infantry unit" as mandated by the Department of the Army to earn the CIB. So, tell me sir, how exactly does one leader a cav scout platoon for an infantry unit serving in a cav or armor brigade? (You probably should have picked another MOS to exploit because I just happen to be a 19D)

Second of all, you said that you were a platoon leader. A platoon leader is a commissioned officer, usually a 2LT, but sometimes (rarely) can be a 1LT. Why is this important? I'll get there in a second.

Third of all, you said above that you would supply a DD214. For those who don't know, a DD214 is the discharge document. Which means that you were discharged. The funny thing is, that when one receives a commission, he is under committment for 7 years. My question is, why were you only a 2LT after 7 years commission? The time in grade requirement is only 24 months to make 1LT and another 24 months as a 1LT to make CPT. So, for you to be sitting here talking to us and applying to medical school as a discharged veteran, you would have to been a Captain. However, once a soldier attains the rank of Captain, they are retained for a 20 year committment. But, that obviously isn't the case, since you can supply your DD214. Therefore, the only plausible scenario, is that you were passed over for promotion and seperated before your seven years were complete. However, that doesn't make any sense at all since someone who has earned not one but TWO Bronze Stars would NEVER be passed over for promotion a second time and seperated as a result.

Fourth, you claimed to have been awarded to Bronze Stars. Now, I know from experience that anytime a soldier is awarded an accomodation, his hometown newspaper prints a blurb (most times with a picture). I was in my hometown paper twice, once for my first AAM and once for my ARCOM (and others) when I returned from Bosnia. Why does this apply to you? Well, I did a LexisNexis search for all North Carolina newspapers (you claim to be from Winston-Salem) and did a search of the Davidson College newspaper (just to be precise), looking for any mention of a local boy or Davidson alumni who was awarded a Bronze Star for service in Iraq. Sorry to say, I didn't find you. There are only three explanations. 1) No newspaper in North Carolina prints military awards (this isn't the case because i did get some hits when i took out the keyword davidson and bronze star) 2) Your parents forgot to mention it (unlikely, what kind of parent doesn't gush over his son being awarded such a high honor) 3) You didn't earn a Bronze Star. Call me crazy, but I am leaning towards the third option.

Fifth, you also claimed in previous posts to be a sniper. Not sniper qualified, but an actual sniper. Tell me, why is the commander of a platoon also that units sniper?

Sixth, you said that you served with the 1st Cav from March 2004 until March 2005. That doesn't make any sense to me. You see, I have a buddy that I went through boot with, who I keep in touch with via letter. He went with the 1st Cav to Iraq in March of 2004 also. But, he is still over there and will be until early next year because the 1st Cav's mission was extended to two tours. Why aren't you still over there?

Lastly, your age doesn't add up. If you graduated from Davidson, you were probably 22 (21 at the youngest). After 7 years of military service, you would be 28 or 29. However, on your mdapplicants.com profile, you listed your age as 26. Why the disparity?

It is for these reasons that I MUST call BULLSH*T. Sorry.

Roboyce wrote: Wow, you make this too easy.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw It's the inconsistencies that are gonna hang you. First of all, you said above that you were a 1st Cav Scout Platoon Leader. However, in your posting history, you make numerous references to being an "infantryman". In fact, you said that you earned a CIB (Combat Infantry Badge)....So, tell me sir, how exactly does one leader a cav scout platoon for an infantry unit serving in a cav or armor brigade? (You probably should have picked another MOS to exploit because I just happen to be a 19D).]

First mistake. Why don't you take a look at the 1st CAV Division TO&E? There are numerous infantry units there...even though they are called CAV (for historical reasons) they are made up of normal combat arms units (Infantry, Armor, Artillery). For example, 3/8 CAV is an armor unit, 2/5 CAV is an infantry unit...1/5 CAV and 2/7 CAV are also infantry. I've attached a link to the BN CDR of 2/5...you will notice he is an infantry officer...funny thing about that.

http://pao.hood.army.mil/1CD%5F2%2D...taff/bncmdr.htm

Acutally, mechanized infantry units have cavalry scout platoons as well, comprised of 19Ds...I would think you would know that, seeing as this is what you "claim" to be. However, the PL is an infantry officer and therefore eligible to earn the CIB.

And don't be such an infantry hater...just because you're a 19D doesn't neccessarily mean you have a small member...it's just most of the time.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Second of all, you said that you were a platoon leader. A platoon leader is a commissioned officer, usually a 2LT, but sometimes (rarely) can be a 1LT. Why is this important? I'll get there in a second. ]

You're actually right about something. Good for you. I was 1LT in Iraq. Now I'm a CPT. I was promoted in April. And actually, most PLs are 1LTs in the infantry...after spending 8-12 months at Ft. Benning for IOBC, Ranger, etc they usually only have about 6 months until pinning on 1LT. Of course, in the National Guard, where most officers haven't been to IOBC and all the good stuff, they spend alot longer as 2LTs while PLs. Are you in the National Guard...because I'm getting the feeling you are.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Third of all, you said above that you would supply a DD214. For those who don't know, a DD214 is the discharge document. Which means that you were discharged. The funny thing is, that when one receives a commission, he is under committment for 7 years. My question is, why were you only a 2LT after 7 years commission? The time in grade requirement is only 24 months to make 1LT and another 24 months as a 1LT to make CPT. So, for you to be sitting here talking to us and applying to medical school as a discharged veteran, you would have to been a Captain. However, once a soldier attains the rank of Captain, they are retained for a 20 year committment....be passed over for promotion a second time and seperated as a result... ]

Actually, what I have is my draft DD214. You see I'm in the middle of outprocessing from the Army right now. I ETS in two weeks. My DD214 will be completed when I final out on 11OCT...they are waiting for my ETS award (MSM) to be approved so they can add that to my records.

The committment is 8 years, not seven...4 active duty, 4 on IRR. I think I can find my ROTC contract if you want to see that too...

Once again you are wrong. Timeline from 2LT to 1LT is 18 months. Then CPT at 42 total months of service...which for me was April.

Where the hell did you get the idea that once a guy makes CPT he is retained for 20 years? That's just misinformation...please find a valid reference to prove this. Once again you are displaying your complete ignorance about this subject and I think this is calling your service, not mine, into question. I am about to complete my 4 years committment from my original ROTC contract, after which I will serve four years IRR...while I'm going to medical school.

In truth, the promotion rate to CPT was over 99%, so no one is getting passed over.

Wow, you managed to be wrong about almost every statement in that paragraph. Congratualtions...Lionel Hutz.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Fourth, you claimed to have been awarded to Bronze Stars. Now, I know from experience that anytime a soldier is awarded an accomodation, his hometown newspaper prints a blurb (most times with a picture). I was in my hometown paper twice, once for my first AAM and once for my ARCOM (and others) when I returned from Bosnia. Why does this apply to you? Well, I did a LexisNexis search for all North Carolina newspapers (you claim to be from Winston-Salem) and did a search of the Davidson College..., what kind of parent doesn't gush over his son being awarded such a high honor) 3) You didn't earn a Bronze Star. Call me crazy, but I am leaning towards the third option.. ]

In order to get an article printed out, you have to fill out a hometown news release form...or someone has to do it for you. I never did this or wanted it. Personally, I felt that what I did was nothing more than keeping my soldiers alive. My BN CDR thought otherwise and put me in for the awards. Quite frankly, I was embarrassed to get the awards because I thought my soldiers were the real heros of the day. I put them in for awards and 7 of them got various awards for valor...mostly ARCOM w/V. I didn't even tell my parents about it until I got back because I thought it might scare them.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Fifth, you also claimed in previous posts to be a sniper. Not sniper qualified, but an actual sniper. Tell me, why is the commander of a platoon also that units sniper?. ]

Actually, I'm not even school trained. They would never send an officer to Sniper School. However, as the Scout Platoon Leader I need to understand all the weapons systems in my unit, so I spent alot of time on the KD range with my NCOs. I had 3-4 sniper teams in my platoon. Often, we would conduct extended ambuses (24-78 hours in duration) with 5-6 men (2 firers, 2 for security, and 2 to sleep). Obviously a sniper wouldn't stay behind the rifle for that long, so we would rotate every 8-12 hours. Needless to say, I spent many an hour behind a rifle...twice having to pull the trigger. So yes, I'm not a "sniper" in the strictest sense of the word, but I do have two confirmed kills...both of which still make me sick to my stomach.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Sixth, you said that you served with the 1st Cav from March 2004 until March 2005. That doesn't make any sense to me. You see, I have a buddy that I went through boot with, who I keep in touch with via letter. He went with the 1st Cav to Iraq in March of 2004 also. But, he is still over there and will be until early next year because the 1st Cav's mission was extended to two tours. Why aren't you still over there?. ]

No unit has been extended for two complete, continuous tours in Iraq. Prove it. Members of the 1st Armored Division were extended for 90 days and one BN (1/7 CAV) was also extended for 90 days, but even they are back home now. Why don't you just do a Google search with the words "1st CAV" and "Welcome Home Ceremony"? The 1st CAV Division was replaced by the 3rd Infantry Division from Ft. Stewart, GA last FEB/MAR. Look it all up on Globalsecurity.org.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw Lastly, your age doesn't add up. If you graduated from Davidson, you were probably 22 (21 at the youngest). After 7 years of military service, you would be 28 or 29. However, on your mdapplicants.com profile, you listed your age as 26. Why the disparity? ]

Let me add this up for you so you don't have to use any "fuzzy math." I don't know where you got seven years. As I said before, active duty ROTC committment is 4 years.

Graduated Davidson - May 2001 (Age 22) Reported for IOBC - November 2001 (Age 23) Ft. Benning (IOBC, RGR, BLC) - Nov 2001 - Jun 2002 (Age 23) Korea (2/9 Infantry, Camp Casey) - Jul 2002 - Jul 2003 (Age 24) Ft. Carson (Aide-de-Camp for BG P.K. Keen) - Jul 2003 - Jan 2004 (Age 25) Attached to 1st CAV (I volunteered to go from Ft. Carson) - Jan 2004 - March 2005 (Age 26) Promoted to CPT - April 2005 (Age 26) MdApplicant Profile - May 2005 (Age 26) Birthday - September 2005 (Age 27)

So, the only disparity is that I haven't updated my MDApps to reflect my recent birthday...and do you really think I would create an MDApps just to back up this story so I can argue with you about Iraq...get off yourself.

[Quote: Originally Posted by CJLaw It is for these reasons that I MUST call BULLSH*T. Sorry. ]

You are pathetic dude. All of this simply so you don't have to admit you are wrong about your arguments. Isn't it just easier to trust other people than to go through all of this work, especially since the work you did was so poor in quality.

Now hold on, let me get my belt undone so you can start kissing my ass. And by the way...it's Sir to you.

PS - if anyone will tell me how to post a picture from my C Drive, I will post a picture of me getting my second Bronze Star pinned on...you can even see my name tape.

CJLaw Wrote: Actually, "all of this" is because in the past we have had posters use troll accounts and claim to be in the military. Then, they would go after me, Panda, Flighterdoc, et.al, while liberals squealed with delight. You had some inconsistencies that just didn't make sense, but now they do. I apologize for calling into question your credibility. I just wanted to be sure I was dealing with the real deal and not some tubby computer troll looking for a laugh.

Everyone in this country has a right to form their own opinion. You obviously have yours (as wrong as it may be) and I can respect that, more so than most liberals because you actually earned that right through blood and sweat.

Again, I apologize. If you would like me to take down mhy last post and the last paragraph of my previous post because it in dishonors you, I will gladly oblige.

BTW, I can't believe that the Army I love would actually allow a stupid grunt to lead a unit of intellectual dymano 19Ds. What is this world coming to?

NOTE TO LIBERALS: Savor this moment. I don't lose very many arguments and I concede even less. This is what it looks like to be you.

God, I hate being wrong.

[QUOTE=Mr. Z]You need to work on your reading comprehension. In the first sentence I said the country doesn't wage war on small business. I then explained to you why small biz is important to our country. I then give a bunch of examples showing how our government doesn't wage war, but, actually supports the development of small biz. Do you see how it ties in? Why was that so hard for you to comprehend???[/quote]

I see how you think it should tie in, but I also see that the first sentence is a refutation of my claim, which is subsequantly not addressed at all. If I give you a dollar and then take three away, am I helping you? Does pointing out that I gave you a dollar change your response?

[quote]I'm sorry you don't understand what a zero sum game is. And no, you definitely won't be giving me any ecomomics lessons - But, I will explain it to you in real simple terms using a hypothetical situation:

You are going to start a biz making widgets. Currently, there is only one other company, call them company A, making widgets out there i.e. they have 100% of the market share. In order for you to make money in that market, you will have to take market share away from company A. Or, to use the terms from my previous post, in order for you to make money creating widgets Company A has to lose money to you.

Granted, there are many factors which can come into play and make situations non-zero sum. In fact, most large scale economics issues are considered non-zero sum. [/quote]

No sh!t, Sherlock. Good work pointing out how ridiculously inappropriate the zero-sum game notion is for REALITY, and then taking my statement and pretending it's your conclusion.

[quote]I was not intending to write a dissertation on the differences betwee zero and non-zero sum economics. But, the point i was making was that the real difficulty in starting a business is not government impediments, such as you suggested, rather, it's the competition of fighting for market share - which can, and has been described as a zero-sum game. That is what makes it so hard to start up. How do you beat someone out who's already established dominance in a market? It's difficult, especially when companies get large and have money to lobby congress and commit to massive advertising campaigns. But, if the small businesses model is good enough, it will win out in spite of those advantages.[/quote]

And you don't think that the government does anything to help facillitate the dominance in the market you're decrying? Jesus, man, get a clue. AGAIN you're taking my point and passing it off as your own. I know that small business is important! Yes? Yes? I know that big businesses make it hard to break through! Yes? Yes? What's your point? What does any of that have to do with MY point about the nature of governmental support for big corporations?

[quote]One other thing, the zero-sum illustration (though not an accurate description of the economy) does not defy my own notion of capitalism. Not when you consider the possibility of wealth redistribution amongst clases and that our economy is now linked to global markets. [/quote]

Complete non-sequiter and a nice incomplete sentence (like this one) for the rabbits grazing on the hillside.

[quote]Yeah, God forbid that the government demand that a business practice is legit, that the practicioner be safe, that their product have quality. Its all just a big sham to keep you from starting up a business, right  :laugh: Licensing is no impediment to the serious businessman, only to hacks and charlatans who are looking to rip people off.[/quote]

...so long as you limit your definition of the "serious businessman" as a person who can get start-up capital and finance liscensing. Revisit your own response to thewzdoc and see if you can get an appreciation of how you are likewise trying to advocate a system that sh!ts on the little guyy from a humble background. You think it's easy to get start-up capital but hard to stay out of prision? Dios mio.

[quote]Also, did you ever hear about companies licensing their intellectual property, products or processes to other companies? Licensing can refer to more than just obtaining government permission to conduct business.[/quote]

Wow! Nice work, Perry Mason. Now rethink your notions of reading comprehension, as stated above, and see if you can figure out why you're a moron for telling ME that my use of a word was wrong when in fact it was YOU applying an incorrect definition based on the context. If you can't figure out that when I say "the Catholic church is monolithic" I'm not saying it's a huge stone, that means that your reading comprehension is fcuked. It does not mean that I don't know that monolithic can, in other contexts, mean "big stone."

And please note that with the definition you give here, the statement "licensing has nothing to do with the consummer and everything to do with protecting the intellectual property rights of the owner/producer of the idea" is still incorrect. Patents and copyrights are what protect IP. Liscensing in the sense that you're talking about here is how a person with protected IP makes a profit off of said IP when they allow others to use it. It's akin to leasing. The fact that I rent my house is not to say that "rent protects my landlord from me squatting here for free;" there are laws against that which respect the rights of the property owner.

[quote]Give me one shred of evidence you have for this that is not anecdotal.

You keep refering to silicon valley and the bay area as examples. Those are microenvironments and you're looking at them a specific and a very short period of time. In other words, those are not accurate depictions of what will happen over the long run and for economic conditions on a larger scale. When an economic environment is knocked out of whack, like in the Bay Area/ Silicon Valley was, it takes time for it to reach equilibrium again. So, with the toliet scrubber example, no, he can't go to starbucks and wait for the changes to occur, but, over a much longer period of time (years, tens of years, generations???), if there is a lack of people to scrub toilets, it will happen, the wages will go up...it's basic supply and demand. And to get back to the point i've been making all along, if he were educated he would have the flexibility to look for other types of work, so this wouldn't even be an issue to begin with.

That's your answer. But, in reality, a toliet scrubber with a great idea is tomorrow's next millionaire, if he has the education to be able to act on it.[/QUOTE]

How about you give me one shred of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, about a toilet scrubber either launching an idea based on his education to become a millionaire, or of toilet scrubbers being able to leverage their educations to get a pay raise.