Platoon defies orders in Iraq

[Rat Faced]

That is my point, they are concerned about a soldiers safety. They would not send them on a suicide mission simply to deliver tainted gas.

Doesn't that sound bizarre? Why would they send reservists (not real soldiers, but those 1 weekend a month people) on a suicide mission to deliver tainted fuel? Don't you see how this is supposed to make you think "conspiracy". What sane leadership would order this and arrest them if they did not participate. Certainly someone who didn't care, who was cruel and manipulative.

You have to be sensitive to the subtle nuances. And if you are wrong or over-reading, it is because the submitting author has undermined her credibility with prior posts of dubious merit.

The trouble is that... the higher in Rank they get, the less concerned they are about the soldiers themselves.

A Lt KNOWS these guys, a General doesnt, they are just numbers, and that General has priorities laid before him.

In a Combat situation, there is no distinction between Regular and Reserve Forces. Take it from one that knows...

On a weekend excercise, the TA (equivalent to your National Guard) can get away with Blue Murder... they are volunteers and they have to make it fun for them, or they dont come back next weekend.

In the Combat Environment however, they are treated EXACTLY the same, and expected to perform EXACTLY the same as the Regular Soldiers. Often, the senior Officers do not even know who is Regular and who is Reserve, unless the Regiments are kept intact. Due to the training, this is quite rare... they often put Reserves in Regular Regiments and vise versa... to spread the experiance.


Edit: This is the TA, UK equivalent. Im pretty sure its common practice in US National Guard too.

[hobbes]

By "real soldiers", I meant those who could respond to an attack. I would be more likely to send soldiers, who could carry out a counter attack, or at least respond to an averse situation in a well choreographed fashion into a trickier situation than someone who is basically just a driver.

[ruthie]

Scrogg,

I know you and Ruthie have a relationship, but many here don't. That would be relevant information to the average Joe in understanding the context in which to view your post. Is he some objective onlooker, or is there something between he and Ruthie that might explain why he was objecting to Hobbes' post.?

Whether you are actually married or not is not relevant to the CONCEPT. You 2 share a passion for politics and host a site together. Ruthie has been known to post under your name and refer to you as "sweetie".

The important concept is that you have strong feelings for her, whether you are actually legally united is not relevant to how you might have an inclination towards defending her. No need to quibble details.

Some people will laud your posts because they concur with your outlook. They will agree with you and slap you back when you twist a scenario to make Bush look bad. They will turn their heads away from the truth and say, "Well, it is justified for the cause".

To address this briefly. We thought this was understood..we are a couple, as I stated previously, days ago. I am known to post under Scroff's name..when I have ever done that, it has been accidental, and followed with the proper log-in, stating it was RUTHIE who made the post. I understand you feel i don't present a "balanced" view, however I find nothing balanced in the politcal scene these days. I have, however, posted my own feelings about Kerry, which are not all positive. Enough already.

On an entirely different note, the Company Commander of the US Army Reserve unit has been relieved of her duties...as per her request, effective immediately. The statement given was basically that this not to indicate any type of misconduct on her part.

[hobbes]

I understand the relationship you two have, but I was saying that others may not, and that is important for them to know in the context of his reply.

Unfortunately, I am probably wrong. I have looked back over several pages and many threads, and it seems to be the same handful of people.

Rat, when is fearless leader going to learn to redirect hits our way so that our stagnant puddle doesn't dry up? Why can't he make it so that if someone types K-lite in Google, our little forum shows up in the list?

[Mathea]

As an aside, going off topic from the original post but stayin on with the alternating theme of the thread.... while you view ppls posts as biased, it seems that you harbor a grudge against certain ppl in particular. From my understanding, they're both open about their views as well as their relationship. Meanwhile I dont see you going after other people who make comments and such that have no factual backing at all.

Dont get me wrong. I think its important for ppl to have all the facts, from both sides, when dealing with an issue. While some people are clear on where they stand and their opinions, others may come here to learn more about whats going on, and these people do have the right to see both sides of an arguement. (Though it is quite possible to search things if one wants to know whats going on). But I dont see how they are hiding their "agenda"....

Ive only been coming in here again the past couple days, but the threads i have read seem to be as they should. An article is found, quoted... the source is linked. Then the persons opinion or comment is written. Am I missing something here? As for them advertising their site... its in their sigs, and not all the articles either scroff or ruthie post are from there. While they may be copied on their site, they come from other sources (this one being armytimes.com).

Basically, everyone is entitled to their say, so let them have it. When debating with them, how about you finding some facts that support the other side, if you're so supportive of a fair and unbiased thread for other readers? Im not trying to argue with you, just saying that it seems as though btwn u 3 this has gotten rather personal, and it doesnt seem necessary.

Again, I think it's good that theres someone that feels as i do in that all the facts should be laid out, not just the ones that support a particular side. But in order for that to happen, someone has to do the other sides research.

Okay, end of rant. Hope it makes sense, Im extremely tired having worked after little sleep.

[Busyman]

At the very least, I know why Scroff and ruthie post what they post, which I might has basis in fact.

Others on here merely post only rhetoric and barely have an opinion.

I know, as Scroff said, that they post these things because they believe Bush is fucking up the country.

What about the Bush supporters?

[Mathea]

At the very least, I know why Scroff and ruthie post what they post, which I might has basis in fact.

Others on here merely post only rhetoric and barely have an opinion.

I know, as Scroff said, that they post these things because they believe Bush is fucking up the country.

What about the Bush supporters?

this being a nicer, shorter summary of what i meant to say

ty busyman

[scroff]

Hobbes...

As far as ruthie and I, it's nobody's business, and I think you should mind your own. If we choose to make it public that's our choice. I could care less what you might think of our relationship or how you might think that lends to my credibility. Perhaps you and your wife, girlfriend, dog or whatever might walk in lockstep, but that doesn't mean we do. Perhaps you should read Everose's latest post.

Is he some objective onlooker, or is there something between he and Ruthie that might explain why he was objecting to Hobbes' post.?

I don't recall objecting to any of your posts to ruthie on the basis of substance. I may disagree with you and respond. I only "objected" to one of your posts, in another thread, where you personally attacked her in a manner I felt was unnecessarily abrasive.

Another thread, btw, where you state

"Anyway, it is done, I too am ready to move on to fresh ground"

I guess that was bullshit eh? Or... maybe you just flip-flopped?

[scroff]

That is my point, they are concerned about a soldiers safety. They would not send them on a suicide mission simply to deliver tainted gas.

Doesn't that sound bizarre? Why would they send reservists (not real soldiers, but those 1 weekend a month people) on a suicide mission to deliver tainted fuel? Don't you see how this is supposed to make you think "conspiracy". What sane leadership would order this and arrest them if they did not participate. Certainly someone who didn't care, who was cruel and manipulative.

You have to be sensitive to the subtle nuances. And if you are wrong or over-reading, it is because the submitting author has undermined her credibility with prior posts of dubious merit.

They would send them on a "suicide mission" if the OIC didn't think it was a suicide mission. Why does that sound bizarre? Do you know how many times troops, including reservists, are sent into harms way, all the while thinking the mission is absurd? Do you know how many times troops protest a specific mission, and how often the OIC will reconsider it, perhaps even taking their concerns into consideration and altering the mission? Do you know how many reservists are in Iraq right now? Do you know what missions they have been sent on? Have you bothered to do a follow up on the story to see what else has developed?

I don't see how this is supposed to make anyone think "conspiracy". I see it as information to consider when forming your own opinion. Opinions not based on information, all the information available, are uninformed opinions and pretty much worthless. I'm sure you've heard that old saying about opinions. The submitting author has only, as far as I can see, undermined her credibility in your view, and the dubious merit of those articles is a matter of uninformed opinion.

I'm not sure what your agenda is here. Are you trying to discredit the story, the reservists, the family members, or ruthie? If you have issues with the stories or the information presented in them, then do some research and refute them. I'm getting real tired of these innuendos about ruthie.

[scroff]

By "real soldiers", I meant those who could respond to an attack. I would be more likely to send soldiers, who could carry out a counter attack, or at least respond to an averse situation in a well choreographed fashion into a trickier situation than someone who is basically just a driver.

You mean infantry, riflemen, combat troops? The 343rd Quartermaster Company is none of those. It's a supply outfit.

So you're saying you would be less likely to send troops who weren't "real soldiers" into a "trickier" situation, unless they were able to respond to an averse situation in a well choreographed fashion? Really. What would be your considerations when making that decision?