To Help US Veterans Charity, George W. Bush Charged $100,000

[Broomstick]

TLDR: Broomstick made it up. At least her attempt to support it via enlistment dates anyway.

For people serving or enlisting/re-enlisting at the end of the Iraq war your side holds weight, but at the beginning of that war no, most people had NOT signed up for that particular war. A both Knife and I have pointed out, anyone sent over to Iraq on day 1 must have signed up prior to the declaration of war, and for the next several years there would have been a significant number serving who had likewise signed up prior to that war.

So please dispense with the notion that every single American soldier sent to Iraq was some bloodthirsty, ignorant savage gleefully looking to dispense violence at the command of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld.

[AniThyng]

It would be rather out of character for a right winger like patrokos to describe American soldiers who signed up for the Iraq war after the fact as bloodthirsty ignorant savages.

[Patroklos]

TLDR: Broomstick made it up. At least her attempt to support it via enlistment dates anyway.

For people serving or enlisting/re-enlisting at the end of the Iraq war your side holds weight, but at the beginning of that war no, most people had NOT signed up for that particular war. A both Knife and I have pointed out, anyone sent over to Iraq on day 1 must have signed up prior to the declaration of war, and for the next several years there would have been a significant number serving who had likewise signed up prior to that war.

So please dispense with the notion that every single American soldier sent to Iraq was some bloodthirsty, ignorant savage gleefully looking to dispense violence at the command of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld.

That's not what anyone was talking about. What an enlightened observation, people who are involved in day one of a war had to be serving before that. Eureka!

The actual question was whether enlistees joined knowing what Iraq was all about according to Flagg, and given that opinion was prevelent pretty much from day one but definitely at least a year in most would have. Known or at least could have know about that viewpoint. The post you responded to and I need the discussion it was based on was clearing talking about all the war veterans, not a subset there during any single point in time to include the first day, first month, or even first year.

I don't have to dispense with any notion of why enlistees served because it wasn't my arguement nor have I said anything in support of it one way or the other. You can dispense with using that irrelevancy to excuse you making shit up. Your myth busting was bullshit.

[Broomstick]

No, he did not describe them as such but other people are leaning towards that, with an implication that if they got killed or maimed over there they somehow deserved it. No, they didn't. No one "deserves" to be killed or maimed. Nor do I think the average person sucked into the propaganda machine the administration set up, including falsified evidence, was somehow a moron. In retrospect there was a lot of wrongness and bullshit. Some people picked up on it (which is why we were opposed to the war) and some did not. Which is pretty much how propaganda works.

So is it really that mysterious that young, inexperienced people would swallow what a professional propaganda machine churned out, at least for the first couple years?

[Patroklos]

Tell it to Ralin, that's not my horse.

My observation was restricted to you bullshit claim of authority in discounting a myth using a metric that not only is the opposite of what you claimed but is impossible to use as either you or Ralin wanted to (enlistment dates to prove enlistment motives). Using data incorrectly is one thing but making up data is another thing entirely.

[gizmojumpjet]

Well, as a former Marine, you need at least 4 months to train a basic Marine rifleman. 3 months in boot camp and at least one month in infantry school before you get deployed to a unit. Any person who joined specifically for the Iraq war would have gotten there at minimum 4 months after it started. So if some dude joined in March of 03, his boot would last 13 weeks and he would be out at the end of May. So, that basic Marine would have still been in boot when Bush declared combat operations were over in Iraq. That Marine wouldn't hit Iraq conceivably until July after infantry school (if he was a grunt, some MOS schools are longer than 1 month) just in time to see the Hussein kids executed.

I'm not sure how any of that relates to my request.

Broomstick claimed that "[t]he vast majority of enlisted personnel sent to Iraq had NOT enlisted specifically for that war - they enlisted much earlier, often in response to 9/11 where the US actually was attacked. Or even earlier, often as a way to earn the money to go to college."

I am not convinced that the majority of military personnel deployed to an eight year long war enlisted prior to the start of the war. If it's true, and they did, Broomstick can surely demonstrate this fact with evidence. I am inviting Broomstick to demonstrate that the vast majority of military personnel who were deployed to the Iraq War, which lasted from 2003-2011, enlisted prior to 2003.

[Terralthra]

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/ ... -military/

The average length of service for enlisted was 6.7 years in 2011. In other words for a war that lasted 8-9 years the vast majority enlisted after it started. The average officer service was 11ish but given their much smaller numbers they are not going to change the overall picture, especially with 49ish percent of them also joining during the conflict.

Err, no, that's not what those numbers mean at all. If the mean length of service was 6.7 years, and the war lasted from 2003 to 2011, and the number of troops deployed to Iraq followed the curve shown here:


...then the average soldier who deployed at any time before the end of 2009 had enlisted before the war began (6.7 years before the date they deployed). The definition of the average is that it is the center value of a data set, thus until the end of 2009 or so, more soldiers deployed had enlisted before the conflict than after it.

Since the number of troops deployed drops precipitously at the end of 2009, the troopers deployed after that date do not affect that statement very much. The average trooper in Iraq had greater than even odds of having enlisted before the war began. It's not until the waning years of troop deployment that the average trooper had less than even odds of having enlisted before the invasion of 2003.

Without access to information regarding the standard deviation of that length of service, I can't say definitively how much of a majority it is. So, "vast" majority is still arguable, but it is clearly a majority, by your own numbers. So, thanks for the data, but they say the opposite of what you think they do.

[Patroklos]

Your analysis only holds true if you weight all year groups the same when in reality as you go back from 2003 you chances of being "sent to Iraq" as Broomstick stipulated get less and less as the year group gets more and more senior while if you are from a 2003 year group or after on you pretty much guaranteed to deploy (maybe to Afghanistan instead, which is relevant to Ralin/Flag's arguement) until the last couple years of the war. Not only that, since we were expanding combat arms MOSs and units at the expense of other traditionally less deployable units and MOSs at that time your chance to be funneled into a deploying unit were far higher post 2003 as a new recruit.

You analysis only holds true if every enlistee from all year groups represented in active service served in Iraq from 2003 onward. They did not.

[Terralthra]

Ok, my analysis is naive probability, whereas yours was just mathematically wrong. If you'd like to provide some analysis based on, y'know, the numbers behind your claims, that'd be great. Until then, the base position that the data support is that the average soldier in Iraq enlisted before the invasion.

[Flagg]

Who gives a fuck when or why troops signed up? It's a red herring. Ignore it, it doesn't matter. They could have signed up on March 20, 2003 and they still wouldn't have been sent to Iraq if Bush and his fuck faced cabinet full of cunts hadn't lied their asses off to send them there.

This whole situation can be described thusly: I'm the head fighfighter in Bumfuk County Utah and I set my house on fire purposely to collect on insurance and firefighters get mangled when the second floor collapses onto the first and they end up buried in burning crap in the basement yet are rescued and all badly injured and crippled for life. Because I've got pull, the arson is covered up, and I get my insurance check.

Then, because of it happening on my property and because I was head firefighter, a charity set up specifically for the firefighters mangled and crippled as a result of the arson I profited on asks me to speak at a fundraiser to help raise money for these guys. Now I speak at many firefighter conventions and get paid $2,000 a speech. So the charity offers to pay me my usual speaking fee, but I'm completely delusional and think that I'm gonna do them a favor by just charging them half. So I speak and maybe my presence as speaker attracts more attention and gets them more than they usually bring in (maybe I don't, no evidence either way).

So I should be commended! I mean yeah, I set the house on fire and made money off of it and a bunch of the guys I commanded now have melted faces that make Medusa puke and half can't even walk directly as a result of my crimes... But come on! I only charged the charity set up for them half my normal speaking fee! I should be commended, right? Right?

If you answered "yes", you might be a psychopath! Because that is delusional thinking at best, and shows a complete lack of empathy pointing to psychopathy at worse.

I miss the horsemen... I just miss them so goddamned bad in threads like this.

[Broomstick]

I am not convinced that the majority of military personnel deployed to an eight year long war enlisted prior to the start of the war. If it's true, and they did, Broomstick can surely demonstrate this fact with evidence. I am inviting Broomstick to demonstrate that the vast majority of military personnel who were deployed to the Iraq War, which lasted from 2003-2011, enlisted prior to 2003.

I have already stated that by the end of the war your argument carries weight. Certainly at the start of the war my side is correct.

Beyond that, I really don't care enough to get in a pissing contest with you.

[Lord MJ]

Back to the topic why Veterans support the GOP over Democrats.

I wondering if it has to do with political leanings they had prior to joining the military?

Or is it the result of a feeling that the GOP is more friendly and supportive of the troops.

Democrats have indeed criticized the Iraq war as a mistake, which might be offensive to some the solidiers who actually served in the war. Democrats have also accused troops of engaging in war crimes in Iraq, which veterans could view as an attack on the troops.

In addition Democrats have been the party pushing for cuts in defense spending. Which troops and veterans could translate as, "We're going to reduce your funding and thus put you in harms way with less protection so we can have more money to pay for welfare and handouts."

I've seen sentiments like this, admittedly on Internet forums, so they should be taken with a grain of salt. But wondering if that sentiment is prevalent among people other than on Internet forums.

[Knife]

Well, as a former Marine, you need at least 4 months to train a basic Marine rifleman. 3 months in boot camp and at least one month in infantry school before you get deployed to a unit. Any person who joined specifically for the Iraq war would have gotten there at minimum 4 months after it started. So if some dude joined in March of 03, his boot would last 13 weeks and he would be out at the end of May. So, that basic Marine would have still been in boot when Bush declared combat operations were over in Iraq. That Marine wouldn't hit Iraq conceivably until July after infantry school (if he was a grunt, some MOS schools are longer than 1 month) just in time to see the Hussein kids executed.

I'm not sure how any of that relates to my request.

Broomstick claimed that "[t]he vast majority of enlisted personnel sent to Iraq had NOT enlisted specifically for that war - they enlisted much earlier, often in response to 9/11 where the US actually was attacked. Or even earlier, often as a way to earn the money to go to college."

I am not convinced that the majority of military personnel deployed to an eight year long war enlisted prior to the start of the war. If it's true, and they did, Broomstick can surely demonstrate this fact with evidence. I am inviting Broomstick to demonstrate that the vast majority of military personnel who were deployed to the Iraq War, which lasted from 2003-2011, enlisted prior to 2003.

Well, for starters, the standard contract is 8 years. For active duty, that's 4 active and 4 inactive. Also remember there were a lot of troops being extended involuntary during that time due to shortages in personnel. Some of that would also be the reservists who have an actual 8 year contract who were activated and served as active for significant portions of time. All of the NCO and SNCO corps would have been at least 4 years in at the start of the conflict in 03 and it would have taken minimum of 3 to 4 years for some of those boots who 'joined for a war in Iraq' to get enough rank to be an NCO, let alone SNCO, which would take longer.

[Knife]

Back to the topic why Veterans support the GOP over Democrats.

I wondering if it has to do with political leanings they had prior to joining the military?

Or is it the result of a feeling that the GOP is more friendly and supportive of the troops.

Democrats have indeed criticized the Iraq war as a mistake, which might be offensive to some the solidiers who actually served in the war. Democrats have also accused troops of engaging in war crimes in Iraq, which veterans could view as an attack on the troops.

In addition Democrats have been the party pushing for cuts in defense spending. Which troops and veterans could translate as, "We're going to reduce your funding and thus put you in harms way with less protection so we can have more money to pay for welfare and handouts."

I've seen sentiments like this, admittedly on Internet forums, so they should be taken with a grain of salt. But wondering if that sentiment is prevalent among people other than on Internet forums.

With the exception of California, Red states tend to be the states where more people enlist from than blue states. I'm sure there are lots of reasons for it, economy, legacy, patriotism/nationalism from those states. But yeah, the deep red south have more people sign up. Most 18-22 years olds will have the political views their parents did, more times then not.

[Gandalf]

So if there ever are actual tribunals to punish those responsible for this " illegal " war how far down do we go? Congressmen who voted for the war? Flag officers?

Congress was also lied to. You go after Bush, Darth Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the agents who manufactured the evidence, along with those who told them to do it.

Why is "congress was lied to" an excuse? The crime of the Iraq War was invading without UN approval, which to my knowledge Congress knew they didn't have.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So if there ever are actual tribunals to punish those responsible for this " illegal " war how far down do we go? Congressmen who voted for the war? Flag officers?

Congress was also lied to. You go after Bush, Darth Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the agents who manufactured the evidence, along with those who told them to do it.

Why is "congress was lied to" an excuse? The crime of the Iraq War was invading without UN approval, which to my knowledge Congress knew they didn't have.

You can actually make a reasonable argument about Security Council Resolution 678. So the on-paper legitimacy of the war, while it might be a crime, is not an actionable crime.

The false pretext and the war crimes on the other hand, are actionable.

[Flagg]

Conservatism (in its current meaning as being rightward leaning in U.S. Politics) and the militaries' necessary authoritism share a lot of the same qualities. Unquestioning loyalty, automatically following legal orders, and the need for a singular leader... Necessary for any military to function, but not conducive to a free society. And something they also share, either as just a coincidental correlation, or because it is part of the mindset required for militaries to function is the resistance to change due to strong traditionalism. Plus the Republicans, America's conservative shit-valve give tons of money to the military at every opportunity that doesn't advance women's, LGBTQ+, or minority rights.

[Flagg]

Congress was also lied to. You go after Bush, Darth Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the agents who manufactured the evidence, along with those who told them to do it.

Why is "congress was lied to" an excuse? The crime of the Iraq War was invading without UN approval, which to my knowledge Congress knew they didn't have.

You can actually make a reasonable argument about Security Council Resolution 678. So the on-paper legitimacy of the war, while it might be a crime, is not an actionable crime.

The false pretext and the war crimes on the other hand, are actionable.

Yeah, that's legalism at its finest, winning out over "what the definition of "is" is". Not that I'm disagreeing with you. Powerful people seem to get oceans of leeway for some reason I just can't figure out.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah, that's legalism at its finest, winning out over "what the definition of "is" is". Not that I'm disagreeing with you. Powerful people seem to get oceans of leeway for some reason I just can't figure out.

Well, when you are talking about whether or not a war is legal, the legalities matter. Being convinced by a lie makes one makes either the liar a good liar, or the target stupid. In neither case is the target of the lie capable of forming the necessary criminal intent to commit a crime they could be tried for. People are liable for errors in law. They are not necessarily liable for errors in fact. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of reality can be, in other words.

[Thanas]

Still though, it is hard to excuse anybody for believing that "evidence" in the first place, when even before the vote the NYT showed significant portions of it to be false, and after that Dog-and-pony show at the security council.

[Flagg]

Yeah, that's legalism at its finest, winning out over "what the definition of "is" is". Not that I'm disagreeing with you. Powerful people seem to get oceans of leeway for some reason I just can't figure out.

Well, when you are talking about whether or not a war is legal, the legalities matter.

Oh, of course they do, that's why I said I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just find the way that laws are written, with certain areas left vague enough (intentionally or unintentionally) for lawyers with good or ill intentions to interpret them in a way that is 180 degrees the opposite of what the law intends. The perfect example is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution (no gun or anti-gun control debates please, I beg of you) where the the placement of a single comma has been a bone of contention for at least decades.