Are U.S. Armed Forces Chickening Out?

Originally posted by missed_gearI never insinuated or mentioned that the Guardian states an increase concerning US desertions.

But, you stated that the Guardian wasn't providing the correct facts. Maybe you can elaborate on this assertion.


[edit on 3-4-2006 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
But, you stated that the Guardian wasn't providing the correct facts.

Where?

Please point out where I stated the Guardian was not providing the correct facts.

mg

Originally posted by missed_gearPlease point out where I stated the Guardian was not providing the correct facts.

Here:

Originally posted by missed_gear
Perhaps...a small amount research would do the Guardian some good;

You know, it's very difficult nowadays to get a piece of news which is bias-free and neutral. All the famous news source are either agenda motivated or some how is corrupted by the journalists telling half truths.

But back to the topic, I don't think the desertion rates tells us that the U.S Military is "chickening out" from all the wars that they have engaged in so far. The number could be more and it might not have been reported to cover up the integrity of U.S Military but that's just my opinion.

By the way, your definition of "chickening out" seemed to be inference of the desertion rate. I think the definition of "chickening out" could be expanded. How many soldiers down there are feeling the war fatigue and are not doing their duties accordingly? Could that be associated with "chickening out"?

Certainly I won't be surprise if the number keeps increasing as days passed.

[edit on 4/4/06 by Heartagram]

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by missed_gearPlease point out where I stated the Guardian was not providing the correct facts.

Here:

Originally posted by missed_gear
Perhaps...a small amount research would do the Guardian some good;

No it is not here:

Originally posted by missed_gear
Perhaps backing away from sensationalism and a small amount research would do the Guardian some good; however the ‘audience’ may not enjoy the abrupt changes.

My above comment when seen in its’ entirety and not cherry picked is a generalized statement about the rag and not a specific statement about the article as posted. Furthermore, my comment was given after if posted supporting statements to your following flippant comment:

Originally posted by Jamuhn
You might need a reference if you want this statement to mean something.

However it is extremely odd that an individual such as you, Jamuhn, who has now questioned almost every word I have posted in this thread yet does not hold the Guardian’s article anywhere near to the similar standard that you eagerly expect from some of posting members in this thread who are involved in ‘discussion’ and not ‘reporting’.



mg

Originally posted by Heartagram

By the way, your definition of "chickening out" seemed to be inference of the desertion rate. I think the definition of "chickening out" could be expanded. How many soldiers down there are feeling the war fatigue and are not doing their duties accordingly? Could that be associated with "chickening out"?

Certainly I won't be surprise if the number keeps increasing as days passed.

[edit on 4/4/06 by Heartagram]

Yes, Heartagram. That's right. Not only battle fatigue, but also the fear of fighting an unconventional war (Counter insurgency).

Other contributing factors are:

Low morale.
Poor logistics cover.
Lack of proper anti terrorist training.
Lack of higher direction.
Finally, the aim of fighting the war in Iraq.

Originally posted by missed_gearHowever it is extremely odd that an individual such as you, Jamuhn, who has now questioned almost every word I have posted in this thread yet does not hold the Guardian’s article anywhere near to the similar standard that you eagerly expect from some of posting members in this thread who are involved in ‘discussion’ and not ‘reporting’.

I'm just tired of this BS rhetoric that gets thrown around with no facts to back it up. Frankly, I didn't get on this thread to discuss your opinions, I got on this thread to ask people to provide references for asserting certain 'facts'. I'm sure you have good opinions, but I was only curious about what the thread was about. And, if you have references on where the Guardian lies in their articles, provide them, I WANT to see them. But, if you don't, and you are merely speculating, then we can leave it at that.

My above comment...is a generalized statement about the rag and not a specific statement about the article as posted.

Well, thank you, that clears everything up.

People get on here, bash the Guardian, and then they turn around and provide Michelle Malkin as a source. That's like bashing FOX and then providing Michael Moore as a source. All sources are biased, true, but they are all not biased equally, and you have to get your news from somewhere.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I'm just tired of this BS rhetoric that gets thrown around with no facts to back it up. Frankly, I didn't get on this thread to discuss your opinions, I got on this thread to ask people to provide references for asserting certain 'facts'. I'm sure you have good opinions, but I was only curious about what the thread was about. And, if you have references on where the Guardian lies in their articles, provide them, I WANT to see them. But, if you don't, and you are merely speculating, then we can leave it at that.

Ok, I am new to this forum but…you are the one that has yet to stop pushing.

Why should care if you are “tired of this BS rhetoric” that you claim exists?

Not getting “on this thread to discuss your [my] opinions” is reasonable and understandable, but do not expect others to discuss or value your opinions given the same standards; however your obvious expectations are unidirectional and “BS rhetoric” is virtually all you have exhibited and contributed in this thread.

As far as “asserting certain facts” I have patiently placated you and provided the information which pertains to my quotable statements, yes.

Oddly you also made a generalized statement concerning the Guardian which has not been ‘backed-up’ by the facts as of this time.

Furthermore, if you were truly “curious about what the thread was about”, then a discussion of topic by you would have ensued, which also has yet to occur.

If I give you one example of how the Guardian has distorted a fact, you will merely claim it is only one…If I give you two you will claim it is only two…and so on and so on… so why should I bother to feed more into your “BS rhetoric” as it has come to light and is relevant for my argument?

You claim I said the Guardian quote-unquote “lies”...although I did not... prove I specifically said thisand I will gladly give you an example or two.


mg