No quoted member of the military has come forward to dispute the quotes. Until they do, I will believe the quotes are genuine.
Army sending injured back to Iraq
- Thread starter Pontiuth Pilate
- Start date
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
If you were a prosecuting attorney would be automatically believe every defendent who said "I didnt do it"?
Somehow I dont think so.
Thee may be no shame in stating that fact, but there are named members of the military stated in the article, so your comments go beyond just generalizations. I would interested to know how the chain of command views one member of the military being so openly critical of other members in a public forum - surely they wouldn't see any shame in it.
When I read a newspaper article and see actual names attributed to quotes, I tend to believe the person has not been misquoted until they come forward to dispute the quote. It's a newspaper article, not a prosecution.
So since I have quotes from members of the military on both sides of the topic (making the assumptions that you are a member of the military and that the article is quoting members of the military), the original implication by another poster in this thread that there is somehow a sole military perspective in this thread is misleading.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
No, my comments do not go beyond mere generalizations. I make no statement of fact to any of the individuals in the article at all. I have no idea of what their personal situation is, and totally speak from my 'general' experience in dealing with such situations and also to factual data blatently missing from the story which should be addressed for the story to be factually complete. I have repeated several times that yes, indeed the could be being treated unfairly, as it does happen sometimes, but 'generally' most such complaints are from a desire to not deploy to a warzone - based only on my opinion and experience.
Precisely and as such can totally give only a single side of the entire situation. The story is mean to illicite sympathy for the soldiers in question and make the command look bad. If you believe a person in such a story, then why dont you also believe the officer from the command when he says that everything has been done accordingly to Army Regulation? You dont because you 'choose' to view the military in a negative light and only pay attention to the parts of the story that feed into that. My opinion is not biased at all - I freely acknowledge that there are indeed people who get the unfair situation, just like I freely admit the fact that malingerers do indeed exist.
If you choose to be pendantic then understand that I am the only poster (thus far) giving a military perspective based upon actual career experience in dealing with such issues.
What would the purpose of sending genuinely injured soldiers back to fight Iraq be? Our military is smart enough to know that a genuinely injured soldier would only hold back the progress of the other soldiers around him, and would be a morale liability to the rest of the soldiers. There is absolutely no reason they have for sending them back to Iraq. Murtha is full of crap like always and looking to stir up conflict.
Mobboss is right, there are plenty of soldiers that feign injury but in reality are perfectly physically able to serve.
Mobboss is right, there are plenty of soldiers that feign injury but in reality are perfectly physically able to serve.
I will give you that much (with the caveat that some posters may have dealt with similar issues on behalf of military clients). Your posts carry military weight, just as the conflicting military perspectives in the article carry military weight. I was just being helpful to a fellow poster who was trying to weigh opinions based on military experience by pointing him to a place in the thread where he could get even more military takes (some of which support your opinion). Apparently Dan Rather's secret twin or somesuch wrote the article, so my advice proved unhelpful.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Thats war for you though.
Let hope she gets a non-combat support role.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
By default women cannot be in combat units/roles, although they can be MPs which can find themselves in combat situations.
There are combat units, combat support, and combat service support. The role that would totally minimize her chance of being in combat would be in a combat service support (CSS) unit.
But in Iraq, you can find yourself in a combat situation regardless of your role.
theimmortal1
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 539
Well the Democrats generally do not support the troops. But we cannot stereotype and generalize. Sometimes Democrats do have good ideas, sometimes Republicans have bad ideas. Not sending wounded back into battle is a good idea.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Left said:
I think he is referring to the drawdowns and funding cuts the Dems put through in the 90's following the collapse of the USSR. It was seen as a slap in the face to many serving in the military. While it may be over the top in terms of language, there is quite a history where the Dems fund the butter but not the guns.
I think we should all have some reservations about claims made like this. It is not difficult to find truly pissed off people in the military who are willing to complain to a reporter. And we all know what can evolve from that...
~Chris
Similar threads
