Home

JQPUBLIC (anonymous) says...

sbvor... I'm afraid you're wasting your time, too many people believe if it's in the paper or on TV it has to be true. Look at the people being led by commercials... I'll sell you this cleaner worth $99 for $19.99 but wait, I'll throw in this cleaning rag worth $80.00, but that's not all, if you act now I'll triple the offer that's a $537.00 value all for $19.99... AND PEOPLE BUY IT! Or how about the diet pill for $150 and you don't have to excercise or diet to lose weight...AND PEOPLE BELIEVE IT. People are too busy to think for themselves, they listen to the mainstream media and ignore the fact they aren't being told both sides of the story, just the side the that will advance the media's agenda. News is no longer news, it's business and the media is there to make a profit. Sensationalism and public outrage sells so who do you think benefits when they keep the public stirred up with only half the story? That's why Glenn Beck isn't as popular as O'Reilly, he doesn't tell you what to think, he tells you to think for yourself and gives you the other side of the story, he uses way too much common sense for the "blind followers".

May 7, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JazzSlave (anonymous) says...

mtroach

I'm trying to figure out if you're serious in citing John Stewart as a credible source if information. I hope your tongue was in the vicinity of your cheek when you posted that.

May 12, 2007 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

Sbvor, could you please check a fact for me. I saw that W's apporval rating has dropped below 28% and thought that now we have a greater percentage of Latinos in our nation than Americans that support the president. Is this Correct? If so, how does it feel to be part of such a minor minority? Or is this more Liberal slanted media?

May 11, 2007 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

You sir are the king of the cherry pickers, it is an honor to be in such company. I'm sorry that i did not have a link to my figures. I got the word on the presidents approval rateing from "The Daily Show" my favorite 1/2 hour of comedy. Thanks for the "questions" I wonder how the minority comes up with its delusions, your questions explain alot. My question for you is Do you think that smoking POT make you overly paranoid and prone to delusions of conspiracy?

May 12, 2007 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Meusel (anonymous) says...

sbvor
About this, "Dishonest "journalism" was the ONLY reason we were forced to surrender in Vietnam."
You don't think 58,000 dead and 350,000 wounded had anything to do with it?

May 13, 2007 at 6:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Meusel (anonymous) says...

Numbers only give a part of the picture. Look at the German eastern front w/Russia in WWII and look at who won in that conflict. We would not have left nor lost in Vietnam if Americans felt threatened in their homes. If we were threatned there would have been no protests. What people saw was their friends and loved ones fighting in a far away country and too often dying there. We should not have been there. When we got out there was no great blood bath and the whole of S.E. Asia did not fall like dominos to Communism. Those were the reasons for being there

May 15, 2007 at 5:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bellyup (anonymous) says...

So let me get this straight. We WON the war in Viet Nam because our body count was lower that theirs? Wasn't that what the liberal media was showing us on the evening news every day?

May 17, 2007 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

Didn't the lure of personal freedom and the free market economy's rewards save us from communism? Thanks to Ronald Regan.

Why can't you admit that the resolve of the insurgeants to rid their part of the globe of American influence, may be greater than the resolve of the American public to continue to send our sons and daughters to fight for another countries future freedoms? Is america not strong enough to face Islam? I think we can take whatever they can throw at us without resorting to armed colonization of the globe.

What similarites do you see between this struggle and the american revoluition?

May 17, 2007 at 7:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

What if the democracy that is established in the middle east votes to destroy the USA? I belive that the islamic idealist you refer to will eventually learn the system of democracy, vote a anti-US leader into power, and turn against our coountry.Then what will we do? Overturn a elected government, and return to using force to instill american values into a public that will never accept them or our ideas of freedom.

May 21, 2007 at 7:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dthayer (anonymous) says...

For those who believe the war in Iraq is wrong and poorly handled, here are some figures on past wars. US Military Deaths(Source - Wikipedia; other sources vary): WW1 - 116000 in 19 months, WW2 - 407000(Wikipedia) in 44 months, Korea - 54000 in 37 months, Vietnam - 58000 in 90 months, Iraq 1991(Desert Storm) - 150 in 1 month, Iraq 2003 - 3300 in 48 months. Here are some other facts on US wars: During WW2 President Roosevelt relocated approximately 120000 Japanese-Americans and Japanese immigrants from the west coast because they were Japanese(not because they had done anything anti-American), 62 percent of these people were American citizens. Their assets were frozen, they were removed from their homes and held in internment camps surrounded by barbed wire and under guard until near the end of the war. They were not compensated until 1988 under President Reagan. By comparison, President Bush has "spied" on several thousand Americans who are in contact with terrorist organisations, there has been no news of mass imprisonment. President Bush did not "go it alone", 29 countries joined the fight in Iraq; France, Germany, and Russia were asked to help and they refused. Many of the countries that joined the US are former Communist Bloc countries with recent memories of tyranny and oppression. Our military's transportation(Jeeps, Humvees, trucks) has never been armored; when roadside bombs(IEDs) became a problem in Iraq, President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld handled the issue by armoring our military vehicles and soldiers. Although the war in Iraq has continued for 4 years, President Bush has always said this will be a 20+ year struggle against terrorism. Terrorists ARE in Iraq killing innocent men, women and children shopping at the local market, praying at mosques, and standing in line for work; they(terrorists) may have come to Iraq because the US is there, but that is no reason to kill innocent Iraqis. Regardless of our initial reason for going to war, the fight for freedom is noble, wether it is our freedom or someone else's. America has a long history of fighting for freedom around the world; the fight against terror is a fight for freedom from fear and repression and should be fought.

June 2, 2007 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stillinsteamboat (anonymous) says...

Wow, right wing propaganda. I'm so surprised the paper didn't pull this post. They must agree with your "bs" sbvor. It's obvious you are very intelligent, too bad you are dilutional.

June 26, 2007 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stillinsteamboat (anonymous) says...

I have a family member in Iraq, let me know when you have first hand knowledge.

June 28, 2007 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stillinsteamboat (anonymous) says...

"inconvenient", good one!!! Love Al Gore

June 29, 2007 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

sickofitall- SBvor can only relate other people's 2nd hand experiences. Doesn't understand what it's like to actually serve in the military. I was a lucky one: I never had to go to war during my stint. Anyone who wants to go to war or has to try this hard to justify it, should never have anything to do with military matters.

Best bet is to just stop reading SBvor's comments. It'll just piss you off that someone with no life experience dictates to and challenges others just to validate a warped sense of...well, everything.

July 7, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

My discharge started out around 3 or weeks prior, so the timing was coincidental. 16JAN91 was my final day of service. At that time, they were keeping people in after their term of service was due to end, and trying to get people to re-up.

As I stated, my final CO had little personal experience with my non-drunken performance, so he was going off of "writing on the wall." Due to missing multiple formations from being drunk, he did what was expected.

Most of my drinking had really stemmed after CO #1 put a flag on my charts for coming up hot on a piss test. No way that could have happened for all the obvious reasons. What made it worse was that we had just been in Pinon Canyon for 3 weeks, getting back at 1am-ish. Piss test was 4 1/2 hours later. When this came up, I tried to fight thru JAG and with a personal lawyer, and offered to piss again right away when I was told. Army regs state they will only retest the same sample. I had never come up hot before or after this, though there were repeat offenders aplenty in my company.

I actually hadn't missed anything or been reprimanded for over a year after that (well into CO #2's tenure) but the flag on my report was never lifted. Should have been there for 6 months only, but CO #2 never lifted it, even after 1 year of no incidents. That barred me from promotion. He wouldn't discuss with me why it hadn't been lifted. That meant I couldn't get promoted until the flag was lifted. I had excelled since the piss test & he refused to lift the flag. That's when everything went completely downhill. I just didn't care any longer. That's also why I didn't fight it. I was done with my Army service and it was done with me.

I don't consider the way I talk about my military career as boasting, but as a lesson to be learned. I've done my own service, for what it was, and come from 2 generations of Army officers before me. I fired my first Howitzer at 11yrs of age.

While I'm patriotic and would serve if the impossible call to duty ever happened, I still know and understand that the military is a business, just like anything. It can skew intelligence based on a single person's comments or lack thereof. It means I've learned to not follow orders blindly, especially when people like CO #2 are in positions that aren't properly trained for themselves. Remember Major Powers in "Heartbreak Ridge?" Think of that as CO #2, but not in shape for any of the simplest PT.

I wouldn't trade my experience for anything in the world, and think all kids should actually serve a 2 year stint before college. Not only could that help them understand being on their own in a "controlled" environment, it's money to save for college. I just let people know that nobody is infallible, and sometimes orders should not be followed blindly. Following orders blindly does not make a good soldier; it makes an automaton.

July 7, 2007 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

3 years, 4 months out of a 4 year planned. Had I not been a drinker, I have no doubt that I'd be retiring this year after 20 years. Unfortunately, that means I would never had met my wife.

July 7, 2007 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Not completely. I was offered a choice: Dishonorable Discharge or upgrade to General Discharge if I didn't fight it. I took the deal. Most of my drinking happened under 2 different CO's. The first one tried to give me an understanding stance; the 2nd...well, let's say my respect level for that man was not all that high, so I didn't care what he thought of me. The 3rd CO took over the company about 2 months before I got out. He was the hardcore, former Marine enlistee that went on to Army duty after earning his commission. He was the one who gave me a choice. No-nonsense kinda guy, so he had no personal history to go on with me. He did what was to be expected.

The middle CO was pretty much a desk jockey thrust into a combat unit and I don't believe he belonged there. Dealing with him in the field was the equivalent of a 'cruit lieut. Doesn't discount what I did to earn my discharge, though.

No, my accolades came from my 1st Sgt. and platoon leaders & platoon sergeants. First CO was cool with me. He was there to talk to (he was actually only a couple years older than me) when my buddy got really drunk and tried to commit suicide. Up until then, at least during my service, I was the more responsible drinker that kept an eye on him. Pissed me off that he tried that. Suffice to say, he lived and was discharged after 1 year in service.

July 7, 2007 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigJelly22 (anonymous) says...

This has been interesring reading..

July 7, 2007 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

No, I was a Chapter 12-B, General Discharge. I'm an alcoholic and I drank plenty during my stint. I actually was discharged 16JAN91, the day of the first strike in the first Gulf War.

Thanks to drinking most of my life away back then, I missed plenty of morning formations. All the upper eschelon in my company had only great things to say about my performance...when I showed up.

My tank crew consistently had top scores on gunnery exercises, and I was one of very few drivers in my company to only throw track twice in my time of service. Unfortunately, it was twice in one day on a field problem in Yakima. The center guide on a track was bent and we had no way to cut it off in a timely manner, so it kept slipping the track off if I went too fast. Other than that, I had a perfect tank driving record. I got to gun a few times, but drove mostly.

July 7, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigJelly22 (anonymous) says...

As Homer Simpson once said..."To alcohol; the cause of, and solution to, all of lifes' problems!"

July 7, 2007 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Thanks, BigJelly22. And here I considered my life a snoozefest to others. I've actually lived a very broad life...and have dressed as a broad onstage, so it all goes 'round, as I like to say. LOL! I had met 2 presidents before turning 10yrs old, watched as the tower "helped" Dick Cheney knock down a gunnery target in a tank when he was just lower Cabinet member for Pres. GHW Bush. Missed it, but it was knocked down for effect. "Dog & Pony Shows," as we called them.

Based on SBvor providing the wiki link to definitions of the different types of military discharges, sometimes what you read isn't the same as how it's lived. That shows that sometimes, all it takes is life experience to dispute in my mind what others read over and over again, believing it because they agree with it.

July 7, 2007 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sickofitall (anonymous) says...

Hey my brother is going on his 3rd tour. Guess what, he is sick of it and wants to be home. He want out. Whoever posted this outta go over and fight.

July 7, 2007 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

1- Drunk on Duty numerous times. Sent me to be vamped many times.

2- Yep, they knew at that time. Still, orders for our battalion at that time only had 2 squads (about 13ppl) to be sent. Company strength about 70ppl; battalion much higher. I was not on the list even back then. Whether that had to do with my flag or not, don't know. Didn't care at the time. Ft. Carson had been picked as more of a training facility. The majority of Ft. Carson soldiers sent to Iraq for Gulf War 1 were Engineers or Cavalry.

3- My CO didn't pick who was sent. He received it from higher. Desert Shield started prior to his taking command of my company. I already knew my name wasn't on the list.

4- Had orders to go to Germany, but CO #2 nixed that himself when he showed me my orders. 2 months later, I had an Article 15 hearing for not showing up at my German duty station. CO #2 dropped the paperwork ball. I was not punished for that when we found out where it was dropped, but missed out on serving there due to it. They still kept the orders as rescinded.

July 7, 2007 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sickofitall (anonymous) says...

Sbvor, you go over and fight em'. I would rather see national security improved at home. Bush is calling , go on now, be a good soldier. Talk is cheap.

July 8, 2007 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sickofitall (anonymous) says...

Im sure they can use you. Even an ole geaser stuck in the past can help out :P

July 8, 2007 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigJelly22 (anonymous) says...

...and our Democrats in positions to be heard; AROUND THE WORLD, declare as of yesterday, that "The damn is ready to burst"! They seem almost gleeful. Did we learn ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FROM VIET NAM!!! ...oh wait, sorry...I forgot...most of these same idiots lost the last war. If we want to lose we will, if we want to win, we can.

July 9, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sickofitall (anonymous) says...

Peace is the Answer. LOL, I was born in 1973 you old farts. Get a grip.

July 10, 2007 at 10:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

How many on this thread have personally been to Iraq or served in Viet Nam? Raise your hands & you must be able to prove it?

When that happens, you have my ear.

July 11, 2007 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigJelly22 (anonymous) says...

Ever hear of Korea? Sit in a VFW and have a beer sometime...There are older Vets that know and have seen this before. War is a test of will and endurance...break the spirit and you succeed. Our enemies have learned that and even publicly proclaimed that they would break our will. If WE want to lose WE will, if WE want to win WE can.

July 12, 2007 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Hadleyburg_Press (anonymous) says...

"You are not beaten until you admit it."
-George Patton-

I bet he would have had a few choice words for todays congressional cowards!

July 19, 2007 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

PS I don't even need to mention the irony of you complaining about that person whining on the Emerald tour while at the same time writing 70+ posts about the Iraq war. You've been whining on this thread for two solid months. Maybee you should quit posting here, and try to do something in the real world that could make a difference.

July 27, 2007 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

I hope that this venting is making you feel good, I have not read any of the posts you directed at me as I am out living the dream. In fact I think that most everyone that runs our government is lame and sometimes I wish that a real LEADER would come forth and clean up Washington.

In all my years of voting I have never had a canidate that I thought was going to be effictive and do something to change the status quo. Most politicians are bought and paid for before the public ever gets a chance to choose between bad and worse. Who cares what the numbers are, or who is massaging the figures? Washington does what it wants, that's why were spending 80+billion in Iraq while honest working americans are struggling to make ends meet. The politicians work for corporate america, and could care less about what we think about the job they are doing.

July 26, 2007 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

So how are those Socialist programs you use working out for you, SBvor? Medicare and Social Security payments being received okay?

July 30, 2007 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

And what does "sub-sub-sub mornic" mean? Is that an ad hominem?

July 30, 2007 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Yeah! Fight'em now or later...just like we're fighting Viet Nam right now, 30 years after buggin' out! Oooohhhhh, that's right. Viet Nam has actually spent 30 years rebuilding and is actually coming into a limited "free market" according to SBvor's favorite site (when it agrees with SBvor's already-made-up-mind):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam#...

OOooooo...a 2% Unemployment rate!! Wow! Granted, they make a lot less there than in the U.S., but when will the bombing resume in Viet Nam since it had become a retreat for Commies and terrorists? We'd better keep an eye on them!

And what's this about Japan, Australia, and the U.S. being major trade partner? This is bad!!

July 31, 2007 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

So getting out of Viet Nam, allowing it to begin to prosper was wrong. Not stopping the Soviets from helping Viet Nam begin to recover allowed the Soviets to invade Afghanistan (so heroin from poppies is "resource that drives the engine of all modern economies"??) ...which we ended up doing anyway 15 years later...was bad. Makes about as much sense as you railing against Socialist programs that you use. World War III is a moniker thrown out by every alarmist. O'Reilly used WW3 for Iraq already, and someone will use it for the next war.

Plus, 20 years ago, the Bin Laden of the day was Khaddafi, then it was Saddam, then it was Milosevic, and now it's actually Bin Laden...whom we still can't find! Must have moved back to Viet Nam, to enjoy retirement.

If Iraq turns out as good as Viet Nam is turning out (has a nice tourism trade, also), Iraq might just be okay in the long run, whether the U.S. has a pressence or not. Just because you say it happens doesn't mean it will happen. We've already figured it out.

Stick to collecting your Medicare and SS checks: you look just like Homer Simpson eating his pet lobster, Pinchy, crying the whole time while eating it.

July 31, 2007 at 5:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madmoores (anonymous) says...

Mmmmmmmmmm..........Piiiinchy.....galwaaaagagggggggg!!!!
(sorry, couldn't resist)

July 31, 2007 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Funny, I thought when they called it "The Cold War" that's what it was called. Who coined it "World War 3" let alone World War 4?? I thought, based on WWI and WWII that more than just a couple of parties involved?

Regardless, Viet Nam is doing just fine TODAY!!! They haven't attacked the U.S. for what happened over 30 years ago. You can "guess" at "what ifs" all you like. Provide me with a link showing that Viet Nam is on the move against the U.S. since we bugged out.

That right there proves you are 0-1 on bugging out scenarios. Most times, naive is better than whacked-out paranoid! (See any other post directed your way by me for that.)

August 2, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

BTW- Here's today's little tidbit in the Stmbt Today Pg. 17 and from the Boston Herald:

http://news.bostonherald.com/internat...

Progress sucks, huh?

August 2, 2007 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

id04sp (anonymous) says...

Kielbasa,

You think gas is high now? Wait until we leave Israel holding the bag with Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Peace Through Pedestrianism!

August 2, 2007 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Id- Considering how low our gas prices are compared to almost all the non-oil mass producing countries, I fully expect it to keep rising. That's why I drive an economy car; MPG is better. Still, everything is conjecture. Bugging out of Viet Nam has not come back to haunt us. In fact, our relations (per the wiki link I provided) with Viet Nam are better than ever. They never retaliated after the fact.

Plus, the more it goes up, the better chance it will force people to start using cleaner sources of fuel. How's that for capitalism?

August 2, 2007 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

No, watching someone burst a vein online is actually what's holding my attention.

You still haven't provided where 3 decades later, Viet Nam is a threat to us. That blows your Iraq theory out of the water.

August 3, 2007 at 8:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

LOL!

August 2, 2007 at 9:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Skewed results. Saw it on O'Reilly. Compare the number of total vet population to total non-vet civilians population, then apply the 7 (vet kills)out of 100,000 ratio to 41 (civ kills) out of 100,000.

Considering that the total US population is approx 250 million and ex-vets maybe 1/10th that, if we're lucky (then narrow those numbers to the 18-34 age group from O'Reilly) you'll most likely find a larger percentage attributed to vets since the overall number is smaller than civilian population.

January 19, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

You are still doing the wrong math:

Take the number of killings per 100,000 attributed to vets in the age group.
Divide by that number of known vets in the age group.

Take the number of killings per 100,000 attributed to civilians in the age group.
Divide that by the number of known civilians of the age group.

Which has the higher percentage?

Compare those two numbers.

Then, you get the ratio needed to say what odds are which.

Don't go to a casino.

January 19, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Idiot.

Compare the ratios. (Using the numbers flashed on O'Reilly Factor, per year)

1/? vets attributed to a killing. (If you have 7 kills per 350,000 per your "conservative" quote vets, that equals .00002% your killer is a vet)

1/? civilians attributed to a killing. (If you have 41 kills per approx 65 million in 18-34 age group US census numbers, that equals .00000063076% your killer is a civilian)

http://www.census.gov/popest/national...

So the ratio number of killings attributed to vets is higher overall than to civilians because the Vets are a smaller subset of the total population. Wonder why? Military vets are trained to kill. Pure and simple. It's ingrained. Then again, someone with a military background...or just plays any Medal of Honor or Ghost Recon game knows that.

Again- you know nothing of what you speak. This must be the reason you wouldn't bet me about Brenner: you can't figure simple percentages and odds.

I think I remember a saying you've quoted a few times:

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain.

January 20, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Thanks! Now lets use your links against you:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide...

States an average of 40 per 100,000 TOTAL population, regardless of job.

Peters was quoted as saying 7 per 100,000 Vets.

That means the 7 vets are IN that 40 total...regardless of jobs. 7 is Military jobs. That means yes: if you die, it's a 1 in 6 (approx) chance of that you were killed by a military vet over any other job choice. How many job choices are out there in the world for 18-34yr olds?

Nice try, but you have to ditch the abacus when it comes to harder calculations. Tell ya what: DO go to Las Vegas so I can watch you flail.

January 20, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Miltary Veterans comprise 1 "career" choice. Remember when it was 1 in every 6 children is either Chinese or Eastern Indian? 2 Countries represent 1/3 of the world's population.

1 career choice for an 18-34 (Peters even said that the veterans number included those still serving in the military; just not in a war zone) comprises 1/6 of murder trials. How many murders are attributed to...hell, all professional sports figures? How many are attributed to politicians? How many are attributed to auto workers?

So: is it safer to to assume you'd be murdered by an auto plant worker than a vet?

How about the odds that the civilian military workers compared to war zone vets?

So, all your numbers did was back up my assertions. Your numbers matched mine- 1 in 6 murders are attributed to military vets.

Now- US military strength hovers at the 2 million mark (and since the majority of the military is...less than 1/10th the total population when dropping the 18-34 age range. Going from 1/10th to 1/6th...what's the bigger percentage again?

Where's your integrity admitting that as a single job choice for 18-34yr olds, the military comprises the highest risk factor to become an "alleged" murderer? What other single job choice is higher than 1 in 6 murders? Show us all!

January 20, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

See, what's really more embarrassing for (proving me right again) is that I changed the argument in my posts. You're still arguing military vs. civilian (all lumped together). I made the argument about job choice- which military is only 1 of thousands of job choices a person could pick.

You proved my past points that you don't actually pay attention to what anyone else says: you just repeat over and over and over until people just tune you out because you're an idiot. This is the extent you go to just to look like you are correct. As I reminded stomp, I was never even on the debate team, yet this is an old tactic. Somebody's Kool-Aid is laced with lead-based talking points, from the looks. LOL!

January 20, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

And you prove your age...how??? LOL!!! Too much!

January 20, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Well, thanks for your applause, then, Bore.

January 20, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

Hey- your the one who offered the applause. (Look up- it went over your head...as usual)LOL!

January 21, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

2strokesmoke (anonymous) says...

Svbor, I know this came from the press but whats your response to this link?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/a...

January 23, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

2strokesmoke (anonymous) says...

I guess I am kinda confused here Sbvor, am I to believe you think Bush is a great leader and has the tools to run the United States? I get the point you are a Staunch Republican and fairly well read and alot of time on your hands, with all that said riddle me this Batman how can you so vehemently defend Bush?

I guess a better question is who are you voting for? ( dont worry about swaying my opinion)

January 29, 2008 at 6:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

2strokesmoke (anonymous) says...

Sbvor

May be operator error but your links are dead ends for me.

January 27, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

2strokesmoke (anonymous) says...

Sbvor

first off, I am not easy to bait, if that in fact is what you were trying to do. On the under side of the dumber than a rock statement are the people who take what our leaders say, specially Cheney.. or the so called 9-11 commission at face value, be Rep. or Dem.

So what the first article states is "No Operational Connection" also by that article it makes it sound that the reason we invaded Iraq was the "chance" that Bin Laden might run there if we applied pressure in Afganistan. Is that the justification for the invasion?

Maybe if the 9-11 commissions statements were better thought out and written chances are the press would not take such liberties.

Do you really believe that with all the members of Saddams regime that everyone was able to keep the "secret" of WMD's, Also dont you think or I am sure put up twelve more links in support somehow they found aircraft buried which give off no signature, and unable to find WMD's ?

If we were going to invade every country who blew off NATO sanctions wouldnt North Korea be a better place to start? Havent they been doing that for years?
Without sounding with the war for profit, if Kim Jong had a hold on oil I think a much colder place our troops would be.

I also dont believe much I read in the papers or hear in the press, but on both sides of the "discussion" you lean so heavily on believing in what the government spouts the underside of that rock is just as dangerous. We could bandy back and fourth with links supporting lies on both sides, which I do not have time for, but do enjoy reading and following your links, but drop the holier than though retorts it is unbecoming.

January 25, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

spukomy (anonymous) says...

My Dad, LTC US Army, Ret. told me about the fighter jets before the media got hold of, and buried, this story. He had heard there were 17 total. Imagine what else could be in the sand.

A few months ago, Jon Stewart was interviewing one of Saddam's men. An inner-circle advisor for decades. You shoulda seen Stewarts face when this guy told him that Iraq had the WMD's just as we thought. He said they knew we were comming, so they took them to Syria.

January 26, 2008 at 2:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stompk (anonymous) says...

[b]"THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. "[/b]

It's a good thing our government is sooo innocent.

I was in Desert Storm.

There was something odd about that war.

We were staged out of Saudi Arabia.

I was kind of wondering, why didn't Saudi Arabia

handle the situation, if they were ready to allow

us on their soil?

They were very friendly for the most part, and

curious about Americans. Even the Saudi military.

The American military didn't even break a sweat

defeating Saddam's guard, but then we leave him in

power to torture the people who supported us during the war.

And then we sanction the country after that, and starve the citizens.

No, we have a GREAT foreign policy.

If we were Romans.

January 26, 2008 at 3:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stompk (anonymous) says...

"THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines...

January 26, 2008 at 3:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

2strokesmoke (anonymous) says...

Sbvor

Have you read, lee Iacocca's book "where have all the leaders gone"?

January 28, 2008 at 6:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mud (anonymous) says...

Anyone watch 60 minutes last night?

January 28, 2008 at 6:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mud (anonymous) says...

Anyone else watch 60 minutes last night?

January 28, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mud (anonymous) says...

The FBI seemed stupid enough to believe him.

January 30, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mud (anonymous) says...

I don't know if Saddam was lying. I just thought it was an interesting story.
I don't understand why someone would accuse CBS of being so stupid yet use CBS links on different topics to support thier argument.
One of my co-workers used to be a drunk many years ago. He found Jesus and stopped drinking. Now he insists alcohol is bad for eveybody and Jesus is the only way.
Your political agenda to redeem yourself from being a war protesting liberal reminds me of him. Blinded by the left, blinded by the right.

January 31, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mud (anonymous) says...

...wrapped up like a deuce another runner in the night....

January 31, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mud (anonymous) says...

I found the story very interesting. The idea of saddam being caught in the middle of alqaida, Iran and America sounds like a diddly of a pickle. The FBI guys bought into it. The FBI guys also believed that Saddam destroyed the remainder of his WMDs. absolutely correct? Are you suggesting there was no better way? If this is the best result possible then why was the country caught so off gaurd? I'm not gonna have a link fight(I'm sure you'd win) over what we should or should not have done. The idea that anyone can fully assess all the variables leading to a war on the internet is crazy. Time will tell.
Your "proof" is only proof to people who absolutely agree with you 100%. to every else its apples and oranges.

January 31, 2008 at 10:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mud (anonymous) says...

Good response, not one link! Hope you've been able to enjoy the snow.

February 4, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

andymanout (anonymous) says...

Opinion & Recollection

Does anyone recall the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? I am hopeful that this thread recalls the events that lead to the creation of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

We loaded that nation up with weapons in order to assist them in their independently confirmed resistance to the Soviet invasion. We gave them guns and taught them how to use them. And use them they did. Very well, for years. They mastered the art of desert fighting. Then when the Soviets finally decided it was to expensive to continue the assault. We gave these soldiers a pat on the back and left. Russia is no longer interested and the U.S. was finished with them. They had a country ravaged by war, guns, bullets and bombs. They also had no money, no food and no civilian leadership. Walking away from that was a major mistake.

These events are recent enough for most of us to have had some experience with them. If your to young ask your parents. So I feel it fair to ask, What is the lesson here? What should we have learned?

Now hold those thoughts.

O.K Lets for the sake of argument allow that we are in Iraq.

At this point does anyone out there think its a good Idea for the American military to walk away given the local political agendas that are currently in play? In particular that pesky northern neighbor.

Do you think for a millisecond that Iran will allow an opposing ideology to come to power next door?

Do you feel comfortable with the idea of leaving the Kurds to contend with a region opposed to their very existence?

What do you think will occur if we draw down to a token presence in the region? What kind of government will convene in the resulting vacuum?

Do you suppose the Sunni and the Shiite factions will peacefully coexist?

I don't have to like the President to support the U.S.A. What do you suppose our foreign relations will have to say if after invading this sand box,

we walk away?

February 9, 2008 at 12:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

424now (anonymous) says...

Andymanout

Cogent and provacative.

Yes I recall those events.

I think the lesson is we should never abondon anyone or nation that we in good faith attempt to assist. The problem with the high road is cost and unfortunately our own political system allows for to much back pedalling.

You ask,
"does anyone out there think its a good Idea for the American military to walk away"
We are in for a world of political trouble if we back away from Iraq at this time.

Even with every effort put forth I don't how long before the Kurds are absorbed into the surrounding nations. They have a very long road ahead of them.

When the draw down of troops occur in the region the secular violence will increase. The nation will fragment Iraq will expand and the region will destabilize even further than the current situation.

Their will be little co-existing in that region until tollerance becomes a household word.

Our foreign relations will evaporate. Deserting Iraq at this point will leave the country in a shambles with no centralized government. You can not call their current insttutions stable by any measurment. We need to take the time and spend the money to finish this. Yes it will cost us several truck loads of money and American blood.

If we don't do this right it will cost more.

We have to realize that this global village brings everyone a little closer, everyone.

February 11, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stompk (anonymous) says...

Let me ask you this. Why did we defend Osama Bin Laden against Russia in the first place?

What did we care if Russia took over a little country on their border?

It would have eliminated Osama and his gang, and probably brought stability to the region.

I'll give you two reasons.

Oil, and Opium.

If our reasons for being over their were to truly defend ourselves, I would be for it.

But this is about (as usual) money, and the power it brings.

Afghan is a strategic oil pipeline country. Russia wanted access to the
Gulf through Afghanistan, and Osama was blocking them for the Saudis.

And then there's the secret drug trade.

Since the US has entered Afghanistan,
opium production is up 2000%

People are asking why?

And then there is Iraq

Has anyone been to New Orleans lately.

All of those billions of tax dollar they said
we spent down there. Where did they go?

The place is a wreck.

If we can't manage as a nation to fix up
New Orleans, how can we manage as
a nation to rebuild a country that we don't
even understand.

It's about oil. And strategic positioning.

It has nothing to do with terrorism.

In fact, I have serious questions about the
whole 9-11 story.

February 12, 2008 at 2:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Hadleyburg_Press (anonymous) says...

Andyman.,
Good post. One correction.

"Do you feel comfortable with the idea of leaving the Kurds to contend with a region opposed to their very existence?"

The Kurds, not just the PKK, are a doomed people most likely. Our NATO ally the Turks will deal with them and we probably won't stop them anytime soon. Very sad situation, but we need the Turks as they are one of the main gate keepers of Eurabia.

http://countrystudies.us/turkey/28.htm

February 12, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stompk (anonymous) says...

If Osama Bin Laden was dead, would the US war commanders admit it. I don't think so, because the whole reason for the war on terrorism, was to get Osama and al-Quaeda.

Remember, "dead or alive"?
http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/...

February 12, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

spukomy (anonymous) says...

stompk, I get the feeling if Osama was declared dead, you would be questioning if the US war commanders were lying to you. The whole reason for the war on terrorism is beyond any one individual.

February 13, 2008 at 1:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )