What constitutes "boots on the ground"?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DSK

We do tend to concur and both have an aversion to spending money on useless foreign wars.

Have you noticed how bad Russia did domestically in the 90's trying to recover from military spending in the 80's.

Much like we are trying to do now from our military spending in the early part of 2000.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WTF

My cousin was not running for office on his war record....everything i learned about his service was in the lasts months of his life and most of it after he died.

Not sure where you and LL are trying to go with this...but my guess is you are starting to look pretty stupid in the direction you are headed.

LL and I are not coordinating an attack. I'm merely pointing out that one's declaration of military bravery or wartime injury must stand the test of reasonable documentation. If the story as he relates it is true then I offer my condolences. (unless he was a liberal, then he can go fuck himself either way.)

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WTF

Have you noticed how bad Russia did domestically in the 90's trying to recover from military spending in the 80's.

Much like we are trying to do now from our military spending in the early part of 2000.

You are correct. Fortunately, we print our own money, as do the russians, but ours is considerably more valuable.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DSK

. I'm merely pointing out that one's declaration of military bravery or wartime injury must stand the test of reasonable documentation. If the story as he relates it is true then I offer my condolences. (unless he was a liberal, then he can go fuck himself either way.)

Look, it was two years ago...I was not looking for condolences then or now. It was not an anti government comment nor a poor pitiful me comment.


This thread just made me think of him and I relayed that thought. Boots on the ground....yet we act as if that is not combat. If it is your boots that are on the ground, you damn sure better know it is potential combat. He was in a country where they/we/the government would not acknowledge that there were Boots on the ground.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Boots on the ground....yet we act as if that is not combat. If it is your boots that are on the ground, you damn sure better know it is potential combat. He was in a country where they/we/the government would not acknowledge that there were Boots on the ground.

I'm in agreement with this statement with a few reservations ...

#1: "we" don't "act as if that is not combat" .... (The President does!)

Rewriting history by injecting "word games" into the dialogue is the standard of this administration with the goal of CREATING a legacy that the current President can publicize when he leaves office .... Hide and watch. He will profusely brag about who he "ended" our military COMBAT operations throughout the World during his occupancy of the White House ... that's his goal ... narcissistic personalities have an offensive habit of ignoring the reality around them and attempting to refocus the attention of others from their behavior or simply distorting reality to fit their point of view.

#2: You injected your "cousin" into the dialogue about "boots on the ground"? I'm not going to dissect a third-party story of someone's "cousin" injected into a discussion about the meaning of "boots on the ground" but I didn't inject the story into the conversation as "proof" as to a definition of "boots on the ground" .... and now you want to claim ...

"He was in a country where they/we/the government would not acknowledge that there were Boots on the ground..

http://www.benefits.va.gov/compensat...ent_orange.asp

With all due respect to your "cousin" for his military service whether or not the "government acknowledges" his presence in a particular spot at a particular moment there is a process by which the event can be confirmed without "the government acknowledging" what might be considered as Title 50 information, or even "embarrassing' information to the Government.

It just happened with the death of an "adviser" when it was revealed he was killed "in combat"! That was publicly announced. For a variety of reasons records of activities related to military intrusions into other countries and/or "agency" intrusions (with or without the blessings of the "other countries") are documented and retained .... but not "acknowledged" by our government.

That doesn't mean your "cousin" was intentionally deprived of benefits.

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/kerry.pdf
Did you vote for this guy?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

My cousin did the exact thing...said they were soaked in Agent Orange yet the military says they were never there.

So to answer JD's question...if it is your boots on the ground you damn sure better constitute boots on the ground.

Originally Posted by WTF

My cousin died a little over two years ago of cancer before his 65th birthday. A decorated Vietnam Vet. A Pro Rodeo bareback bronc rider and steer wrestler and a Rancher later in life. Not a man you would ever fuck with.


My personal conversation with him indicated that he did not institute any claims against the government for which he fought because he thought it pointless. He did not care for all the bureaucracy and had the attitude of "You gotta die sometime".

At his funeral was when I heard folks that had served with him tell a much more detailed account of what their mission was. They were dropped in Laos for weeks at a time. He did not complain about shit...He said they were just trying to stay alive and it was what it was...never a bitter word did I ever hear him complain. He'd in fact laugh about Agent Orange and how they handled it back then ...


So LL, your recollection is wrong as usual but I can just blame that on shitty parenting on your parents part. You might have grown up to be a decent fellow without their crappy parenting.

Originally Posted by WTF

Look, it was two years ago...I was not looking for condolences then or now. It was not an anti government comment nor a poor pitiful me comment.


This thread just made me think of him and I relayed that thought. Boots on the ground....yet we act as if that is not combat. If it is your boots that are on the ground, you damn sure better know it is potential combat. He was in a country where they/we/the government would not acknowledge that there were Boots on the ground.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm in agreement with this statement with a few reservations ...

#1: "we" don't "act as if that is not combat" .... (The President does!)

Rewriting history by injecting "word games" into the dialogue is the standard of this administration with the goal of CREATING a legacy that the current President can publicize when he leaves office .... Hide and watch. He will profusely brag about who he "ended" our military COMBAT operations throughout the World during his occupancy of the White House ... that's his goal ... narcissistic personalities have an offensive habit of ignoring the reality around them and attempting to refocus the attention of others from their behavior or simply distorting reality to fit their point of view.

#2: You injected your "cousin" into the dialogue about "boots on the ground"? I'm not going to dissect a third-party story of someone's "cousin" injected into a discussion about the meaning of "boots on the ground" but I didn't inject the story into the conversation as "proof" as to a definition of "boots on the ground" .... and now you want to claim ...

"He was in a country where they/we/the government would not acknowledge that there were Boots on the ground..

http://www.benefits.va.gov/compensat...ent_orange.asp

With all due respect to your "cousin" for his military service whether or not the "government acknowledges" his presence in a particular spot at a particular moment there is a process by which the event can be confirmed without "the government acknowledging" what might be considered as Title 50 information, or even "embarrassing' information to the Government.

Really? "A decorated Vietnam Vet. A Pro Rodeo bareback bronc rider and steer wrestler and a Rancher later in life. Not a man you would ever fuck with." And he wouldn't take on "the government" what was fucking him over? How about you? Did you volunteer to fight for him with "the government" you hate?

It just happened with the death of an "adviser" when it was revealed he was killed "in combat"! That was publicly announced. For a variety of reasons records of activities related to military intrusions into other countries and/or "agency" intrusions (with or without the blessings of the "other countries") are documented and retained .... but not "acknowledged" by our government.

That doesn't mean your "cousin" was intentionally deprived of benefits. What you disclosed is neither you nor he were interested in "joining the issue" and paving the way for other similarly situated vets to get benefits. You are the bad-ass champion of what cause?

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/kerry.pdf
Did you vote for this guy?

As usual WTF you toss in a Red Herring or make some personal irrelevant post that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread .... and then when it starts failing for you ...... you attack .... and begin to "crawfish" away from the incredible statement you made ..... that had nothing to do with the topic.

I will repeat .... to put it perspective:

"......."During this Census count (2000), the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not."

Apparently, you were not "around' in the 60's and 70's when wearing a military uniform or being any where near "military' on the street was "uncomfortable" to say the least .... and the most "uniforms' worn in public off a base were at SDS rally's .... ala John Kerry with his medal throwing stunt. People learned to keep their mouths shut .... because they did not like being called baby murderers, war criminals, and the like .... except of course ...

the likes of John Kerry!

I mention him, because he does "know" the meaning! Did you vote for him?

[Yssup Rider]

That from a guy who was hiding in the closet when Teddy Roosevelt led the charge up San Juan Hill.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

the likes of John Kerry!

I mention him, because he does "know" the meaning! Did you vote for him?

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That from a guy who was hiding in the closet when Teddy Roosevelt led the charge up San Juan Hill.

Perhaps LLIdiot really meant to say ... the likes of George W. Shrubya!

I mention him, because I "know" he did vote for him four (4) times.

Fuk'n Idiot!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

As usual WTF you toss in a Red Herring or make some personal irrelevant post that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread .... and then when it starts failing for you ...... you attack .... and begin to "crawfish" away from the incredible statement you made ..... that had nothing to do with the topic.

I will repeat .... to put it perspective:

"......."During this Census count (2000), the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not."

?

I'm not crawfishing away from anything. I made a simple statement that you have tried to prosecute. You have tried to disparage a Veteran through innuendo with quotes like FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not.". None of this bothers me , it is actually expected from the likes of you.

Boot on the ground reminded me of conversations I had with folks at my cousins funeral including my brother, who was close with my cousin and in the military albeit a few year later. He (my brother) had no reason to lie to me about my cousins experience. It is not something we as a family talked about, It was appropriate after his funeral. Nobody was bitter or wanting to sue the government . That is not the type of family I have.


So yes I interjected that into this thread...you then have continually tried to beat me over the head with it and failed miserable imho. I will continue to respond to your distortions as long as you keep trying to do so. If you do not want to discuss this further STFU about it, it is you that continues the conversation. You will not get the last word in with me over this matter. You can concede what an asshole you've been by shutting the fuck up or you can continue like the black girl who would not give up the phone , I will continue the slap your potty mouth face with your stupid ass words tossed back at you as my weapon as long as you choose to spew them.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not crawfishing away from anything. I made a simple statement that you have tried to prosecute. You have tried to disparage a Veteran through innuendo with quotes like FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not.". None of this bothers me , it is actually expected from the likes of you.

Boot on the ground reminded me of conversations I had with folks at my cousins funeral including my brother, who was close with my cousin and in the military albeit a few year later. He (my brother) had no reason to lie to me about my cousins experience. It is not something we as a family talked about, It was appropriate after his funeral. Nobody was bitter or wanting to sue the government . That is not the type of family I have.


So yes I interjected that into this thread...you then have continually tried to beat me over the head with it and failed miserable imho. I will continue to respond to your distortions as long as you keep trying to do so. If you do not want to discuss this further STFU about it, it is you that continues the conversation. You will not get the last word in with me over this matter. You can concede what an asshole you've been by shutting the fuck up or you can continue like the black girl who would not give up the phone , I will continue the slap your potty mouth face with your stupid ass words tossed back at you as my weapon as long as you choose to spew them.

+1,000,000

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not crawfishing away from anything. I made a simple statement that you have tried to prosecute.

One doesn't "prosecute" statements, but you have already demonstrated you know little about the meaning of "prosecute" or the process of "prosecution."

You injected a family member needlessly into a dialogue for the sole purpose of attempting to "augment" your alleged "support" for the military and to "supplement" your lack of self-esteem at someone else's expense.

Now you use your dead family member to accuse someone of criticizing the military .... even though you are the one who has repeatedly over the years disparaged the "military-industrial" complex in this country and whined about how much money is spent on it. Did you share those sentiments with your dying "cousin" ... or were you also hypocritical with him ... like you are on this board ... while calling others "hypocritical."

Look at the chorus joining you. All they have is disparaging remarks about others. You all are "peas in a pod" ... and don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

One doesn't "prosecute" statements, but you have already demonstrated you know little about the meaning of "prosecute" or the process of "prosecution."

You injected a family member needlessly into a dialogue for the sole purpose of attempting to "augment" your alleged "support" for the military and to "supplement" your lack of self-esteem at someone else's expense.

Look at the chorus joining you. All they have is disparaging remarks about others. You all are "peas in a pod" ... and don't let the door hit you in the ass.

And what about Shrubbie?

Hey LLIdiot ... were you really stupid enough to vote for the Wilted Shrub ... 4 times?

Yep!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Really? "A decorated Vietnam Vet. A Pro Rodeo bareback bronc rider and steer wrestler and a Rancher later in life. Not a man you would ever fuck with." And he wouldn't take on "the government" what was fucking him over? How about you? Did you volunteer to fight for him with "the government" you hate?

I do not hate the government . I do not care for lying , distorting bureaucrats like yourself. Next, it was not a question of taking on the government...the question was 'why'. It was not going to buy him more time on this earth. He enjoyed that last part of his life like he enjoyed the first 64 years, on his terms. He would not go to the hospital and died on his ranch like he wanted. He was a man's man, I will never be half the man he was. I know my limitations....you obviously do not know yours.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That doesn't mean your "cousin" was intentionally deprived of benefits. What you disclosed is neither you nor he were interested in "joining the issue" and paving the way for other similarly situated vets to get benefits. You are the bad-ass champion of what cause?

I'm not a bad ass champion of any cause. I never said he was intentionally deprived of any benefits. He did not join in the Agent Orange settlement. That was his choice. He had moved on...something you seem not to be able to do. He was never bitter...reminded me of the character 'Hud" , except a tad more honorable. I know honorable is not a word you are familiar with.

[LexusLover]

^^^^^ I thought you said "bye"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like I suggested ...

...... if you want a running-pissing contest ... get married.

You are lame, WTF:

Look at what you posted:

"He was in a country where they/we/the government would not acknowledge that there were Boots on the ground."

If he didn't seek benefits, how the fuck would he or you know!!!!!

One of you is lying. You pick!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You injected a family member needlessly into a dialogue for the sole purpose of attempting to "augment" your alleged "support" for the military and to "supplement" your lack of self-esteem at someone else's expense.

Can you prove any of that counselor? If not take your own advice and STFU. Or take my advice and STFU.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Now you use your dead family member to accuse someone of criticizing the military .... even though you are the one who has repeatedly over the years disparaged the "military-industrial" complex in this country and whined about how much money is spent on it. Did you share those sentiments with your dying "cousin" ... or were you also hypocritical with him ... like you are on this board ... while calling others "hypocritical."

.

There is a huge difference between the military men and women and the "military-industrial" complex that is a huge transfer of tax payers money to the likes of Boeing , Lockheed....


http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/...ms%20Sales.htm

The defense contractors could safely rely on the US government to support their business if all other customers disappeared, and the US government obviously has the ability to sustain such support. Also, as was shown in the first section of the report, these companies have multiple lines of business beyond merely arms production and are well-diversified enough so that the faltering of one line of business would not completely cripple the company.
It is thus concluded that Lockheed, Northrop and Boeing, as we know them today as separate companies, will be able to weather the uncertain future of the defense industry. Their survival can be attributed in part to diverse lines of business, in part to their market dominance and superior capabilities, and in large part to their most loyal and steady customer, the US government. It is furthermore concluded that the US government would not let the $100 billion companies employing 400,000 to fail and, given that the majority of the $100 billion comes from the government, has the power to do so.