It's nice to know the US Army cares about the soliders...
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
US soliders charged with cowardice are sentenced to death.
Well at least we have something in common with Saddam!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Which one makes you dumber? Anheiser/Busch or Cheney/Bush?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Nurick
news:tmm3vv0ldijlje45p...@4ax.com:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/
> 20031230/ap_on_re_us/iraq_cowardice_charge_1
>
> US soliders charged with cowardice are sentenced to death.
Actually, those *convicted* of cowardice can be executed. In the case of
this soldier, the charges were dropped. Can't let the facts get in the way
of a good anti-military whine, right?
> Well at least we have something in common with Saddam!
Hardly.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
'97 Honda Pacific Coast
'93 Honda Helix
'87 Honda Helix
Mark Olson
> > Well at least we have something in common with Saddam!
>
> Hardly.
First we find out he's a coward, then you tell us he rode a hardley,
what the hell is next??
--
Mark '01 SV650S '81 CM400T '99 EX250-F13 DoD #959635 RFB #2
Phyloe
"Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores" <> wrote in message > US soliders
charged with cowardice are sentenced to death.
>
> Well at least we have something in common with Saddam!
I just wonder how you dictate bravery? How do you call a man a coward
just because he freaks out at the sight of another man cut in half by a
weapon?
Phyloe
Ron C
news:tmm3vv0ldijlje45p...@4ax.com:
<snip>
>
> US soliders charged with cowardice are sentenced to death.
>
> Well at least we have something in common with Saddam!
>
Study military law before you go making accusations you can't back
up.
Tim Morrow
>
> some killfiled puke spewed in
> news:tmm3vv0ldijlje45p...@4ax.com:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > AMA solid riders charged with licorice are swimming to their death.
> >
> > Well at least we have something in common with the F.I.A.
> >
> Study military law before you go making accusations you can't back
> up.
I don't think he'll find what he's looking for in military law. Don't ask.
Don't tell. It's the licorice on their breath that gives them away.
Larry xlax Lovisone
> I just wonder how you dictate bravery? How do you call a man a coward
> just because he freaks out at the sight of another man cut in half by a
> weapon?
Bravery is the capacity to perform your duties properly even when faced
with the horrors of war... Even the poorest fighters turn brave when
they stand side by side with their fellow soldiers... A coward turns
away... cowards are cruel but the brave love mercy and delight to
save... bravery is the knowledge of the cowardice in the enemy...
Let us not forget this soldier volunteered and raised his right hand and
took a oath to perform his duties in accordance to military regulations...
Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it... the extended warranty in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
Jack Hunt only one planet belongs here
wrote:
>Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <cae...@casaputana.it> wrote in
>news:tmm3vv0ldijlje45p...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/
>> 20031230/ap_on_re_us/iraq_cowardice_charge_1
>>
>> US soliders charged with cowardice are sentenced to death.
US citizens who show cowardice post on Reeky about how they "avoided"
military service.
>> Well at least we have something in common with Saddam!
You're both where you can do the least damage?
--
Road Dog
IBA#12795
'99 ST1100
Veteran
Tim Morrow
> '99 ST1100
> Veteran
I think my '92 ST1100 was a veteran, too. Or maybe, it was a veterinarian. Not
sure. Anyway, I know it was *not* a Vette.
Tim
Phyloe
"Larry xlax Lovisone" > wrote in message
> > I just wonder how you dictate bravery? How do you call a man a coward
> > just because he freaks out at the sight of another man cut in half by a
> > weapon?
>
>
> Bravery is the capacity to perform your duties properly even when faced
> with the horrors of war... Even the poorest fighters turn brave when
> they stand side by side with their fellow soldiers... A coward turns
> away... cowards are cruel but the brave love mercy and delight to
> save... bravery is the knowledge of the cowardice in the enemy...
>
> Let us not forget this soldier volunteered and raised his right hand and
> took a oath to perform his duties in accordance to military regulations...
>
> Larry L
I agree that this soldier took an oath and I have no doubt that he
intended to live up to that oath. Nobody but nobody can say how they will
react in the face of such horror. I have spoken to soldiers who fought in
Viet Nam and they said that the most Gung Ho soldiers they ever saw
sometimes fell short of what they claimed they would do in the face of
battle. They were the ones who told me that nobody knows how they will react
before the fact.
Phyloe
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>Actually, those *convicted* of cowardice can be executed.
And what exactly is cowardice? Putting soliders to death for not
performing in the line of duty.
IOW, you either hit the front lines running or we're going to kill
you. Same as the Soviets who had machine gunners waiting in the rear
wing to gun down anyone who dared turn back.
I hear a lot of babble about freedom, democracy, good vs. evil, etc...
Doesn't seem too nice to kill some farmboy cause he shit his pants and
started crying for mommy.
When our enemy does this we point it out as a reason for why they're
barbaric and part of the "Axis of Evil"[tm]. When we do it I guess
it's different huh?
PS
Bush didn't serve when they reassigned him and now he's president!
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
<jhu...@PLUTOearthlink.net> only one planet belongs here wrote:
>US citizens who show cowardice post on Reeky about how they "avoided"
>military service.
Sorry, but unlike our esteemed president bush I did not actually
"avoid" military service as a verb. The Air Force wasn't interested in
me as a pilot due to a lack of 20/20 vision, I had little interest in
anything else.
>You're both where you can do the least damage?
Some of us do not measure our worth by the amount of stuff we can
break or kill.
Timberwoof
Larry xlax Lovisone <nett...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I just wonder how you dictate bravery? How do you call a man a coward
> > just because he freaks out at the sight of another man cut in half by a
> > weapon?
>
>
> Bravery is the capacity to perform your duties properly even when faced
> with the horrors of war... Even the poorest fighters turn brave when
> they stand side by side with their fellow soldiers... A coward turns
> away... cowards are cruel but the brave love mercy and delight to
> save... bravery is the knowledge of the cowardice in the enemy...
>
> Let us not forget this soldier volunteered and raised his right hand and
> took a oath to perform his duties in accordance to military regulations...
Hmmm. Which regulation is it that says "don't freak out when you see
something really horrible, especially if you're a Special Forces soldier
we spent many thousands of dollars training"?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
bike: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle
Albert Nurick
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:35:20 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Actually, those *convicted* of cowardice can be executed.
>
> And what exactly is cowardice? Putting soliders to death for not
> performing in the line of duty.
I'm not familiar with the UCMJ, so I don't know the precise definition.
> IOW, you either hit the front lines running or we're going to kill
> you. Same as the Soviets who had machine gunners waiting in the rear
> wing to gun down anyone who dared turn back.
Ever hear the term "due process"? The accused faces a court martial, and
execution is the most extreme of possible outcomes. AFAIK, it's not been
used in a very long time.
> I hear a lot of babble about freedom, democracy, good vs. evil, etc...
> Doesn't seem too nice to kill some farmboy cause he shit his pants and
> started crying for mommy.
I don't think that happens.
> When our enemy does this we point it out as a reason for why they're
> barbaric and part of the "Axis of Evil"[tm]. When we do it I guess
> it's different huh?
It would be bad if we did it regularly. But we don't, so it appears
you're just ranting over something irrelevant. Par for the course, yes?
Stephen!
> Sorry, but unlike our esteemed president bush I did not actually
> "avoid" military service as a verb. The Air Force wasn't interested in
> me as a pilot due to a lack of 20/20 vision, I had little interest in
> anything else.
>
Hell of a Patriot, indeed...
"I want to be an officer Fly-Boy or I'm going home!"
Ha!
--
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com
XS11E
news:Xns9461D8C...@24.93.43.119:
> I'm not familiar with the UCMJ, so I don't know the precise
> definition.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
Click on X. Punitive Articles and then select 899.99 "Misbehavior
before the Enemy" and then see "5. is guilty of cowardly conduct."
It's pretty much a catch-all.... it's not defined.
BTW, now you are familiar with the UCMJ! ;-)
Jack Hunt only one planet belongs here
I can believe that.
I had no chance of being a pilot but I didn't let that stop me from
getting a flying slot anyway. I'm red/green color blind and I found a
tailor-made job in airborne recon.
I can see right through most Russian camouflage, and many of those
sweepstakes cards where you have to wear special glasses to read the
winning number, I don't need the glasses. I also discovered that I
learn languages fairly easily, so they sent me to school to learn
Arabic. I graduated second in my class. Sixty-six of us started
class in the fall of 1979. Thirteen graduated a year later.
I joined in the middle of the Cold War, when there was a real danger
that we'd be fighting the Russians. Or the Chinese. Or both. I had
a part in Early Call (don't ask what it was about), Urgent Fury (the
rescue of American citizens from Grenada), and several other
little-publicized skirmishes. Having seen the real world from the
operating theatre, I can see just how myopic your views are.
Unfortunately, you made sure you'd never see the big picture so you're
stuck in your ignorant, one-sided world.
I had this mental image of being under Russian occupation here and my
children asking "Dad, what did you do to keep this from happening?"
and I'd have to say "I didn't do anything".
I agree with the Air Force that you're not fit for military service,
but his has nothing to do with your vision.
Jack Hunt only one planet belongs here
I can believe that.
but it has nothing to do with your vision.
keith s.
>And what exactly is cowardice? Putting soliders to death for not
>performing in the line of duty.
>
>IOW, you either hit the front lines running or we're going to kill
>you. Same as the Soviets who had machine gunners waiting in the rear
>wing to gun down anyone who dared turn back.
>
You know Demi. You talking about military service is like a virgin talking
about sex. You've seen the movie. You watch Oprah and Dr. Phil talk about it...
Hell you ever have a colletion of the raunchiest pron ever produced.
But you really don't know shit from shinola about the subject if you haven't
participated...
Now shut up virgin.
Nefarious Necrologist 42nd class
Some people ride, some just like to show off their butt
jewelry once in a while.
Dum vivimus, vivamus
Entropy_magnet
>US soliders charged with cowardice are sentenced to death.
Just a couple of clarification points . . .
The _maximum_ punishment is death, not the default.
He was offered NJP(non-judicial punishment), he elected to receive a court
martial. NJP is a fairly painless procedure in which they generally take
your paycheck, and maybe a touch of rank. You cannot get the death penalty
thru NJP. Court martials are very painful procedures in which the
governement has you over a barrel, and plans to fuck you hard, otherwise
they wouldn't bring it to court. If they take you to court martial, you
are likely guilty, or they've railroaded you. Either way you are fucked.
Stephen!
> I agree with the Air Force that you're not fit for military service,
> but it has nothing to do with your vision.
Damn... That's what I *meant* to say... ;)
well done...
jenner
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:35:20 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually, those *convicted* of cowardice can be executed.
>
> And what exactly is cowardice? Putting soliders to death for not
> performing in the line of duty.
Actions that put the lives of your team at more risk than they already are
at the hands of the enemy though not doing what you know is expected of
you.
If you volunteer (and it is all volunteer) as a soldier, then do your
damndest to act like one. Otherwise, don't fookin sign up for the
ejumakation and benefits and put me and mine at risk. You may not want to
be here, except for one weekend a month and two weeks out of the year. We
don't want to be in battle either but, we'd like it very very much if you
didn't contribute to us not going home alive though your inability to
fight while just as scared shitless as the rest of us.
> I hear a lot of babble about freedom, democracy, good vs. evil, etc...
> Doesn't seem too nice to kill some farmboy cause he shit his pants and
> started crying for mommy.
Everyone cries for their mommy. Most of them keep fighting.
I'm not saying he should be executed or even jailed but he needs to have
his ass seperated -- now.
--
-- jenner
keith s.
The irony here is that sometimes an AR15 is often not all that bad...unless you
are an NCO. Weird thing is that imo UCMJ or more specificly an AR15 is more
justice than law. But unless you were in the military you couldn't even begin
to understand that.
I'd rather justice than following the letter of the law.
Larry xlax Lovisone
The Air Force wasn't interested in
> me as a pilot due to a lack of 20/20 vision, I had little interest in
> anything else.
The Air Force is always looking for a good shit pile-it... as in pile-it
on this bird and pile-it on that bird... no 20/20 required to load bombs...
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>You know Demi. You talking about military service is like a virgin talking
>about sex.
Well I'm glad you made the comparison, cause in this "abstinence is
best" era of the GOP we have lots of virgins talking about sex all the
time.
So if we're going to have a catch all discussion about war, maybe we
should get the virgin's opinion too... cause sometimes out of the
mouths of babes.
> But you really don't know shit from shinola about the subject if you haven't
>participated...
I do participate. I send the money that kept you grunts in action and
I send more of it that your average flagwaving American moron. Oh but
that's the penalty for daring to earn right? The statist brainwashing
getting to you Keef?
My how easily you GI Joes forget where the real strength of the
American military lies.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld sez: "Serve your fellow countrymen... make mine a double!"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
<jhu...@PLUTOearthlink.net> only one planet belongs here wrote:
>I had no chance of being a pilot but I didn't let that stop me from
>getting a flying slot anyway. I'm red/green color blind and I found a
>tailor-made job in airborne recon.
Because your desire to serve a particular institution was greater than
your desire to serve a particular profession. Not everyone is
hardwired like that and belittling those who do otherwise only makes
you look like a moron.
I'm fairly certain Einstein would have made a lousy solider. Are you
willing then to cast your contributions above his?
How about the kid who wanted to become a brain surgeon but didn't make
it into medical school? Should he become a nurse instead? It's all
good!
<snip statist babble I have no interest in responding to>
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>It would be bad if we did it regularly. But we don't, so it appears
>you're just ranting over something irrelevant. Par for the course, yes?
Nope. The regularity of a law's usage does not negate it's intent and
consequence upon justice.
I am not against punishment for dereliction of duty, however
"cowardice" is very loosely defined and the penalty of death unjustly
harsh for such a broad offense. To allow it to continue on the basis
of "oh we hardly ever use it at all" is merely to allow those in power
the opportunity to shaft some candidates with impunity and ignore the
follies of others.
Selective application of law is not the basis of any free society I am
familiar with.
keith s.
Nope it's old farts who don't want kids to find out what is fun and healthy and
that is a straw dog you have on your leash there Herr Demitrious.
>
>My how easily you GI Joes forget where the real strength of the
>American military lies.
>
>
And you haven't a clue as to what it is. I'll gif you a hint it isn't the tax
payers. contrary to what you think.
Nope it's the husbands and wives of the people who serve in our military.
That's our military's REAL STRENGTH. They are the ones who stay home and take
care of the family and the bills. They are the ones who sit up nights worring
about their military spouse, dreding the phone call or knock on the door. They
are the ones who those members of the military are really fighting for.
I'm just glad that it's soldiers past and present much like I was who made it
possible for people to say what they think in this country...
Like I said you don't have any clues on the subject...not an iota.
REInvestments
"keith s." <sschi...@aol.comnilfeces> wrote in message
news:20031231024844...@mb-m13.aol.com...
>
> The irony here is that sometimes an AR15 is often not all that
bad...unless you
> are an NCO. Weird thing is that imo UCMJ or more specificly an AR15 is
more
> justice than law. But unless you were in the military you couldn't even
begin
> to understand that.
>
> I'd rather justice than following the letter of the law.
Why the exception for noncoms? I wasn't in, so I don't understand. But I
was "around".
REInvestments
"Larry xlax Lovisone" <nett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3FF284B4...@comcast.net...
>
>
> The Air Force wasn't interested in
> > me as a pilot due to a lack of 20/20 vision, I had little interest in
> > anything else.
>
> The Air Force is always looking for a good shit pile-it... as in pile-it
Depending on someone's age, they could have Lasik done, and still get into
flying at this point. Different than when I tried to pilot helicopters in
Viet Nam with - 9 diopters. They didn't even have RK then.
wrestleantares
<cae...@casaputana.it> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:18:37 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It would be bad if we did it regularly. But we don't, so it appears
>>you're just ranting over something irrelevant. Par for the course, yes?
>
>Nope. The regularity of a law's usage does not negate it's intent and
>consequence upon justice.
>
>I am not against punishment for dereliction of duty, however
>"cowardice" is very loosely defined and the penalty of death unjustly
>harsh for such a broad offense. To allow it to continue on the basis
>of "oh we hardly ever use it at all" is merely to allow those in power
>the opportunity to shaft some candidates with impunity and ignore the
>follies of others.
Loosely defined?
You have to read the whole section. Cowardice is very strictly
defined in the UCMJ. It can only be prosecuted if the cowardice
results in misbehavior before the enemy, which is even more strictly
defined.
We're not talking some boy shitting his drawers in battle. We're
talking allowing your fear to overwhelm your senses, and putting
others in more danger by your actions or inaction.
XS11E
news:3ff2efd6...@news.vistatech.net:
> You have to read the whole section. Cowardice is very strictly
> defined in the UCMJ. It can only be prosecuted if the cowardice
> results in misbehavior before the enemy, which is even more
> strictly defined.
Show me where, please?
keith s.
>Why the exception for noncoms? I wasn't in, so I don't understand. But I
>was "around".
>
>
>
>
Because they have invested a good portion of their lives. Now this isn't so bad
if you are a young E-5 (SGT) BUT! once you make E-6 (SSG) it get's ugly FAST.
Most E-6's have over 8 to 10 years and that is mid career. UCMJ can penalize
you for quiet a bit of your income for several months not to mention if you
REALLY piss off the BC and Sargent Major...it will take up 45 days of your
time at a rate of 18 to 20 hour days.(they have to let you sleep only 4 hours a
day, BUT THAT'S not all...Johnny tell them about restriction and the fact that
it applies to married soldiers who live off base not just the pukes in the
barracks!
AR15's are best used on first term soldiers(initial enlistment)and some who are
not quiet mid term. Also works good on those damn 11b's who get promoted too
fast. Yes they know the military and all that...but they haven't "really"
matured yet.
Look up AR92 and a few others. Google UCMJ sometime...they spell things out as
detailed as Leviticus ever DREAMED of doing. Unlike that fine legal text...UCMJ
is not open to debate, but you can interpet it! There comes a point though when
the leaderships hands are tied...
Jack Hunt only one planet belongs here
<cae...@casaputana.it> wrote:
>How about the kid who wanted to become a brain surgeon but didn't make
>it into medical school?
You shouldn't have let him practice on you.
Larry xlax Lovisone
> My how easily you GI Joes forget where the real strength of the
> American military lies.
Jr. Pudknocker is caught screwing the pooch once again...
Strength does not come from physical capacity... it comes from an
indomitable will... brute strength deprived of reason falls on it's own
weight...
wrestleantares
wrote:
I should have said MCM. You see the UCMJ is a general guideline, but
the MCM, which can not be seperated from the UCMJ, nor vice versa,
gives the elements and explanation of the punitive articles of the
UCMJ.
After many years they kind of run together.
Anyway, the MCM (Manual for Court Martial) subdivides the punitive
articles of the UCMJ.
First you would have the actiual article as it appears in the UCMJ.
Second, the elements that make up the offense.
Third, the explanation of those elements.
Fourth, related, but lesser included offenses.
Fifth, maximum punishments
and
Sixth, sample specifications.
The UCMJ, is implemented through the Manual for Court Martial. Within
the MCM, cowardice is strictly defined.
The MCM is a result of Executive Order, and can be amended by the
President. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to
be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide
those details in the form of Executive Orders. So the MCM, is law
just as much as the UCMJ. The UCMJ, is the general rules that
Congress passed, and the MCM is the details of implementation issued
by Executive Order.
ANYWAY, the relevant information on Cowardice:
You know the article so here's the rest:
ELEMENTS:
(5) Cowardly conduct.
(a) That the accused committed an act of cowardice;
(b) That this conduct occurred while the accused was before or in
the presence of the enemy; and
(c) That this conduct was the result of fear.
EXPLANATION:
(5) Cowardly conduct.
(a) Cowardice. “Cowardice” is misbehavior motivated by fear.
(b) Fear. Fear is a natural feeling of apprehension when going
into battle. The mere display of apprehension does not
constitute this offense.
(c) Nature of offense. Refusal or abandonment of a performance
of duty before or in the presence of the enemy as a
result of fear constitutes this offense.
(d) Defense. Genuine and extreme illness, not generated by
cowardice, is a defense.
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES:
(5) Cowardly conduct.
(a) Article 85—desertion with intent to avoid hazardous
duty or important service
(b) Article 86—absence without authority
(c) Article 99—running away
(d) Article 80—attempts
MAXIMUM PUNISHMENTS:
All offenses under Article 99. Death or such other punishment as a
court-martial may direct.
As you can see under EXPLANATION misbehavior due to cowardice is the
real offense, and misbehavior is defined further in this same article.
Albert Nurick
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:18:37 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It would be bad if we did it regularly. But we don't, so it appears
>>you're just ranting over something irrelevant. Par for the course,
>>yes?
>
> Nope. The regularity of a law's usage does not negate it's intent and
> consequence upon justice.
Actually, it does. After reading the UCMJ (thanks for the pointer,
XS11E), it appears that many illegal actions in the face of the enemy
"shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court- martial may
direct"
In other words, not doing your duty in the face of the enemy CAN be
punished as severely as the court martial decides. This is a good
thing; a soldier shouldn't be able to decide "well, I'll risk 30 days in
the stockade so I won't have to do _______" if it will put others in
harm's way.
> I am not against punishment for dereliction of duty, however
> "cowardice" is very loosely defined and the penalty of death unjustly
> harsh for such a broad offense.
That's why it's at the discretion of the court-martial. AFAIK, it's
used so infrequently as to be irrelevant. Can you cite a case where it
has been used?
> To allow it to continue on the basis
> of "oh we hardly ever use it at all" is merely to allow those in power
> the opportunity to shaft some candidates with impunity and ignore the
> follies of others.
Umm... that's the nature of being "in power". ;-) Doing what some
civilian considers "fair" just isn't relevant here, IMO.
> Selective application of law is not the basis of any free society I am
> familiar with.
Funny, it's the basis of every free society I'm familiar with. Do you
get a speeding ticket every time you speed?
For someone who posts so much, you come across as incredibly idealistic
and naive. IMO, of course.
Albert Nurick
news:pan.2003.12.31....@Xcomcast.netX:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:57:56 +0000, Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
> wrote:
>> And what exactly is cowardice? Putting soliders to death for not
>> performing in the line of duty.
>
> Actions that put the lives of your team at more risk than they already
> are at the hands of the enemy though not doing what you know is
> expected of you.
>
> If you volunteer (and it is all volunteer) as a soldier, then do your
> damndest to act like one. Otherwise, don't fookin sign up for the
> ejumakation and benefits and put me and mine at risk. You may not
> want to be here, except for one weekend a month and two weeks out of
> the year. We don't want to be in battle either but, we'd like it very
> very much if you didn't contribute to us not going home alive though
> your inability to fight while just as scared shitless as the rest of
> us.
Well said. I've never served, but I have no patience for whiny civilians
who feel the need to offer their $0.02 on how some of the military
regulations are too harsh.
The business of war is deadly serious, and twits like Demi should stick
to showing off on their toys, and enjoying the freedom that those who
made the sacrifice of service won for us all.
A heartfelt "thank you" from this citizen to everyone who's risked their
lives for all of us.
wrestleantares
>Actually, it does. After reading the UCMJ (thanks for the pointer,
>XS11E), it appears that many illegal actions in the face of the enemy
>"shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court- martial may
>direct"
Read my MCM post to XS11E. The Manual for Court Martial spells out
the law and prosecution guidelines much more clearly.
wrestleantares
>> I hear a lot of babble about freedom, democracy, good vs. evil, etc...
>> Doesn't seem too nice to kill some farmboy cause he shit his pants and
>> started crying for mommy.
>
>Everyone cries for their mommy. Most of them keep fighting.
Which is why the prosecution guidelines in the form of the MCM (Manual
for Court Martials) even spells out that "fear" is not cowardice.
Cowardice is allowing your fear to cause "misbehavior" which is in
turn specifically spelled out in the MCM.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>And you haven't a clue as to what it is. I'll gif you a hint it isn't the tax
>payers. contrary to what you think.
>
>Nope it's the husbands and wives of the people who serve in our military.
IOW the tax payers. Most everyone has someone in their family who has
served. Most everyone pays taxes.
Thanks to the Bush administration, not only do the rich not have to
send their kids off to the military, they don't have to pay any of the
taxes to support this country.
In today's America the peasant army pays for its own bullets.
>That's our military's REAL STRENGTH. They are the ones who stay home and take
>care of the family and the bills. They are the ones who sit up nights worring
>about their military spouse, dreding the phone call or knock on the door. They
>are the ones who those members of the military are really fighting for.
> I'm just glad that it's soldiers past and present much like I was who made it
>possible for people to say what they think in this country...
Emotionalist banter. I recall talking about the sacrifices of a
military mother not too long ago, only to have it dismissed as
irrelevant. Since we've established this as fact your point is also
moot.
If you've bought into the nationalistic hijinks then I feel bad, but
must respectfully disagree. What makes the American military strong is
F-16s, nuclear weapons/submarines/carriers, etc... All of this is a
direct result of our economy which can sustain the sort of military
spending it requires. Were that not the case we'd all be sprechen zie
Chinoise by now.
You assertion that it has something to do with the personnel is
bullshit. So what are you saying, only America is in possession of
people of integrity? Only America has morals, principles and bravery?
Please. Americans are pretty nice but you really need to get out more.
Howard
>How about the kid who wanted to become a brain surgeon but didn't make
>it into medical school? Should he become a nurse instead? It's all
>good!
NOT a good comparison at all : ) At the college I went to, the
nursing program I went into (Bachelor of Science) was harder to get
into than premed was. The requirements were much more stringent as
well as the requirements to remain in the program.
Howard
'95 Suzuki Savage
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free!
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>Depending on someone's age, they could have Lasik done, and still get into
>flying at this point. Different than when I tried to pilot helicopters in
>Viet Nam with - 9 diopters. They didn't even have RK then.
Well I hate to sound like a fogey, but they didn't have lasik when I
was graduating high school either. My how quickly we learn to take new
advances for granted eh?
BTW, you're blind as a bat! I only had -2.75 when the Air Force
delcared my peepers inadequate. I mean come on man, I can squint!
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
<jhu...@PLUTOearthlink.net> only one planet belongs here wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:52:59 GMT, Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
><cae...@casaputana.it> wrote:
>
>>How about the kid who wanted to become a brain surgeon but didn't make
>>it into medical school?
>
>You shouldn't have let him practice on you.
How would you dimwits be able to compete without a handicap or two?
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>In other words, not doing your duty in the face of the enemy CAN be
>punished as severely as the court martial decides. This is a good
>thing; a soldier shouldn't be able to decide "well, I'll risk 30 days in
>the stockade so I won't have to do _______" if it will put others in
>harm's way.
Kinda blows the entire "best volunteer army on the planet" argument
out of the water eh?
Now lemme start by saying I HAVE NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER,
however I do have plenty of managerial experience and unless you're
using a different species of human being a lot of the same shit
applies. I know that any candidate that needs to be motivated with
threats and punishments is a poor candidate for any form of service
and ultimately an unreliable one. You're better off weeding those
losers out of your organization.
In the heat of battle, the sort of solider that conceives of
derelicting his duty is not going to stop and think "wow I might get
busted for this" and suddenly have the urge to do his duty. More
likely said individual would be concerned with giving the *impression*
of duty while still keeping their bacon out of the fire. IOW about as
useless as a dick on a priest.
>Umm... that's the nature of being "in power". ;-) Doing what some
>civilian considers "fair" just isn't relevant here, IMO.
We're not talking about "what some civilian considers fair", we're
talking about universal priniciples and morals.
Even for a battle hardened solider it is wrong to kill without
purpose. The Japanese who thought it fun playing samurai on the heads
of their POW's were war criminals, plain and simple.
>Funny, it's the basis of every free society I'm familiar with. Do you
>get a speeding ticket every time you speed?
Confusing what you consider a free society and what actually is? The
US is far from being a free society, read some Ayn Rand, Leonard
Peikoff, etc... if you need a primer course in where America went
wrong.
>For someone who posts so much, you come across as incredibly idealistic
>and naive. IMO, of course.
Listen, you pro-patriot RWE's are just as stupid as pro-welfare commie
lefties IMHO. When you get your head out of your statist ass and
realize that what America once stood for and what it has become in the
20th century give us a call.
Jack Hunt only one planet belongs here
<cae...@casaputana.it> wrote:
>How would you dimwits be able to compete without a handicap or two?
Deme, you're like the proverbial gnat humping an elephant. Back into
the bozo bin you go.
Jack Hunt only one planet belongs here
wrote:
>Can you cite a case where it has been used?
The execution of Private Eddie Slovik, more than SIXTY years ago.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
<jhu...@PLUTOearthlink.net> only one planet belongs here wrote:
>Deme, you're like the proverbial gnat humping an elephant. Back into
>the bozo bin you go.
Oh boo-hoo!
Rest assured when you grow up and can take the real world without
blinders, we'll still be here to hump your elephant.
Ron C
news:ore4vvsda6n3t2724...@4ax.com:
>
>
> Sorry, but unlike our esteemed president bush I did not actually
> "avoid" military service as a verb. The Air Force wasn't interested
in
> me as a pilot due to a lack of 20/20 vision, I had little interest
in
> anything else.
>
>
So, the truth is out! You really just wanted a job where you could
bomb the shit out of people! Cool!
Ron C
news:Xns9461D80D...@66.75.162.198:
> Jack Hunt <jhu...@PLUTOearthlink.net> only one planet belongs here
> wrote in news:9dn4vvkfj9mrtva2l...@4ax.com:
>
>> I agree with the Air Force that you're not fit for military
service,
>> but it has nothing to do with your vision.
>
>
> Damn... That's what I *meant* to say... ;)
>
> well done...
>
>
Gotta add my well-done as well.
Ron C
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:35:20 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Actually, those *convicted* of cowardice can be executed.
>
> And what exactly is cowardice? Putting soliders to death for not
> performing in the line of duty.
>
> IOW, you either hit the front lines running or we're going to kill
> you. Same as the Soviets who had machine gunners waiting in the
rear
> wing to gun down anyone who dared turn back.
>
> I hear a lot of babble about freedom, democracy, good vs. evil,
etc...
> Doesn't seem too nice to kill some farmboy cause he shit his pants
and
> started crying for mommy.
>
> When our enemy does this we point it out as a reason for why
they're
> barbaric and part of the "Axis of Evil"[tm]. When we do it I guess
> it's different huh?
>
>
> PS
> Bush didn't serve when they reassigned him and now he's president!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Which one makes you dumber? Anheiser/Busch or Cheney/Bush?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
By the way Dem, when was the last time our military executed someone
for cowardice or desertion? I think you're making something out of
nothing.
Ron C
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:56:37 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
<snip a bunch>
> Now lemme start by saying I HAVE NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER,
> however I do have plenty of managerial experience and unless you're
> using a different species of human being a lot of the same shit
> applies. I know that any candidate that needs to be motivated with
> threats and punishments is a poor candidate for any form of service
> and ultimately an unreliable one. You're better off weeding those
> losers out of your organization.
>
>
<snip a bunch more>
I have military experience. And managerial experience. You don't
know what you're talking about. Shit even you could be a good grunt
after boot camp.
Alan Moore
<cae...@casaputana.it> wrote:
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20031230/ap_on_re_us/iraq_cowardice_charge_1
>
>US soliders charged with cowardice are sentenced to death.
Can be. I think they executed one during WWII, a guy who everybody
except the court seemed to think never should have been sent into
combat in the first place, or even been in the service, as his basic
training instructors had reported that he was afraid of gunfire and
other loud noises.
In reponse to your subject line, the US Army isn't supposed to care
about the soldiers, it's supposed to care about the mission. The same
is true for everybody else's army, except maybe the Salvation Army.
Al Moore
DoD 734
keith s.
>>And you haven't a clue as to what it is. I'll gif you a hint it isn't the
>tax
>>payers. contrary to what you think.
>>
>>Nope it's the husbands and wives of the people who serve in our military.
>
>IOW the tax payers. Most everyone has someone in their family who has
>served. Most everyone pays taxes.
You really don't get it do you? You, just...don't...get...it. The Taxpayers
mean NOTHING to soldiers. It's their families support and love that let's them
spend days, weeks and MONTHS away. Being cold, wet, miserable or Hot, dry and
miserable or an almost infinate combination of those... No soldier gives a
flying FUCK what anyone does...the proletariate mean exactly NOTHING. That is
what you are that is what everyone not realted to them is! Get over the fact
that no amount of F16's nor money really means a damn thing to them, except as
tools to use. They can and have done as good a job with lesser equipment and
dollars.
>
>Thanks to the Bush administration, not only do the rich not have to
>send their kids off to the military, they don't have to pay any of the
>taxes to support this country.
LOL...wrong. I paid taxes EVERY DAMN YEAR! If the pay weren't so fucking low
and my using the single no withholding I'd have got nothing back. Period.
>
>In today's America the peasant army pays for its own bullets.
>
Well, guess what. That's the way war has always been fought. We just don't get
to loot and pillage like we used to.
>>That's our military's REAL STRENGTH. They are the ones who stay home and
>take
>>care of the family and the bills. They are the ones who sit up nights
>worring
>>about their military spouse, dreding the phone call or knock on the door.
>They
>>are the ones who those members of the military are really fighting for.
>> I'm just glad that it's soldiers past and present much like I was who made
>it
>>possible for people to say what they think in this country...
>
>Emotionalist banter. I recall talking about the sacrifices of a
>military mother not too long ago, only to have it dismissed as
>irrelevant. Since we've established this as fact your point is also
>moot.
No and I never said the military mother was moot. Obviously you know not what
you speak of.
>
>If you've bought into the nationalistic hijinks then I feel bad, but
>must respectfully disagree. What makes the American military strong is
>F-16s, nuclear weapons/submarines/carriers, etc... All of this is a
>direct result of our economy which can sustain the sort of military
>spending it requires. Were that not the case we'd all be sprechen zie
>Chinoise by now.
Patently wrong and if you don't know WHY you are wrong then no amount of
explaining it to you will help as your mind is a closed book on this subject.
>
>You assertion that it has something to do with the personnel is
>bullshit. So what are you saying, only America is in possession of
>people of integrity? Only America has morals, principles and bravery?
Well as a matter of fact when it comes to the common soldier and the average
officer. The only exception I might make are in order. The mexican army, the
canadians(eh) and maybe with some reservation the germans and british armies...
The rest I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw the original "Roaddog" But
you wont believe any of that so why am I bothering?
>
>Please. Americans are pretty nice but you really need to get out more.
No americans are as a whole selfish and petty. Damn near as bad as the french.
It's the people like our soldiers who make up for people like you and phyloe
much less HHH.
Beardg
>US citizens who show cowardice post on Reeky about how they "avoided"
>military service.
Beardg>>Just ask Howard Dean....He got his very rich parents to get a doctors
note lying about a bad back to avoid the draft....then old Howard went off for
a few months of skiing while the poor and responsible folks fought...Thanx
PoPs!
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>You really don't get it do you? You, just...don't...get...it.
Easy there fella or you might get a stroke.
> The Taxpayers mean NOTHING to soldiers. It's their families support and love that let's them
>spend days, weeks and MONTHS away.
Oh that's fine-n-dandy but not what I was talking about eh? We're
talking about where the strength of the US military lies, not where
the soliders derive their strength from.
>Get over the fact that no amount of F16's nor money really means a damn thing to them, except as
>tools to use. They can and have done as good a job with lesser equipment and
>dollars.
Name one war...
>LOL...wrong. I paid taxes EVERY DAMN YEAR!
Of course you did. You were a fighting peasant paying for your own
bullets.
The $15million/yr types living of their trust do not pay any taxes at
all thanks to Bush. Not fewer taxes, not 10%, ZERO!
>Well, guess what. That's the way war has always been fought. We just don't get
>to loot and pillage like we used to.
Dunno about that. Many socieites were based around the nobility doing
the fighting and the peasants doing the growing.
Our own nation had a far more egalitarian approach to military service
in the past than current times. Amongst the snooty set nowadays
military service is not only frowned upon, it is openly ridiculed.
>Patently wrong and if you don't know WHY you are wrong then no amount of
>explaining it to you will help as your mind is a closed book on this subject.
Patent schmatent. There's 280 million chinamen in the People's Repulik
army dude. That's one solider for every man, woman and child in the
US!
Tell me we'd have half a chance in hell if they were as well equipped
(per capita) as us. Fortunately the bulk is just a bunch of grunts
with cheapo rifles.
>Well as a matter of fact when it comes to the common soldier and the average
>officer. The only exception I might make are in order. The mexican army, the
>canadians(eh) and maybe with some reservation the germans and british armies...
>No americans are as a whole selfish and petty. Damn near as bad as the french.
>It's the people like our soldiers who make up for people like you and phyloe
>much less HHH.
Nice try. Americans overall tend to work hard and do the right thing
under pressure. They're just fucking intellectually and physically
lazy is all. That's the majority of your America right there.
The selfish and petty ones run the show. The soliders serve them. Both
are in the minority.
Albert Nurick
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:56:37 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In other words, not doing your duty in the face of the enemy CAN be
>>punished as severely as the court martial decides. This is a good
>>thing; a soldier shouldn't be able to decide "well, I'll risk 30 days
>>in the stockade so I won't have to do _______" if it will put others
>>in harm's way.
>
> Kinda blows the entire "best volunteer army on the planet" argument
> out of the water eh?
Nope. You don't have to sign up. NO ONE has to server, if they choose
not to. But if you do, you can't change your mind in the middle of
combat, because that puts others at risk.
> Now lemme start by saying I HAVE NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER,
> however I do have plenty of managerial experience and unless you're
> using a different species of human being a lot of the same shit
> applies. <snip>
Not really. Few management decisions in the civilian world result in
dead employees. It's a whole different ballgame.
> In the heat of battle, the sort of solider that conceives of
> derelicting his duty is not going to stop and think "wow I might get
> busted for this" and suddenly have the urge to do his duty. More
> likely said individual would be concerned with giving the *impression*
> of duty while still keeping their bacon out of the fire. IOW about as
> useless as a dick on a priest.
Your opinion has been noted. I'm sure the Pentagon is revising their
procedures based on your input.
>>Umm... that's the nature of being "in power". ;-) Doing what some
>>civilian considers "fair" just isn't relevant here, IMO.
>
> We're not talking about "what some civilian considers fair", we're
> talking about universal priniciples and morals.
This should be interesting; whenever I read about the idea of universal
principles on Usenet, it should be more accurately spelled as "what I
believe" ;-)
> Even for a battle hardened solider it is wrong to kill without
> purpose. The Japanese who thought it fun playing samurai on the heads
> of their POW's were war criminals, plain and simple.
Agreed. But the soldier often isn't given all the motivations behind his
being sent on a mission; he's supposed to obey his orders.
>>Funny, it's the basis of every free society I'm familiar with. Do you
>>get a speeding ticket every time you speed?
>
> Confusing what you consider a free society and what actually is? The
> US is far from being a free society, read some Ayn Rand, Leonard
> Peikoff, etc... if you need a primer course in where America went
> wrong.
Like I thought; you're an idealist who doesn't seem to understand the
real world. <shrug> Lots of guys like you on Usenet.
>>For someone who posts so much, you come across as incredibly
>>idealistic and naive. IMO, of course.
>
> Listen, you pro-patriot RWE's
This "RWE" is pro-choice and anti-Religious Right; hard to put thinking
people into boxes sometimes.
> are just as stupid as pro-welfare commie lefties IMHO.
I'm sure. But your opinion simply isn't that important to anyone but
you, I'd venture to guess.
> When you get your head out of your statist ass
I love your frequent use of "statist". Makes me chuckle; did you learn a
new word?
> and
> realize that what America once stood for and what it has become in the
> 20th century give us a call.
Why on earth would I care what you think?
Albert Nurick
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:56:37 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Can you cite a case where it has been used?
>
> The execution of Private Eddie Slovik, more than SIXTY years ago.
That's what I thought. It's cute to watch Demi get his panties in a wad
over a military regulation that's essentially never invoked. Gotta love
those mushy-headed pseudo-intellectuals, always grasping for a new cause to
take up...
Jack Hunt only one planet belongs here
wrote:
>Jack Hunt <jhu...@PLUTOearthlink.net> only one planet belongs here wrote
>in news:msj6vvk7jnv9op0hj...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:56:37 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Can you cite a case where it has been used?
>>
>> The execution of Private Eddie Slovik, more than SIXTY years ago.
>
>That's what I thought. It's cute to watch Demi get his panties in a wad
No, it's sickening. Brave men have fought and died to give him the
right to malign my country and my service. But that's OK. He's the
one who has to look in the mirror at the guy who is unfit for service,
not me. I did my time, and I'd gladly go back and do it again if
needed. I'd give my left nut to go back through basic with Demi if I
knew he couldn't wimp out and would have to go through the whole
thing.
>Gotta love those mushy-headed pseudo-intellectuals
No I don't. They are a pimple on the posterior of humanity.
Modern-day cowards are usually just kicked out the back door with a
general discharge and a cover story, like poor eyesight. The
services try to weed those out before they even get in. We can see
that this works pretty well.
The best one I ever heard was a loser who tried to convince his family
that he couldn't fly because the fillings in his teeth would interfere
with the cockpit instruments.
Then there was the girl who was trying to get out so she could join
the Olympic Equestrian team. There were only a few nit-picking
details to get out of the way - like, learning to ride a horse.
A local kid signed up and was back home with mommie within 2 weeks.
He said his TI saw found that he could intentionally dislocate one of
his shoulder sockets and he freaked out, had him discharged the next
day. I've always been able to dislocate my left shoulder and put it
back at will, even used to do it on bets in the NCO club. bzzzzt,
more cowardice.
A local kid signed up just this spring. Talked for six months about
how he was going to split that place wide open. Didn't last a week.
Old baseball injury. Yeah, right.
Some can hack it, the others claim bad eyesight or flat feet. They
can claim all they want. We know what the real problem is.
Ron C
>
>>Get over the fact that no amount of F16's nor money really means a
>>damn thing to them, except as tools to use. They can and have done
as
>>good a job with lesser equipment and dollars.
>
> Name one war...
>
Read your history. Did you see what we started out with in WWII?
jim rozen
Gladiatores says...
>Well I'm glad you made the comparison, cause in this "abstinence is
>best" era of the GOP we have lots of virgins talking about sex all the
>time.
Well, strom thrumond didn't talk about it. Much.
Jim
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
Bob Mann
<timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>In article <3FF2271D...@comcast.net>,
> Larry xlax Lovisone <nett...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > I just wonder how you dictate bravery? How do you call a man a coward
>> > just because he freaks out at the sight of another man cut in half by a
>> > weapon?
>>
>>
>> Bravery is the capacity to perform your duties properly even when faced
>> with the horrors of war... Even the poorest fighters turn brave when
>> they stand side by side with their fellow soldiers... A coward turns
>> away... cowards are cruel but the brave love mercy and delight to
>> save... bravery is the knowledge of the cowardice in the enemy...
>>
>> Let us not forget this soldier volunteered and raised his right hand and
>> took a oath to perform his duties in accordance to military regulations...
>
>Hmmm. Which regulation is it that says "don't freak out when you see
>something really horrible, especially if you're a Special Forces soldier
>we spent many thousands of dollars training"?
Heavy irony. Those of us who choose not to join up are able to have a
panic attack and then go on fully paid medical leave.
Panic attacks are an uncontrolable medical condition and those charges
should never have been laid. He should have been sent for the
treatment he requested, made whole again (if possible) and sent back
to active duty.
If he was irreperably damaged by the condition he could have been
given a medical discharge.
That's the chances the army, like most employers, takes when they
train somebody. You don't just kill them because they can't perform
like you hoped.
--
Bob Mann
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in a boat and
drink beer all day.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
Seems to be a prerequisite for politicians really. Your warmongering
Bushmonkey didn't show when they reassigned him during 'Nam despite
landing the cushy non-combat texas national guard slot.
Funny how the whole thing was just kinda dropped. No brig, no firing
squad. Just a US presidency!
Yourself? How did America reward you?
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>Nope. You don't have to sign up.
Really? Then wot's that selective service bit about then?
>Not really. Few management decisions in the civilian world result in
>dead employees.
You've never heard of the USPS? How about Union Carbide?
>Your opinion has been noted. I'm sure the Pentagon is revising their
>procedures based on your input.
Prolly not, given the complete lack of accountability on the part of
government.
If there was accountability, of the sort found in the real world (aka
the taxgenerating private sector) then we'd consider the intelligence
failures of the CIA. We'd also consider why "the greatest military in
the world" took so long to scramble its ample fleet of F-16's to
intercept a coupla fat pig commercial airliners.
One airliner smashing into a building I can see. After that they knew
what was up, yet did nothing.
>This should be interesting; whenever I read about the idea of universal
>principles on Usenet, it should be more accurately spelled as "what I
>believe" ;-)
Oh, you mean your words also speak for the mysterious sea monkies of
the milky way as well?
>Agreed. But the soldier often isn't given all the motivations behind his
>being sent on a mission; he's supposed to obey his orders.
Duh...
So you're saying it's ok to kill soliders for a failed performance.
IIRC Saddam killed off his soccer team for poor performance as well.
>Like I thought; you're an idealist who doesn't seem to understand the
>real world.
Oh I understand the real world alright, understand it well enough to
consider the folly of cynicism.
Perhaps someday you'll catch on.
>Why on earth would I care what you think?
You don't, but somebody has to go through the motions of opening the
American slaves' eyes. I'll let you know when they lock me up and your
precious freedom is lost.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
<jhu...@PLUTOearthlink.net> only one planet belongs here wrote:
>No, it's sickening. Brave men have fought and died to give him the
>No I don't. They are a pimple on the posterior of humanity.
Boy it's increasingly clear what the military is all about. Breeding
closed-minded morons who serve like slaves and lash out like
neanderthals. Fortunately some people get a little more out of the
experience.
Thank goodness also that we have these pimply scientists and creative
thinkers on the posterior of humanity! To give these troglodytes
something more sophisticated than a club to hit each other over the
head with.
>Modern-day cowards are usually just kicked out the back door with a
>general discharge and a cover story
Or they arm themselves to the teeth with their coward buddies to pick
on third world skinnies.
Oh yeah, it takes real bravery to strap yourself into an armored
Hummer and blow apart columns of enemy troops carrying nothing more
than cheesy rifles, most of whom are running away from you cause they
have no urge to die for some shitty US installed dictator. To cluster
bomb the piss out of civilians from 40k feet in the air.
Bravery is an individual trait. It does not associate to a group,
though many use the concept as a crutch when justifying their
atrocities.
>Some can hack it, the others claim bad eyesight or flat feet. They
>can claim all they want. We know what the real problem is.
I'd say the problem is you think the entire world owes its existence
to the military. Fortunately I'm in your killfile so I can talk shit
about you behind your back like the coward I am.
I know folks from this newsgroup who have served and are disgusted
with the very thing that is your source of pride. I mention this cause
people might get the idea that somehow all military men are knee-jerk
reactionaries frothing at the mouth. Many do their stint in the
military and get the heck out to serve productive and successful
lives... IN THE REAL WORLD! The world of making profits, profits that
can be taxed and handed out to the government troglodytes who are too
incompetent to do anything other than worship their feeble
government-god.
I am reminded of your ilk every time some retarded law enforcement
officer pulls me over on some dumbass technicality. Oh sure I broke
the law, and you can see officer dumb-as-a-pit-bull shitting his pants
in glee. They write their little citation and depart with some
distored sense of pride and service.
Yep, it's mouthbreathers like this that are the drag on the sleek ship
that is the American economy. Generating nothing unique or of value,
they can only hope for a role in the praetorian guard. Consficating
the spoils of those who create in service of their corrupt senators,
they are the crusty barnacles that feast upon the shell of our
civilization.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
I saw what we finished it with too!
Name one conflict where we were poorly mobilized/equipped throughout
and we actually won it.
I can name one war in which we got our asses handed to us by a bunch
of peasants despite our superior technology... albeit due to poor
leadership.
So you see well trained grunts are simply not enough.
Albert Nurick
<< big snip >>
> Oh I understand the real world alright, understand it well enough to
> consider the folly of cynicism.
I suppose you think so; it seems to be a common Gen X affliction. You'll
outgrow it at some point.
> Perhaps someday you'll catch on.
Doubtful, thank goodness.
>>Why on earth would I care what you think?
>
> You don't, but somebody has to go through the motions of opening the
> American slaves' eyes.
<eyeroll> I keep forgetting, you seem to think you're one of those rare
enlightened individuals who's been able to peek behind the curtain and
see what's really happening.
> I'll let you know when they lock me up and your
> precious freedom is lost.
Whatever you say, Neo. LOL!
jim rozen
Gladiatores says...
>Seems to be a prerequisite for politicians really. Your warmongering
>Bushmonkey didn't show when they reassigned him during 'Nam despite
>landing the cushy non-combat texas national guard slot.
>
>Funny how the whole thing was just kinda dropped.
Not by the Boston Globe, apparently. The were one of
the few newspapers to really dig into Bush's draft
dodging.
There's a special name for politicos who never fought,
but want to run wars. "Chicken Hawks"
Albert Nurick
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 03:11:59 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>>That's what I thought. It's cute to watch Demi get his panties in a
>>wad
>
> No, it's sickening. Brave men have fought and died to give him the
> right to malign my country and my service. But that's OK. He's the
> one who has to look in the mirror at the guy who is unfit for service,
> not me. I did my time, and I'd gladly go back and do it again if
> needed. I'd give my left nut to go back through basic with Demi if I
> knew he couldn't wimp out and would have to go through the whole
> thing.
Unfortunately, the world is full of intellectual lightweights who think
they're so much smarter than everyone else, and are sure that their kooky
fringe opinions are the one real truth (Hi, Demo, Henry, and Philo!). I'm
glad Usenet gives 'em an outlet so they don't have to spend their lives
searching out new D&D partners at comic book conventions. ;-)
I guess I choose to be amused by them, because if I weren't, I'd be
disgusted. These twits rarely actually accomplish anything, so they're
pretty much irrelevant in the real world.
keith s.
>Name one conflict where we were poorly mobilized/equipped throughout
>and we actually won it.
Spanish American war...granted we were not as poorly equiped as the destitute
and maligering spanish...
>
>I can name one war in which we got our asses handed to us by a bunch
>of peasants despite our superior technology... albeit due to poor
>leadership.
>
No we were winning inspite of westmoreland...the US just did not have the
political will to win. >
>So you see well trained grunts are simply not enough.
>
Bombs don't do shit if you don't have that guy with the sleepy look who'd gut
you fastern you can say "bob's your uncle" To actually HOLD that ground.
Stephen!
news:d1i6vv88pb9rks3v1...@4ax.com:
> Now lemme start by saying I HAVE NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER,
> however I do have plenty of managerial experience and unless you're
> using a different species of human being a lot of the same shit
> applies.
Ya.. Right...
"Go file these documents."
"Go charge that machine gun nest."
Yup.. Exactly the same thing...
Dork.
--
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com
Stephen!
> If there was accountability, of the sort found in the real world (aka
> the taxgenerating private sector) then we'd consider the intelligence
> failures of the CIA.
How does the CIA have anything to do with the military?
You really are a retard, aren't you?
Stephen!
news:3co8vv4s8rdj6989i...@4ax.com:
> That's the chances the army, like most employers, takes when they
> train somebody. You don't just kill them because they can't perform
> like you hoped.
It's a lot cheaper than years of bullshit therapy.
Bob Mann
>Bob Mann <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:3co8vv4s8rdj6989i...@4ax.com:
>
>> That's the chances the army, like most employers, takes when they
>> train somebody. You don't just kill them because they can't perform
>> like you hoped.
>
>
>It's a lot cheaper than years of bullshit therapy.
As so called civilized nations, we are supposed to be above putting a
price on something like that.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>Not by the Boston Globe, apparently. The were one of
>the few newspapers to really dig into Bush's draft
>dodging.
>
>There's a special name for politicos who never fought,
>but want to run wars. "Chicken Hawks"
Yeah but we all know Baaaaaston along with NY are in their own
universe. Heck, if it wasn't for the tax revenue, them toothless
sisterfucking NeoCon sodomites would have outsted us from the union
long ago.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>> Oh I understand the real world alright, understand it well enough to
>> consider the folly of cynicism.
>
>I suppose you think so; it seems to be a common Gen X affliction. You'll
>outgrow it at some point.
You read it backwards chief. Cynicism is a poison, one that affects
your generation as well.
After all, I sure wouldn't consider idyots who wanna secede from the
UN and think diplomacy is a nine letter word idealists! Now isn't
there a wall you have to go build somewhere?
Oh and thanks for telling us what "Gen X" thinks. I mean wow, I didn't
even know I was one of them until you informed me! You're sure know a
lotta stuff Mr. Must be all that teevee.
><eyeroll> I keep forgetting, you seem to think you're one of those rare
>enlightened individuals who's been able to peek behind the curtain and
>see what's really happening.
Yep. Too bad you're afraid to believe it's all a sham, but someday
perhaps you will learn the true meaning of bravery. Until then be a
good little slave and shine my shoes bitch.
Y2KYZFR1
>
> >US soliders charged with cowardice are sentenced to death.
>
>
> The _maximum_ punishment is death, not the default.
>
> He was offered NJP(non-judicial punishment), he elected to receive a court
> martial. NJP is a fairly painless procedure in which they generally take
> your paycheck, and maybe a touch of rank. You cannot get the death penalty
> thru NJP. Court martials are very painful procedures in which the
> governement has you over a barrel, and plans to fuck you hard, otherwise
> they wouldn't bring it to court. If they take you to court martial, you
> are likely guilty, or they've railroaded you. Either way you are fucked.
hey get in touch with me, my yahoo account is dead!
try vertigrated ( at ) yahoo ( dot ) com!
James Clark
Please excuse Howard from military service as he has a bad back.
(signed) Howard's Mom, MD
Albert Nurick
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:15:41 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Oh I understand the real world alright, understand it well enough to
>>> consider the folly of cynicism.
>>
>>I suppose you think so; it seems to be a common Gen X affliction.
>>You'll outgrow it at some point.
>
> You read it backwards chief. Cynicism is a poison, one that affects
> your generation as well.
On this we agree. Skepticism is extremely healthy, but once you assume
"they're all crooks", there's little you can contribute to change things.
> After all, I sure wouldn't consider idyots who wanna secede from the
> UN and think diplomacy is a nine letter word idealists! Now isn't
> there a wall you have to go build somewhere?
IMO they are idealists who don't realize the importance of diplomacy.
Just because we have to act without the UN's help from time to time
doesn't mean that we should always act on our own.
>><eyeroll> I keep forgetting, you seem to think you're one of those
>>rare enlightened individuals who's been able to peek behind the
>>curtain and see what's really happening.
>
> Yep. Too bad you're afraid to believe it's all a sham,
Perhaps because it's not. I think that the vast majority of politicians
actually want to do a good job for the public, but I'm not naive enought
to deny that they're not above acting in their own self-interest.
> but someday
> perhaps you will learn the true meaning of bravery.
Whining about regulations that impact only those who volunteer, and
haven't been invoked for 60 years? You're such a brave guy!
> Until then be a good little slave and shine my shoes bitch.
<chuckle> Those who display the most arrogance are typically the ones
who have little reason to actually be arrogant.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>On this we agree. Skepticism is extremely healthy, but once you assume
>"they're all crooks", there's little you can contribute to change things.
Oh they're all crooks alright if we're talking about politicians, but
that doesn't mean the system HAS to be composed of crooks and there
isn't a better way.
When your opponent is a crook, there's simply no way you can win
playing by the rules. It's like playing Monopoly with your cheating
brother who always plays bank.
>Perhaps because it's not. I think that the vast majority of politicians
>actually want to do a good job for the public
Just out of curiousity, in which quadrant of the galaxy do you reside!
> but I'm not naive enought
>to deny that they're not above acting in their own self-interest.
Not just that, but trying to survive in the environment. When special
interests and media outlets run the show, have a hand in forming
public opinion about your campaign then you're kinda beholden to
playing by their rules. Rocking the boat only ensures a drowning.
In case you haven't noticed we've graduated from political
assasinations to character assassination. Look at for example what
happened to Clinton. Like after almost 8 yrs of office, suddenly his
rockstar private life is an issue? We knew he was a philandering hick
from the get go.
So if you don't play nice you suddenly find yourself under a lot of
scrutiny. Few folks can withstand that sort of spotlight, Bush
included. Note how no one in the established media makes an issue of
his curious military absence... for the time being. Ace in the hole.
>Whining about regulations that impact only those who volunteer, and
>haven't been invoked for 60 years? You're such a brave guy!
It's called consistency. China for example pretends to be a free
market economy but they still make you pay for your own bullet after
they execute you for your organs.
If you truly believe in the American way, then you should tirelessly
crusade against every inconsistency you find in the system. Like the
Patriot Act for example...
><chuckle> Those who display the most arrogance are typically the ones
>who have little reason to actually be arrogant.
I never knew there were people who have valid reasons to be arrogant.
You learn something new every day!
Albert Nurick
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:11:07 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On this we agree. Skepticism is extremely healthy, but once you
>>assume "they're all crooks", there's little you can contribute to
>>change things.
>
> Oh they're all crooks alright if we're talking about politicians, but
> that doesn't mean the system HAS to be composed of crooks and there
> isn't a better way.
I don't agree that all politicians are crooks; I think many are honest
folk who are playing by the rules of their profession. If one wants to
accomplish anything in Washington, one has to play the game according to
its unwritten rules.
> When your opponent is a crook, there's simply no way you can win
> playing by the rules. It's like playing Monopoly with your cheating
> brother who always plays bank.
The problem is defining what "the rules" are. In many specialized
fields, some of the rules would upset those outside the field, and
politics is certainly no different.
> In case you haven't noticed we've graduated from political
> assasinations to character assassination. Look at for example what
> happened to Clinton. Like after almost 8 yrs of office, suddenly his
> rockstar private life is an issue? We knew he was a philandering hick
> from the get go.
There's public knowledge, then there's the spotlight of media scrutiny.
Clinton's hijinx weren't of interest to the man on the street until the
Lewinsky scandal hit, and then the President made the huge mistake of
lying under oath. I contrast that to how his successor handled the drug
issue, basically refusing to address the issue altogether, and it went
away. Only the stauchest partisan kooks keep trying to bring it up.
> So if you don't play nice you suddenly find yourself under a lot of
> scrutiny. Few folks can withstand that sort of spotlight, Bush
> included.
If the media thinks they've got a story, they'll run with it; discretion
isn't part of the game anymore. (Heck, Robert Novak didn't *have* to
run the story naming the undercover operative. He's as guilty as the
person who leaked the information.) If you do something that's bad and
newsworthy, it will come to light.
> Note how no one in the established media makes an issue of
> his curious military absence... for the time being. Ace in the hole.
"Ace in the hole"? For what? Ancient history isn't interesting after
we've gotten to know a politician, and the world knows President Bush
now. Heck, Teddy Kennedy keeps getting reelected...
>>Whining about regulations that impact only those who volunteer, and
>>haven't been invoked for 60 years? You're such a brave guy!
>
> It's called consistency.
It's called wasting time. Why not focus on a problem that has actual
consequences?
> If you truly believe in the American way, then you should tirelessly
> crusade against every inconsistency you find in the system. Like the
> Patriot Act for example...
If you tirelessly crusade against every inconsistency you find, you'll
never accomplish anything. A wise man chooses his battles.
Ron C
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:35:53 GMT, Ron C <rone...@worldlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <cae...@casaputana.it> wrote in
>>news:75v6vv86fkbnr4d3e...@4ax.com:
>>
> Name one conflict where we were poorly mobilized/equipped
throughout
> and we actually won it.
Uh, the American Revolution.
>
> I can name one war in which we got our asses handed to us by a
bunch
> of peasants despite our superior technology... albeit due to poor
> leadership.
>
Actually, if you're referring to the conflict in the 60's and 70's,
we
never lost a major battle, so I don't think you can say we got our
asses
handed to us.
Ron C
> So you're saying it's ok to kill soliders for a failed performance.
>
> IIRC Saddam killed off his soccer team for poor performance as well.
>
Dem, you're really stretching it now.
Ron C
66.75.162.198:
Stephen, it's actually good he won't/can't serve. His mindset about
military vs civilian applications, I don't think I'd want to serve in
any unit with him.
Albert Nurick
news:Xns946498BFFE563ro...@207.69.154.201:
Funny, isn't it? I love this analogy; after all, the consequences of
losing a soccer game is often similar to putting your buddies in harm's way
in the face of the enemy.
Demi's not exactly a pilar of intellectual ability.
Alan the Horse
<cae...@casaputana.it> wrote:
>...We'd also consider why "the greatest military in
>the world" took so long to scramble its ample fleet of F-16's to
>intercept a coupla fat pig commercial airliners.
>
>One airliner smashing into a building I can see. After that they knew
>what was up, yet did nothing.
You're off base on that one. There were a number of factors
contributing to the apparently slow response of the USAF, not the
least of which was the surprise and novelty of the situation. The
fact that fighters were prepared to intercept and destroy the final,
laggard aircraft speaks well for preparedness. The fact that US
civilians responded actively and heroically in the face of death on
that aircraft speaks well for the character of our citizenry.
--
Al | '98 FLTRI
Brennan | '98 T509 EN
owl tuna| '83 GR650
hot mail| '57 6T
Alan the Horse
wrote:
>> Confusing what you consider a free society and what actually is? The
>> US is far from being a free society, read some Ayn Rand, Leonard
>> Peikoff, etc... if you need a primer course in where America went
>> wrong.
>
>Like I thought; you're an idealist who doesn't seem to understand the
>real world. <shrug> Lots of guys like you on Usenet.
Idealism and Realism are equally valid philosophies. Because one
subscribes to Idealism does not by definition limit his understanding
of the real world, even if a Realist might think it does.
jenner
Actually I belive it was reported that his son, Uday, had some of the
players beaten or tortured. Uday was one real bastard.
--
-- jenner
Albert Nurick
news:jtrbvvc2rmjifkd2p...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 03:02:02 GMT, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Confusing what you consider a free society and what actually is? The
>>> US is far from being a free society, read some Ayn Rand, Leonard
>>> Peikoff, etc... if you need a primer course in where America went
>>> wrong.
>>
>>Like I thought; you're an idealist who doesn't seem to understand the
>>real world. <shrug> Lots of guys like you on Usenet.
>
> Idealism and Realism are equally valid philosophies. Because one
> subscribes to Idealism does not by definition limit his understanding
> of the real world, even if a Realist might think it does.
Agreed. That's why I called him "an idealist who doesn't seem to
understand the real world" instead of just an idealist.
--
Albert Nurick www.TheDeliciousLife.com
alb...@nurick.com A guide to the good life
www.nurick.com in Houston, Texas
Jack Hunt only one planet belongs here
wrote:
>Funny, isn't it? I love this analogy; after all, the consequences of
>losing a soccer game is often similar to putting your buddies in harm's way
>in the face of the enemy.
>
>Demi's not exactly a pilar of intellectual ability.
Well since he's a military virgin, his only hope is to have some sort
of athletic background from which to draw his analogies.
But he probably doesn't have that either.
Unless you count the Olympic Elbow Bending team.
--
Road Dog
IBA#12795
'99 ST1100
Jack Hunt only one planet belongs here
<nann...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There were a number of factors
>contributing to the apparently slow response of the USAF, not the
>least of which was the surprise and novelty of the situation. The
>fact that fighters were prepared to intercept and destroy the final,
>laggard aircraft speaks well for preparedness.
Who says they didn't shoot the last one down? They still haven't
explained how some of the luggage was found eight miles from the
impact site.
I can almost see a frilly underthing floating on the breeze for quite
a distance, but not a still-locked American Tourister.
Jack Hunt only one planet belongs here
wrote:
>Actually, if you're referring to the conflict in the 60's and 70's,
>we
>never lost a major battle, so I don't think you can say we got our
>asses
>handed to us.
We were defeated by our worst enemies - who were inside the Beltway.
Reassembler
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <cae...@casaputana.it> wrote in message
news:d4u8vvs98rga16g3r...@4ax.com...
> On 01 Jan 2004 01:39:48 GMT, bea...@aol.com (Beardg) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>US citizens who show cowardice post on Reeky about how they "avoided"
> >>military service.
> >
> >Beardg>>Just ask Howard Dean....He got his very rich parents to get a
doctors
> >note lying about a bad back to avoid the draft....then old Howard went
off for
> >a few months of skiing while the poor and responsible folks
fought...Thanx
> >PoPs!
>
> Bushmonkey didn't show when they reassigned him during 'Nam despite
> landing the cushy non-combat texas national guard slot.
>
You made that up! a million monkeys typing can't invent desertion
charges.
Reassembler
Reassembler
> Selective application of law is not the basis of any free society I am
> familiar with.
That's tough talk from someone who openly brags about his drug use.
Reassembler
Reassembler
> Confusing what you consider a free society and what actually is? The
> US is far from being a free society, read some Ayn Rand, Leonard
> Peikoff, etc... if you need a primer course in where America went
> wrong.
>
You want us to read far-right lit? You're the same guy who rants about
corporate and governmental misbehavior, then offers some one who wants no
law regarding business? You're confused. Ayn Rand is for losers who just
know they'd be the boss in a better world.
Reassembler
Timberwoof
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <cae...@casaputana.it> wrote in
> news:193bvv88nbt3cjlhj...@4ax.com:
>
> > In case you haven't noticed we've graduated from political
> > assasinations to character assassination. Look at for example what
> > happened to Clinton. Like after almost 8 yrs of office, suddenly his
> > rockstar private life is an issue? We knew he was a philandering hick
> > from the get go.
>
> There's public knowledge, then there's the spotlight of media scrutiny.
> Clinton's hijinx weren't of interest to the man on the street until the
> Lewinsky scandal hit, and then the President made the huge mistake of
> lying under oath. I contrast that to how his successor handled the drug
> issue, basically refusing to address the issue altogether, and it went
> away. Only the stauchest partisan kooks keep trying to bring it up.
Let's see. When right-wing fanatics repeatedly smear Clinton's
character, they're patriots. However, when people try to discuss
problems of the Bush II Administratin, they're partisan kooks.
> > So if you don't play nice you suddenly find yourself under a lot of
> > scrutiny. Few folks can withstand that sort of spotlight, Bush
> > included.
>
> If the media thinks they've got a story, they'll run with it; discretion
> isn't part of the game anymore. (Heck, Robert Novak didn't *have* to
> run the story naming the undercover operative. He's as guilty as the
> person who leaked the information.) If you do something that's bad and
> newsworthy, it will come to light.
What's interesting to me is how bad things the Right and the Republicans
are doing generally don't make it into the media. Maybe the reporters
are generally more liberal, but the editors and the publishers are
generally more conservative. The meida are in the hands of the right
wing.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
bike: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle
Timberwoof
Alan the Horse <nann...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact that the Bush Administration ignored all the warnings about Al
Qaeda given them by the outgoing Clinton Administration, placing
counterterrorism somewhere below SETI on the list of national
priorities, says something about the Bush Administration.
As for surprise and novelty, at least one FBI agent alerted the
government about a number of commercial pilot students who didn't seem
very interested in learning how to take off and land. Thank's to Bush's
policy of ignoring terrorism, nothing was ever done.
(I giess you can tell how far in Al Franken's book I've read.)
entropy_magnet
news:c718a6cf.04010...@posting.google.com:
> hey get in touch with me, my yahoo account is dead!
>
> try vertigrated ( at ) yahoo ( dot ) com!
no dice, bounce.
Try me at quehootz(at)bellsouth(dot)net
--
real email is
quehootz at bellsouth dot net
Hank H. Hansteen
> No, it's sickening. Brave men have fought and died to give him the
> right to malign my country and my service. But that's OK. He's the
> one who has to look in the mirror at the guy who is unfit for service,
> not me.
WTF? Jack is finally telling the Truth about the lying,
cowardly, draft dodging, thieving, treasonous criminals
on the bu$h regime? Wonder what brought that on, and whether
I should take some credit for his Enlightenment? ;->
Yes, Jack, bu$h is sickening, but what he's doing to our
great Country is considerably worse than "malign".
HTH!
--
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/hhh3
http://www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.911truth.org
Amount of tax payer dollars spent investigating
Bill Clinton's private life - $100 million.
Amount of tax payer dollars allocated to investigate
the Bu$h regime's gross negligence and possible
complicity regarding the attacks on 9-11 - $3 million.
"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country." - Tom Brokaw 3-20-03
http://regulareverydaypeople.com
http://robertfisk.com
http://commondreams.org/
http://truthout.org
http://counterpunch.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
Hank H. Hansteen
> It's cute to watch Demi get his panties in a wad
What's really fun is watching you take off at a dead run,
terrified of your own words. You right wing extremists aren't
big on honesty or integrity, are ya? Remember this? ;->
============================================================
> >> > http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.18A.neswk.us.iraq.htm
> >> A nice unbiased source.
> > Thanks. Obviously, I prefer solid, reputable sources of
> > information over extremely biased crap [snip]
> You don't recognize obvious sarcasm?
The article was written by Newsweek reporters, which
is a mainstream, corporate owned publication. If anything,
people tend to attribute a Conservative bias to Newsweek,
but I doubt that's your take on it. If you're saying that
Newsweek has an obvious Liberal bias, that will be the first
time I've heard anyone make that claim.
So, assuming that your sarcasm was intended to express
your belief that the article has an extreme Liberal bias,
what did you read in the article, and what do you know about
Newsweek or those two reporters that led you to that conclusion?
Did you find any false claims or Liberal slants in the article?
If so, what were they?
=================================================================
Hey Albert, any idea at all yet what made you "think" the
article has an obvious bias? ;->